sign in sign up
<<
Home , Ach (Blau), Blaubeuren, Blau (Danube), Cave of Aurignac, Hohle Fels, Schelklingen

The World of Elephants - International Congress, Rome 2001

The production of Upper Palaeolithic bone artifacts from southwestern

S.C. Münzel Institute of and Archaeology of the Middle Ages, Archaeozoology Laboratory, University of Tübingen, Germany - [email protected]

SUMMARY: This analysis discusses mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) remains from the lay- ers at the Geissenklösterle and from the layers at the of Geissenklösterle, and Brillenhöhle. All the caves are situated in the Valley between and in the . The role of mammoth is often underestimated at central European sites, simply because its remains are less abundant here than at Upper Palaeolithic sites in eastern Europe and . But the selec- tion of specific elements of mammoth shows the importance of this species as a raw material for the manu- facture of tools. Mammoth ribs and ivory are the predominant elements of mammoth at these sites. The great length of mammoth ribs and tusks was an important advantage in the production of projectile points. This contribution emphasizes the importance of including bone tools into archaeozoological analyses, as opposed to examining them simply as artefacts.

1. INTRODUCTION E. Wagner (Landesdenkmalamt) opened up a test-ditch, and were continued from 1974 until The region of the Ach Valley has a long his- 1991 by J. Hahn (1988). The site has provided tory of research conducted by the Institute of a stratigraphic sequence from at least 43,000 up Prehistory and Archaeology of the Middle to 10,000 BP. The deepest layer exposed so far Ages at the University of Tübingen. During the contains finds from the Middle Palaeolithic last decades, this research focused on the (AH IV), stratified above this is a Lower Geissenklösterle and Hohle Fels sites. Other Aurignacian (AH III) layer (dated to ca. 38,400 important sites in the Ach Valley are the BP - 14C-accelerator method (AMS) and ca. Grosse Grotte (Wagner 1983, Weinstock 1999), 40,200 BP -thermoluminescence (TL), Richter the Brillenhöhle (Riek 1973, Boessneck & v. d. et al. 2000), followed by the Upper Driesch 1973) and the Sirgenstein (Schmidt Aurignacian (AH II, with split based points), 1912). which was dated by 14C-AMS to ca. 33,500 BP The analysis of the Geissenklösterle fauna and with TL to ca. 37,000 BP (Richter et al. was recently completed (Münzel et al. 1994, 2000). The Upper Aurignacian layer (AH II) 1997, 1999) and an analysis of the Hohle Fels has produced four carved ivory figurines fauna is currently being undertaken. depicting a human, a mammoth, a (cave) bear and a bison. A limestone pebble painted with 1.1 The Geissenklösterle-Cave three colours, as as ivory beads, perforat- ed and dyed fish vertebrae and ornamented The Geissenklösterle is part of a limestone objects of antler and ivory were also found. massive, a rock formation which rises 60 m More recently, fragments of two made above the valley bottom, and which was 10 m from the bones of birds were recovered in wet- deeper during the Pleistocene. Excavations at sieved samples and could be reconstructed. The Geissenklösterle were initiated in 1973 when more intact was manufactured from the 448 The Production of Upper Palaeolithic Mammoth Bone Artifacts from Southwestern Germany radius of a swan, probably a Whooper swan urine and dates to around 30,000 BP (Conard (Cygnus cygnus) (Hahn & Münzel 1995, & Floss 2000). A silex embed- Münzel et al., in press). ded in the vertebra of a found in the The horizon above the Upper Aurignacian Gravettian deposits gives indisputable proof of contains a Gravettian (AH I) occupation with the hunting of cave bears in the caves of the several living floors (14C AMS date ca. 27- Swabian Alb (Münzel, Langguth, Conard & 29,000 BP). After the Gravettian there appears Uerpmann, in press). to have been a hiatus in the occupation of Southwestern Germany, probably caused by 2. MATERIAL AND METHOD the Last Glacial Maximum. A small fireplace (14C AMS date ca. 13,000 BP) is the only evi- The role of mammoth is often underestimat- dence of a Magdalénian occupation of the cave. ed in central European sites, simply because its The large mammal species in the remains are less abundant than at Upper Geissenklösterle represent a diverse faunal Paleolithic sites in eastern Europe and Russia. spectrum and are indicative of the “Mammoth One reason for the underestimation of mam- steppe environment”. Prior to the Last Glacial moth remains is their fragmentary condition Maximum there are no significant differences and the difficulty in identifying these bone in either species composition or species repre- fragments. Another reason is the use of inade- sentation in the faunas from the three main quate quantitative methods. The use of mini- occupational layers in the Geissenklösterle. mum number of individuals (MNI) is very Alongside cave bear, which is the best repre- common in quantitative analyses, but is not an sented species in nearly all the caves in the appropriate method for the highly processed Swabian Alb, the most frequent game animals faunal remains at sites with dense occupation are , mammoth and . “floors” such as Geissenklösterle and Hohle Fels. MNI’s and other quantitative methods 1.2 The Hohle Fels Cave based on articular ends mainly reflect the taphonomic survival of certain elements or The Hohle Fels, located some 2 kms from bone parts (Brain 1967, 1969) and not their the Geissenklösterle, is one of the largest caves value or importance for the Palaeolithic hunter. in the Swabian Alb, with a history of research Therefore, this analysis uses bone weight to dating back to the 1870s. Since 1977, J. Hahn compare the mass of different species brought conducted excavations in a niche of the into the site, a method which was introduced by entrance tunnel (Hahn 1977, Hahn & Uerpmann in the 1970s (1973). This method is Waiblinger 1997), and after Hahn’s death in a useful quantitative tool not only for species 1997 these investigations were continued by representation, but also for skeletal element N. Conard and H.-P. Uerpmann (Conard, representation. For the skeletal element analy- Langguth & Uerpmann 1999, 2000). The sis bone weight highlights under- and overrep- palaeolithic stratigraphy begins with the resented elements respectively in comparison Magdalénian (AH I), which is dated to around to a standard individual (Münzel 1988). 13000 BP, followed by three Gravettian hori- zons (AH IIb, IIc, IId) dated to between 25- 3. RESULTS 29,000 BP. An Early Upper Palaeolithic indus- try (AH III, IV, ca. 31,000 BP). was recovered The bone weight analysis of the in the oldest deposits exposed so far at the site. Geissenklösterle fauna shows that mammoth is Excavations in 1997-2000 recovered a stone the most important game animal after the horse. fragment decorated with red dotted lines from The element representation of the mammoth the Magdalénian (Conard & Floss 1999, remains is highly biased. Mammoth ribs and Conard & Uerpmann 2000) as well as a small ribs of rhino-mammoth size predominate in the head of a horse which was part of an ivory fig- Gravettian (AH I). 449 The World of Elephants - International Congress, Rome 2001

