Michaela Polanská
email: polanskamichaelapolanska@yahoo.fr

Sandra Sázelová

Bibiána Hromadová

Article reference: JQI_QUATINT-D-20-00295 Article title: The Upper and Final Gravettian in Western Slovakia and Moravia. Different approaches, new questions To be published in: Quaternary International

1 1. Introduction Several generations of researchers have now focused on Gravettian occupations in Central Europe. The Late and Final Gravettian (25,500/24,500 -22,000 uncal BP) has historically remained relatively overlooked, while major research efforts focused on the Middle Gravettian in Moravia (e.g. the Pavlovian). A higher concentration of Late Gravettian occupations has been identified in the Váh river basin in Western Slovakia and surrounding areas (Lower Austria, Moravia, Lesser Poland and, more rarely, Hungary;Fig. 1;[START_REF] Hromada | Gravettienske sídliská v Moravanoch nad Váhom a ich miesto vo vývoji mladého paleolitu strednej Európy[END_REF]Kaminská, 2014;[START_REF] Kazior | Lithic inventories[END_REF]2000;[START_REF] Svoboda | Petřkovice: On shouldered points and female figurines[END_REF]. The chronological division of the Gravettian period in this area reflects problems of geographical definition. Major attempts to build chronologies across Central Europe have often encountered various obstacles, related to the complex geography within these territories and diversity in the available information [START_REF] Kozłowski | The Gravettian in Central and Eastern Europe[END_REF][START_REF] Otte | Le Gravettien en Europe central[END_REF][START_REF] Otte | Évolution du gravettien au moyen Danube[END_REF][START_REF] Noiret | De quoi Gravettien est-il le nom?[END_REF].The terminology employed in Late Gravettian lithic artifact classification in Central Europe appears to be in some sense very specific, because it incorporates analogies between localities that are thousands of kilometres distant from each other (Willendorf and Kostenki). The presence of shouldered points, Kostenki knives, and the import of good quality siliceous raw materials from moraines in Silesia and Poland are traditionally considered to be characteristic fossiles directeurs for this period (e.g. [START_REF] Kaminská | Peuplement de Gravettien/Epigravettien de la Slovaquie orientale[END_REF][START_REF] Kaminská | Gravettian and Epigravettian lithics in Slovakia[END_REF][START_REF] Kozłowski | The Danubian Gravettian as seen from the northern perspective[END_REF]Oliva, 2009b;Svoboda, 1996b). However, their informative value is unequal. This slows the description and characterization of past human groups and leads to unintentional misunderstandings between researchers (e.g. [START_REF] Klaric | Couteaux de Kostienki et lames aménagées par technique de Kostienki »: retour sur un malentendu historique[END_REF]. However, in the last few years the study of the Late Gravettian has taken on new energy. Several ongoing works and projects have examined various aspects of material culture (e.g. [START_REF] Lengyel | The Late Gravettian and Szeleta cave, northeast Hungary[END_REF][START_REF] Markó | Use of Obsidian During the LGM: Case Studies from the Pebble Gravettian Sites in Hungary[END_REF][START_REF] Polanská | Réflexion autour des industries gravettiennes « post-pavloviennes » de Slovaquie occidentale et de Moravie[END_REF]Wilczyński et al., 2015a,b). The first results confirm the diversity of the assemblages and discuss potential new fossiles directeurs, production systems and subsistence strategies, which await precise definitions and more detailed publications.

The main goals of this article are: -To highlight the most characteristic tools representing the Late/Final Gravettian industries in the study area and to place them into the framework of their production and usage process.

-To discuss the interpretation of these tools. Based on their presence in Central European collections, terms like "Willendorf-Kostenki" stressing connections between Central and Eastern European sites were proposed.

-To suggest new lithic fossiles directeurs based on Slovakian and Moravian collections.

-To provide a short review of research focused on the analysis of osseous industries (artifacts made from bone, antler and ivory; if they are present in the same collections as the studied lithics) and faunal assemblages including the reconstruction of possible subsistence strategies. The aim is to detect heterogeneity among assemblages and hence discuss the heterogeneity of past human groups.

Methods of analysis

In our work on selected post-Pavlovian collections from Western Slovakia and Moravia we use the technological approach to lithic and osseous industries, which is infrequently used in Central Europe. This methodological tool has been developed and used in Western Europe for more than 40 years, and necessitates an understanding of the chaine opératoire. This requires understanding the complexity of the assemblage rather than specialized description of a separate elements (in most cases represented by single tools, subsequently considered to be the primary fossiles directeurs; e.g. [START_REF] Bon | L'Aurignacien entre mer et océan. Réflexion sur l'unité des phases anciennes de l'Aurignacien dans le sud de la France[END_REF][START_REF] Bodu | Analyse typo-technologique du matériel lithique de quelques unités du site magdalénien de Pincevent (Seine-et-Marne)[END_REF][START_REF] Klaric | L'unité technique des industries à burins du Raysse dans leur contexte diachronique. Réflexions sur la diversité culturelle au Gravettien à partir des données de la Picardie, d'Arcy sur-Cure, de Brassempouy et du[END_REF][START_REF] Pelegrin | Technologie lithique: le Châtelperronien de Roc-de-Combe (Lot) et de la Côte (Dordogne)[END_REF]Pigeot, 1987;[START_REF] Valentin | Les groupes humains et leurs traditions au Tardiglaciaire dans le Bassin parisien: apports de la technologie comparée[END_REF][START_REF] Simonet | Les gravettiens des Pyrénées. Des armes aux sociétés[END_REF]. In contrast to the typological approach commonly used in Central Europe, the artifact is situated directly into its production and use process; thus the artifact is not classified according to its shape or debitage typology alone. This approach helps us to identify unfinished artifacts (deriving from various phases of the production processes) that might otherwise be unintentionally confused with final products and elevated into the role of fossiles directeurs. Such a comprehensive understanding of an artifact´s "life and discard history" enables us to create more objective interpretations and construct new comparisons between individual collections.

Our reflections on this methodology are based on several types of observations, which can be explored at different levels: -Complete analysis or review of the material from Milovice I (sectors G and H), Dolní Věstonice III, Trenčianske Bohuslavice-Pod Tureckom (2007 surveys) and Banka -Horné farské role (in abbreviation HFR).

-Preliminary typo-technological study of the assemblages from Petřkovice I, Moravany-Lopata II, Nitra-Čermáň, Moravany-Žakovská.

-Typological observations concerning material coming from archaeological survey and sampling: Trenčianske Stankovce I to V and Mníchova Lehota I. -Literature review.

The chronological subdivision of the Gravettian in the Moravian corridor and surrounding areas

