Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe

7/22/2019 Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evolution-of-the-palaeolithic-in-central-and-eastern-europe 1/41

Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research

Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern EuropeAuthor(s): Karel ValochSource: Current Anthropology, Vol. 9, No. 5 (Dec., 1968), pp. 351-390Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation forAnthropological ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2740391

Accessed: 24/02/2010 06:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating

with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2740391?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2740391?origin=JSTOR-pdf



volution o t h e alaeolithic

n entral n d Eastern E u r o p e

byKarelValock

HYPOTHESES ON PROCESSES of cultural evolution in theOld Stone Age always reflect the known facts concerningthe temporal divisions of the Palaeolithic and the contentof its cultural stages. A survey of present knowledge onthe Palaeolithic occupation of Central and EasternEurope will probably be of interest to a broad range ofspecialists.

The most important base for knowledge of the temporalsequence of all the occupation phases is the geologicalstratigraphyof the Pleistocene (See Table 1). Since thereis considerable difference of opinion on various problemsin this special area, I consider it necessary to emphasizethat I have used here largely Zeuner's (1958) system ofdivision, supplemented by Movius' (1960) detailed divi-sion of the last Ice Age and the palynologically demon-strated anaglacial temperature fluctuations of Amersfoort

and Brorup of Andersen (1961), and Zagwijn (1961).The geographical area included here extends from Ger-many, Austria, and Yugoslavia in the west to the Uralsand Caucasus in the east.

THE EARLY PALAEOLITHIC

Chronologically, the Early Palaeolithic comprises theimmensely long period of time from the appearance of thefirst human tools up to the development of the poly-

KAREL VALOCH was born in Brno in 1920. He received a Ph.D.from the Philosophical Faculty of the Universitv of Brno and aC.Sc. from the Academy of Science in Prague. Since 1953, he hasbeen head of the Palaeolithic Department of the AnthroposInstitute of the Moravian Museum. He is also a lecturer on thePalaeolithic at the University of Brno. His major research interestili recent years has been a longterm investigation of the Kilna4ave n the Moravian Karst.The present, article, submitted to CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

j II 66, was sent for CA* treatment to 59 scholars, of whom theu-.llowingesponded with comments for publication: Emmanuel

Anati, Francois Bordes, Desmond Collins, Henri Delporte, GiselaFreund, Mikl6s Gabori, Alexander Gallus, Asok Kumar Ghosh,FrankHole, David M. Hopkins, I. K. Ivanova, Richard G. Klein,; Klima, Janusz K. Kozlowski, Jiri Kukla, G. C. Mohapatra,

-_arl J. Narr, Jiril Neustupny, John Pfeiffer, Philip E. L. Smith,uiinterSmolla, D. de Sonneville-Bordes, and Slavomil Vencl.

I'he comments are printed in full after the author's text and are

.llowed by a reply from the author.

morphous industries of the Middle Palaeolithic Mous-terian complex. In terms of stratigraphy,this is the timefrom the beginning of Pleistocene until the beginning ofthe next-to-last glacial (Riss or Saale). In Central andEastern Europe, finds of artifacts from this period arevery rare, and the oldest of them tend to be highlyproblematic.

Presumablythe oldest traces of human activity in thisarea consist of broken bones of animals from the Villa-franchian stage from Bugiule?ti, Rumania; these havebeen comparedby the excavatorsto the osteodontoceraticcultureof the Australopithecines(Nicolaescu-Plopsor andNicolaescu-Plopsor 1963). Shattered bones of animalssuggestinghuman activity were found in an Old Pleisto--cene fauna complex similar to the Cromerian on thepeninsula of Taman, Kurgan Cimbal at the Kerc Straits;

(Verescagin 1957). From terrace gravels of the Giinz/Mindel Interglacial from Mauer, near Heidelberg, Ger-many, (knownas the site of the discoveryof the Heidelberglower jaw), come some pieces of quartzite sandstonewhich show percussiontraces and have been proclaimedby Rust (1956) to be artifacts of the so-called Heidel--bergian stage. Of the seven type groups distinguished byRust, the "nose side-scrapers," suggesting the rostro-carinateforms of the Old Pleistocene of England, are the-most remarkable. Rust presumes the Heidelbergian to.have spreadall over the north of Germany; H. Mohr andM. Mottl found pebbles deformed in a similarmanner inthe Old Pleistocene Danube terraces near Vienna, and

K. 2ebera found them in CentralBohemia.It is virtually impossible to determine whether these

bone fragmentsand pebbleswerereally fashionedby manor whether they are only productsof nature, since we lackany unequivocal criteriaby which to evaluate them. Suchforms could undoubtedly have originated naturally, as^has been proved satisfactorily in the case of the old con--troversy over eoliths. On the other hand, it seems very-probably that the earliest human tools and productsweresimpleformsof this kind.

The first unobjectionable human artifacts in CentralEurope, and at the same time the oldest habitation insitu,occur in the Mindel (Elster) age travertines of Vertes-

szollos,North Hungary (Kretzoi and Vertes 1965a). The-

Vol. 9 No. 5 December 1968 35I



TABLE 1

SURVEY OF PLEISTOCENE STRATIGRAPHY

PERIOD APPROXIMATE AGE B.P.

Holocene

Late Wiirm Age Oscillations Upper DryasAllerod 10,000Lower DryasBollingLowest Dryas

Upper Wiirm Stadial (formerlyW 3)Wiurm-Weichsel Upper Wiirm OscillationGlacial Stillfried B (formerlyW 2/3 = Paudorf) 27,P00

Middle Wiirm Stadial (formerlyW 2)Middle Wiirm Interstadial

Podhrademl (formerlyW 1/2 ==G6ttweig) 32-40,000Lower WiurmStadial (formerlyW 1)Early Wuirm nterstadial

Brorup 59,000

Early WiurmStadial IIEarly Wiurm nterstadialAmersfoort 64,000

Early WiurmStadial I

Riss/Wiurm= Eem Interglacial > 70,000

Riss 2 = WartheRlss=Saale Riss 1/2 = Treene

Glacial Riss 1= Drenthe 200,000

Mindel/Riss ==Holstein Interglacial

Mindel = Elster Mindel 2

Glacial Mindel 1/2 (Intermindel)Mindel 1 500,000

Giunz/Mindel= CromerInterglacial

Giinz Glacial 900,000

Villafranchian (=Donau) 2-3,000,000

1Nameproposed y Musiland Valoch(1966).

strikinglysmall-sizedflint industrycontains rathertypicalchoppers, chopping-tools,and side scrapers(Vertes 1965)and is accompaniedby an Upper Biharianfauna. Chrono-logically it belongs to the Intermindelian warm period,according to Kretzoi. Both of the culture layerscontain a

large number of artifacts and waste material as well asshattered bones of animals.;somewhat burnt bones con-centrated in some places provide evidence for the use offire. Vertes (1965) suggeststhat the artifacts be called theBuda industry, afterthe small number of artifacts,associ-ated with a similarfauna found in Budapestin the 1930's.Of about the same age is a pebble shapedlike a chopping-tool which I found myself on a Mindel terrace of the

Danube at Pestlorinc,near Budapest, in 1964.A little later, genuine pebble-tools appear in Central

Bohemia. K. Zebera was lucky enough to find numerouschoppers, chopping-tools, and Clacton-like flakes on the

surface of a Mindel terrace of the Moldau within thebrickworksof Sedlec, near Prague. This important strati-fied industrycorrespondsto the rich surface findsmade atMlazice near Melnik (Zebera 1952), and Zebera (1965)

wants to term it Bohemian. The spread of a pebble-toolindustry over vast areas of Central Europe is also shown

by the many recent surfacediscoveries in the Oberhessenand Bavarianregionsof Germany (Krtiger 1959, Freund1963).

