sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bohunician, Epigravettian, Gravettian, Mezmaiskaya cave, Moravian Gate

PALEO Revue d'archéologie préhistorique

19 | 2007 Spécial table ronde (1ère partie) : Le Gravettien : entités régionales d'une paléoculture européenne, Les Eyzies, juillet 2004

The on the Middle Le Gravettien du cours moyen du Danube.

Jiří A. Svoboda

Electronic version URL: https://journals.openedition.org/paleo/607 DOI: 10.4000/paleo.607 ISSN: 2101-0420

Publisher SAMRA

Printed version Date of publication: 30 December 2007 Number of pages: 203-220 ISSN: 1145-3370

Electronic reference Jiří A. Svoboda, “The Gravettian on the Middle Danube”, PALEO [Online], 19 | 2007, Online since 23 April 2009, connection on 25 June 2021. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/607 ; DOI: https:// doi.org/10.4000/paleo.607

PALEO est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modifcation 4.0 International. PALEO – N° 19 – DÉCEMBRE 2007 – Pages 203 à 220 Le Gravettien : entités régionales d’une paléoculture européenne. Table ronde - Les Eyzies - juillet 2004 THE GRAVETTIAN ON THE MIDDLE DANUBE

Jiˇrí A. Svoboda (1)

Abstract: This paper resumes actual results and current viewpoints on the Gravettian in the Middle Danubian part of . The origin of Gravettian is seen as a more complex process than was thought before, involving an impact of industries with backed blades and bladelets from the eastern Mediterranean (, Lagaman, Dabba, beginning before 40 ky BP). After its establish- ment in Europe, the Danubian Gravettian is ord e red into earlier Pavlovian stage (30-25 ky BP), concentrated in the Austrian- Moravian-South Polish corr i d o r, and later Wi l l e n d o rf-Kostenkian stage (25-20 ky BP), widely dispersed over central and eastern E u . The , termed Kasovian (after 20 ky BP), should be clearly separated from the earlier Gravettian stock (the radiocarbon datings used through this paper are uncalibrated). Finally, this paper gives examples of complex analyses of a typical l a rge settlement (Pavlov I – Southeast) and of a burial site (Predmostí).

Key word s : Gravettian, Ahmarian, Pavlovian, Wi l l e n d o rf-Kostenkian, Kasovian, settlement analysis, burial site analysis.

Résumé : Le Gravettien du cours moyen du Danube. Cet article résume les résultats récents et les points de vue actuels sur le Gravettien du cours moyen du Danube. L’origine du Gravettien semble plus complexe que ce qui était admis jusqu’ici, impliquant notamment une influence des industries à lames et lamelles à dos abattu du Proche-Orient (Ahmarien, Lagaman, Dabba) apparues avant – 40 ka B P. A la suite de son arrivée en Europe, le Gravettien danubien comporte d’abord un stade Pavlovien (30-25 ka BP, toutes dates non calibrées), limité au couloir constitué par l’Autriche, la Moravie et le sud de la Pologne. Vient ensuite un stade Wi l l e n d o rf - K o s t i e n k i e n (25-20 ka BP) largement répandu sur l’Europe centrale et orientale. L’Epigravettien, appelé Kasovien (postérieur à 20 ka BP) doit être c l a i rement distingué du Gravettien. Cet article présente également quelques résultats des analyses d’un grand habitat (Pavlov 1 – sud- est) et d’un site funéraire (Pre d m o s t í ) .

Mots-clés : Gravettien, Ahmarien, Pavlovien, Wi l l e n d o rf-Kostienkien, Kasovien, habitat, site funéraire .

I N T R O D U C T I O N running at Dolní Vestonice and Predmostí (excavation pro- ject by J. Svoboda and M. Jones in 2005-2006) and Middle The Gravettian, as the most complex Upper cul- Basin (Spytihnev, Jarosov and Borsice; Skrdla, ed. tural entity in the Danubian Europe, presents a constant 2005). A new site, named Pavlov VI, has been discovere d focal point in regional prehistoric studies and subject of in 2007. At the same time, earlier excavated sites are being regularly organized international meetings, as at Pavlov in revised and pre p a red for new publications, as in Bohemia 1995 (Roebroeks et al., eds. 2000), at Mikulov in 2002 (Jenerálka, Revnice, Lubná; project by P. Sída), Moravia (Svoboda & Sedlácková, eds., 2004), and currently in Vi e n n a (Pavlov I; Svoboda, ed. 2005; Milovice, project by M.Oliva), in 2005. Several overview papers on the Middle Danube Silesia (Petrkovice; project by J. Svoboda), Gravettian were presented in the edited volumes that re s u l - (Cejkov; Kaminská & Tomásková 2004; Kasov; Novák ted from these conferences (Svoboda et al. 2000; Oliva 2004; Trencianské Bohuslavice, project by O. Zaar) and 2000; Dobosi 2000; Otte & Noiret 2004; Haesaerts et al. H u n g a r y (Bodro g k e re s z t ú r-Henye; Dobosi, ed. 2000). 2004; Jöris & Weninger 2004; Svoboda 2004). Given this S p e c i f i c a l l y, sites of the Danubian Gravettian provided a amount of previous synthetic literature, including lists with relatively large series of modern fossil remains. Fro m earlier re f e rences, this paper focuses on the actual re s u l t s , this viewpoint, the most important new discoveries of 2005 c u r rent viewpoints, and more recent literary re f e rences. and 2006 are the spectacular finds of newborn babies, ritually buried at Kre m s - Wa c h t b e rg (Einwögerer et al. 2 0 0 6 ) . In the present moment, excavations are in course at the At the same time, several re s e a rch and publication pro j e c t s Gravettian sites in Lower , on the Danube (Kre m s aim to complex evaluation of the previously collected Wa c h t b e rg and Hundsteig; Einwögerer 2004; Fladerer & a n t h ropological evidence from the classical sites of Dolní Salcher 2004) and Lower March (Gru b / K r a n a w e t b e rg, Antl, Vestonice – Pavlov (Trinkaus & Svoboda, eds. 2006) and F l a d e rer 2004; Nigst 2004). In Moravia, excavations are P redmostí (Velemínská et al. 2004; Svoboda 2005).

(1) Institute of Arc h e o l o g y, ASCR, Kralovopolska 147, CZ - 61200 and departement of Anthro p o l o g y, Masary k U n i v e r s i t y, Vinaska 5, Brno - svoboda@iabrn o . c z

203 F rom the viewpoint of paleoclimate and environment, the In this paper I suggest that, in terms of the techno/typologi- Mid-, or later Interpleniglacial (term i n a l cal relationships of the lithic industries, the Gravettian of oxygen isotope stage 3 and early stage 2), was a period of E u rope may be compared to industries with poin- global climatic instability leading towards the Last Glacial ted blades, bladelets, and backed elements (the Ahmarian, Maximum (Klíma et al. 1962). Wherever complex stratigra- Lagaman and Dabban), starting about 10 ky earlier in the phies are present, as at Wi l l e n d o rf II with multiple e a s t e rn Mediterranean (fig. 1). Early Ahmarian knapping Gravettian occupations, the loess/paleosol sequences methods aimed for production of series of pointed blades suggest a dynamic climatic evolution in a “staccato“ and microblades from unipolar narro w - f ronted cores may be rhythm (Haesaerts et al. 1996 ; 2004 ; this volume). At c o m p a red to a variety of blade and microblade knapping P redmostí I, the old excavation re c o rds supported by the techniques as re c o rded at Pavlov by Skrdla (1997), for new 2006 excavation results document a superposition of example, even if the importance of the bipolar technique two main Gravettian stages. Elsewhere, in the absence of i n c reased markedly in the Gravettian. Some of the el-Wa d well stru c t u red vertical sequences, chronological studies points in the Near East are at least partly backed, as are the a re based on the spatial analysis of the large sites (Pavlov La Gravette points in Europe (an observation made alre a d y I, Dolní Vestonice II, Petrkovice I), on , by Garrod), whereas the finer el-Wad points recall the Font and wherever possible, on microstratigraphic analysis of Yves or Krems points of . The rest, i.e. the the thick cultural layers (Svoboda 2003a). variable re p resentations of endscrapers and burins on blades and their specific morphology is analogous in the Origin and formation of the Gravettian Ahmarian, Lagaman, Dabba, and the Gravettian.

