palaeolithic people and moravian caves -...

Scripta Fac. Sci. Nat. Univ. Masaryk. Brun., Vol. 35 (2005), Geology. Brno 2007. 65

Palaeolithic people and Moravian Caves

Petr Neruda, Karel Valoch

Ústav Anthropos, Moravské zemské muzeum, Zelný trh 6, Brno 659 37, e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Key words: Moravia, Caves, Palaeolithic Settlement

Abstract

The article offers a brief review of the Palaeolithic cave settlement in Moravia. The use of caves was sporadic in the Lower Palaeolithic, but their importance grew with the spread of the Neanderthals. We dispose of a complex profile from this time period in Kůlna cave in the Moravian Karst. Following period EUP shows features of episodic use mainly in connection with hunting practice. The Gravettian settlement is not much more abundant. The complex use of the Moravian Karst occured in the Magdalenian, when we can see a significant functional site diversification. The period of the Late Palaeolithic is represented, in the cave en-vironment, only by two layers of the Epimagdalenian in Kůlna cave.

Introduction

The human being was fascinated by caves from the very beginning of his evolution. He was using them in various ways, very often he alternated with other animals especially with predators. He left waste there, which was a side-product of both utilitary and non-utilitary practice and he unwit-tingly built „monuments of the human culture“.

The re-exploration of both biological and cul-tural evolution was focused on caves and over-hangs, because those places were easily legible and they brought considerable deal of valuable knowledge for many branches of science. An in-tensive scientific interest in the development of our culture started around the mid 19th century, when we may date the first important discover-ies of the cave space (research of J. Wankel, K. J. Maška and others). It is an undoubted fact, that exploration of caves has brought the clue knowl-edge of our ancestors and it has significantly con-tributed to the forming of a modern science me-thology for many scientific disciplines. Though the early interest in caves also brought some fea-tures, which are supposed as negative today.

Deficient documentation of spacial structures, findings selection, simplyfied stratigraphy and other problems are very often. Due to it, many worth archaelogical events were destroyed and their reconstruction is very complicated, if even impossible.

Carring out the reconstruction of cave use by the Palaeolithic humans, we must consider natural process, which has influenced the pres-ervation of the archaelogical and palaeontologi-

cal items. We deal with different post-depository impacts related to solifluction, cryergetic action, colluvial and fluvial sedimentation and weath-ering. Another natural factor is animal activity, especially presence of predators, which found a suitable space for their burrows in caves.

Alongside of those caveborne factors, there is no less important geomorphology of the karst landscape in Moravia. The low proportional use of caves, for example in the Moravian Karst, cer-tainly relates to the sharp shape of cold valleys, limited number of water courses and absence of a major river in the karst region.

The Lower Palaeolithic

There are no preserved sediments of the ear-ly middle Pleistocene phases in the caves of the Moravian Karst, thus there are no evidences of the human presence in the Lower Palaeolithic in this region.

There were originally small caves on the Jurasic limestone hill of Stránská Skála on the southern edge of the Moravian Karst, nowadays generally destroyed by the quarry, where a rich Cromer fauna stone artefacts and fragments of burnt bones were described (Musil ed. 1971; Musil et all. 1995) (Musil - Valoch 1968). Following re-search in 1996-1998 confirmed the existence of artefacts chipped both from local cherts and quartz stones together with Cromerian fauna. Burnt bone fragments were found in a significant number (Valoch 2003). Thus we may suppose the hominids populated small caves in Stranská Skála during the Cromerian period.

Proceedings of the 13th International Cave Bear Symphosium, September 20 - 24, 2007. Brno. 66

Another proof of the hominid population comes from Mladeč in northern Moravia. A sur-face sinter of one corridor located not far from the entrance contained, besides animal bones, also a polyhedron , doubtlessly of the Middle Pleistocene age, made of a quartz stone. Three items, which must be considered as manuports, were found in one of four shafts dug within the research of Anthrophos Institute in the late 50s and early 60s of the last century. They are proc-essed fragments of spongolite, large flake (?) of limonite and oval halved quartz stone chipped on one side (Valoch 1993, 1996). There were not found any similar items in other shafts; thus we may consider them as a proof of the hominid presence though they do not represent their typi-cal tools.

The Middle Palaeolithic

Evidences of our ancestors´ presence in caves are more common in the Middle Palaeolithic. The valuable sites are more scarce in Moravia and practically only one of them – Kůlna cave – offered a stratigraphic sequence, which may be compared through its content to other sites of western and eastern Europe (Valoch 1988a).

While reconstructing settlement strategies we must count first of all with distribution of karst areas. If we work only with reliable and cogent data sets, we will be astonished in some way by the fact, that not more than two karst areas of all were used in Moravia – the Moravian Karst and the Štramberk Karst. There are three caves with statistically valuable collections of the Middle Palaeolithic material are located (Kůlna, Šipka and Čertova Díra)! Checking for the criteria, which might influence the choice of a cave for a longer stay in Moravia, we may use Kůlna cave with the most complex stratigraphic sequence as a sample example (Valoch 1988a). The Neanderthals had to be attracted by the fusion of many convenient factors – big tunnel cave close to a watercourse situated in relatively sunny valley with a good availability of stone raw material and hunting ranges nearby.