Artifacts of a civilization different from that of thepebble-tools appear in Central Europe for the first timein the great Interglacial (Mindel/Riss or Holstein). Theyare hand-axes of the Western European Abbevillian/

Acheulean groups. A morphologically rather primitiveobject was picked up from gravels corresponding to thelayer of human remains at Steinheim on the Murr, nearthe discovery site of the Steinheim skull, a few years ago

352 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY



:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fig. lb. Fig. 1c.

FIG. 1. Pestlornnc.Chopping-tool (see p. 352).Original in Moravian Museum.

t Fig. 2a.

Fig. 2b. Fig. 2c.

FIG. 2. Munzenberg (Oberhessen). Chopping-tool (seep. 352).Original in Moravian Museum (gift of H. Kruger).

Fig. 3a. Fig. 3b. Fig. 3c.

FIG.3, Steinheim.Hand-axe (seep. 352 and Ittermann1962).

(Itermann 1962). Toward the end of the Holstein Inter-glacial or the beginning of the Riss (Drenthe) Glacial,industries appear in Germany that contain, in additionto the fine hand-axes, numerous Levallois forms (such asflakes, blades, points, cores), some variously retouchedpoints, side-scrapers, and occasionally other types. Themost important sites are situated in Leine gravels aroundHannover (Ddhren, Rethen, Arnum, and Henningen[Jacob-Friesen 1949]) and in Pleisse gravels near Leipzig(Markkleeberg, Cr6bern, and Zehmen [Grahmann1955]). Some smaller finds, similar typologically, comefrom river gravels at Hundisburg, Wangen, and Wallen-dorf (Toepfer 1961 a, b). Bosinski (1963) was the first toremind us of the fact that the open habitation of Leben-stedt (Tode et al. 1953) and the lowest layer of the Balvecave (Gunther 1964) correspond typologically to theindustries of Hannover and Markkleeberg, rrespectiveoftheir being dated back to the early Wiirm and to the lateEem respectively. Together they form a homogeneousgroup which correspondsto the French Acheulean, andwhich Bosinski would like to designate as Lebenstedt.Rust puts the artifacts of the Altona stage of Witten-bergen, near Hamburg, which he considersto be a con-tinuation of the Heidelbergian, into the Holstein Inter-

glacial. In addition to many pieces resembling the

moraine eoliths (cf. Adrian 1948), this complex seemsalso to contain unequivocal Clactonoid flakes (Rust1962).

In Southeastern Europe, too, pebble-tools representthe most primitive stone tools known so far. Nicolaescu-

PlopForand Moro?an (1959) have reported an industrycontaining choppers,chopping-tools,and blade-likeflakes

from a secondary deposit found in the valley of Dirjov, a

tributary of the Olt in Rumania; Ba.rta(1965) mentions

some similar finds in Farka?ele, which is also near the

Olt. A crudely shaped piece of andesite from very oldgravels at Capusulmic in western Rumania (Breuil 1925)and the fragment of an artifact of unknown age fromMonastir, Serbia (Patte 1918) can be considered as hand-

*axe-like.

Vol. 9 No. 5 December 968 353



FIG. 4. Early Palaeolithic.

=Hand-axes |||||||| Flake industries ///,gPebble-tools

The Early Palaeolithic of Eastern Europe is still in-

suficiently studied; only a few unstratified finds can be

included in its framework, and these only with reserva-

tions. In a recent survey of finds from the region of the

Dniestr, Cerny's (I1965) considers as lower Palaeolithic the

sites of Luka Vrubleveckaja I and III, as well as finds

from the surroundings of the site Babin I in the western

Ukraine and the new sites of Vychvatincy I-III, Gura

Kamenka IV, Rogoz'ana, and Poiana in Moldavia. The

artifacts are largely only flakes retouched of necessity,some a smooth Clactonoid type (especially at Luka

Vrubleveckaja I), some with a simply prepared striking-

platform, and they are accompanied by a few irregular

cores. Gura Kamenka IV has also produced the fragmentof a biface-fashioned artifact, but true hand-axes have

not yet been found anywhere. The industries of Vych-

vatincy I-III correspond to the gravels of the third

Dniestr terrace (average height of 50 m.) , which is con-

sidered to be of the Riss stage (Cerny's 1965). Finds of

Clactonoid flakes and isolated pebble-tools have also been

reported from the territory of the rivers Oka and Moskva

(Krasnyj stan on the Moskva, Kamir on the Oka Rivers,

respectively) , probably corresponding to the river depositsup to a point (Potockij 1961).

A richer source of Early Palaeolithic finds is the eastern

coast of the Black Sea, from the river Kuban to the pro-

montory of the Caucasus. The unstratified complexesfound in this region-at Fortepianka (Formozov 1952)and at Abadzechskaja, in the area of Majkop (Autlev

1963)-consist of Clactonoid flakes some of them re-

touched in the manner of side scrapers, some notched,and hand-axes or hand-axe-like artifacts, cores, and

isolated chopping-tools.

Although the Early Palaeolithic is not very well

represented in Central and Eastern Europe, the known

-findsqdon permit so'me interpre-tations. Tn thefirst place,

the bifaceroup of the AbbevilianAhuen,dmnn

FiG. 4.ser EarlypPlacoisthic. tdnyslgtyee

Thouhte Rlyialedolihi notforEasen Europue isostill in-

the spread of hand-axes, as was once suggested, bifaceindustrieseast of the Rhine are still very, very rare, andone gets the impressionof radiation from the area of theAcheulean, gradually decreasing as one proceeds east-ward. There are quite a lot of characteristichand-axes atHessen and Hannover, very few at Markkleebergand therest of the middle German sites; the accompanying flakesand cores of Clactonian or Levalloisian form define per-fectly their typological picture. It is quite reasonable to

annex these industries, which undoubtedly were underthe influence of the Western hand-axe group, to theAcheulean. The exact dating of this Lebenstedtgroup (inBosinski's sense) can be considered one of the mainquestionsof the Early Palaeolithic in Central Europe, forthough R. Grahmann and F. Hamm have suggested anante-Saale-period age (before Drenthe) for the finds of

Markkleebergand Hannoverrespectively,various doubtsand objectionshave been raisedagainstsuch a date.

EarlyPalaeolithic remainsfromGermanyto Rumaniabelong to the pebble-tool group (Zebera's Bohemian)that existed here independent of the biface-group; onecan substantiateit as early as the Mindel (Elster) Glacial(not only in Hungary, but also at Achenheim on the

western bank of the Rhine in Alsace [Wernert 1957]).One could see its origin in the pebble-industry of the

Heidelbergian if it were possibleto prove that the latter isin fact of human origin. As far as the possible connectionwith the first Clactonian stage is concerned, let us referhere to Vertes (1965). Vertesszollos occupies a specialplace in this pebble-toolgroupon accountof the unusuallysmall implements. The question must remain openwhether this is only a local circumstance due to theavailability of only small pieces of flint, or whetherthis industry represents an independent facies of small

forms.So far not a single hand-axe or other unobjectionablystratified Early Palaeolithic industry has come fromEasternEurope as far as the Urals. The flakeindustriesofthe Dniestr in West Ukraine and of the Moskva and Oka,which clearly belong to the Early Palaeolithic, can bedesignated as Clactonoid. The markedly richer sourceregion on the eastern Black Sea coast in the northernfoothillsof the Caucasus,which has produced Clactonoidindustries accompanied by a few hand-axes, was un-

doubtedly influenced directly by the richly developedTranscaucasianEarly Palaeolithic of Abchazia, Georgia,and Armenia.