Fig.1 - Two rib fragments of rhino-mammoth size showing notches along the edges, Geissenklösterle AH1.

Fig.2 - Skin smoother made from a rhino-mammoth sized rib, Hohlefels AH II c. 450 The Production of Upper Palaeolithic Mammoth Bone Artifacts from Southwestern Germany

Fig.3 - Bone point made from a rhino-mammoth sized rib, Hohlefels AH II c.

Fig.4 - Rejected base part of a bone point, Geissenklösterle AH I. 451 The World of Elephants - International Congress, Rome 2001

In the Aurignacian layer (AH II), remains the ribs with notches, split rib pieces, partly fin- of several very young were found, ished products, rejected base parts (Fig. 4) and including skull fragments, milk tusks, foot even the bone spalls produced when planing bones and finger bones. These remains are and smoothing the points. The length of the from at least three infants of ca. 2 months of mammoth ribs and their straightness is an age (see poster: Seasonal hunting of mammoth important pre-requisite for the production of in the Ach Valley). In addition, ivory and ribs of points and lances. older individuals are present. In the Early In the Aurignacian layers at Geissenklösterle Aurignacian layer (AH III) mammoth is repre- the typical Aurignacian points with split bases sented almost exclusively by ivory, but also by were made from reindeer antler, but the long ribs of mammoth-rhino size, while in the projectile points from ivory. Obviously mam- Middle Palaeolithic layer no remains of mam- moth ribs were not favoured for these purposes moth have been found so far. Perhaps contin- in the Aurignacian, even if the splitting of ribs ued excavation of the Middle Paleolithic layer is a much easier task than the, technically more over a larger area will produce mammoth complicated, sectioning of tusks into segments remains. and baguettes and the shaping of ivory points. A similar situation was recorded at The of producing these long ivory Sirgenstein (AH VII-VIII, Early Late points and lances is still not quite understood Moustérian) and Grosse Grotte (AH II, (Christensen 1996, Liolios 1999). Hahn (1986) Moustérian with leaflet points), where only a suggested that the grooving technique used to few remains of mammoth were recovered from produce long spalls has still not been proven for the Middle Paleolithic layers at these sites. the Aurignacian. To conclude, ribs and ivory are the predomi- Why did this change in the use of the raw nant elements of mammoth in all the layers dis- material for long projectile points occur? Is it a cussed here. In terms of identifiability these are technical aspect of the technology of weapons also easily identifiable elements. On the other or was it simply due to a shortage of ivory in hand, it is obvious that ivory and ribs were the the Gravettian? preferred raw material for manufacturing tools. In all three main occupation layers at During the Gravettian, mammoth ribs were Geissenklösterle (AH I, II and III), remains of preferred for the production of long bone individuals of very young mammoths occurred, points, and this is a characteristic in the which must have been hunted together with Gravettian layers of Geissenklösterle, Hohle their mothers in spring/early summer. Thus, Fels and Brillenhöhle. According to Knecht although the raw material situation was proba- (1991) the distribution of these “mammoth rib bly the same in all the cultural horizons, differ- points” is temporally and regionally limited to ent skeletal elements were preferably brought Gravettien sites in South Germany. All of the to the site for the manufacture of the long pro- thick bone points show on one side the spon- jectile points or lances. On the other hand the giosa as well as the compacta typical of mam- repeated hunting of cows and calves might moth ribs. The ribs were processed in a stan- have also endangered the local mammoth pop- dardized fashion. First they were notched along ulation in this area where mammoths were not the edges on both sides (Fig. 1) to facilitate as frequent as in the eastern European areas of splitting afterwards. After splitting, the ribs its distribution. were either used as a skin smoother (Fig. 2) or manufactured into points (Fig. 3). To thin the 4. CONCLUSIONS