evolution of the palaeolithic in central and eastern europe
Post on 10-Feb-2018
219 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 1/41
Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research
Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern EuropeAuthor(s): Karel ValochSource: Current Anthropology, Vol. 9, No. 5 (Dec., 1968), pp. 351-390Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation forAnthropological ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2740391
Accessed: 24/02/2010 06:04
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 2/41
volution o t h e alaeolithic
n entral n d Eastern E u r o p e
byKarelValock
HYPOTHESES ON PROCESSES of cultural evolution in theOld Stone Age always reflect the known facts concerningthe temporal divisions of the Palaeolithic and the contentof its cultural stages. A survey of present knowledge onthe Palaeolithic occupation of Central and EasternEurope will probably be of interest to a broad range ofspecialists.
The most important base for knowledge of the temporalsequence of all the occupation phases is the geologicalstratigraphyof the Pleistocene (See Table 1). Since thereis considerable difference of opinion on various problemsin this special area, I consider it necessary to emphasizethat I have used here largely Zeuner's (1958) system ofdivision, supplemented by Movius' (1960) detailed divi-sion of the last Ice Age and the palynologically demon-strated anaglacial temperature fluctuations of Amersfoort
and Brorup of Andersen (1961), and Zagwijn (1961).The geographical area included here extends from Ger-many, Austria, and Yugoslavia in the west to the Uralsand Caucasus in the east.
THE EARLY PALAEOLITHIC
Chronologically, the Early Palaeolithic comprises theimmensely long period of time from the appearance of thefirst human tools up to the development of the poly-
KAREL VALOCH was born in Brno in 1920. He received a Ph.D.from the Philosophical Faculty of the Universitv of Brno and aC.Sc. from the Academy of Science in Prague. Since 1953, he hasbeen head of the Palaeolithic Department of the AnthroposInstitute of the Moravian Museum. He is also a lecturer on thePalaeolithic at the University of Brno. His major research interestili recent years has been a longterm investigation of the Kilna4ave n the Moravian Karst.The present, article, submitted to CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
j II 66, was sent for CA* treatment to 59 scholars, of whom theu-.llowingesponded with comments for publication: Emmanuel
Anati, Francois Bordes, Desmond Collins, Henri Delporte, GiselaFreund, Mikl6s Gabori, Alexander Gallus, Asok Kumar Ghosh,FrankHole, David M. Hopkins, I. K. Ivanova, Richard G. Klein,; Klima, Janusz K. Kozlowski, Jiri Kukla, G. C. Mohapatra,
-_arl J. Narr, Jiril Neustupny, John Pfeiffer, Philip E. L. Smith,uiinterSmolla, D. de Sonneville-Bordes, and Slavomil Vencl.
I'he comments are printed in full after the author's text and are
.llowed by a reply from the author.
morphous industries of the Middle Palaeolithic Mous-terian complex. In terms of stratigraphy,this is the timefrom the beginning of Pleistocene until the beginning ofthe next-to-last glacial (Riss or Saale). In Central andEastern Europe, finds of artifacts from this period arevery rare, and the oldest of them tend to be highlyproblematic.
Presumablythe oldest traces of human activity in thisarea consist of broken bones of animals from the Villa-franchian stage from Bugiule?ti, Rumania; these havebeen comparedby the excavatorsto the osteodontoceraticcultureof the Australopithecines(Nicolaescu-Plopsor andNicolaescu-Plopsor 1963). Shattered bones of animalssuggestinghuman activity were found in an Old Pleisto--cene fauna complex similar to the Cromerian on thepeninsula of Taman, Kurgan Cimbal at the Kerc Straits;
(Verescagin 1957). From terrace gravels of the Giinz/Mindel Interglacial from Mauer, near Heidelberg, Ger-many, (knownas the site of the discoveryof the Heidelberglower jaw), come some pieces of quartzite sandstonewhich show percussiontraces and have been proclaimedby Rust (1956) to be artifacts of the so-called Heidel--bergian stage. Of the seven type groups distinguished byRust, the "nose side-scrapers," suggesting the rostro-carinateforms of the Old Pleistocene of England, are the-most remarkable. Rust presumes the Heidelbergian to.have spreadall over the north of Germany; H. Mohr andM. Mottl found pebbles deformed in a similarmanner inthe Old Pleistocene Danube terraces near Vienna, and
K. 2ebera found them in CentralBohemia.It is virtually impossible to determine whether these
bone fragmentsand pebbleswerereally fashionedby manor whether they are only productsof nature, since we lackany unequivocal criteriaby which to evaluate them. Suchforms could undoubtedly have originated naturally, as^has been proved satisfactorily in the case of the old con--troversy over eoliths. On the other hand, it seems very-probably that the earliest human tools and productsweresimpleformsof this kind.
The first unobjectionable human artifacts in CentralEurope, and at the same time the oldest habitation insitu,occur in the Mindel (Elster) age travertines of Vertes-
szollos,North Hungary (Kretzoi and Vertes 1965a). The-
Vol. 9 No. 5 December 1968 35I
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 3/41
TABLE 1
SURVEY OF PLEISTOCENE STRATIGRAPHY
PERIOD APPROXIMATE AGE B.P.
Holocene
Late Wiirm Age Oscillations Upper DryasAllerod 10,000Lower DryasBollingLowest Dryas
Upper Wiirm Stadial (formerlyW 3)Wiurm-Weichsel Upper Wiirm OscillationGlacial Stillfried B (formerlyW 2/3 = Paudorf) 27,P00
Middle Wiirm Stadial (formerlyW 2)Middle Wiirm Interstadial
Podhrademl (formerlyW 1/2 ==G6ttweig) 32-40,000Lower WiurmStadial (formerlyW 1)Early Wuirm nterstadial
Brorup 59,000
Early WiurmStadial IIEarly Wiurm nterstadialAmersfoort 64,000
Early WiurmStadial I
Riss/Wiurm= Eem Interglacial > 70,000
Riss 2 = WartheRlss=Saale Riss 1/2 = Treene
Glacial Riss 1= Drenthe 200,000
Mindel/Riss ==Holstein Interglacial
Mindel = Elster Mindel 2
Glacial Mindel 1/2 (Intermindel)Mindel 1 500,000
Giunz/Mindel= CromerInterglacial
Giinz Glacial 900,000
Villafranchian (=Donau) 2-3,000,000
1Nameproposed y Musiland Valoch(1966).
strikinglysmall-sizedflint industrycontains rathertypicalchoppers, chopping-tools,and side scrapers(Vertes 1965)and is accompaniedby an Upper Biharianfauna. Chrono-logically it belongs to the Intermindelian warm period,according to Kretzoi. Both of the culture layerscontain a
large number of artifacts and waste material as well asshattered bones of animals.;somewhat burnt bones con-centrated in some places provide evidence for the use offire. Vertes (1965) suggeststhat the artifacts be called theBuda industry, afterthe small number of artifacts,associ-ated with a similarfauna found in Budapestin the 1930's.Of about the same age is a pebble shapedlike a chopping-tool which I found myself on a Mindel terrace of the
Danube at Pestlorinc,near Budapest, in 1964.A little later, genuine pebble-tools appear in Central
Bohemia. K. Zebera was lucky enough to find numerouschoppers, chopping-tools, and Clacton-like flakes on the
surface of a Mindel terrace of the Moldau within thebrickworksof Sedlec, near Prague. This important strati-fied industrycorrespondsto the rich surface findsmade atMlazice near Melnik (Zebera 1952), and Zebera (1965)
wants to term it Bohemian. The spread of a pebble-toolindustry over vast areas of Central Europe is also shown
by the many recent surfacediscoveries in the Oberhessenand Bavarianregionsof Germany (Krtiger 1959, Freund1963).
Artifacts of a civilization different from that of thepebble-tools appear in Central Europe for the first timein the great Interglacial (Mindel/Riss or Holstein). Theyare hand-axes of the Western European Abbevillian/
Acheulean groups. A morphologically rather primitiveobject was picked up from gravels corresponding to thelayer of human remains at Steinheim on the Murr, nearthe discovery site of the Steinheim skull, a few years ago
352 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 4/41
:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fig. lb. Fig. 1c.
FIG. 1. Pestlornnc.Chopping-tool (see p. 352).Original in Moravian Museum.
t Fig. 2a.
Fig. 2b. Fig. 2c.
FIG. 2. Munzenberg (Oberhessen). Chopping-tool (seep. 352).Original in Moravian Museum (gift of H. Kruger).
Fig. 3a. Fig. 3b. Fig. 3c.
FIG.3, Steinheim.Hand-axe (seep. 352 and Ittermann1962).
(Itermann 1962). Toward the end of the Holstein Inter-glacial or the beginning of the Riss (Drenthe) Glacial,industries appear in Germany that contain, in additionto the fine hand-axes, numerous Levallois forms (such asflakes, blades, points, cores), some variously retouchedpoints, side-scrapers, and occasionally other types. Themost important sites are situated in Leine gravels aroundHannover (Ddhren, Rethen, Arnum, and Henningen[Jacob-Friesen 1949]) and in Pleisse gravels near Leipzig(Markkleeberg, Cr6bern, and Zehmen [Grahmann1955]). Some smaller finds, similar typologically, comefrom river gravels at Hundisburg, Wangen, and Wallen-dorf (Toepfer 1961 a, b). Bosinski (1963) was the first toremind us of the fact that the open habitation of Leben-stedt (Tode et al. 1953) and the lowest layer of the Balvecave (Gunther 1964) correspond typologically to theindustries of Hannover and Markkleeberg, rrespectiveoftheir being dated back to the early Wiirm and to the lateEem respectively. Together they form a homogeneousgroup which correspondsto the French Acheulean, andwhich Bosinski would like to designate as Lebenstedt.Rust puts the artifacts of the Altona stage of Witten-bergen, near Hamburg, which he considersto be a con-tinuation of the Heidelbergian, into the Holstein Inter-
glacial. In addition to many pieces resembling the
moraine eoliths (cf. Adrian 1948), this complex seemsalso to contain unequivocal Clactonoid flakes (Rust1962).
In Southeastern Europe, too, pebble-tools representthe most primitive stone tools known so far. Nicolaescu-
PlopForand Moro?an (1959) have reported an industrycontaining choppers,chopping-tools,and blade-likeflakes
from a secondary deposit found in the valley of Dirjov, a
tributary of the Olt in Rumania; Ba.rta(1965) mentions
some similar finds in Farka?ele, which is also near the
Olt. A crudely shaped piece of andesite from very oldgravels at Capusulmic in western Rumania (Breuil 1925)and the fragment of an artifact of unknown age fromMonastir, Serbia (Patte 1918) can be considered as hand-
*axe-like.
Vol. 9 No. 5 December 968 353
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 5/41
FIG. 4. Early Palaeolithic.
=Hand-axes |||||||| Flake industries ///,gPebble-tools
The Early Palaeolithic of Eastern Europe is still in-
suficiently studied; only a few unstratified finds can be
included in its framework, and these only with reserva-
tions. In a recent survey of finds from the region of the
Dniestr, Cerny's (I1965) considers as lower Palaeolithic the
sites of Luka Vrubleveckaja I and III, as well as finds
from the surroundings of the site Babin I in the western
Ukraine and the new sites of Vychvatincy I-III, Gura
Kamenka IV, Rogoz'ana, and Poiana in Moldavia. The
artifacts are largely only flakes retouched of necessity,some a smooth Clactonoid type (especially at Luka
Vrubleveckaja I), some with a simply prepared striking-
platform, and they are accompanied by a few irregular
cores. Gura Kamenka IV has also produced the fragmentof a biface-fashioned artifact, but true hand-axes have
not yet been found anywhere. The industries of Vych-
vatincy I-III correspond to the gravels of the third
Dniestr terrace (average height of 50 m.) , which is con-
sidered to be of the Riss stage (Cerny's 1965). Finds of
Clactonoid flakes and isolated pebble-tools have also been
reported from the territory of the rivers Oka and Moskva
(Krasnyj stan on the Moskva, Kamir on the Oka Rivers,
respectively) , probably corresponding to the river depositsup to a point (Potockij 1961).
A richer source of Early Palaeolithic finds is the eastern
coast of the Black Sea, from the river Kuban to the pro-
montory of the Caucasus. The unstratified complexesfound in this region-at Fortepianka (Formozov 1952)and at Abadzechskaja, in the area of Majkop (Autlev
1963)-consist of Clactonoid flakes some of them re-
touched in the manner of side scrapers, some notched,and hand-axes or hand-axe-like artifacts, cores, and
isolated chopping-tools.
Although the Early Palaeolithic is not very well
represented in Central and Eastern Europe, the known
-findsqdon permit so'me interpre-tations. Tn the- first place,
the bifaceroup of the AbbevilianAhuen,dmnn
FiG. 4.ser EarlypPlacoisthic. tdnyslgtyee
Thouhte Rlyialedolihi notforEasen Europue isostill in-
the spread of hand-axes, as was once suggested, bifaceindustrieseast of the Rhine are still very, very rare, andone gets the impressionof radiation from the area of theAcheulean, gradually decreasing as one proceeds east-ward. There are quite a lot of characteristichand-axes atHessen and Hannover, very few at Markkleebergand therest of the middle German sites; the accompanying flakesand cores of Clactonian or Levalloisian form define per-fectly their typological picture. It is quite reasonable to
annex these industries, which undoubtedly were underthe influence of the Western hand-axe group, to theAcheulean. The exact dating of this Lebenstedtgroup (inBosinski's sense) can be considered one of the mainquestionsof the Early Palaeolithic in Central Europe, forthough R. Grahmann and F. Hamm have suggested anante-Saale-period age (before Drenthe) for the finds of
Markkleebergand Hannoverrespectively,various doubtsand objectionshave been raisedagainstsuch a date.
EarlyPalaeolithic remainsfromGermanyto Rumaniabelong to the pebble-tool group (Zebera's Bohemian)that existed here independent of the biface-group; onecan substantiateit as early as the Mindel (Elster) Glacial(not only in Hungary, but also at Achenheim on the
western bank of the Rhine in Alsace [Wernert 1957]).One could see its origin in the pebble-industry of the
Heidelbergian if it were possibleto prove that the latter isin fact of human origin. As far as the possible connectionwith the first Clactonian stage is concerned, let us referhere to Vertes (1965). Vertesszollos occupies a specialplace in this pebble-toolgroupon accountof the unusuallysmall implements. The question must remain openwhether this is only a local circumstance due to theavailability of only small pieces of flint, or whetherthis industry represents an independent facies of small
forms.So far not a single hand-axe or other unobjectionablystratified Early Palaeolithic industry has come fromEasternEurope as far as the Urals. The flakeindustriesofthe Dniestr in West Ukraine and of the Moskva and Oka,which clearly belong to the Early Palaeolithic, can bedesignated as Clactonoid. The markedly richer sourceregion on the eastern Black Sea coast in the northernfoothillsof the Caucasus,which has produced Clactonoidindustries accompanied by a few hand-axes, was un-
doubtedly influenced directly by the richly developedTranscaucasianEarly Palaeolithic of Abchazia, Georgia,and Armenia.
THE MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC
The immensely rich Middle Palaeolithic of France hasbeen shown, with the aid of Bordes's (1950) statisticalmethod, to be a richly divided complex of industriesdiffering both typologically and technologically. TheMiddle Palaeolithic of Central and Eastern Europe,which is much poorer, will perhaps not be able to bedivided into so many facies, yet here also some internaldifferences can be discerned (Valoch 1965a). One canpresume that as early as the Riss (Saale) Glacial, typo-
logical and technological diffierentiation took place amongthe Early Palaeolithic complexes, creating the basis for
the development of the various industries known today.
However, we still lack any unobjectionable finds, stratified
354 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 6/41
Valoch:PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEand thereforedateable, that would document this typo-logical evolution. Scattered finds such as those from thebrickworksof Bockingen and Murg, from the cave ofHunas in South Germany, and from the area of Raciborzin South Poland indicate that the area was inhabitedduring this cold time and its warm Interstadials. In thesubsequent Riss/Wuirm (Eem) Interglacial there appearsome relatively well-defined complexes of industries,pre-supposing evolution from the Early Palaeolithic. The
evolution of the Middle Palaeolithic coversa period of ca.150,000 years from the beginning of the Riss Glacial to
the Middle Wuirm-InterstadialPodhradem.A more significant group, appearing fairly frequently
in the westernpart of Central Europe, is one that corres-ponds to the biface group of Western Europe. It containsindustries distinguished by largely sharp-pointed hand-axes with a thick base, hand-axe-leaves, and small hand-axes, and designated as Micoquian or, in the later phaseof their evolution, as Charentien of Micoque tradition.For the period of the last Interglacial, we have as yetinsufficient proof of the existence of this Micoque group,yet such industries appear in several localities of Southand West Germany in the late Eem, and reach theirclimax in the early Wurm. In these industries, side-
scrapers of various forms predominate, among whichthose with surface retouch (either uni- or bifacial) aretypical. Typical Mousterian points are very rare, repre-sentedby a singleexamplein most cases, and the Levalloistypes (points, blades, cores) and the Levallois technique(prepared striking-platform) are almost completely ab-sent. The shapeof hand-axes is very variable; only excep-tionally are bifaces of various kinds more frequent thanothershapes (e.g. at Bocksteinschmiedein Wuirttemberg,[Bosinski 1967]). The number of hand-axes is usually
smaller than that of the side-scrapers (e.g.,at Klausen-
nische in Bavaria, and at Balve, layer II, Illa, b, in
Westfalia) or they appear only singly (e.g., at Vogelherdand Heidenschmiede in Wiirttemberg). The finds of theBalve cave are of importance for the temporal limitationof thisMicoquian, insofarasthey overlie stratacontainingindustries of the Lebenstedt group of the Acheulean(Gunther 1964).
The above-mentioned sites of the Micoque group areessentially limited to the western margin of CentralEurope. It is only in very recent years that a similarindustrywas discoveredat K6nigsaue, nearAschersleben,Central Germany.According to a preliminarycommuni-
cation by Toepfer (I 965), the lower layer of K6nigsaue isdistinguished by a strong Micoquian tradition. Farthereast, in the region of Krakow, South Poland, the caves ofCiemna and Okiennik and the loess dwellings of Piekaryand those on the Wawel have produced numerousracloirs
dejetes retoucheiface, designatedas "Pradnikknives"byKrukowski (1948), as well as hand-axes. Chmielewski
(1965) has recently been digging the small cave Wylotne,situated in the same region, and has uncovered a sur-prisingly rich industry on three horizons, with manybifaces, a number of them of considerable size, side-,point- and transversal-scrapers,reated on both surfaces,and fairly frequent use of the Levalloisian technique.
Wylotne is the richest hand-axe site in the easternpart ofCentral Europe today. These Polish finds belong to the
Low and Early Wuirm, with the possible exception of the
Wawel site, which may belong to the Eem.
In Moravia, Czechoslovakia, excavations in the cave of
KOulna ave, for the first time uncovered a Charentien of
Micoquian tradition, represented by one fairly large
hand-axe and numerous smaller axes. On the basis of
their stratigraphical position, these finds pertain to a
fairly recent phase near the end of the Lower Wurm
(Valoch 1967).
Another group, which is to be considered preliminarilyas independent, is formed by very rich quartzite industries
of Hessen, West Germany (Lenderscheid, Reutersruh,
R6rsheim), in which there occur, in addition to the typical
hand-axes of the Acheulean, axes of Micoquian tradition,
leaf-point forms, tortoise cores, Mousterian and Leval-
loisian points, Levalloisian flakes, and side-scrapers of
various forms.
There is another facies, this one closely connected with
the biface groups, which I shall call (following G. Freund
and H. J. Muller-Beck) the Middle Palaeolithic with leaf-
points. In Central Europe, it is essentially limited to
southern Germany (see Muller-Beck 1957). It can be
placed in the early Wiirm due to its clear stratigraphical
position in the lower layer of the Weinberg caves near
Mauern (Zotz 1955). It is also represented in the caves of
Middle and Upper Klause, Kleine Ofnet, Oberneder,
and Haldenstein and the open site of Kosten. This type
of industry has so far been unknown in the rest of Central
Europe, but our recent excavations in the Kfulna cave
produced two leaf-points from a layer beneath the
Charentian of Micoquian tradition, a layer which may
possibly belong to the early Wurm. This group is distin-
guished from the Micoquian by the absence of hand-axes,which are replaced by leaf-points; the accompanying
industry consisting of side-scrapers seems not to be too
different. Obermaier and Wernert (1929) found a gradual
morphological transition from hand-axes to leaf-points in
the finds from the Klaussenische cave.
An analogous development can also be observed in
Eastern Europe, where the centre seems to have been
situated in the Crimea. In contrast to Central Europe,
here hand-axes and leaf-points co-occur in the Micoquian
facies, but since the morphological difference between the
types is relatively small it is impossible to distinguish
hand-axe and leaf-point groups. The accompanying
industry differs insignificantly from that of Central
Europe, except for the greater proportion of blades and
the more frequent occurrence of Mousterian points. Tothe well-known finds from the upper layer of the cave
Kiik-Koba can be added finds from the caves of Cokurca,
Volcij grot, Kabazi, Bachcisaraj, Cholodnaja balka, and
the newly examined site at Staroselje (Formozov 1958),
all probably belonging to the lower Wurm. West of this
Crimean centre, similar finds occur in the cave of
Vychvatincy on the Dniestr, Moldavia, (containing ele-
ments of a temperate fauna, [Sergejev 1950]) and the
open sites of Gorodisce, near Zitomir, and of Antonowka,Ukrainia. Still farther to the east, this group is enriched
by finds from the site of Ilskaja on the Kuban and fromthe important site at Suchaja Mecetka in Volgograd
(Zamjatnin 1961).Still other typologically clearly defined groups of in-
dustries occur in Central Europe in the Eem Interglacial.One of the best-known is to be found in the travertine
Vol. 9 ;No. 5 December 1968 355
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 7/41
deposits of Weimar-Ehringsdorf, Middle Germany.
Behm-Blancke (1960) distinguishes here three stages of
evolution for the industries designated by him as theWeimar culture: Stage I, from Taubach, coming fromthe first third of the Eem; Stage II, in Weimar, from the
first half of the Eem, and Stage III, in Ehringsdorf, from
the second half of the Eem. The first two stages are classed
typologically with the Tayacian, and stage III is con-
sidered as the Interglacial root culture of the later leaf-
points. In both of the earlier stages, there are scraper-likeretouched flakes, implements fairly frequently dentate
and notched, end-scrapers, borers, retouched blades,
Tayac points, and prepared striking platforms in most of
the artifacts. Pieces of stag antler employed as choppers
are notable. In stage III, in which side-scrapers pre-
dominate, double-points (limaces or protolimaces), and,
later, points showing uni- or bifacial surface retouch are
characteristic. Other types (such as end-scrapers, borers,
burins) are infrequent. Some of the artifacts have faceted
striking platforms. According to Behm-Blancke, there are
ten artifact-bearing layers at Ehringsdorf, not only in the
lower travertine, but also in the clayey interlayer (Pariser)
and in the upper travertine. On the basis of comparison
of the Ehringsdorf section with that of Amersfoort and
also with the loess sections of Moravia, one can assume
that the upper travertine I corresponds to the Amersfoort
Interstadial and the upper travertine II above the Pseudo-
pariser to the Brorup Interstadial (Musil and Valoch
1966). It would be possible, therefore, to observe a verylong industrial development at this site.
A less clear group is formed by industries of the west ofCentral Europe, which contain neither hand-axes nor
leaf-points, and in whose techniques there are only weak
tendencies toward surface retouching. The absence of
thesetypes and techniques may be due only to the smallnumber of finds; while they do not appear here until the
Lower Wtirm, they must surely have existed as early as
the Interglacial. In this group Mousterian side-scrapers
of various shapes predominate, characteristic Mousterian
points and also double points are represented, and the
Levalloisian technique is used. There are also some
elements of the Upper Palaeolithic (such as end-scrapers,
burins, blades) to be found in some of the more recent of
these industries (the upper Lower Palaeolithic with end-
scrapers, according to Muller-Beck [1957]). Here impor-tant sites are the caves of Sirgenstein (Layer VII),
Schulerloch, and Irpfelhohle in South Germany, and the
lower layer in the clay pit of Rheindalen in the Rhineland(Bosinski unpublished), which overlies Wiirm loesses.
Only a thorough statistical treatment of the material
could show to which group of the Mousterian complex
the isolated finds belong; yet it seems likely that a Central
European facies of the Charentian is frequently repre-
sented here.
The majority of the Middle Palaeolithic of eastern
Central Europe can be described as a regional represen-tative of the typical Mousterian. It is distinguished by thepresence of side-scrapers with surface retouch, partial ortotal, uni- or, less often, bifacial. This retouch, however,never leads to genuine leaf-points or even hand-axes. The
number of artifacts with surface retouch varies greatlyfrom isolated examples to as much as 2O0%. The pre-
dominate type is the side-scraper; dentate and notchedpieces occur fairly frequently; Mousterian and Leval-
loisian points are very rare or absent; faceted strikingplatforms are infrequent. Two facies can be distinguished,for the time being solely on the basis of morphologicalcriteria. The one is strikinglysmall-sized, and is made ofriver pebbles of various materials, among them quartz,
quartzite, hornstone, radiolarite, andesite, etc. This facies
appears as early as the Eem Interglacial in the travertine
beds of Slovakia-Ganovce, Ondrej, Bojnice, and Beha-
rovce; the site in the travertine of Tata, northern Hun-
gary, which is the best known, belongs to the period ofthe Brorup (Vertes 1964); the sites of Bojnice-Prepostska'
cave, Predmosti II, Jislova cave, and Slany in Czecho-
slovakia pertain to the very end of the Lower Wurm. I
would term this facies Tata type after the site at which it
was discovered (Kormos 1912). The other facies, con-
sisting of rather larger artifacts, is characterized by the
use of a single kind of raw material predominantly and by
a greater proportion of dentate artifacts (<20%). It is
found at the best-known sites in this area. The Gudenus
cave in lower Austria is notable in that, contrary to the
original report by Obermaier and Breuil, no marked
hand-axe tradition can be found here, but only side-
scrapers finished on both sides and mostly showing only
partial surface retouch. The Interglacial stage of this
facies might perhaps be represented by the well-known
Krapina in Yugoslavia, provided that the dating by
Gorjanovic-Kramberger (1906) is correct (cf. Guenther
1959). A late stage reaching into the Middle Wiurm
Interstadial Podhradem is also known from the Sipka
cave in Moravia, and again it contains a considerableproportion of Upper Palaeolithic types (nearly 150% end-
scrapers, burins, and borers). Since this latter site was thefirst to produce this facies (Maska 1886), I would like to
term the facies the Sipka type. To it can be assigned the
important Hungarian site of Subalyuk cave, upper layer,and those of the Carpathian region of Rumania-the
caves of Bordul Mare near Ohaba Ponor, Baie de Fier,
Curata near Nandru, etc., and the open site of Boine?ti.(A statistical study of these great complexes offinds might,
of course, lead to completely different and perhaps
contradictory conclusions.)
A number of sites in Central Europe can be identified
as Tayacian. We have already seen that Behm-Blancke
assigned Taubach and Weimar to the Tayacian group.
The important Alpine cave Repolust, in Austria, has an
industry dated on the basis of its fauna into the Eem, and
ascribed to the Tayacian (Mottl 1951). The tools, made
predominantly of quartzite, include in addition to theusual side-scrapers, dentate, and notched pieces, distinct
end-scrapers, and burins.
In Moravia, I have distinguished preliminarily two
Tayacian facies, viz., the Baume-Bonne type (according
to de Lumley and Bottet 1960) and that of Fontechevade
(according to Henri-Martin 1957). I have assigned the
pre-Wiirm industry from the deepest layer of the KOulna
cave to the Baume-Bonne facies. Made of brook pebbles,
the industry contains small tools of rather atypical form,most of them flakes with border retouch; true side-scrapersare not very frequent. Similar finds are reported by L.
Zotz from his recent excavations in the Sesselfels cave,
Altm+ihl Valley, Bavaria, where there are many atypicalsmall flake implements in addition to classic side-scrapers.
Some artifacts are finished with a bifacial surface retouch.
End-scrapers and burins occur singly. On the basis of the
356 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 8/41
more developed types, I consider the Sesselfels a bit
younger than the lower layer of the KPlna.1 The Font'-
chevade facies includes the surface finds of Vedrovice in
South Moravia, consisting of big chopping-tools, cores
with blade-like flakes, a few side-scrapers, and dentate
tools; the Levalloisian technique is absent almost entirely.
Another interesting group of finds was discovered by
Krukowski, in the bottom Interglacial layers of the
Okiennik cave in southern Poland, beneath the Pradnik
(Micoquian) industry. It consists of flakes and a fewblades with very steep margins, often notched, likely to
be explained as side-scrapers, notches, borers, etc. The
majority of artifacts have platforms faceted by the Leval-
loisian technique. Edges are frequently rounded, suggest-
ing the possibility that the secondary operation of
mechanical or chemical processes has produced a number
of pseudo-artifacts. This group was designated as "Dupi-
cian" by Krukowski (1948). The same sort of industry,
here termed "Tayacian," was found recently by Chmie-
lewski (1965) in the Interglacial layer of the Nietoperzowa
cave near Jerzmanowice, and accompanied by an in-
dustry of the biface-Mousterian of Wylotne.2
In Southeastern and Eastern Europe, still another group
is recognizable. In contradistinction to the Mousterian
complex of Central Europe, this group is distinguished by
a relatively large proportion of narrow Levalloisian
blades, often retouched bilaterally as points, and of the
Levalloisian technique. The sites Molodova I and V on
the Dniestr offer an insight into these industries. Cernys
(1965) was able to find four horizons of the Mousterian in
Molodova V and five in Molodova I, as well as the
ground-plan of a habitation in the next-to-lowest horizon.
The industries of the various layers are apparently
genetically related. All of them are characterized by a
strong Levalloisian character in their technology (i.e.,prepared striking platforms, typical cores) and typology
(many blades, typical points, and flakes). The age is
attested by C14 data: layer 4 of Molodova I is dated at
44,000 B.P. (GrN 3659) and layer 11 of Molodova V at
40,300 B.P. (GrN 4017). It may reasonably be assumed
that this group also includes the rich Middle Palaeolithic
of eastern and southern Rumania, as well as the lower
layers of the caves Bacho-Kiro and Devetaki in Bulgaria
and of the rock shelter Crvena Stijena in Yugoslavia. Its
influence in Central Europe can be observed in the lower
pre-Wurm layer of Subalyuk cave, in Hungary, whose
industry includes the Levalloisian technique as well as
blades retouched on both sides.This division of the Middle Palaeolithic of Southeastern
and Eastern Europe, however, cannot be considered satis-
factory. Bonc-Osmolovskij (1940) has identified the lower
layer of Kiik-Koba as Tayacian; Nicolaescu-Plop?or re-
ports a Clactonoid industry, probably of Eem age, from
Malul Galben near Mitoc; a Tayacian (?) with leaf-
points has been reported from Mamaia on the Black Sea;
and a Middle Palaeolithic specimen showing leaf-points
is reported from Pantanassa, Macedonia. Extensive recent
excavations by A. Paunescu have uncovered a rich multi-
stratal site at La Izvor-Ripiceni in Rumania. P. I. Boris-
1 I am very much obliged to the late Prof. Zotz for kindly lettingme see the finds.
2 Reported by W. Chmielewski at the VII Congres Internationaldes Sciences Pr& et Protohistoriques, Prague, 1966.
FIG.5. Middle Palaeolithic.
lI inds from the Riss Glacial Micoquian Leaf-points
M||||Rousterian of western European character /////"Tayacian"
\\\\\\\Eastern Middle European Mousterian JEastern Mousterian
F Middle Palaolothic of unknown appurtenance
kovskij and N. D. Praslov have investigated several new
sites on the Dniepr and on the coast of the Asovian Sea.
A preliminary attempt at a division of the Middle Palaeo-
lithic inthe
Crimea and on the Russian Plain has beenmade by V. N. Gladilin (1966), using Bordes's statistical
method. The results of this and similar studies might well
change in many respects the picture given here and might
also lead to the establishment of new groups and facies.
My descriptions of different groups here can therefore be
only rough characterizations.
In spite of the many unknowns, let us consider some
typogenetic connections. In the west of Central Europe
there is, as in the Early Palaeolithic, an influential hand-
axe group, undoubtedly dependent upon Western Europe,
yet here serving to define an independent Micoquian
group. The Micoquian wave becomes ever weaker as one
proceeds eastward until, in southern Poland, another,perhaps secondary, centre of development appears. The
typogenetic relationship between the Micoquian and the
Middle Palaeolithic with leaf-points, seems to be close,
and they cover approximately the same area. Another
great centre of the hand-axe/leaf-point Middle Palaeo-
lithic is the southern part of Eastern Europe, especially
the Crimea. It is not out of the question for this group to
have had its roots in the hand-axe Early Palaeolithic of
Asia Minor, spreading northwest as far as the Ukraineand northeast as far as the middle Volga.