THE MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC

The immensely rich Middle Palaeolithic of France hasbeen shown, with the aid of Bordes's (1950) statisticalmethod, to be a richly divided complex of industriesdiffering both typologically and technologically. TheMiddle Palaeolithic of Central and Eastern Europe,which is much poorer, will perhaps not be able to bedivided into so many facies, yet here also some internaldifferences can be discerned (Valoch 1965a). One canpresume that as early as the Riss (Saale) Glacial, typo-

logical and technological diffierentiation took place amongthe Early Palaeolithic complexes, creating the basis for

the development of the various industries known today.

However, we still lack any unobjectionable finds, stratified




Valoch:PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEand thereforedateable, that would document this typo-logical evolution. Scattered finds such as those from thebrickworksof Bockingen and Murg, from the cave ofHunas in South Germany, and from the area of Raciborzin South Poland indicate that the area was inhabitedduring this cold time and its warm Interstadials. In thesubsequent Riss/Wuirm (Eem) Interglacial there appearsome relatively well-defined complexes of industries,pre-supposing evolution from the Early Palaeolithic. The

evolution of the Middle Palaeolithic coversa period of ca.150,000 years from the beginning of the Riss Glacial to

the Middle Wuirm-InterstadialPodhradem.A more significant group, appearing fairly frequently

in the westernpart of Central Europe, is one that corres-ponds to the biface group of Western Europe. It containsindustries distinguished by largely sharp-pointed hand-axes with a thick base, hand-axe-leaves, and small hand-axes, and designated as Micoquian or, in the later phaseof their evolution, as Charentien of Micoque tradition.For the period of the last Interglacial, we have as yetinsufficient proof of the existence of this Micoque group,yet such industries appear in several localities of Southand West Germany in the late Eem, and reach theirclimax in the early Wurm. In these industries, side-

scrapers of various forms predominate, among whichthose with surface retouch (either uni- or bifacial) aretypical. Typical Mousterian points are very rare, repre-sentedby a singleexamplein most cases, and the Levalloistypes (points, blades, cores) and the Levallois technique(prepared striking-platform) are almost completely ab-sent. The shapeof hand-axes is very variable; only excep-tionally are bifaces of various kinds more frequent thanothershapes (e.g. at Bocksteinschmiedein Wuirttemberg,[Bosinski 1967]). The number of hand-axes is usually

smaller than that of the side-scrapers (e.g.,at Klausen-

nische in Bavaria, and at Balve, layer II, Illa, b, in

Westfalia) or they appear only singly (e.g., at Vogelherdand Heidenschmiede in Wiirttemberg). The finds of theBalve cave are of importance for the temporal limitationof thisMicoquian, insofarasthey overlie stratacontainingindustries of the Lebenstedt group of the Acheulean(Gunther 1964).

The above-mentioned sites of the Micoque group areessentially limited to the western margin of CentralEurope. It is only in very recent years that a similarindustrywas discoveredat K6nigsaue, nearAschersleben,Central Germany.According to a preliminarycommuni-

cation by Toepfer (I 965), the lower layer of K6nigsaue isdistinguished by a strong Micoquian tradition. Farthereast, in the region of Krakow, South Poland, the caves ofCiemna and Okiennik and the loess dwellings of Piekaryand those on the Wawel have produced numerousracloirs

dejetes retoucheiface, designatedas "Pradnikknives"byKrukowski (1948), as well as hand-axes. Chmielewski

(1965) has recently been digging the small cave Wylotne,situated in the same region, and has uncovered a sur-prisingly rich industry on three horizons, with manybifaces, a number of them of considerable size, side-,point- and transversal-scrapers,reated on both surfaces,and fairly frequent use of the Levalloisian technique.

Wylotne is the richest hand-axe site in the easternpart ofCentral Europe today. These Polish finds belong to the

Low and Early Wuirm, with the possible exception of the

Wawel site, which may belong to the Eem.

In Moravia, Czechoslovakia, excavations in the cave of

KOulna ave, for the first time uncovered a Charentien of

Micoquian tradition, represented by one fairly large

hand-axe and numerous smaller axes. On the basis of

their stratigraphical position, these finds pertain to a

fairly recent phase near the end of the Lower Wurm

(Valoch 1967).

Another group, which is to be considered preliminarilyas independent, is formed by very rich quartzite industries

of Hessen, West Germany (Lenderscheid, Reutersruh,

R6rsheim), in which there occur, in addition to the typical

hand-axes of the Acheulean, axes of Micoquian tradition,

leaf-point forms, tortoise cores, Mousterian and Leval-

loisian points, Levalloisian flakes, and side-scrapers of

various forms.

There is another facies, this one closely connected with

the biface groups, which I shall call (following G. Freund

and H. J. Muller-Beck) the Middle Palaeolithic with leaf-

points. In Central Europe, it is essentially limited to

southern Germany (see Muller-Beck 1957). It can be

placed in the early Wiirm due to its clear stratigraphical

position in the lower layer of the Weinberg caves near

Mauern (Zotz 1955). It is also represented in the caves of

Middle and Upper Klause, Kleine Ofnet, Oberneder,

and Haldenstein and the open site of Kosten. This type

of industry has so far been unknown in the rest of Central

Europe, but our recent excavations in the Kfulna cave

produced two leaf-points from a layer beneath the

Charentian of Micoquian tradition, a layer which may

possibly belong to the early Wurm. This group is distin-

guished from the Micoquian by the absence of hand-axes,which are replaced by leaf-points; the accompanying

industry consisting of side-scrapers seems not to be too

different. Obermaier and Wernert (1929) found a gradual

morphological transition from hand-axes to leaf-points in

the finds from the Klaussenische cave.

An analogous development can also be observed in

Eastern Europe, where the centre seems to have been

situated in the Crimea. In contrast to Central Europe,

here hand-axes and leaf-points co-occur in the Micoquian

facies, but since the morphological difference between the

types is relatively small it is impossible to distinguish

hand-axe and leaf-point groups. The accompanying

industry differs insignificantly from that of Central

Europe, except for the greater proportion of blades and

the more frequent occurrence of Mousterian points. Tothe well-known finds from the upper layer of the cave

Kiik-Koba can be added finds from the caves of Cokurca,

Volcij grot, Kabazi, Bachcisaraj, Cholodnaja balka, and

the newly examined site at Staroselje (Formozov 1958),

all probably belonging to the lower Wurm. West of this

Crimean centre, similar finds occur in the cave of

Vychvatincy on the Dniestr, Moldavia, (containing ele-

ments of a temperate fauna, [Sergejev 1950]) and the

open sites of Gorodisce, near Zitomir, and of Antonowka,Ukrainia. Still farther to the east, this group is enriched

by finds from the site of Ilskaja on the Kuban and fromthe important site at Suchaja Mecetka in Volgograd

(Zamjatnin 1961).Still other typologically clearly defined groups of in-

dustries occur in Central Europe in the Eem Interglacial.One of the best-known is to be found in the travertine

Vol. 9 ;No. 5 December 1968 355



deposits of Weimar-Ehringsdorf, Middle Germany.