split rib halves, they were planed along the edges and smoothed on both dorsal and ventral The Geissenklösterle faunal analysis shows sides until they developed a typical circular or that mammoth skeletal elements important for oval cross-section. At the Geissenklösterle all tool manufacture are predominant at the site. stages of this “chain operatoire” were found: Other game animals, such as horse and rein- 452 The Production of Upper Palaeolithic Mammoth Bone Artifacts from Southwestern Germany deer, show similar patterns. Schelklingen und ihre Bedeutung für die Due to the presence of large areas with Entwicklung des Jungpaläolithikums in thick layers of burned bone, particularly in the Südwestdeutschland. Arch. Korr. 30: 473- AH II layer at Geissenklösterle, and at other 480. cave sites in the Ach Valley, and the fact that Conard, N.J., Langguth, K. & Uerpmann, H.-P. those elements of bone left behind at the site 2000. Die Grabungen 1999 in den are the ones useful for tool production, we con- Gravettienschichten des Hohle Fels bei clude that since wood was rare, the bulk of the Schelklingen, Alb-Donau-Kreis. Arch. bone refuse was used as fuel. Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg 1999: A detailed archaeozoological analysis 21-25. including the provenance of the organic arte- Conard, N.J., Langguth, K. & Uerpmann, H.-P. facts is necessary for the understanding of the in Press. Die Grabungen 2000 in den sites in the Ach Valley and elsewhere. The Gravettienschichten des Hohle Fels bei results show that during the Aurignacian and Schelklingen, Alb-Donau-Kreis. Archäolo- Gravettian periods, mammoth was an impor- gische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württem- tant resource in the Ach Valley. Even if the berg 2000. remains of these animals are less frequent at Conard, N.J. & Uerpmann, H.-P. 1999: Die sites in this region in comparison to sites in Grabungen 1997 und 1998 im Hohle Fels eastern Europe and Russia, the mammoth rib bei Schelklingen, Alb-Donau-Kreis. Aus- tool production and the well developed ivory grabungen in Baden-Württemberg 1998: at the Geissenklösterle demonstrate 47-52. the importance of this species during the Upper Conard, N. & Uerpmann, H.-P. 2000. New Palaeolithic in Southwestern Germany. Evidence for Paleolithic Rock Painting in Central Europe. Current Anthropology 41, 5. REFERENCES 5: 853-856. Christensen, M. 1996. Un exemple de travail de Boessneck, J. & von den Driesch, A. 1973. Die l’ivoire du paléolithique allemand: apport jungpleistozänen Tierknochenfunde aus der de l’étude fonctionnelle des outils aurigna- Brillenhöhle. In G. Rick (ed.) Das Paläo- ciens de Geissenklösterle. Techne 3: 39-53. lithikum der Brillenhöhle bei Blaubeuren Hahn, J. 1977. Nachgrabungen im Hohlen (Schwäbische Alb). Forsch. u. Ber. z. Vor- Felsen bei Schelklingen, Alb-Donau-Kreis. und Frühgesch. in Baden-Würt-temberg Arch. Korr. 7: 241-248. 4/II. : Müller & Gräff. Hahn, J. 1986: Kraft und Aggression. Die Brain, C.K. 1967. Hottentot food remains and Botschaft der Eiszeitkunst im Aurignacien their bearing on the interpretation of fossil Süddeutschlands? Archaeologica Venatoria bone assemblages. Scientific papers of the 7. Namib Desert Research Station 32: 1-11. Hahn, J. 1988. Die Geissenklösterle-Höhle im Brain, C.K. 1969. The contribution of the Achtal bei -beuren I. Forsch. u. Ber. zur Namib Desert Hottentots to an understand- Vor- und Frühgesch. in Baden-Württemberg ing of Australopithecine bone accumula- 26. Stuttgart. tions. Scientific papers of the Namib Desert Hahn, J. & Münzel, S.C. 1995. Knochenflöten Research Station 39: 13-22. aus dem Aurignacien des Geißenklösterle Conard, N.J. & Floss, H. 1999. Une pierre bei Blaubeuren, Alb-Donau-Kreis. Fundb. peinte du Hohle Fels (Baden-Württemberg, aus Baden-Württemberg 20: 1-12. Allemagne) et la question de l’art pariétal Hahn, J & Waiblinger, J. 1997. Ein Gravettien- paléolithique en Europe centrale. Paleo 11: Fundhorizont im Hohle Fels. Arch. Aus- 167-176. grabungen in Baden-Württemberg 1996: Conard, N.J. & Floss, H. 2000. Eine 27-29. Elfenbeinplastik vom Hohle Fels bei Knecht, H. 1991. Technological Innovation and 453 The World of Elephants - International Congress, Rome 2001