The Moravian scattered Middle Palaeolithic settlement unfortunately doesn´t allow to spot relations between spatial structures and time. Findings are snatchy so far and this is true espe-cially for the period Riss (OIS 8-6), which is al-

most, with some exceptions, not documented in the caves. It is not much better with the material from the following Last interglacial (OIS 5e).

A better deal of information comes from the settlement of the Early Würm (OIS 5d-3b). This period saw relatively heavy population in the Moravian Karst and we can probably understand this region as a settlement unit with sites of di-verse functions. Unfortunately it is not possible to describe the settlement strategy and real settle-ment density due to the rather fragmented data for time correlation of different settlement phas-es. The clue position held Kůlna cave in the pe-riod of the Early Würm. Particularly layer 7a can be characterized as a stabile settlement (Neruda 2003, Tab. 153). Besides this, there are also sites representing short-term stay (Švédův Stůl cave; Klíma 1962) in the Moravian Karst. The third site type is related with occasional findings in cave filling (caves Drátenická, Výpustek, Pekárna or Balcarka; Valoch 1965c, 1999a, b). The nega-tive factor mentioned above of historic research course and use of the cave space may play a sig-nificant role here.

The other settlement enclave is the Štramberk Karst, where the Neanderthal occupancy was positively proved in two caves - Šipka and Čertova Díra (Maška 1884, 1885, 1886a,b, 1888a; Valoch 1965d). In both cases, fireplaces show a longer stay, but we cannot call them a pernament set-tlement as in Kůlna cave. More, the occupancy of Čertova Díra seems to be little bit younger (Neruda 2006, 39).

Now we have covered the possibility of the set-tlement strategy reconstruction in the context of karst areas. New researches indicate the open-air sites, particularly those ones close to the stone raw material, were more often and the caves were generally not favoured settlement type (Neruda 2003).

Kůlna cave is located in northern part of the Moravian Karst neighbouring the Sloupsko-Šošůvka cave system, where the stream of the Sloupský creek and its tributaries disappear (Valoch 1988a). Layer 14 represents not only the oldest phase of the settlement in Kůlna cave (Valoch 1970), but also in all caves in Moravia. The explored area in sector D2 was rather small (approximately 5 m2), but the sediment nature


Figure 1. Middle Palaeolithic artefacts from the Kůlna cave (Valoch 1988, Neruda 2003). 1, 3 – Levallois core; 2 – retouched Levallois flake; 4 – archaic point; 5, 14 – blade; 6, 8, 12 – discoid core; 7 – subprismatic core; 9, 10 – archaic points; 11, 16 – side scraper; 13 – prismatic core; 15 – side scraper on a blade, 17 – biface, 18 – bone retoucher; 19 - symbolic mark (?) on a bone. Relative scale.


and findings distribution around throughout the layer suggest it is not an intact archaeological ho-rizon and all findings are placed in the secondary position. Neither findings nor sediment are abso-lutely dated, but, based on interdisciplinary analy-ses, the cave use may be correlated to OIS 6 or ut-most to the beginning of the last interglacial (OIS 5e). Pollen analysis (Doláková 2002) describes less tree species and a higher presence of steppe elements in layer 14. Considering the found facts, K. Valoch characterizes the environment of layer 14 as a mild steppe ecosystem (2002), where ele-ments of the cold Riss glacial are still present, but there can be felt also some warming.

At this time, the Neanderthals used only the cave entrance to the rock step, which made rather high barrier preventing to inhabit the cave in-ner space. It seems the Sloup Stream occasionally drained directly into the subterranean cave sys-tem. The economy of raw material use was main-ly based on processing of local materials (quartz, wacke, quartzite) and occasional use of the raw material from farther distance (spongolite). The chipped industry (Fig. 1: 1-5), which consists of both the subprismatic and the Levallois cores (Fig. 1: 1-3), is being related to the Moustérian (Valoch 1988a, Neruda 2003).

Our information base is more rich for the fol-lowing period of the Eem interglacial (OIS 5e) and its fading in the Würm anaglacial. Absolute dating attempts have not been much satisfacto-ry (Patou-Mathis et al. 2005; Rhodes – Nejman pers. com.). In Kůlna cave, this period is espe-cially represented by layer 11, which correlates in both technological and typological way to the Taubachian (Valoch 1984, 1988b). The charac-teristic feature is the opportunistic use of the raw material in large scale, which is mainly processed in a way of the core reduction strategy (Moncel – Neruda 2000; Neruda 2001, 2003). We docu-mented a significant variability of both discoid (Fig. 1: 6, 8) and subprismatic (Fig. 1: 7) methods. The industry is characteristic by a small dimen-sion. The approach to the fair game was probably too opportunistic as we have evidences of species coming from both closed and open ecosystems. The spatial structure of the cave was very simple. Humans inhabited again just the entrance part to the rock step. There have been proved only two fireplaces, which are interconnected by a refitting (Neruda 2003). The use of osteological material

during the production is quite interesting (espe-cially soft-hammers). Generally we can describe the Taubachian hunters´economy as opportun-istic but with some progressive features, which goes deeper in the period of Würm (intentional import of the rock crystal from a long distance; Neruda 2001).