Behm-Blancke (1960) distinguishes here three stages of

evolution for the industries designated by him as theWeimar culture: Stage I, from Taubach, coming fromthe first third of the Eem; Stage II, in Weimar, from the

first half of the Eem, and Stage III, in Ehringsdorf, from

the second half of the Eem. The first two stages are classed

typologically with the Tayacian, and stage III is con-

sidered as the Interglacial root culture of the later leaf-

points. In both of the earlier stages, there are scraper-likeretouched flakes, implements fairly frequently dentate

and notched, end-scrapers, borers, retouched blades,

Tayac points, and prepared striking platforms in most of

the artifacts. Pieces of stag antler employed as choppers

are notable. In stage III, in which side-scrapers pre-

dominate, double-points (limaces or protolimaces), and,

later, points showing uni- or bifacial surface retouch are

characteristic. Other types (such as end-scrapers, borers,

burins) are infrequent. Some of the artifacts have faceted

striking platforms. According to Behm-Blancke, there are

ten artifact-bearing layers at Ehringsdorf, not only in the

lower travertine, but also in the clayey interlayer (Pariser)

and in the upper travertine. On the basis of comparison

of the Ehringsdorf section with that of Amersfoort and

also with the loess sections of Moravia, one can assume

that the upper travertine I corresponds to the Amersfoort

Interstadial and the upper travertine II above the Pseudo-

pariser to the Brorup Interstadial (Musil and Valoch

1966). It would be possible, therefore, to observe a verylong industrial development at this site.

A less clear group is formed by industries of the west ofCentral Europe, which contain neither hand-axes nor

leaf-points, and in whose techniques there are only weak

tendencies toward surface retouching. The absence of

thesetypes and techniques may be due only to the smallnumber of finds; while they do not appear here until the

Lower Wtirm, they must surely have existed as early as

the Interglacial. In this group Mousterian side-scrapers

of various shapes predominate, characteristic Mousterian

points and also double points are represented, and the

Levalloisian technique is used. There are also some

elements of the Upper Palaeolithic (such as end-scrapers,

burins, blades) to be found in some of the more recent of

these industries (the upper Lower Palaeolithic with end-

scrapers, according to Muller-Beck [1957]). Here impor-tant sites are the caves of Sirgenstein (Layer VII),

Schulerloch, and Irpfelhohle in South Germany, and the

lower layer in the clay pit of Rheindalen in the Rhineland(Bosinski unpublished), which overlies Wiirm loesses.

Only a thorough statistical treatment of the material

could show to which group of the Mousterian complex

the isolated finds belong; yet it seems likely that a Central

European facies of the Charentian is frequently repre-

sented here.

The majority of the Middle Palaeolithic of eastern

Central Europe can be described as a regional represen-tative of the typical Mousterian. It is distinguished by thepresence of side-scrapers with surface retouch, partial ortotal, uni- or, less often, bifacial. This retouch, however,never leads to genuine leaf-points or even hand-axes. The

number of artifacts with surface retouch varies greatlyfrom isolated examples to as much as 2O0%. The pre-

dominate type is the side-scraper; dentate and notchedpieces occur fairly frequently; Mousterian and Leval-

loisian points are very rare or absent; faceted strikingplatforms are infrequent. Two facies can be distinguished,for the time being solely on the basis of morphologicalcriteria. The one is strikinglysmall-sized, and is made ofriver pebbles of various materials, among them quartz,

quartzite, hornstone, radiolarite, andesite, etc. This facies

appears as early as the Eem Interglacial in the travertine

beds of Slovakia-Ganovce, Ondrej, Bojnice, and Beha-

rovce; the site in the travertine of Tata, northern Hun-

gary, which is the best known, belongs to the period ofthe Brorup (Vertes 1964); the sites of Bojnice-Prepostska'

cave, Predmosti II, Jislova cave, and Slany in Czecho-

slovakia pertain to the very end of the Lower Wurm. I

would term this facies Tata type after the site at which it

was discovered (Kormos 1912). The other facies, con-

sisting of rather larger artifacts, is characterized by the

use of a single kind of raw material predominantly and by

a greater proportion of dentate artifacts (<20%). It is

found at the best-known sites in this area. The Gudenus

cave in lower Austria is notable in that, contrary to the

original report by Obermaier and Breuil, no marked

hand-axe tradition can be found here, but only side-

scrapers finished on both sides and mostly showing only

partial surface retouch. The Interglacial stage of this

facies might perhaps be represented by the well-known

Krapina in Yugoslavia, provided that the dating by

Gorjanovic-Kramberger (1906) is correct (cf. Guenther

1959). A late stage reaching into the Middle Wiurm

Interstadial Podhradem is also known from the Sipka

cave in Moravia, and again it contains a considerableproportion of Upper Palaeolithic types (nearly 150% end-

scrapers, burins, and borers). Since this latter site was thefirst to produce this facies (Maska 1886), I would like to

term the facies the Sipka type. To it can be assigned the

important Hungarian site of Subalyuk cave, upper layer,and those of the Carpathian region of Rumania-the

caves of Bordul Mare near Ohaba Ponor, Baie de Fier,

Curata near Nandru, etc., and the open site of Boine?ti.(A statistical study of these great complexes offinds might,

of course, lead to completely different and perhaps

contradictory conclusions.)

A number of sites in Central Europe can be identified

as Tayacian. We have already seen that Behm-Blancke

assigned Taubach and Weimar to the Tayacian group.

The important Alpine cave Repolust, in Austria, has an

industry dated on the basis of its fauna into the Eem, and

ascribed to the Tayacian (Mottl 1951). The tools, made

predominantly of quartzite, include in addition to theusual side-scrapers, dentate, and notched pieces, distinct

end-scrapers, and burins.

In Moravia, I have distinguished preliminarily two

Tayacian facies, viz., the Baume-Bonne type (according

to de Lumley and Bottet 1960) and that of Fontechevade

(according to Henri-Martin 1957). I have assigned the

pre-Wiirm industry from the deepest layer of the KOulna

cave to the Baume-Bonne facies. Made of brook pebbles,

the industry contains small tools of rather atypical form,most of them flakes with border retouch; true side-scrapersare not very frequent. Similar finds are reported by L.

Zotz from his recent excavations in the Sesselfels cave,

Altm+ihl Valley, Bavaria, where there are many atypicalsmall flake implements in addition to classic side-scrapers.

Some artifacts are finished with a bifacial surface retouch.

End-scrapers and burins occur singly. On the basis of the




more developed types, I consider the Sesselfels a bit

younger than the lower layer of the KPlna.1 The Font'-

chevade facies includes the surface finds of Vedrovice in

South Moravia, consisting of big chopping-tools, cores

with blade-like flakes, a few side-scrapers, and dentate

tools; the Levalloisian technique is absent almost entirely.

Another interesting group of finds was discovered by

Krukowski, in the bottom Interglacial layers of the

Okiennik cave in southern Poland, beneath the Pradnik

(Micoquian) industry. It consists of flakes and a fewblades with very steep margins, often notched, likely to

be explained as side-scrapers, notches, borers, etc. The

majority of artifacts have platforms faceted by the Leval-

loisian technique. Edges are frequently rounded, suggest-

ing the possibility that the secondary operation of

mechanical or chemical processes has produced a number

of pseudo-artifacts. This group was designated as "Dupi-

cian" by Krukowski (1948). The same sort of industry,

here termed "Tayacian," was found recently by Chmie-

lewski (1965) in the Interglacial layer of the Nietoperzowa

cave near Jerzmanowice, and accompanied by an in-

dustry of the biface-Mousterian of Wylotne.2

In Southeastern and Eastern Europe, still another group

is recognizable. In contradistinction to the Mousterian

complex of Central Europe, this group is distinguished by

a relatively large proportion of narrow Levalloisian

blades, often retouched bilaterally as points, and of the

Levalloisian technique. The sites Molodova I and V on

the Dniestr offer an insight into these industries. Cernys

(1965) was able to find four horizons of the Mousterian in

Molodova V and five in Molodova I, as well as the

ground-plan of a habitation in the next-to-lowest horizon.