Many characteristics of the as yet unpublished Fonte-
chevade facies of the Tayacian of Moravia lead us to
consider a typogenetic relationship with the pebble in-dustry (Bohemian) of the Early Palaeolithic. Ifwe suppose
that the strikingly small implements of the micro-chopper
facies (Buda industry) are definitive and not simply con-
Vol. 9 No. 5- December 1968 A* 357
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 9/41
ditioned by the raw material, then we can trace theirsurvivalin the small tools of the Middle Palaeolithic.Thissurvival is the more significantin that it is contraryto thegeneral line of evolution of the stone tools; during theMiddle Palaeolithic,stone toolsgenerallybecame slimmerwhereas these became larger. Similar relatively small-sized industries, also made of quartz, are found in theMousterian of the Tata type and in the Baume-Bonnefacies of the Tayacian, making it possible to exclude an a
priorirelationshipbetween thesegroups.It seems that the industries of the Mousterian complex
in the west of Central Europe (Germany) were closer tothe various facies of France and perhaps influenceddirectly by them, while the east Central EuropeanMousterian of the Sipka type gives a more "atypical" or"primitive"impression. It is, however, fairly certain thata true Levalloisian faciesin Bordes'sense is thus farabsentin the whole of Central Europe and that the Levalloisiantechnique is representedto a relatively small extent. Thisis one of the most strikingdifferences between the MiddlePalaeolithic of Central and Eastern and of WesternEurope. The more remarkable, then, is the fairly strongsurvival in Southeastern Europe of Levalloisian formsand technique and a relativelylarge proportionof blades.
Special attention should be paid to the question of thenaturaloriginofpseudo-artifacts,or the natural deforma-tion of true artifacts, by mechanical (cryogenic)or chemi-cal processes, especially in connection with the "Dupi-cian" or "Tayacian" of southern Poland and manyphenomena within the Sipkafacies.
The relationshipsbetween the many contemporaneousgroups of industries are completely unknown. Investiga-tion of the meaning of technique and typology in theidentificationofEarly Palaeolithic cultures of civilizations
is of the utmost importance. Important unknowns are tobe sought in the crowdedarea ofWesternEurope.
THE UPPER PALAEOLITHIC
We have seen that during the Middle Palaeolithic therecame a widespread diversification of industries, bothtechnologicaland typological.The evolution ofthe UpperPalaeolithic was a continuation of this process undersomewhat altered conditions. The remnants of materialculture,which hadpreviously consisted almostexclusivelyof stone artifacts,were now enriched by objects of bone
and by art objects,aswell by ground-plans of habitations.The appearanceof the Upper Palaeolithicin Central andEastern Europe is associated with the climatically favor-able period markedby a soil in loess sectionsand by darkloam in cave sediments of the Middle Wurm InterstadialPodhradem. According to radiocarbon data, the UpperPalaeolithic begins a bit after 40,000 years B.P. and endsin the Upper Wuirm,ca. 12,000B.P.
It is interesting that only a few of the earliest industriesof the Upper Palaeolithic areclearly linked to the MiddlePalaeolithic typologically and technologically; the restare made up of quite new elements. The only convincingexample of typogenetic connection between the Middle
and Upper Palaeolithic is provided by the leaf-pointindustries, among them the industry from the Szeleta
cave in Hungary. The name of this cave has in recent
years become the term applied to the early Upper Palaeo-
lithic with leaf-pointsof the circum-Carpathianterritory
in the east of CentralEurope (Gabori 1953,Prosek1953).The technology and typology of the Szeletian have strongMousteroid traditions; flakes exceed true narrow bladesin most cases, the Levalloisian technique appears occa-sionally, and side-scrapersof various Middle Palaeolithic
forms are represented in considerable numbers. UpperPalaeolithic types are represented primarily by end-
scrapers, some with dorsal surface retouch; high end-
scrapers (carenoids) even make an appearance. Burinsare always few and are usually represented by quitesimple types. Some sites also contain massive bores. The
shape of leaf-pointsis very variable (double-pointedwith
circular or straight base). In surface treatment, every
transitional type can be found, from unifacial retouch to
a fine retouch of both surfaces. I do not consider it useful
to establish local facies with names based on the varying
form of leaf-points (Vertes 1958, Kozlowski 1961, 1965).
The local groups of the Szeletian complex may have
undergone various specific processes of evolution, but
they are united by the common characteristics just
mentioned.
Of the numerous well-known sites of this group, the
following should be mentioned here in addifion to the
Szeleta cave: thejankovich, Balla, and Puskaporos caves,
in Hungary; the open sites of Moravany-Dlha and
Vlckovce and the Certova pec cave (stratigraphically
situated in the Interstadial, 38,320-2,480 B.P.), in Slo-
vakia; the Podhradem cave (stratigraphically situated in
the middle of the Interstadial (Valoch 1965b) and the
surface finds of Ondratice, Neslovice, Orechov I, II,
Jezeirany I, II, and Modrice, in Moravia; the open site
Dzierzyslaw, in southern Poland; the caves La Adam
(stratigraphically in the Interstadial, Dumitrescu et al.
1963) and Spurcata,as well as the open site ofJosasel, in
Rumania, and the caves of Samuilica II and V. Levski, in
Bulgaria. Another important site is Lovas on Lake Balaton
in Hungary, where a paint mine was found to contain a
number of grave tools made of stag antlers (Meszaros and
Vertes 1955). There are so far the only bone tools of the
Szeletian. The development of the Szeletian is still un-
known, but there are signs that it survived until the
Stillfried B oscillation (at Rozdrojovice, Moravia).
A facies of the Central European leaf-points group
designated as the Jerzmanowice occurs in layers 4-6 of
the Nietoperzowa cave near Jerzmanowice in southern
Poland. The technique used here is of special interest: the
points which have only partial surface retouch are mostlymade from blades. The lowest of the three layers (6), from
a cold moist period, has been dated at 38,160 ? 1,250 B.P.
(Chmielewski 1965a, Kozlowski 1965). Typological ana-
logies with this industry can be found in the second layer
of the Ilsen cave near Ranis in Middle Germany, in some
artifacts of the Szeletian of Ondratice, Moravia, and in
the Aurignacian of the Vogelherd cave in southern
Germany-(Muller-Beck 1965).
The western part of Central Europe has an industry
called the Praesolutrean (Freund 1952) which corre-
sponds to the Szeletian and occurs in the same Middle
Wurm Interstadial Podhradem (proved stratigraphically
in the Weinberg caves near Mauern [Zotz 1955] and inthe Ilsen cave near Ranis) . As in the Szeletian, Mousteroid
types predominate, but in contrast to it there is here a
lack of Upper Palaeolithic types. The leaf-points are
358 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 10/41
Valoch:PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEdouble-pointed, almost as a rule, and they attain con-
siderable size because of the high quality of the raw-material.Since the presenceof new typeswas criterialforthe assignmentof the Szeletian to the Upper Palaeolithic,it is questionablewhetherthe Praesolutrean houldrathernot be consideredas a late Middle Palaeolithiccontainingleaf-points.Both Zotz and Freund do this, even thoughthe Praesolutrean is contemporary with the rise of theUpper Palaeolithic. (Incidentally, the name "Praesolu-
trean"becomes misleadingunder thesecircumstances.)An importantgroup of the early Upper Palaeolithicof
Central Europe is the Aurignacian,which can be dividedon a typological basis into four stages, at least in theeasternpart of the area. The stone industry correspondsessentiallyto that of the French Aurignacian: the lower
stage contains largely end-scrapers (carenoid forms),whereasthe middle stage shows an increasingnumberofburins,and the upperand late stagescontain more burinsthan end-scrapers.Among the burins, the proportion ofarchedburins (burins usque's)ncreases gradually, reach-ing its climax in the upper stage and then declining verysharplyas well as degeneratingmorphologically.There isa relatively large number of archaic, Mousteroid types(suchas side-scrapersand points), sometimesas much as
25% in the lowerstage.The lowerstageis representedbyMalomerice-Obciny and Kirepice in Moravia and byBarcaII in eastern Slovakia; the middle stage by Willen-dorfII/2-4 and Getzersdorf and Krems-Hundssteig?) nLowerAustria, Stra6nska'kalaand Podstransk6an Mora-
via, and Kechnec I in eastern Slovakia; the upper stage
byMalomrnice-BorkyI and Tvaroznain Moravia,Gross-weikersdorfin Lower Austria; and the late stage byLangmannersdorfn LowerAustriaandTibava in easternSlovakia.The only bone implementsknown are the awls
and two pointsof the Mladec (Lautsch)type fromWillen-dorf II, layer 4. Willendorf II has also provided a securebasisfor the dating of the Aurignacian.Layer4 has been
dated at 31,840 ? 250 B.P., which accords with its strati-graphicalpositionbetween the Middle WiirmInterstadialand the following stadial (Felgenhauer 1959a). We canthus presume that the lower stage existed during thePodhradem and that the late stage may possibly havesurvived nto the StillfriedB.
Another Upper Palaeolithic group is the Olschewian,established by Bayer (1929). The Olschewian consistslargelyof the Mladec-type bone-points (pointesosangiqueaplaties nd pointes section vale),usuallyaccompaniedby
a scantyand not very typicalindustry (e.g., at the Potockacavein northernYugoslavia).The occurrenceof suchsitesis confined to caves, very often high in the mountains (seemap in Vertes 1955a).More recent excavationsin NorthYugoslavia (the cave Mokriska ama) have shown thatpointes basefendueanalsooccur with Mladec-typepoints.On the basis of this discovery, Brodar (1960) would in-
corporate the important finds from the Istallosko cave,Hungary, into the Olschewian. Vertes (1955a, b) has
distinguishedtwo layers with numerous bone-points atthe latter site, the lower with pointesa baseendueand theupper with points of Mladec-type and has designatedthem as Aurignacian I and Aurignacian II/Olschewian.
On the basis of the results of the Yugoslav excavations,however, it is possible to combine the two layers in one
culture group and to consider the Istallosko cave to be
the richest and most important Olschewian site. The
upper layer of the Ista6llosko cave has been dated at
30,710 ? 600 B.P. and for the Podhradem cave in Moravia
at 33,300 ? 1100 (GrN848).
During the Middle Wiirm Interstadial, then, there
existed in the east of Central Europe a keeled scraper/arched burin-group of the Aurignacian and a bone-point
group of the Olschewian in addition to the leaf-point
group of the Szeletian (cf. Narr 1963). The relationshipsbetween these groups are unknown, but the Aurignacian
and the Olschewian were probably closely related. There
is no evidence at present for the hypothesis that the
Olschewian sites were simply the camp sites of the
Aurignacian hunters. It does seem, however, that within
a short period of time fusion of the two type groups took
place; this is perhaps substantiated by evidence from
Willendorf II/4. The result of such fusion would be a
classic Aurignacian with bone-points predominating.
The distribution of the two civilizations in Central
Europe is not quite the same. The Olschewian, which
populated the caves, covers a large territory from the
caves of Mladec (North Moravia) and Mamutowa (South
Poland) in the north, southeast across the Eastern Car-
pathians (Haligovce in eastern Slovakia and Baia de Fier
in Rumania) to the Balkans (Morowitza and Bacho-Kiro
in Bulgaria), across Yugoslavia (Potocka, Mokriskajama,
Lokve near Trieste) and the Alps (Badel and Tischofer
caves) to the upper Danube (Bockstein) and as far as the
western German Lahntal (Wildhaus). The occurrence of
the Aurignacian is less well known. Typical industries
have in fact been provided solely by the above-mentioned
open sites of the Moravian, Lower Austrian and eastern
Slovakian regions, associated with some of the sites in
southern Poland (such as Pulawy on the middle Vistula,Piekary II, and Sowiniec near Krak6w). New investiga-
tions at Boine?ti and Ceahlau in Rumania have uncovered
quite a rich Aurignacian from what Nicolaescu-Plopaor
(1962) and Bitiri (1964) judge to be the Middle Wiirm
Interstadial. A typological comparison with the Aurig-
nacian of Central Europe is, however, not yet likely to be
carried out.
In the western part of Central Europe, too, the Aurig-
nacian is quite rare. In Middle Germanv, only Breiten-
bach can be included in it. In southern Germany, there
are some artifacts from the Fischleiten cave and some
from the Hohler Stein cave near Happurg. A special and
important position within the framework of the Aurig-nacian of western Central Europe is occupied by layers
4 and 5 from the Vogelherd, South Germany (Riek 1934).
The industries designated as Middle and Upper Aurig-
nacian by Riek were recently studied statistically by de
Sonneville-Bordes (1965). This study demonstrated their
Aurignacoid character, on the one hand; on the other, it
showed fairly great differences between these industries
and the French Aurignacian (e.g. the small number of
keeled scrapers-which are not very typical in any case-
the lack of arched burins [burins-busques], the large
number of burins with end-retouch, and the many arti-
facts retouched bilaterally). Even the above-described
Aurignacian of the eastern part of Central Europe hasonly a few typological correspondences with the Vogel-
herd (cf. Valoch 1964). This favours a special position for
the Vogelherd-Aurignacian, whose relationship to layer 3
Vol. 9 ;No. 5 December1968 359
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 11/41
of the Ilsen cave near Ranis, in Thuringia has already
been reported by Zotz (1951). Muiller-Beck (1965) has
attempted to prove typogenetic connections between the
Vogelherd and the Jerzmanowice leaf-point industry.
According to the morphology of the stone tools, Vogelherd
5 and 4 could probably be classified withJerzmanowice 4;
this, however, would suppose a lesser age of the Vogelherd
than has been suggested so far (the Middle Wurm Inter-
stadial according to Riek); Muller-Beck places it in the
upper part of the oscillation complex, thus perhaps in theStillfried B, making its position correspond to the upper
Aurignacian of France. We must still take into account
other finds of the Vogelherd in addition to stone artifacts.
From layer 5 came 14 typical pointes a base endue, which
are characteristic of the older Aurignacian of France and
may have come from the Olschewian. Besides this, how-
ever, this same layer produced fragments of points ofivory and roe-antler reminiscent of forms of the later
Upper Palaeolithic. Bored pieces of ivory and animal
figures came from both layers. Accepting Riek's earlier
date, these works of art would have no analogies. The
later date suggested by Muller-Beck would allow us to
think of them contemporaneous with the Pavlovian ofMoravia.
Thus the finds of Vogelherd cannot be easily classified,
for they contain elements of the Aurignacian, Jerzmano-
wice, Olschewian, and Pavlovian in addition to being
placed in a long span of time. Similar to this industry in
some features are the finds of the Csoklovina cave and of
the open site Szitabodza in Transylvania (Rumania).
These were also once designated as Aurignacian and are
represented by bilaterally retouched blade artifacts with-
out the true types of Aurignacian.
Stratigraphic co-respondences between the Eastern
European sites and those of Central Europe have only
recently been established. Rogac'eV, on the basis of his
excavations at the multistratal site of Kostjenki on the
Don, compared the stratigraphical positions of the various
layers and drew conclusions as to the descendance of
different industries (Rogacev 1953, 1957; Delporte
1.959a). At the same time, a thorough geological descrip-
tion of the excavations was made (Lazukov 1957). Later
geological studies of the Quaternary have included the
Palaeolithic sites of the Dniestr region (Ivanova 1961)
and of the Russian Plain (Velicko 1961). They suggest a
connection between the beginning of the Upper Palaeo-
lithic and the period of soil formation during the Middle
Wurm Interstadial Podhradem in Eastern Europe. Ofgreat importance, however, is the fact that the evidence
from the Kostjenki area argues quite convincingly for the
co-existence of various groups of industries. The excava-
tions in that area contain a striking horizon of double
humus soil divided in some places by a layer of volcanic
ash. Rogacev has determined that these fossil soils contain
different industries throughout a distance of ca. 4 km.
along the right bank of the Don. There are already more
than 20 important sites known there, some of them quiteclose one to another.
As in Central Europe, there is here a leaf-point industry
in the lower zone of humus, but it differs from the
Szeletian. Its typological nature can best be seen in thefinds from layer 5 of Kostjenki I (there the deepest layers
have so far been excavated only in small areas, so the
number of finds is relatively small). Numerically pre-
dominant are end-scrapers on short, flat, or fairly thickflakes with retouched length edges and their ventralsurface fashioned. Burins occur seldom and only in quitesimple diedre-forms. Borers and esquille'sare also repre-sented here. Mousteroid side-scrapers and points form thearchaic part. The thin leaf-points finely worked on both
sides occur both in the form of triangular points withconcave base and in double-pointed and irregular forms.At Streleckaja II, a similar industry comes from the same
zone of humus (Rogacev 1957).Bader (1965a) has uncovered some surprising finds in
Sungir, near Vladimir (about 200 km. northeast of
Moscow). In addition to the triangular leaf-points withconcave base just described, there are end- and side-
scrapers, rarely simple burins, fairly many esquilles, andisolated retouched blade points. This stone industry, al-
ready known from Kostjenki 1/5 and Streleckaja, is hereaccompanied by objects of bone, jewelry, and art objects.There is a fragment of an artifact reminiscent of a Mladecpoint made of mammoth ivory, and there is a polishingtool made of roe-antler and one made of bone (unpub-
lished; autoptically examined). The jewelry is made of
bored pieces of bone, fox teeth, and flat pebbles. Mostimportant is the figure of a horse, 5-6 cm. long and amaximum of 4 mm. thick, made of bone, decorated onboth sides and bored through the hind legs in order to behung (Bader in Abramova 1962). According to a repor-t
by Boriskovskij (1965), the 1964 excavations producedskeletal remains of two men in addition to some richlyornamented pieces of art and decoration. The section of
Sungir contains two fossil soils like those of Kostjenki, but
here the culture layer is in the upper soil. However, theC14 dates of 16,200 ? 400 B.P. for the soil and 14,600 - 600
B.P. for the culture layer (Serebrjannyj 1965) are in con-tradiction with the geological dating of the soil to thePodhradem period. According to geological dating, the
art works of Sungir would be the oldest in Eastern Europeand the only ones so far from the leaf-point civilization of
Central and Eastern Europe. The morphological simi-
larity between the horse of Sungir and that of Vogelherd
layer 5 is obvious. In both cases, a later data for the
appearance of a developed art would be more intelligible.It might well be possible, following a proposal made at
the 1963 symposium, to term this leaf-point industry the
Streleckaja-Sungir type. To this type might also belongthe third layer of the lower soil of Kostjenki XII-Volkov-
skaja as well as the considerably younger third layer of
Anosovka II (Kostjenki XI).An essentially different industry was found by Boris-
kovskij (1963) in the same lower soil (according to
Velicko) in Kostjenki XVII-Spicyna. It is an UpperPalaeolithic industry without archaic elements and with-
out leaf-points, with the burin by far predominating (160pieces). Blade scrapers are to be found in considerably
smaller numbers (22 pieces). There are some blade-points,
slightly retouched, and a few bigger blades and cores.
Bone implements are represented only by two awls and
some unidentifiable fragments; decorative objects are
represented by bored fox teeth, belemnites, pieces of shell,and pebbles (Boriskovskij 1963).
The upper soil contains various complexes of findswhich can be divided typologically into perhaps 2-3groups. The richest and most interesting is the second
layer of Telmanskaja: in addition to 5 end-scrapers, there
360 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 12/41
Valoch:PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEere 70 burins, 17 notched and dentate blades, and about350 fine tools. Among the latter, tools of the micro-
gravette type predominated, often showing partial ventro-
basilar or ventroterminal retouch; also represented by a
few pieces each were trapezoid, triangular (notched point-
like ?), and rectangular forms and lamelles tronque'es. here
are only a few fragments of bone tools. In terms of the
ratio of end-scrapers to burins and the absence of esquille's,
this industry resembles that of Spicyna, but the micro-
gravettes are a completely new element.The second group is distinguished by the absence of
burins and the occurrence of esquille's nd of archaic types.
About 200 end-scrapers were found in Markina Gora
(Kostjenki XIV), layer 2, along with some esquille's, airly
many ancient side-scrapers, points fashioned of fine
quartzite, and some retouched blades. Gorodcovskaja
(Kostjenki XV) provided 85 end-scrapers, 8 atypical
burins, 108 esquilles, 14 archaic implements, and 6 blade-
points. Kostenjki XII, Point B, produced 12 end-scrapers,
17 esquilles, 11archaic forms, 3 burins, and some retouched
blades. Also of importance is the accompanying bone
industry: Markina Gora has some carved and ornamented
artifacts; Gorodcovskaja has two shovel-shaped tools
made of mammoth bones, analogous to a piece found in
the same upper humus zone in an isolated shaft at the site
of Kostjenki XII. Two pieces of roe-antler with their ends
sharpened were found, as well as some awls, points, and
needles, three of which had eyes. Decorative pieces were
represented by bored fox teeth.
The third group consists of two sets of finds distinguished
by similar bone artifacts, but thus far poor in stone tools.
Markina Gora, layer 3, and Telmanskaja, layer 3, pro-
duced long stick points made of tusk, with round cross-
section and a unilaterally cut carved base. At Gorod-
covskaja and Markina Gora, layer 3, human skeletalremains were also found (Rogacev 1957).
An insight into the typological situation of the early
Upper Palaeolithic is offered also by the multistratal site
of Molodova V on the Dniestr. Here again, two fossil soils
appear. The Upper Palaeolithic appears only in the upper
soil, but there are four Mousterian horizons in the sedi-
ments underlying the fossil soils. Cernys (1961) discerned
two find horizons, 10 and 9, in the upper soil; unfor-
tunately, however, both these horizons provided only
relatively few implements in contrast to a rather large
amount of waste material (see Table 2).
TABLE 2
ARTIFACTSFOUND AT MOLODOVAV, LAYERS 10 AND 9
Layer 10 Layer 9
End-scrapers 5 12Burins 14 20Keeled scrapers 1 1Arched burins (busque's) IScrapers-burins 1Retouched blade-points 4 5Micro-gravettes 1
Backedpenknives (lamelleddos) 3 2Leaf-points 1-
Retouched flakes 2 4
Cores 17 | 32
The exact age of the soil containing the finds is not yet
known. As we have already mentioned, the C14 date for
the second but uppermost Mousterian layer under both
the soils is about 40,300 years.
The find layer 7, located in a slightly humus sediment,
has been dated to 23,700 ? 320 B.P. (Ivanova 1965). This
date is a bit lower than the dates for the Late Wuirm
Stillfried B oscillation in Central Europe, and the question
arises whether the humus formation represents this oscilla-
tion, or another climate fluctuation. In any case, the two
soils of Molodova are presumably incomparable with the
double soil complex of Kostjenki, as the lower zone of
humus there already contains an Upper Palaeolithic.
The habitation discovered near Radomysl a few years
ago is also of importance for the typology of the early
Upper Palaeolithic in Ukrainia. According to Sovkopljas
(1 965a), the culture layer, containing numerous mam-
moth bones, is not datable stratigraphically. The stone
industry consists of burins of the diedre-type, blade-
scrapers, retouched blades, massive borers,and numerous
Mousteroid side-scrapers and points.
It can be seen that the beginning of the Upper Palaeo-
lithic in eastern Europe is as complicated as it is in Central
Europe and at the same time distinct from it. The early
Upper Palaeolithic industries can be divided into numer-
ous typologically different groups; although these groups
cannot yet be strictly defined, the simultaneous appear-
ance of an archaic industry with leaf-points (the Streleck-
aja-Sungir type) and a progressive burin industry without
archaic forms (the Spicyna type) would seem to be of
essential significance.
Velicko's (1961) attempt, by geological stratigraphic
comparison of the later loesses of the Desna area withthose of Czechoslovakia, to establish a chronological re-
lationship between the Eastern and the Central European
Upper Palaeolithic has been called into question by newly
published radiocarbon dates. The lower soil of Sungir has
been dated at 20,540 ? 120 B.P.; the two humus zones of
Kostjenki XVIII-Spicyna provided almost the same date,
20,100 ? 350 B.P. for the upper soil, 20,100 ? 100 B.P. for
the lower soil. In contrast, the upper soil of Kostjenki XII-
Volkovskaja was dated at 23,060 ? 300 B.P. and the same
upper zone at Markina Gora (Kostjenki XIV) at only
14,300 ? 460 B.P. Layer 10 of Molodova V, which lies in
the middle of a soil, has been dated at 23,100 ? 400 B.P.
(O,erdyncev et al. 1965). Allowing for some unreliabilityin the samples (samples of humus were measured every-
where except at Markina Gora where bones were dated),
it is still striking that the dates from various sites, all
indicating a warmth oscillation, center around 20,000-
23,000 years, and that none of them is as early as the-
Central European Stillfried B or even the Podhradem.
On the other hand, there is no stratigraphic evidence in
Central Europe for a warmth oscillation between the
Stillfried B and the Late Glacial (B6lling, Allerod). Is an
early Upper Palaeolithic corresponding chronologically-
to those of Central and Western Europe perhaps absent
in Eastern Europe?
In the course of the further development of the Upper^Palaeolithic in the East European lowland, represented
stratigraphically by culture layers above the double-
humus zones in the Kostjenki area, we can presumeb
Vol. 9 No. 5- December 968 361
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 13/41
internal differentiation of the original groups, influencedstrongly by the relations among them. Thus the upperlayer of Telmanskaja offersus a leaf-point industry withnumerous burins and archaic forms (Efimenko and Boris-kovskij 1957), and the upper layer of Kostjenki IV-AJeksandrovkaprovides isolated, but well-formed leaf-points accompanied by numerous micro-points, burins-cum-end-scrapers, and burins-cum-points. The lowerlayer of Aleksandrovka, in contrast, is distinguished by
many genuine gravettes, backed penknives, saws (den-tate), esquillis,and a few burins and end-scrapers (Roga-cev 1955). In Kostjenki II, Zamjatnina was found, inaddition to human skeletal remains, a possibly relativelylate industry in which esquilles nd burins, mostly diedre-form, predominate. End-scrapers, retouched blade-points, and backed penknives are represented only by afew pieces (Boriskovskij 963.)
The best-known industry of this area is that whichcomes from the uppermostlayer of KostjenkiI-Poljakovaand which is often termed the "Kostjenkian" proper. It ischaracterizedby burins of variousforms,often double or
combined with end-scrapers,blades with ventroterminalflatly retouched notch, notched points, and blade-pointsshowing partial ventral-surfacefashioning. Backed pen-knivesare quite rare; other small forms are missing.Fromthis set of finds also come interesting bone implements,decorated objects, animal figures, and the famous repre-sentationsof women (Efimenko 1958). The habitation of-Gagarino,also situated on the Don, provided an industryonly slightly different, with burins predominating, end-scrapers declining, notched points in small forms only,and ventroterminal notched blades absent; on the otherhand, numerous backed penknives appear. Figures ofwomen corresponding to those of Kostjenki I were also
found (Tarasov 1965).An independent group of sites between the Dniestr andthe Don is formed by sites in the region of the MiddleDniepr and its tributaries,of which the Desna is the mostimportant. On it lie PuskariI and Pogon, which can bothbe consideredpart of the stratigraphicallyolder complex,according to Velicko (1961). The much richer set of findsof PuskariI, to which that of Pogon perhaps corresponds,consists of 160 burins, 250 end-scrapers, 200 backed pen-knives, about 20 not very typical notched points, and550 points, of which 280 are retouched bilaterally, 100are terminal-obliquely retouched (truncated), and 170have one side blunted (a'dosabattu),often arch-shaped.
Among the latter, gravette-like forms and forms remini-scent of Chatelperron points can be found. Bone tools-were represented by hoe-liked used ribs (Boriskovskij1953).
At Avdejevo on the Sejm were excavated a rich boneindustry, ornamented objects as well as two representa-tions of women, and a stone inventory in which piecesesquillespredominate, burins are quite numerous, andbacked penknives, notched points, end-scrapers, andvarious blade-points are represented (Gvozdover 1950).Other industries to be found in this area (e.g., Mezin,Eliseevici, Timonovka, Kiev-Kyril Street), some withoutnotched points or gravettesor backed penknives, all sug-
gest the existence of still other typologically differinggroups. The bone implements and works of art, however,
are very much alike, and diffierent from their counterparts
in Western Europe, and they provide the basis for the
idea of a unified "East-Gravettian" which included thewhole Eastern Upper Palaeolithic.
In one of the few caves with numerous Upper Palaeo-lithic layers, Sjuren I in the Crimea, were three horizonsin an interesting sequence. In the lower layer were founda numberofvariouslyretouched micro-blades,along withbladed end-scrapers, burins, and points, some of themecaille'snd Mousteroid forms.The inventory ofthe middlelayer does not differ essentially; the ecaille's have dis-
appeared, the number of micro-blades has decreasedsharply, and the Mousteroid forms remain. Among theend-scrapersin both layers many Aurignacoid types areto be found. In the upper layer retouched and bluntedmicro-blades again predominate, Aurignacoid end-scra-pers become quite rare, and the archaic forms disappear;notched blades, gravette points, and fragmentary artifactsresembling Azilian pointsappearforthe firsttime. Theageof the habitations is unknown. The author assumes thatthese industries, which have analogies in the Caucasus,representan evolution on the spot (Vekilova 1957). Inanycase it is important that here fine implements made from
micro-blades make their appearancein the lower layer.The Upper Palaeolithic on the Dniestr provides thepicture of a rather quiet, continuous evolution, as far as itis possibletojudge from the publications of Cernyson themultistratal site of Molodova V and on Babin, Vorono-vica, and others. Layer 8 of Molodova V contains essen-tially the same types as the deeper horizons. Consideringlayer 7, dated by radiocarbon at about 24,000 years, wemust add various formsof micro-points,sticks with holes,Lyngby axe-like implementsof roe-antler, and bored andsharpened pieces of soft stone. These finds resemble theMoravian finds of Dolni Vestonice, Pavlov, and Pired-mosti so much that they must be considered closely
related. In layers 6-1, dated from 17,000-10,000 years(for exact C14 dates, see Ivanova 1965) the strongly re-touched points disappear, micro-points become rare, afew backed penknives can be added, and the rest of theinventory, consistingof burinsand end-scrapers,becomesgradually smaller and finer. In the fauna the reindeerdominates, and antler is used to make a few tools (Oernys1961).
We can hardly doubt that the stone industry of all tenlayers of Molodova V underwent a continuous develop-ment. In layer 7, a considerable flourishing of antlerfashioningand of the carvingof softstone can be observed.The radiocarbondates confirm the typogenetically based
hypothesisthat the Upper Palaeolithic of EasternEuropereached its full development without having been influ-enced by the Magdalenian. The only Magdalenian tooltype, namely the holestick,appearshere as early as about
24,000 yearsB.P. Although the technology of splitting roe-antler is similar to that of the Magdalenian, the leadingformsof the Magdalenian-borers, numerous penknives,and spear-headswith a gutter for blood-are completelyabsent here except for the borers found at Mezin (Sov-kopljas 1965b).
In Rumania an evolution of the "East-Giavettian"also took place. Nicolaescu-Plopsor (1962) divides it intothree stages, in the course of which there is a gradual
trend toward microlithic forms. The most important typeis the gravette-point, e.g., those at Ceahlau-Dirtu. More
exact knowledge of types is to be expected from the
extensive excavations taking place there. Like the multi-
362 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 14/41
Valoch:PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEstratal site of Molodova V, the four layers of the cave ofStanca Ripiceni, on the right bank of the Prut, give theimpressionof an evolution of a single group of industries.Layer 1 contains some thick Aurignacoid end-scrapers,numerous bladed end-scrapers,and a number of doubleangle-burins on concavely retouched blades, but on thewhole a relationshipwith the Eastern Upper Palaeolithicis indicated. There are still several massive end-scrapersin the succeeding layer 3, yet narrow bladeswith bluntedback surface as well as fashionedpieces of antler alreadymake their appearance. Characteristic of layer 5 are, inaddition to end-scrapers, strongly retouched bilaterally,and some blade-points, the increasing number of burinsand especially two pieces of roe-antler fashioned in themanner of the Lyngby-axes of Molodova V, layer 7.Layer 7 contains an increased number of penknives andgravette-like points, corresponding to the upper layersof
Molodova V (Moro?an1938).The later Upper Palaeolithic of Central Europe in-
cludes two large civilization groups: the Pavlovian (for-merly East Gravettian) and the Magdalenian. The Pav-
lovian is known especially from sites in Moravia (Pried-mosti, Dolni Vestonice, Pavlov, Petrkovice), Lower
Austria (Willendorf II, layers 5-9, Agssbach, Kamegg),
and western Slovakia (Moravany-Podkovica, Moravany-
Zakovska). The stone industry consists of numerous end-
scrapers, burins, penknives, gravette-points; notched
points (at Willendorf, Moravany, Petrkovice, Predmosti),
micro-saws (at Dolni Vestonice), and small geometric
forms (at Pavlov) also occur. The rich bone industry has
some unusual forms: long ivory points of round cross-
section, shovel-like implements made of big fragments of
mammoth bone, many polished ribs, cylindrical rubbers
of ivory, and numerous awls. The picture is completed by
decorative and art works of perfect form: necklaces offossil shells, animal teeth, and pebbles; pieces of bone and
ivory ornamented with short lines; figures of women (at
Dolni Vestonice, Petrkovice, Pavlov, Moravany, Willen-
dorf) and of animals (at Dolni Vestonice, Pavlov, Pired-
mosti); and exceptionally, a figure of a man (Brno II)
and an engraving of a woman (Predmosti). Dolni Ves-
tonice has provided, for the first time in the Palaeolithic,
fired clay figures (women, animals). This advanced group,
with undoubtedly close relations to the East European
Upper Palaeolithic, was termed Pavlovian by Delporte
(1959b) and by Klima (1963); it is dated back into the
Stillfried B and the beginning of the succeeding loess
period, some time between 28,000 and 24,000 years B.P.
A late phase of this Pavlovian group of Central Europe
has been found at Saigvair and Arka, in Hungary and
dated at the end of the Upper Wiirm, between 19,000
and 13,000 years B.P. (Kretzoi and Vertes 1965b).