One of the hotly debated questions in paleoanthropolo- Recent re s e a rch by the French and Bulgarian teams in the gy, molecular genetics, and archaeology is wheather Balkans has possibly overbridged the important gap of the modern human penetration from Africa and the Near 10 ky between the appearance of Ahmarian in the Near East to the northern latitudes was a single or multiple East and the dispersal of Gravettian in the Danubian event. In terms of archaeology, the distributions of dates E u rope by inserting in an early Gravettian (Kozarn i k i a n ) and sites in time and space for the individual entities of i n d u s t ry from (layer VII). This , the Upper Paleolithic suggest a variety of answers in the including microblades, backed blades and points re c a l l i n g individual cases. In case of the , for example, the el-Wad type, is dated as early as 39 ky – 36 ky BP we do not know who were the producers anatomically – ( Tsanova 2006). Another comparable industry appeared in all we know is that they appeared at the right time at the the western Caucasus (Golovanova et al. 2006). On the right places. The was an entity created by other hand, more care would be advisable in arguing about the invading modern (Te s c h l e r-Nicola, ed. the date of 35,5 ky for the “Proto-Aurignacien” of Kre m s - 2006), but the related techno/typology and symbolic Hundsteig in Austria, an industry which, in fact, may re s u l t behavior was most probably formed at place, after the f rom mixing the Aurignacian and Gravettian layers during occupation of the Danubian Europe. The Gravettian the excavations more than 100 ago. Intensive question seems to be more complex one, where both re s e a rch is carried out at Krems actually, both at the sites local developmental trends and outside impulses should of Hundsteig and Wa c h t b e rg, and new data may be be combined (Svoboda 2007). The Gravettian modern expected in the near future . humans, even if inhabiting glacial Europe, conserved a more tropically adapted body form which suggests an H o w e v e r, even if we propose - on the basis of lithics - that elevated, and perphaps repeated gene flows from more the Gravettian may be more or less directly related to the temperate regions (Holliday 1997; Pearson 2000; earlier backed-blade industries of eastern Mediterr a n e a n , Churchill et al. 2000). it should also be stressed that formation of the complex Gravettian culture including the large open-air settlements, Until now, central European re s e a rchers – including myself - with industries of organic materials, art, symbolism, and expected a local origin of the Gravettian, but the new typo- ritual burials, was a local Danubian adaptation. logical and chronological studies make the search for a d i rect ancestry more and more difficult. A link to the Early Gravettian - The Pavlovian Aurignacian is unlikely due not only to the lack of typological connection, but also to partial chronological overlapping As the most important component of the Early Gravettian between the two entities. Another option, a relationship to in Danubian Europe, the Pavlovian (30 – 25 ky) occupies a the , is being rejected ever since the absence of central location within the Lower Austrian – Moravian – foliate leafpoints was attested for the Early Gravettian (and South Polish geomorphological corridor (fig. 2a). Both the p roved, inversely, in the Late Gravettian). The Bohunician Pavlovian settlement archaeology and the re s o u rce analy- c e rtainly accelerated the trends towards blade in sis suggest a discontinuity compared to the previous Early general, but a direct link to the Gravettian cannot be traced. Upper Paleolithic settlement strategies: the typical form a- T h e re f o re, somehow shadowy formulation resulted from this tion of the large open-air settlements in an axial manner, in u n c e rt a i n i t y, suggesting that the Gravettian appears in lower altitudes and along the rivers; the long-distance Danubian Europe as a “Deus ex machina” - in a complex t r a n s p o rt of lithic raw materials; the intensive exploitation situation composed by a variety of the preceding Early of supplemented by a variety of small animals; Upper Paleolithic entities. and, finally, aspects of ritual and style.

204 F i g u r e 1 - Schematic map of the Mediterranean backed industries (Ahmarian, Lagaman, Dabba) of the Near East and the Gravettian of Euro p e .

F i g u r e 1 – Carte schématique des industries méditerranéennes à dos abattu (Ahmarien, Lagaman, Dabba) du Proche-Orient et du Gravettien euro p é e n .

In addition, the lithic industries are accompanied by a rich and tion. This phenomenon, typical of the Pavlovian, is wort h varied industries of organic materials. In case of the special attention that lies beyond the scope of this sum- b o n e / i v o r y/antler industry, the morphological variability sug- m a ry paper. gests a multiplicity of functions (Klíma 1997; Zelinkova 2007), F i n a l l y, majority of the human skeletal remains are equally but the interpretation, including the archeological nomencla- dated to this period (Predmostí, Dolní Vestonice – Pavlov, t u re of certain implements, is still poorly understood. Recently, K rems). Some of the ritual burials are covered by , Brühl (2005) suggested that some of the “shovel-shaped” and some are covered by shoulderblades. It may in fact be blunt bone projectiles aimed for hunting should be underlined, however, that they are poorly equip- fur animals without damaging the skins, whereas Steguweit ped by additive artifacts (if any, so just a few pierced deco- (2005) interpreted some of the ivory “cylinders” ar soft ham- rative objects; Trinkaus et Svoboda, eds., 2006; mers. The discovery of textile imprints on surface of cert a i n E i n w ö g e rer et al. 2006). ceramic fragments may, logically, imply a variety of textile-pro- The earliest Pavlovian occupation is best documented at ducing functions for the bone industry (Soffer & Adovasio Wi l l e n d o rf II, layer 5 (around and after 30 ky BP), Kre m s , 2004). However, we still lack a systematic description and and Dolní Vestonice II (a complex occupation horizons n o m e n c l a t u re of the bone industry in general. dated to 27 ky). The industry is dominated by burins, bac- ked implements, and endscrapers, where burins are about The art production at this stage of the Gravettian is re m a r- the twice as numerous as endscrapers. The number of kably complex, and includes carvings and engravings, soft m i c roliths, and especially geometric , is usually stone carvings, and especially the ceramic plastic pro d u c- l o w. A variety of pointed blades (including the

205 F i g u re 2a - Map of the Early Gravettian (Pavlovian) sites in the Middle Danube region. A: sites of the Wachau Gate, B: Dolní Vestonice – Pavlov, C: Middle Morava Basin, D: Predmostí, E: Cracovie.

F i g u re 2a – Carte des sites du Gravettien ancien (Pavlovien) du Danube m o y e n .

F i g u re 2b - Map of the Upper Gravettian (Wi l l e n d o rf-Kostenki) sites in the Middle Danube region. 1: Wi l l e n d o rf (layer 9), 2: Brno II, 3: Petrkovice, 4: Cracovie, 5: Trencianské Bohuslavice, 6: Moravany, 7: Nitra-Cermán, 8: Cejkov, 9: Kasov (lower layer).

F i g u re 2b – Carte des sites du Gravettien supérieur (Wi l l e n d o rf - Kostienkien) du Danube moyen.

F i g u re 2c - Map of the Epigravettien (Kasovian) sites in the Middle Danube region. 1: Grubgraben, 2: Stránská skála IV, 3: Opava, 4: Cracovie, 5: Banka, 6: Szágvár, 7: Arka, 8: Kasov (upper layer), 9: Lipa.

F i g u re 2c – Carte des sites Epigravettiens (Kasovien) du Danube m o y e n

J e rzmanowice-type points) and pointed micro b l a d e s angles, trapezes), is typical at this stage, especially within (including the Krems or Font Yves points) occur as well. the Dolní Vestonice – Pavlov area (fig. 3). A variety of poin- A remarkable cluster of Pavlovian radiocarbon dates is ted blades and microblades continue to occur, but the t y p i - re c o rded during the following two millenia, between 27 – cal leaf-points are absent at this stage. A few of the 14 C 25 ky (Jöris & Weninger 2004). These dates were re c e i v e d datings from sites like Dolní Vestonice, Milovice and f rom Wi l l e n d o r f II (layers 6-8), Aggsbach, Kre m s , J a rosov are later than 25 ky; so, for example, the mammo- G ru b / K r a n a w e t b e rg, Dolní Vestonice – Pavlov, Milovice th bone deposits at Milovice and Jarosov are dated later (settlement), Borsice, Jarosov (settlement), Spytihnev, and than the related settlements. If these dates are corre c t , P redmostí (the main occupation layer). An increase of they would suggest a prolongation of occupation at these m i c roliths, including the geometric microliths (lunates, tri- sites after the Pavlovian.

206 F i g u r e 3 - Comparison of the Pavlovian and Wi l l e n d o r f-Kostenkian stages in Moravia and Silesia: aspects of typology, with emphasis on microliths and points.

F i g u r e 3 - Comparaison typologique et plus part i c u l i è rement des microlithes et pointes entre le Pavlovien et le Wi l l e n d o r f - Kostienkien de Moravie et de Silésie.