The next dominant settlement phase is related to the Micoquian, which is at its best document-ed in layers 9b, 7c, 7a a 6a (Valoch 1988a; Neruda 2003; 2005). The C14 date 45,600 BP for layer 7a can be taken as classic (Mook 1988, cf. Rink et al. 1996). The raw material variability decreases in favor of the spongolite, which climbs, in some cases, over 75 %. There can also be seen a certain level of the technology standardization (only two types of the discoid (Fig. 1: 12) method as well as the prismatic (Fig. 1: 13, 14, 15) method). The de-velopment of biface shaped tools (hand-axes, Fig. 1: 17, bifacial backed knives, leaf-shaped points, bifacial side scrapers), which are supplemented by diverse types of combined side scrapers on flakes (Fig. 1: 16), is important for the next pro-gression. We observe a kind of specialization in the choice of hunting game, but that fact is prob-ably connected to the general decrease of species diversity in available ecosystems. Even so, it seems there was a development in the standardization and logistic economical behaviour. The cave in-ner space was gradually colonized from the time the layer 7c started its deposition, which might correlate with the climate cool down. Though it is impossible to determinate uniquely whether found structures are parallel or not, we may say, comparing to layer 11, that the cave division (spa-tial structure) was more complex. We may also consider, in some cases, structures risen in the background of non-utilitarian activity; for exam-ple a cavity in the right wall of sector F, layer 7c, where three mammoth tusk were stored or an in-teresting situation on the spot of the Neanderthal parietal bone discovery in sector D2 or an upper jaw in sector E (Neruda 2003).

The settlement in layer 7a in Kůlna cave is probably synchronous with the occupancy of Šipka cave, which is located on northern slope of Kotouč (Štramberk Karst, northern Moravia). The Moustérian settlement is, as the latest dat-ing attempt indicates, older than 40,000 years BP


(Neruda 2006, 37 - 38). The chipped industry is done mainly from local raw material of low quality, which was generally exploited through the meth-od of discoid cores. A large number of osteologi-cal material doesn´t show any traces of antrophic manipulation (Maška 1888b) and a good deal of its deposition was carried out, besides humans, also by bears. Those big predators alternated with humans in the cave use. An interesting feature is a complex spatial structure recorded by K. J. Maška in his diary (the 1880s). On one side, we know the data coming from such an old research are questionable, on the other side, there were docu-mented four fireplaces on this site. There was a Neanderthal child jaw by one fireplace (Maška 1885), cleaned up areas, a concetration based on the tool production and waste zones (Neruda 2003; 2006). Another archaelogically interesting cave Čertova Díra doesn´t unfortunately exist any more. It was entirely destroyed by limestone exploitation on Kotouč. In this cave, findings are not so rich and they indicate just a short time use. Though, it seems the human presence was organ-ized on three spots (by two fireplaces and under the cave chimney). Based on 14C dating, we sup-pose the settlement to be younger and it yet co-incides with the era of Würm interpleniglacial. It could indicate survival of the Neanderthal popu-lation in northern Moravia (Neruda 2006, 39).

A cave, ranking among the important ones due to a discovery of a Neanderthal jaw, is Švédův Stůl in southern part of the Moravian Karst. The archaelogical survey exposed several horizons with isolated artefacts and traces of simple fire-places (Klíma 1962). The oldest settlement is matched with the Eem interglacial, but the whole Middle Palaeolithic complex might originate in the Würm anaglacial (Valoch 1996). Clear spa-tial structures were not successfully identified in situ and, based on a fauna analysis, the settlement seems to be only episodic alternating with hye-nas, which used the cavity as a borrow.

The Beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic

The beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic wit-nessed a significant change in the use of the karst areas as settlement units. In fact we do not know any site of a base camp type. The majority of evi-dence rather suggests the short time residence in caves for hunting purposes.

This trend is the most surprising in the Szeletian. The theory of the genetic continuity of the Szeletian seems to be reasonable in the ter-ritory of central Europe and such a declension from the use of karst areas can be surprising.

In the Moravian Karst, we know only isolated findings coming from old researches, which are even not parts of an intact archaelogical layer, and thus it is almost impossible to determinate in more details the character of the settlement. Rytířská cave ranks to the most famous sites with a huge 45-metre portal over the bottom of Suchý Žleb (Valoch 1965b). The cave content covered at least two leaf points (Fig. 2: 4-5; Simon 1944; Skutil 1961). It is possible to relate also other items from the cave deposition to this settlement period, but in any case the cave use was rather for only a short time.

The same situation was in the case of Pod Hradem cave, where two leaf-shaped points come from (Fig. 2: 2-3). One of them was stratigraphi-cally located under the layer of the Aurignacian (Valoch 1965a). An indistinctive small leaf-shaped point comes also from Křížova cave (Fig. 2: 1); it might be related to a quartz industry. Neither chronological nor cultural context is clear in this case (Valoch 1960).

