Conjoining antler fragments form refitting units. The refitting units are recorded,
according to identification numbers. A refitting unit consists of two or more conjoining
elements. Each refitting unit is recorded with several attributes.
When discovered, both finds were lying on their lateral sides,
being laterally encrusted by sediment; the sediment crust contains coarse-grained sand.
Medially, both finds
parts of the sagittal suture, which is the point at which disintegration is likely to occur. At the posterior, both
finds have parts of
bones preserved. The surfaces of both finds are preserved differentially, particularly noticeable in the
when excavated, the upward pointing sides were more abraded than the downward pointing sides.
sediment crust is
missing, the sides lying downward exhibit almost no abrasion. Fragmentation of the refitting
unit was prior
The stratigraphic provenance of find b
can only be
approximated, since the find
is not documented in the square plan. Probably it was found in the fault of square 161. Find a
according to the excavation report from 1986, encountered in an area, which is not further
explained in the literature. This fact is even more problematic, since in square 355, the
presence of a
station was postulated (D. Mania 1986a). The excavation
report from 1986 notes a
shallow broad channel, being cut some 25cm deep
into the underlying loesslike sediment. The channel was filled with sand; it runs NW-SE towards
the direct neighbourhood of square 355. The channel was described also in other squares,
261, 262, 273, 276, 320, 321, 337, 338 and 354 (D. Mania 1983a, Abb. 7 + 8, for
extension of the channel to the NW).
Circumstances in square 355 are described, or interpreted, as follows. The top of the
channel's infill forms
the surface on
which finds were accumulated, it corresponds with the surface of the loesslike deposit outside
horizon). In fact, find a was not encountered lying on the channel's infill surface, but in a
sand. In the depression, two antlers were encountered lying crossways one over the other.
disintegration between finds a + b occurs along the sagittal suture. The anterior of both finds
exhibit remaining parts of the parietal bone. The larger find, a, is crushed and deformed in the
area, as a result of
pressure from overlying finds.
The finds were probably encountered on the two sides of a
fault. Find a is not documented.
The finds conjoin along the preserved
parts of the
suture. Laterally both finds are broken along the sutura squamosa, separating the frontal and
breaks follow the line of the coronal suture. Both finds are badly decayed, the burrs
are very abraded.
Finds a + b were found in squares that are rich in antler material.
The frontal bone of find a is anteriorly
well preserved. Medially, the finds conjoin along the rest of the preserved sagittal suture. Lateral
disintegration in both finds occurs along the sutura squamosa, that separates frontal and parietal bones. Posterior disintegration
follows the coronal suture; find a has parts of the parietal attached. Both finds were encountered with their
skull parts lying to the west, and the tines pointing in a south-east direction. Weak differential abrasion is visible on both
All finds come from the diluvial
fan; more detailed
stratigraphic information is missing. The two big lower main beams were encountered close
to the hominid
bone A1 (Mania et al.1980), they were found in a channel
below the diluvial fan. The
finds were: "zusammen im
strudellochartig erweiterten Teil einer von West nach Ost verlaufenden Bachrinne unter dem
(Taf. 31)" (Mania et al. 1980, 93). Both main beam finds
were mapped in D. Mania (1986a, Abb. 2 as Nr.8 + 9). The two base tines are not
documented, since it is not certain whether they come from a channel below the diluvial fan or
the diluvial fan.
Disintegration of the two
the sagittal suture. Posteriorly it follows the coronal suture; the lateral breakage occurs
along the squamous
that separate frontals and parietals. Find a was encountered lying on the medial side, find b
was found with
side pointing to the ground.
Stratigraphical information is
lacking for find a.
b is known to have come from close to the shore line; the diluvial fan travertine sands have a
thickness of 20-
Medially the sagittal suture is preserved
of the find. Posteriorly on both finds, parts of the parietals are preserved, anteriorly the
well preserved. Find b exhibits differential abrasion and was encountered in the course of the
with the lateral
side pointing upwards; that side is more abraded than the medial side. Find a does not
abrasion and has modern disturbances, being repaired with gypsum. Find a was excavated in square 93;
available. Find a is mapped and illustrated by D. Mania (1986a, Abb. 2 as Nr. 37;
Taf. 101, 1). So, an approximation of
the distance between the conjoining finds was possible.
Antler base 152/a probably comes from
the fault in
152, but this is an assumption only, since the find is neither mapped nor mentioned in the
report. The lower
main beam fragment exhibits a slightly more pronounced edge rounding along the breakage than the
breakage of the
antler base. The missing brow tine cannot be refitted mechanically, but probably the brow tine
121/199 is the
corresponding find. It is distally disturbed, probably by cervid activity.
a: Planum b b: Planum b
The excavation reports notes a thickness of 10-20cm of travertine sands. The finds are
covered by travertine sands. According to D. Mania (pers. communication) finds in this
are generally encountered
lying directly on the surface of the loesslike sediment, forming the old surface, on which
Weathering cracks were formed prior to
breakage of the
refitting unit. The second tine fragment of the antler base shows modern disturbance.
b: Planum b
Find a is neither stratigraphically nor two-dimensionally registered in the documentation; it
mapped by D. Mania (1986a, Abb. 2 as Nr. 45). The
stratigraphic relationship between finds from the shore terrace
and those from
the diluvial fan cannot be accessed on the basis of this refit.
The oblique breakage occurred after
formed. Parts of the burr are missing on the medial side; that disturbance is modern. The
visible parts of
area exhibit manganese staining, indicating the strong diagenetic modification of the find.