The industries of the various layers are apparently

genetically related. All of them are characterized by a

strong Levalloisian character in their technology (i.e.,prepared striking platforms, typical cores) and typology

(many blades, typical points, and flakes). The age is

attested by C14 data: layer 4 of Molodova I is dated at

44,000 B.P. (GrN 3659) and layer 11 of Molodova V at

40,300 B.P. (GrN 4017). It may reasonably be assumed

that this group also includes the rich Middle Palaeolithic

of eastern and southern Rumania, as well as the lower

layers of the caves Bacho-Kiro and Devetaki in Bulgaria

and of the rock shelter Crvena Stijena in Yugoslavia. Its

influence in Central Europe can be observed in the lower

pre-Wurm layer of Subalyuk cave, in Hungary, whose

industry includes the Levalloisian technique as well as

blades retouched on both sides.This division of the Middle Palaeolithic of Southeastern

and Eastern Europe, however, cannot be considered satis-

factory. Bonc-Osmolovskij (1940) has identified the lower

layer of Kiik-Koba as Tayacian; Nicolaescu-Plop?or re-

ports a Clactonoid industry, probably of Eem age, from

Malul Galben near Mitoc; a Tayacian (?) with leaf-

points has been reported from Mamaia on the Black Sea;

and a Middle Palaeolithic specimen showing leaf-points

is reported from Pantanassa, Macedonia. Extensive recent

excavations by A. Paunescu have uncovered a rich multi-

stratal site at La Izvor-Ripiceni in Rumania. P. I. Boris-

1 I am very much obliged to the late Prof. Zotz for kindly lettingme see the finds.

2 Reported by W. Chmielewski at the VII Congres Internationaldes Sciences Pr& et Protohistoriques, Prague, 1966.

FIG.5. Middle Palaeolithic.

lI inds from the Riss Glacial Micoquian Leaf-points

M||||Rousterian of western European character /////"Tayacian"

\\\\\\\Eastern Middle European Mousterian JEastern Mousterian

F Middle Palaolothic of unknown appurtenance

kovskij and N. D. Praslov have investigated several new

sites on the Dniepr and on the coast of the Asovian Sea.

A preliminary attempt at a division of the Middle Palaeo-

lithic inthe

Crimea and on the Russian Plain has beenmade by V. N. Gladilin (1966), using Bordes's statistical

method. The results of this and similar studies might well

change in many respects the picture given here and might

also lead to the establishment of new groups and facies.

My descriptions of different groups here can therefore be

only rough characterizations.

In spite of the many unknowns, let us consider some

typogenetic connections. In the west of Central Europe

there is, as in the Early Palaeolithic, an influential hand-

axe group, undoubtedly dependent upon Western Europe,

yet here serving to define an independent Micoquian

group. The Micoquian wave becomes ever weaker as one

proceeds eastward until, in southern Poland, another,perhaps secondary, centre of development appears. The

typogenetic relationship between the Micoquian and the

Middle Palaeolithic with leaf-points, seems to be close,

and they cover approximately the same area. Another

great centre of the hand-axe/leaf-point Middle Palaeo-

lithic is the southern part of Eastern Europe, especially

the Crimea. It is not out of the question for this group to

have had its roots in the hand-axe Early Palaeolithic of

Asia Minor, spreading northwest as far as the Ukraineand northeast as far as the middle Volga.

Many characteristics of the as yet unpublished Fonte-

chevade facies of the Tayacian of Moravia lead us to

consider a typogenetic relationship with the pebble in-dustry (Bohemian) of the Early Palaeolithic. Ifwe suppose

that the strikingly small implements of the micro-chopper

facies (Buda industry) are definitive and not simply con-

Vol. 9 No. 5- December 1968 A* 357



ditioned by the raw material, then we can trace theirsurvivalin the small tools of the Middle Palaeolithic.Thissurvival is the more significantin that it is contraryto thegeneral line of evolution of the stone tools; during theMiddle Palaeolithic,stone toolsgenerallybecame slimmerwhereas these became larger. Similar relatively small-sized industries, also made of quartz, are found in theMousterian of the Tata type and in the Baume-Bonnefacies of the Tayacian, making it possible to exclude an a

priorirelationshipbetween thesegroups.It seems that the industries of the Mousterian complex

in the west of Central Europe (Germany) were closer tothe various facies of France and perhaps influenceddirectly by them, while the east Central EuropeanMousterian of the Sipka type gives a more "atypical" or"primitive"impression. It is, however, fairly certain thata true Levalloisian faciesin Bordes'sense is thus farabsentin the whole of Central Europe and that the Levalloisiantechnique is representedto a relatively small extent. Thisis one of the most strikingdifferences between the MiddlePalaeolithic of Central and Eastern and of WesternEurope. The more remarkable, then, is the fairly strongsurvival in Southeastern Europe of Levalloisian formsand technique and a relativelylarge proportionof blades.

Special attention should be paid to the question of thenaturaloriginofpseudo-artifacts,or the natural deforma-tion of true artifacts, by mechanical (cryogenic)or chemi-cal processes, especially in connection with the "Dupi-cian" or "Tayacian" of southern Poland and manyphenomena within the Sipkafacies.

The relationshipsbetween the many contemporaneousgroups of industries are completely unknown. Investiga-tion of the meaning of technique and typology in theidentificationofEarly Palaeolithic cultures of civilizations

is of the utmost importance. Important unknowns are tobe sought in the crowdedarea ofWesternEurope.

THE UPPER PALAEOLITHIC

We have seen that during the Middle Palaeolithic therecame a widespread diversification of industries, bothtechnologicaland typological.The evolution ofthe UpperPalaeolithic was a continuation of this process undersomewhat altered conditions. The remnants of materialculture,which hadpreviously consisted almostexclusivelyof stone artifacts,were now enriched by objects of bone

and by art objects,aswell by ground-plans of habitations.The appearanceof the Upper Palaeolithicin Central andEastern Europe is associated with the climatically favor-able period markedby a soil in loess sectionsand by darkloam in cave sediments of the Middle Wurm InterstadialPodhradem. According to radiocarbon data, the UpperPalaeolithic begins a bit after 40,000 years B.P. and endsin the Upper Wuirm,ca. 12,000B.P.

It is interesting that only a few of the earliest industriesof the Upper Palaeolithic areclearly linked to the MiddlePalaeolithic typologically and technologically; the restare made up of quite new elements. The only convincingexample of typogenetic connection between the Middle

and Upper Palaeolithic is provided by the leaf-pointindustries, among them the industry from the Szeleta

cave in Hungary. The name of this cave has in recent

years become the term applied to the early Upper Palaeo-

lithic with leaf-pointsof the circum-Carpathianterritory

in the east of CentralEurope (Gabori 1953,Prosek1953).The technology and typology of the Szeletian have strongMousteroid traditions; flakes exceed true narrow bladesin most cases, the Levalloisian technique appears occa-sionally, and side-scrapersof various Middle Palaeolithic

forms are represented in considerable numbers. UpperPalaeolithic types are represented primarily by end-

scrapers, some with dorsal surface retouch; high end-

scrapers (carenoids) even make an appearance. Burinsare always few and are usually represented by quitesimple types. Some sites also contain massive bores. The

shape of leaf-pointsis very variable (double-pointedwith

circular or straight base). In surface treatment, every

transitional type can be found, from unifacial retouch to

a fine retouch of both surfaces. I do not consider it useful

to establish local facies with names based on the varying

form of leaf-points (Vertes 1958, Kozlowski 1961, 1965).