In the area of the Moravian Gate, there was probably also used so called Hlavicova cave on a short time basis, but nowadays it is entirely destroyed due to limestone exploitation. There was saved fauna from the cave content, where still appeared cave bears and several artefacts. Drawing of one item reminds a leaf-shaped point (Skutil 1955; Kostrhun – Neruda 2002; Neruda – Kostrhun 2002).

In caves, more distinct traces were still left behind by anatomically modern humans. The Aurignacian findings come especially from caves in Mladeč situated north of Olomouc in central Moravia (e.g. Szombathy 1925; Teschler-Nicola ed. 2006). This case pertains to the most promi-nent discoveries in Europe, because there were preserved anthropological findings (Fig. 2: 10) in the context of typical products from organic materials (Mladeč points – Fig. 2: 9, pendants – Fig. 2: 8, drilled teeth). The question of site purpose is rather complicated. Based on circum-stantial evidence, its use might be connected with


Figure 2. Szeletian (1-5), Aurignacian (6-10) and Gravettian (11-16) artefacts from caves. 1-5 – leaf points (1 – Křížova cave; 2, 3 – cave Pod hradem; 4, 5 – Rytířská cave); 6, 7 – blades (cave Pod Hradem); 8 – pendant; 9 – Mladeč point (Mladeč caves); 10 – skull Mladeč 1; 11 - ? from a mammuth tusk slice; 12 – cylindric point; 13-14 – decorated bones and mammoth tusk fragments. 1, 11, 12 – Křížova cave (Valoch 1960); 2, 3, 6, 7 – cave Pod Hradem (Valoch 1965a); 4, 5 – Rytířská cave (Jarošová 2002); 8-10 – Mladeč caves (Teschler-Nicola ed. 2006); 13-16 – Kůlna cave (Valoch 1988). Relative scale.


human non-utilitarian activities of those times. In addition to relatively abundant anthropologi-cal findings, the red marks on walls might repre-sent real symbols and they might have direct rela-tion to the cave occupancy in this period (Oliva 1989). Nowadays the clue question is whether the people were thrown to the cave through the chimney (Svoboda 2000, 2001, 2006a) or they used another entrance (Oliva 1993, 2006). There is running an intensive interdisciplinary survey under the sponsorship of Anthropos Institute in 2007, which is supposed to answer the question of the existing chimney communicating with the surface.

There is another and more complicated matter of an Aurignacian layer existence in Býčí Skála. A traditional view explains the industry on lo-cal chert to be produced just by bearers of this culture. More recent analyses of original reports and preliminary technological studies instead indicate, that even this “archaic” part may be a result of the Magdalenian settlement (Oliva 1995, 1996). Radiocarbon datum from chaircoals and burnt bones also document human presence in Pod Hradem cave between 33,330 – 28,200 BP. Only limited number of findings (Fig. 2: 6-7), which we can relate to this culture, points to an episodic cave use, likely in relation with a bear hunt (Valoch 1965a).

The Gravettian

The Gravettian settlement of Moravian caves is, comparing for example to Germany, rather sporadic; we know typical Gravettian findings only from Kůlna cave. The explanation, why the Gravettian hunters did not use the karst area, may underlie in hydro-geomorphological condi-tions. Moravian Karst areas lie away from major river streams, which the Gravettian settlement was bound to. Big river valleys offered better cli-mate conditions for vegetation to grow and thus for hunting game. The Kůlna cave settlement rep-resents in this way a unique occurence probably in the context of the Brno settlement unit.

An intact cultural layer was located especially in sector J by the west wall inside the cave and it is represented by almost a hundred of chipped stone artefacts. Endscrapers, retouched blades and blade points dominate among them (Valoch 1988a; Oliva 2002). Even a bone industry was found, while some pieces carry traces of orna-

mentation (Fig. 2: 13-16), which correspond to the traditional patterns as we know them from the Pavlov settlement unit or from Předmostí by Přerov.

The cave entrance (sectors A-D) was probably also inhabited, but we were not able to capture an adequate layer with a stone industry (there is present the Micoquian industry in the loess with limestone debris and Magdalénian findings in the same loess horizon with lower debris content). The both mentioned places provided radiocar-bon data making quite a closed set going back to the late phase of the Gravettian (Mook 1988).

Two dates gained from chaircoals originat-ing in Pod Hradem cave falls to the same peri-od between 21,500 – 26,830 BP (Valoch 1965a). Considering the findings it is impossible to speci-fy the cave use in more details. The use of Křížova cave, in southern part of the karst, was also epi-sodic. There were found two mammoth arte-facts - one cylindrical point (Fig. 2: 12) and an ivory slice in a shape of a ring (Fig. 2: 11; Valoch 1960).