The most typical example of another type of Early Gate), but also dispersal into new regions, especially in the Gravettian, non-Pavlovian site, is Bodro g k e re s z t ú r- H e n y e Carpathian Basin. The art assemblages are less complex: in eastern (Dobosi, ed. 2000). The site pro v i d e d instead of the large and varied assemblages of the two dates, 28.7 ± 3 ky and 26.3 ± 0.4 ky that place it chro- Pavlovian art, we mostly have remarkable female images nologically to the Early Gravettian. Contrary to the o n l y, such as the oolithic figurine of Wi l l e n d o rf II, the hema- Pavlovian sites, however, the is dominated by horse tite figurine of Petrkovice and the ivory figurine of and elk, and the lithic industry, dominated by burins, re t o u- Moravany (there f o re, we sometimes speak of “horizon of ched blades, endscrapers and sidescrapers, lacks the lonely Venuses”). There is only one burial, Brno II, with a typical microliths. date of 23,7 ky (Pettitt & Trinkaus 2000; Oliva 2001). It dif- In addition, there are diff e rences of rather functional . fers from the Pavlovian burials by the richess of associated Nemsová, a workshop site with an Early Gravettian date in objects such as the male figurine of ivory, marlstone discs, w e s t e rn Slovakia, is located near an important raw material and smaller items of body decoration. s o u rce: the radiolarite. Two smaller cave sites, Slaninova Cave and Dzeravá skala Cave, yielded early Gravettian The most typical site is the uppermost layer 9 of the clas- dates in association with fragments of the typical ivory sical stratigraphic sequence at Wi l l e n d o rf II in Austria, pro- points with circular section. This may be an evidence for viding a typical industry with shouldered points, the “fossil periodical visits of Gravettian hunters in the karstic regions. d i recteur” of the period with a series of 14 C dates ranging f rom 25 to 23 ky (Haesaerts et al. 1996; Neugebauer- Upper Gravettian - the Wi l l e n d o rf - K o s t e n k i a n M a resch 1999). Moravia, compared to the previous period, received scarce evidence of occupation at this time-per- After 25 ky, appro x i m a t i v e l y, the Middle Danubian re g i o n iod, as at Predmostí, upper layer, dated 24,3 ky. A typical becomes covered by a network of Upper Gravettian sites site of this period is Petrkovice in Silesia, with five dates (fig. 2b). Compared to the Pavlovian, however, we observ e between 21-23 ky, and a network of Upper Gravettian sites l a rger and less regular distances among the sites, with of a similar age in Slovakia, as at Trencianské Bohuslavice, m o re emphasis on the “gates” (Wachau Gate, Moravian M o r a v a n y, Nitra-Cermán, Cejkov and Kasov (lower layer).

207 In addition to the typical shouldered points, certain sites of As the terms “Epigravettian”, “Epiaurignacian”, or even this time-period also provided leaf-points (Petrkovice, “ P rotomagdalenian” are missleading by the nature of their Trencianské Bohuslavice, and Predmostí – the upper meaning, we may either look for parallels in the contempora- layer). Genetic relationships to the Szeletian, formerly anti- ry development elsewhere (e.g., the Badegoulian of We s t e r n cipated by certain authors, are unlikely given the long time- E u rope, Te r b e rger & Street 2002) or coin a new name valid for span separating the two periods. Rather, we expect an e a s t e rn Central Europe. The earlier suggested names such as independent wave of leaf-production at 20 ky BP, which, the Lipa culture or the Ságvárian were used in a more local by the time of the , seems to be an sense and never re f e red to the whole geographic entity as is element of evercontinental significance (cf. the Solutre a n o b s e r ved over the whole Middle Danube region. The site of of western Europe). G rubgraben, recently proposed by Te r b e rger (2003) has the advantage of a solid dating framework associated to a weal- Epigravettian – the Kasovian th of archaeological evidence, but the typological stru c t u re seems more versatile compared to the other sites; there f o re , Industries from Middle Danube region dated after the Last it is difficult to characterize the site typologically before the Glacial Maximum (20-15 ka BP) were hitherto presented as publication of the complete material. a “mosaic“ of derived Gravettian and Aurignacian s A candidate could be the site of Kasov - upper layer ( G rubgraben, Stránská skála, Szágvár, Arka, Kasov - upper (Bánesz et al. 1992). Even if we only have one 14 C date l a y e r, Lipa; Svoboda et al. 1996; Valoch 1996, etc.). Actually, (18,6 ky BP), this site documents a simple but clear strati- following a pre l i m i n a r y revision of the sites and redating of g r a p h y, and a rich but typologically standard and charac- some of them (Moravany-Zakovská as the Upper teristic archaeological content. Hence, we proposed the Gravettian, Ve r p o o rte 2002; Hranice as the ), t e rm “Kasovian“ for further discussion (Svoboda & Novák the techno/typological stru c t u re becomes more homoge- 2004). The term “Epigravettian”, sensu stricto, should be nous and we propose to unite the remaining industries into re s e rved for Mediterranean Europe, where the Gravettian a distinct techno/typological unit (Svoboda & Novák 2004). typological tradition is clearly conserved and further deve- loped (backed implements and microliths). In contrast, the These sites form a network of scarcely distributed sites typological characteristic of the Kasovian lies closer to the over the Middle Danubian region (fig. 2c). In terms of raw Badegoulian of the west of Europe, or to the other entities material exploitation and economy, there is more empha- f u rther to the east of the North Eurasia. sis on local sources, and the sites located directly in vicini- ty of the outcrops display the character of primary work- Gravettian Landscape: the Moravian Corr i d o r shops (Arka, Lipa). Contrary to the Gravettian based pre- dominantly on lithic imports and producing long blades Danube, given the west-east orientation accross the Central f rom the classical crested and prismatic cores, the and Southeast Central Europe, unifies the mosaic of plains Epigravettian blanks (flakes, shorter blades, micro b l a d e s ) separated by highlands and mountaneous chains. This river a re produced from short and cubical cores as well as fro m e m e rges from the west in the narrow Wachau Gate in elongated blade cores. Ty p i c a l l y, some of the micro b l a d e s Austria, and, after accepting two affluents from the nort h , w e re made by pre s s u re technique from wedge-shaped Morava and Váh (both linked with the Gravettian sites), it c o res strongly recalling the North Asian parallels. t u r ns suddenly towards the south to cross the Hungarian Ty p o l o g i c a l l y, the groups of short endscrapers and burins Plain. Two other affluents are important on this journ e y, p redominate, but their quantitative relationship may be Tisza, connecting Gravettian sites of eastern Hungary and flexible at the individual sites. Both types are usually made Slovakia in the northeast, and Sava in the southwest. on short blanks. Some of them are thick and some are The regional literature rightfully emphasizes the role of the polyhedric, thus recalling «Aurignacian» forms, but the Moravian Gate as one of the most important Euro p e a n quantity of these types is low. The backed implements, passages, both for animals and their hunters. The bottle- p reviously used as the key argument for continuity of the neck of the gate itself, and the adjacent Moravian corr i d o r Gravettian tradition, are also present (cf. Arka, Lipa) but are composed of narrow plains between the Bohemian Massif in fact less frequent than was expected. In addition, the and the , provides the easiest passa- bone-and-antler industry, whenever pre s e rved, shows ge from the Danube valley towards the plains of Nort h e rn parallels to the Magdalenian (“bâtons de commandement” and Eastern Europe. Spatial patterning of the Upper at Grubgraben and Ságvár, needles at Grubgraben) rather Paleolithic sites shows that no other entity adapted its site- than to the rich bone industry of the preceding Gravettian. location strategy to the Moravian geomorphology as pre c i- Symbolic art is absent. sely as the Gravettian. The largest and most complex sites a re located along this corridor axially, in almost regular dis- These techno/typological changes copy with radical changes tances, starting with the Wi l l e n d o rf, Aggsbach and Kre m s in settlement strategy (pre f e rence for slopes and pro t e c t e d cluster at the end of the Wachau Gate in the southwest, valleys), hunting techniques and strategies (termination of the t o w a rds the Dolní Vestonice-Pavlov cluster and furt h e r mammoth exploitation and orientation on horse and re i n d e e r t h rough the Middle Morava Basin towards the Pre d m o s t í h e rd hunting, West 1996). Thus, we argue that in the Middle sites at the southern end of the Moravian Gate and Danube region, the Gravettian/Epigravettian continuity has Petrkovice at the nort h e rn end. been interrupted, most probably as a result of the Last Glacial T h e o re t i c a l l y, there are several levels of spatial analysis of Maximum. the Danubian Gravettian (Svoboda 2003b):

208 - the Gravettian landscape is related to the riverine network L a rge Gravettian settlements: the Pavlov case of Moravia, where sites and site-clusters are localized on the valley slopes and elevations, in relatively lower altitudes F o rmation of the large hunter’s settlements is a characte- (200 – 300 m a.s.l.), with almost regular distances between ristic phenomenon of the Pavlovian (Kozlowski 1986; one another. The Dolní Vestonice-Pavlov area is a typical Valoch 1996; Svoboda et al. 1996, 2000; Neugebauer- example (fig. 4-5). In constrast, the “Aurignacian landsca- M a resch 1999; Ve r p o o r te 2001, etc.). The first characteris- pe” favours higher locations, and was less dependent on tic of these “mega-sites” is simply their size (minimal dia- the Moravian rivers; meter of 100 m). In addition, the evidence of a high art i f a c t d e n s i t y, thickness of cultural layers and charcoal deposits, - the individual sites demonstrate a distinguished hierarc h y the complexity of activities, including rituals and symbo- with re g a rds to their size and complexity. Another factor is lism has been re c o rded. While interpreting the re c o rds, two the function of sites, their universality or specialization, so e x t reme models are usually applied: the first model pro- that the nature of the diff e rence is both quantitative and poses a large, relatively sedentary, «camp»; the second qualitative. Finally, occupation of a site has a rhythm and model suggests an accumulation of successive short - t e rm dynamics of its own, in terms of seasonality, micro c h ro n o- occupations. Or, in another words, two site-formation fac- logy (relationships between units and features within the tors are involved: the intensity of occupation on one hand, sites, microstratigraphies) and of the overall Gravettian and its duration on the other. c h ro n o l o g y. There f o re, the sites re p resent units composed The large and complex sites, with extended and intensive by elements and factors of incomparable nature, re q u i r i n g occupations and complexity of art and other symbolic pro- various analytical approaches; duction, are Dolní Vestonice I and Pavlov I, as well as P redmostí I. Dolní Vestonice II is large in size, but the - the settlement units. Large sites are sectioned into indivi- occupation was less intensive and more stru c t u red in time dual units (central with related features, objects, and space than the above sites. Other important sites are and patterns of distribution); the spatial/temporal at Krems (Wa c h t b e rg and Hundsteig), Grub, and others. relationships among them are the object of a site analysis. Wi l l e n d o rf II, on the other hand, is important stratigraphi- Dwelling stru c t u res are, in fact, ideal architectural re c o n s - c a l l y, as a repeatedly but only shortly visited landmark (with t ructions of the settlement units. the exception of a more extended layer 9). Pre l i m i n a ry

F i g u r e 4 - Aerial view of the Dolní Vestonice – Pavlov sites.