The chronological model of subdivisions in the Gravettian period in the Moravian corridor and surrounding areas (Pavlovian and Willendorf-Kostenkien) has been increasingly questioned for a few years (e.g., [START_REF] Moreau | Le Gravettien ancien d'Europe centrale revisité: mis au point et perspectives[END_REF][START_REF] Polanská | Réflexion autour des industries gravettiennes « post-pavloviennes » de Slovaquie occidentale et de Moravie[END_REF][START_REF] Svoboda | Dolní Věstonice IIa: Gravettian microstratigraphy, environment, and the origin of baked clay production in Moravia[END_REF]Fig. 2). The general term Early Gravettian encompasses various lithic industries older than 28,000 uncal BP (e.g. [START_REF] Händel | What happended at the Wachtberg in Krems 30.000 years ago? A reconstruction of the local upper paleolithic occupation history[END_REF][START_REF] Moreau | Le Gravettien ancien d'Europe centrale revisité: mis au point et perspectives[END_REF][START_REF] Svoboda | Dolní Věstonice IIa: Gravettian microstratigraphy, environment, and the origin of baked clay production in Moravia[END_REF]. Later, the majority of Moravian sites dated to 28/27.500 -26/25.500 uncal BP correspond to the Pavlovian "group with microsaw" and "group with geometric microliths". Other lithic assemblages probably coexisted with these Pavlovian groups (Willendorf, layers 6-7). These groups producing their characteristic tools and systems of production [START_REF] Noiret | De quoi Gravettien est-il le nom?[END_REF][START_REF] Polanská | Questionnement sur la diversité du Pavlovien morave par l'étude technologique des gisements de Milovice I, Pavlov I, Pavlov VI, Dolní Věstonice II-WS, Předmostí Ib[END_REF]. After this period, just a few original industries appeared (dated to ca. 25,500 and 24,500 uncal BP), for example Milovice I sector G and H (Oliva, 2009b) and Dolní Věstonice III (Škrdla et al., 1996). Perhaps more "industrial components" found in Gravettian levels such as those at Aggsbach or Grub-Kranawetberg in Austria (W. Antl-Weiser, pers. comm.) will be subject to future revision and reclassification. Finally, several sites (25,000/24,500-22,000 uncal BP) yielded heterogeneous assemblages, which need to be studied further (Váh river sites, Petřkovice I). At present, different terms are used by researchers to identify and describe this chronological phase of the Gravettian in this area, which can cause some confusion. We treat the terms "shouldered point horizon" (e.g. [START_REF] Kozłowski | The Danubian Gravettian as seen from the northern perspective[END_REF], Willendorf-Kostienki (e.g. [START_REF] Hromada | Gravettienske sídliská v Moravanoch nad Váhom a ich miesto vo vývoji mladého paleolitu strednej Európy[END_REF]Svoboda, 1996a, b) or more rarely "Kostenkian" (older term; [START_REF] Kozłowski | The Upper Palaeolithic site Kraków Spadzista street C2[END_REF] as synonyms to the generic Late/Final Gravettian term. All these terms indicate a relationship between lithic industries documented in Central Europe and the Russian Plain. They relate to the "Kostenki-Willendorf culture/unity" concept used by several Russian researchers, who have also questioned its suitability (e.g. [START_REF] Grigoriev | Nachalo verkhnego paleolita i proiskhozhdenie Homo sapiens[END_REF]1993;[START_REF] Gvozdover | Kremnevyi inventar Avdeevskoi verkhnepaleoliticheskoi stoyanki[END_REF]. It was subsequently adopted by some authors in Central Europe, but sometimes with a slightly modified meaning (e.g. [START_REF] Klíma | Zur Problematik des Aurignaciens und Gravettiens in Mittel-Europa[END_REF][START_REF] Kozłowski | Problem tzw. Kultury Kostienkowsko-Willendorfskiej. I. Analiza inwentarzy kamiennych[END_REF]. In short, recent studies of the post-Pavlovian assemblages of Central Europe have shown the diversity of assemblages (e.g. [START_REF] Klaric | Couteaux de Kostienki et lames aménagées par technique de Kostienki »: retour sur un malentendu historique[END_REF][START_REF] Lengyel | The Late Gravettian and Szeleta cave, northeast Hungary[END_REF][START_REF] Polanská | Réflexion autour des industries gravettiennes « post-pavloviennes » de Slovaquie occidentale et de Moravie[END_REF]Wilczyński et al. 2015b). For these reasons we classify the industries temporarily into various "industrial components" based on thesenitial observations (Fig. 2). 4. Are shouldered points and Kostenki knives good fossiles directeurs for the Central European Late Gravettian? General research into Late/Final Gravettian lithic industries in Central Europe is largely based on the recognition of two characteristic lithic tools: shouldered points and Kostenki knives (e.g. [START_REF] Bárta | O kilku "luźnych" znaleziskach paleolitycznych ze Słowacji[END_REF][START_REF] Hromada | Gravettienske sídliská v Moravanoch nad Váhom a ich miesto vo vývoji mladého paleolitu strednej Európy[END_REF][START_REF] Kozłowski | Problem tzw. Kultury Kostienkowsko-Willendorfskiej. I. Analiza inwentarzy kamiennych[END_REF][START_REF] Kozłowski | The Gravettian in Central and Eastern Europe[END_REF][START_REF] Kozłowski | The Danubian Gravettian as seen from the northern perspective[END_REF][START_REF] Kozłowski | The shouldered point horizon and the impact of the LGM on human settlement distribution in Europe[END_REF]Svoboda, 1996b and[START_REF] Svoboda | Sídelní archeologie loveckých populací. K dynamice a populační kinetice mladého paleolitu ve středním Podunají[END_REF]. Their first identifications were based on analogies with objects described at Russian sites [START_REF] Garrod | The Upper Palaeolithic in the Light of Recent Discovery[END_REF][START_REF] Zamiatnine | La station Aurignacienne de Gagarino. Les Editions d'Etat[END_REF]. These represents one of the most important elements in the Willendorf-Kostenki conception. One of the most important researchers into direct comparisons of these lithic industries is J. K. [START_REF] Kozłowski | Problem tzw. Kultury Kostienkowsko-Willendorfskiej. I. Analiza inwentarzy kamiennych[END_REF][START_REF] Kozłowski | Les industries à pointes à cran en Europe centre-est[END_REF][START_REF] Kozłowski | The Gravettian in Central and Eastern Europe[END_REF] and his approach was based on multi-level classification of artifact shape, retouch type, etc. Naturally, these works reflect the research orientations of the 1970s and 1980s, but they nevertheless provide an important foundation for further comparisons with a more local focus (e.g. [START_REF] Hromada | Gravettienske sídliská v Moravanoch nad Váhom a ich miesto vo vývoji mladého paleolitu strednej Európy[END_REF]. The methodological developments of the "French school" offer a new perspective situating artifacts within the wider framework of their chaînes opératoires. Thus, we would like to initiate here a broader consideration of two Late Gravettian fossiles directeurs that are frequently referred to in the literature on Central Europe.

Shouldered points

During the first half of the twentieth century the conceptual interpretation of shouldered points was connected to several Central European archaeological cultures including the Pavlovian and Willendorfian, and to settlement concentrations around Váh River [START_REF] Kozłowski | Les industries à pointes à cran en Europe centre-est[END_REF]. Gradually, studies clarified their stratigraphic and chronological position during the Late Gravettian and the term "shouldered point horizon" became established [START_REF] Kozłowski | The Gravettian in Central and Eastern Europe[END_REF][START_REF] Kozłowski | The Danubian Gravettian as seen from the northern perspective[END_REF][START_REF] Kozłowski | The shouldered point horizon and the impact of the LGM on human settlement distribution in Europe[END_REF].