The Magdalénian

The caves of the Moravian Karst were more used as late as the end of the Upper Palaeolithic in the Magdalenian culture. At this time, the hu-man dependence on local geomorphological conditions manifested more deeply and it is re-flected in the population density in every single karst valley. In a wide, sunny and relatively not deep cut valley of the river Říčka in the south Karst, there were found traces of the human pres-ence in every tiny cave and spatially convenient caves were also populated in somewhat deeper valley with still friendly microclimate named Křtinské Údolí in the central part. On the oth-er hand, the north part made by rather narrow, deep cut and cold gorges was the settlement of the Magdalénian hunters limited only on caves in wider basins within their entrance in vicinity of villages Ostrov and Sloup. Apparently convenient caves haven´t shown so far any traces of signifi-cant occupancy in either gorge (Suchý and Pustý Žleb). Some settlement proof was also found in isolated caves in limestone zones north of the Moravian Karst. Humans rarely settled also in the open air places on the foothills of the steep wall (in front of Ochozská cave in Říčky) or in a rock amphitheatre Kolíbky above the Jedovnický


sagging. There were sites located by the village Mokrá on the edge of the limestone massive of the Moravian Karst on a karren surface and there is the only large settlement situated on the higher terrace out of the karst area above the river Svitava in Brno-Maloměřice (Borky I), some 8 km south-west of our most important site - Pekárna cave in the valley of Říčka.

Based on this geographical zoning, natural groups always rose with one home base and sev-eral smaller sites nearby. In southern part, it is Pekárna cave, Býčí Skála in the centre and Kůlna cave in the north. Each of them has a territory of a sufficient size as a hunting range; they could exist, theoretically, at the same time. Actually, the Magdalenian settlement covers, according to so-far know uncalibrated radiocarbon dates, a pe-riod of two thousand years between 14,000 and 12,000 BP (Valoch 1974; Valoch – Neruda 2005).

The natural karst environment may be visu-alized as a landscape with considerable differ-ences among rather open steppe plateaus, wide valleys covered with undemanding woody spe-cies and narrow cold gorges. Due to the rather small area of the karst, it was possible to hunt in other neighbouring slightly different biotopes in all three parts. The predominant hunted animals were reindeers and horses at the second place. Other species of bigger game appeared sporadic-ly. There was also a higher presence of rabbit re-mains in Pekárna.

We know almost nothing about the inner spatial structure of the cave shelters as the main research was done at the end of the 19th century and first two decades of the 20th century. There have been done attempts to reconstruct at least the fireplace locations mentioned by the authors of excavations in Pekárna (Svoboda 1991) and Kůlna cave (Kostrhun 2005).

An important Magdalénian centre rose in Moravia. Stone industries are chipped mainly from moraine (erratic) sillicite coming from southern Poland with lower percentage of sillicite from the vicinity of Kraków and local raw ma-terials with distinctive rock crystal. Differences among bigger collections from various sites can be found typologically without the possibil-ity to conclude chronological results (Valoch 2001). Generally they are not different from the Magdalénian industries of neigbouring areas of central Europe or the classical French sites.

The characteristic Magdalénian features are tools, weapons and art items made of reindeer antler and various bones (Valoch 2001). Those items were found in significant number only in Pekárna cave; their presence is rare or unique in other caves. They are cut reindeer antler (Fig. 3: 15), mainly antler points with chisel-like cut base (Fig. 3: 20), needle with eye (Fig. 3: 19), rubber in different shapes (Valoch 2001, Abb. 20-24; Taf. 6, 7; 9:1, 5-8) and quite rare drilled parts of antler (Fig. 3: 18). There are three reindeer antler har-poons coming just from Pekárna, the only ones in Moravia (Fig. 3: 21; Valoch 2001, Taf. 8:1-3).

As ornamental items, we may suppose drilled disk made of jet coal (Fig. 3: 10), various tertiary shelves (Fig. 3: 11), isolated animal teeth (Fig. 3: 9) and more often pendants made of pebbles or fragments of Kulm slate (Valoch 2001, Taf. 2:1-4, 9; Abb. 21:10). Amber (Fig. 3: 12), hematite (Fig. 3: 13) and iron concretion in a shape of a dou-ble ball also served as ornamental items (Valoch 2001, Taf 1:11).

Art items are, in proportion to the scale of the settlement and the number of sites, abundant and of a high quality; many of them rank to European unique ones. They are almost entirely engrav-ings serving as ornamentation of different arte-facts made of bones or antler in a shape of short grooves or their combination (Fig. 3: 14, 16, 17). Realistic engravings of animals are outstanding. There are four anthropomorphic depictions, two engravings and two plastics.

Especial features are engravings on pebbles of Kulm slate. Many grooves came to the exist-ence during the processing (soft-hammers and similar; Valoch 2001, Abb. 19:4; Taf. 1:1-10; 2:5-8; 3:8), some pebbles are decorated by rows of short grooves or grid pattern (l. c. Taf. 3:1, 3). More complicated geometric groove compositions might have some meaning hardly apprehensible today. Some symbols (sexual? in the meaning of A. Leroi-Gourhan 1965) might express patterns on both sides of a pebble from Býčí Skála (Fig. 3: 4). There are probably portrayed some bird (?) (l.c., Taf. 4:7), herb on a ivory stick (Fig. 3: 16) and relief rendition of another stick is usually also compared to some vegetal structure (Fig. 3: 15).