F i g u r e 4 - Vue aérienne des sites de Dolni Vestonice et de Pavlov.

209 F i g u re 5 - Surfer re c o n s t ruction of the site location within the Dolní Vestonice – Pavlov are a .

F i g u re 5 – Reconstitution 3D des sites des zones de Dolni Vestonice et Pavlov. results obtained on seasonality by Nyvltova Fisakova While identifying the 13 features, or “”, B. Klíma (2005) (2007), based on animal dental micro s t ru c t u res, suggest combined several viewpoints of a diff e rent character and that the large sites were settled all the round, where a s value: hearths, pits, large bones along the edges, the spa- some of the smaller sites in the region functioned seaso- tial extent of the cultural layer, and artifact concentrations. nally (spring-autumn). Our approach was to analyze each of these components The advantage of Pavlov I is that it was excavated by one s e p a r a t e l y. The depressions were re c o n s t ructed newly, person, Bohuslav Klíma, on a large scale, and using a using a Surfer approximation of the data derived dire c t l y single re s e a rch strategy (Klíma 2005). In the early 90s, we f rom the stratigraphic sections (fig. 6; Svoboda, ed. 2005). initiated a long-term, multidisciplinary, international pro- The distribution patterns were analysed subsequently, cess of description and evaluation of the site and its inven- separately for each type of artifacts (Novák 2005), and than tories. We started with a pilot area in the Southeastern part plotted over the surface re c o n s t ruction. The aim was to (Svoboda, ed. 1994), and continued in the Nort h w e s t e rn distinguish more clearly the levels of empirical observ a t i o n p a rt (Svoboda, ed. 1997), so that the results gave us the (“settlement units”) from interpretation (“dwellings”). o p p o rtunity to compare the situations in the two opposite a reas. With the first comparative results at hand, the One of the results of our analysis address the diff e rence bet- consecutive step was to approach the densely settled ween the central and the peripheral parts of the settlement p a rts excavated in 1954 and 1956, with the richest and the f rom the viewpoints of microstratigraphies, features, and of most complex evidence, and thus to complete the picture the spatial distribution of the artifacts. Generally, the palimp- of Pavlov – Southeast (Svoboda, ed. 2005). sest area ranges over the central and the western parts of The data-set based on 1m or 2m square grid re c o rd i n g the area, with irre g u l a r, multiplied features 7-11, whereas the systems, and on incomplete provenience data about the settlement re c o rd seems plainer, and easily readable along m i c rostratigraphies, certainly re p resents a rough scale the peripheries (features 3, 5, 6). Other contributors, while c o m p a red to modern excavation standards. There f o re , discussing the individual types of artifacts in detail, analysed m o re detailed insights into artifact clustering were not pos- this problem from their specific viewpoints. For Ve r p o o rt e sible, but we are able to operate on another scale, within a (2005), the central part of the site is just a palimpsest of considerably larger area, and with larger features such as various occupation episodes. Bartosíková (2005) located, at h e a rths, depressions, and artifact clusters. the periphery of the site, the “production areas” and the

210 F i g u r e 6 - Approximative Surfer re c o n s t ruction of the numbered depression features (huts?) at Pavlov I – Southeast (1954- 1956 excavation seasons), based on data from the stratigraphic sections. The feature numbers (2, 5-11) follow and complete the numeration system by the excavator.

F i g u r e 6 - Reconstitution approximative des stru c t u res en creux (huttes ?) enregistrées à Pavlov sud-est (fouilles 1954-1956) à p a rtir des coupes stratigraphiques. La numérotation des stru c t u res (2,5 – 11) suit et complète le système de numérotation du f o u i l l e u r.

“working places” (the later using already finished pro d u c t s ) ; s e rved as a source of meat and fat for nutrition, but also of h o w e v e r, it is suggested that the two types of activities spa- furs for clothing and building, and of bones for tools, buil- tially overlapped. Sajnerová (2005) re c o rded a higher per- dings, and fuel. Certain carn i v o res may have appeared on centage of used pieces in the center and, in addition, traces the faunal list simply as animals being killed when attac- of working hard materials in these areas. Musil (2005) defi- king the site and the food stored there. ned several activity areas on the basis of the faunal re m a i n s , After Musil (2005), the dominant animal species were re i n - together with their relationships to the individual settlement d e e r, hares, wolves, foxes, mammoths, and horses, re s- units, and, on a larger scale, to the settlement areas. p e c t i v e l y. As Wojtal et al. (2005) remark, and hare Another question touches upon the settlement dynamics bones also bear the majority of the visible cut marks, which and seasonality. Musil, based on the faunal analysis, and is in an agreement with their importance on the faunal Ve r p o o r te, on the basis of the lithics, argue for a perm a n e n t re c o rds. However, as emphasized by Nyvltová Fisáková or semi-permanent occupation of this site, with emphasis (2005), Brühl (2005), and García Diez (2005a), mammoth on winter seasons. Even if the settlement would be rather remains, especially the precious ivory, formed more than a p e rma nent and related to a limited hunting terr i t o ry, the half of the materials selected for the production of tools spring migrations along Moravian drainage system are and decorations (followed by reindeer and fox remains). expected. This scenario would accord with the re c o rds of Faunal analysis is closely related to study of possible hun- a large volume of lithic material imported from the nor- ting weapons. The composite projectiles made of backed theast and east. and/or geometric microliths were never re c o v e red “in situ”, While discussing the faunal remains, several points should nor confirmed by the use-wear analysis, but their existen- be considered. Firstly, the re c o rds may not be complete ce is usually admitted. Brühl (2005), based on analogies because of the limitation of the excavated area, or becau- with ethnology, turned his attention to the blunt “foliates” se of erosions in the adjacent valley of an active brook (this made of organic material, which could have been intended could explain why we at Pavlov I lack mammoth bone for killing smaller animals in order not to damage the furs. deposits which are typical features of Dolní Vestonice I, II, In addition, using nets was probably another hunting tech- P redmostí I, and Milovice I sites). Secondly, the faunal nique, especially with the smaller fur animals, as sugges- s t ru c t u re we have received from Pavlov I resulted from a ted by the knot imprints in ceramics (Adovasio et al. 2005; deliberate human selection. However, an animal not only Kovacic et al. 2005).