The local groups of the Szeletian complex may have

undergone various specific processes of evolution, but

they are united by the common characteristics just

mentioned.

Of the numerous well-known sites of this group, the

following should be mentioned here in addifion to the

Szeleta cave: thejankovich, Balla, and Puskaporos caves,

in Hungary; the open sites of Moravany-Dlha and

Vlckovce and the Certova pec cave (stratigraphically

situated in the Interstadial, 38,320-2,480 B.P.), in Slo-

vakia; the Podhradem cave (stratigraphically situated in

the middle of the Interstadial (Valoch 1965b) and the

surface finds of Ondratice, Neslovice, Orechov I, II,

Jezeirany I, II, and Modrice, in Moravia; the open site

Dzierzyslaw, in southern Poland; the caves La Adam

(stratigraphically in the Interstadial, Dumitrescu et al.

1963) and Spurcata,as well as the open site ofJosasel, in

Rumania, and the caves of Samuilica II and V. Levski, in

Bulgaria. Another important site is Lovas on Lake Balaton

in Hungary, where a paint mine was found to contain a

number of grave tools made of stag antlers (Meszaros and

Vertes 1955). There are so far the only bone tools of the

Szeletian. The development of the Szeletian is still un-

known, but there are signs that it survived until the

Stillfried B oscillation (at Rozdrojovice, Moravia).

A facies of the Central European leaf-points group

designated as the Jerzmanowice occurs in layers 4-6 of

the Nietoperzowa cave near Jerzmanowice in southern

Poland. The technique used here is of special interest: the

points which have only partial surface retouch are mostlymade from blades. The lowest of the three layers (6), from

a cold moist period, has been dated at 38,160 ? 1,250 B.P.

(Chmielewski 1965a, Kozlowski 1965). Typological ana-

logies with this industry can be found in the second layer

of the Ilsen cave near Ranis in Middle Germany, in some

artifacts of the Szeletian of Ondratice, Moravia, and in

the Aurignacian of the Vogelherd cave in southern

Germany-(Muller-Beck 1965).

The western part of Central Europe has an industry

called the Praesolutrean (Freund 1952) which corre-

sponds to the Szeletian and occurs in the same Middle

Wurm Interstadial Podhradem (proved stratigraphically

in the Weinberg caves near Mauern [Zotz 1955] and inthe Ilsen cave near Ranis) . As in the Szeletian, Mousteroid

types predominate, but in contrast to it there is here a

lack of Upper Palaeolithic types. The leaf-points are




Valoch:PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEdouble-pointed, almost as a rule, and they attain con-

siderable size because of the high quality of the raw-material.Since the presenceof new typeswas criterialforthe assignmentof the Szeletian to the Upper Palaeolithic,it is questionablewhetherthe Praesolutrean houldrathernot be consideredas a late Middle Palaeolithiccontainingleaf-points.Both Zotz and Freund do this, even thoughthe Praesolutrean is contemporary with the rise of theUpper Palaeolithic. (Incidentally, the name "Praesolu-

trean"becomes misleadingunder thesecircumstances.)An importantgroup of the early Upper Palaeolithicof

Central Europe is the Aurignacian,which can be dividedon a typological basis into four stages, at least in theeasternpart of the area. The stone industry correspondsessentiallyto that of the French Aurignacian: the lower

stage contains largely end-scrapers (carenoid forms),whereasthe middle stage shows an increasingnumberofburins,and the upperand late stagescontain more burinsthan end-scrapers.Among the burins, the proportion ofarchedburins (burins usque's)ncreases gradually, reach-ing its climax in the upper stage and then declining verysharplyas well as degeneratingmorphologically.There isa relatively large number of archaic, Mousteroid types(suchas side-scrapersand points), sometimesas much as

25% in the lowerstage.The lowerstageis representedbyMalomerice-Obciny and Kirepice in Moravia and byBarcaII in eastern Slovakia; the middle stage by Willen-dorfII/2-4 and Getzersdorf and Krems-Hundssteig?) nLowerAustria, Stra6nska'kalaand Podstransk6an Mora-

via, and Kechnec I in eastern Slovakia; the upper stage

byMalomrnice-BorkyI and Tvaroznain Moravia,Gross-weikersdorfin Lower Austria; and the late stage byLangmannersdorfn LowerAustriaandTibava in easternSlovakia.The only bone implementsknown are the awls

and two pointsof the Mladec (Lautsch)type fromWillen-dorf II, layer 4. Willendorf II has also provided a securebasisfor the dating of the Aurignacian.Layer4 has been

dated at 31,840 ? 250 B.P., which accords with its strati-graphicalpositionbetween the Middle WiirmInterstadialand the following stadial (Felgenhauer 1959a). We canthus presume that the lower stage existed during thePodhradem and that the late stage may possibly havesurvived nto the StillfriedB.

Another Upper Palaeolithic group is the Olschewian,established by Bayer (1929). The Olschewian consistslargelyof the Mladec-type bone-points (pointesosangiqueaplaties nd pointes section vale),usuallyaccompaniedby

a scantyand not very typicalindustry (e.g., at the Potockacavein northernYugoslavia).The occurrenceof suchsitesis confined to caves, very often high in the mountains (seemap in Vertes 1955a).More recent excavationsin NorthYugoslavia (the cave Mokriska ama) have shown thatpointes basefendueanalsooccur with Mladec-typepoints.On the basis of this discovery, Brodar (1960) would in-

corporate the important finds from the Istallosko cave,Hungary, into the Olschewian. Vertes (1955a, b) has

distinguishedtwo layers with numerous bone-points atthe latter site, the lower with pointesa baseendueand theupper with points of Mladec-type and has designatedthem as Aurignacian I and Aurignacian II/Olschewian.

On the basis of the results of the Yugoslav excavations,however, it is possible to combine the two layers in one

culture group and to consider the Istallosko cave to be

the richest and most important Olschewian site. The

upper layer of the Ista6llosko cave has been dated at

30,710 ? 600 B.P. and for the Podhradem cave in Moravia

at 33,300 ? 1100 (GrN848).

During the Middle Wiirm Interstadial, then, there

existed in the east of Central Europe a keeled scraper/arched burin-group of the Aurignacian and a bone-point

group of the Olschewian in addition to the leaf-point

group of the Szeletian (cf. Narr 1963). The relationshipsbetween these groups are unknown, but the Aurignacian

and the Olschewian were probably closely related. There

is no evidence at present for the hypothesis that the

Olschewian sites were simply the camp sites of the

Aurignacian hunters. It does seem, however, that within

a short period of time fusion of the two type groups took

place; this is perhaps substantiated by evidence from

Willendorf II/4. The result of such fusion would be a

classic Aurignacian with bone-points predominating.