Kozlowski (1965) has recently attempted a territorial
and facial division of the "Gravettian" of Central and
Eastern Europe by means of statistical indices. An essen-
tially statistical treatment of all the well-studied Palaeo-
lithic finds would be highly desirable and would, when
combined with the corresponding list of types, serve as a
useful basis for more general conclusions. Kozlowski has
raised a new and very interesting problem for Central
Europe by presuming an evolution in this area similar tothat of the French Upper Palaeolithic, and by classing
some of the complexes of finds (such as Jenerailka and
Lubna in Bohemia, Stanca Ripiceni, layer 5, and Mobo-
dova V, layer 9) with the Protomagdalenian (analogouswith layer 4 of the Laugerie Haute and Abri Pataud).Disregardingthe more general problems connected withthe Protomagdalenian,I would like to point out that the
above-mentioned layer of Stanca Ripiceni cannot be so
interpreted because of its antler artifacts,which are con-
sideredpeculiar to the Pavlovian.
It is remarkable that the Pavlovian civilization, sostrongly represented in this area, barely extends to the
western part of Central Europe. The only significant site
here is the Weinberg caves near Mauern, in Bavaria,
where a female statuette of limestone was also found
(Zotz 1955). If the very simple industry of Mainz-
Linsenberg, with fragments of three female figures, be-
longs to the same group, then this would be its western-
most appearance.Remarkably, though, some suggestions of the French
Perigordiancan be found in this western part of Central
Europe. Quite isolated in Middle Germany (Ilsen cave
near Ranis, layer 4), an industry appearsshowing typicalChatelperron points with no analogy at all in (except
perhaps Puskari I?) the East. Typogenetically, this in-
dustry can only be a descendant of the Chatelperronianof France. Zotz has also recently reported the single find
of a double-notched point of the Font-Robert type in
Dollnstein, Bavaria (Freund 1963), another type with no
analogies in the East.The second large Upper Palaeolithic group of Central
Europe is the Magdalenian, which is unequivocally ofWestern origin and whose eastern limits are marked bythe caves of the Moravian Karst (Pekarna), of Lower
Austria (Gudenushohle), and of southern Poland (Mas-
zycka). The stone industry shows, in addition to thecommon end-scrapers, burins, backed penknives, and
characteristic ong borers, specializedforms such as Kent-
type knives with broken backs (at Etzdorf in Thuringia,
Burkhardtshohle in Wuirttemberg, Eilsbrunnh6hle in
Bavaria, and Zitny cave in Moravia), arched knives (at
Burkhardtshohleand Probstfels in Wiirttemberg), and
burinswith a deep notch on their left sides (at Olknitz in
Thuringia, Pekafrnaand Borky I in Moravia), which
possiblyindicate the existence of different facies. In con-
trastto the ivory and mammoth bone of the Pavlovian, in
the Magdalenian it is roe-antler that serves as the raw
material for bone implements-spear-heads of oval to
edged cross-sectionwith a gutter for blood, hole-sticks,harpoons, and needles with eyes. Art is first of all repre-
sented by engravingsof animals (at Pekarnain Moravia,
Kniegrotte in Thuringia, Mittlere Klause in Bavaria,and
Petersfels n Baden) manufacturedin the Franko-Canta-
brian style. Bored and ornamented rings of bone (atPetersfels n Baden and Kri'z-cave n Moravia) also have
numerousanalogiesin France.A specificway ofrepresen-
tation of women is found in the figurines of Petersfels
(Baden), Olknitz and Nebra (Central Germany), andPekairna Moravia), and alsoin the engravingsof Hohlen-stein (Bavaria),as well as of La Roche, Fontales, and La
Gare de Couze (France).
Another independent, but closely related, group is theHamburgian, discovered by Rust (1937) in Meiendorfand limited to North Germany. The stone industry,with
characteristic Zinken and notched points, is accompanied
Vol. 9 -No. 5 December 1968 363
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 15/41
by numerous implements made of roe-antler, of whichone harpoon and the so-called strap-cuttersdeservemen-tion. Carvings of animal heads in amber and sandstoneresemble those of the Magdalenian.
Surveying the Upper Palaeolithic of Central and East-ern Europe, we may observe firstof all that the typologicaldifferentiation of regional groups which began in theMiddle Palaeolithic has increased in intensity. Only theSzeletian can be typogenetically assigned to the Middle
Palaeolithic with any certainty; the Praesolutrean, con-temporarywith the Szelatian, still has a decidedly MiddlePalaeolithic character. The concentration of the Aurig-nacian in the eastern part of CentralEurope and its com-plete absence in Eastern Europe seems to testify to asource in the inner Carpathian region. I have suggestedelsewhere that the industry designated as the Tayacian,Fontechevade facies, would probably be that source(Valoch 1966). The Olschewian insofaras it can be con-sidered an independent civilization at all, is certainly akinto the Aurignacian, as is indicated, among other things,by their concentration in the same region. One mightimagine that the typologically advanced Aurignacian+ Olschewian influenced the more primitive contem-
porary Mousterian and that this contact resulted in theSzeletian, a Middle Palaeolithic industry enriched withUpper Palaeolithic forms. This would also explain why apure unmodified Middle Palaeolithic with leaf-points (thePraesolutrean) s maintained in southern Germany, wherethe pre- or early stages of the Aurignacian seem to bemissing.
The Szeletian appears to survive fairly long in CentralEurope, as late as about the time of the Stillfried B, and itgradually incorporates more and more influences fromthe rest of the Upper Palaeolithic. The Aurignacian and
A l
FIG. 6. UpperPalaeolithic.
=-Leaf-point Industries Aurignacian Olschewian
Eastern GravettianComplex \\\\\\\\Magdaleniari
...Hamburgian wUpper Palaeolithic from the. Crimea, Urals,and Caucasus
*Rock-paintings from Kapova Cave in Urals
Olschewian, at first quite distinct, eventually merge,
occurring in France as the Aurignacian with bone-points
predominant. On the other hand, there are isolated in-
fluences of the western Perigordian in Germany.
Similarly, in Eastern Europe the leaf-point industries
of Streleckaia-Sungir can be associated with the Middle
Palaeolithic with leaf-forms of that area; the latter may
also have originated under the influence of an advanced
Upper Palaeolithic industry. The origin of the earliest
blade industry of the Spicyna type (Kostjenki XVII) isobscure, but the following possibility might be considered:
In the eastern part of the Mediterranean, there is a com-
plex of finds, stratigraphically in the middle of the Middle
Palaeolithic industries, called the "Praeaurignacian."
While studying the finds of Yabrud at the University of
Cologne, I became convinced that we have here a true
blade industry more progressive than the early Aurig-
nacian of Central Europe, containing many flakes and
Mousteroid forms, but at the same time lacking true
keeled-scrapers, the minimum precondition for classifica-
tion with the Aurignacian. A connection between this
"Praeaurignacian" and the typical Aurignacian is hardly
presumable, but the retouched blades and blade-points
would permit further evolution to such an industry as the
Spicyna type.
In the course of further evolution, numerous typo-
logically different groups of industries were established
throughout the vast territory of the East-European Plain.
They existed at the same time and influenced one another.
The habitations known from many sites (huts, tents?)
witness to a certain stability of settlements. In contrast to
the area of Kostjenki on the Don, where a sequence of
different industries is observable, there seems to be an
essentially undisturbed evolution of a single group in
Molodova on the Dniestr.The origin of the cultural stream called "East Gravet-
tian," which flourished in the form of the Pavlovian in
the eastern part of Central Europe, must be sought in this
developed Eastern European Upper Palaeolithic. This
civilization, penetrating from the east, may have followed
the Aurignacian as it moved gradually westward and
eventually met with the surviving remains of the archaic
Szeletian during the Middle Wiirm Stadial. By the end
of the Upper Wiirm, the Magdalenian had reached the
eastern edge of Central Europe from the west. The
regional groups pertaining to the "East Gravettian" de-
veloped farther to the southeast, beginning with Hungary
and Slovakia (Valoch 1960).
THE LATE PALAEOLITHIC
Only in the last 20 years have we begun to accumulate
some knowledge of the industries which preceded the
Mesolithic, falling into the late phases of the Wiirm
Glacial and constituting the typological link between the
Upper Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic. These industries
are frequently denoted as the Epipaleolithic, but I prefer
the term Late Palaeolithic, following the usage in Polish
research dealing intensively with these questions. Theycover a period of only about 3,000 years; Schild (1964)
considers the lower limit to be about the middle of the
Allerod (the time of the French Azilian) .
364 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 16/41
Schwabedissen (1964) provided the first survey of theLate Palaeolithic industries from northern Germany(which he called the "Federmessergruppe"), the charac-teristic type of which is a small knife with arched bluntedback. The stages of Ahrensburg, Callenhardt, and Born-wisch (Rust 1951), all confined to North Germany andthe adjacent regions, also belong here.
Schild (1960, 1964) has intensively studied the veryrich Late Palaeolithic of Poland and has distinguished
several groups of industries there. He has also pointed outthe typological significance of one of its most importantelements the occurrence in great numbers of short flakeend-scrapers. He discerns two great cycles of industries
(or civilizations): (a) the cycle of Mazowsze, charac-terized by double-notched points with ventrobasal surface
retouch of the Swidry type and divided into numerous
typologically differing industries (Swidry, Dobiegniewo,Pludy types, etc.); and (b) the as yet little-known cyclecontaining industries of the Tarno6w and Witow types.The absolute age of the industry of Witow comes to10,815 ? 160 years.
Similar finds have been reported from Moravia (Tis-nov, Bucovice) by Klima and Valoch, and the strati-graphical position of such an industry was obtained for
the first time from the excavation in the Kulna cave in
Czechoslovakia. In close sequence with the Magdalenian,there are two layers containing an industry preliminarilydesignated as the Epimagdalenian and accompanied byremains of red deer. It contains, in addition to some othertypes, a number of short flake end-scrapers. Vertes hasreported a similar industry from Szekszaird-Palank, Hun-gary, dated at 10,350 ? 500 years (Kretzoi and Vertes1965b). Rumania has already produced two groups of theLate Palaeolithic (Nicolaescu-Plopsor 1952, 1958), theone, with
double-notched points, pertaining to the Ma-zovsze cycle (at Scaune-Ceahlau), and the other desig-nated as "Azilian" (at the Hotilor cave near Baile Her-culane). The gradual development of a Gravettoid in-dustry up to the Late Palaeolithic or even into theMesolithic is demonstrated through the many layers ofthe rock-shelter Crevena Stijena in Yugoslavia (Brodarand Benac 1958). This stage can be completed withnumerous industries, some of them surface finds from theDonaumoos and from around Futrth (Freund 1963), andpossibly also an Epimagdalenian with the head burials ofKaufertsberg, upper layer, Stadel am Hohlenstein in theLonetal, and Grosse Ofnet( ?), in South Germany.
That the Upper Palaeolithic groups of the southernplain of the U.S.S.R. also developed into a Late Palaeo-lithic seems to be indicated by numerous finds (e.g., theupper layers of Vladimirovka on the Bug ((ernys 1953)Bolsaja Akkarza and Amvrosievka at the Asovian See,layer 2 of Anosovka II [Kostjenki XI], possibly Zuravka,Borsevo II, etc. (Efimenko 1955). The exact temporal,stratigraphical, and typological position of these com-plexes, however, is not clear. To the north (e.g., on LakeCvitjaz, and at Krumplevo and Neman in Bielorussia),we find characterized by double-notched points and pos-sibly connected with the Mazowsze cycle. The differentlyarranged Upper Palaeolithic of the Crimea (Krajnov
1960) seems to have reached the phase of the Late Palaeo-lithic with its industries showing arched knives suggestiveof Azilian points (in the upper layer of Sjuren I, the lowerlayer of Sjuren II, Layer 8 of Tas-Air, etc.). In the north-
FIG. 7. Late Palaeolithic.
%0X0X\Federmessergruppen ,:Ahrensburg-Lyngby |||||Mazovian
_=_Epimagdalenian ////////Epigravettian + Tarnowian
AKLate Pallaeolithic from the Crimea
ern part, on the Cusovaja in the Central Urals, lies the~
possibly Late Palaeolithic site of Talickogo, which inclines
typologically toward the Siberian Late Palaeolithic
(Bader 1960).The recognition of this Late Palaeolithic as a definite
phase of evolution is very important. On the one hand, itbridges the typological and genetic gap between the~
Upper Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic. On the other
hand, it automatically reduces both the age and the
duration of the Mesolithic, since its lower limit can onlybe the end of the Late Palaeolithic, estimated at about
6, 000 B.C. With regardto culture we aredealing herewitha continued evolution of the Upper Palaeolithic civiliza-
tion, as well as that of the "East Gravettian" (in the~
broadest sense of the word) and of the Magdalenian and
its North-European facies.
THE FINAL PALAEOLITHIC
The discovery of the Late Palaeolithic has shown more
clearly than ever that the "Middle Stone Age" is sensu
stricto no proper Stone Age period, but only a final phase,possibly quite short, of the Old Stone Age. Further, the
typological diffierence between the Mesolithic and the~
Upper Palaeolithic, not to mention the Late Palaeolithic,
is much smaller than that between the Middle and the
Upper Palaeolithic, where new achievements (e.g., art,
living facilities, funerals) changed the entire cultural
picture.The preserved inorganic and organic inventory of the~
Mesoithi ie h mrsino eaec fpe
ofIG 7. ate Palaeolithic. h emMsltichs tpeet
tyonlogieauthriy owa erdrted Sberiadiin.Lt aaeti
Vol.9 JNo.5 December968 365
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 17/41
Our knowledge of the division and characteristics of
these groups of industries is admittedly limited. The
reason for this is that, at least in the better-known Euro-
pean area, the microlithic material always presents essen-
tially the same, or at least very similar, forms, with the
result that some decades ago it was held that a unified
Tardenoisian spread almost over the whole of Europe (or,
perhaps, the Azilio-Tardenoisian in the west and the
Swiderio-Tardenoisian in the east). Only well-stratified
complexes of finds together with an exact statistical treat-
ment of the types will make clear the difference among
the groups.
Schwabedissen (1944) surveyed and divided the Final
Palaeolithic of northwestern Germany, outlining in par-
ticular the Nordic groups with core- and ring-axes
(Lyngby, Duvensee, Oldesloe, Ertebolle) and the micro-
lithic groups (Kirchdorf, Halten, Boberg, Hiilstein).
Gramsch (1960) has presented a picture of the Final
Palaeolithic of the Mark Brandenburg, and Schuldt
(1961) has published the important results of excavations
carried on in the Hohen Viecheln, Mecklenburgia, of a
habitationwith rich
stone, bone,and wood industries.
The Thuringian industries have been treated by Feustel
(1961), and W. Taute and F. Naber are now working on
the Final Palaeolithic of western and southern Germany.
This means that we shall very soon have an outline of the
Final Palaeolithic in the western and northwestern part
of Central Europe. There are a number of unpublished
complexes of finds in Czechoslovakia, especially in Bo-
hemia; in Moravia the discovery of Smolin is just being
reported; and an upper Final Palaeolithic has been dis-
covered at Sered, in Slovakia. Austria and Hungary have
so far been able to report but a few surface finds. The
Final Palaeolithic of the countries of Southeastern Europe
is as yet insufficiently examined.
FIG. 8. Final Palaeolithic.
\\\\\\\\Microlithic Industries Macrolithic Industries
~_Bone Industries 4~//////ndustries with GravettianT4radition
inal Palaeolithic from the Crimea ||||Double-notched-point
Industries
The very rich Final Palaeolithic of Poland has been
rather intensively studied. Wieckowska (1964) and Wiec-
kowska and Marczak (1965) have attempted a typological
treatment as well as a division of the finds. It is interesting
that no double-notched points are known from the Polish
Final Palaeolithic, despite the fact that it presumably
develops out of the Mazowsze cycle.
The U.S.S.R. has a fairly rich Final Palaeolithic
(Beregovaja 1960). Formozov (1 954) has pointed out that
the northern belt, up to the Oka and the upper Volga,
has a group with double-notched points which can be
connected with the Late Palaeolithic in Poland (at Borki,
Jelin Bor, Sknjatino). Still farther to the northeast, on the
Kama, there is a Final Palaeolithic containing long
narrow blades, as well as the corresponding cores, bladed
end-scrapers, and angle-burins; both geometric forms
and double-notched points are absent there (Bader 1960).
On the other hand, on the Desna, there existed groups
with relatively few geometrically arranged microliths,
and with an accompanying industry inclining toward the
Upper Palaeolithic. Of course, the question remains open
whether, in particular cases, this is not a Late Palaeolithicinstead (e.g., Smjacka XIV). The Crimean Final Palaeo-
lithic is well known. It consists stratigraphically of several
layers (Tas-Air, Sjuren II, Murzak Koba, San Koba,
Fatma Koba); typologically, it is a development of the
Late Palaeolithic.3
To sum up, the Final Palaeolithic of Central and
Eastern Europe can be seen as follows: Groups of crude
tools containing core- and ring-axes and connected with
southern Scandinavia reach up to North Germany. The
bone industry of the Kunda type, from the Maglemosean
(Indreko 1948), dominates the countries of the Baltic. In
all of Central Europe there is only one microlithic inven-
tory without any double-notched points; since it willprobably be possible to divide this inventory into several
typologically different groups, it should not be designated
as Tardenoisian. In Eastern Europe, there seem to be at
least one group with double-notched points and another
with a stronger Upper Palaeolithic tradition. The Crimea
presents an evolution of its own from as early as the Upper
Palaeolithic.
CONCLUSION
The cultural development of the Old Stone Age appearsto us, on the basis of present knowledge, to have been on
the whole continuous. The distribution of particular
typological groups became more and more restricted
over time; in the Early Palaeolithic, a group might cover
much of a continent, but by the Final Palaeolithic we
have only local facies confined to narrow areas, for
example those within the microlith circle of Central
Europe. Large ethnic migrations over an area of several
hundreds of kilometres, as were suggested some years ago
for the Perigordian (from Asia Minor to France) are no
longer hypothesized. Where a "wandering" of certain
typological and technological elements is traceable, we
3 I have been unable to take into account any of the work reportedin Materialy issledovaniao archeologiiSSSR,vol. 126 (1966), U istokovdrevnich ultur, pochamezolita,edited by N. N. Gurina.
366 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 18/41
Valoch:PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEwould now rather suggest only a slow and gradualpenetration. It remains completely uncertain to whatextent such influences represent trade and borrowing ofcultural riches and to what extent an invasion by anotherethnic groupis indicated.
Such changes are observable in all phases of the OldStone Age. We can see the penetration of hand-axes fromFrance to the western and northern parts of CentralEurope as early as the Early Palaeolithic. Hand-axesseem to have come also across the Caucasus from AsiaMinor. In the Middle Palaeolithic, the Micoquian spreadfrom its centre in South Germany to the north (Hessen)and northeast, along the Bohemian massif as far as SouthPoland, and fromtheresouthwardinto Moravia.Anothercentre of the Micoquian that has been suggestedis far tothe southeast, perhaps in the Crimea, from whence itspreadnortheast to the Volga (?) and northwest into theUkraine.
The questionof the origin, development, and relation-shipsof the leaf-pointsis of continuing interest.Accordingto present knowledge, it can be supposed that the estab-
lishment of morphologically genuine leaf points, as wellas of numerous more primitive preform,s, ook place in-dependently in various places in Europe as early as theearly phases of the Middle Palaeolithic (during the EemInterglacial). This tradition developed in several groupsof industries, so that toward the decline of the MiddlePalaeolithic there were pure Middle Palaeolithic indus-tries with leaf-points in some regions of Europe. I wouldlike to assume that these industries, like the Szeletian, notonly were evolving toward the Upper Palaeolithic, butwere already absorbing influences from neighboringgroups of Upper Palaeolithic character. Consequently,the leaf-pointwould have to be considered as an achieve-
ment of the Middle Palaeolithic.The Upper Palaeolithic of Central Europe may haveinfluenced the evolution of the Aurignacian of France.On the other hand, weak influences of the westernChatelperronianand the Font-Robert stage can be seenin Germany. The western origin of the Central EuropeanMagdalenian and of the Pavlovian of Eastern Europe canbe considered certain. Whether the early blade industriesof Eastern Europe are to be traced to the "Praeaurig-nacian" of the eastern Mediterranean must for the timebeing remain a hypothesis only. Relations between theSouth-European (Yugoslav) Upper Gravettian and cor-responding phenomena irnnorthern Italy, and perhaps
even the Grimaldian, are as yet unknown, but notexcluded.
All three great civilizations (Perigordian, Pavlovian,Magdalenian) took part in the establishment of the LatePalaeolithic in Central and Northern Europe; in EasternEurope, the Upper Palaeolithic of the various regionsprovided the basis for similar development. The FinalPalaeolithic can be interpreted as essentially a continuousevolution of the preceding Late Palaeolithic. In thenorthern part of Central Europe, there is an invasion ofthe Nordic crude tools (core- and ring-axes), but theydisappear rapidly as one proceeds southwards. The bonecivilization on the Baltic surely goes back to Upper
Palaeolithic traditions (Magdalenian?). The shifting ofthe double-notched point group from Poland to the upper
Volga is likely to represent the most significant migration
Some phenomena may be explained by convergence,
of which the Middle Palaeolithic provides two good
examples: (1) the existence of two widely separated
Micoquian centres, and (2) independent appearance of
the leaf-points in several regions of Europe. Were related
groups of people concerned here ? Other widely separated
convergent phenomena can be understood as a general
trend of evolution. These are the principal characteristics
of the individual stages: the habit of Early Palaeolithic
man of chiseling his tools from whole stones (choppers,
hand-axes); the establishment of strongly differentiated
Middle Palaeolithic flake industries, preceded by the
Early Palaeolithic Clactonian; the origin of blade indus-
tries, bone implements, and art in the Upper Palaeolithic;
and finally the development of microlithic forms in the
Late and Final Palaeolithic.
The different ethnic groups probably maintained con-
tact, whether on friendly or unfriendly terms, in all the
stages and thus preserved some mutual influence in cul-
tural forms. The significance of the many statisticallydemonstrated facies of the Middle Palaeolithic, differing
both typologically and technologically, remains obscure.
The groups lived near one another in a small territory
(the southwest of France) during a relatively short period
of time (in the Lower Wiirm); only in isolated cases do
they constitute successive stages. The survival of the
typical Middle Palaeolithic Levalloisian technique in
some of the Aurignacian industries in Moravia shows that
the role of technology in the definition of industries is far
from clear. Is it possible in such a case to infer a genetic
relationship, or is this a case of convergence (or, possibly,
something else) ?
I have nowhere touched upon the question of theassociation ofdifferent civilizations with particular human
types or groups, for this is a matter ofpalaeoanthropology.
If, however, one considers cultural evolution to be depen-
dent upon the evolution of mankind, then some con-
sequences would follow from the above deductions: the
various morphologically different sapiens forms must
have originated in different regions; some progressive
types of Palaeoanthropines were probably the bearers of
those industries which later developed into the Upper
Palaeolithic blade industries; other Palaeoanthropines,
while they may have reached a relatively advanced state
of evolution within the limits of their primitive characters,
remained bearers of the surviving modified (e.g., Szele-tian) or even retarded (the Mousterian and Praesolutrean
of the Middle Wurm Interstadial Podhradem and the
beginning of the Middle Wurm Stadial) archaic indus-
tries. It is very questionable, on the other hand, whether
the numerous facies of the Mousterian complex, distin-
guished only technologically, or the typologically different
groups of the East European Upper Palaeolithic or of
the microlithic Final Palaeolithic of Central Europe, for
example, represented distinct ethnic groups. (Of course,
these three examples cannot be considered as either
identical or equivalent.)
The end of the Old Stone Age in the area under con-
sideration is still very obscure. As we have already men-tioned, the lower limit of the Final Palaeolithic was
reduced by the incorporation of the Late Palaeolithic.
On the other hand, the Central European Neolithic has
Vol.9- No. 5 December968 367
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 19/41
been radiocarbon-dated as early as the fifth millennium
B.C., making the duration of the pure Final Palaeolithic
only some 3,000 years. The hypothesis is being offered
ever more frequently, however, that while the farmers
were penetrating from the southeast, groups of hunters,
fishers, and collectors with a purely Final Palaeolithic
civilization continued to live on the banks of lakes and
rivers and were only assimilated in the course of time.
Such a symbiosis of human groups with different economic
bases can be presumed to have existed in the border zonesof the advanced agricultural civilization radiating from
the high cultures of the Near East. It would seem prob-
able that the Final or Late Palaeolithic human groups of
Southeastern Europe, closer to the cradle of agriculture,
themselves participated in the formation of the farmer
tribes which penetrated into the north, and that these
latter in turn incorporated other groups. May this perhaps
be the explanation for the absence (??) of a true Final
Palaeolithic in Southeast Europe and the presence there
of a potteryless Neolithic? The new civilizations may
have spread eastward into the Ukrainian steppes in the
same way, possibly with even greater participation of the
Final or Late Palaeolithic human groups. This change
probably took place much more simply in the northern
wooded areas (see Brjusov 1952). No economic shift wasconcerned there, for hunting and fishing remained the
bases of the economy even in the Neolithic. The transition
was accomplished in external characters of civilization
(pottery, whetted axes and hatchets, etc.) without altering
either economic base or ethnic composition.
Comments
by EMMANUEL ANATI*
Jerusalem, srael, 28 ii 68
It was a pleasure to read this stimulating,
well-written synthesis of a broad subject.
Central and Eastern Europe is an area of
the utmost importance for the under-
standing of Old World prehistory and
can well be considered in the context of
general cultural evolution in the Eurasian
continent. I shall confine myself to a few
general comments.
Central and Eastern Europe lie be-
tween two of the world's richest areas in
Palaeolithic finds: Western Europe andthe Near East. Any ethnic movement and
any transmission of cultural traits from
Central Asia and the Near East to West-
ern Europe and vice-versa were bound to
pass through this area. Traces of such
movements, however, have not yet been
clearly identified. Lower Palaeolithic men
and their cultures did not originate in
Europe, and if, as it seems, Central and
Eastern Europe was an area of transit and
of active human contact, one is surprised
by the paucity of finds there as compared
with the wealth of artifacts known from
Western Europe and from the Near East.Most of the classic Lower Palaeolithic
sites in the Near East have provided hun-
dreds and sometimes thousands of well-
shaped and well-defined bifacial tools and
flake artifacts; the same abundance is
observed in Western Europe. Such wealth
contrasts sharply with the general pattern
of scantiness appearing in Valoch's de-
scriptions: "... a pebble shaped like a
chopping-tool," at Pestlorinc; ".... a
rather primitive object," at Steinheim;"... the fragment of a biface-fashioned
artifact," at Gura Kamenka IV; "...
isolated pebble-tools," at Oka and Mos-kva; ". .. not a single hand-axe or other
unobjectionably stratified Early Palaeo-
lithic industry has come from Eastern
Europe as far as the Urals"; etc.
It seems probable that in each major
Palaeolithic period certain regions of
Central and Eastern Europe remained
uninhabited and untransited by man,
perhaps mainly for ecological reasonssuch as the presence of marshes, deep
forest, or extensive ice cover. An adequate
mapping of such areas for each period
would be a valuable contribution, as it
would advance our knowledge of the pos-
sible routes of ethnic movements and cul-
tural connections. Still, no doubt can
exist that man lived in much of the area,
and used it for transit, throughout the
Pleistocene. His needs and his techno-
logical abilities are likely to have been
broadly similar to those of his fellow men
from Western Europe or the Near East.
It is unlikely that the human groups weredrastically smaller in Central and Eastern
Europe than in Western Europe or the
Near East. Some of the Lower Palaeo-
lithic sites so far discovered may have
been just way-stations and not steadily
inhabited localities, but this does not
seem to be the only reason for the paucity
of finds in the area as a whole. It is reason-
able to assume that for at least some of
the living levels that have been studied,
most of the material industry was not
found because it was not preserved. This
may point to the possibility that Lower
Palaeolithic man in the area used woodand other perishable materials in a rela-
tively higher percentage than did con-
temporary men living in other areas.
Considering past misuse of the idea of
prehistoric migrations, it is understand-
able that Valoch is so much opposed to it.
Ethnic movements are, however, likely to
have occurred in Central and Eastern
Europe, just as they did in the Near East,
Central Asia, North Africa, and Western
Europe. They ought to be considered in
terms of the way of life of the period
under discussion and the Palaeolithic
rhythm of cultural evolution. Varioussubtypes of humans are detected in Eur-
ope, and it is highly unlikely that all of
them originated there and that all evolved
exclusively in Europe. Likewise, various
types of material culture must have been
introduced to Europe from outside, main-
ly from Southwestern Asia. In the enor-
mous length of time of each detectable
period, the introduction of a new cultureor the arrival of a new human group may
represent a very slow process, lasting
several thousands of years; on the other
hand, in some cases the process may have
been much more rapid. Distances be-
tween Central and Eastern Europe and
Western Europe or the Near East are
rather small when compared with dis-
tances crossed by prehistoric man else-
where, for instance with those crossed by
the early human groups who, from their
original home in Asia, ultimately reached
Tierra del Fuego. Even today, nomad
Bedouins on the Arabian Peninsula maycover as much as 1,000 kilometers in a
single season. There are evidences of
large-scale migrations in post-Palaeo-
lithic times, and there is no reason to be-
lieve that similar happenings never took
place in the area during the Palaeolithic.
Considering the recurring patterns of
material culture in Eurasia, it is hard to
accept the presence of many Lower Pa-
laeolithic localized regional facies in Cen-
tral and Eastern Europe. Most of these
facies are likely to be related to wider
cultural patterns. In Eurasia in general,
marked local facies usually show up inthe Middle Palaeolithic and tend to be-
come clearer and better defined in the
Upper Palaeolithic, when the rhythm of
cultural evolution becomes much faster
and detectable changes in material culture
representshorter time periods than before.
Each major Old World region, e.g.,
Western Europe, the Near East, North
Africa, or Central and South Africa, has
made some major contribution to the
general evolution of Palaeolithic material
culture. Each area, sooner or later, has
given birth to some new material pattern
which reflected the use of new techno-logical inventions, new tools and weapons,
and new methods of food-getting, and
which projected its influence into neigh-
bouring areas. Undoubtedly, one of the
368 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 20/41
Valochz:PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEajor contributions of Central and East-
ern European prehistoric man to the
general evolution of material culture is to
be found in the Szeletian (and Pre-Solu-
trean, in their various facies and denomi-
nations). The Szeletian seems to be one
of the few cultural assemblages likely to
have been born and developed in the area
which definitely influenced further ma-
terial development throughout Europe.
As in the Kostjenki area, so throughoutEurasia in the Upper Palaeolithic, groups
of people making certain material cultures
lived in the vicinity of other human
groups making different material cul-
tures. For generations and perhaps for
centuries, these various patterns of ma-
terial culture evolved separately and co-
existed in the vicinity of each other with-
out mixing; they succeeded in maintain-
ing their typological autonomy. As I had
the opportunity of discussing some years
ago (1963: 127-29), extremely significant
conclusions must be drawn from this fact
as to Upper Palaeolithic social structureand social relations. Indeed, only a very
specific social pattern could have allowed
such a situation.
I have some difficulty in accepting the
idea that Palaeolithic art developed in-
dependently in different regions as a con-
sequence of "widely separated convergent
phenomena." The range of subject mat-
ter, the approach to specific subjects, the
recurrent patterns of symbols and the
repetitious connections between specific
figures and symbols, the use of similar
"decorative" patterns in variou, areas, all
point to the fact that Palaeolithic art,from the Atlantic coast of Europe to Cen-
tral Asia, is the expression of the same
well-defined and rather dogmatically
conceived ideology. Art seems to have
expanded with the ideology it reflects, and
it is likely that Palaeolithic art and the con-
cepts it illustrates originated somewhere
and diffused from a core to the periphery.
I am rather reluctant to accept the
term "Final Palaeolithic" for "Meso-
lithic," as these terms have a different
significance in the current terminology.
The problem of defining the cultures
which are chronologically located be-tween the end of the Upper Palaeolithic
and the beginning of Neolithic is a prob-
lem facing prehistoric archaeology in
various Old World regions; we should
attempt to solve it in a way acceptable
universally. Usually, early "Mesolithic"
phases show general material charac-
teristics quite similar to the Upper Pa-
laeolithic, while final "Mesolithic" tends
to have a great many Neolithic-like ele-
ments. For most areas it is impossible tointroduce this period en bloc into the
Palaeolithic. Perhaps a suggestion I pro-
posed ( 1965, 1968) for the correspondingNear Eastern cultures might be accept-
able for Central and Eastern Europe and
other areas as well: The term "Meso-
lithic" should be used, not to define a
period, but only to define material indus-
tries of a transitional character which are
predominantly microlithic. Contempor-
ary industries showing belated and some-
times degenerate Palaeolithic traditions
with a predominance of larger flint tools
should be termed Epi-Palaeolithic. In-
dustries with Neolithic-like elements such
as axes, adzes, sickle-blades, and arrow-heads of types non-existent in earlier
complexes should be termed "Proto-
Neolithic." The period as a whole is so
diversified culturally that one cannot use
the same term to define it and its cultures;
the only safe term would probably be a
geological one like Early Holocene or
Early Post-Glacial.
Valoch's article is highly valuable for
the order it brings to an enormous quan-
tity of data and for the up-to-date syn-
thesis it provides. Scholars will disagree
with it in minor details, but we can safely
view it as a major contribution to the pre-history of Central and Eastern Europe.
by FRAN9OIS BORDES*
Talence,France.28 iII68
This is a long awaited and a very useful
paper.
I do not see anything especially "primi-
tive" about the hand-axe from Steinheim;
it looks to me like a good Middle
Acheulean, the more so since it is made
of Triassic sandstone.