211 Since the publication by Mason et al. (1994) of gro u n d d e s t ruction of symbols in clay around certain hearths may, plant tissue in a at Dolní Vestonice II, there is no fur- since the first discovery of such a place be interpreted as ther evidence confirming plant consumption, a supple- a ritual activity (Absolon 1938; Soffer et al. 1993). m e n t a ry activity that should be presumed at these sites. Thus, based on the number of grindstones documented at Additional evidence is conserved as imprints on surface of Pavlov I, this problem is raised again (Svoboda, ed. 2005). the ceramic pieces. Microscopic examinations confirm e d H o w e v e r, the available evidence shows that the majority of the existence of regular stru c t u res that are interpreted as the grindstones were evidently used for colorants, while simple textile imprints (Adovasio et al. 2005; Kovacic et al. other possible usage remains unacknowledged. New 2005) and animal hair. Dematoglypic studies suggest that excavation project at the same site, now oriented toward s young people and children were present – and active – the paleobotanical analysis and bases on extensive floa- a round the ceramic production processes (Králík & Novotny ting of the sediments, has been initiated in 2005 in colla- 2005). This coincides well with some of the We s t e rn boration with the University of Cambridge (M. Jones). E u ropean data from painted , where the presence of c h i l d ren has also been documented. I do not wish to sug- Pavlov I witnessed a broad variety of techniques and objects gest that children were the producers of this art, neither of of self-adornment. Namely, the collection and simple usage the “big” parietal art of the West nor of the miniatures of (or perforation) of naturfacts such as carn i v o re teeth and the Moravia, but it should be taken into an account that the Te r t i a ry molluscs (Hladilová 2005), supplemented by ivory symbolic art production was a complex process assisted by beads and other more sophisticated, and perhaps more the whole community. And - as today - children were pro- “symbolic”, items of decoration (García Diez 2005a). In addi- bably anxious to touch everything dire c t l y. ton to items of decoration, there are also symbols of their own such as the ivory carvings depicting a lion and a mam- If placed in context with the other symbolic activities perf o r - moth. Soffer and Vandiver (2005) wonder about the two- med at Pavlov I and Dolní Vestonice I-II, such as traces of dimensional aspect of these images. I believe that this may colorants, carvings in ivory and stone, and human burials, be due to the fact that both were, in fact, attached to clo- the ceramic production suggests that these sites were the things as were the other items of decoration. The morpho- centers of activities related to rituals, information storage logy of these “contours découpées”, and especially the and transmission by the means of symbols, decoration of notches, would support this interpre t a t i o n . bodies, and their ritual deposition in graves. The traces of The most typical phenomenon of the Pavlovian art is the symbolism, concentrated especially at Dolní Vestonice I and p roduction of clay plastics – the earliest ceramics. Even Pavlov I, place these sites on the top of the site-hierarc h y though this production is also re c o rded elsewhere in not only quantitatively – as a result of the size and volume of Moravia (Predmostí and sites of the Morava river valley), the excavated material, but also qualitatively – as the places lower Austria (Krems), Silesia (Petrkovice) and Slovakia of special activities. In the light of the above, the two sites ( M o r a v a n y, Cejkov, and Kasov), the South Moravian sites a re considered not only as palimpsests of accumulated sub- of Pavlov I and Dolní Vestonice I re p resent the true centers sequent occupations, but as centers of human aggre g a t i o n , of these activities. Similarly to the decorative objects of i n f o rmation exchange, and social rituals. o rganic materials, the ceramics was also found clustere d in three concentrations in the western part of Pavlov- Of equal interest are the isolated settlement units composed Southeast (features 9, 10, 11), and inside of a one concen- just of a central hearth and encircled by pits, large bones, tration in Pavlov-Northwest (feature 13). Logically, these and artifact scatters. Most re c e n t l y, a unique example of this concentrations were likely to be protected by a constru c- “ e l e m e n t a r y” type of situation was discovered in 2007 about tion – early arc h i t e c t u re. And, pre s u m a b l y, production and 1 km from Pavlov I, at the site VI (fig. 7).

S i t e I n d i v i d u a l P o s i t i o n O r i e n t a t i o n O c h re Items of decoration DV I DV 3 s t rongly flexed N W head, upper part 10 fox canines of the body DV II DV 13 supine, tord e d S S E h e a d 20 pierced carn i v o re teeth, i v o ry pendants DV II DV 14 on belly S h e a d 3 wolf canines, i v o ry pendants DV II DV 15 s u p i n e S head, pelvis 4 pierced fox canines DV II DV 16 f l e x e d E head, pelvis 4 pierced fox canines Pavlov I Pavlov 1 flexed ? S E —— ( d i s t u r b e d )

Table 1 - The Dolní Vestonice (DV) and Pavlov ritual burials and their archeological contexts (solitary finds are not re c o rd e d ) .

Tableau 1 – Les sites funéraires de Dolní Vestonice (DV) et Pavlov et leurs contextes archéologiques (les découvertes isolées ne sont pas mentionnées).

212 Human burials: the Predmostí case be contaminated, since the majority of the other dates fro m the Dolní Vestonice I settlement correspond with the Burials are an integral component of the large Gravettian Evolved Pavlovian stage (Trinkaus et al. 2 0 0 0 ) . settlements. Human fossils appear as well-pre s e r ved ritual In Austria, the 2005 and 2006 discoveries of newborn chil- burials, sometimes covered by mammoth shoulderblades or d e r n´s burials at Kre m s - Wa c h t b e rg fall chronologically to the other means of protection, or as disturbed situations and Evolved Pavlovian stage as well. The first two bodies were lain s c a t t e red fragments. Only a few pierced beads and teeths together in crouched position in a shallow pit, richly covere d a re associated, but parts of the bodies are usually covere d by ochre, and protected by a mammoth shoulderblade. The by ochre. First zooarchaeological analysis of the faunal associated ivory beads are of the same type as at Dolní remains in the vicinity of Dolni Vestonice 16 suggest that Vestonice. Additional infant burial was located about one complete animal bodies were laid next to buried man, per- meter north (Einwögerer et al. 2006). The only other human haps intentionally (Nyvltova Fisakova, pers. com.). In the remains from the same region and time period are the isola- c h ronological framework, the majority of human burials fro m ted pieces from Wi l l e n d o rf I and II, which date to the Dolní Vestonice I, II and Pavlov I, plus Predmostí I, fall into Wi l l e n d o rf-Kostenkian (Te s c h l e r-Nicola & Trinkaus 2001), and the Evolved Pavlovian stage (27 – 25 ky BP; Vlcek 1991; two human teeth recently discovered in Gru b / K r a n a w e t b e rg Klíma 1995; Trinkaus & Svoboda, eds. 2006). An earlier (Antl & Fladerer 2004). Some other human fossil finds from the Pavlovian horizon, identified at Dolní Vestonice II and dated Middle Danube region were deleted from the list on basis of to around 27,000 years BP, is related only to the isolated d i rect 14 C dating (Svoboda et al. 2002). human fragments Dolní Vestonice 33, 36, 39, 47 and 49. In this context, Predmostí I still re p resents the largest accu- This, at least, is the chronological picture given by standard mulation of Gravettian human remains at one place (e.g., laboratories such as Groningen. Klíma 1991; Valoch 1996; Oliva 2001). These materials w e re re c o v e red by J. Wankel in 1884, K.J. Maska in 1894, One later burial, corresponding with the Wi l l e n d o rf - M. Kríz in 1895 and K. Absolon in 1928 (and pro b a b l y Kostenkian stage of the Gravettian, is Brno 2 (23,7 ky BP; 1930). The majority of the Gravettian anthro p o l o g i c a l Pettitt & Trinkaus 2000). It is unique in two aspects; its loca- materials from Predmostí were destroyed in 1945; today, tion is outside of the typical Pavlovian regions and settle- the Moravian Museum at Brno only houses cranial frag- ments, and it is unusually rich in . Another later ments including teeth of unclear origin and parts of the date obtained directly from the Dolní Vestonice 35 femur postcranial remains. However during the last few years, f rom the site of Dolní Vestonice I (22,8 ky B.P.) may possibly the first mandible found at this site by Wankel was re d i s-

F i g u r e 7 - Pavlov VI, excavation 2007. View of an isolated settlement unit, with central hearth encircled by small boiling pits, and accumulation of mammoth bones (two individuals) aside.

F i g u r e 7 - Pavlov VI, fouilles 2007. Vue d´une unité isolée, avec un foyer au centre entouré par des petites fosses et une accu- mulation des ossements du mammouth (deux individus) à côté.

213 c o v e red in the museum, and the original photo- Basing on the original field diaries by Maska, supplemen- documentation by Matiegka was found at the Depart m e n t ted by the published literary re f e rences, we created a list of of Anthropology of Charles University. There f o re, a re c e n t the paleoanthropological finds from Predmostí accord i n g a n t h ro p o l o g i c a l - a rchaeological project has been focused their discovery dates and placed them into the spatial on description and a new interpretation of this discovery context of the site I (fig. 8) and the burial area (fig. 9a,b). ( Velemínská et al. 2004; Svoboda 2005). One of the main tasks of this study was re c o n s t ruction of

No o f D i s c o v e red by Date of M o re pre c i s e C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f i n d d i s c o v e ry l o c a t i o n

1 . J. Wa n k e l 1 8 8 4 C h romecek´s loam pit m a n d i b l e 2 . K.J. Maska 18.5.1894 N o r t h fg. of mandible humeru s 3 . K.J. Maska 7.8.-10.9. 1894 Burial are a s k e l e t o n s 4. K.J. Maska 18.8. 1894 N W, uncert a i n u l n a 5 . K.J. Maska 23.8. 1894 S o u t h p i e rced pelvis 6 . K.J. Maska 24.-28.8. 1894 S E mandible, fg. of skull, ulna, radius, h u m e rus, ribs 7 . K.J. Maska 24.8. 1894 S o u t h fg. of skull, humeru s 8 . K.J. Maska 3 0 . 8 . S o u t h r i b 9 . K.J. Maska 4 . 8 . / 1 0 . 9 . N E falang, ulna, humeru s 1 0 . M. Kríz 25.6. 1895 and later C h ro m e c e k - t rench VIII skull, mandible 1 1 . M. Kríz 1 8 9 5 C h ro m e c e k - t rench IV m a n d i b l e 1 2 . M. Kríz 1 8 9 5 C h ro m e c e k - t rench II two femurs 1 3 . M. Kríz 1 8 9 5 D o k o u p i l - t rench VII fg. of skull, two humeri, 2 ulnae, fg. of radius 1 4 . K. Absolon August 1928, 1930 54 bones of extremities, 2 teeth, m a n d i b l e

Table 2 - Review of paleoanthropological discoveries at Predmostí, site Ia (for spatial distribution, see fig. 8).