Design during the Early : Hickmann, E. & Eichmann, R. (eds.). Proc. A Sudy of Organic Projectile . of the 2nd Symposium of the International Dissertation, New York. Study Group on held in Liolios, D. 1999. Variabilité et characteris- Kloster Michaelstein, 17-24 September 2000. tiques du travail des matieres osseuses au Richter, D., Waiblinger, J., Rink, W.J. & debut de l’Aurignacien: Approche tech- Wagner, G.A. 2000. Thermoluminescence, nologique et economique. Thèse de doctor- Electron Spin Resonance and 14C-dating of at. Université de Paris X-Nanterre, Octobre the Late Middle and Early Upper 1999. Palaeolithic Site Geissenklösterle Cave in Münzel, S.C. 1988. Quantitative analysis and . Journal of Archaeo- archaeological site interpretation. Archaeo- logical Science 27: 71-89. zoologia II (1.2): 93-109. Riek, G., 1973. Das Paläolithikum der Münzel, S.C. 1997. Seasonal Activities of Brillenhöhle bei Blaubeuren (Schwäbische Human and Non-human Inhabitants of Alb). Forsch. u. Ber. z. Vor- und Frühgesch. the Geißenklösterle-Cave near Blaubeuren, in Baden-Württemberg 4/I. Stuttgart. Alb- District. Anthropozoologica Schmidt, R.R. 1912. Die Diluviale Vorzeit in 25/26: 355-361. Deutschland. Münzel, S.C. 1999. DFG-Abschlußbericht zur Uerpmann, H.-P., 1973. Ein Beitrag zur Großsäugerfauna im Geißenklösterle. Methodik der wirt-schaftshistorischen Unpublished manuscript. Auswertung von Tierfunden aus Siedlun- Münzel, S.C., Langguth, K., Conard N.J. & gen. In H. Matolcsi (ed.), Domestika-tions- Uerpmann, H.P. (in press). Höhlen- forschung und Geschichte der Haustiere: bärenjagd auf der Schwäbischen Alb vor 391-395. Budapest. 30.000 Jahren. Arch. Korr. Wagner, E. 1983. Das Mittelpaläolithikum der Münzel, S.C., Morel, Ph. & Hahn, J. 1994. Großen Grotte bei Blaubeuren (Alb-Donau- Jungpleistozäne Tierreste aus der Kreis). Forsch. u. Ber. Vor- u. Frühgesch. Geißenklösterle-Höhle bei Blaubeuren. Baden-Württemberg 16. Stuttgat. Fundb. aus Baden-Württemberg 19/1: 63-93. Weinstock, J. 1999. The Upper Pleistocene Münzel, S.C., Seeberger, F. & Hein, W. (in mammalian fauna from the Große Grotte press). The Geissenklösterle-Flute – near Blaubeuren (southwestern Germany). Discovery, Examination, Experiments. In Stuttgarter Beitr. Naturk., B, 277: 1-49.

454