4.1.1.1 How can shouldered points be defined in Central Europe? The specific characterization of shouldered points remains a little vague and tends to describe mainly statistical parameters (such as the quantity in assemblage) rather than their closer description. Their characterization and description is mostly based on their definition from Russian sites (such as Kostenki I) where they were originally described, although these vary according to authors (e.g. [START_REF] Belyaeva | Statistical analysis of Kostenki shouldered points: A trial[END_REF]Efimenko, 1958;[START_REF] Gvozdover | Spetsifi cheskie osoben-nosti kremnevogo inventarya Avdeevsko paleoliticheskoi stoyanki[END_REF]Lev, 2009). We cannot describe here the complex historiography of this term's development, so we have focused on early papers giving definitions of Central European points described as "atypical shouldered points" or "Perigordian shouldered points". It has often been stated that shouldered points from Central Europe are mainly atypical in form or belong to the Perigordian type of shouldered points (e.g. [START_REF] Kozłowski | Les industries à pointes à cran en Europe centre-est[END_REF]2008), which might be characterized here as follows: "… blades with one edge backed along its basal part and backed in the distal part from the shoulder up to the tip. The tip creates a point with its opposite side which might be retouched" (Ginter and Kozłowski, 1969, pp. 60). They are smaller in size than the numerous shouldered points produced on massive blades (8-12 cm) whose ventral side is partially modified with inverse scaled retouch, called the Kostenki points or the Kostenki shouldered point type (e.g. [START_REF] Zamiatnine | La station Aurignacienne de Gagarino. Les Editions d'Etat[END_REF]. Such typical massive blades with invasive inverse retouch were the basis of comparisons between Kostenki I and Willendorf I and II and occasionally Moravany-Podkovica and Předmostí Ia. In 2001, the entirely "morphological" approach based on various criteria was enriched by the paper concerning the artefacts from Kraków Spadzista site [START_REF] Kozłowski | The hunting-butchering tool-kit from Krakow-Spadzista: a Gravettian site in southern Poland[END_REF]. Their definition remains similar to that in previous studies. Both authors emphasize the idea that the forms of artifacts resulting from different activities (hunting points, cutting implements) might be ambiguous. Their distal ends might be naturally pointed or feathered distal ends might be present. Additionally, the facultative inverse invasive retouch is functional (point sharpening and strengthening) rather than stylistic. Recent study of the artefacts from Kraków Spadzista confirms that they were partially used as hunting points (e.g. [START_REF] Kufel-Diakowska | Mammoth hunting -Impact traces on backed implements from a mammoth bone accumulation at Kraków Spadzista (southern Poland)[END_REF][START_REF] Wojtal | The earliest direct evidence of mammoth hunting in Central Europe-The Kraków Spadzista site (Poland)[END_REF]. In our opinion the characterization of shouldered points and the closer identification and interpretation of the "shoulder" remains problematic. In many cases this term indicates a modification of the artifact base for hafting (Brezillon, 1968, pp. 20). Thus the shouldered point was defined in this sense: "Objet appointé portant, à la base, une coche dégeant un pédoncule latéral, destiné probablement à l'emmanchement" (Schmider 2012, pp. 884). However, it is important to remember here that various operations may have produced such a morphology. We believe then that for correct identification of shouldered points, a consideration of the broader context of the lithic assemblage is required. 4.1.1.2. "Shouldered points" in Central Europe: other approaches As noted above, purely morphological descriptions simplify the artifact while paying little attention to the exact stage of its shaping or the possibility of artifact abandonment (Fig. 34). Artefacts both completed or fragmented are then considered as being "finished and intentional objects" which acquire the same considerable importance within the chrono-cultural description. Indeed, there are some pieces described as waste from/possible failures of backed point shaping (production waste, broken pieces or pieces abandoned during retouching) for western European assemblages (e.g. [START_REF] Simonet | Les gravettiens des Pyrénées. Des armes aux sociétés[END_REF]2012). Proximal and distal backed fragments described as gibbosities are the result of breakage during shaping. Such examples support our hypothesis that certain shouldered points identified in post-Pavlovian industries are not necessarily intentional and finished objects (Fig. 4:4). As a result, if we enlarge the scope of our work to other assemblages found in the Moravian corridor, it seems that some unfinished pieces are indeed present in all assemblages bearing backed points (ascribed to either Pavlovian or post-Pavlovian industries). It means that all sites of different cultural affiliations where backed artifacts were produced naturally also include their waste. As shown in the schema, in some cases the unfinished or broken artifact could represent a "distal shoulder", morphologically resembling a finished shouldered point (Fig. 3). As is obvious from the figure (Fig. 3: 2) the inverse retouch could have been carried out before the backing, which might misleadingly support an idea of a finished artifact. Thus, if seen from this perspective, then artifacts originating from surface surveys or palimpsests (which usually lack the full production assemblages or which might contain multiple assemblages) can hardly be evaluated. 4.1.1.3 Shouldered points in collections from Western Slovakia and Moravia: preliminary observations Our first studies of lithic assemblages assumed to be sufficiently representative of the post-Pavlovian of Western Slovakia and Moravia (e.g. Moravany-Lopata II, Petřkovice I, Banka-HFR and, in part, Nitra-Čermáň) led us to question the global status of "shouldered points" within these assemblages [START_REF] Polanská | Réflexion autour des industries gravettiennes « post-pavloviennes » de Slovaquie occidentale et de Moravie[END_REF]. We grouped 18 localities from both regions where such artifacts were previously identified, recorded the context of their discovery and added descriptions based either on our observations or on a literature review (from analyses of drawings). At least nine of these collections are only known from surface collections, and therefore closer evaluation of their status and typological definition is almost impossible (Tabl. 1).

First, the collections from Jarošov-Podvršťa, Dolní Věstonice III and Milovice I, include artifacts such as microgravettes of Dolní Věstonice type and Milovice type or other backed points and are slightly older than the Late/Final Gravettian period sensu stricto. A recent revision of the homogeneous series from Jarošov-Podvršťa and Milovice I (sectors G and H) suggests that pieces abandoned during their backing are present here [START_REF] Polanská | Questionnement sur la diversité du Pavlovien morave par l'étude technologique des gisements de Milovice I, Pavlov I, Pavlov VI, Dolní Věstonice II-WS, Předmostí Ib[END_REF]. A similar example was observed at Dolní Věstonice III (Škrdla et al., 1996), where an artifact suggested to be a shouldered point represents just an unfinished retouched blade intended as a backed point (with inverse retouch on the proximal part; Fig. 5:8). Second, several Late/Final Gravettian assemblages with a good context for validating the shouldered points' status were analysed, i.e. Moravy-Lopaty II and Nitra-Čermáň. However, we cannot confirm the presence of these types at the first site while at the second, unfinished backed tools represent the majority of artifacts described as shouldered points. Among the points reported from Nitra-Čermáň [START_REF] Otte | Le Gravettien en Europe central[END_REF][START_REF] Kaminská | Nitra I-Čermáň v rámci štruktúry osídlenia gravettienskej kultúry na Slovensku[END_REF] is one fragment of point with a broken distal part, so in this case the shoulder is missing (fig. 4:4). Other artifacts are rather unfinished backed points (with gibbosité) or backed blades. Therefore, a new revision of this assemblage is necessary, because we cannot currently exclude the possibility that one or two shouldered points are present here. Third, most shouldered points are reported from the Moravany-Podkovica site (Fig. 4: 1; [START_REF] Bárta | Slovensko v staršej a strednej dobe kamennej[END_REF]. According to a recent unpublished typo-technological revision, these are real completed shouldered points [START_REF] Klaric | Moravany-Podkovica debunked, reassessment of an almost unknown Willendorf-Kostienkian collection of Western Slovakia[END_REF]. Another good example is that of trench n°4 from Banka -HFR [START_REF] Alexandrowicz | Excavations at Banka-Horné farské role site[END_REF]. However, the lithics are not abundant (and the sediment was not wet sieved), and it thus lacks enough pieces for the definition of the technical systems [START_REF] Polanská | La question de l'attribution au Gravettien ou à l'Epigravettien (d'Europe centrale) de 4 collections lithiques de Slovaquie: Réexamen technologique des séries de: Banka -Horné farské role n° de sondage III, IV, V (Slovaquie occidentale) Hrčeľ-Pivničky: collection de ramassage 1984 (Slovaquie orientale)[END_REF]. The remaining artifacts from Slovakia and Moravia come from surface surveys, so if there is no other argument for close cultural affiliation, they may belong to some other cultural group. Based on detailed study of artifact drawings we can say that for example some pieces from Banka-Chrasť remain rather unconvincing (Fig. 4:3). However, on the other hand some examples are complete and credible, such as those from the Čachtice site (Fig. 4:2). If we consider that "shouldered points" are sparsely distributed in collections from Western Slovakia and Moravia and that just a few of them morphologically resemble finished artifacts (most of them are rather unfinished backed pieces or waste products), we should ask whether they are sufficiently representative fossiles directeurs giving a compact foundation for analogies with other Central European or Russian Plain sites. Moreover, we should ask what kinds of backed artifacts (with inverse retouch on the proximal part) they might represent and whether this was ever indicated in the literature. Within our assemblages these might be for example unfinished backed bladelets or their waste; or blades with partially marginally retouched edges as at Lopata II site. Another interesting observation was made in collections such as Banka-Chrasť where larger symmetric points with oblique backs exist whose ends are sometimes modified with inverse retouch (Fig. 5:9; [START_REF] Kozłowski | The shouldered point horizon and the impact of the LGM on human settlement distribution in Europe[END_REF]; or at Banka V site where there is an asymmetrical backed point whose base is modified with low inverse retouch (Fig. 5:6;[START_REF] Nemergut | Sídlisková geografia Považia a Ponitria v staršej dobe kamennej[END_REF]. At Nitra-Čermáň the "shouldered points" are connected to smaller backed points with a probably asymmetric shape and a proximal part modified with inverse retouch (as seen in drawings in Kaminská and Kozłowski, 2011 fig. 38: 2, 7;39:5, 43:18). Finally, we have to admit, that the complex typo-technological description of the above-mentioned examples will perhaps situate these artifacts in more detail, which opens up new possibilities for analysis and brings new questions.