Tableau 2 – Inventaire des découvertes paléoanthroloplgiques à Predmostí, site Ia (pour la répartition spatiale, voir fig. 8).

F i g u r e 8 - Spatial distribution of human finds at Predmostí I made by Wankel, Maska, Kríz and Absolon between 1884- 1930. Full oval – the central burial area of 1894; full point – s o l i t a ry find with a relatively certain location; empty point – s o l i t a ry find with generally estimated location.

F i g u r e 8 - Répartition spatiale des restes humains à P r edmosti 1 établi par Wankel, Maska, Kríz et Absolon e n t r e 1884 et 1930 : Ovale, zone de sépulture centrale de 1894 ; Point, restes isolés relativement bien localisés ; C e rcles, restes isolés avec une localisation estimée.

214 F i g u r e 9a-9b - Predmostí I, re c o n s t ru c t i o n of the human bone deposit. Above: Reconstruction of the excavation sequence within the burial area on August 3-13, 1894. Maska approached the are a f r om northeast, on August 7 meets the first human bones, on August 8-10 re t u rn s n o rt h w a r ds, on August 11-13 continues s o u t h w a rds, whereas some of the impor- tant skeletal materials still remain in situ. Below: Reconstruction of the burial are a , based on original sketches inserted accor- ding to the individual excavation days. The outlines are derived from the sketch on page 40 of the diary. The scapulae are of mammoths.

F i g u r e 9a-9b - Predmostí I, restitution du dépôt des restes humains : En haut, restitution de la pro g ression des fouilles de la zone funéraire du 8 au 13 août 1894. Maska a abordé cette zone par le nord-est. Le 7 août,il a trouvé les p remiers restes humains. Du 8 au 10 août, il a pro g ressé vers le nord, du 11 au 13, il a continué vers le sud alors qu’une quantité importante de vestiges était e n c o re en place. En bas, restitution de la zone funéraire à p a rtir des croquis originaux des journ a u x de fouille. Les contours proviennent du croquis de la page 40 du journal de fouille. Les omoplates sont celles des mammouths.

215 the movements of Maska within the 1894 area and, in Most of the bodies were oriented towards the nort h s , m o re detail, within the burial area, which adds a spatial parallel to the original rock wall. Longitudinal axis of the dimension to the daily re c o rds. oval-shaped bone deposit concurs with animal bone re d e- Seen from the viewpoint of the center – periphery re l a t i o n - positions as re c o rded during the 2006 excavation nearby, ships inside the large hunter´s settlements, we do not and with the declination of the original slope. consider the burial area at Predmostí, nor the Skalka ro c k The burial area yielded only a few artifacts and no ochre . above it, as a real settlement center. Rather, the are a Some of the published mentions of associated decorative seems peripheral, with a lower re p resentation of lithic objects are due to a later confusion. The only re m a r k a b l e i n d u s t ry (compared to previously and later excavated part s a rtifact from the vicinity of the burial area is a half (now of the same site), with scattered accumulations of mam- completed) of a large, perforated marlstone disc, a type moth bones and other faunal remains. that also accompanied the male burial of Brno 2. In this Majority of the skeletons found at this place are only par- case, a symbolic interpretation seems plausible. tially pre s e r ved, but some, such as Predmostí 3, are re m a r- Mammoth shoulder blades (one with irregular scratches) kably complete, given Matiegka’s descriptions. The diff e - c o v e red three or more skeletons in the marginal parts of rential pre s e r vation of the individual bones does not pro v e the burial area, but there was no regular nor complete a pattern of intentional human selection. There f o re, after coverage of the whole space. Two more covering shoulder discussing of a series of aspects and explanations that blades were re c o rded south of this area. Some mammoth could have contributed to the formation of such a funeral bones, erected in the upright position in the vicinity, may situation (ethnological parallels, patterns of formation and also be related to burials (cf. a few human remains below p rotection of burials, absence of ochre, additional art i f a c t s , a mammoth mandible, found on Aug. 4). Deposition of the e ffects of cannibalism or secondary burials), we focused in debris layers over the area was natural, however, m o re detail on the following ones. the limestone blocks were there, and thus also available as All re s e a rchers at Predmostí have underlined the role of car- coverage of the bodies. n i v o res in the site formation processes and in disturbance of In conclusion, we suspect that the noticeable Skalka ro c k human skeletal remains. In the photodocumentation, the played a certain role in selecting a burial place at e ffect of carn i v o re gnawing of human bones is not dire c t l y P redmostí. A long-term tendency to deposit dead bodies o b s e rvable. However, there is a high ratio of carn i v o res in the outside the settlement centers, „below the rock“, could associated faunal re c o rd, especially whole groups of wolves result in this accumulation of human remains at one place, and foxes. In 1996, we observed fox activites on guanaco with a pattern of free dispersal around, where they were c a rcasses at Ti e rra del Fuego where at each carcass, foxes opened to various postdepositional processes such as c reated a separate nest to profit from the meat in longer- c a rn i v o re activity and the deposition of slope sediments. t e rm, and, as an effect, removing the remains slightly each In 2006, the remaining part of the Predmostí I site, with d a y. It is possible that the accumulation of fox re m a i n s , mammoth bone deposits and artifact scatters, has been found at one spot by Maska (on Aug. 7) at the southern mar- excavated and the situation is now pre s e r ved under an gin of the burial area, and elsewhere in the vicinity, could be exhibition pavillon. explained using this analogy. Maska´s re c o rds demonstrate the thickness of the depo- Conclusions: notes on the Gravettian settlement sits in the burial area, composed of loess, humus and char- d y n a m i c s coal layers, and partly by limestone debris. Because the complexity of these deposits increases towards the form e r By suggesting the possibility of eastern Mediterranean origin for Skalka limestone rock, located a few meters eastwards, I the Gravettian, this paper is certainly far from Euro p o c e n t r i c . believe that the geological context is influenced by slope H o w e v e r, it should be stressed that Europe, as the western- removals and accumulation of deposits which one should most Eurasian peninsula, played not only a passive role of re c i- logically expect at the foot of a larger rock formation. pient of the invading populations, but functioned also as a crad- The mention by Maska that “no skull was found complete, le of new behavioral patterns, , and cultural entities. all were fragmented (along the suturas)” may be explained In this area, the anatomically modern humans created the typi- (as at Dolní Vestonice – Pavlov) by pre s s u re of the over- cal Upper Paleolithic entities such as the Aurignacian and the lying loess which had accumulated relatively rapidly after Gravettian in their complexity. The related archaeological re c o rd the abandonment of the settlement (and, by the same of the both archeological entities suggests advancement in time, after decompositon of the interior soft tissues). behavior and lifestyles, be it in selection of a variety of unorg a- Since the moment of discovery, two competing hypo- nic and organic raw materials, artifact production, hunting, sett- theses were raised about Predmostí: a contemporary lement stru c t u re, and especially in symbolism and art. burial as an effect of a catastrophic event, versus gradual It is evident that the mosaic of Gravettian occupations, accumulation of human bodies. The second altern a t i v e after its establishment in Europe, was not a static one, but o ffers an additional explanation for the body disturbances it displays a dynamic pattern of changes. We s t e rn central because each addition of a new body would affect the pre- E u rope and Moravia, where the settlement density and vious depositions. So, as an example, the best pre s e r v e d complexity culminates during the earlier Gravettian male skeleton 3 found on Aug. 10 most probably overlay (Pavlovian, 30-25 ky), provides a reverse picture to that of m o re disturbed bodies below. In addition, some bones dis- e a s t e r n Central Europe, Eastern Europe and Siberia, where play special human activities, as the perforated human pel- the majority of dates ranges between 25-20 ky vis found separately south of the burial. ( Wi l l e n d o rfian/Kostenkian, Siberian Upper Paleolithic).

216 Given the strong formal resemblances in form and style EINWÖGERER T. 2004 – First raw material analysis at the among art objects found in long distances, it has been Upper Paleolithic site Krems/Hundsteig (2000-2002) com- a rgued that this dynamics reflects certain population shifts p a red to the material of the excavation of Josef Bayer at f rom Central to Eastern Europe, and possibly further east. K re m s / Wa c h t b e rg (1930). In: The Gravettian along the The impuls for these changes is most probably the expan- Danube. Dol. Vest. Stud. 11, Brno, p. 86-99. sion of Fennoscandinavian glacier and the related climatic deterioration around 20 ky (Last glacial maximum). This cli- EINWÖGERER T., FRIESINGER H., HÄNDEL M., NEU- matical boundary terminated the Gravettian occupation on GEBAUER-MARESCH CH., SIMON U., TESCHLER- the Middle Danube, where new systems of landscape use NICOLA M. 2006 - Upper Paleolithic infant burials. N a t u re and technology were established between 20-15 ky 444/16, p. 285. (Kasovian); evidently, it had less effect on settlement and cultural continuity further east. FLADERER F.A. SALCHER, T. 2004 – Faunal remains fro m the Kre m s - H u n d s t e i g / Wa c h t b e rg Gravettian site complex A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t – A diff e rence in re s e a rch techniques and/or site function? This paper was pre p a red as a part of the Czech Grant In: The Gravettian along the Danube. Dol. Vest. Stud. 1 1 , Agency Project 404/06/0055. B rno, p. 100-115.