The distribution of the two civilizations in Central

Europe is not quite the same. The Olschewian, which

populated the caves, covers a large territory from the

caves of Mladec (North Moravia) and Mamutowa (South

Poland) in the north, southeast across the Eastern Car-

pathians (Haligovce in eastern Slovakia and Baia de Fier

in Rumania) to the Balkans (Morowitza and Bacho-Kiro

in Bulgaria), across Yugoslavia (Potocka, Mokriskajama,

Lokve near Trieste) and the Alps (Badel and Tischofer

caves) to the upper Danube (Bockstein) and as far as the

western German Lahntal (Wildhaus). The occurrence of

the Aurignacian is less well known. Typical industries

have in fact been provided solely by the above-mentioned

open sites of the Moravian, Lower Austrian and eastern

Slovakian regions, associated with some of the sites in

southern Poland (such as Pulawy on the middle Vistula,Piekary II, and Sowiniec near Krak6w). New investiga-

tions at Boine?ti and Ceahlau in Rumania have uncovered

quite a rich Aurignacian from what Nicolaescu-Plopaor

(1962) and Bitiri (1964) judge to be the Middle Wiirm

Interstadial. A typological comparison with the Aurig-

nacian of Central Europe is, however, not yet likely to be

carried out.

In the western part of Central Europe, too, the Aurig-

nacian is quite rare. In Middle Germanv, only Breiten-

bach can be included in it. In southern Germany, there

are some artifacts from the Fischleiten cave and some

from the Hohler Stein cave near Happurg. A special and

important position within the framework of the Aurig-nacian of western Central Europe is occupied by layers

4 and 5 from the Vogelherd, South Germany (Riek 1934).

The industries designated as Middle and Upper Aurig-

nacian by Riek were recently studied statistically by de

Sonneville-Bordes (1965). This study demonstrated their

Aurignacoid character, on the one hand; on the other, it

showed fairly great differences between these industries

and the French Aurignacian (e.g. the small number of

keeled scrapers-which are not very typical in any case-

the lack of arched burins [burins-busques], the large

number of burins with end-retouch, and the many arti-

facts retouched bilaterally). Even the above-described

Aurignacian of the eastern part of Central Europe hasonly a few typological correspondences with the Vogel-

herd (cf. Valoch 1964). This favours a special position for

the Vogelherd-Aurignacian, whose relationship to layer 3

Vol. 9 ;No. 5 December1968 359



of the Ilsen cave near Ranis, in Thuringia has already

been reported by Zotz (1951). Muiller-Beck (1965) has

attempted to prove typogenetic connections between the

Vogelherd and the Jerzmanowice leaf-point industry.

According to the morphology of the stone tools, Vogelherd

5 and 4 could probably be classified withJerzmanowice 4;

this, however, would suppose a lesser age of the Vogelherd

than has been suggested so far (the Middle Wurm Inter-

stadial according to Riek); Muller-Beck places it in the

upper part of the oscillation complex, thus perhaps in theStillfried B, making its position correspond to the upper

Aurignacian of France. We must still take into account

other finds of the Vogelherd in addition to stone artifacts.

From layer 5 came 14 typical pointes a base endue, which

are characteristic of the older Aurignacian of France and

may have come from the Olschewian. Besides this, how-

ever, this same layer produced fragments of points ofivory and roe-antler reminiscent of forms of the later

Upper Palaeolithic. Bored pieces of ivory and animal

figures came from both layers. Accepting Riek's earlier

date, these works of art would have no analogies. The

later date suggested by Muller-Beck would allow us to

think of them contemporaneous with the Pavlovian ofMoravia.

Thus the finds of Vogelherd cannot be easily classified,

for they contain elements of the Aurignacian, Jerzmano-

wice, Olschewian, and Pavlovian in addition to being

placed in a long span of time. Similar to this industry in

some features are the finds of the Csoklovina cave and of

the open site Szitabodza in Transylvania (Rumania).

These were also once designated as Aurignacian and are

represented by bilaterally retouched blade artifacts with-

out the true types of Aurignacian.

Stratigraphic co-respondences between the Eastern

European sites and those of Central Europe have only

recently been established. Rogac'eV, on the basis of his

excavations at the multistratal site of Kostjenki on the

Don, compared the stratigraphical positions of the various

layers and drew conclusions as to the descendance of

different industries (Rogacev 1953, 1957; Delporte

1.959a). At the same time, a thorough geological descrip-

tion of the excavations was made (Lazukov 1957). Later

geological studies of the Quaternary have included the

Palaeolithic sites of the Dniestr region (Ivanova 1961)

and of the Russian Plain (Velicko 1961). They suggest a

connection between the beginning of the Upper Palaeo-

lithic and the period of soil formation during the Middle

Wurm Interstadial Podhradem in Eastern Europe. Ofgreat importance, however, is the fact that the evidence

from the Kostjenki area argues quite convincingly for the

co-existence of various groups of industries. The excava-

tions in that area contain a striking horizon of double

humus soil divided in some places by a layer of volcanic

ash. Rogacev has determined that these fossil soils contain

different industries throughout a distance of ca. 4 km.

along the right bank of the Don. There are already more

than 20 important sites known there, some of them quiteclose one to another.

As in Central Europe, there is here a leaf-point industry

in the lower zone of humus, but it differs from the

Szeletian. Its typological nature can best be seen in thefinds from layer 5 of Kostjenki I (there the deepest layers

have so far been excavated only in small areas, so the

number of finds is relatively small). Numerically pre-

dominant are end-scrapers on short, flat, or fairly thickflakes with retouched length edges and their ventralsurface fashioned. Burins occur seldom and only in quitesimple diedre-forms. Borers and esquille'sare also repre-sented here. Mousteroid side-scrapers and points form thearchaic part. The thin leaf-points finely worked on both

sides occur both in the form of triangular points withconcave base and in double-pointed and irregular forms.At Streleckaja II, a similar industry comes from the same

zone of humus (Rogacev 1957).Bader (1965a) has uncovered some surprising finds in

Sungir, near Vladimir (about 200 km. northeast of

Moscow). In addition to the triangular leaf-points withconcave base just described, there are end- and side-

scrapers, rarely simple burins, fairly many esquilles, andisolated retouched blade points. This stone industry, al-

ready known from Kostjenki 1/5 and Streleckaja, is hereaccompanied by objects of bone, jewelry, and art objects.There is a fragment of an artifact reminiscent of a Mladecpoint made of mammoth ivory, and there is a polishingtool made of roe-antler and one made of bone (unpub-

lished; autoptically examined). The jewelry is made of

bored pieces of bone, fox teeth, and flat pebbles. Mostimportant is the figure of a horse, 5-6 cm. long and amaximum of 4 mm. thick, made of bone, decorated onboth sides and bored through the hind legs in order to behung (Bader in Abramova 1962). According to a repor-t

by Boriskovskij (1965), the 1964 excavations producedskeletal remains of two men in addition to some richlyornamented pieces of art and decoration. The section of

Sungir contains two fossil soils like those of Kostjenki, but

here the culture layer is in the upper soil. However, theC14 dates of 16,200 ? 400 B.P. for the soil and 14,600 - 600

B.P. for the culture layer (Serebrjannyj 1965) are in con-tradiction with the geological dating of the soil to thePodhradem period. According to geological dating, the

art works of Sungir would be the oldest in Eastern Europeand the only ones so far from the leaf-point civilization of

Central and Eastern Europe. The morphological simi-

larity between the horse of Sungir and that of Vogelherd

layer 5 is obvious. In both cases, a later data for the

appearance of a developed art would be more intelligible.It might well be possible, following a proposal made at

the 1963 symposium, to term this leaf-point industry the

Streleckaja-Sungir type. To this type might also belongthe third layer of the lower soil of Kostjenki XII-Volkov-

skaja as well as the considerably younger third layer of

Anosovka II (Kostjenki XI).An essentially different industry was found by Boris-

kovskij (1963) in the same lower soil (according to

Velicko) in Kostjenki XVII-Spicyna. It is an UpperPalaeolithic industry without archaic elements and with-

out leaf-points, with the burin by far predominating (160pieces). Blade scrapers are to be found in considerably

smaller numbers (22 pieces). There are some blade-points,

slightly retouched, and a few bigger blades and cores.