Kostenki knives

The description of Kostenki knives in Central Europe has been partially dependent on the development of their definition in Eastern Europe [START_REF] Klaric | Couteaux de Kostienki et lames aménagées par technique de Kostienki »: retour sur un malentendu historique[END_REF], so only some of these pieces fulfil their current definition (Lev et al., 2009 and2011). A recent technological study of Kostenki knives from several Russian sites (such as Kostenki I and Zaraysk) has shown that these artifacts result from the re-sharpening of blades, where the edges were used as knives (e.g. Lev et al., 2009 and2011). The bladelets removals on the blank dorsal face serve for the edge re-sharpening (not retouched blade). This interpretation and technological characterization suggests that a revision of artifacts previously published as Kostenki knives in Central Europe is necessary. However, our study of collections has led us to believe that Kostenki knives are in fact observable in the Moravian Pavlovian "group with geometric microliths", such as the Předmostí I complex and Pavlov I (Polanská, 2013 and[START_REF] Polanská | Questionnement sur la diversité du Pavlovien morave par l'étude technologique des gisements de Milovice I, Pavlov I, Pavlov VI, Dolní Věstonice II-WS, Předmostí Ib[END_REF]. These first reassessments and revisions of artifact drawings published as "Kostenki knives" in post-Pavlovian collections from Central Europe (e.g. [START_REF] Hromada | Gravettienske sídliská v Moravanoch nad Váhom a ich miesto vo vývoji mladého paleolitu strednej Európy[END_REF][START_REF] Kozłowski | Problem tzw. Kultury Kostienkowsko-Willendorfskiej. I. Analiza inwentarzy kamiennych[END_REF]1998) lead us to believe that they should be present in the Late/Final Gravettian period. Within the lithic assemblages from Moravany-Lopata II, Nitra-Čermáň, Banka -HFR (trench III and IV), and Petřkovice I there are several isolated pieces that partially resemble Kostenki knives (the remaining material includes truncated blades, splintered pieces and bladelets cores). As mentioned above, it seems that Kostenki knives were a marginal feature of the Late/Upper Gravettian in Central Europe, although a broader consideration might include the re-analysis of lithic material from the Kraków Spadzista site complex. Originally, several tens of them were identified at this site, but in recent studies only 10 Kostenki knives are present, in Layer 6 of sector C2 (Wilczyński et al., 2015a). According to our review of the drawings, it can be agreed that some of them are most probably Kostenki knives (Wilczyński et al., 2015a fig. 7 :7-8) while several pieces classified as burins in fact morphologically resemble Kostenki knives (Wilczyński et al., 2015a fig. 6 :15). It is obvious that the occurence of Kostienki knives in the Late/Final Gravettian of Central Europe is rare compared to the Kostenki-Avdeevo culture, and they might be found in the Middle Gravettian. The confirmation of their existence within industries dated back to 27.500-25.000 uncal BP might be surprising, because these artefacts were famously linked with the Late Gravettian (e.g. [START_REF] Kozłowski | Problem tzw. Kultury Kostienkowsko-Willendorfskiej. I. Analiza inwentarzy kamiennych[END_REF][START_REF] Otte | Le Gravettien en Europe central[END_REF][START_REF] Otte | Évolution du gravettien au moyen Danube[END_REF].

5. Preliminary observations on main Late Gravettian sites from Moravia and Western Slovakia Here, some preliminary research results and observations arising from selected "typical" collections dated to the Late/Upper Gravettian period will be presented. The exhaustive summarization of existing bibliographic data will not be presented here, because we would like to focus on new characteristic lithic tools and a short presentation of the osseous assemblages and faunal remains/hunting strategies (where data exists).

5.1 Petřkovice I-Landek (Moravia, Czech Republic) The Petřkovice I -Landek site is strategically located at the peak of Landek Hill close to the Odra River valley [START_REF] Klíma | Výzkum paleolitického sídliště v Ostravě-Petřkovicích[END_REF]. For some authors Petřkovice I represents one of the most important Central European localities dated to the Willendorf-Kostienki (e.g. [START_REF] Svoboda | Sídelní archeologie loveckých populací. K dynamice a populační kinetice mladého paleolitu ve středním Podunají[END_REF]2008).

Selected interpretations of lithic industry. Assemblage with shouldered points and Kostenki knives?

As well as descriptions of raw material importation from moraines and the presence of shouldered points and Kostenki knives, several authors have described various details of the technical systems employed in lithic production (e.g. [START_REF] Oliva | Gravettien severní Moravy a Českého Slezska[END_REF][START_REF] Otte | Le Gravettien en Europe central[END_REF][START_REF] Novák | Flint and radiolarite assemblages: Technology and typology[END_REF]. The assemblage from B. Klíma´s excavations suggests bladelet production from small cores with unipolar debitage on the sides of large flakes. The blades are made on uni-or bipolar cores [START_REF] Otte | Le Gravettien en Europe central[END_REF]. M. Otte described 6 shouldered points including only one complete piece (Otte, 1981, pp. 326). However, according to his drawings it seems that he included among the shouldered points two artifacts (Otte, 1981 Fig. 138: 20-21), which are probably Petřkovice bi-truncated elements. The most recent synthesis (based on excavations by B. Klíma and J. Svoboda) describes 26 shouldered points, shouldered bladelets or blades, for most of which there are drawings [START_REF] Novák | Flint and radiolarite assemblages: Technology and typology[END_REF]. Based on preliminary examination of these figures and direct observations, various artifact fragments, unfinished backed bladelets (Fig. 6:12-14), retouched notched blades, and truncated fragments may more likely be represented here. The famous broken radiolarite piece described as shouldered point has a double patination, where it seems that some of the removals are more recent (Fig. 7). On the right edge the inverse removals have an irregular character, which might have been caused mechanically. The left edge has direct semi-abrupt or marginal retouch with a shallow notch. Because this piece has no other analogies in the Petřkovice I lithic assemblage (excluding broken and unfinished pieces), its interpretation has to be based on the characterisation of the shouldered points in Central Europe. For a better understanding of this artifact the comparison with the conservation state of other lithic artifacts found in the same trench is necessary. Furthermore, some excavated pieces described as "Kostenki knives" (Fig. 6: 15-16) do not conform with the recent interpretation of such artifacts as re-sharpened blades (e.g. Lev et al., 2009;[START_REF] Klaric | Couteaux de Kostienki et lames aménagées par technique de Kostienki »: retour sur un malentendu historique[END_REF].

Petřkovice bi-truncated elements: New fossiles directeurs

The old excavations at Petřkovice I by B. Klíma and J. Folprecht (before World War II) and the new ones by J. Svoboda yielded a group of artifacts that were not described until recently (Fig. 6: 5-11, 17 [START_REF] Polanská | Réflexion autour des industries gravettiennes « post-pavloviennes » de Slovaquie occidentale et de Moravie[END_REF]. These are "bi-truncated elements" made on blades where both ends are truncated by bifacial retouch combining a direct truncation and more or less extensive inverse retouch. This extensive retouch might have partially corrected the outline of the edge and ends too. The retouch on these ends varies in order to flatten the ventral surface of the semi-finished product. In general, the left edge is backed by an abrupt direct retouch creating a straight back, while the opposite edge is usually slightly convex and unretouched (or marginal direct retouch might be present). In six instances both endings are truncated. All together more than 20 pieces were found here in different sectors and they vary in size (up to 6 cm long and 13 mm wide; Fig. 6: 5-11). Nearly similar artifacts are found at other Late/Final Gravettian sites, especially in the Moravany nad Váhom area (Fig. 8); and according to drawings can possibly be identified in Layer 8 of Willendorf II [START_REF] Felgenhauer | Willendorf in der Wachau. Monographie der Paläolith Fundstellen I-VII[END_REF] or at Kraków Spadzista [START_REF] Kozłowski | The Upper Palaeolithic site Kraków Spadzista street C2[END_REF]. Because they were initially identified at Petřkovice I site, we proposed their name as "éléments bi-tronquées du type Petřkovice sous-type Petřkovice" ("Petřkovice bi-truncated elements sub-type Petřkovice "; [START_REF] Polanská | Réflexion autour des industries gravettiennes « post-pavloviennes » de Slovaquie occidentale et de Moravie[END_REF]. The term "element" suggests here that the modifications can be applied to small and medium sized artifacts. These pieces look similar to the type recently reported from Trenčianske Bohuslavice. 5.1.3 Point types recognized at Petřkovice I While waiting on further characterization of the lithics, the archeological context enables us to make an association between Petřkovice bi-truncated elements sub-type Petřkovice and unknown points (found in the new excavations), currently only known from their fragments (Fig. 6: 3-4). Beside this, the old excavations by B. Klíma provided some complete small backed points (asymmetrical in form) with ends which might be modified by inverse retouch (Fig. 6: 1-2). Some pieces with notched edges and fragmented pieces are unfinished examples of these backed tools (Fig. 6: 3-4). However, future studies will be necessary to focus connections between these tools and the technical systems involved in their production.