GARCÍA DIEZ M. 2005a - Decorative patterns on the org a- BIBLIOGRAPHIE nic objects. I n : Pavlov I – Southeast. A window into the Gravettian lifestyles. Dol. Vest. Stud. 14, Brno, p. 309-373. ABSOLON K. 1938 - Die Erforschung der diluvialen Mammutjäger–Station von Unter–Wi s t e rnitz in Mähre n . GARCÍA DIEZ M. 2005b - Catalogue of worked ceramic Arbeitsbericht über das zweite Jahr 1925. Brünn, 110 pieces. I n : Pavlov I – Southeast. A window into the pp., XIV tab. Gravettian lifestyles. Dol. Vest. Stud. 14, Brno, p. 399-414.

A D O VASIO J.M., SOFFER O., HYLAND D.C. 2005 - Te x t i l e s G O L O VA N O VA L., CLEGHORN N., DORONICHEV V. , and cordage. I n : Pavlov I – Southeast. A window into the HOFFECKER J., BURR G., SULERGIZKIY L. 2006 - The Gravettian lifestyles. Dol. Vest. Stud. 14, Brno, p. 432-443. Early Upper Paleolithic in the Nort h e rn Caucasus (New data from the Mezmaiskaya Cave, 1997 excavation). ANTL W., FLADERER F.A. 2004 – Outlook to the East: The Eurasian Pre h i s t o ry4, p. 43-78. 25 ky BP Gravettian Gru b / K r a n a w e t b e rg campsite (Lower Austria). In: The Gravettian along the Danube. Dol. Ve s t . H A E S A E RTS P., DAMBLON F., BACHNER M., TRNKA G. Stud. 11, Brno, 1 1 6 - 1 3 0 . 1996 - Revised stratigraphy and chronology of the Wi l l e n d o rf II sequence, Lower Austria. A rc h a e o l o g i a BÁNESZ L., HROMADA J., DESBROSSE R., MARGERAND A u s t r i a c a 80, p. 25-42. I., KOZLOWSKI J.K., SOBCZYK K., PAWLIKOWSKI M. 1992 – Le site de plein air du Paléolithique supérieur de Kasov H A E S A E RTS P., BORZIAK I., CHIRICA V., DAMBLON F. , I en Slovaquie orientale. Slovenská arc h e o l ó g i a 40, p. 5-28. KOULAKOVSKA L. 2004 – Cadre stratigraphique et chro n o- logique du gravettien en Europe Centrale. In: The Gravettian B A RTOSÍKOVÁ Z. 2005 - Lithic assemblage of the sou- along the Danube. Dol. Vest. Stud. 11, Brno, p. 33-56. t h e a s t e rn periphery (1957, 1970, 1971). I n : Pavlov I – Southeast. A window into the Gravettian lifestyles. Dol. HLADILOVÁ S. 2005 - Te rt i a ry fossils, especially molluscs. Vest. Stud. 14, Brno, p. 112-133. I n : Pavlov I – Southeast. A window into the Gravettian life- styles. Dol. Vest. Stud. 14, Brno, p. 374-390. BRÜHL E. 2005 - Bone, antler, and ivory tools. I n : Pavlov I – Southeast. A window into the Gravettian lifestyles. Dol. H O L L I D AY T. W. 1997 – Body pro p o rtions in Late Vest. Stud. 14, Brno, p. 252-293. Europe and modern human origins. J o u rnal of 32, p. 423-447. CHURCHILL S.E., FORMICOLA V., HOLLIDAY T. W. , H O LT B.M., SCHUMANN B.A. 2000 – The Upper JÖRIS O., WENINGER B. 2004 – Coping with the cold: On Palaeolithic population of Europe in an evolutionary pers- the climatic context of the Moravian Mid Upper pective. In: Hunters of the Golden Age. Leiden: University Palaeolithic. In: The Gravettian along the Danube. Dol. of Leiden, p. 31-57. Vest. Stud. 11, Brno, p. 57-70.

DOBOSI V. T. 2000 – Interior parts of the Carpathian Basin KAMINSKÁ L., TOMÁSKOVÁ S. 2004 – Time space syste- between 30,000 and 20,000 bp. In: Hunters of the Golden matics of Gravettian finds from Cejkov I. In: The Gravettian A g e, University of Leiden, p. 231-239. along the Danube. Dol. Vest. Stud. 11, Brno, p. 186-216.

DOBOSI V. T., ed. 2000 – B o d ro g k e re s z t ú r-Henye (NE KLÍMA B. 1991 - Das paläolithische Massengrab von H u n g a r y) Upper Palaeolithic site. Budapest, Magyar P redmostí, Versuch einer Rekonstruktion. Q u a rtär 4 1 / 4 2 , Nemzeti Múzeum, 245 p. ill. p. 187–194.

217 KLÍMA B. 1995 - Dolní Vestonice II. Ein Mammutjägerplatz O L I VA M. 2000 – Some thoughts on Pavlovian adaptations und seine Bestattungen. E R A U L 7 3 /D o l . Ve s t . s t u d . 3, 183 p. ill. and their alternatives. In: Hunters of the Golden Age, University of Leiden, p. 219-229. KLÍMA B. 1997 - Bone Industry, Decorative Objects, and A rt - Knochenindustrie, Zier- und Kunstgegenstände. I n : O L I VA M. 2001 – Les pratiques funéraires dans le pavlo- Pavlov I-Nort h w e s t . D o l . Ve s t . s t u d . 4, p. 227-286. vien morave: Révision critique. P r é h i s t o i re Euro p é e n e 1 6 - 17, 191-214. KLÍMA B. 2005 - Excavation at Pavlov I, 1954 and 1956. I n : Pavlov I – Southeast. Awindow into the Gravettian life- OTTE M., NOIRET P. 2004 – Évolution du gravettien au styles. Dol. Vest. Stud. 14, Brno, p. 17-24. Moyen Danube. In: The Gravettian along the Danube. Dol. Vest. Stud. 11, Brno, p. 8-32. KLÍMA B., KUKLA J., LOZEK V. A de VRIES, H. 1962 - Stratigraphie des Pleistozäns und Alter des paläolithischen PEARSON O.M. 2000 – Activity, climate, and postcranial Rastplatzes in der Ziegelei von Dolní Ve s t o n i c e ro b u s t i c i t y. C u rrent Anthro p o l o g y 41, p. 569-607. ( U n t e r – Wi s t e rnitz). A n t h ropozoikum 11, p. 93–145. PETTITT P., TRINKAUS E. 2000 – Direct radiocarbon K O VACIC V., GRABMÜLLEROVÁ J., BAJZÍK, V. 2005 - dating of the Brno 2 Gravettian burial. Anthropologie 38, Photographic evidence of the textile imprints. I n : Pavlov I – 149-150. Southeast. A window into the Gravettian lifestyles. Dol. Vest. Stud. 14, Brno, p. 444-448. ROEBROEKS W., MUSSI M., SVOBODA J., FENNEMA K. 2000 - Hunters of the Golden Age. The Mid Upper KOZLOWSKI J.K. 1986 - The Gravettian in Central and Eastern Palaeolithic of Eurasia 30,000 – 20,000 BP. L e i d e n , E u rope. In: Advances in world arc h a e o l o g y 5, p. 131-200. University of Leiden, 410 p. ill.

KRÁLÍK M., NOVOTNY V. 2005 - Dermatoglyphics of ancient SAJNEROVÁ A. 2005 - Use-wear analysis of the lithics. I n : ceramics (paleodermatoglyphics). Analysis of fingerprints Pavlov I – Southeast. Awindow into the Gravettian life- f rom Pavlov. I n : Pavlov I – Southeast. A window into the styles. Dol. Vest. Stud. 14, Brno, p. 134-148. Gravettian lifestyles. Dol. Vest. Stud. 14, Brno, p. 449-497. SKRDLA P. 1997 - Pavlovian lithic technologies. In P a v l o v MASON S., HATHER J., HILLMAN G. 1994 - Pre l i m i n a r y I - N o rt h w e s t. Dol.Vest.stud. 4, p. 313-372. investigation of the plant macro - remains from Dolní Vestonice II and its implications for the role of plant foods in SKRDLA P., ed. 2005 – The Upper Paleolithic on the midd- Palaeolithic and Europe. A n t i q u i t y 68, p. 48-57. le course of the Morava river. Dol. Vest. Stud. 13, Brn o , Institute of Arc h a e o l o g y. MUSIL R. 2005 - Animal prey from the re s e a rch areas 1954 and 1956. I n : Pavlov I – Southeast. A window into the SOFFER O., ADOVASIO J.M. 2004 – Textiles and Upper Gravettian lifestyles. Dol. Vest. Stud. 14, Brno, p. 190-228. Paleolithic lives. A focus on the perishable and the invi- sible. In: The Gravettian along the Danube. Dol. Vest. Stud. NEUGEBAUER-MARESCH Ch. 1999 - Le Paléolithique en 11, Brno, p. 270-282. A u t r i c h e. Jerôme Millon, Grenoble, 202 p. ill. SOFFER O., VANDIVER P. 2005 – Ceramic fragments. I n : NIGST P.R. 2004 – Some pre l i m i n a ry observations on intra- Pavlov I – Southeast. Awindow into the Gravettian life- site spatial patterning of Gru b / K r a n a w e t b e rg (1995 and styles. Dol. Vest. Stud. 14, Brno, p. 415-431. 1996 area). In: The Gravettian along the Danube. Dol. Ve s t . Stud. 11, Brno, p. 131-141. SOFFER O., VANDIVER P., KLÍMA B., SVOBODA J. 1993 - The pyrotechnology of perf o r mance art : NOVÁK M. 2004 – Gravettian occupation in the lower layer Moravian venuses and wolverines. In: H.Knecht et al. of Kasov I. In: The Gravettian along the Danube. Dol. Ve s t . (eds.), B e f o r e . Boca Raton: CRC Press, p. Stud. 11, Brno, p. 217-242. 2 5 9 - 2 7 5 .