As a general rule, the Acheulean has
pebble tools as well as hand-axes. One,two, three pebble tools found alone may
just as well belong to the Acheulean as to a
"pebble culture." They may even belong
to the Upper Palaeolithic or later periods.
Another old idea that should be dis-
carded is that there are always many
hand-axes in the Acheulean. The propor-
tion may vary from 2 or 3% to over 40%,
depending on the site, the part of the site
excavated, the type of Acheulean, its
stage of evolution, and the time, or the
method, of making the collection.
The term "Micoquian" should be re-
stricted, for the present at least, to West-ern and German sites. The sites from
Poland probably belong to another tradi-
tion, and Kiik Koba is certainly not
Micoquian.
The confusion between "prepared
striking platform" and "Levallois tech-
nique" (predetermination of the shape of
theflake by a special preparation of the
core) has dangerous implications.
Although I created the term "Charen-
tian" for the Quina-Ferrassie type of
Mousterian, I am at a loss to imagine
what a "Charentian of Micoque tradi-
tion" is, unless it is a Mousterian with ahigh percentage of scrapers and some
hand-axes-an assemblage which is not
unknown in France in the "eastern facies
Charentian," the hand-axes being pear-
shaped and only remotely Micoquian-
like.
On the basis of Behm-Blancke's pub-
lication, the material from Ehringsdorf
very strongly resembles the Quina type
of Western Europe, in which bifacial
types (not hand-axes in the Acheulean
sense) are sometimes quite numerous. It
does not seem to lead directly to theBlattspitzen cultures of Germany or to the
Szeletian, at least no more than do the
Micoquian of Klausenische type, or even
the Mousterian of Acheulean tradition
(which does exist in Central Germany,
near Zigenhein, where it was found by
A. Luttropp and where I have seen it).
Tata, on the other hand, could be a
diminutive offspring of Ehringsdorf, but
is certainly a special type of Mousterian,
while Subalyuk, from what I have seen,
is much more Western-like. In assessing
the Central European "Tayacian," one
must keep in mind, as Valoch points out,the possibility of natural action on man-
made flakes or tools. The absence of any
"Levalloisian" facies in Central Europe
is perhaps the consequence of the absence
of an abundant and readily available
supply of flint.
I heartily agree with Valoch that there
were several centers for the development
of Upper Palaeolithic out of the Middle
Palaeolithic. In the West, the Lower
Perigordian comes out of the Mousterian
of Acheulean tradition. It seems quite
probable that the Szeletian has its origin
in the Blattspitzen cultures. In Russia, theKostienki-I-Sungir culture probably has
a different origin, perhaps in the Mous-
terian of Russia itself; at the same time,
other types appear, whose origin is less
clear. As to the Aurignacian, while there
may be some Aurignacoid implements at
Russian sites, I do not know of any
Aurignacoid culture here.
I do not think the distinction between
Aurignacian and Olschewian in Central
Europe is a valid one. At Istallosko, in
the lower level, there are a good number of
split-base bone points, identical with the
ones from the French Aurignacian I, andwhile the flint tools are so few that it is
obvious they would not suffice for the
maintenance of even a very few men, all
of them are such as might be found in an
Aurignacian assemblage. This is clearly a
hunting site, not a living site, and every-
where the so-called Olschewian is repre-
sented by the scanty flint assemblages
with typical bone points that are to be
expected from hunting sites. Further, the
Olschewian assemblages are mostly found
in mountain caves.
Outside of France, I do not know of
any true burinbusqul. Although the keeled(or carinate) scraper is a normal con-
stituent of Aurignacian assemblages, it is
not always the dominant type. In the Old
Aurignacian. on the other hand, scrapers
Vol. 9 -No. 5- December 1968 369
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 21/41
on retouched blades and retouched blades
are common (in the Aurignacian I of la
Ferrassie, carinate scrapers, typical and
atypical, account for 3.04%, scrapers on
retouched blades 14.9%, and retouched
blades 6.8%; in layer 5 of Vogelherd,
carinates account for 3.05%, scrapers on
retouched blades 10.5%, and retouched
blades 13.42%). The relationship sup-
posed by Muiller-Beck between the
"Aurignacian blades" from Vogelherdand the Jerzmanowice points is not valid
and recalls the old confusion of these
Aurignacian blades with the Solutrean
"pointes a face plane." If the sculptures
at Vogelherd seem "a little early," it is
only from a theoretical point of view,
since sculpture had to begin somewhere.
I do not see any obvious relationship be-
tween the horse sculptures from Vogel-
herd and Sungir, except that they both
represent horses.
There would be much to say about the
so-called Pavlovian. I do not know well
the implements from Pavlov, but Klima'sbeautiful publication on Dolni Vestonice
permits one to get more than a fair know-
ledge of this site. It is clearly Upper
Perigordian in the western ense.I can (with
one exception) put a tool from the open-
air site of Carbiac (Dordogne) on each of
Klima's illustrations, and from Klima's
count, the proportions also seem verymuch alike. The typological differences,
for two sites so far apart in space, are so
slight that it is amazing. The exception is
the "micro-saw," which, however, does
occur, though rarely, in France in some
Upper Perigordian and in the "Proto-Magdalenian" (Final Perigordian). The
bone tools from Dolni Vestonice can also
be found in the French Upper Peri-
gordian. Dolni Vestonice seems to be an
eastern extension of the Upper Peri-
gordian (which could even stretch to
Kostienki IV). The term "Pavlovian"
should be restricted to Pavlov, or to the
Willendorf-Kostienki I (Upper level)
complex.
In 1954, I counted at least one carinate
(plus two atypical) in the Pre-Aurig-
nacian of Jabrud. The "hole-stick" (if
this means the "baton de commande-ment") is already known in the Lower
Aurignacian in France and Germany
(Vogelherd) and is not specifically Mag-
dalenian, and there are numerous Mag-
dalenian sites without "spear-heads with
a gutter for blood."
Valoch seems to think that the idea of
multiple cultures coexisting in a "small
territory" (the southwest of France) pre-
sents problems; but 10,000 to (at most)
20,000 people in an area bigger than
Czechoslovakia would certainly have had
elbow room. As for the significance of the
different facies of the Mousterian "dis-tinguished only technologically" (andtypologically ), I believe that although
they probably do not represent great
racial differences, they do represent dis-
tinct ethnic groups. Any other explana-
tion raises more problems than it solves,
and if, even today-with books, easy
travel, radio, television, population pres-
sure, etc.-there are significant cultural
differences between European subcul-
tures, why not in Palaeolithic times?
by DESMONDCOLLINS*
London,England. 14 iii 68
This article will clearly be valuable, since
the literature of the Slavic languages sum-
marised here is inevitably a closed book
to most Western scholars. It is encourag-
ing to read that "large ethnic migrations
. . . as were suggested for the Perigordian
(from Asia Minor to France) are no longer
hypothesised," even though Valoch and
other writers who have come to favour
local cultural development have not en-
tirely got away from the "Gravettian"
terminology, which largely presupposes
such migrations.
Valoch follows other authors in dis-
tinguishing a pebble-tool industry from a
flake-tool industry. Mlazice, for example,
is grouped with the pebble-tool industry.
In the collections from there that I exa-
mined in 1966, however, two typical
chopping tools and nine rather more
dubious choppers were accompanied by
eighteen flakes which are Clactonian in
character and compare closely with those
of the Swanscombe Lower Gravels in
spite of the difference in raw material.
Following Warren (1951), it is clear that
the Clactonian contains a typical, if small,
chopping-tool component. Mlazice ac-
cordingly differs little from the Clactonian
and shares with it typical traits such as
the Clactonian notch and biconical core.
One may reasonably surmise that earlier
occurrences of chopping tools in this area
may be earlier stages of the Clactonian.
Also, it is somewhat misleading to
equate Wangen and Wallendorf with
Hundisburg and Markkleeberg in a single
flake-tool industry. While Hundisburg
shares hand-axes and Levallois flakes with
Markkleeberg, Wangen and Wallendorf
have neither; they are purely Clactornian,
as Toepfer (1961c) has pointed out, hav-
TABLE 1
INDICES FOR SIDE-SCRAPERS AND
PRADNIK KNIVES AT Two POLISH SITES
Krakow- Ciemna
Wavel Cave
IR (Side-scrapers) 13.8 32.64
IRCP (Pradnik 1.8 34.32knives)
IR + IRCP 15.6 66.96
ing Clactonian flakes, Clactonian notches,
and, at Wallendorf, the biconical core.
Both are small assemblages (Wangen 38
artefacts, Wallendorf 86) and the absence
of chopping tools may reflect the fact that
in the later Clactonian, as from Little
Thurrock (Wymer 1957), this type may
form less than 1% of the artifacts. I agree
that Hundisburg may be grouped with
the Acheulian. Metrical indices for the
flakes come out very close to those for the
Acheulian and distinctly outside the
range for the Clactonian (see, for
example, the figures for two of these in-
dices given in Table 1). The five Clac-
tonian sites seem to form a developmental
sequence spanning the Holstein.
I venture to doubt whether Markklee-
berg and Hundisburg are really at all
closely related to Lebenstedt, which seems
to be of much later date, but they do
seem to resemble the more nearly con-
temporary assemblages from Bakers Hole
and Ebbsfleet Lower Gravel, both typo-
logically and in their fauna. Again, the
view that Taubach and Ehringsdorf are
part of the same development seems un-
tenable. Ehringsdorf has limaces and
Quina retouch and is typical of the
Charentian, albeit quite strongly Leval-
lois. Taubach, by contrast, lacks Charen-
tian types. With denticulates and "de-
generate" hand-axes, it groups much
better on the Acheulian side of the spec-
trum, and (along with Rabutz and per-
haps French Levallois denticulate sites
like Evreux II) can be conveniently
labelled Taubachian.
TABLE 2PERCENTAGES OF RACLOIRS, GRATTOIRS, AND BURINS
AT AURIGNACIAN SITES IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA
Trends Line Features
SITES
RACLOIRs BURRINS SCALED "BUSKOIDS" RGB
Obciny 28.4 26.2 6.7 14.8 88KeChneC 13.3 26.8 3.1 12.4 186
Stranska 9.6 29.5 1.2 20.8 240BorkyII 12.0 47.5 5.0 10.8 183D. VestoniCespodni 10.5 48.0 6.2 4.0 125D.V. objeCtI 2.6 69.1 3.6 0.4 461
370 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 22/41
Valoch: PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEaloch admirably reveals the com-
plicated problem of the Leptolithic of
Central Europe. The existence of a true
Aurignacian here in the French sense
remains disputed. Using figures for some
of the Czech Aurignacian sites, one can,
I think, make out quite a plausible
developmental sequence (see Table 2).
While this development is strongly
Aurignacian in its earlier stages (con-
sistently high values for Aurignacian re-touched blades and for the carinate
group-buskoids), it is not identical to
that of Western Europe and deserves a
separate name.
A second rather plausible evolution has
been suggested by Grigoriev (1966) from
Krems-Hundsteig via Willendorf II 5-9
and Pavlov to Kostjenki I 1. The "Du-
four" assemblages of the Krems group
are of course very widespread, and seem
to be "Aurignacian" in origin. These
"Aurignacians" of Obciny, Krems, and
southwestern France may well have a
common origin (say in Fossellone), butalternatively it could be argued that any
Leptolithic trend in the Charentian will
inevitably produce an "Aurignacian";
for the carinate is only a steep limace
modified by lamellar retouch, and Aurig-
nacian retouched blades are essentially
Charentian. Furthermore, the lamellar
retouch inevitably produces bladelets of
the sort used to make the Dufours, Krems
points, and backed bladelets as found in
the "Pavlovian."
None of these suggestions, nor the
rather numerous misspellings and mis-
translations, should be allowed to detractfrom the fact that this survey is a most
valuable source of data on the present
state of the Palaeolithic in Central and
Eastern Europe, and a good starting
point for the relevant critical discussion
which characterises sciencc.
by HENRI DELPORTE*
Paris, France.25 iii 68
Valoch's paper is a very interesting sur-
vey of the Palaeolithic of Central and
Eastern Europe, based on an objective
view of the facts. For a long time, Centraland Eastern European prehistorians have
tried to find, in their excavations, exactly
the same civilisations as in France;
workers ofa newgeneration-among them
Valoch-have succeeded in isolating for
study the local and regional tool-assem-
blages and so defining them as to con-
tribute to an attempt at the precise state-
ment of their relationships with the tool-
assemblages of Western Europe. This new
orientation demands the abandonment of
the idealistic hypothesis of the eastern
origin of the civilisations, a hypothesis
formerly defended, mistakenly of course,by a number of French prehistorians.
For the Upper Palaeolithic (which
interests me particularly), Valoch's paper
confirms the existence of three regional
complexes, connected one with another
by transitional zones: the Western, the
Carpatho-Pannonic, and the Russo-
Ukrainian. A very detailed analysis has
permitted Valoch to establish new dis-
tinctions and produce a more realistic
view of the Palaeolithic industries and
facies.
Here I want to present a few observa-tions-not criticisms, but only notes and
ideas:
1) In spite of a lot of C14 dating, the
geological and chronological correlations
between Western, Central, and Eastern
Europe are still inaccurate. Valoch and
Bordes (1957) have proposed a general
relationship between the loesses of Central
and Western Europe, but today it is
apparent that the facts are more complex;
and the work of Soviet students of the
Pleistocene and prehistorians on correla-
tions with Eastern Europe is still very
limited.2) The beginning of the Upper Pa-
laeolithic seems to come at about the
same time in Western, Central, and
Eastern Europe: in the former Gottweig
Interstadial, for which Musil and Valoch
would substitute the Podhradem, and
which recent work (by Leroi-Gourhan
and the Dutch palynologists) has shown
to be extremely complex in Western
Europe. The :ituation is not yet very
clear in the U.S.S.R., for one of the
oldest assemblages, that of the lower level
of Sungir, is dated to 20,540 B.P.
3) In Central Europe, the separationbetween Aurignacian and Olschewian is
not absolute: the Olschewian could be a
"facies de carence" of the Aurignacian.
The hypothesis of a kind of merging of
these industries to form the typical Aurig-
nacian of Western Europe would, how-
ever, be tempting if the dates obtained for
the various industries were consistent
withi it.
4) Western influences certainly oc-
curred in the industries of Central Europe,
but the example of Chatelperron points
in level 4 of Ilsenhohle (Ranis) is not
convincing; the Chatelperron pointsoccur here in an evolved industry with
Gravette points, relatively recent, and
may constitute a recurrence, perhaps on
account of a technical weakness or the
characteristics of the raw material.
5) Valoch thinks that the Aurig-
nacian does not exist in Eastern Europe;
but the appropriately distiinguished Spi-
cyna group seems to have Aurignacian af-
finities (end-scrapers on retouched blades,
more or less "burins busques," etc.).
6) I think that it is necessary to dis-
tinguish, on the one hand, the Kostenkian
proper, which is very homogeneous(Kostenki I, Gagarino, Avdeevo, etc.),
and, on the other hand, a different facies,
more evolved and certainly more recent
(Mezine, Eliseevitchi, Kiev, etc.).
Aside from the above remarks, I fully
agree with Valoch's ideas, particularly on
the origin in the Middle Palaeolithic of
the Prae-Solutrean, Szeletian, and prob-
ably the Russian Streletzkaia-Sungir
group, a process which closely corre-
sponds to the origin of the Western
Chatelperronian in some final facies of
the Western European Mousterian.
by GISELA FREUND*
Erlangen,WestGermany.0 ix 67
Valoch's article should be well received.
It constitutes a step toward making the
Central and Eastern European Palaeo-
lithic better known, especially among our
non-European colleagues. A detailed
commentary on this complex subject,
skilfully condensed by Valoch in these
few pages, would be too voluminous and
complicated. I would therefore like to
restrict my comments to just a few points,
drawing mainly upon my own experience.Naturally, in comparison with Western
Europe, the Central and Eastern Euro-
pean Middle Palaeolithic appears to be
quite poor. This picture can be expected
to change considerably, at least for the
western half of Central Europe, after
complete study of the Sesselfelsgrotto
(actually a rock-shelter) in Neu-Essing on
the lower reaches of the Altmuehl Valley
(under excavation by L. Zotz and G.
Freund since 1964) and the surface site
on the Speckberg near Eichstaett in the
Middle Altmuehl Valley region (under
excavation by H. Mueller-Beck since1964). Here also, a number of phases can
be worked out-something which up to
now was not believed possible.
Contrary to Valoch, I would not in-
clude the cultural remains of the Riss
Glaciation in the Middle Palaeolithic.
Further, as Zotz and I have pointed out
to him on several occasions, the industries
of the stratigraphically sub-divided Mous-
terian of the Sesselfelsgrotto do not rep-
resent a Tayacian. The small tools on
flakes which he mentions in connection
with the Sesselfelsgrotto are, to our know-
ledge, very special elements of this par-ticular site, observed nowhere else; they
are found alongside of the large classic
scraper forms and at no time appear to
represent a "Micro-Mousterian". (Inci-
dentally, we would like to suggest washing
the sediment over graduated screens as a
very good method for recovering the
smallest elements of a culture level. Only
in this way were we able to recover the
microlithic flakes.) Definite microlithic
artifacts, the edges of which have a semi-
steep angle of retouch, often alternated,
are found in all five zones of the main
culture level (see Freund and Zotz 1968).The artifacts from the Sesselfelsgrotto
which Valoch saw and to which he refers
in this article were recovered from the
first test trench in 1964. Itl the meantime,
Vol. 9 JNo.5 December 1968 371
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 23/41
the amount of material has increased
tremendously. There has never been any
reason to believe that a Tayacian existed.
It appears to us that simply to rename
the Eastern Gravettian of Eastern Europe,
the onetime "Upper Aurignacian" of this
area, "Pavlovian," without consideringthe fact that the industry of loc. typicusis
neither published nor well known, rep-
resents a rather unfortunate move. Also,
the grouping together of such differentindustries as, for example, Predmosti,
Willendorf II (levels 5-9), Moravany-
Podkovica, etc. is an unsatisfactory
approach. In considering the western ex-
pansion of this "Pavlovian," we would
like to mention the ca. 50-cm.-long "ivory
spade" from Abri I in the village of Neu-
Essing (next to Abri II = Sesselfelsgrotto;
see Zotz 1960); it is the only known
specimen of its kind from the western part
of Central Europe, and its only satisfac-
tory parallels are to be found in the bone
material from Predmosti. In addition, the
silex industry of Abri I shows a numberof similarities with those of the Pavlovian.
(Klima has recently undertaken a com-
parative study of the Pavlov and Abri I
sites.)
As to the difficult question of the pro-
gressive advance of the bearers of the
4'1eaf-blade groups," for example the
Szeletian (which Valoch sees as a regres-
sion), a number of positive things can besaid when one considers the different
leaf-blade groups and their Eurasiatic
,distribution (see, e.g., Freund 1952). The
name "Szeletian" should, for con-
venience's sake, be restricted to the Hun-garian complex, only, as was decided
with good reason during the 1966 Szeleta
Symposium in Budapest.
by MIKL6s GABORI*
Budapest,Hungary.15 ix 67
Valoch's study-a valuable and interest-
ing survey-shows at the same time that
solutions to the problems of the Paleolithic
depend very much on what part of the
world these problems are viewed from.
The author examines the development of
the Paleolithic (or, to be more exact, itstypogenetics) primarily in the north of
Europe. The development of types may,
of course, best be followed where the
material is more abundant; but the study
of biological evolution has shown that
populations often decline precisely in the
area in which they evolved and later re-
establish themselves en masse elsewhere.
The Lower Paleolithic is so varied and
uncertain that grouping the industries isas yet impossible. For example, the micro-chopper industry of Vertesszollos cannot,in my opinion, be associated with the
-Heidelbergian, even if such an industryas, the "Heidelbergian" should exist at
all; it seems to me instead to carry
southern impulses. The small size of the
implements cannot be accounted for by
their material; such an adaptation can
hardly be expected in that period and at
that level of human evolution (Kretzoi
and Vertes 1965c). The possibility of a
relationship between the pebble-indus-
tries of the Lower and the Middle Paleo-
lithic, suggested by the similarity between
the Vertesszollos pebble-industry and the
Middle Paleolithic of Tata, is not to be
excluded, but the hypothesis of introduc-
tion of a microchopper tradition from thesouth seems more appropriate in view of
the fact that the temporal distance is still
problematic. The evolution of microliths
in the Lower Paleolithic can not be
traced; thus it seems unlikely that
Vertesszollos is the descendant of some
other industry.
The Lower Paleolithic covers a far
wider field than that under discussion.
The industries, of, for example, the
Vallonet or-later-the Terra Amata
(Lumley et al. 1963, Lumley 1966,
Howell et al. etc.), together with other
finds from Southern Europe, may accountfor the appearance of some of the Lower
Paleolithic industries. Whether these in-
dustries are related to the Middle Paleo-
lithic of Southern or Southeastern Europe
(Charentian, Pontiniano-Charentian,
Pontinian, generally what is called
"Pebble-Mousterian") is another impor-
tant point to be further examined.
In my estimation, the pebble-group
first appeared in Europe in the South and
from there gradually influenced the
North; whereas the Lower Paleolithic
with hand-axes gained ground in the
northwestern territories. A similar re-gional distribution and a west-to-east ex-
pansion may be observed in the Middle
Paleolithic. The expansion may have
taken place in several waves (Thoma
1962). I would not preclude the possi-
bility of a certain amount of migration;
Valoch's rejection of migration appears
to me too rigid.
Dividing the Middle Paleolithic in-
dustries into facies, in the absence of a
system for the eastern part of Central
Europe and Eastern Europe similar to
Bordes's, is uncertain and results in too
many new group names. The statisticaltreatment which might clarify the situa-
tion must await the development of a
system of types covering this area. The
division of the Central European typical
Mousterian into two groups is also prob-
lematic in the following ways: (1) I can-
not place Gudenus and Krapina in the
same facies ("Sipkian"). The latter seems
to be a blend of two different industries,
one approaching the typical Mousterian
(in the Central European sense) and the
other an Eastern or Southeastern Euro-
pean Charentian (with pebble culture).
The two may originally have been separ-ated stratigraphically. (2) I cannot accept
the grouping of the industries of Sipka,
Subalyuk, and the minor sites in Tran-
sylvania in the same facies. Subalvuk is a
rather typical (Central European Mous-
terian), but the Transylvanian sites differ
from it and seem to display Western in-
fluences (perhaps from the direction of
Yugoslavia?). These industries may have
become "atypical" when they were
shifted to the mountains. (3) Valoch has
suggested that the industry of the recently
excavated site at erd should be considered
a separate facies similar to an early
Charentian (in the Western sense). Thissite, where the development of a single
culture may be observed in more than
one level, throws new light upon the
development of the Middle Paleolithic
(Cabori and Csank 1966, 1967). Veter-
nica cave (Malez 1958, 1959) in Yugo-
slavia is also important in this respect.
Here industry cf the lower bed is Charen-
tian and that of the upper one resembles
a typical Mousterian. Such a facies shift
is assumed to have taken place in Betalov
spodmol (Yugoslavia) as well (Brodar
1956). The material from Repolust and
Gudemus, which is very important fordefining the facies, must be re-examined
in the light of these discoveries. The
transitional industries of the southeastern
Alps, best represented by Mixnitz, might
be termed "defective Mousterian." They
may have been represented at open sites
as well as caves and are probably related
to industries from northeastern Yugo-
slavia.
I agree with Valoch's summary of the
Middle Paleolithic except for the fact that
he concentrates, again, upon the northern
part of Central Europe. The charac-
teristic feature of Central Europe incontrast to Western Europe is indeed the
absence of Levalloisian technique, where-
as the outstanding feature of the Mous-
terian of the northern Flachlandtundra is
precisely the Levalloisian technique; at
this point I revert to the hypothesis as to
regional distribution and direction of
expansion offered above.
A brief and simple outline-hypotheti-
cal and provisional, of course-under dis-
cussion is the following: In Southern
Europe (including the foothills, of the
Alps, the northern part of Yugoslavia,
the margins of the southeastern Alps, andthe western part of Hungary) a Mous-
terian with pebble culture developed (or
was introduced?) in the Lower Paleolithic
-analogous in developmental terms to
the "charentien sur galet" version of the
later Western Charentian. In the western
part of the zone there were, of course,
definitely Levalloisian-type industries as
well. This vast group, if it was not autoch-
thonous, must have been spreading in a
west-to-east direction.
North of the Danubian basin, the
Mousterian was a Middle Paleolithic with
leaf-shaped points, Levalloisian tech-nique, etc., the typogenetics of which has
been excellently summed up by Valoch.
The spread within this area has been
dealt with by Bosinski (1963). Between
372 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 24/41
Valoch:PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE.he two areas, the interior of the Alps
forms, as it were, an island, very seldom
influenced by the West (e.g., Cotencher).
These zones seem to represent not only
typological or cultural, but also climato-
ecological, relations. Local and often
long-term internal development of the
various industries and also, beginning
with the last interglacial, some migration
within these zones must (perhaps no more
than infiltration or penetration) be taken
into account.
There is, as Valoch suggests, some
possibility of influence from the opposite
direction: the apparent effect of the
eastern and southern Rumanian Middle
Paleolithic on the industries of the Balkans
and-at the same time-on that the
lower bed of Subalyuk cave. In the
Balkans, influences from a different direc-
tion may also be assumed (Leroi-Gourhan
1962: 264).
The genetic relations of the Mouster-
ian-Szeletian have been established by
myself. I think it impossible, however,
that the Szeletian of Western Hungary or
elsewhere should have developed out of a
Tata-type, Micro-Pontinian-like indus-
try. The basis of the Bukk Szeletian is the
local Mousterian; the Transdanubian is
related rather to the industry of the Ger-
man Blattspzitzen. In my opinion these
are industries of entirely different origin.
As to the chronology of the Szeletian, I
agree with the author: the earlier stage
of the culture may have existed up to
Stillfried B; This is supported by several
typological observations. As regards ori-
gin: if the Szeletian developed under theinfluence of the Aurignacian + Olsche-
wian out of the Mousterian, why are
there no bone implements in the Szeletian
when the Aurignacian + Olschewian
abounds in bone implements?
The question may be raised whether or
not it is proper to call all the industries
with leaf-shaped points within and round
the Carpathian basin "Szeletian." If so,
this culture must have several (chrono-
logical-local) variants. The Bukk Szele-
tian constitutes an almost separate group;
the Transdanubian (e.g., Jankovich cave,
Dzerava skala) is typologically different,and so is the industry of Moravany-Dlha
and Vlckovce in Slovakia. Again, there is
another industry with leaf-shaped points
from Northern Hungary which typo-
logically points towards the western part
of Central Europe with its earlier, Clac-
tonian tradition. All these are variants of
the Szeletian within the Carpathian basin
alone.
I do not think one is justified in replac-
ing Gravettian by Pavlovian. Quite a
number of sites drop out of the "Pav-
lovian": Pavlov, Bodrogkeresztur, Saig-
var, the Micro-Gravettian group of thecaves (other than W 3, which might
prove an exception), and the Istrian
Gravettian cannot be connected, even
typologically. Kamegg and Langmnan-
nersdorf represent, again, different com-
positions, different relations (Brandtner
1955, Angeli 1953). Even Willendorf 5-9
cannot be termed simply "Pavlovian."
The Pavlovian is a special group, a highly
developed form of the Gravettian; the
industry or culture of the Gravettian
cannot come under the general term
Pavlovian, even though the two are in-
separable. Kostjenkian, and later Mezy-
nian, might be a proper designation.
The constituents and the Eastern roots
of that culture are obvious (Gabori and
Gabori 1957, Gaibori 1960). Its appear-
ance in Central Europe was a slow pro-
cess, through successive migrations that
can easily be traced. The migration wave
seems likely to have come to rest before it
reached the Eastern Carpathians (Ceach-
lau, etc.). Instead of generalizing about
the Gravettian, I think it more appro-
priate to locate the various groups (cf.
Felgenhauer 1959), if only because these
groups may reveal the scope and direction
of movement as well as the relations
between the lesser and greater ethnic
units. Again, I favor a statistical ap-
proach, but with some such basis of
classification as, for example, whether
mammoth or reindeer was the principal
object of the hunt (the difference being
likely to represent different ways of living
and thinking). In my opinion, the ultimate
aim of research is to go beyond typo-
genesis (which does not necessarily indi-
cate the phylogenesis of the cultures) to
paleoethnography and historical in-ference.
A final note: a subject so highly differ-
entiated and comprehensive both in space
and in time is much easier to comment
upon than to work up in all its details.
Thanks are due to the author for this
excellent survey.
by ALEXANDERGALLUS*
Melbourne,Australia.19ix 67
It is important for CURRENT ANTHRO-
POLOGY to encourage synthetic articles on
regional and topical units. My aim hereis not so much to appraise the merits of
the present paper, as to raise the question
of methodology in general.
Valoch saw as his main task a geo-
graphical and morphological classifica-
tion of tool complexes (types, facies,
groups, industries etc.; he uses these
terms rather indiscriminately, probably
repeating the terms employed in his
sources) and the enunciation of opinionsabout their origin, development, mutual
influences, expansion, and place in space
and time. The question I want to raise is
whether there is any justification todayfor restricting oneself to a description and
analysis of tool complexes and consciously
leaving out what Valoch calls the "palaeo-
anthropological" aspect.
Should pre-"history" not be based on
"palaeoanthropology"? Authors appar-
ently tend to confuse the analysis of the-
productsof human creative activity with
pre-"history." Such analysis leads only to
meaningful assertions about the artifacts
themselves and their development; that
is, it leads to a history of technology,
rather than to a history of mankind. The
constructs developed so far and used by-
Valoch and by many other modern
authors are unable to raise our thinking
to a higher level of abstraction than that
of the documents we have gathered. The
units of classification offered are not,
ethnic units, but morphological types.
The relation of these morphological units
to ethnic units, specified in space and time
remains unexamined, and the subject as a
whole remains opaque to historical inter-
pretation.
Further, it is disconcerting to ponder-
the outcome of a method based on the-
statement of opinions, offered as simple
judgments with no otherjustification than
a survey of various authors and their
views. By all means, Valoch may be right;
but how are we to decide? Are we sup-
posed to proceed to a show of hands-so
many experts saying aye and a lesser
number being against it-and all this in
lieu of methodical proof? This, I fear, is a
regressive step even beyond "Siedlungs-
archaologie" or "Kulturkreis" theory
(Closs 1956), the constructs of which
have proved too sweeping, but which at
least offered an ethnic interpretation oftheir morphological units and attemp-
ted to develop a method of writing
history.
Approaches have been made, since the
downfall of these schools, towards clarifi-
cation of concepts (Tax et al. 1953,
Kroeber 1953), but many authors are
content to by-pass the problem by setting
up morphological analysis as an appar-
ently separate discipline in itself, one
which threatens to absorb prehistory,
especially aided by more sophisticated
excavation techniques and by a mathe-
matical approach (statistics, graphs, com-puters, etc.) which satisfies the need for
objectivity. Periodicals are surcharged
with this kind of work and even dis-
courage attempts to transcend this level.
They may be right in so doing, however,
as long as the current vague "methodo-
logy" of offering opinions about the
anthropogeographic and vaguely his-
torical meaning of morphologically classi-
fied material prevails. One suspects an
early connection with classical archaeo--
logy, especially with methods developed
in the appreciation of art-styles, from
Winkelmann to modern art-historians.The ambitious term "culture" for what
is often no more than an assemblage-
of human tools points in the same
direction.
Vol.9 - No. 5- December 968 373
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 25/41
Perhaps a new beginning could be
made if authors would insist on the
following:
1) Selection of a minimum unit for
analysis, such as (a) a living floor or
settlement or (b) a cemetery.
2) Treatment of this unit in full, in-
cluding (a) statistical analysis of the tool-
complex as developed by the Bordes
school; (b) typology and technology of
the tools; (c) ecology of the biologicalniche-food, habitat, climate; (d) infer-
ences about religious practices, etc. from
grave-goods, art, and other available data.
3) Comparative analysis of such units
and of their development in space and
time, based on statistical and typological
methods.
4) Formulation of a working hypo-
thesis as to the ethnohistorical validity
and an attempt at historical interpreta-
tion.
Perhaps by now I have succeeded in
showing that treating one small aspect of
man's progress through time (changingmorphology of artifacts) is carrying
specialization too far. These remarks have
to be taken, of course, as a criticism of
modern trends in general; they are not
meant to detract from the usefulness of
Valoch's catalogue or survey as a means
of data organization.
by ASOK KUMAR GHOSH*
Cambridge,Mass., U.S.A. 27 in 68
This magnificent, extensive paper will be
extremely interesting to prehistorians
concerned with the typo-technologicalevolution of the Palaeolithic culture, es-
pecially those who are not competent in
Central and Eastern European languages.
At the outset, I must admit that I have
no practical field experience in the area
which Valoch has described (although I
have had the opportunity to examine
some of the collections from both Eastern
and Central Europe). I will therefore
restrict my comments to general ones and
leave the more detailed comments to
others.
If I understand Valoch correctly, he is
primarily trying to establish that theevolution of the Palaeolithic in Central
and Eastern Europe was a process of
continuous cultural development. He
considers the area as a single culture area,
with some broad regional divisions. To
my mind, the cultural unit should also
include Western Europe, if not other sur-
rounding regions as well. Valoch sees
Western Europe, particularly France, as
a separate culture area. How far is this
correct in the light of the spatial distribu-
tion of the Palaeolithic culture complex?