Many engravings may be interpreted as a sym-bol of a phallus (Valoch 2001, Taf. 4:1-9), while the engraving on one pebble is identical with the rendition on smaller “spoon” or “dagger”. Female


Figure 3. Magdalénian (Valoch 2001) and Epimagdalenian artefacts (Valoch 1988). 1, 2 – horses and bizons on horses ribs; 3 – black paiting of cervid; 4 – symbolic (?) engavings on a pebble; 5 – Gönnersdorf venus from a mammoth tusk; 6 – anthropomorphic (?) pendant; 7 – pointed pebble; 8 - 9, 10 – pendant; 11 – terciary shells; 12 – amber; 13 – hematite; 14, 17 – numerical (?) marks; 15, 16 – carving and engraving; 18 – perforated baton; 19 – needles; 20 – point; 21 – harpoon; 22-23 – knives from horse mandibulas; 24, 25 – end scrapes; 26 – trapeze; 27 – segment; 28 – point; 30 – truncated blade-lets; 29 – backed bladelets; 31 – point from a boar tooth; 1, 2, 5, 14-16, 18, 19, 21-23 – Pekárna cave (Valoch 2001); 3, 4 – Býčí Skála cave (Valoch 2001); 6, 20 – Rytířská cave (Valoch 1965b); 7, 8 – Křížova cave (Valoch 1960); 9 - Adlerova cave (Valoch 2001); 10 – Ochoz (Valoch 2001); 11-13, 17 – Kůlna, layers 5-6 (Valoch 1988); 24-32 – Kůlna, layers 3-4 (Valoch 1988).


forms of “Gönnersdorf type” are hidden in the crisscross of grooves on one pebble and a slate plate (Valoch 2001, Abb. 26:9, Taf. 14:2). Two quite different figures belong to the female im-ages: fragmental “Petersfels type” made of ivory (Fig. 3: 5, 7) and a bone stick-pendant with sche-matic breast (Fig. 3: 6) (Valoch 2001).

There are four artefacts of European signifi-cance in Pekárna cave. Bison (Fig. 3: 1) and horse (Fig. 3: 2) (possibly chamois – cf. Svoboda 2006b) figures are finely engraved to two horse ribs. “Spoons” or “daggers” covered with engravings on both sides and made of horse mandibles are ex-traordinary in the morphological meaning (four horse heads, bison and saiga head and probably some sexual symbols; Leroi-Gourhanem 1965). The engraving processing and the composition on all artefacts are so similar they rise a feeling as performed by a single artist (Valoch 2001).

The only wall painting cervidae (Fig. 3: 3) made in a black colour in Býčí Skála cave dis-covered by M. Oliva remains of uncertain age (Oliva 1995; alternative datation cf. Svoboda et al. 2005a, b). The Moravian Magdalénian ranks by its art production among the most important centres in Europe.

Late Palaeolithic

Kůlna cave snapped the Magdalenian develop-ment to the next period of the Alleröd and the Upper Dryas (Valoch 1988a). The stone indus-try of this Epimagdalenian used smaller sized items (Fig. 3: 24-30), but it kept typologically the Magdalenian spirit. The bone artefact were rare (Fig. 3: 31); spear points are of similar shape as before. The environment changes significantly; cold weather adopted steppe fauna with rein-deers disappeared and Holecene fauna with deer, moose, wild boar and beaver mastered the scene. It is one of the rare evidences of the Magdalénian development in the late Pleistocene period in central Europe.

Article was supported by the grant projekt n. MK00009486202.

References

DOLÁKOVÁ N. (2002): Palynologické studium sedimentů šošůvské části Sloupsko-Šošůvských jeskyní a spodní části

opěrného profilu v jeskyni Kůlna. Acta Musei Moraviae, Sci. geol., 87, 275-288.

JAROŠOVÁ L. (2002): Výzkumy Josefa Skutila v severní části Moravského krasu. In: Svoboda J.: Prehistoric Caves. Catalogues, Documents, Studies. The Dolní Věstonice Studies, vol. 7, Brno, 255-287.

KLÍMA B. (1962): Die archäologische Erforschung der Höhle Švédův stůl. In: Die Erforschung der Höhle Švédův stůl 1953-1955, Anthropos 13, N.S. 5, 9-96, Brno.

KLÍMA B. (1974): Archeologický výzkum plošiny před jeskyní Pekárnou. Studie Archeologického ústavu ČSAV Brno 2:1, 1973. Praha.

KOSTRHUN P. (2005): Štípaná industrie magdalénienu z jeskyně Kůlny. Acta Musei Moraviae, Sci. soc. 90, 79-128. Brno.

KOSTRHUN P. – NERUDA P. (2002): Černotín I (okr. Přerov). Přehled výzkumů 43 (2001), 125-130. Brno.

LEROI-GOURHAN A. (1965): Préhistoire de l´Art Occidentale. Édition d´Art Lucien Mazenod. 489 p. Paris.

MAŠKA K. J. (1884): Pravěké nálezy ve Štramberka. ČVMSO I, 15-22, 64-69, 152-159.

MAŠKA K. J. (1885): Čelist předpotopního člověka nalezená v Šipce u Štramberka. ČVMSO II, 27-35.

MAŠKA K. J. (1886a): Pravěké nálezy ve Štramberka. ČVMSO III, 57-65, 119-123, 163-174.