Faunal remains

The Petřkovice I faunal collection contains remains excavated in 1925-1937, 1952-53, 1994-1995 and 2007, and consist of approximately 30,000 bone and teeth fragments, mostly indeterminate and burnt [START_REF] Folprecht | Early Excavations[END_REF][START_REF] Jarošová | Nové výzkumy paleolitické lokality v Ostravě-Petřkovicích v letech 1994-1995[END_REF][START_REF] Klíma | Výzkum paleolitického sídliště v Ostravě-Petřkovicích[END_REF][START_REF] Nývltová-Fišáková | Animal osteological material[END_REF]. According to these authors, the poor bone and teeth preservation precludes closer taxonomic classification, except for 56 woolly mammoth molars (Mammuthus primigenius) and several remains identified as horse (Equus, sp.) or reindeer (Rangifer tarandus). As already mentioned above, the presence of osseous artifacts was not recorded here.

5.2

The sites from the Moravany nad Váhom area (Western Slovakia) The site complex is located between the villages of Modrovka and Sokolovce with its center corresponding to Moravany nad Váhom (near Piešťany spa town), and is therefore called the Moravany settlement area (Fig. 7; [START_REF] Hromada | Gravettienske sídliská v Moravanoch nad Váhom a ich miesto vo vývoji mladého paleolitu strednej Európy[END_REF]. Although the territory is relatively small, according to J. Hromada over 50 independent sites are concentrated here. Only some of them can be directly dated to the period from the Early Upper Paleolithic to the LGM. The majority of these localities were found through surface collecting; and only a small number are associated with extensive field works [START_REF] Ambrož | Mladý pleistocén v okolí Moravan u Pieštan nad Váhom (Západní Slovensko)[END_REF]Hromada and Kozłowski, 1995;[START_REF] Klaric | Moravany-Podkovica debunked, reassessment of an almost unknown Willendorf-Kostienkian collection of Western Slovakia[END_REF][START_REF] Kazior | Lithic inventories[END_REF]. The rare "in situ" deposits were located in trenches at sites such as Moravany-Noviny [START_REF] Bárta | Slovensko v staršej a strednej dobe kamennej[END_REF][START_REF] Bárta | Paleolit a Mezolit[END_REF], Banka-HFR [START_REF] Alexandrowicz | Excavations at Banka-Horné farské role site[END_REF][START_REF] Polanská | La question de l'attribution au Gravettien ou à l'Epigravettien (d'Europe centrale) de 4 collections lithiques de Slovaquie: Réexamen technologique des séries de: Banka -Horné farské role n° de sondage III, IV, V (Slovaquie occidentale) Hrčeľ-Pivničky: collection de ramassage 1984 (Slovaquie orientale)[END_REF], Moravany-Lopata II [START_REF] Kazior | Lithic inventories[END_REF] and Moravany-Žakovská (Hromada and Kozłowski, 1995). Most of these occupations might be dated to the Gravettian sensu lato. However, backed bladelets/backed microliths are almost systematically considered to be a part of the cultural attribution to Gravettian, so we have to be careful in closer subcultural consideration of these sites. The old collections from Moravany have been described as the most important deposits, including Kostenki knives and shouldered points, but have not been yet systematically studied and published (e.g. [START_REF] Hromada | Gravettienske sídliská v Moravanoch nad Váhom a ich miesto vo vývoji mladého paleolitu strednej Európy[END_REF]Kozlowski, 1976).

Moravany-Noviny

In 1963, the Moravany-Noviny site was excavated by J. Bárta (211 lithic artifacts were found in trenches A-A1, B-B1), and according to our partial observations and the published drawings a few pieces of possible shouldered points (requiring re-study) as well as some possible Petřkovice bi-truncated elements were found here [START_REF] Bárta | Excavations at Moravany-Noviny in 1963[END_REF]. The second type of elements in particular are interesting, and appear within other assemblages from the same or neighboring regions, such as Moravany, Ratnovce and Banka. Unfortunately, at these sites they often do not have favorable contexts (old excavations or surface collections; Nemergut, 2011; Fig. 8). Additionally, the faunal remains from Moravany-Noviny site have never been extensively studied, so we can only generally note the presence of reindeer, mammoth and polar fox [START_REF] Bárta | Excavations at Moravany-Noviny in 1963[END_REF].

Moravany-Lopata II

The Moravany-Lopata II site appears to have high potential in the study of the Late/Final Gravettian period in Western Slovakia. The preliminary studies of the archaeological and faunal material offer new perspectives on the site, which is positioned between major sites connected to the "shouldered points horizon" or "Willendorf-Kostenkian" [START_REF] Hromada | Gravettienske sídliská v Moravanoch nad Váhom a ich miesto vo vývoji mladého paleolitu strednej Európy[END_REF][START_REF] Kazior | Lithic inventories[END_REF]. Recent studies suggest a particular site function, most probably connected to the butchering, processing and further distribution of reindeer [START_REF] Vlačiky | Intencionálna fragmentariácia kostí v paleolitických kultúrach[END_REF]. Everything seems to indicate that the material does not belong to the above-mentioned faciès. However, it is necessary to underline interesting connections between the faunal remains, the use of osseous materials and reindeer procurement. Future works may integrate this new information into a comprehensive survey of this key site, which may lead to a better understanding of the Late/Final Gravettian period in this region and potentially in Central Europe as a whole.

Authentic lithic industry without shouldered points and Kostenki knives

The usage of high-quality raw material imported from primary or secondary sources (Lesser Poland, Silesia, Western Slovakia) and the high occurrence of mediocre-quality of materials (e. g. quartz or quartzite) indicates the economy of raw material procurement, which needs to be closely characterized [START_REF] Hromada | Gravettienske sídliská v Moravanoch nad Váhom a ich miesto vo vývoji mladého paleolitu strednej Európy[END_REF]. Moreover, the lithic assemblage includes many small bladelet cores (often polyhedral) produced on flakes or blades and probably intended for backed bladelets production (Fig. 9). If their potential in bladelet production was exhausted, they were turned into small chip/splinter cores and knapped by bipolar percussion on an anvil. Another notable phenomenon is the absence of previously reported Kostienki knives and shouldered points [START_REF] Hromada | Gravettienske sídliská v Moravanoch nad Váhom a ich miesto vo vývoji mladého paleolitu strednej Európy[END_REF][START_REF] Alexandrowicz | Excavations at Banka-Horné farské role site[END_REF]. According to our revisions the pieces described as "shouldered points" are more probably unfinished backed (or marginally retouched) bladelets or blades (Fig. 9: 12-16). The pieces described as "Kostenki knives" are rather burins on truncation or splintered pieces (Fig. 9: 17-19). It is necessary to emphasize the high prevalence of borers (Fig. 9: 4-5, 10-11) perhaps indicating particular activities which will be clarified in future.

Faunal remains and osseous artifacts

Faunal remains and osseous artifacts (bone, antler and ivory) play a very important role in the characterisation of Moravany-Lopata II. Unlike many other Gravettian sites in the region, osseous artefacts from many sites in Moravany settlement area display some specialization for the hunting of herd animals, predominantly reindeer. This relationship to specific biotic components may be connected with different hunting and settlement strategies. Reindeer also links other contemporaneous sites in the region, finally leading to their grouping under the term "site complex". The osseous artefacts from Moravany-Lopata II site are represented by 25 pieces. In a study of the faunal remains and worked pieces (Lipecky and Wojtal, 1998;[START_REF] Vlačiky | Intencionálna fragmentariácia kostí v paleolitických kultúrach[END_REF], the prevalence of worked objects from bone and reindeer antler compared to the few ivory pieces was confirmed [START_REF] Hromada | Gravettienske sídliská v Moravanoch nad Váhom a ich miesto vo vývoji mladého paleolitu strednej Európy[END_REF]. Thanks to this new research approach and some recently published or prepared publications, the classification of the industry has changed. Typologically, the assemblage consists predominantly of bevelled tools (outils biseautés) and chisels (ciseaux), then tools with smoothed distal part, tool hafts with a very specific hafting system (distal extremity shaped to a forked base (base forchue) and perhaps one soft hammer. Furthermore, we are almost able to exclude the presence of bone or antler points, except for the two objects morphologically appearing as pointed tools without further specified typological or functional characteristics. The tools and other fragments (such as blanks or debitage waste) are directly related to the working of reindeer antler and bone, which often confirms local production. The reindeer was highly preferred for providing materials for tool production and apparently played an important role in hunting and procurement strategies at this site. The place of mammoth ivory, as a raw material used for the production of some tools, is also very particular. Its representation within the Moravany-Lopata II assemblage is very low, including only three small pieces. Unfortunately, we lack supporting information for the technological context of tusk working at this site (or within its vicinity), so the few identified features have very limited informative value. We can say that at least one object was produced on a blank deriving from the tusk lamellae. Therefore, we can assume that the importance of ivory as a raw material source is doubtful and most probably did not play a dominant role in formation of this assemblage. Finally, the production of tools from bone and reindeer antler involved several interesting features displaying very specific and important connections between the osseous tools and stone industry. Such results open up broader scope for the reanalysis of reindeer procurement at "shouldered point horizon" sites, and can play an important role in the discussion about the cultural definition of the sites.