In the Early Palaeolithic period, he
sees two distinct cultures: the chopper-chopping (pebble) tool complex (or
"group," according to Valoch) and the
Abbevillian-Acheulian complex. He ar-
gues that the "Early Palaeolithic remains
from Germany to Rumania belong to the
pebble-tool group that existed here in-
dependently of the biface." Two similar
hypotheses come immediately to mind:
(a) the division of the Palaeolithic of
India into two distinct cultures, the Soan
pebble culture in the North and the
Peninsular biface culture in the South;
and (b) Movius' idea of a western bifacial
and an eastern chopper-chopping tool
tradition. Neither of these hypotheses isnow considered valid. Valoch himself
will probably soon point out a relation-
ship between the pebble-tool and the
Abbevillian-Acheulian "groups."
Valoch has attempted to describe the
spread of hand-axes in terms of "radiation
from the area of the Acheulian, gradually
decreasing as one proceeds eastward." In
fact, hand-axes appear again further east,
in the Middle East and in India.
If the evolution of the Palaeolithic is to
be considered a continuous process, then
we need to know the criteria for defining
its subdivisions. If geological stratigraphyis a criterion, then the arbitrary divisions
of Early, Middle, and Upper should
correspond to cultural horizons. Valoch's
view that the Middle Palaeolithic evolved
from the Early Palaeolithic should be
supported with more evidence. The
Middle Palaeolithic in the area concerned
contains Early Palaeolithic culture traits
(types and techniques) as well as new
ones.
Valoch has suggested some new terms
for certain industries. He has retained
such other terms as Mousterian, Aurig-
nacian, Micoquian, Tayacian, etc. All ofthe latter terms, however, have definite
cultural (techno-typological) and strati-
graphic connotations, and the industries
of Central and Eastern Europe so named
may in fact be typological and or techno-
logical mutations or variants. I think it
would be appropriate to include in the
designation of an industry a prefix de-
noting the country in which it is found.
The use of the terms "Late Palaeo-
lithic" and "Final Palaeolithic" is a bit
confusing. The bridging of the typological
and genetic gap is evident; every archaeo-
logist knows that the end of a culturalperiod does not necessarily mean the end
of the culture and the extinction of the
people. Moreover, the Mesolithic period
denotes a new economic achievement,
and that is the main basis for the tripartite
division of the Stone Age.
by FRANKHOLE*
Houston, Tex., U.S.A. 8 iII68
Valoch's review is important and useful
for the large numnber of readers who do
not have access to the voluminous litera-
ture concerning Central and EasternEurope. A careful and comprehensive
review of this sort, however, raises as
many questions about the development
and interconnections of the industries in
the Paleolithic as it answers. Chief among
these is whether one can hope to under-
stand the evolution of the Paleolithic by
plotting the distribution of the types of
tools in time and space. Clearly this is an
important first step, but an explanation
of the distributions requires another
approach and the use of quite different
sets of information. To avoid going into
tedious detail, I shall only cite one
example from the review.The Middle Paleolithic is treated like
the other subdivisions by plotting the geo-
graphic distributions of the industries. As
Valoch points out, the Middle Paleolithic
lasted for some "150,000 years from the
beginning of the Riss Glacial to the
Middle Wurm-Interstadial Podhradem."
It must therefore be characterized by
great climatic changes. It is also a period
during which the industries became
"richly divided." Obviously time can be
controlled to only a limited extent in
most of the sites; but both time and
environment seem crucial to under-standing the possible relationships be-
tween industries, the reasons for the geo-
graphic distributions, and the causes for
change in local sequences. Moreover, we
must also try to see human groups carry-
ing out their daily activities: e.g., what
kind of game did they hunt? what kind of
shelter did they need? how many people
would the land support? in which areas
was human occupation precluded at any
time?
Explanations for the observed distribu-
tions are more likely to be found after a
careful consideration of the topographic,climatic, and cultural factors than they
are by confining ourselves to "typo-
genetic" relations, although these are im-
portant to know in the first place. To
speak of waves of influence ("the Mico-
quian wave becomes ever weaker as one
proceeds eastward ... .") is to give a
spurious life to stone tools and may have
the effect of clouding our minds to more
constructive thinking. It should be clear
that I am not criticizing the job Valoch
has done, for it is essential; I am asking
that he or other workers take the next
step of putting the data into a largercontext that offers more explanatory
opportunity.
Aside from these general remarks, there
are some particular points that need
clarification. First, the term "typogene-
tic" contains an implication of biological
relationship which I think is unwar-
ranted. The statement
One might imagine that the typologicallyadvanced Aurignacian + Olschewian influ-enced the more primitive contemporaryMousterian and that this contact resulted inthe Szeletian, a Middle Paleolithic industryenriched with Upper Paleolithic forms.
gives more flesh and blood to artifacts
than many archeologists would admit.
Related to the above criticism is the
question of the advizability of calling end
374 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 26/41
Valoch:PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEcrapers "Aurignacoid." Giving a fami-
liar label to artifacts that are similar typo-
logically but not very close geographically
tends to shift the focus of analysis away
from the local situation to the possibility
of obscure and remote relationships. Such
a practice has a long tradition and we all
resort to it for convenience on occasion,
but the drawbacks may more than out-
weigh the gains, especially in a com-
parative treatment such as the one underreview.
Finally, the use of the phrase "all three
great civilizations (Perigordian, Pav-
lovian, Magdalenian)" is misleading, for
the term "civilization" refers to much
more complex organizations of people
than are implied in the Upper Paleolithic
remains. In the present context perhaps
"technological traditions" or "assem-
blages" would be more appropriate.
by DAVID M. HOPKINS*
MenloPark, Calif., U.S.A. 4 iII 68I would like to offer a speculation as to a
possible relationship between increasing
population density and the observed in-
crease in cultural diversity during the
Palaeolithic in Europe. If, as seems likely,
the earliest human populations were all
small, nomadic bands who lived by
hunting and gathering then we might
imagine that annual friendly meetings of
different bands took place for trading and
in order to acquire wives (the near-
universality of incest taboos would suggest
that from very early times human groups
avoided inbreeding, for obvious adaptivereasons). The probability that contacts
among human groups were friendly is
perhaps enhanced by the fact that the
sparse populations did not need to com-
pete for territory and thus a central cause
of intergroup hostility may not yet have
existed. As the populations increased,
they exerted more pressure on resources,
and the utilization of one band's custo-
mary territory by a neighboring band
may have heightened intergroup hostility
and reduced the frequency of friendly
contacts; in the meantime, local popula-
tions had increased to an extent that itbecame unnecessary to go outside the
group for mates. Restriction of bands or
groups of bands to increasingly well-
defined territories may have contributed
to a tendency toward regional specializa-
tion of technology as a way of making
maximal use of the resources of areas to
which individual groups were now re-
stricted. Increasing regional specializa-
tion decreased the economic value of a
wife from a different band equipped to
cope with a somewhat different set of
resources. These tendencies would height-
en linguistic differentiation, which wouldfeed back to reduce friendly contact and
easy flow of ideas and technology. Thus
increasing differentiation of local cultures
would have continued until the time
when early organized civilized communi-
ties, with their homogenizing political
and bureaucratic control of large areas,
began to develop.
A similar evolution seems to me to have
taken place, much later, in the Americas:
there, a fairly homogeneous "palaeo-
Indian" culture existed over much of the
hemisphere during the interval 13,000-10,000 years ago and then began to
differentiate very rapidly in the manner
that cultural and technological differen-
tiation seems to have taken place in
Europe perhaps 50,000 years earlier.
by I. K. IVANOVA*
Moscow, U.S.S.R. 15 ix 67
Valoch's review is of great interest be-
cause of the large body of evidence bear-
ing on the European Paleolithic that it
covers. Certain points, general as well as
particular require comment.As far as the general problems of
(Central and) Eastern European strati-
graphy are concerned, it should be noted
that certain indications of climatic fluc-
tuations in the middle of the Wuirm,
corresponding to Valoch's Podhradem
Interstadial, are known from the Soviet
Union. In fact, a clear transition from the
Middle to the Upper Paleolithic appears
to have been associated with this time
(Ivanova, 1965b: 52-53). A more impor-
tant climatic change seems to have occur-
red, however, in the following Paudorf
Interstadial (whicn Valoch considersonly an oscillation).
The widespread occurrence in the
extraglacial area of the U.S.S.R. of a
typical fossil soil of Paudorf age is sug-
gestive of such a change. Radiocarbon
measurements give the following dates for
this soil: 29,000?1,250 (H-1866/1287)
for a wood sample from the shore of the
Belaya River in Bashkirya; 24,900 ? 1,800
(MO-337) for a humus sample from
Bryansk district; 24,200 ? 1,680 (MO-
342) for humus from a loess section near
Mezin village in the Ukraine; and
29,650 ?1,230 and 28,100 ?1,000 (H7P-15) for charcoals from cultural layer IX
of the Molodova V site near the Dniestr
river (Ivanova 1966).
A set of similar dates is known from
Siberia, where a rise in temperature dur-
ing so-called Kargin time was so impor-
tant that it may even constitute an inter-
glacial (Kind 1965). It is highly probable
that a fossil soil dating from this time and
later eroded provided material for those
intercalations of washed-in humus from
the Kostenki region which, as Valoch
mentions, have been dated to about
20,000 years (no true fossil soils are knownfrom the Kostenki area; the two bands of
redeposited humus occurring there may,
due to their transportation, produce age
values lower than the true ones). On the
whole, an important rise in temperature,
interstadial in nature, is fairly well con-
firmed for a period from 29,000 to 25,000
years ago.
The change of climate corresponding
to Valoch's Podhradem Interstadial is far
less distinct in the U.S.S.R. It cannot be
traced in platform sections and may only
rarely be recognized in the slopes of theriver valleys, as is particularly the case in
the Dniestr river region. Soil formation
processes were rather weak at this time.
Both paleontological and paleobotanical
indications for an important rise in tem-
perature are lacking. Such a pattern is
illustrated, by the profile from the Molo-
dova V Paleolithic site, where this "inter-
stadial" is most pronounced (Ivanova
1966: Fig. 20).
As to the areal extent of the Paleolithic
in Eastern Europe, without dwelling on
the many uncertainties that still exist the
following may be noted: The Europeanpart of the U.S.S.R. was widely occupied
in Mousterian time, and man had by this
time moved rather far to the north. Thus
a rich Mousterian site, with a large body
of unifacial and bifacial points, discoid
cores, and side-scrapers and the remains
of a mammoth, has been discovered in
stratified position near Khotylevo, north-
west of the town of Bryansk (Zavernyaev
1961, Zavernyaev and Schmidt 1961).
This site is associated with a basal pebble
horizon from the 25-meter terrace of the
Desna river which contains a warmth-
loving molluscan fauna (Motouz 1967);hence it probably belongs to the end of
Riss-Wurm (Mikulino Interglacial). Iso-
lated Mousterian finds are known from
rather far to the north in the Oka River
basin, near the town of Belev (Lyubin
and Petrakov 1964). Mousterian finds are
reported also from still farther north, but
their reliability is not yet proved (as is
particularly the case for the Early Paleo-
lithic finds in the Moscow area mentioned
by Valoch). In any case, Mousterian
Man reached as far as 540 N. latitude.
As to whether the Crimea was the
center of development of Mousterianculture, as Valoch suggests, it is difficult
to say. Certain paleogeographical features
of the Crimea are important here: In
pre-Karangat (pre-Riss-Wuirm) time, a
deep regression of the Black Sea basin
took place, and the draining of the shallow
Asov sea made the Crimean peninsula
part of the mainland. In Karangat (Riss-
Wiirm) time, a large sea transgression
occurred and the Crimea was undoubted-
ly separated from the continent, forming
a rather small island. It was inhabited by
men as is confirmed by the finding of a
Mousterian point in the Karangat de-posits (Gvosdover and Nevesskyi 1961),
but it was isolated. Furthermore both in
the Crimea and in the Russian Plain,
Mousterian sites associated with Riss-
Vol. 9 ;No. 5 December 1968 375
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 27/41
Wurm time are rare and are mostly
associated with the first half of the Wurm.
Hence it would seem that the Crimea
can hardly be assumed to have been a
center of development of the Mousterian
culture.
As to the age of oldest Upper Paleolithic
cultures from the Russian Plain, which
occasionally do contain Mousterian-like
and Szeletian-like artifacts: In the course
of last year's geological investigations inKostenki region, in the Desna basin, in
Volyn, and elsewhere, no Upper Paleo-
lithic strata older than Paudorf time were
identified. This is in part corroborated by
the radiocarbon dating evidence. Layer 5
of Kostenki I seems to be no older than
Paudorf. The Sungir site near Vladimir is
obviously of post-Paudorf age, although
the culture layer may be somewhat older
than the 14,600 ?600 years (Ivanova,
1965c; 148-52).
I am far from the thought of solving
the problems of the dispersal of Paleolithic
cultures throughout Eastern Europe, butI would like to point out certain facts for
the Russian Plain (without involving the
regions far to the south):
1) This territory was rather densely
inhabited in Mousterian time (Riss-
Wurm? first half of Wiirm).
2) There is no reliable evidence for an
Upper Paleolithic earlier than Paudorf
time.
3) During the Paudorf and sub-
sequent periods, distinctive Upper Paleo-
lithic cultures developed over a large part
of the Russian Plain. In certain of them,
isolated archaic elements were preservedfor a long time.
4) In late-glacial times (15,000-
11,000 years ago), the Russian Plain was
extensively occupied by Late Paleolithic
people. In this period, an earlier-con-
ceived tradition of building dwellings out
of mammoth bones became widely
popular.
by RICHARD G. KLEIN*
Evanston, ll., U.S.A. 13 iII67
Valoch has admirably attempted to bring
together in one article a large quantity ofinformation on the Pleistocene prehistory
of Central and Eastern Europe. The
article is written in the respectable tradi-
tion wherein it is supposed that the
principal task of the Pleistocene pre-
historian is to reconstruct culture history
through an evaluation of differences and
similarities among stone artifact assem-
blages from various times and places. Tothe non-specialist, articles written in thistradition must appear to contain a be-
wildering array of site names and tool
types and very little about human beings
and theiractivities in the past. Withoutwishing to belittle Valoch's splendid
effort, I feel that if Pleistocene prehistory
is to be anything more than an intellectual
pursuit for a small number of highly
specialized scholars, it is essential that
more effort be directed towards gaining
information about actual human be-
havior in the Pleistocene. In my opinion,
multivariate statistical procedures such
as those used by Binford and Binford
(1966) and Freeman (1964, 1966) offer
the greatest promise in this regard.
I will limit my further comments on
Valoch's paper to one. This is that the
humic beds encountered in the colluvialdeposits overlying the second terrace at
Kostenki on the Don are not fossil soils as
stated by Valoch. Rather, they are beds
of redeposited humuc (Lazukov 1957,
Rogachev 1957, Velichko 1957). There-
fore, they cannot be directly correlated
with in situ soil formations elsewhere in
European Russia or in Central Europe.
Further, they cannot be assumed to have
originated during an interstadial, and
the cultural horizons which occur in them
cannot constitute proof that the Upper
Paleolithic began on the Don, as perhaps
elsewhere, in an interstadial. All thisshould be made quite explicit in any
discussion of the Kostenki group of sites.
by B. KLIMA*
Brno,Czechoslovakia.0 xi 67
The author shows how Paleolithic re-
search in the areas under consideration
has changed in the past few years andhow earlier conceptions of the chronology
have been modified. Nevertheless, we can
see in his article that some of the periods
are still not clearly defined. Most of the
cultures, if narrowly defined, can onlyroughly be placed in chronological order,
and when an attempt is made to relate
cultural-historical patterns, mainly classi-
fied typologically, to stratifigraphy the
results are sometimes even contradictory.
For this reason, the author has often been
forced to offer alternative hypotheses.
How rapidly a conception can change
is demonstrated in the fact that since the
submission of Valoch's manuscript, new
aspects have already appeared. One of
these is the idea, quite correct in my
opinion, that the typical mammoth-hunt-
ing culture of the upper Paleolithic ori-ginated in Central Europe (Grigoriev,
1966). This idea, first offered some time
ago, has recently been made more con-
crete by C14 dates (Klima, 1967). The
development of the cultures proceeded in
a much more complicated manner than
was earlier believed, due to a number of
influences (among them natural factors)
resulting in faster cultural change in par-
ticular areas and periods and irregulardistribution of settlements. Such culturalcenters as, for example, the Kostienki
region, Southern Moravia, the Dordogne,
etc. developed independently of eachother; one cannot underestimate this fact.
How little research in the Paleolithic
field has yet been done and how risky our
deductions sometimes are is indicated by
the fact that the discovery of new sites,.
the collecting of new materials, or re--
search in other scientific disciplines can
change the chronological system in just a-
few years. Nevertheless, we are justified
in, and even committed to, constructing-
new conceptions. The compiling of this
material by Valoch is the more worth-
while for us because it also includes the
East European areas, in which the Paleo-
lithic often evolved along diversifiedlines.
by JANUSZK. KOZLOWSKI*
Cracow,Poland. 15 VIII67
So extensive is the scope of the paper by
Valoch that it is impossible to discuss all
the problems dealt with in it, however
interesting and often controversial they
may be. Therefore, I shall confine myself
to several selected questions, especially
those more closely connected with the
territory of Poland.
The Middle Paleolithic of Central andEastern Europe has not yet been treated
in a monograph based upon uniform
criteria of typological and technological
classification, for such criteria have yet to
be developed. We need, for example, uni-
form criteria for the typological classifica-
tion of diagnostic forms for the Central
European Mousterian industries, with
special attention to such forms as the
bifacial knife-scrapers of the Bockstein-
schmiede, Konigsaue, Pradnik, Staro-
selje, Sukha Metchetka, and other types.
These tool types, mentioned here by way
of example, have some characteristics incommon, e.g., bifaciality, general shape,
some asymmetry of the working part, and,
in some specimens, truncated blades, but
at the same time they differ in certain
very essential typological and, especially,
technological elements, e.g., the way of
forming the tip, among other methods by
the burin technique, as in the case of
knives of the Pradnik type. The typology
of indicators can not constitute a starting
point for an adequate grouping of indus-
tries until it has been standardized. This
effort should be a collective one on the
part of a number of investigators. Thetypological symposia initiated by Prof.
Schwabedissen well illustrate the needs
and enormous difficulties in this area.
Under the circumstances, it is difficult
to use statistical typological criteria for
the classification of Mousterian industries
in Central and Eastern Europe. The
essential starting point for the generally
accepted divisions of Mousterian indus-
tries in Western Europe was the typo-
logical index of side-scrapers (IR). This
index shows far less stability in the indus-
tries of Eastern and Central Europe, par-
ticularly in inventories which are markedby the same group of indicators, e.g., the
presence of knives of the Pradnik type.
An additional difficulty arises from the
fact that these tools are sometimes re-
376 CURRENI' ANTrHROPOLOGY
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 28/41
garded as bifacial side-scrapers, some-
times as hand-axes. Even when they are
classified with the side-scrapers, however,
the indices obtained do not fall within the
quantitative ranges characteristic of the
IR in Western Europe. This situation is
exemplified by two inventories marked
by the presence of specific bifacial forms
-and knife-scrapers of the Pradnik type,
namely Krakow-Wawel (Ginter, Kowal-
ski, and Kozlowski 1967) and CiemnaCave (data after the paper by Morawski),
which represent the two extremes of the
vcycle of Pradnician industries. Both these
inventories belong to the industries with
Pradnik knives of the Levalloisian tech-
nique (IL for Krakow-Wawel, 58.2; for
Ciemna Cave, 43.07), the latter being, in
addition, characterized by the Leval-
loisian typology (ILty = 37.16). As re-
gards the IR, on the other hand
these inventories differ extremely (see
Table 1).
The difference between the IR within
this one group of inventories and onetechnological facies is comparable to the
difference between Mousterian Group I
(Charentian) and Group III as defined
by Bordes.
Similar fluctuations can also be seen in
the index of hand-axes (IB) and that of
Group III, which, however, unlike IR,
seem to proceed consistently as the whole
industrial cycle evolves. A decrease in the
IB with the evolution of the cycle is
evidenced by the stratigraphic sequence
of the Wylotne rock-shelter (Chmielewski
1965: 84-85) and by the zero value of
this index in the upper layer of CiemnaCave, which is the latest in the whole
cycle. The index of Group III increases
throughout the cycle, reaching 18.64 in
Ciemna Cave.
In view of these difficulties, one must
be careful not to attribute too much uni-
formity to groups of industries established
on the basis of one set of indicators only
(e.g.), Valoch's Mousterian group with
bifacial tools. One should also be cautious
when determining the relationship of
such a group (or groups) to the Western
European divisions, especially as regards
units existing only in theory (e.g., Charen-tian with hand-axe tradition).
The second group of Mousterian
inventories distinguished by Valoch seems
still more complex. He refers it to the
typical Mousterian (dividing it into two
subgroups, one with tools of small size
and the other with tools of normal size),
for the IR (ess) (e.g., Tata, 52.0; Krapina,
over 55; Sipka, with an index of 37, is an
exception) and are marked by the pres-
ence of bifacial tools (Tata) or their
absence (Bojnice) and often also by a high
index (up to 15) of Group III. A common
feature of these inventories (exceptingSipka) is the frequent production of tools
on natural stones or pebble tools (e.g., at
Tata, Krapina, Nandru, and sites in
Western Slovakia). This last fact, along
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF FLAKES FROM EARLY PALAEOLITHIC SITES
IN TERMS OF Two METRICAL INDICED
MEAN MEAN SIZE OF
SITES RELATIVE THICKNESS OF SAMPLE
THICKNESSa BUTT (MM)
Swanscombe Acheulian 23.37 5.36 235
Hundisburg 21.90 6.27 58
Swanscombe Clactonian 33.76 13.17 256
Mlazice 33.49 13.26 18
Clacton 31.08 9.78 177
Wangen 29.81 9.91 35
Wallendorf 28.43 11.47 76
a Expressedas a percentage of the longest dimension.
with the presence of side-scrapers that
resemble the Pontinian ones, suggests dis-
tinct southern references. For this reason
I should be inclined to treat it (except forSipka), not as analogous to the typical
Mousterian, but rather as a kind of
southern variant, with specific typological
and technological characters, of the "east-
ern" Quina. (In this I agree with Gabori
and Csank [1967].) Some of its inventories
do include, in addition to tools typo-
logically similar to these discussed above
and a high IR (e.g., in Subalyuk Cave,
lower horizon, 50, upper horizon, 60
[Kadi6 1940]), a fairly distinct group of
Mousterian points (Subalyuk Cave, lower
horizon, 24%, upper horizon, 7%) which
on account of its Levalloisian techniquegives these inventories a typical Mous-
terian appearance. This may be due,
however (and this seems to be
Valoch's view insofar as Subalyuk Cave is
concerned), to the influence the Moustero-
Levalloisian industries of Southeastern
Europe of the Dniestr, Bacho-Kiro, and
Macedonian-Peloponnesian types.
The territorial range of industries of
this group and the range of those indus-
tries which, taking into consideration all
the qualifications, may be regarded as
based on the inventories of the Antonow-
ka I, Czokurcza, and Sukha Metchetkatypes are non-Levalloisian while those of
the Antonowka II, Staroselje, and Khoty-
levo types are Levalloisian (20 <IL <40).
(Taking advantage of this opportunity,
I wish to point out that the site of
Kholodnaia Balka, often mentioned in
the context of Staroselje, represents quite
a different group, devoid of bifacial forms,
with a fairly high IR and the Levalloisian
technique of production of flakes and
blades.)
There is far less difference of opinion
on the Upper Palaeolithic of Central and
Eastern Europe than there is on theMiddle Palaeolithic, largely because of
the general agreement as to the main
criteria of classification (Kozlowski 1965).
Major controversies, however, do arise in
connection with considerations of the
genesis of particular Upper Palaeolithic
complexes and the tracing of the autoch-
thonous development of Aurignacoid in-dustries in Central Europe. Stipulating
for the right to differ on these matters
(Kozlowski 1966a), I shall, nevertheless,
postpone the discussion of them for an-
other occasion. Here, instead, I should
like to draw the atuthor's attention to the
fact that the Polish sites with Aurignacoid
remains, which he listed in a single group,
represent well-differentiated complexes
(cf. Kozlowski 1966b). Piekary II (to-
gether with Piekary V and the Upper
Palaeolithic ensemble of Krakow-Wawel)
belongs to a group marked by specific big
blades, massive high flake end-scrapers,and fairly numerous burins, and in gen-
eral refers to the early sites of the Dniestr
Upper Palaeolithic (Babin phase). The
industry from Krakow-Sowiniec corre-
sponds very closely with the East Slova-
kian Aurignacian ensembles (e.g., Tib-
ava), whereas Gora Pulawska provides
Aurignacian ensembles with a large num-
ber of small armatures, something like
Krems and Dufour lamelles hand-axe
(? Micoquian) traditions partly coincide,
namely, in Slovakia and southern Poland.
Last year's discoveries in Raj Cave near
Kielce indicate the presence of Mous-terian industries in the territory of Poland,
going back into one of the Early Wurm
interstadials (? Brorup) and charac-
terized by a very high proportion of side-
scrapers, especially those made on pebbles
(in which they approximate typologically
the sites on the Middle Danube), and
by a non-Levalloisian technique, the
ILam and IFs being, however, fairly
high.
On the other hand, I quite agree with
Valoch that the presence of leaf-shaped
points is not a distinctive characteristic of
a separate Mousterian group, since boththe groups of Mousterian industries
known from Poland and distinguished
here, i.e., the Prldnician group and the
southern group of the "eastern Quina,"
Vol.9 ;No.5 December968 377
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 29/41
contain leaf-shaped points (e.g., respec-
tively, Okiennik Cave [Krukowski 1939:
Table 4: 4] and, among other localities,
Raj Cave near Kielce). These two groups
of industries seem to have played some
role in the genesis of the Upper Palaeo-
lithic complexes with leaf-shaped points
(the first of them, hypothetically, as
regards the West Slovakian Szeletian,
the other as regards the Danube and
Bukk Mountains Szeletian).Valoch seems to have paid too little
attention in his classification of Middle
Palaeolithic industries to the technique of
manufacturing of flakes and unretouched
tools. A phenomenon similar to the
division of Prldnician industries into the
Levalloisian and non-Levalloisian groups
(both of which arose under the same, as a
rule, raw-material conditions) can be
seen among the Eastern European Mous-
terian industries with bifacial tools: whose
statistical-typological parameters refer
them to the East European facies of the
Aurignacian with microlithic armatures(of Muralovka type).
Now I shall deal rather at length with
some aspects of the East European Upper
Palaeolithic. One of the fundamental
problems is the date of the beginnings of
the Upper Palaeolithic in the Russian
Plain. The opinion which has repeatedly
appeared in literature is that the Upper
Palaeolithic began later in that area than
in Central Europe, i.e., not before the
Paudorf ( = Stillfried B) Interstadial.
However, at Gornova in the Byela River
valley in the southern Urals, isolated
tools, obviously Upper Palaeolithic incharacter, were discovered in a horizon
underlying a fossil soil dated to 29,700
? 1,250 years B.P., and thus placing
the cultural horizon in the Arcy or
Podhradem Interstadial (Bader 1965b).
The use of the sites from the Kostienki-
Borshevo region as a basis for a decision
on the main geochronological problems
of the Upper Palaeolithic seems, at the
present stage of knowledge of their strati-
graphy and geomorphology, premature.
First of all, the synchronization of the sites
that occur in these particular "fossil soils"
is very difficult, because they are not soilsformed in situ, but rather humus inter-
beddings which came into existence as a
result of the displacement of humus ma-
terial from the slopes of the pre-Quater-
nary rocks surrounding the Don valley.
Moreover, the rhythm of these humus
interbeddings is very uneven: two or
several thin layers, varying remarkably
in thickness, separated by a layer or
several layers of volcanic ash. These facts,
as well as the erosive processes which have
disturbed the horizontal arrangement of
all the strata (e.g., at Markina Gora),
suggest that the classic synchronization ofthe sites of this region needs verification.
This opinion is also supported by the
radiocarbon datings obtained recently,
among others those quoted by Valoch.
A different situation has, however, been
found on the middle Dniestr, where the
profile of Molodova V exhibits a number
of fossil soils formed in situ (only enriched
by the solifluction from the slopes) which
correspond to the pedocomplex of Still-
fried B (cultural layers 7-10, the upper-
most dated at 21,000 ?800 years B.P. and
the ninth at 26,140? 1,000B.P.), the Pod-hradem Interstadial of the Middle Wurm
(soil with cultural horizon 10a), and theEarly Wurm climate oscillations (soils
with Mousterian cultural horizons dated
more than 40,000 years B.P.).
Valoch is undoubtedly right in viewing
as the foundations for development of the
Upper Palaeolithic in the Russian Plain
two groups of industries which evolved in
that region over a comparatively long
period: (a) the Kostienki-Strielecian
(Sungirian) industries and (b) the "bur-
in" industries with Upper Palaeolithic
substrate tools-mainly burins (above all,
truncated angle ones), end-scrapers,
blades, and a small number of armatureson blades, but without steep retouch. To
these two groups of industries I would,
however, add a third one, namely, (c) the
industries with Aurignacoid indicators,
represented by Siuren I (lower and
middle horizons), the Dniestr group
(Babin phase), and possibly Radomyshl
(where many Aurignacian remains are
also encountered besides the Upper Pa-
laeolithic substrate forms of Mousterian
traditions). Further developmental stages
of these industries are represented by
Muralovka, Miusski Liman near Odessa,
and horizons 2 and 3 of the Kostienki Isite. The occurrence of Aurignacian diag-
nostic artifacts in the group of end-
scrapers, blades, and armatures is a dis-
tinctive feature of these industries. The
beginnings of this group were undoubted-
ly in the cool phase (W2) preceding the
Stillfried B oscillation (according to the
nomenclature adopted for the Russian
Plain, the Briansk Interstadial), perhaps
in a Middle Wiurm interstadial (Arcy,
Podhradem). Besides, the presence of one
of the oldest art objects (at Muralovka,
investigated by N. D. Praslov) is also
associated with the Aurignacian group.The date of the appearance of the in-
dustries with backed blades in the Russian
Plain is controversial. The ensemble of
the lower layer of the Telmanian site at
Kostienki is particularly interesting in
this respect. It occurs at the top of the
humus interbeddings on the 18-24 m.
terrace of the River Don and is marked
by the presence of well-developed types
of points and backed armatures and fre-
quent geometric forms, also produced by
the micro-burin technique. The differen-
tiated typology of the backed blades and
the advanced state of the technique indi-cate that this ensemble must have been
preceded by a long period of develop-
ment. Hence, it is very likely that the
beginnings of industries with backed
blades took place before the Paudor
(Stillfried B) Interstadial, though we still
lack material to document this develop-
ment irrefutably.
The further development of industries
with backed blades followed several lines,
based, in all probability, on their crossings
with the "burin" traditions of substrate
industries of Kostienki XVII type and
industries with flake tools.
Of the industries which developed thetradition of backed blades, the Kostienki-
Avdieyevo cycle, which has not been
defined clearly by the author, is of special
interest. For lack of space, I can only
mention, without describing in detail, the
successive complexes of which this indus-
trial cycle is made up: Berdyzh on Sozh,
earlier than the steppe phase of Wiirm 3;
Kostienki I (upper horizon, 11,750 years
B.P.); Avdieyevo (? Bolling); Kostienki
XIII; Kostienki XVIII; and Gagarino.
The problems arising in connection with
the Kostienki-Avdieyevo cycle are prob-
lems of the relations between the UpperPalaeolithic of the Russian Plain and that
of Central Europe and the role played in
these relations by the Dniestr area; for in
this area appeared the prototypes of the
single-shouldered points (pointesd cran, in
layer 7 of Molodova V) which later be-
came common both in the Russian Plain
and in Central Europe (where they occur
in the West Slovakian and Lower Aus-
trian groups of "East Gravettian" in-
dustries).
Other groups and cycles of industries
with backed blades in the Russian Plain
also have connections with CentralEurope. Examples of such complexes in
Poland are the ensemble of the upper
("East Gravettian") horizon of Mamu-
towa Cave, which is fairly closely related
to the sixth layer of the Molodova V site,
and the industry of Maly Antoniow in the
Swittokrzyskie Mountains, which corre-
sponds to the late industries with backed
blades and burins in the Russian Plain.
Similar questions emerge towards the
end of the Palaeolithic, as evidenced not
only by remote influences of the Mazow-
szan industries on the Crimean cycle, but
also by the effects of the Grenian indus-tries of Byelorussia on the middle phase
of the Mazowszan cycle in eastern and
central Poland. It seems to me that
Valoch has not stressed these very impor-
tant instances ofconnections between Cen-
tral and Eastern Europe strongly enough.
by JiRI KUKLA*
Prague,CZechoslovakia.1 ix 67
Valoch's article will surely be of great
interest, especially for scientists who can-
not easily get publications from the
Eastern European countries or who donot understand their languages. I would
have welcomed, however, a slightly more
critical approach to the data reviewed.
Valoch might have pointed out, for
378 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 30/41
example, that although we know that
special seasonal activities of Paleolithic
man must have considerably influenced
the nature of the tool inventories of briefly
occupied sites, very little attention is
generally paid to this fact.