NOVÁK M. 2005 - Pavlov I – Southeast: Review of spatial STEGUWEIT L. 2005 – Gebrauchsmuster an “Elfenbein- d i s t r i b u t i o n s . A window into the Gravettian lifestyles. Dol. Zylinder” aus jungpaläolithischen Fundstellen in Vest. Stud. 14, Brno, p. 53-71. N i e d e r ö s t e rreich und Mähren. Mitt. Komm. Quart ä rf o r s c h . Ö s t e rr. Akad. Wi s s . 14, 177-193. N Y V LTOVÁ FISÁKOVÁ M. 2005 - Animal bones selected for tools and decorations. I n : Pavlov I – Southeast. A window into SVOBODA J., ed. 1994 - Pavlov I, Excavations 1952-53. the Gravettian lifestyles. Dol. Vest. Stud. 14, Brno, p. 247-251. ERAUL 66/Dol.Vest.Stud. 2, Liege-Brno, 234 p. ill.

N Y V LTOVÁ FISÁKOVÁ M. 2007 - Seasonality of gravettian SVOBODA J., ed. 1997 - Pavlov I - Northwest. The Upper sites based on study of ’s dental cement micro s t ru c- Paleolithic burial and its settlement context. Dol.Vest. Stud. t u res. Prehleld Vyzkumu 48, 13.23. 4, Brno, Institute of Arc h a e o l o g y, 472 p. ill.

218 SVOBODA J. 2003a - Gravettian and Epigravettian TESCHLER-NICOLA ed. 2006 - Early Modern Humans at c h ronologies in the Middle Danube area. In: F. the Moravian Gate: The Mladec caves and their re m a i n s . Widemann, Y. Taborin, eds., C h r onologies géophy- S p r i n g e r, Wien – New Yo r k . siques et archéologiques du paléolithique supérieur, Bari, p. 273-282. TESCHLER-NICOLA M., TRINKAUS E. 2001 - Human remains from the Austrian Gravettian: The Wi l l e n d o rf femo- SVOBODA J. 2003b - The Gravettian of Moravia: ral diaphysis and mandibular symphysis. J o u rnal of Landscape, settlement, and dwellings. In: S.A. Va s i l ´ e v, O. Human Evolution 40, p. 451-465. S o f f e r, J. Kozlowski, eds., Perceived Landscapes and Built E n v i ro n m e n t s, British Archaeological Reports Intern a t i o n a l TRINKAUS, E., SVOBODA, J.A., eds., 2006 – Early Modern Series 1122, Oxford, p. 121-129. Human evolution in Central Europe: The people of Dolní Vestonice and Pavlov. Dol. Vest. Stud. 12. New Yo r k , SVOBODA J.A. 2004 - Afterw o rds: The Pavlovian as a part O x f o rd University Pre s s . of the Gravettian mosain. In: The Gravettian along the Danube. Dol. Vest. Stud. 11, Brno, p. 283-297. TRINKAUS E., SVOBODA, J., WEST, D.L., SLÁDEK, V. , HILLSON, S.W., DROZDOVÁ, E., FISÁKOVÁ, M. 2000 - SVOBODA J.A., ed. 2005 - Pavlov I – Southeast. A window Human remains from the Moravian Gravettian: into the Gravettian lifestyles. Dol. Vest. Stud. 14, Brn o , Morphology and taphonomy of isolated elements from the Institute of Arc h a e o l o g y, 500 p. ill. Dolní Vestonice II site. J o u rnal of Archaeological Science 27, p. 1115-1132. SVOBODA J.A. 2005 - Predmostí. The context of paleoan- t h ropological discoveries. P rehled vyzkumu 46, 63-91. T S A N O VA T. 2006 – Les débuts du Paléolithique supérieur dans l’st des Balkans. Réflexions à partir des études tapho- SVOBODA J.A. 2007 - On modern human penetration nomiques et techno-économiques des ensembles into Nort h e r n Eurasia: the multiple advances hypothe- lithiques des sites Bacho Kiro (couche 11), Te m n a t a sis. In: P. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar Yosef, Ch. Stringer, (couche VI et couche 4) et Kozarnika (niveau VII). T h è s e , eds., Rethinking the Human Revolution, Cambridge, p. Université Bordeaux 1. 329-339. VALOCH K. 1996 - Le Paléolithique en Tchéquie et en SVOBODA J.A., NOVÁK M. 2004 - Eastern Central Slovaquie. Préhistoire d’Euro p e 3. Jerôme Millon, E u rope after the Upper Pleniglacial: Changing points of G renoble, 205 p., 130 ill., 8 cart e s . o b s e r vation. A rchäologisches Korre s p o n d e n z b l a t t 3 4 , p. 463-477. VELEMÍNSKÁ J., BRUZEK J., VELEMÍNSKY P. , SEFCÁKOVÁ A., KATINA S. 2004 - The use of recently re - SVOBODA J.A., SEDLÁCKOVÁ L., eds., 2004 – T h e d i s c o v e red glass plate photodocumentation of those Gravettian along the Danube. Dol. Vest. Stud. 11, Brn o , human fossil finds from Predmostí u Pre rova destro y e d Institute of Arc h a e o l o g y, 297 p. ill. during World War II. Casopis Národního Muzea, rada prír. 173, p. 129-132. SVOBODA J., LOZEK V., VLCEK E. 1996 - Hunters bet- ween East and West. The Paleolithic of Moravia. New Yo r k V E R P O O RTE A. 2001 – Places of art, traces of fire . - London: Plenum, 307 p. ill. A rchaeological Studies Leiden University 8 /Dol. Vest. Stud. 6, Leiden, 141 p. ill. SVOBODA J., KLÍMA B., JA R O S O VÁ L., SKRDLA, P. 2000 - The Gravettian in Moravia: Climate, behaviour and tech- V E R P O O RTE A. 2002 – Radiocarbon dating the Upper nological complexity. In: Hunters of the Golden Age, Paleolithic of Slovakia: Results, problems and pro s p e c t s . University of Leiden, p. 198-217. A rchäologisches Korre s p o n d e n z b l a t t 32, 311-325.

SVOBODA J.A., van der PLICHT J., KUZELKA V. 2002 - V E R P O O RTE A. 2005 - Lithic assemblage of Pavlov I Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic human fossils fro m South-Central (1954, 1956, 1963, 1964). I n : Pavlov I – Moravia and Bohemia (): some new C14 Southeast. A window into the Gravettian lifestyles. Dol. dates. A n t i q u i t y 76, p. 957-962. Vest. Stud. 14, Brno, p. 75-111.

TERBERGER T. 2003 - Vom Gravettien zum Magdalénien VLCEK E. 1991 - Die Mammutjäger von Dolní Ve s t o n i c e. in – Aspekte der menschlichen A rchäologie und Museum Heft 022. Liestal, 136 p. ill. Besiedlungsgeschichte in der Zeit um das zweite Kältemaximum der letzten Eiszeit. A r c h ä o l o g i s c h e s WEST D. 1996 - Horse hunting, processing and transport N a c h r i c h t e n b l a t t 8, p. 55-62. in the Middle Danube. In: Paleolithic in the Middle Danube re g i o n . Brno, Inst. of Arc h a e o l o g y, p. 209-245. TERBERGER T., STREET M. 2002 – Hiatus or continuity? New results for the question of pleniglacial settlement in W O J TAL P., SEDLÁCKOVÁ L., WILCZYNSKI J. 2005 - Central Europe. A n t i q u i t y 76, p. 691-698. Human activities on the faunal material. I n : Pavlov I –

219 Southeast. A window into the Gravettian lifestyles. Dol. Z E L I N K O VA M. 2007 - Bone and antler industry from Dolni Vest. Stud. 14, Brno, p. 229-246. Vestonice I. Acta Musei Moraviae, Sci. soc. 92, 9-51.

220