Moravany-Žakovská

Moravany-Žakovská was initially attributed to the Epigravettian after a small excavation (1991-92) (Hromada and Kozłowski, 1995). Although this initial dating was based on a broad range of arguments, they unfortunately varied in their quality, and included radiocarbon dating, incorrect descriptions of typological aspects and the usage of radiolarite (a local raw material). The site was subsequently re-dated and then reclassified to the Late/Final Gravettian period [START_REF] Verpoorte | Pavlovian reflexes and the Pompei premise: A spatial analysis of stone artefacts from Pavlov 1 (Moravia, Czech Republic)[END_REF] Dates for the site include:18.100 uncal BP (Gd 4915, charcoal), 24.230 uncal BP (GrA 16159, charcoal) 22.340 uncal BP (bone;[START_REF] Verpoorte | The geographic range of modern humans: dynamics of the northern range limit at the Pleistocene-Holocene boundary[END_REF]. According to preliminary observations of the lithic assemblage, blanks for small armatures were produced by flaking surface with carinated morphology (Fig. 10: 6,12,13). Such a production scenario may be quite unique for the Gravettian period, although its deeper raw material economy (for example its shape) seems banal. The radiolarite is frequently found in the form of small blocks (damaged by frost or tectonic fractures), which are particularly conducive to producing a carinated surface while knapping. The blanks tend to be converted into bladelets with two retouched slightly convex edges (usually achieved by marginal direct backing; Fig. 10: 1-5, 7-11). Some of these pieces have direct or inverse truncation, although the total numbers remain unevaluated (Fig. 10: 2-3, 9-5). Other types of backed points may be present here, whose ends might be modified by inverse retouch (Fig. 11:8). The lithic industry doesn't have any identified equivalents at other sites in Central Europe. Therefore, it is not possible to carry out cultural classification of this site based on analogies in the lithic assemblage. The incomplete faunal evidence from excavations years 1991-1992 document reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) and wooly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) as prevailing among other species represented by individual antler, bone or tooth fragments, such as roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), red deer (Cervus elaphus), and wolverine (Gulo gulo). Series of taxonomic indeterminate unburned and burned bone fragments are presented as well [START_REF] Kubiak | Remains of fossil mammals[END_REF].

Banka-HFR

The Banka municipality includes ten sites dated to the Gravettian period, including Banka-HFR. In 1997, trench No. IV (2x1m) at the site was excavated and provided two radiocarbon dates of 22,010 ± 210 and 22,320 ± 220 uncal BP [START_REF] Kozłowski | Complex of Upper Palaeolithic Sites near Moravany, Western Slovakia, III. Late Gravettian Shouldered Points Horizon Sites in the Moravany-Banka area[END_REF]. Blade production involved unipolar knapping of large blades from erratic silicites (usually with spurred butts; Fig. 11: 4). During the excavation the sediment was not wet-sieved, so we were able to identify just a small part of the microlithic fraction and only two microliths. The lithic assemblage consists of 400 pieces, in which two shouldered points (one inconclusive; Fig. 11: 1-2) and a piece shaped like an atypical Kostienki knife were detected (Fig. 11: 6). Still, we must be careful of any hasty interpretations, because only one unique piece is presented here and, furthermore, its striking platform was made by retouch on an anvil [START_REF] Polanská | La question de l'attribution au Gravettien ou à l'Epigravettien (d'Europe centrale) de 4 collections lithiques de Slovaquie: Réexamen technologique des séries de: Banka -Horné farské role n° de sondage III, IV, V (Slovaquie occidentale) Hrčeľ-Pivničky: collection de ramassage 1984 (Slovaquie orientale)[END_REF]. Besides the Moravany-Podkovica [START_REF] Klaric | Moravany-Podkovica debunked, reassessment of an almost unknown Willendorf-Kostienkian collection of Western Slovakia[END_REF] and Moravany-Noviny sites we can confirm that shouldered points are presented at Banka-HFR.

Trenčín Basin (Western Slovakia)

The Trenčín Basin is a geomorphological unit bordered by the White Carpathians to the west, the Strážov Mountains to the east and by the Považský Inovec Mountain Range to the south. The Váh River is an important communication channel dividing this regional unit (e.g. [START_REF] Kaminská | Štruktúra osídlenia mikroregiónu Trenčín v strednom a mladom paleolite[END_REF][START_REF] Michalík | Paleolitické osídlenie Trenčianskej kotliny[END_REF]. Late/Final Gravettian sites are found on both sides of the river, primarily within the Trenčianske Stankovce-Trenčianska Turná-Mníchova Lehota microregion (where assemblages originate from surface collections) and the Trenčianske Bohuslavice-Pod Tureckom site (where systematic excavations were held).

Trenčianske Bohuslavice-Pod Tureckom

The older and more recent excavations at the Trenčianske Bohuslavice site produced around 8,000 lithic artifacts, as well as faunal remains or artifacts from bone and antler. However, neither shouldered points nor Kostienki knives were identified here [START_REF] Bárta | Trenčianske Bohuslavice. Un habitat gravettien en Slovaquie occidentale[END_REF][START_REF] Žaár | Gravettienska stanica v Trenčianskych Bohuslaviciach[END_REF]. The cultural attribution of the site is based on the stratigraphical position of the cultural layer and radiocarbon dates. The lithic industry differs from other Late/Final Gravettian assemblages. 5.3.1.1 Are the bi-truncated elements from Trenčianske Bohuslavice more standardized than those from Petřkovice? Similarly, to previous cases, we are able to document some specific previously unrecognized lithic tools resembling the artifacts identified at Petřkovice I (Fig. 12, Vlačiky et al., 2013b). These are essentially small backed blades, with both ends modified with either direct truncation, bifacial retouch, or inverse retouch (with the choice of modification perhaps depending on the original shape of the blank). The regularity of the edges and ends shows that these artifacts were worked with special care. However, their generally rectangular silhouette and the character of the lateral edge modification differentiate these artifacts from those of Petřkovice. Indeed, the edge opposite to the back has a perfectly straight delineation and is often modified by more or less invasive inverse (sometimes direct) retouch, which frequently affects the entire edge. The remarkably standardized pieces (several tens in the collection, including at least 16 complete pieces) are less robust than those from Petřkovice I. According to our preliminary analysis it seems that the size of these artifacts does not exceed 4 cm in length and 8 mm in width (with an average width around 5 mm). However, the old excavations were not wet sieved so we lack the smallest fraction in the material, which might affect the final representation of the studied microliths. These preliminary data suggest diversity in both dimensions and the backed edge modification (as documented on both samples from Petřkovice and Trenčianske Bohuslavice sites). Moreover, on one hand the degree of standardization observed at Trenčianske Bohuslavice is currently unknown from any other collection, even Petřkovice; on the other hand, similar and less standardized artifacts as represented at Petřkovice site are found in several other collections too. Therefore, we cannot be sure if we are confronted with two different lithic types or rather an individual and local variation of the same type. Based on our preliminary results, we proposed a type-name for both artifact types "Petřkovice bi-truncated element". This can be defined as an artifact with double truncated ends (supplemented by inverse retouches) and occurring in two variants: the Petřkovice and Trenčianske Bohuslavice sub-types [START_REF] Polanská | Réflexion autour des industries gravettiennes « post-pavloviennes » de Slovaquie occidentale et de Moravie[END_REF]. However, the final definition for these preliminary groups has yet to be established. Nevertheless, since the final characterization is still in progress it might be possible that other types of bi-truncated pieces, including bitruncated bladelets (with/without inverse retouches) may exist, but it will be necessary not to confuse them with these bi-truncated elements. Hopefully, these Petřkovice bi-truncated elements of Trenčianske Bohuslavice subtype will become a good fossile directeur. They are from the stratigraphically well-documented Layer 3, which has been dated to 24,540 ± 130 uncal BP (GrA-2312;29,400 ± 140 cal BC;Vlačiky et al., 2013a). Additionally, J. Wilczyński recently proposed a relationship between "rectangles" from Polish site Jaksice II and Slovak site Trenčianske Bohuslavice (Wilczyński et al., 2015b). Nevertheless, according to our analysis of his published drawings the Jaksice artifacts in most cases represent roughouts from truncated backed bladelets or blades (Wilczyński et al., 2015b Fig. 9). One complete bi-truncated exception is presented in his work (Wilczyński et al., 2015b Fig. 9:18), but in our opinion more pieces are necessary for demonstrating that both terminal endings are systematically modified by transverse retouching at the Jaksice site. The figure also shows some other microliths with blunt or bilaterally narrowed ends. Unfortunately, their significance in the lithic assemblage remains unclear. For this reason, constructing analogies between the sites seems premature and more work needs to be done on this topic.