MAŠKA K. J. (1886b): Der diluviale Mensch in Mähren. Ein Beitrag zur Urgeschichte Mährens. Programm der mähr. Landes-Oberrrealschule in Neutitschein. Neutitschein.

MAŠKA K. J. (1888a): Nové výzkumy v jeskyních štramberských. ČVMSO V, 121-124.

MAŠKA K. J. 1988b: O kostěných výrobcích diluviálních z jeskyň štramberských. ČVMSO V, 88-89.

MONCEL M.-H. – NERUDA P. (2000): The Kůlna Level 11: some observations on the debitage rules and aims. The original-ity of a middle Palaeolithic Microlithic Assemblage (Kůlna cave, Czech


Republic). Anthropologie XXXVIII/3, 219-248.

MOOK W. G. (1988): Radiocarbon-Daten aus der Kůlna-Höhle. In: Valoch 1988a: Die Erforschung der Kůlna-Höhle. Anthropos 24 (N. S. 16), Brno, 285-286.

MUSIL R. (ed.) (1971): Stránská skála I. 1910-1945. Anthropos 20, N.S. 12. 204 p. Brno.

MUSIL R. et all. (1995): Stránská skála Hill. Excavation of open-air sediments 1964-1972. Anthropos 26, N.S. 18. 213 p. Brno.

MUSIL R. - VALOCH, K. (1968): Stránská ská-la: its meaning for Pleistocene Studies. Current Anthropology 9:5, Part II, 534-539. Chicago.

NERUDA P. (2001): La distribution des mat-ières premières au Taubachien à la grotte Kůlna. In: Préhistoire et approche ex-périmentale, Préhistoires 5, 349-362. Montagnac.

NERUDA P. (2003): Střední paleolit v Moravských jeskyních, Unpubl. Dissertation. Brno.

NERUDA P. (2005): Technologie micoquienu v jeskyni Kůlně. Micoquian Technology from Kůlna Cave (Sloup, South Moravia). Acta Musei Moraviae, Sci. soc. 90, 23-78.

NERUDA P. (2006): Neandertálci na Kotouči u Štramberka. Archeologické památky střední Moravy, sv. 12, Olomouc.

NERUDA P. – KOSTRHUN P. (2002): Hranice – Velká Kobylanka. Mladopaleolitická stanice v Moravské bráně. Acta Musei Moraviae, Sci. soc. 87, 105-156.

OLIVA M. (1989): Mladopaleolitické nálezy z Mladečských jeskyní. Acta Musei Moraviae, Sci. soc. 78, 35-54.

OLIVA M. (1993): Le contexte archéologique des restes humains dans la grotte de Mladeč. In: UISPP, XIIe Congres, Volume 2, 207-216. Bratislava.

OLIVA M. (1995): Das Paläolithikum aus der Býčí-skála Höhle. Pravěk N. Ř. 5, 25-38.

OLIVA M. (1996): Spodní paleolitická vrstva z Býčí skály. Acta Musei Moraviae, Sci. soc., 81, 37-59.

OLIVA M. (2002): Gravettien Moravského krasu. Acta Musie Moraviae, sci. soc. 87, 2002, 81-104.

OLIVA M. (2006): The Upper Paleolithic Finds from the Mladeč Cave. In: TESCHLER-NICOLA M. (ed.) 2006: Early Modern Humans at the Moravian Gate. The Mladeč Caves and their Remains. SpringerWienNewYork, 41-74.

PATOU-MATHIS M. - AUGUSTE P. - BOCHERENS H. - CONDEMI S. - MICHEL V. - MONCEL M.-H. - NERUDA P. - VALOCH K. (2005): Les occupations du Paléolithique moyen de la grotte de Kůlna (Moravie, République Tcheque): nouvelles approches, nou-veaux résultats, in: Tuffreau (ed.): Peuplements humains et variations envi-ronnementales au Quaternaire. Colloque de Poitiers, 18-20 septembre 2000. Ed Jon and Erica Hedges Ltd., Oxford, B.A.R. International Series 1352, 69-94.

RINK W. J. – SCHWARCZ H. P. – VALOCH K. – SEITL L. – STRINGER C. B. (1996): ESR Dating of Micoquian Industry and Neanderthal Remains at Kůlna Cave, Czech Republic. Journal of Archaeological Science 23, 889-901.

SIMON J. (1944): Zwei Blattspitzen aus mähr-ischen Höhlen. Anthropos-Forschungen I, 95-98, unpubl.

SKUTIL J. (1955): Příspěvek k poznání paleoli-tika Moravské brány. Anthropozoikum 4, 447-468.

SKUTIL J. (1961): Předběžná zpráva o výzkumu Verunčiny díry a některých jiných jesky-ní v Suchém žlebu v Moravském krase. Přehled výzkumů 1960, Brno 1961, 29-22, tab. 4-14.

SZOMBATHY J. (1925): Die diluvialen Menschenrste aus der Fürst-Johanns-Höhle bei Lautsch in Mähren. Die Eiszeit, 2, 1-34, 73-95.

SVOBODA, J. (1991). Neue Erkenntnisse zur Pekárna-Höhle im Mährischen Karst. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 21, 39-43. Mainz.