As for the stratigraphy, especially of
the last glacial, Valoch's scheme is simple
but not very fortunate. The Middle
Wurm Interstadial, hinted at by so many,
is here at last presented, under the title"Podhradem," as one of the most impor-
tant episodes of the last glaciation. Un-
fortunately, no clear evidence exists for
such an interstadial in the Podhradem
cave. The facts about the stratigraphy of
Podhradem cave, as reported by Musil
(1965), Valoch (1965b), Pelisek (1965),
and Opravil (1965), are summarized in
my Figure 1. The sediments which Musil
and Valoch (1966) have considered as
representing W 1/2, or the "Podhradem
Interstadial," comprise a thick series of
loam and limestone debris of unequal
petrographical composition and paleon-tological content. In the inner part of the
cave, the whole layer of sediments, almost
3 m. thick, has been exposed, underlying
0.6-1 m. of younger sediments layers 1-7
and resting upon 1.5-2 m. of yellow cave
loess (layer 19). Two samples of charcoal
embedded in soil have been dated. The
first sample, GRN-1918, clearly corre-
sponds to the well-defined fireplace at the
base of layer 6, although the Groningen
report indicates that the soil has been
dated. The second sample consists of
scattered charcoal fragments embedded
in the humic soil of layer 8 (K. Valoch,personal communication) and not be-
longing to any distinguishable hearth.
These fragments were found only about
10 cm. below the intact surface of the
cave fill and no more than 50 cm. above
the rock base. Contamination is not only
possible, but, according to Opravil
(1965), more than probable; found here,
far from the nearest mountains, were
Pinus cf. mugo Turra, Pinus cf. cembraL.,
and Fagus silvatica L.
Three sections may be clearly distin-
guished within the so-called W 1/2 series
of Podhradem cave:1) Layers 8-10, containing fauna and
flora indicative of a comparatively severe
climate (Alopex lagopus, Microtus nivalis,
Pinus cf. mugo). The few implements that
have been found seem to correspond to
the Upper Paleolithic, but they are not
typical. The top layer, 8, is dated to 32-
33,000 years B.C. by a possibly contami-
nated sample.
2) Layers 11-16, with a striking pro-
portion of partly uncorroded limestone
debris (95% at the base) and with black
soils with humus content as high as 5%.
A fauna which provides no evidence ofclimate and a few artifacts, possibly re-
deposited and not indicative, were found
in layer 15. This section is strongly dis-
turbed by cryoturbation.
U C O | PELISEK 65) R14DATES REMARKS id
MU SIL 65) cctn dc (~~~~~~~~~~VALOCH5a) P: ( KUKLAI
z ~~~~~ ~~~ z -
o~~~~~~~~r cJ U)I
2 u j < wW
F~~ ~ o c -,o0 0 u -c0
W ~~~~~~ 0~V3LICL :Z 1 1| 1 11 lll Z <C: C0
1-3 DARK ROWN HIOL.
VI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%
5s BR.YELLOW W3 O
6 GREY. BR. GRN`IQI8,S0IL4
a8 BROWN I VA DSSED CHAR-
4t ?A;9 BROWN COAL GRNBIBa 0I.J 329902i500 BRP
10 BROWN - -SOIL,. ORN174.:1 DARKBR. 324201P1OS0BR From outside trans- co
0.aBOTHPOSSIBLY pre aeilz
. A 12 LIGHT R. 0. CONTAMINA7ED. c ported material z
FA' IV a L D g xt | oPKIumouo 13 BLACK-.B Co~. 4m Klhmu
15 YELL-BR. ~~~~~~~~~~ z ~soils disturbed
16 BELACKR.- Ao by cryoturbation.J
____BLACK 0x .0 0.
12 BROW . .::N I wu Probablepresence
IV4jTBROWNI g l < of disturbed not - co
. :.-.: mI XI ll F recognized warm O
18 BROWN ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~climatethin layer.>
3 a-f - DARKBR. 1o
19YELL.R. WI
4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~U<
FIG. 1. Stratigraphy of the Podhradem Cave.
[Credit: J. Kukla]
3) Layers 17 and 18, with a low pro-
portion of limestone debris (35%), not-
ably corroded. The fauna is one commonin broadleaf forests (Sus scrofa) and in-
cludes no elements indicative of a severe
climate. At least the lower part of this
section is strongly disturbed by cryotur-
bation.
I see no logical reason to consider layers
8-18 as corresponding to one climatic
oscillation only, still less reason to date
the complex by its uppermost layer and
to assume that the faunal remains found
are more or less contemporary.
An analogous profile, in a very similar
position, has been found in gve'diuv stul
cave, in the neighbourhood of Podhradem(see Klima 1961, Musil 196 1). Here a
dark-coloured series similar to layers 8-18
of Podhradem is dated to W 1/2, W 1,
and RW and contains, in addition to Sus
scrofa, Equus mosbachensisabeli, Equus hy-
druntinus,and Homo neanderthalensis Van-
ur-a 1965). Dicerorhinus sp. is reported
from unstratified position. All the avail-
able evidence favours a parallel between
this dark loam series and that of Pod-
hradem.I must take this opportunity to warn
once again against the danger of deriving
incorrect stratigraphic schemes from thesediments in horizontal caves (Kukla and
Lozek 1958). When excavated and evalu-
ated by present methods, these sediments
cannot yield detailed records of Pleisto-
cene stratigraphy, for the following
reasons:
1) Except in talus fans in the en-trances or under the chimneys, the sedi-
mentation rate is very low, seldom ex-
ceeding 5 cm. per 1,000 years, and it
decreases rapidly with the distance from
the entrance. Therefore the frequent
retreat of the cave entrance caused by
deepening of the valley results in low
stratigraphical value of the older sedi-
ments.
2) There is intensive redeposition of
older sediments and theirfaunal and archeo-
logical remains, increasing with distance
from the entrance. Burrowing animals
and collapse of lower levels of the cavesystem greatly contribute to the distur-
bance of the fill. Since conditions favour
the preservation of faunal remains, it is
usually impossible to recognize bones as
redeposited.
3) Cryoturbation deeply disturbs the
fill (Alimen 1950, Prosek 1951). Slides of
muddy soil are sometimes transported
deep into the cave, slipping over the
inclined icy bottom of the gallery.
The methods of evaluation generally
used are too rough for such complicated
conditions. As a result, mixed faunas, in-
cluding forest, steppe, and arctic elements(Musil and Valoch 1966), or mixed
collections of implements are described.
Only very careful separate evaluation of
autochthonous finds, such as bones in
Vol.9 -No. 5- December 968 379
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 31/41
anatomical position, undisturbed accu-
mulations of microfauna or molluscs,
artifacts or burned bones inside hearths,
etc., can show us the way out of this un-
pleasant situation. Unfortunately, most
of our information on the Middle and
Early Wurm in Europe comes from caves.
Substantial changes in our conception of
this period must therefore be expected in
the future.
by G. C. MOHAPATRA*
Chandigarh,ndia. 2 iii 68
A comprehensive study of the Central and
East European lithic culture complex
was long overdue. Valoch has rendered
a valuable service to world prehistory by
synthesising the latest results obtained
from this region. In order to put the
evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central
and Eastern Europe in proper perspec-
tive, he has compared his observations
with the Western European material.
Similar comparisons, however brief, withdata collected from Africa and Asia would
have been appreciated by those of us who
are interested in general trends of develop-
ment of prehistoric cultures all over the
globe. Nevertheless, the detailed study of
minute regional distinctions has its merits
and will be appreciated by specialists.
Such regional studies, which are steadily
gaining popularity due to their critical
approach, invariably highlight the pecu-liarities of each culture. These peculiari-
ties are more or less due to different
ecological setups, and therefore, if a cul-
ture is to be interpreted in relation to itsenvironment, it is they, and not the over-
simplified general trends of prehistory of
the textbooks, that should be magnified,
analysed, and compared. On this account
Valoch's efforts are praiseworthy.
Valoch finds more differences than
similarities in comparing the Palaeolithic
cultures of Central and Eastern Europe
'with those of Western Europe. Of course
the results are still far from crystalised;
but if Valoch's views still hold good when
lithic research in this region has reached
maturity, a recasting of the lithic ter-
-minology will become imperative. Someof us in India are trying to interpret the
lithic cultures of this subcontinent against
their own regional background. Like the
Pan-African prehistorians, we have
broken away from the conventional lithic
terminology and have developed a new
one strictly for use in Indian contexts.
That Valoch is aware of the problem of
terminology and is trying to take steps in
this direction is attested by his substitution
of the term "Final Palaeolithic" for
"Mesolithic"; the latter term has, he says,
"'only the authority conferred by tradi-
tion." His own division of the Palaeolithicinto five phases (Early, Middle, Upper,
Late, and Final) is, however, neither
-traditional nor discerning. The use of the
term Palaeolithic in Western Europe has
strict chronological implications: the end
of the Palaeolithic coincides with the end
of the Pleistocene. Therefore, Valoch's
"Final Palaeolithic" should be termed
something other than Palaeolithic if he
intends to use the traditional Palaeolithic
terminology in its pure form. In India we
have faced similar problems and, in an
attempt to deal with them, have coined
the broad terms Early, Middle, and Late
Stone Age, which roughly correspond,chronologically, to the Lower Palaeo-
lithic, the Middle and Upper Palaeo-
lithic, and the Mesolithic and Neolithic
respectively (Mohapatra 1962: 59).
I cite the Indian instance because at a
number of points the Indian lithic indus-
tries are closely comparable to the in-
dustries in certain parts of Central and
Eastern Europe. For instance, the pebble-
tool industry with its characteristic plain
wide-angel flake accompaniment (the
Buda industry of the Germany-Rumania
region) closely corresponds to the So-
hanian pebble-tool industry of East Pun-jab (Mohapatra 1966). The Middle
Palaeolithic of South and West Germany,
in which "the Levallois types (points,
blades, cores) and the Levallois technique
(prepared striking-platform) are almost
completely absent," is very similar to the
Middle Stone Age culture complex in
India; though not completely absent,
the Levallois types and the technique
are observable in negligible amountshere in what is predominantly a small
flake-tool culture (Mohapatra 1959,
1962).
The Upper Palaeolithic is a period ofextreme specialisation in tool-types, as a
consequence of the different environ-
mental requirements of different regions.
Therefore, it is very natural that the lithic
industries of the Upper Pleistocene
(Wiirm Glacial) should vary widely from
region to region. This is observable in a
comparison of the Upper Pleistocene
lithic industries of India with those of
Western Europe. Valoch's paper shows
that, nearer home as well, the lithic in-
dustries of this period are peculiarly local
products. Therefore, Valoch's question,
"Is an Early Upper Palaeolithic corre-sponding chronologically to those of
Central and Western Europe absent in
Eastern Europe ?", although very per-
tinent, does not go far enough; for unless
the "absence" of an Early Upper Palaeo-
lithic is indicated by a cultural hiatus,
then any local culture may represent it.
As I have suggested above, it is futile to
search for exact equivalents, since no two
regions are alike. There has been in the
past an uncritical overemphasis on gener-al similarities (sometimes superfluous)between industries found continents
apart. This has obscured the true picture,especially of the genesis and the individual
peculiarities of a culture, and has at
various times been profitably exploited
by the exponents of hyper-diffusionism.
bY KARL J. NARR*
Muinster/Westfalen,Germany. 5 ix 67
Obviously lack of space prevented Valoch
from adequately presenting either the
material itself or even sufficient refer-
ences; and the specialist who knows the
basis of his views is similarly restricted by
lack of space for an adequate discussion.
To dwell on minor points would not do
justice to Valoch's courageous essay, so Ishall restrict my comment to some general
remarks.
1) Valoch's chronology of the Pleisto-
cene period is a serviceable working
hypothesis for his purpose, though I think
that the pre-Eemian part of his table is
much too detailed in view of recent dis-
cussions. I agree in general with his sub-
division of the last glacial period, but I
object to some of the terminology. Above
all I think it is impossible to name the
period between ca. 40,000 and 32,000
B.P. "G6ttweig." Here Valoch follows
Movius (1960), who relied mainly onGross and on Woldstedt and disregarded
opposed views emerging from fieldwork
in the Central European type regions
(see also CA2:427-54). In the meantime,
even Gross has discarded his old views,
e.g., in a rather misleading article in CA
(7: 239-42), on which I shall someday
write a separate comment.
2) My opinion about the dating of
several finds and archaeological entities
differs from Valoch's. However, I shall
refrain from a discussion since it would
amount mainly to a shortened version of
what I have said elsewhere (e.g., Narr1963, 1967).
3) Valoch requests more statistical
studies for the middle Palaeolithic of
Central and Eastern Europe and suggests
some statistical differentiations, e.g., the
relative amount of side-scrapers. We do
not know, however, what phenomena of
the historical reality are reflected by such
statistical data. I am not sure that the
curves always represent groups or stages
(see Narr 1956 and, for a general evalua-
tion of the "statistical method," Narr
1967). The old cynical gradation "lies
--damn lies->statistics" may well apply,to a certain degree, to some archaeo-
logical statistics, whose basis is often not
"objective" (e.g., Bordes's distinction
between "pointe" and "racloir conver-
gent"; see de Heinzelin 1960 and also the
ironical illustration by Laurent 1965)
and whose interpretation is at present
one-sided. Incidentally, since Valoch
pays due attention to the work of G. Bonc-
Osmolovskij, it seems worthwhile to men-
tion that this scholar used statistics, e.g.,
the different percentages of side-scrapers,
to compare the strata of Kiik Koba with
those of important sites in France asearly as 1926 (see summary by Hancar1937).
4) There is a current trend to reject
the concept of "migration" and to restrict
'380 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 32/41
Valoch:PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEdiffusion." This is a highly complex and
difficult question. As I have said elsewhere
(e.g., Narr 1963, 1966), I cannot help
feeling that the term "migration" has
become colored by the concept (or mis-
concept) of "migration period" in Euro-
pean history and that some authors
equate "migration" with ,"mass migra-
tion" or "conscious and purposeful migra-
tion across long distances. " Climatic
changes and the shifting of ecologic zones
during the Pleistocene period must have
caused, at least, much "migration" by
slow drifting of small groups. (I am sure
that only lack of space prevented Valoch
from adequately evaluating the ecologic
factors determining, fostering, or hamper-
ing the course of events.) As regards
"diffusion" versus "autochthonous de-
velopment," Valoch obviously is fully
aware that these processes do not exclude
one another in the forming of cultural
entities. However, when discussing such
questions, we must not neglect a certain
"hierarchy" of cultural elements and
must place more emphasis on clearly
defined types (e.g., keeled scrapers, split-
base points, let alone styles of art) than
on less definite forms, which are more
likely to be "invented" or "developed" in
more than one region and in more than
one period. Some attempts to derive,
e.g., the Aurignacian from "local roots"
are neglecting this principle. (Statistics
by their very nature tend to level the
different values of phenomena )
5) It is one of the most urgent, though
difficult, tasks of Palaeolithic archaeology
to desistfrom reconstruction of past events
on the basis of mere typological (including
statistical) analysis. We must try to con-
sider all available information on the
economy, habitat, settlement patterns,
and even styles of art, hints on religion,
and so on (see also Narr 1954: 30-34 and
1965: 9). Unfortunately these are scarce
or even lacking in many instances and
often enough remain very uncertain. Of
course, a short essay like that of Valoch
cannot aim at a detailed presentation and
thorough evaluation of this kind of source.
Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that
the mere forms and techniques of artifacts
may lead us to reconstructions of little
bearing on relevant cultural conditions
and historic events. Oakley (1952: 297)
rightly stated that
. .. if, with the aid of a Wellsian time-machine, we could actually meet Acheulianpeople in South Africa and compare themwith their contemporariesat Swanscombe, wemight be astonished by the differences.
This certainly applies to other Palaeolithic
industries and across shorter distances
too.
byJIRIEUSTUPNII
Prague,Czechoslovakia. x 67
It seems logical that the pebble tools
found across large expanses of Central
Europe are variants of the most ancient
form of man-made tools. The Vertes-
szollos industry too seems to fit this
primitive pattern, though its tools are
made of much smaller pebbles than is
usual. The differences between pebble
industries may reflect the fact that the
shapes of tools became set only gradually
with the development of abstract thinking
of their makers. We must be careful,however, in the search for the beginnings
of tool production to concentrate upon
the study of assemblages from camp sites
with reliable stratigraphical data; at least
some of the tools must show traces of
intentional working; and the assemblage
must be associated with other evidence of
man's life and activity (bones of animals
hunted, fire, etc). Isolated finds and finds
that do not meet these requirements are
nevertheless important in that they stimu-
late further excavation and investigation.
It is not possible to decide definitely
whether the settlement of the Paleolithicwas continuous or whether there occurred
shifts or even replacements of populations
in Central and Eastern Europe. The
author rules out the possibility of large-
scale and sudden migrations in the Upper
Paleolithic, admitting only slow shifts and
the diffusion of archaeological pheno-
mena. Since mankind did not originate
in Central and Eastern Europe, it is clear
that people must have come there from
elsewhere; but they hardly came in a
single wave. We must always take into
account the possibility of peripheral shifts
resulting in the extension of the settlementarea (Gjessing 1964). Large-scale and
sudden migrations are not probable at
such an early stage of mankind's develop-
ment, except under unusual circum-
stances such as environmental or climatic
changes. The conclusive archaeological
evidence is still missing, but it seems
probable that the Paleolithic hunting and
food-collecting populations and their
archaeological industries developed with-
in their original territories, if not during
the whole Paleolithic, at least in its
Middle and Upper phases (Zebera 1958,
Neustupny 1961: 22, 26, 30).If the assumption of a typological de-
velopment from the Lower Paleolithic
hand-axes to the Middle Paleolithic
points and further to the Early Upper
Paleolithic leaf-shaped points is correct,
then there is a gap in this development in
Central and Eastern Europe, because
hand-axes of the Abbevillian-Acheulean
type are found in large numbers in the
western part of Europe only. Further the
author includes the Middle Paleolithic of
the eastern part of Central Europe in the
so-called East-European group of the
typical Mousterian because it seems tohave lacked the necessary preconditions
for the appearance of leaf-shaped points
-which, however, he considers as in-
digenous. Does this mean that we are not
yet sufficiently informed about the role of
hand-axes in the Lower Paleolithic and
of Mousterian points in the Middle Paleo-lithic in Central and Eastern Europe?
There is no reason to suppose that there
were large-scale migrations of populations
bearing a Mousterian with bifaces to
Central and Eastern Europe, where they
might have given rise to the domesticdevelopment of leaf-shaped points.
The Aurignacian, Szeletian, and Ols-
chewian may have been contemporaries,
but only in separate regions. In primitive
hunting and food-collecting society, the
coexistence of several alien groups in the
same region is hardly probable. There
are some indications, however, that these
could be simply local facies of the same
civilisation, for parts of the industries are
identical (see Neustupny and Neustupny
1961: 22-23), indeed the author himself
points out the close ties between the
Aurignacian and Olschewian and hintsat the possibility that they represent two
facies of the same civilisation. In the
future the historical relations between the
Aurignacian, Szeletian, and Olschewian
will have to be traced from all possible
viewpoints: owing to the limited vari-
ability of the material, the archaeological
criterion is not necessarily decisive.
Though the Balkan Peninsula belongs
geographically to Southeastern Europe, I
would like to draw attention to its ties
with Central and Eastern Europe. A
number of archaeologists (e.g., Milojcic
1958, de Sonneville-Bordes 1965, Puljanos1963) have argued for the existence of
Middle Paleolithic and Mousteroid in-
dustries in Greece; but the finds from the
Pineios River valley in Thessaly bear a
surprising resemblance to the finds from
the Aurignacian-Szeletian orbit in Cen-
tral Europe, and the same seems to be
true of the fnew finds from the western
part of Peloponnesus (Servais 1961).
The author divides his "later Upper
Palaeolithic" into the Pavlovian (for-
merly the Eastern Gravettian), dated
28,000-24,000 B.P., with a late phase
(Sagvar and Arka in Hungary) dated to19,000-13,000 B.P., and the Magda-
lenian. He does not specify the temporal
relations between them. He mentions the
absence of Magdalenian sites of Lower
Austria, Moravia, and southern Poland.
Is it not possible that here the Pavlovian
was not replaced by the Magdalenian,
but only altered by Magdalenian in-
fluences coming from the west (Neu-
stupny 1963) ? A direct and simple suc-
cession of the Magdalenian to the Pav-
lovian would leave a gap in the settlement
of the eastern part of Central Europe. It
will be the task of future research toascertain the relations between the Pav-lovian (Gravettian) and the western
Magdalenian, and to establish every-
Vol. 9 No. 5 December 1968 381
B
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 33/41
where the late phases of the Pavlovian.
Where neither the Magdalenian nor its
influence is found, the late Pavlovian must
have persisted.
To the late Paleolithic groups discussed
by the author must be added the Ostro-
mer group, which in Bohemia and
Moravia is very close to the Polish Tar-
nowian, but which, according to Vencl
(1966: 338), has no relation either to the
Magdalenian, the Epi-Magdalenian, or
the "Federmessergruppe."
The author's introduction of the term
"Late Palaeolithic" may be justified,
because this period does have some
features which set it apart from the pre-
ceding Upper Paleolithic; it can appar-
ently be defined archaeologically, geo-
logically, paleontologically, etc. Renam-
ing the period generally termed the Meso-
lithic "Final Palaeolithic", on the other
hand, seems at best premature. It is
necessary to take into account not only
the character of its industries but other
important aspects as well: changes in the
artistic expression, changes in settlement
and economy, and the trend of further
development. Like others, I used to speak
of the Epi-Paleolithic instead of the Meso-
lithic; but this was at a time when the
classification of archaeological industries
was considered the only criterion for the
division of prehistory into periods. Using
other criteria as well, the term "Final
Paleolithic" might appropriately be ap-
plied to the East and Central European
Mesolithic. Any such change of name,
however, must take into consideration
the neighbouring regions too. The NearEast, including the southern tip of the
Balkan Peninsula, witnessed in the Meso-
lithic, or perhaps as early as in the late
Upper Paleolithic, that revolutionary
change in the economy of prehistoric
mankind, the transition from hunting
and food-collecting to agriculture. The
pre-ceramic horizon (the aceramic Neo-
lithic) in the Near East may in fact be a
developed Mesolithic, in which the
changes that came into full view in the
succeeding Neolithic were in preparation.
That is why I think that the firmly estab-
lished archaeological term "Mesolithic"should be retained. The renaming can
wait until archaeology works out a his-
torically based division of European and
world prehistory into periods. So far few
such attempts have been made (but see,
e.g., Jennings and Norbeck 1964 for the
New World).
Valoch's concluding synthesis gives a
clear overall picture of the stone indus-
tries and thus forms the archaeological
basis for a historical conception of the
beginnings of mankind's development in
Central and Eastern Europe. Such a
historical conception, however, wouldhave to comprise all the historically im-
portant factors: the natural environment
of prehistoric men, the means of sub-
sistence, dwellings, arts, anthropological
problems, and many others. The author
could not include them in his work,
because its extent is limited. This com-
ment, too, had to be kept within certain
limits, and therefore I have mentioned
only a few facts supplementing the
author's conclusions. I could not mention
the many conclusions with which I agree.
Some important works not included in
the author's list of references deserve a
brief mention here: Syntheticworks: Banesz
(1965c), Bairta (1954), Klima (1957),
Neustupny (1959, 1962), Prosek and
Lozek (1954), Zebera (1958); Mono-
graphs: Bader (1965), Feustel (1959),
Klima (1957), Kukla (1961), Neustupn'y(1963), Prosek (1961), Vencl (1966).
Fundamental general works by the archaeo-
logists of the last generation who laid
grounds for the present development of
archaeology: Absolon (1935, 1949), Bayer
(1925), Breuil (1923-25), Obermaier
(1928). The most important works on the
Paleolithic of Greece are the following:
Garrod (1939), Milojcic (1958), Puljanos
(1963), Servais (1967), Skutil (1950), de
Sonneville-Bordes (1965).
by JOHN PFEIFFER-
New Hope, Pa., U.S.A. 6 iii 68
As an up-to-date survey of the Palaeo-
lithic in Central and Eastern Europe,
Valoch's article helps fill a major gapin our knowledge; publishing such
articles is just what CURRENT ANTHRO-
POLOGY should be doing. It will be of
special value to those attempting to fit
information from Southwestern Europe,and particularly from France, into a
broader framework.
A most important point is alluded to in
passing and perhaps merits further em-
phasis. The fact that Bordes's statistical
method has been used in a preliminary
analysis of Middle Palaeolithic tool assem-
blages in the Crimea and on the Russian
Plain has significance as a move toward
quantitative approaches which, we may
hope, will be extended and make possible
increasingly sophisticated comparative
studies involving assemblages from differ-
ent regions. It would be interesting tolearn, either from correspondence or from
another article, how extensively Bordes's
method and related methods are being
applied in Europe and elsewhere.
by PHILIP E. L. SMITH*
Montreal,Canada.13 iii 68
Valoch is to be congratulated and
thanked for this excellent work of syn-
thesis. Prehistorians who are themselves
residents and specialists in Central and
Eastern Europe will undoubtedly be able
to discover errors of fact or of interpreta-tion, but those prehistorians of other
countries who are largely unable to visit
the sites and collections or even, often
enough, to read the publications must
feel a debt of gratitude for what will
surely be recognized as a classic survey
article. From the substantive point of
view it is a most valuable paper. Many of
Valoch's hypotheses are stimulating and
provocative, e.g., his discussion of the
origins of the Aurignacian. His pc-ition
on group movements vs. local develop-
ments is a very reasonable one, and there
is a welcome absence of polemics in dis-
cussing the factors involved in cultural
changes and replacements. His view that
purely Western European terms such as
Solutrean and Tardenoisian should not
be pushed across to Eastern Europe is
very sound; perhaps the same caution
should be exercised for the term Tayacian,
which Valoch does use freely. I shall limit
my comments to a few points, although
there are many others I should like to
discuss, e.g., the present dispute over the
nature of the Upper Palaeolithic "houses"
in the U.S.S.R., or Valoch's use of the
term Final Palaeolithic instead of Meso-
lithic.
I wish Valoch had spent a little time to
indicate the methodological basis for his
archaeological units, i.e., just what he
means by such terms as civilization, in-
dustry, etc. A number of prehistorians in
the countries discussed in this paper are
today examining and debating the use of
archaeological terminology (e.g., Schild
1965); it would have been helpful in
evaluating some of Valoch's statements
to have had some idea of his own inter-
pretation of such terms. Although I hold
no particular brief for Kozlowski's hypo-
thesis of Proto-Magdalenian in Centraland Eastern Europe, I am puzzled that
Valoch rejects its possible presence at one
site (Stanca Ripiceni) "because of its
antler artifacts, which are considered
peculiar to the Pavlovian" (p. 363). If I
understand his statement properly, surely
this is taking a somewhat restricted view
of the definition of prehistoric archaeo-
logical units. Also, the meaning of his
term typogenetic s not altogether clear to
me.
Valoch pays very little attention to en-
vironmental and ecological aspects and
concentrates almost entirely on typo-logical and chronological ones. Neverthe-
less, even a necessarily condensed article
such as this one could have benefited from
a brief discussion of some of the studies
which have already been attempted by
prehistorians of Central and Eastern
Europe: for example, the distinction
which Boriskovski (1965) makes in the
Ukrainian Upper Palaeolithic between
two main groupings-one in the peri-
glacial region, where mammoth was the
main game and solidly built houses were
used, the other in a less rigorous environ-
ment on the southern fringes near thecoast of the Black Sea, where cattle and
bison were hunted and the groups were
apparently more nomadic without solid
or permanent structures. (One might see
382 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 34/41
Valoch:PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEin Eastern Europe another grouping as
well, based on subsistence and environ-
mental factors, in the Crimean and Trans-
caucasian cave sites, where mixed game
was the rule.) How meaningful do the
typological distinctions become when ex-
amined against these backgrounds?
Valoch refers to the Upper Palaeolithic
in theDniestr basin as exhibiting a "rather
quiet, continuous evolution." On the
other hand, Ivanova and Chernysh
(1965) have indicated that there is a cul-
tural hiatus, at least at the important site
of Molodova V, between ca. 22,000 and
17,000 B.P. which was apparently the
period of greatest cold in the region. I
wonder if Valoch accepts his "hiatus,"
and if so whether it can be detected at
other sites in Eastern Europe. Incident-
ally, this hiatus, if generally confirmed,
would be interesting insofar as a some-
what similar hiatus related to climatic
severity, and at approximately the same
time, is claimed in the Upper Palaeolithic
of the Zagros Mountains in Iraq (Solecki
1963). Indeed, the Upper and Late
Palaeolithic industries (to adopt Valoch's
terminology) of Eastern Europe present
some very interesting analogies with the
industries of the Zagros (e.g., the Bara-
dostian-Zarzian group with the industries
of such sites as Molodova V and some
Crimean ones), and the very probable
presence of the Baradostian and Zarzian
in Transcaucasia indicates that Eastern
and Central Europe constituted a region
open at both ends-to the Middle East as
well as to Western Europe-at this time.
Perhaps this was less true in the MiddlePalaeolithic, for the bifacial flaking and
foliates found in Southeastern Europe
(e.g., the Crimea and Volga regions)
seem to be almost or completely absent in
the Iraqi and Iranian sites. It is not clear
that Valoch's comparison of the incidence
of Levallois technique in Eastern and
Central Europe with that of other regions
is meaningful, for he gives the erroneous
impression (pp. 355, 356) that prepared
striking platforms are what characterize
this technique.
In the past a common interpretation of
the Upper Palaeolithic of the SouthRussian Plain has been that it represented
a stolid, conservative sequence of big-
game hunters, remarkably homogeneous
geographically and with relatively few
changes occurring through time in eco-
nomy, settlement locales, and even ideo-
logy, i.e., a co-tradition with changes
taking place throughout at roughly the
same tempo (for example, see Boriskovski
1958: 319-20). There has been for some
time reason to believe that this is not a
wholly accurate picture. Perhaps the
shifts and changes in artifact styles are
less abrupt than they appear to be inWTesternEurope, but there has also un-
doubtedly been a tendency in the past to
play down this aspect and to emphasize
cultural continuity and indigeneous de-
velopments. In recognizing freely the co-
existence of typologically different tradi-
tions within restricted areas and in accept-
ing the important role of diffusion (in-
cluding "invasions" in some cases),
Valoch goes a long way towards building
a more reliable model of what really
happened. This precision will be in-
creased as finer stratigraphies are con-
structed and chronometric data obtained,
so that eventually the phenomena can be
interpreted in processual terms accept-
able to all prehistorians-that is, to pro-
vide a genuine palaeoanthropology.
In summary: this is a paper which
furnishes very valuable information and
gives us a great deal to think about.
by GUNTER SMOLLA*
Frankfurt/Main,Germany. 5 ix 67
Valoch must be congratulated for this
very useful concise review. He is right to
be as cautious as possible; but concerning
the question of the earliest artifacts, his
scepticism seems to me to be carried too
far. G. Riek's excavations at Heidenheim-
Schnaitheim should provide us with a
sound basis for discussion of this question
in Central Europe. Contrary to Valoch's
suggestion, pebble tools and Middle Pa-
laeolithic hand-axes occur together in
Hessen, as in other regions of the Old
World (Kruger 1962: 40). The quartzite
sites in Hessen mentioned by Valoch are
typical factory sites like those of Africa
and Asia.I am not convinced that the term
"Tayacian" is very useful for describing
those tantalizing Middle Paiaeolithic in-
dustries. The late M. Stekelis once told
me that on the basis of his observations
during the excavations carried out by
Neuville, the "Tayacian" of the Oumm-
Quatafa in the Judaean desert seemed to
him to represent only a downward migra-
tion of some of the smaller artifacts from
the overlying "Acheuleen moyen" layer.
I feel obliged to offer this observation
without further comment. Valoch's views
as to the genesis and connections of theMiddle Palaeolithic industries are stimu-
lating, but it must be kept in mind that
they are no more than working hypo-
theses.
As to the duration of the Upper Palaeo-
lithic, I shall say only that C14 years need
not be solar years and that climatic
changes may affect the time scale. I am
not at all a doubting Thomas concerning
C14, but I should not be surprised if the
duration of some parts of the Upper
Palaeolithic should prove to be some
1,000 years longer than it seems todav.
Valoch likes to use the term FinalPalaeolithic instead of Mesolithic; in his
region this term is quite useful, but in
others it is not (cf. Schwabedissen
1964).
The "macrolithic" industries are not
restricted to Northwestern Europe; while
the term "Campignien" is gone, the crude
artifacts remain in various parts of the
Old World (Smolla 1960: 54-55; 1967).
by D. DE SONNEVILLE-BORDES*
Talence,rance. 8 iii 68The very useful paper by Karel Valoch
calls for some observations about the
Upper Palaeolithic in Central Europe.
Aurignacian: Valoch reviews the statis-
tical characteristics I established (1965)
for the lithic material from layers 4 and 5
of the Vogelherd, Wurtemberg (excava-
tions by G. Riek). To me, the lithic
material of Vogelherd, the lower level of
which has yielded numerous and typical
split-base bonepoints, is typically Aurig-
nacian and very homogenous. Muller-
Beck (1965) finds typogenetic connections
between this material and the Jerzmano-
wice leaf-point industry. Indeed, he assi-
milates the leaf-shaped points of the
Jerzmanowician with the point-shaped,
bilaterally retouched Aurignacian blades
which are typical of the French Lower
Aurignacian and which are represented
at Vogelherd by some beautiful examples.
These tools are absolutely normal in this
context and have nothing to do with any
cultural contamination. There are no
typological reasons why the Vogelherd
Aurignacian should be chronologically
different from the other Aurignacian
assemblages with split-base bonepoints inwestern Central Europe.