Faunal remains and osseous artifacts

In 2013, twelve osseous artifacts were discovered among the faunal remains excavated by J. Bárta (Vlačiky, 2013a). The majority of these objects are made from flat bones or reindeer antler and relate to manufacture by probably several individuals. Besides this waste we can identify tools which are perhaps related to hammers or artifacts, and morphologically similar grinding or crushing tools (following the classification of N. [START_REF] Goutas | Données inédites sur le Gravettien oriental: apport de la technologie osseuse à la caractérisation des occupations de Kostienki 4 (Alexandrovska, région de Voronej, Russie)[END_REF]. The analysis of this organic industry will be necessary for the detailed understanding of reindeer hunting strategies and raw material procurement which seem to be highly important in the formation of Late/Final Gravettian industries from Central European sites of the same settlement characteristics as Trenčianske Bohuslavice. More than 1,600 animal bones and teeth were collected during the old and new excavations at the site. Based on the MNI counts, reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) were determined as predominant, followed by horse (Equus ferus), woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) and polar fox (Vulpes lagopus). Some of the skeletal parts were found in their anatomic positions (especially limb bones of small mammals) and several bones bore traces of burning [START_REF] Vlačiky | Carnivores from Trenčianske Bohuslavice-Pod Tureckom and Moravany-Lopata II, two Gravettian open-air sites in Slovakia[END_REF]Vlačiky et al., 2013a).

Trenčianske Stankovce-Trenčianska Turná-Mníchova Lehota microregion

Several studies over the last ten years have been dedicated to the Gravettian occupations within the microregion of Trenčianske Stankovce-Trenčianska Turná-Mníchova Lehota [START_REF] Kaminská | Štruktúra osídlenia mikroregiónu Trenčín v strednom a mladom paleolite[END_REF][START_REF] Michalík | Mladopaleolitická lokalita Mníchova Lehota I[END_REF]2011). According to a recent review of the lithic collections found at Trenčianske Stankovce I to V and Mníchova Lehota I, the assemblages contain artifacts resembling Petřkovice bi-truncated elements (Fig. 13; [START_REF] Polanská | Mladopaleolitické kamenné hroty a mikrolity z povrchových zberov z Trenčianskej kotliny[END_REF]. Despite the fact that the assemblages come from surface collections, in the future it may be possible to determine the typological connection between these assemblages and other Upper Paleolithic industries of Moravia and Slovakia. Moreover, these artifacts are sometimes associated with blunt backed points, which have never been reported in Gravettian assemblages from Slovakia and whose closest analogies are known from Pavlov I. 6. Summary and discussion 6.1 Critical revision. Why? Understanding and establishing the chronological framework of the Central European Gravettian cannot rely solely on the characterization of lithic and osseous (bone, antler and ivory) industries, but also requires a critical attitude to find contexts (such as the methodology of excavation and stratigraphic revisions). Many artifacts formerly described as fossiles directeurs originated from surface collections or palimpsests. If we lack such important contextual dimensions, then placing the specific pieces directly into their chaîne opératoire becomes more complicated or almost impossible. Furthermore, similar pieces might represent characteristic pieces for different cultures/subcultures. So, in the current state of knowledge, when the lithic industries older than 22,000 uncal BP are less known, the critical revision of collections, contexts and homogeneity of all assemblages seems to be important for future discussions.

The review of the faunal remains enlarges the known diversity of the subsistence strategies. Activities were focused on hunting and reindeer exploitation in some cases (Moravany-Lopata II, [START_REF] Vlačiky | Intencionálna fragmentariácia kostí v paleolitických kultúrach[END_REF] and on mammoth exploitation in others [START_REF] Kufel-Diakowska | Mammoth hunting -Impact traces on backed implements from a mammoth bone accumulation at Kraków Spadzista (southern Poland)[END_REF][START_REF] Wilczyński | Mammoth hunting strategies during the Late Gravettian in Central Europe as determined from case studies of Milovice I (Czech Republic) and Kraków Spadzista (Poland)[END_REF]. These observations further confirm the heterogeneity in human hunting strategies targeting on the middle to extra-large sized herbivores during the post-Pavlovian period in Central Europe. Future research could aim to develop these data and transform them into a comprehensive concept, which could lead to a better understanding of this period.

Different approaches, new questions

The chaîne opératoire approach to Central European series is not entirely unknown (e.g. Oliva, 2009a;Oliva and Neruda, 1996;[START_REF] Moreau | Le Gravettien ancien d'Europe centrale revisité: mis au point et perspectives[END_REF][START_REF] Wilczyński | The Gravettian and Epigravettian lithic assemblages from Kraków-Spadzista B+ B: dynamic approach to the technology[END_REF]. However, there are differences in the depth of focus and attitudes employed in analysis of material, which both will significantly influence possible interpretations. The technological method includes direct observations of material as well as typological analysis [START_REF] Tixier | Technologie et typologie: dérives et scléroses[END_REF], and provides a new framework for artifacts supposed to be characteristic of particular industries. Based on the results from the Western Slovakian collections we can formulate several new questions. First, the Kostenki knives and shouldered points previously described in classical Late/Final Gravettian collections, such as Moravany Lopata II, are not present here. Second, new characteristic lithic tools have never previously been described in collections such as Trenčianske Bohuslavice-Pod Tureckom. However, future techno-typological analyses are needed to test for their presence in other collections (Nitra-Čermáň). Third, the shouldered points might occur in a few assemblages, such as Moravany-Podkovica, but their characterization is awaiting publication [START_REF] Klaric | Moravany-Podkovica debunked, reassessment of an almost unknown Willendorf-Kostienkian collection of Western Slovakia[END_REF]. Finally, although shouldered points might be found in Banka -HFR too, we lack a sufficient amount of supporting material there, so the overall technological system can hardly be defined [START_REF] Polanská | La question de l'attribution au Gravettien ou à l'Epigravettien (d'Europe centrale) de 4 collections lithiques de Slovaquie: Réexamen technologique des séries de: Banka -Horné farské role n° de sondage III, IV, V (Slovaquie occidentale) Hrčeľ-Pivničky: collection de ramassage 1984 (Slovaquie orientale)[END_REF]. It is obvious then that the presence of Kostenki knives in Central European collections has to be confirmed in the Late/Final Gravettian too [START_REF] Klaric | Couteaux de Kostienki et lames aménagées par technique de Kostienki »: retour sur un malentendu historique[END_REF]. The artifacts included in our preliminary analysis (such as Petřkovice I, Banka-HFR, Moravany-Lopata II, Nitra-Čermáň) do not correspond with the current definition and in most cases they are confused with splintered pieces or inversely truncated blades (commonly presented within any Upper Paleolithic industries). Such observations introduce the question of whether the lithic industries from Western Slovakia and Moravia, and the adjacent territories of Lesser Poland, Lower Austria and Northern Hungary, constitute a unified complex between 24,500 -22,000 uncal BP. Since the strongest elements grouping these industries remain disputable, future comprehensive revisions are necessary. Additionally, the definition of entire chaînes opératoires and the technical systems involved in production may offer a new basis for objective comparisons at both the micro-and macro-scales of research.