SVOBODA J. (2000): The depositional context of the Early Upper Paleolithic human fos-sils from Koněprusy and Mladeč Caves, Czech Republic. Journal of Human Evolution 38, 523-536.

SVOBODA J. (2001): Mladeč and other caves in the Middle Danube region: Early


modern humans, late Neanderthals, and projectiles. In: Zilhão J. – Aubry T. – Carvalho A. F. eds.: Les premiers hom-mes modernes de la Péninsule ibérique, Actes du Colloque de la Commission VIII de l‘UISPP, IPA 17, 45-60. Lisboa.

SVOBODA J. (2002 ed.): Prehistoric Caves. Catalogues, Documents, Studies, The Dolní Věstonice Studies, vol. 7, Brno.

SVOBODA J. (2006a): The structure of the cave, stratigraphy, and depositional con-text. In: M. Teschler-Nicola, ed., Early Modern Humans at the Moravian Gate: The Mladeč caves and their remains. SpringerWienNewYork, 27-40.

SVOBODA J. (2006b): Z koně kamzíkem. National Geographic – Česko, červen 2006, 34.

SVOBODA J. A. - PLICHT H. VAN DER - I. BALÁK (2005a): Býčí skála: prvé da-tování skalních maleb. Vesmír 84, 574-575 (přetištěno v: Lidové noviny 15.10.2005).

SVOBODA J. A. - PLICHT H. VAN DER - I. BALÁK (2005b): Bycí skála Cave, Czech Republic: Radiocarbon dates of rock paintings. International Newsletter on Rock Art 43, 7-9.

TESCHLER-NICOLA M. (ed.) (2006): Early Modern Humans at the Moravian Gate. The Mladeč Caves and their Remains. SpringerWienNewYork.

VALOCH K. (1960): K otázce předmagdalénského osídlení jeskyní Adlerovy a Křížovy na Říčkách u Brna. Acta Musei Moraviae, Sci. soc. 45, 5-20.

VALOCH K. (1965a): Die altsteinzeitlichen Begehungen der Höhle Pod hradem. In: Die Erforschung der Höhle Pod hradem 1956-1958, Anthropos 18, N.S. 10, 93-106.

VALOCH K. (1965b:) Paleolitické nálezy z Rytířské jeskyně v Moravském krasu, Anthropozoikum, řada A, sv. 3, 141 – 155, příloha I a II.

VALOCH K. (1965c): Altsteinzeitliche Funde aus Brno und Umgebung. Acta Musei Moraviae, Sci. soc., 50, 21-30. Brno.

VALOCH K. (1965d): Jeskyně Šipka a Čertova díra u Štramberku. Anthropos 17 (N.S. 9). Brno.

VALOCH K. (1970): Early Middle Palaeolithic (Stratum 14) in the Kůlna Cave near Sloup in the Moravian Karst (Czechoslovakia). World Archaeology, Volume 2, N°1, June, 28-38.

VALOCH K. (1974): Eine datierte Feuerstelle des Magdalénien in der Kůlna-Höhle bei Sloup im Mähr. Karst. Anthropozoikum A:10, 111-130. Praha.

VALOCH K. (1984): Le Taubachien, sa géochro-nologie, paléoécologie et paléoethnolo-gie. L´Anthropologie, Tome 88, nº2, 193-208. Paris.

VALOCH K. (1988a): Die Erforschung der Kůlna-Höhle. Anthropos 24 (N. S. 16), Brno.

VALOCH K. (1988b): Le Taubachien et le Micoquien de la grotte Kůlna en Moravie (Tchécoslovaquie). In: L´homme de Néanderthal, vol. 4, La Technique, ERAUL, 31, Liège, 205-207.

VALOCH K. (1993): Starý paleolit v Mladečských jeskyních. Acta Musei Moraviae, Sci. soc., 78, 3-9. Brno.

VALOCH K. (1996): Le Paléolithique en Tchéquie et en Slovaquie. Collection l´Homme des origines, Série „Préhistoire d´Europe“, n° 3, Jérôme Millon, Grenoble.

VALOCH K. (1999a): Příspěvek ke střednímu paleolitu jižní Moravy. Acta Musei Moraviae, Sci. soc., 84, 3-7. Brno.

VALOCH K. (1999b): Epizody paleolitického osídlení jeskyně Pekárny. Acta Musei Moraviae, Sci. soc., 86, 9-26. Brno

VALOCH K. (2001): Das Magdalénien in Mähren. 130 Jahre seiner Erforschung. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischcen Zentralmuseums Mainz 48, 103-159, 14 Taf. Mainz.

VALOCH K. (2002): Eine Notgrabung in der Kůlna-Höhle im mährischen Karst. Acta Mus. Moraviae, Sci. soc., 87, 3-34.

VALOCH K. (2003): Výzkum staropaleolitické lokality Stánská skála I v Brně-Slatině. Acta Mus. Moraviae, Sci. soc., 88, 3-65. Brno.

VALOCH K. – NERUDA P. (2005): K chronologii moravského magdalénienu. Archeologické rozhledy LVII, 459-476.