We have established that this Aurig-
nacian from Vogelherd, in contrast to the
Aurignacian of Southwestern France, has
no burins busques. According to Valoch,
the Aurignacian from eastern Central
Europe has burins busques; but are they
indeed typical burins busques (bogenstichel,
arched burins), that is, "dihedral burins
with a burin blow opposite a series of
convex-shaped burin blows, ending in a
notch"? What some authors who use our
typological classification have referred to
by this term are in fact atypical burinsbusquds.From level 5 of Willendorf II,
Felgenhauer (1959, part 3; Fig. 28, no. 9)
shows a dihedral canted burin, with a
slightly convex side, such as can be found
in all the Upper Palaeolithic cultures. In
his fine publication on Dolni Vestonice,
what Klima shows as burins busques are
also atypical ones (1963: Fig.23, nos. 273,
274; Fig. 45, nos. 663, 664). It would be
better to call them "burins carenes" (cari-
nate burins), as did, at the beginning of
this century, the French typologists M.
Bourlon and A. and J. Bouyssonie. The
typological distinction is sometimes diffi-cult to make. We have discussed this prob-
lem, describing and illustrating this type
of burin, in a recent paper (Mommejeane
Bordes, and de Sonneville-Bordes 1964).
Vol. 9 No. 5 December 968 383
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 35/41
If the burins busquesthat Valoch indi-
cates in the Aurignacian of eastern Cen-
tral Europe all belong to this type, one
must conclude that there are no typical
burins busques in this part of Europe, just
as there are none in Spain and Belgium
(de Sonneville-Bordes 1961).
Magdalenian: According to Valoch, the
Magdalenian, originating in Western
Europe, is one of the two important
groups of the final Upper Palaeolithic inCentral Europe (the other being the
"Pavlovian"). The statistical and typo-
logical study of several series of the
Magdalenian from Southern Germany
(de Sonneville-Bordes 1968) and Switzer-
land (de Sonneville-Bordes 1963) pro-
vides the following details:
The Magdalenian of Southern Ger-
many (Rhineland, Souab Jura) is late, as
is the one from Switzerland (Schaffouse):
its harpoons, its works of art (Petersfels),
its lithic typology make it comparable to
the Upper Magdalenian (V-VI) of
France. This German-Swiss Magdalenianhas some unique features as well: (a) its
end-scraper, burin, and borer indices are
more or less equal (each about 1/5 of the
tool kit), while in France the burin index
is always greater than the end-scraper
index and the borers seldom account for
more than 5%; (b) the indices of dihedral
burins and burins on retouched trunca-
tion are more or less equal, while in
France the former is almost always
greater; (c) parrot-beak burins, charac-
teristic of the French Magdalenian VI,
are totally absent; (d) besides Azilian
points and thumb-nail scrapers, the seriescontains tools which seem more specific
to this facies-rectangles; shouldered
points, often with a distal truncation;
and points with an angular back.
It is incontestable that typological
resemblances exist between the Aurig-
nacian and the Magdalenian of western
Central Europe and the corresponding
cultures in Southwestern France and
that this demonstrates cultural connec-
tions between these two zones. On the
other hand, these two great cultures
present marked differences from those of
the classical zone. Who could be as-tonished at the existence of distinct facies
of cultures of such wide geographic ex-
tension at a time when diversity in Europe
was already well developed?
bySLAVOMIL VENCL*
Prague,Czechoslovakia. ix 67
The general summary of the state of re-
search on the Palaeolithic provided by
Valoch's interesting article undoubtedly
contributes to the elimination of mis-
understandings caused by the traditional
focusing on only a few European regions.In this respect, his paper differs rather
significantly from other synthetic works,
for example, Muller-Karpe (1966) and
Leroi-Gourhan (1966), which are as a
rule poorer in information as regards
remote or linguistically less accessible
regions and thus establish an erroneous
idea of complete absence or paucity of
Palaeolithic settlement in such regions.
On the other hand, scope of this work has
necessitated condensation of information
to the extent that a number of important
works have been omitted (for Czecho-
slovakia, e.g., Banesz 1965, Klima 1961,
Prosek and Lozek 1954, Zebera 1958).One would welcome, in the future, a
discussion of the problems of each indivi-
dual period, e.g., Late Palaeolithic,
Mesolithic, at least as thorough as that of
the Palaeolithic as a whole in this paper.
I should like, instead of commenting
on particulars, to advance a few general
remarks concerning the present article as
representing generally accepted opinions:
1) It is quite remarkable to observe that
it is apparently easier to solve problems
relating to the genesis of cultures (cf.
Gallus 1966) in the Palaeolithic than to
treat the same problems as regards themore recent prehistoric periods, in spite
of the fact that the material sources avail-
able for the Palaeolithic are considerably
poorer both in quantity and in quality.
While we do not know the origin of the
Neolithic Linear culture or of the Bronze
Age Unetice culture, in spite of the fact
that thousands of stratified finds from
settlements and cemeteries are available,
the origin of some Palaeolithic industry
(the material of which is often limited to
mere surface finds or cave layers) can
evidently be established simply by demon-
strating some technological or morpho-logical similarity or even successive occu-
pation of one and the same site (so-called
geographical continuity of settlement).
These "typogenetic" judgements are not
even hampered by gaps of 10,000 years,as may be seen in a number of schemes
linking the successive industries known
today in narrow regions (such as Hungary
or Central Germany) in local genetic
chains (e.g., for Czechoslovakia, Zebera
1958 and 1965, and, in the present paper,
the suggested relation of Tayacian and
Aurignacian; cf. also Mottl 1951). It is
however, obvious that the kind of judg-ment which cannot be made on the basis
of richer sources, e.g., those for the Bronze
Age, can hardly be made without exceed-
ing the limits of the substantially poorer
material sources for the Palaeolithic. The
substantial reduction in quality and quan-
tity of sources for this period must, on the
contrary, necessarily be reflected in a
reduced scope of interpretation as com-
pared to the more recent prehistoric
periods. The poverty of the sources
(together with the inadequately detailed
dating of the Palaeolithic) does not at
present permit any more than very weaklysupported alternative hypotheses as re-
gards the origin of Palaeolithic industries
(a better expression than "culture"; Narr
1963), and these hypotheses cannot pro-
vide support for further interpretations
(cf. in the present article the debatable
opinion on the process of the origin of
Homo sapiens derived from the very prob-
lematic knowledge of the process of cul-
tural development).
2) The meaning of such expressions
as "tradition of leaf-shaped points" (often
employed in connection with the genetic
continuity of artifacts from the Eem and
Gottweig periods) is unclear. If we con-sider the leaf-shaped point to be an im-
plement (e.g., a sickle) and not a materi-
alization of an abstract idea invested with
an inherent will to develop, then what
would the analogous expression, "tradi-
tion of bronze sickles" mean in connection
with the problem of the origin of indivi-
dual prehistoric cultures?
3) The idea of convergent evolution,
e.g., the independent origin of leaf-shaped
points in various places of Europe at
approximately the same time, is more an
exaggerated a priori reaction to the for-
merly generally accepted notion of largemigrations than an objective interpreta-
tion of the material sources. How, in fact,
it is possible to speak seriously of conver-
gent development if (a) the most accurate
dating is maximally accurate within
periods of a millenium, and (b) we know
from the more recent prehistoric periods
that a serviceable invention spreads and
also changes at a rapid rate? Is it, on the
basis of today's scattered sources, really
possible to speak of continuity in the full
sense of the word (i.e., without having to
ignore gaps of several thousands ofyears) ?
4) The comparison of industries thecharacteristic feature of which is their
atypicalness (in this article, e.g., the
Baume-Bonne type of Tayacian and the
Tata type of Mousterian) is questionable.
Atypicalness as a basis for a comparison is
in a certain sense an argument ex silentio:
it does not permit one to ascertain the
degree of similarity and therefore in-
volves the danger that phenomena of
only accidental similarity will be digested
or genetically associated (Vencl 1964).
5) It is dangerous to interpret arch-
aeological phenomena as substantial
features of the historical process; anarchaeological phenomenon can at times
apparently bear witness to a situation
that never existed. Valoch (1965a) has
observed that distinctive regional cultural
groups (which later developed indivi-
dually in the course of several more recent
phases of the Pleistocene) took shape in
the course of the Central European
Middle Palaeolithic. The question must
arise whether the existence of some of the
archaeologically dissimilar cultural
groups is not a pseudohistorical pheno-
menon: if the Middle Palaeolithic of
Central Europe employed exclusivelylocal raw materials (hence materials
differing in quantity, quality and dimen-
sions) for the manufacture of industries,
the archaeological difference need not
384 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 36/41
Valoch:PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEautomatically signify a process of in-dependent development in a certaingroup of people, but may on the contrarysometimes be a purely archaeologicalphenomenon, demonstratingthe imprac-ticability of perfectly identical shaping ofraw materials of different qualities evenby the same people. (There can, at thesame time, be no doubt as to the objectiveexistence of some distinctive Middle
Palaeolithic groupsin Central Europe.)6) I consider the periodic succession
(i.e., Upper Palaeolithic, Late Palaeo-lithic, Mesolithic) to be correct, and, in-deed, have been supporting it for some
time (Vencl 1964). I doubt, however,whether it is right to replace the term"Mesolithic." It seems to me that if everyshift or partial change in the meaning ofa term resulted in its replacement byanother one, our system of symbolswouldcease to be intelligible, since any changemade only in consideration of present
circumstances and not with a view tothe future can only be a temporary one.What matters here is only the interpreta-tion of the term; Mesolithic is no longerto be considered as an independent
unit on the level of Palaeolithic and
Neolithic.Interest in the knowledge of historical
processes has in recent years becomegeneral; but historical interpretationmust correspondto the state of knowledgein the archaeology of the Palaeolithic and
cannotbe consideredvalid simplybecause
it is an expressionof contemporary, moreor less generally accepted but still a priori,opinions or because it is diametricallyopposed to similarly unsupported older
opinions.
Reply
by K. VALOCH
Brno,Czechoslovakia. vi 68
I am very much pleased by the interest
my article has evoked. I thank all thecommentators for their-comments,agree-ing, complementing, and critical; I havefound them very instructive. I have or-ganized my reply in terms of a number ofissues under which most of the criticalcomments can be subsumed. I would liketo say beforehand that my article wasfinished in the winter of 1965-66 and sodoes not contain sources later than 1965;that the volume of work in this area pre-cluded the detailed listing of referencesthat Neustupny and Vencl would havewished; and that, as Collinshassuggested,
the translationfrom the original Germanmay have caused some confusion.
The over-all conception.I have taken as
an indicator of the Palaeolithic of the
region under consideration the stone andbone industries most frequently rep-resented by remains preserved from thattime. This choice has led to a kind ofhistory of Palaeolithic technology whichlacks, as a number of the commentators(Hole, Klein, Narr, Neustupny, Smith)have correctly observed, the many otherfactors, ecological (topography, climate)and cultural (dwellings, funeral rites,
ways of hunting, art, etc.), which mustcontribute to a historyof mankind duringthe Palaeolithic period. To have includedall these factors, however, would haveexpanded the article immensely; more-over, our concrete knowledge about mostof them is so fragmentary, as Narr haspointed out, that the hypothetical charac-ter of the conclusions would not havebeen much altered. Even the apparentlyeasy problem of the relationship of manto his environment is best approached bymeans Qf broad continental, or evensupercontinental, surveys, where it ispossible to speakof climatic zones, glacialor interglacial. The more detailed viewwith reference to specific cultures thatthis report would require would be diffi-cult to achieve, partly because of ourlack
of knowledge of the detailed chronologyand of the conditionswhich in fact existedin the particular region, especially insuch a morphologically complex regionas Central Europe. In order to suggest,for example, that the concentration ofsites of the Moravian Szeletian on the
slopes is climatically conditioned, onemust first know whether the climate ofthe time was a moderate, interstadialone(in which the valleys, at least, were surelywooded) or a cool, stadial one (in whicheither loesswas being formed or the slopeswere being denuded and the valleys filledby solifluction); lacking knowledge of theages of the sites and their exact strati-graphic positions, it is impossible to saywhich climate prevailed, for the periodthese sites represent may have been aslong as 10,000 years. Again, not knowingthe ages of the sites on the Russian Plain,
one should hesitate to interpret the differ-ences among them as regional, even withthe considerable climatic difference thatcan surely be assumed between the areaalong the coast of the Black Sea and theregions to the north.
Terminology.The majority of criticisms(Anati, Ghosh, Gallus, Hole, Koztowski,Mohapatra, Neustupny, Smith, Smolla,Vencl) were, quite justly, concentratedupon this point. The general lack of uni-formity in the terms used for the Palaeo-lithic and the confusion as to their mean-ings is accentuated in Central Europe by
the habits peculiar to particular lan-guages. For example, in the Slavoniclanguages and German the term in gener-al use is "Palaeolithic culture"; in Polish,this is being replaced by "cycle" (Schild1963, 1965), while in French the term"industry" is most frequent. My term"civilization" (once suggested by L. Zotz)is no less broad or inappropriate than the"culture" it replaces; possibly, however,the notion of "culture" in the specificallyarchaeological sense may yet be applic-able to the Palaeolithic (Fridrich,Klima,and Valoch 1968).
The other terms I have used may bedefined as follows:
Industry-an assemblage of artifactsfrom a single layer of a given site; also,more generally, all the assemblages of a
given period or region, as in the phrase
"bone industryof the Magdalenian."Type-two or more industries similar
both morphologically and typologically.Group-two or more industriessimilar
in content, related (i.e., part of the same
culture), and close together in time.
Complex-two or more industries orgroups differing in age but possibly part
of the same culture.Facies-one aspect of a given culture,
usually geographicallydefined and differ-
ing typologically and/or chronologicallyfrom other aspectsof that culture.
The newly introduced Polish termino-
logy is extremely detailed, and, in that itindependently names each regional group(przemysl) of a certain cycle, it may bedifficult to use, for on an all-Europeanscale it could easily contain several hun-dred terms. Making the terminology of
the Palaeolithic more accurate is an im-portant task, one that perhaps demandsinternationalco-operation (possiblywith-in the framework of CA?). How difficult
it is to reach agreement in such an area,however, has been shown with referenceto a much simpler matter by the Sym-
posium on Nomenclature of Types of
Stone Tools for Central Europe to whichKozlowski refers. One of the motives for
this symposiumwas precisely the fact thatthe Palaeolithic of Central Europe con-tains a whole series of forms which escapethe terms and definitionsvalid in Western
Europe.The term "typogenetic" is used by mein a double sense: (a) to describe an
apparent relationship between tempor-ally consequent forms of a particular tool
type (e.g., the couteaua dosof the MiddlePalaeolithic and the couteauChatelperron
point of the Upper Palaeolithic in
France); and (b) to describe the changesin industries from one phase to another inthe quantitative representation and/ortypological character of basic forms (e.g.the gradual decrease in number ofscrapers and the concurrent increase innumber of
burinsof various new forms
from the Lower to the Upper Aurignacianin France and in Moravia).
The conceptions "palaeoanthropo-logy" and "prehistory" have been used
Vol. 9 No. 5 December 968 385
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 37/41
in the sense current in Czech andGerman. In English,in contrast,"Palaeo-anthropology" refers solely to thestudy of human skeletal remains and is infact equivalent to "osteology of fossilman"; "prehistory" deals with the evalu-ation of the material remains of humansociety from the time before writtenrecords (and is followed by protohistoryand history); and "archaeology" is a set
of methods for practical fieldwork theobjects of which may belong to any timeperiod, even the historical (cf. "medievalarchaeology").
I am consciousof the fact that the term"Tayacian" is too vague and broad. Inusing it here (e.g., "Tayacian of theBaume-Bonne type, Fontechevade"), I
only wanted to indicate the over-all simi-larity ofthese industries, not yet publishedor analyzed, to the published French in-dustries in order to allow the reader toform a kind of preliminary idea of theirnature. I consider this to be only a tem-
porarysolution (cf. Valoch 1968a).The misunderstanding in the case of
the Levallois technique is most likelyattributable to the translation. Dibitage
Levallois is apparent in the Middle Palaeo-lithic only in Southeastern Europe; in
Central Europe, there is merely facettage
in connection with debitage non-Levallois
until the appearance of dibitage Levallois
in some industries of the early UpperPalaeolithic in Moravia.
The origins of the designations of thecultures of the region in question are asfollows: Olschewian, from Mt. Olsheva
in the Karavanki Mountains of northernYugoslavia; Szeletian, from the Szeletacave in Hungary; Pavlovian, from thesite of Pavlov in Czechoslovakia; Kost-jenkian, from the site of Kostjenki, on theDon near Voronjezh, U.S.S.R.; Tarno-
wian, from the site of Tarnow in Poland;Mazowian, from the Mazowsze region inPoland.
Criticism of the terms "Late Palaeo-lithic" and "Final Palaeolithic" was ex-
pected. The discoveryof Late Palaeolithicindustries during the past 20 years is asignificant contribution of Central Euro-
pean archaeology,rendering substantiallymore exact our knowledge about thedecline of the Old Stone Age in thisregion. From the point of view of method-ology, the term seems to me to be fittingfor the time being (cf.Neustupny, Vencl).In using the term "Final Palaeolithic," Iwanted to indicate the absolutecontinuityof the Mesolithic with the precedingPalaeolithic, as well as the hiatus betweenit and the following Neolithic, in theregions described. The term cannot, ofcourse, be applied in the Near East, wherethe Mesolithic really does form a link
between the Palaeolithic and the Neo-lithic; nor can be applied in the moreremote regions of Africa and Asia, wherethe concept of "Late Stone Age" hasquite a different content. From the com-
ments, it would appear that the Meso-lithic is defined in a number of differentways. On the basis of the geologicalcriterion less han 10,000 .P.), the majorpart of our Late Palaeolithic would per-haps be Recent and thus Mesolithic; theclimato-palaeontological criterion (theappearance of postglacial forest fauna) isconditioned by zonal distribution andtherefore not usable; the much more
reliable typological criterion (microlithi-zation of tools) cannot be applied herebecause of the uncertainty as to the occur-rence of microlithization in the LatePalaeolithic, despite the high ratio oftypical microliths (triangles)in theUpperPalaeolithic (e.g., Pavlov et al.) I suggestthat the economic base of society is the
only division marker ustified historicallyin this case. Muller-Beck, although herecommends retaining the term "Meso-lithic," nevertheless correctly says of theterm "Neolithic" that its original chrono-logical-stratigraphic meaning has been
overshadowed by its economic-culturalmeaning (Grahmann and Muller-Beck1967: 316, 319). It is only reasonablethat an analogous economic-culturalmeaning should be assigned to the term"Palaeolithic"; and the whole of the"Mesolithic" of Centraland EasternEur-ope (excluding the easternBalkans,wherea pre-ceramic Neolithic appears) wouldfall into a Palaeolithic so defined. Analternative to this detailed division intomore phases has been suggested by Lap-lace (1966), who combines the Upper,Late, and Final Palaeolithic under the
single term "Leptolithic."Stratigraphy, chronology.Concerning the
problems raised by Ivanov, Kukla, andNarr, I must report that recent studies inHolland (Hammen et al. 1967; Vogel andZagwijn 1967) have demonstrated theexistence of a Middle Wurm Interstadial,here called Hengelo, which coincideswithour Podhradem. The somewhat morerecent Denekamp Interstadial is thenidentical with our Stillfried B. Ourhypothesis as to the existence of twosuch climatic oscillations in close suc-cession (Musil and Valoch 1966) is
thus supported from another part ofEurope.
The radiocarbon dates for certainCentral European sites-Dolni WVestonicebrickworks, Pavlov, Podhradem, Willen-dorf II/4, Aggsbach-have been correc-ted in Groningen; a slight increase hasoccurred in all of them (Vogel and Water-bolk, 1964; Vogel and Zagwijn 1967).
Kukla's comment is outside the frame-work of this article, as it primarily con-cerns my summary of the research donein the cave of Podhradem. Opravil(written communication) holds that
dwarf mountain-fir and beech may wellhave occurred together in the complexconditions of the Moravian Karst andtherefore their co-occurrence among thecharcoal samples does not constitute proof
of contamination. Musil (oral communi-cation) refers to his publication quotedabove and repeats that the fauna is notredeposited (as is shown by finds of bonesin anatomical position and a continuousevolution of cave bears from the lower tothe upper beds). He explains the contem-poraneity of forestand steppe species as aconsequence of ecological differences be-tween the Karst region and the non-karst
environment.Migrations, evolution, relations. Com-
ments by Anati, Gabori, Ghosh, Hopkins,Narr, Neustupny, Smith, and Vencltouch upon various aspects of theseproblems. One of the aspects of myrefusal to employ the concept of "migra-tion" has been well grasped by Narr; theidea of diffusion seems to me more accept-able. This does not, however, at all ex-clude migration over many hundreds ofkilometres within a given area (e.g., thesteppes of Central Europe). I see con-tinuity of settlement also in terms of such
an area. A hiatus of several thousands ofyears in one locality (Molodova V) doesnot prove that the wider area of EasternEurope, and even the Dniestr region itself,did not contain some culture developingcontinuously. Again, there is for the timebeing a gap in the radiocarbon dates of atleast 10,000 years between the Pavlovianand the Magdalenian in Czechoslovakia;in Hungary, however, Sagvar is dated inthis range. In any case, the contem-poraneity of cultures (e.g., the Szeletian,the Aurignacian, and the Olschewian) insuch a region must be seen in terms of a
range of several thousands of years; atpresent there is no measure which mightproduce a more minute division.
Vencl's critical considerations are cer-tainly justified in essence, and they arerelevant not only to my article, but alsoto the manner of drawing conclusionsfrom archaeological material in the Pa-laeolithic in general. Some of his com-parisons with examples of my work arenot quite appropriate, but detailed dis-cussion of these is impossible here. Hisopinion must definitely be thought overand considered.
Lower and Middle Palaeolithic. Besidesthe comments by Anati, Bordes, Collins,Freund, Gabori, Kozlowski, Neustupn',Pfeiffer, and Smolla, I have taken intoconsideration M. Brodar's letter (Ljubl-jana) and L. Vrtes' oral communication(Budapest). Brodar demands correctionof the name of a site; what I have referredto as Monastir in Serbia should properlybe Bitola in Macedonia. Vrtes tells methat in his opinion the chopper fromPestldrinc, which I have mentioned as aquite singular find from this site, is apseudo-artifact, and further that he had
already suggested (1965) the existence ofthe epi-chopper industry in the Riss/Wurm Interglacial.
Concerning the Heidelbergian, I nowbelieve that the finds uncovered by Rust
386 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 38/41
Valoch: PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEnd Zebera may be seen as human tools
(cf. Grahmann and Muller-Beck 1967).
It is a matter of fact that both Central
and Eastern Europe are relatively poor
in Lower Palaeolithic materials; but it is
also a fact that the very extensive present-
day research is continually producing
new pieces of knowledge. In this connec-
tion I might also mention the discovery
of implements together with an Upper
Biharian fauna at the site of Strainska
skala, near Brno, Czechoslovakia (Musil
and Valoch 1968). According to Musil,
these finds may come from the Gunz/
Mindel Interglacial.
I have used the term "Micoquian" in
the sense of Bosinki (1967), a sense in
which it fits into the framework of the
Polish industries ("Pradnician") and
those of southern Russia. I have referred
to as "Charentian of Micoquian tradi-
tion" an industry having essentially the
same inventory of types as the Charentian
(including typical, though rather rare,
Quina scrapers) but containing in addi-
tion some elements of the Micoquian.
According to Bosinski's definition, this
latter industry would be a Central Euro-
pean Micoquian.
Upper Palaeolithic. The comments by
Bordes, Collins, Delporte, Freund, Gab-
ori, Klima, Neustupny, Smith, and de
Sonneville-Bordes are related to several
questions. As regards the relationship be-
tween Aurignacian and Olschewian, that
these are two independent cultures is at
present no more hypothetical than that
they are two facies (hunting and dwelling)
of a single culture. I have chosen the
former alternative to point up the specific
character of each of them as well as the
differences between them. (According to
Brodar, the site of Lokve cave is not "near
Trieste," as I have stated, but near
Rijeka.)
The Upper Aurignacian of Moravia
does in fact contain a majority of burins
of the type burin carene';I would argue,
however, that the true burinbusque' arched
burin) also occurs.
The idea of a relationship between the
Central European Aurignacian of the
Krems Hundsteig type to the Pavlovian
was presented, on typogenetic grounds,
concurrently by Grigoriev (1966) and
Laplace (1966). I have recently offered
my own point of view, including a sum-
mary of the chronological deficiencies of
this hypothesis (1968b). At the same time,
I expressed my opinion concerning the
contents and volume of the Pavloviansuggesting that, within the framework ofthe gravettoid industries (industriesd lame
a dos) extending all over Europe, itconstitutes an independent regionalgroup. Its development, like that of allthe other recent groups, includes a seriesof phases distinguishable chronologicallyand typologically. The question of simi-larity between certain of the industries
(e.g., that of Dolni Vestonice) and theFrench Perigordian will still have to bestudied.
The problem of the Proto-Magdalenianinvolves chronology. If the French Proto-Magdalenian is, as Bordes suggests in hiscomment, the "Final Perigordian" (ca.
20,000 years B.P., abri Pataud), thenlayer 9 of Molodova V, dated to 28-
29,000 B.P. (according to Ivanova's com-ment), must belong to a very early phaseof the "Eastern Gravettian."
The "baton de commandement" (baton
perce)occurs,even in the region described,earlier than in the Magdalenian (Molo-dova V/7, Predmosti, Pavlov), but alongwith several other bone objects it consti-tutes a set typical of the Magdalenian ofCentralEurope.
References CitedABRAMOUA, Z. A. 1962. Palaeoliticeskoe
isskustvo na territorii SSSR. ArcheologiaSSSR A4-3.
ABSOLON, K. 1935. "L'Aurignacien tres
ancien (quartzitique) dans l'Europe Cen-trale, avec ses industries osseuses." CongresPrdhistoriqueeFrance,Xie Session,1934, pp.1-6. Le Mans. [JN*]
-- -. 1949. The diluvial anthropomorphic
statuettes and drawings, especially the so-called Venus statuettes, discovered inMoravia. ArtibusAsiae 12:201. [JN1]
ADRIAN, W. 1948. Die Frage dernorddeutschenEolithen.Paderborn.
ALIMEN, H. 1950. Indications climatiquesdans les couches archeologiques d'un abrisol polygonal de Mouthiers, Charente.Bulletin de la SocietePrehistorique ranfaise47:286-88. tJK*]
ANATI, E. 1963. Palestine before he Hebrews.New York: Alfred A. Knopf [EA*]
-- -. 1965. "Prehistoria de Palestina," in
Enciclopedia e la Biblia, vol 5, pp. 1182-1236. Barcelona: Garriga. [EA* ]
-- -. 1968. Anatolia's earliest art. Archaeo-logy21:22-35. [EA* ]
ANDERSEN, S. TH. 1961. Vegetation and itsenvironment in Denmark in the EarlyWeichselian Glacial (Last Glacial). Dan-marks Geologiske Undersdgelse I Raekke,no. 75.
ANGELI, W. 1953. Der Mammutjagerhaltvon Langmannersdorf an der Perchling.Mitteilungen der PrdhistorischeKommission6:1-118. [MG*]
AUTLEV, P. U. 1963. Abadzechskaianizne-paleoliti/eskajatojanka.Majkop.
BADER, 0. N. 1960. Osnovny je etapy etno-kulturnoj istorii i paleogeografii Urala.
Paleolit neolitSSSR MIA 79:4, 88-103.-- -. 1965a. Stojanka Sungir i jejo archeo-
logiceskij oblik. Stratigrafiai periodizaciapaleolitavostoWnojcentralnoj vropy INQUA1965) pp. 57-65.
- - -. 1965b. "Pamiatniki paleolita na
juzhnom Urale i ikh stratigrafitcheskoieznatchenie," in Anthropogenjuzhnogo rala,pp. 239-45. Moskva-Leningrad. [JKK*r]
---. 1965c. Kapovajape&lera.Paleoliti"eskajazivopis (La Caverne Kapovaia. Peinturepaleolithique). Moskva. [JN* ]
BANESZ, L. 1965. K. otazkam povodu, tri-
denia a rozsirenia aurignacienu v Europe(Quelques considerations sur l'origine, lasubdivision et 1'extensionde I'Aurignacienen Europe). Slovenskdarcheoldgia13:261-318. [JN, SV ]
BARTA,J. 1965.Notes about the Palaeolithicin Rumania. Anthropozoikum,bornikgeo-logickchvedA 3:123-40.
- - -. 1965b. Slovensko stars'ej strednejdobekamennejDie Slowakei in der alteren undmittleren Steinzeit). Bratislava.
BAYER, J. 1925. Die altere Steinzeit in denSudetenlandern. Sudeta,ZeitschriftfiirVor-undFriihgeschichte: 19-20. [JN*]
- - -. 1929. Die Olschewakultur. EiszeitundUrgeschichte:83-100.
BEHiM-BLANKE, G. 1960. AltsteinzeitlicheRastplatze im Travertingebiet Taubach-Weimar-Ehringsdorf. Alt-Thuringen.
BEREGOVAJA, N. A. 1960. Paleoliticeskiemestonachozdenija SSSR. Materialy iissledovaniao archeologiiSSR 81.
BINFORD, L. R., and S. R. BINFORD. 1966.A preliminary analysis of functional vari-ability in the Mousterian of Levalloisfacies. AmericanAnthropologist8 (2, part2) :239-95. [RGK*]
BITIRI, M. 1964. Azarea paleolitica de laBoinesti. Studii si Cercetari e Istoria Vecche15(2) :167-86.
BONC-OSMOLOVSKIJ,G. A. 1940. PaleolitKryma I. Grot Kiik-Koba. Moscow-Lenin-grad.
BORDES,F. 1950. L'evolution buissonante desindustries en Europa occidentale. Con-
sideration theorique sur le Paleolithiqueancien et moyen. L'Anthropologie9:393-420.
BORISKOVSKIJ, I. P. 1953. Paleolit Ukrajiny.Materialy i issledovania o archeologiiSSSR40.
---. 1958. Le Paleolithique de l'Ukraine.Annales du Serviced'InformationGdolooiques,GdographiquestMin6ralogiques, o. 7.
[PELS r]-- -. 1963. O6erki po paleolitu bassejna
Dona. Materialy i issledovania o archeologiiSSSR 121.
- --. 1965. A propos des recents progres desetudes pal6olithiques en U.R.S.S. L'Anthro-pologie69:5-29.
BOSINSKI,. 1963. Eine mittelpalaolithischeFormengruppe und das Problem ihrergeochronologischen Einordnung. Eiszeit-alterundGegenwart 4:124-40.
-- -. 1967. Die mittelpaldolithischen undeim westlichen Mitteleuropa. Fundamenta,Reihe A, Band 4: Koln.
-- -. 1968. "Die Steinartefakte," in DeiBocksteinschmiede.dited by R. Wetzel andG. Bosinski. Stuttgart.
BRANDTNER, FR. 1955. Kamegg: Eine Frai-landstation des spaten Palaolithikums inNiederosterreich. Mitteilungen der Pra-historische ommission :1-88. [MG*]
BREUIL, H. 1923-25. Notes de voyage pale-olithique en Europe Centrale. I. Les in-dustries paleolithiques en Hongrie. II. Lesindustries paleolithiques du loess deMoravie et Boheme. III. Les cavernes deMoravie. L'Anthropologie 3:323-46; 34:515-52; 35:271-91. [JNf ]
- - -. 1925. Stations paleolithiques en Tran-sylvanie. Bulletin de la Societtde SciencedeCluj2 :193-217.
BRjusov, A. JA. 1952. Ocerkipo istoriiplemenevropejskojasti SSSR v neolitii'ekujupochu.Moskva-Leningrad.
BRODAR, M. 1960. Die hochalpine Aurignac-Station Mokriika jama, in Festschrift firL. Zotz, pp. 99-115. Bonn.
BRODAR, M. and A. BENAC. 1958. CrvenaStijena 1956. Glasnik zemlmuzejaSarajevu
13:21-64.BRODAR, S. 1956. "Ein Beitrag zum Karst-palaolithikum." IV. Proceedings of theINQUA Congress, ome-Pisa,pp. 737-42.
[MG*]CERDYNCEV, V. V., V. A. ALEKSEJEV, N. V.
Vol. 9 * No. 5 December1968 387
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 39/41
KIND, V. S. FOROVA, F. S. SAVELSKIJ,I. D. SOULDERZICKIJ,nd I. V. CURIKOVA.1965. Radiouglerodyje daty laboratoriiGeologiceskogo instituta (GIN) AN SSSR.Geochimija 2:1410-22.
6ERNY?, A. P. 1953. Volodimirivskajaaleo-liti6na tojanka.Kijev.
---. 1961. Paleoliti6cnatojankaMolodoveV.Kijev.
---. 1965. Rannyj i srednyj paleolit Prid-nestrovja. Trudy kommissii p0 izu&eniucetvertizcnogoerioda 5.
CHMIELEWSKI, W. 1961. Civilisation dejerzmanowice.Warszawa.
- - -. 1965a. "Archeologiceskije kulturyverchnego pleistocena na territorii Polsi."Stratigrafia periodizaciapaleolitavostoWnoicentralnoi vropy,INQUA 1965), pp. 15-23.
-- -. 1965b. Dzeije grup ludzkich zamiesz-kujacych ziemie polskie w plejstcenie.Warszawa. [JKK * ]
CLOSS, ALOIS. 1956. Kulturhistorie undEvolution. Mitteilungen erAnthropologischenGesellschaftn Wien86:1-47. [AG* ]
DELPORTE, H. 1959a. Les stations Leptoli-thiques de region de Kostienki-Borchevo.Pallas8 (2), fasc. 3.