New fossiles directeurs

As already indicated, future studies will be confronted with an apparent heterogeneity of industries and with brand new elements. These newly defined elements could be used for a better understanding and characterization of common technological features observed at different localities. Beside the discussion concerning shouldered points and Kostenki knives appearing in this context as partial fossiles directeurs, we have to admit that the existing way of definition of Late/Final Gravettian industries in the central part of Central Europe has produced various misunderstandings. Another weak point lies in the fact that in the study of material deriving from sites excavated long ago, we are often confronted with contextual difficulties and inaccurate data, leading to misleading informations repeatedly cited in the literature (for more details see the chapter 4). Apart from some published works about Lopata II and Žakovská, the Moravany nad Váhom sites are mostly unknown (with a few exceptions in the form of summary drawings). For our purposes, we attempted to group collections according to the artifacts which appeared to be potentially characteristic pieces, supported by good stratigraphic or chronologic evidence (such as the Petřkovice bitruncated elements from Petřkovice I and Trenčianske Bohuslavice-Pod Tureckom). Thus, in the first part of our study we focused on the identification of similar types of artifacts within the Central European region (originating from excavations or surface collections) and added them to our preliminary components. In the next step the details of the technological systems in these collections need to be characterized and typological comparisons need to be carried out. Finally, we will be able to answer questions about the commonalities of these lithic industries and the characteristic elements which can be used to join them together in one cultural/subcultural unit.

Eastern analogies

As we have already mentioned, the first analogies between Central and Eastern European collections date back to the 1930´s when the term Eastern Gravettian was proposed [START_REF] Garrod | The Upper Palaeolithic in the Light of Recent Discovery[END_REF]. The individual particularities of these regions, in comparison to Western Europe, can be subsumed by this term. The process of definition was begun by the identification of similar elements at Eastern European localities and in Central Europe. The following research works from the 1950´s and 1960´s lie at the foundation of the suggested relationships between sites from Moravia, Austria, Western Slovakia and the Russian Plain [START_REF] Grigoriev | Otnoshenie vostochnogo gravetta k Zapadu? In: Vostochnyi gravett[END_REF][START_REF] Kozłowski | Problem tzw. Kultury Kostienkowsko-Willendorfskiej. I. Analiza inwentarzy kamiennych[END_REF]. Moreover, these analogies began to be hierarchized into different levels, and various terms were proposed with different regional significances, such as the Pavlovian on the micro-scale (e.g. [START_REF] Delporte | Notes de voyage leptolithique en Europe centrale I. La Tchécoslovaquie[END_REF][START_REF] Klíma | Zur Problematik des Aurignaciens und Gravettiens in Mittel-Europa[END_REF] or the Willendorf-Kostenkian (from the perspective of Central European researchers; e.g. [START_REF] Klíma | Zur Problematik des Aurignaciens und Gravettiens in Mittel-Europa[END_REF][START_REF] Kozłowski | Problem tzw. Kultury Kostienkowsko-Willendorfskiej. I. Analiza inwentarzy kamiennych[END_REF]Svoboda, 1996a) or the Willendorf-Kostenki Unity (as seen from Eastern Europe). The search for analogies seemed on one to be hand productive and joined together various regions and approaches following several common research ideas. On the other hand, from a more recent view it may have caused various misunderstandings, which led to fossiles directeurs having an overestimated importance in some regions, such as in the case of Kostenki knives in Central Europe or shouldered points. As already mentioned above, some of the artifacts from Western Slovakia and Moravia previously described morphologically as shouldered points are in fact various unfinished backed points. Additionally, it seems that there are some lithic collections present in Central Europe where shouldered points most probably occur, but which still await future verification and characterisation. Thus, we question the validity of the terms Willendorf-Kostienkian or shouldered points horizon if the first includes analogies between various elements of lithic industries and the second covers just one specific element from Central European collections. Furthermore, apart from lithics and artifacts from bone, antler and ivory the Eastern European collections are also typified by various other aspects which are systematically repeated at several localities, e.g. features of economic subsistence, which is tightly linked to mammoth exploitation and rich collections of osseous artifacts. This contrasts with the situation at Central European sites where more detailed research within the region still has to be carried out. Moreover, further research into faunal collections is needed too, similar to that at Lopata II where the importance of reindeer exploitation was identified [START_REF] Vlačiky | Intencionálna fragmentariácia kostí v paleolitických kultúrach[END_REF]. Industries from bone, antler and ivory occur only sporadically in Central Europe when compared to Eastern Europe.

In conclusion, the one-sided considerations of Late/Final Gravettian industries as "Willendorf-Kostenkian or shouldered points horizon" causes a lack of comparisons between the middle and western part of Central Europe. Thus, we propose a systematic concept of further research, which allows us to study the lithic collections within their specific micro-regional conditions. This will lead to the final re-examination of previously proposed analogies within the macro-regional scale extending to to the Russian Plain. Therefore, based on recent research we prefer to describe the lithic industries dated to 24,500 -22,000 uncal BP by the more generic name of Late Gravettian or Central European Late Gravettian rather than the Willendorf-Kostienkien or shouldered points horizon (which are represented at a small number of Central European localities and are not typical of all lithic assemblages). express our gratitude to our colleagues from the Institute of Archaeology, SAS, Slovakia and Institute of Archaeology, Brno, CAS, Czech Republic for help with collections and other management questions. For constructive comments and attention to this paper we would like to thank Natasha Reynolds (UMR 5199 -PACEA) and Laurent Klaric (CNRS, UMR 7055 -PreTech). Polanská;7-8,10-11 after Novák, 2008;9,17 after Oliva and Neruda, 1999. Fig.7. One of the most important previously published shouldered points from Central Europe (Petřkovice I); documented in trench B from excavations by B. Klíma in 1953 (photos and drawings by M. Polanská). Fig. 8. Selected sites from the Moravian corridor and surrounding areas where the artifacts analogous to Petřkovice bi-truncated elements were identified (drawings; CAD by M. Polanská). Fig. 9. Selected lithic artifacts from Moravany-Lopata II (1-12, 14-19 after [START_REF] Kazior | Lithic inventories[END_REF]13 drawing by M. Polanská). Fig. 10. Selected lithic artifacts from Moravany-Žakovská. 1-5, 7-11 drawings by M. Polanská;6, 12-13 (after Hromada and Kozlowski, 1995)

Captions of figures

Fig. 1 .

 1 Main Gravettian sites in the Moravian corridor and surrounding areas (Central Europe; CAD M. Polanská). Fig.2. The chronology of the Gravettian of Central Europe. The post-Pavlovian asssemblages are divided into "industrial components" of preliminary groups (CAD M. Polanská). Fig.3. Theoretical scheme of backed points production, where the preform/roughout/unfinished artifact might be confused with finished shouldered points (CAD by M. Polanská). Fig.4. Artifacts published as shouldered points: 1, Moravany-Podkovica (surface collection 1979) -credible shouldered point with traces of usage impact followed by retouching; 2, Čachtice (surface collection) -probably shouldered point; 3, Banka-Chrasť -blade with recently broken proximal part and completed apex (illegal excavation). It is not possible to decide whether this is a shouldered point; 4, Nitra-Čermáň -broken roughout of a backed point (photos and drawings by M. Polanská). Fig.5. 1-3, Předmostí Ia -artifacts published as shouldered points (after[START_REF] Valoch | Les questions du Pavlovien[END_REF]); 4-5,8,10 -Dolní Věstonice III -unfinished points; 6 Banka V -backed point with low-angle inverse retouch, 7 Banka IV -a possible shouldered point?; 9-11 Banka-Chrasť -backed point with low-angle inverse retouch (4-11 drawings by M. Polanská). Fig.6. Selected lithic artifacts from the old and new excavations at Petřkovice I. 1-6, 12-16 drawings by M.

Fig. 11 .

 11 Selected lithic artifacts from trench n°IV, Banka-HFR (photos and drawings by M. Polanská). Fig. 12. 7, 1-2 Petřkovice bi-truncated elements sub-type Trenčianske Bohuslavice (excavated by J. Bárta); 3, 6-9 Petřkovice bi-truncated elements sub-type Trenčianske Bohuslavice (excavation 2008); 5 indeterminate point (layer 3, excavated in 2008), 4 indeterminate point (layer 2, excavated 2008) (photos and drawings by M. Polanská). Fig. 13. Main sites of the Trenčianske Stankovce-Trenčianska Turná-Mníchova Lehota microregion. 2, 5-7 Artifacts analogous to Petřkovice bi-truncated elements sub-type Petřkovice, 1-3, 8-12 backed points with blunt apical part (CAD, drawings by M. Polanská

Table 1 .

 1 Inventory of Slovak and Moravian sites with shouldered points or similar artifacts according to publications (FG -Final Gravettian, LG -Late Gravettian, MG -Middle Gravettian).

	).

Acknowledgements

The work of M. Polanská was supported by the Czech Academy of Sciences (PPLZ programme) and partially realised during PhD research (Panthéon-Sorbonne University; UMR 7041-ARSCAN). The research of B. Hromadová has been conducted thanks to the financial support of VEGA, grant 02/181/14. We would like to