- - -. 1959b. Notes de voyage leptolithiqueen Europe Centrale. I. La Tch6coslo-
vaquie. Rivistadi Science reistorische4.---. 1963. L'Aurignacien et le Perigordienen Europe centrale. Bulletin de la Soci6teMeridionale de Speoogie et de Prehistoirepp. l 14-130. [HD * ]
DUMITRESCU, M., P. SAMSON, E. TERZEA,C. RADVIESCU, and M. GHICA. 1963.Pestera "La Adam," statiune pleistocene.Lucrarile institutuluide Speleologie "EmileRacovita"1-2:229-91.
EFIMENKO, P. P. 1953. Pervobytnoebscestvo.Kijev.
- - -. 1958. Kostienki.Moskva-Leningrad.EFIMENKO, P. P., and I. P. BORISKOVSKI.
1957. Telmanskoe paleoliticeskoe pose-lenija. Materialy i issledovania0 archeologiiSSSR 59:191-234.
FELGENHAUER, F. 1959a. Willendorf in der
Wachau. MitterlungenPrahistorischen om-mission der Osterreichischen kademie derWissenschaften-9.
- - -. 1959b. Probleme der gegenwertigenAltsteinzeitforschung. BeitrdgeOsterreichszur Erforschung er Vergangenheit. Kultur-geschichte,ymposion959:12-22. [MG*]
FEUSTEL, R. 1959.Zum Problem der "Heidel-berger Kultur." Ausgrabungen nd Funde4-5:221-25. [JN ]
- - -. 1961. Das Mesolithikum in Thuringen.Alt-Thuiringen:18-75.
FORMOZOV,A. A. 1952. Niznepaleoliticeskiemestonachozdeniaja Prikubanja. Kratkiesoobk6enffanstituta storiiMaterialnoiKultury46:31-41.
- - -. 1954. Periodizacija mesoliticeskich
stojanok evropejskoj casti SSSR. SovRtskajaarcheologija1:38-51.- --. 1958. Pescernaja stojanka Staroselje i
jejo mesto v paleolite. Materialy issledovaniapoarcheologiiSSR 71.
FREEMAN, L. G., JR. 1964. Mousteriandevelopments in Cantabrian Spain. Un-published Ph.D. Dissertation. Universityof Chicago. Chicago, Illinois. [RGK ]
- - -. 1966. The nature of Mousterian faciesin Cantabrian Spain. AmericanAnthro-pologist68 (2, part 2) :230-37. [RGK ]
FREUND, G. 1952. Die Blattspitzen desPa]aolithikums in Europa. Quartdr-Biblio-thek1.
- - -. 1963. Die altere und mittlere Steinzeitin Bayern. Jahresberichteder BayerischenBodendenkmalpftege:9-167.
FRIDRICH,J., B. KLIMA, and K. VALOCH.1968. Systematika pojmu "kultura" vpaleolitu. Archeologicke~ozhledy 0 :308-11.
GABORI,M. 1953. Le Solutreen en Hongrie.Acta Archeologica Academiae ScientiarumHungaricae: 1-68.
- --. 1960. Der heutige Stand der Paliaolith-forschungin Ungarn. Archaeologiaustriaca.27:64-74. [MG* ]
GABORI, M., and V. CSANK. 1967. Unnouveau site mousterien en Hongrie. ActaArchaeologicaAcademiaeScientiarumHun-garicae19:200-28. [MG, JKK ]
GABORI, M., and V. GABORI. 1957. Lesstations de loess paleolithiques de Hongrie.Acta ArchaeologicaAcademiae ScientiarumHungaricae:1-117. [MG* ]
GALLUS, A. 1966. Comment on: Transition
from Mousterian to Perigordian: Skeletaland industrial, by L. Pradel. CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY 7:39-40. [SV* ]GARROD, D. A. E. 1939. Excavations in the
cave of Bacho Kiro, North East Bulgaria(with sections by Bruce Howe and JamesH. Gaul). Bulletinof theAmericanSchoolofPrehistoric esearch 5:46-126. [JN ]
GINTER, B., S. KOWALSKI, and J. K.KOZLOWSKI. 1967. Stanowisko aleolitugor-
nego i srodkowego a Wawelu w Krakowie.Studia do dziej6w Wawelu, 4. In press.
[JKK ]GJESSING, GUTORM. 1964. Adherence to the
group territory.Folk 6:55-62. [JN ]GLADILIN, V. N. 1966. Razlicnyje tipy in-
dustrii v must je Russkoj ravniny i Kryma
i ich mesto v rannem paleolite SSSR.Paper given at the VII Congres Inter-national des Sciences Pr6historiques etProtohistoriques,Prague, 1966.
GoRJANOVIc-KRAMBERGER, K. 1906. Derdiluviale Mensch von Krapina im Kroatien.Wiesbaden.
GRAHMANN, R. 1955. The Lower Palaeolithicsite of Markkleeberg and the other com-parable localities near Leipzig. Trans-actionsof the American hilosophical ociety 5(6) :509-687.
GRAHMANN, R., and Hj. MOLLER-BECK.
1967. UrgeschichteerMenschheit. tuttgart.GRAMSCH, B. 1960. Der Stand der Mittel-
steinzeitforschung in der Mark Branden-berg. Wissenschaftliche eitschriftder Hum-boldt-Universitdt u Berlin, Gesellschaftlich-
Sprachwissenschaftliche.eiha 9:221-93.GRIGORIEV, G. P. 1966. "The Krems, Willen-
dorf and Pavlov Cultures in CentralEurope," in Archaeology: Old and NewWorld, pp. 7-24. Moscow: AkademiaNaukSSSR. [DC, BK*]
- - -. 1966. Kremsskaja, villendorfskaja ipavlovskaja kultury v srednej Evrope.Archeologija tarogo novogo vRta,pp. 7-24.Moskva.
GUENTHER, W. E. 1959. "ZurAltersdatierungder diluvialen Fundstelle von Krapina inKroatien." Bericht iiber die 6. TagungderDeutschenGesellschaftur Anthropologiep.202-9.
GUNTHER, KL. 1964. Die altsteinzeitlichenFunde der Balver Hohle. Bodenalterttumer
Westfalen .GVOZDOVE:R, M. D. 1950. 0 razkopkach
avdeevskoj paleoliticeskoj stojanki v 1947g. Kratkie oobsZ6enianstituta storii Material-noiKultury 1:17-27.
GvoZDOVER, M. D., and E. N. NEVESSKIJ.
1961. The discovery of a Mousterian pointon the southern coast of the Crimea (inRussian). Byilleten Komissii po izucheniyuchetvertichnogoerioda 6. [IKI * ]
HAMMEN, T. VAN DER, G. C. MAARLEVELD,
J. C. VOGEL, and W. H. ZAGWIJN. 1967.Stratigraphy, climatic succession andradiocarbon dating of the Last Glacial inthe Netherlands. Geologie en Mifnbouw46(3) :79-95.
HANCAR, FRANZ. 1937. Urgeschichte Kau-kasiens. Bacherzur Ur- undFrzihgeschichte.
Wien: A. Schroll. [KJNW]HEINZELIN DE BRAUCOURT, JEAN DE. 1960.
Principes de diagnose numerique entypologie. Acade'mieRoyale de Belgique,Clas sede Sciences.Me'Imoiresn 40, ser. 2,
HENRI-MARTIN, . 1957. La grotte Fonte-chevade. I. Archives e l'Institutde Paleonto-logieHumaine,M6moire 8. Paris. -
INDREKO, R. 1948. Die mittlereSteinzeit inEstland.Stockholm.
ITERMANN,. 1962.Ein Faustkeil des "HomoSteinheimensis." Eiszeitalterund Gegenwart13:19-23.
IVANOVA, . K. 1961. Stratigrafija molo-dovskich mnogoslojnych paleoliticeskichstojanok v srednem Pridnestrovje i ne-kotoryje obsie voprosy stratigrafii paleo-
lita. TrudyKommissii o izuceniu etvertizcnogoperioda18:94-108.
- - -. 1965a. "Stratifraficeskoe polozenijemolodovskich paleoliticeskich strojanokna srednem Dnestru v svete obsichvoprosov stratigrafii i absolutnoi geo-chronologii verchnego pleistocena Evropy."Stratigrafiai periodizacia paleolita vostfnoii centralnoiEvropy (INQUA 1965) pp.123-40.
- --. 1965b. "The significance of fossilhominid finds and of their culture to thestratigraphyof the Quaternary Period" (inRussian). Chetvertichnijeriod i ego istoryia.Moscow: Nauka. [IKI * ]
- - -. 1965c. Thegeological ge offossil man (inRussian). Moscow Nauka. [IKI * ]
- --. 1966."The stratigraphy of the UpperPleistocene of Middle and Eastern Europeaccording to the studying of loesses" (inRussian). VerkhnUjpleistocen. MoscowNauka. [IKI * ]
IVANOVA,. K., and A. P. CHERNYSH.1965.The Paleolithic site of Molodova V on theMiddle Dniestr. Quaternaria:197-217.
[PELS ]JACOB-FRIESEN,K. H. 1949. Die Altsteinzeit-
funde ausdemLeinestalbei Hannover.Hildes-heim.
JENNINGS,JESSE D., and EDWARD NORBECK.Editors. 1964. Prehistoricman in the NewWorld. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. [JN*]
KADIC, 0. 1940. Cserepfalu videk6nek bar-langjai. Barlangkutatas 6:204-25.
KIND, N. V. 1965. Absolute chronology ofthe main stages of the last glaciation and
postglacial period in Siberia (in Russian).In Chetvertichnijeriod ego storija.Moscow:Nauka. [IKI * ]
KLIMA,B. 1957. Ubersicht iiber die jiingstenpalaolithischen Forschungen in Mahren.Quartar :85-130. [JN* ]
- - -. 1958. Upper Palaeolithic Art in Mora-
via. Antiquity 2 (125):8. [JN ]- --. 1961. Die archaologische Erforschung
der Hohle "Sv6duv stul" in Mahren.Anthropos 3, N.S. 5:7-96. [JK*]
---. 1963. Dolni Vestonice.Praha.- - -. 1967. Archeologicke rozhledy 19 (5).
[BK*]KORMOS,. 1912. Die Palaolithsiedlung von
Tata. Jahrbuchder UngarischenGeologischenAnstalt20:1-66.KOZLOWSKI,J. K. 1961. Probla klasyfikaciji
gornopaleolitycznychrzemyslbw ploszczamilisciowatymi.Krak6w.
-- -. 1965. Studia nad zr6onicowaniem
kulturowym w paleolicie gornym Europy
sr6dkowej. Pracearcheologiczne.-- -. 1966a. Nieskolko zamietchani po
powodu gipotezy o zapodnoevropeeskommestnom genezise oriniakskoi industrii.Archaeologiaolona9:225-33. [JKKi ]
-- -. 1966b. Uwagi o przemyslach ory-niackich w Polsce (Remarques sur l'Aurig-nacien en Pologne). Folia Quaternaria24:1-32. [JKK ]
KRAJNov,D. A. 1960. Pescernaja stojankaTag-Air I kak osnova dlja periodizacii
poslepal kultur Kryma. Materialy issled-ovaniapoarcheologii SSR 91.
KRETZOI,M., and L. VE~RTRS. 965a. UpperBiharian (Intermindel) pebble-industryoccupation site in Westernr Hungary.CURRENTANTHROPOLOGY:74-87.
388 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 40/41
Valoch:PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE--. 1965b. The role of Vertebrate faunaeand Palaeolithic industries of Hungary inQuarternary stratigraphy and chronology.ActaGeologicaHungarica :125-44.
- - -. 1965c. Lower Palaeolithic hominid andpebble-industry in Hungary. Nature205-6.
[MG*]KROEBER, A. L. Editor. 1953. Anthropology
today. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. [AG*r]
KRUGER, H. 1959. Friuhpaliiolithische Ge-rbllartefakte vom Typ "Pebble-tool" in
Oberhessen ? Eiszeitalter und Gegenwart10:165-98.-- -. 1962.Altsteinzeit-Forschung in Hessen.
FundberichteusHessen2:6-43.KRUKOWSKI,ST. 1948. "Paleolit, in Encyklo-
pediaPolskaIV/V, pp. 1-117. Krak6w.KUKLA,. 1961. Stratigraficka pozice ceskeho
stareho palcolitu (Stratigraphische Posi-tion des tschechoslowakischen Altpalao-lithikums). Pamdtky rcheologicke2:18-29.
[JN*]---. 1967. Comment on: The Pleistocene
epoch and the evolution of man, by C.Emiliani. CURRENTANTHROPOLOGY:37-39. [JK* ]
KUKLA, J., and V. LOZEK. 1958. To theproblems of investigation of the cavedeposits. CeskoslovenskyrasI 11:19-83.
[JK*]LAPLACE, G. 1966. Recherchesur l'origineet
l'evolutiondes complexeseptolithiques. tcoleFrancaise de Rome, Melanges d'Archeo-logie et d'Histoire, Suppl. 4: Paris.
LAURENT.1965. Heureuse rehistoire. erigeux:Pierre Fanlac. [KJN ]
LAZUKOV, G. I. 1957. Geogloia stojanokkostienkovsko-borsevskogo rajona. Mater-ialy i issledovaniao archeologiiSSR59:135-173.
LEROI-GOURHAN,A. 1962. Paleolithique duPeloponese. Bulletin de la Socidtd Prd-historiqueranfaise59:249-65. [MG*]
- -. 1966. Laprdhistoire. aris [SV ]LUMLEY,H. DE and B. BOTTET. 1960. "Sur
1'evolution des climats et des Industries au
Riss et au Wurm d'apres le remplissage dela Baume-Bonne (Quinson, B.-A.)" Fest-schriftfurL. Zotz, pp. 271-301. Bonn.
LUMLEY, H. DE, et al. 1963. La grotte duVallonet. Roquebrune-Cap-Martin (A.-M.) Bulletin du Musee AnthropologiquetprehistoriqueeMonaco10:5-20. [MG*]
LYUBIN, V. P. and I. I. PETRAKOV.A Mous-terian occurrence at Zolotarikha near thetown of Belev, Toula district (in Russian).ByulletinKommissiipo izucheniyu hetvertich-nogoperioda29. [IKI * ]
MALEZ,M. 1958. Einige neue Resultate derpalaonthologischen Erforschung de HohleVeternica. Paleontologiajugoslavica, S.N.1 :19-24. [MG*]
- - -. 1959. Das Palaolithikum der Veter-nicahohle. Quartar 10-11:171-88.
[MG*]MASKA, K. J. 1886. Der diluviale Mensch in
Mdhren.Neutitschein.
MESZAROS,y. and L. VERTES.955. A paintmine from the Early Upper PalaeolithicAge near Lovas (Hungary). Acta Archeo-logica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae.5:1-34.
MILOJ6I6,VL. 1958. Die neuen mittel und-altpalaolithischen Funde von der Balkan-halbinsel. Germania6:319-24. [JN*]
MOHAPATRA, G. C. 1959. Middle Stone Ageindustries of Orissa. Journalof thePalaeonto-logicalSociety fIndia 4: 35-50. [GCM*r]
---. 1962. The Stone Age culturesof Orissa.Poona. [GCM* ]
-- -. 1966. Preliminary report of the explora-tion
and excavation of Stone Age sites inEastern Punjab. Bulletin of the DeccanCollegeResearchnstitute25 :221-37.
[GCMW]MOMMIEJEAN, ., F. BORDES, and D. DE
SONNEVILLE-BORDES. 964. Le Perigordien
superieur a burins de Noailles du Roc deGavaudun, Lot-et-Garonne. L'Anthropo-logie 68 :253-316. [DSB ]
MOROSAN,N. N. 1938. La station pal6o-lithique de Stanca Ripicent. Dacia 5-6:1-22.
MOTOUZ, V. M. 1967. Quaternary molluscsfrom the Khotylevo Lower Paleolithiclocality, Bryansk district (in Russian).ByulletinKomissiip0 izucheniyuhetvertichnogo
perioda33. [IKI * ]MOTTL, M. 1951. Die Repolusth6hle bei
Peggau und ihre eiszeitlichen Bewohner.Archaeologia ustriaca :1-78.
Movius, H. L. 1960. Radiocarbon dates andUpper Palaeolithic archaeology in Centraland Western Europe. CURRENT ANTHRO-
POLOGY1:355-91.MtuLLER-BECK,Hj. 1957. Das obereAltpalio-
lithikum n Sudwestdeutschland.onn.- - -. 1965. Eine "Wurzel-Industrie" des
Vogelherd-Aurignaciens, FundberichteausSchwaben,NF. 17 (FestschriftffirG. Riek):43-51.
MiULLER-KARPE, H. 1966. Handbuch derVorgeschichte,. Munchen. [SV ]
MUSIL, R. 1961. Die Hohle Sv6duv stil, eintypischer H6hlenhyanenhorst. Anthropos13, N.S. 5:97-260. [JK ]
-- -. 1965. Die Barenhbhle Pod Hradem.Die Entwicklung der H6hlenbaren imletzten Glacial. Anthropos 8, N.S. 10:7-92.
[JK ]MUSIL, R., and K. VALOCH. 1966. Beitrag
zur Gliederung des Wurm in Mitteleuropa.EiszeitalterundGegenwart 7:131-38.
- - -. 1968. Stranska skala (Moravia,Czechoslovakia) and its meaning for thestudy of the Pleistocene. CURRENT ANTHRO-
POLOGY 9. In press.NARR, KARL J. 1954. Formengruppen und
Kulturkreise im europaischen Palaolithi-kum. 34. Bericht der Rdmisch-GermanischenKommission 951-53:1-40. [KJN ]
-- -. 1956. Die Steinwerkzeuge ans der zeit
des Neandertalers, in Der Neandertaler ndseine Umwelt.Edited by Kurt Tackenberg.Beiheft 5 der "BonnerJahrbiicher." Bonn:R. Habelt. [KJN * ]
- --. 1963. Kultur, UmweltundLeiblichkeit esEiszeitmenschen. tuttgart.
-- -. 1965. Die Altsteinzeitfunde aus demHohlenstein bei Nordlingen. BayerischeVorgeschichtsbldtter0:1-9. [KJN * ]
---, editor. 1966. Handbuchder UrgeschichteI. Bern and Mutnchen: Francke. [KJN ]
--- 1967. Studien zur A'lterenund MittlerenSteinzeit der JNiederenLande. Bonn: R.Habelt. [KJN * ]
NEUSTUPN+, J. 1959. Stary paleolit v Cesko-slovensku (Le Paleolithique inferieur enTchecoslovaquie). Acta UniversitatisCaro-linae, PhilosophicatHistorica3:5-12.
[JN*]- - -. 1962. Zum tschechoslowakischen Me-
solithikum. Mitteilungen erAnthropologischenGesellschqftn Wien92:239-46. [JN* ]
---. 1963. The Late Gravettian (Magda-lenian) in Czechoslovakia. MuneraArchaeo-logicaIosephoKostrzewski.. oblata,pp. 71-77. Poznan. [JN*]
NEUSTUPNf, E., and J. NEUSTUPNI. 1961.Czechoslovakia efore he Slavs. London andNew York. [JN*]
NICOLAESCU-PLOP?OR,C. S. 1958. Sur lapresence du Swid6rien en Roumanie.Dacia 2:5-34.
- - -. 1962. Das Palaolithikum in Rumanien,Forschungsberichte ur Ur-u. Fr2ihgeschichte5:77-95.
NICOLAESCU-PLOP?OR,C. S., and D. Nico-LAESCU-PLOP?OR.1963. The possible exis-tence of the protohominids in Rumania'sVillafranchian. Dacia 7:9-25.
NICOLAESCU-PLOP?OR,C. S., and I. N.MORO?AN. 1959. Sur le commencement du
Paleolithique en Roumanie. Dacia 3:9-33.OBERMAIER,H. 1928. "Die altere Steinzeit,"
in 3'. Schrdnil, Vorgeschichte ohmens undMdhrens,pp. 1-34. Berlin-Leipzig. [JN * ]
OBERMAIER,H., and P. WERNERT. 1929. Alt-Palaolithikum mit Blatt-Typen. Mitteil-lungen der Anthropologischer eselschaftWien59:293-310.
OPRAVIL, E. 1965. Ergebnisse der Holzkohl-enanalyse aus der Grabung der Hbhle Pod
Hradem. Anthropos 8, N.S. 10:147-49.[JK ]
PATTE, E. 1918. Coup-de-poing en Quart-zite des environs de Monastir (Serbie).Bulletin de la SocietePrehistorique ran;aise,sep. 1-3.
PELISEK,J. 1965. Die Quartarsedimenten derHohle Pod Hradem in mittleren Teil desMahrischen Karstes. Anthropos18, N.S.10:109-32. [JK*]
POTOCKIJ,. P. 1961. Sledy rannego paleolitav bassejnach rek Oki i Moskvy v Moskov-skoj oblasti. Bjulletin Kommissiipo izuc'eniuCetverticnogoperioda6:157-61.
PRO,EK, F. 1951. Vyzkum jeskune Dzerev6skaly v Malych Karpatech. Archeologicke'rozledy3:293-98. [JK ]
-- -. 1953. Szeletien na Slovensku. Slovenskdarcheologia :133-94.
-- -. 1961. Mladopaleolithicka obydli vCeskoslovensku (Die jungpalaolithischeWohnstaitte in der Tschechoslowakei).Pamdtgy rcheologicke2:57-75. [JN ]
PROSEK, F., and V. LOZEK. 1954. Stratigra-ficke otazky ceskoslovenskeho paleolitu(Stratigraphische Fragen des Palaolithi-kums in der Tschechoslowakei). Pamdtkyarcheologicke5:35-74. [JN, SV*]
PULJANOS, A. N. 1963. Novyje nachodkypaleolita v Greciji (New palaeolithic findsin Greece). Sovetskaja rcheologija:227-29.
[JN* ]RIEK, G. 1934. Die Eiszeitjdgerstationam
Vogelherd. eipzig.ROGANCEV, . N. 1953. Novye dannye o
stratigrafii verchnego paleolita vostocno-evropejskoj raviny. Materialyi issledovaniapo archeologii SSR39:39-58.
-- -. 1955. Aleksandrovskoe poselenie drev-nekamennogo veka u sela Kostienki naDonu. Materialyi issledovania o archeologiiSSSR45.
-- -. 1957. Mnogoslojnyje sojanki kostien-kovsko-borsevskogo rajona na Donu iproblema razvitija kultury v epochuverchnego paleolita na russkoj ravnine.Materialy i issledovania o archeologiiSSSR59:9-134.
RUST, A. 1937. Das altsteinzeitlicheRentier-jagerlageMeiendorf.Neumiinster.
-- -. 1951. Prehistoire du Nord Ouest del'Europe a la fin des temps glaciaires.L'Anthropologie5:205-18.
-- -. 1956. Artefakteaus der Zeit des HomoHeidelbergensisn Sld- und JNorddeutschland.Bonn.
- --. 1962. Die Artefakteder AltonaerStufevonWittenbergen.eunmiinster.
SCHILD, R. 1960. Extension des elements detype tarnowien dans les industries del'extreme fin du Pleistocene. ]ttude sur lachronologie de certaines industries ducycle mazowien. ArchaeologiaPolona 3:7-64.
- --. 1964. "Paleolit kofncowy schylkowy,"in Materialy do prahistorii ziem Polskich. I.Paleoliti Mezolit. Warszawa.
-- -. 1965. Remarques sur les principes dela syst6matique culturelle du Pal6olithique(surtout du Pal6olithique final). Archaeo-
logiaPolona8:67-81. [PELS ]
SCHULDT,E. 1961. Hohen Viecheln. SchriffenderSektionfurFriihgeschichteA W Berlin. 10.
SCHWABEDISSEN, H. 1944. Die mittlereSteinzeit im westlichen Norddeutschland.
Offia-Bcker 7.
Vol. 9- No. 5- December 968 B* 389
7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 41/41
- - -. 1954. Die Federmessergruppen desNordwesteuropaischen Flachlandes. Offa-Bicher 9.
SEREBRJANNYJ, L. R. 1965. "Primenenieradioglerodnogo metoda v cetverti6nojgeologii." Stratigrafia periodizaciapaleolitavostoynoicentralnoi vropy. INQUA 1965).
SERGEIEV, G. P. 1950. Pozneaselskaja sto-janka v grote u sela Vychvatincy (Mol-davija). Sovetskaja rcheologija 2:203-12.
SERVAIS,J. 1961. Outils paleolithiquesd'lRlide. Bulletin de Correspondanceellenique
85 (1): 1-9. [JN* ]SKUTIL,J. 1950. Balkanske paleolitikum(L'occupation paleolithique de la Penin-sule Balcanique). ObzorprehistorickyRevueprehistorique) 14:261-328. [JN*]
SMOLLA, G. 1960. Neolithische Kulturer-scheinungen. tudien zur Frage ihrer Her-ausbildungen, Antiquitas, part 2, vol. 3.Bonn. [GS * ]
- - -. 1967. Epochen der menslichenFr2ihzeit.Freiburg/Mutnchen. [GS*]
SOLECKI,. S. 1963. Prehistory in ShanidarValley, northern Iraq. Science139: 179-93.
[PELS * ]SONNEVILLE-BORDES, D. DE. 1965a. Obser-
vations statisques sur 1'Aurignacien duVogelherd, Lonetal (Wiurttember),fouillesG. Riek. Fundberichte us SchwabenNF. 1
7(FestschriftfiirG. Riek): 69-75.- - -. 1965b. Le Paleolithique en Grece.
L'Anthropologie9:603-6. [JN* ]- - 1961. Le Paleolithique sup6rieur deBelgique. L'Anthropologie5:421-43.
[DSB?]-- -. 1963. Le Paleolithique superieur en
Suisse. L'Anthropologie7:205-68.[DSB ]
- - -. 1965. Observations statistiques surl'Aurignacien du Vogelherd, Lonetal,Wurtemberg (fouilles G. Riek). MelangesG. Riek, Fundberichteaus Schwaben, N.S.17:69-75. [DSB * ]
-- -. 1968. "Observations statistiques sur leMagdalenien du Petersfels (fouilles E.Peters)", in Beitrage zur Urgeschichte er
FriihenMenscheitund rherUmwelt(FestchriftA. Rust). In press. [DSB * ]SOVKOPLJAS, I. G. 1965a. Radomyslskaja
stojanka-pamjatnik na6alnoj pory poznegopaleolita. Stratigrafia periodizaciapaleolitavostoc'noientralnoiEvropy (IJFQUA 1965),pp. 104-16.
- - -. 1965b.Mezinskajastojanka.Kijev.TARASOV, L. M. 1965. Paleoliticeskaja sto-
janka Gagarino. Paleolit i neolit SSSR 5,Materilay i issledovaniapo archeologiiSSSR131:111-40.
TAX, SOL et al. Editor. 1953. An appraisalofanthropologyoday. Chicago: University ofChicago Press. [AG*]
THOMA, A. 1962. Le deploiment evolutif deI'Homo saPiens. Anthropologia Hungarica
5:1-179. [MG*]TODE, A., et al. 1953. Die Untersuchung derpalaolithischen Freilandstation von Salz-gitter-Lebenstedt. Eiszeitalter und Gegen-wart3:144-220.
TOEPFER,V. 1961a. Die altpalaolithischenFeursteinwerkzeuge von Hundisburg. Jah-resschriftfiir MitteldeutscheVorgeschichte5:35-69.
- --. 196 lb. Das Altpalaolithikum im Fluss-gebiet der unteren Saale und der Mittel-elbe. Geologie10:570-85.
- - -. 1961c. "Das Altpaliolithikum inPleistozanen Schotterablagerungen derUnteren Saale und mittleren Elne." Pro-ceedingsof the INQUA Congress, Warsaw,1961, vol. 4, pp. 425-37. [DC*]
-
- -. 1964. Borky II, eine Freilandsiedlungdes Aurignacien in Brno Malomerice.Acta Musei Moraviae,scientiae ocialae49:5-48.
- --. 1965a. Die Hohlen Sipka und Certovadira bei Stramberk. Anthropos, .S. 9.
- - -. 1965b. Die altsteinzeitlichen Bege-hungen der Hohle Pod hradem. Anthropos,N.S. 10:93-106.
-- -. 1966. Die Quarzitindustrie aus derHohle Byci skala in Mahren. Quartdr17:51-89.
- - -. 1967. Die Steinindustrie von der Fund-stelle des menschlichen Skelettrestes I ausder Hohle Kuilna bei Sloup (Mahren).Anthropologie: 21-31
VALOCH, K. 1968a. Le remplissage et lesindustries du Paleolithique moyen de la
grotte Kilna en Moravie. L'Anthropologie.In press.
- - -. 1968b. Uber einige Entwicklungsfragendes mitteleuropaischen Jungpalaolithi-kums. Archeologicke'ozhledy. n press.
VALOCH, K. and F. BORDES. 1967. Loess deTchecoslovaquie et loess de France duNord. L'Anthropologie 1 (3-4): 279-88, 2illustrations. [HD * ]
VAj?URA, . 1965. Neue Funde von Restendes Neanderthalmenschen aus der HohleSv6duv suil (Schwedentisch Grotte) inMahrischem Karste. KlubprfirodovedeckjfiMoravskdmmuseu Brne'1965:1-24. [JK * ]
VEKILOVA, E. A. 1957. Stojanka Sjuren I ijejo mesto sredi paleoliticeskich mesto-nachozdenij Kryma i blizajsich territorii.Materialy i issledovaniapo archeologiiSSSR59:235-323.
VELI6KO, A. A. 1961. Geologiceskijvozrastverchnegoaleolita centralnych ajonovrusskojravniny.Moskva.
VENCL, S. 1964. Discussion. Referdtv opracovnichvysledczchc'eskoslovenskychrcheo-logoui:8-1. [SV*]
- - -. 1966. Ostromerska skupina (Le grouped'Ostromer, nouveau groupe du Paleo-lithique tardif en Boheme). Archeologicke'rozhledy18:307-40. [JN*]
VERESCAGIN, N. K. 1957. Ostatki mlekopi-tajuscich iz nezne6etverticnych otlozeniiTamanskogo poluostrova. Trudy zoologi-ceskogonstitutaANSSSR 22:9-74.
VE~RTES, L. 1955a. Neue Ausgrabungen undpalaolithische Funds in der h6hle von
Istallosko. ActaArchaelogica cademiaecien-tariumHungaricae :111-3 1.-- -. 1955b. 'Ober einige Fragen des mittel-
europaischen Aurignacien. Acta Archae-logicaAcademiea cientiarium:279-91.
-- -. 1958. Beitrage zur Abstamming desungarischen Szeletien. Folia archaeologia10:3-15.
- --, editor. 1964. Tata, eine mittelpalao-lithische Travertin-Siedlung in Ungarn.Archaeologica ungarica,S.N., 43.
- --. 1965. Typology of the Buda-industry,a pebble-tool industry from the HungarianLower Palaeolithic. Quaternaria:185-95.
VOGEL, . C., and H. T. WATERBOLK. 1964.Groningen radiocarbon dates V. Radio-carbon :349-69.
VOGEL, J. C., and W. H. ZAGWIJN. 1967.Groningen radiocarbon dates VI. Radio-carbon :63-106.
WARREN, S. H. 1951. The Clacton flintindustry: A new interpretation. Proceedingsof theGeologistsAssociation 2:107-35.
[DC ]WERNERT, . 1957. Stratigraphie paleonto-
logique et prehistorique des sedimentsquaternaires d'Alsace Achenheim. Me-moiresde Servicedu CarteGeiologique lsace etLorraine .
WIECKOWSKA,. 1964. "Mezolit, in Ma-terialydoprahistoriiziemPolskich; I. Paleoliti mesolit.Warszawa.
WIECKOWSKA, H., and M. MARCZAK. 1965.Pr6ba podzialu kulturowego mezolituMazowsza. II Konferencjanstituta Historii
KulturyMaterialnej,Warszawa.WYMER,J. 1957. A Clactonian flint industry
at Little Thurrock. Proceedings of theGeologistsAssociation 8: 159-77. [DC*W]
ZAGWIJN,W. H. 1961. Vegetation, climateand radiocarbon datings in the LatePleistocene of the Netherlands. I: Eemianand Early Weichselian. Memoires, Geo-logical Foundation of the Netherlands,N.S. 14:15-45.
ZAMJATNIN, S. N. 1961. Stalingradskajapaleoliti6eskaja stojanka. Kratkije soob%s-cengaInstitutaArcheologiiANSSSR 82:5-36.
ZAVERNYAEV,. M. 1961. The KhotylevoLower Paleolithic locality (in Russian).Bryanskij blastnoi raevedcheskijuzej.
[IKIA]ZAVERNYAEV,. M., and E. A. SCHMIDT.
1961. A new occurrence of the LowerPaleolithic on the Upper Desna (in Rus-sian). Sovetskayarkheologiya. [IKI ]
ZEBERA, K. 1952. Les premiers monumentsde travail humain en Boheme. RozpravyUstrfednihoistavueologickeho 4.
-- -. 1958. Ceskoslovenskoe starsidobekamenne'(Die Tschechoslowakei in der alterenSteinzeit). Praha. [JN, SV ]
- - -. 1965. Das Bohemien, eine Ger6ll-industrie als Vorlaufer des mitteleuropai-schen Mousterien. Quartdr 5-16:47-60.
ZEUNER,E. F. 1958. 4th edition. Dating thepast. London.
ZOTZ, L. 1951. Die AltsteinzeitkundeMittel-europas. tuttgart.
---. 1955. Das Palaolithikum in den Wein-
bergh6hlenbeiMauern. Quartdr-Bibliothek2.-- -. 1960. Die Forschungen des Institutsfur Urgeschichte der Universitaet Erlangenim Altmuehltal. PraehistorischeZeitschrift39 (1) . [GF* ]
top related