Bone implements are represented only by two awls and

some unidentifiable fragments; decorative objects are

represented by bored fox teeth, belemnites, pieces of shell,and pebbles (Boriskovskij 1963).

The upper soil contains various complexes of findswhich can be divided typologically into perhaps 2-3groups. The richest and most interesting is the second

layer of Telmanskaja: in addition to 5 end-scrapers, there




Valoch:PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEere 70 burins, 17 notched and dentate blades, and about350 fine tools. Among the latter, tools of the micro-

gravette type predominated, often showing partial ventro-

basilar or ventroterminal retouch; also represented by a

few pieces each were trapezoid, triangular (notched point-

like ?), and rectangular forms and lamelles tronque'es. here

are only a few fragments of bone tools. In terms of the

ratio of end-scrapers to burins and the absence of esquille's,

this industry resembles that of Spicyna, but the micro-

gravettes are a completely new element.The second group is distinguished by the absence of

burins and the occurrence of esquille's nd of archaic types.

About 200 end-scrapers were found in Markina Gora

(Kostjenki XIV), layer 2, along with some esquille's, airly

many ancient side-scrapers, points fashioned of fine

quartzite, and some retouched blades. Gorodcovskaja

(Kostjenki XV) provided 85 end-scrapers, 8 atypical

burins, 108 esquilles, 14 archaic implements, and 6 blade-

points. Kostenjki XII, Point B, produced 12 end-scrapers,

17 esquilles, 11archaic forms, 3 burins, and some retouched

blades. Also of importance is the accompanying bone

industry: Markina Gora has some carved and ornamented

artifacts; Gorodcovskaja has two shovel-shaped tools

made of mammoth bones, analogous to a piece found in

the same upper humus zone in an isolated shaft at the site

of Kostjenki XII. Two pieces of roe-antler with their ends

sharpened were found, as well as some awls, points, and

needles, three of which had eyes. Decorative pieces were

represented by bored fox teeth.

The third group consists of two sets of finds distinguished

by similar bone artifacts, but thus far poor in stone tools.

Markina Gora, layer 3, and Telmanskaja, layer 3, pro-

duced long stick points made of tusk, with round cross-

section and a unilaterally cut carved base. At Gorod-

covskaja and Markina Gora, layer 3, human skeletalremains were also found (Rogacev 1957).

An insight into the typological situation of the early

Upper Palaeolithic is offered also by the multistratal site

of Molodova V on the Dniestr. Here again, two fossil soils

appear. The Upper Palaeolithic appears only in the upper

soil, but there are four Mousterian horizons in the sedi-

ments underlying the fossil soils. Cernys (1961) discerned

two find horizons, 10 and 9, in the upper soil; unfor-

tunately, however, both these horizons provided only

relatively few implements in contrast to a rather large

amount of waste material (see Table 2).

TABLE 2

ARTIFACTSFOUND AT MOLODOVAV, LAYERS 10 AND 9

Layer 10 Layer 9

End-scrapers 5 12Burins 14 20Keeled scrapers 1 1Arched burins (busque's) IScrapers-burins 1Retouched blade-points 4 5Micro-gravettes 1

Backedpenknives (lamelleddos) 3 2Leaf-points 1-

Retouched flakes 2 4

Cores 17 | 32

The exact age of the soil containing the finds is not yet

known. As we have already mentioned, the C14 date for

the second but uppermost Mousterian layer under both

the soils is about 40,300 years.

The find layer 7, located in a slightly humus sediment,

has been dated to 23,700 ? 320 B.P. (Ivanova 1965). This

date is a bit lower than the dates for the Late Wuirm

Stillfried B oscillation in Central Europe, and the question

arises whether the humus formation represents this oscilla-

tion, or another climate fluctuation. In any case, the two

soils of Molodova are presumably incomparable with the

double soil complex of Kostjenki, as the lower zone of

humus there already contains an Upper Palaeolithic.

The habitation discovered near Radomysl a few years

ago is also of importance for the typology of the early

Upper Palaeolithic in Ukrainia. According to Sovkopljas

(1 965a), the culture layer, containing numerous mam-

moth bones, is not datable stratigraphically. The stone

industry consists of burins of the diedre-type, blade-

scrapers, retouched blades, massive borers,and numerous

Mousteroid side-scrapers and points.

It can be seen that the beginning of the Upper Palaeo-

lithic in eastern Europe is as complicated as it is in Central

Europe and at the same time distinct from it. The early

Upper Palaeolithic industries can be divided into numer-

ous typologically different groups; although these groups

cannot yet be strictly defined, the simultaneous appear-

ance of an archaic industry with leaf-points (the Streleck-

aja-Sungir type) and a progressive burin industry without

archaic forms (the Spicyna type) would seem to be of

essential significance.

Velicko's (1961) attempt, by geological stratigraphic

comparison of the later loesses of the Desna area withthose of Czechoslovakia, to establish a chronological re-

lationship between the Eastern and the Central European

Upper Palaeolithic has been called into question by newly

published radiocarbon dates. The lower soil of Sungir has

been dated at 20,540 ? 120 B.P.; the two humus zones of

Kostjenki XVIII-Spicyna provided almost the same date,

20,100 ? 350 B.P. for the upper soil, 20,100 ? 100 B.P. for

the lower soil. In contrast, the upper soil of Kostjenki XII-

Volkovskaja was dated at 23,060 ? 300 B.P. and the same

upper zone at Markina Gora (Kostjenki XIV) at only

14,300 ? 460 B.P. Layer 10 of Molodova V, which lies in

the middle of a soil, has been dated at 23,100 ? 400 B.P.

(O,erdyncev et al. 1965). Allowing for some unreliabilityin the samples (samples of humus were measured every-

where except at Markina Gora where bones were dated),

it is still striking that the dates from various sites, all

indicating a warmth oscillation, center around 20,000-

23,000 years, and that none of them is as early as the-

Central European Stillfried B or even the Podhradem.

On the other hand, there is no stratigraphic evidence in

Central Europe for a warmth oscillation between the

Stillfried B and the Late Glacial (B6lling, Allerod). Is an

early Upper Palaeolithic corresponding chronologically-

to those of Central and Western Europe perhaps absent

in Eastern Europe?

In the course of the further development of the Upper^Palaeolithic in the East European lowland, represented

stratigraphically by culture layers above the double-

humus zones in the Kostjenki area, we can presumeb

Vol. 9 No. 5- December 968 361



internal differentiation of the original groups, influencedstrongly by the relations among them. Thus the upperlayer of Telmanskaja offersus a leaf-point industry withnumerous burins and archaic forms (Efimenko and Boris-kovskij 1957), and the upper layer of Kostjenki IV-AJeksandrovkaprovides isolated, but well-formed leaf-points accompanied by numerous micro-points, burins-cum-end-scrapers, and burins-cum-points. The lowerlayer of Aleksandrovka, in contrast, is distinguished by

many genuine gravettes, backed penknives, saws (den-tate), esquillis,and a few burins and end-scrapers (Roga-cev 1955). In Kostjenki II, Zamjatnina was found, inaddition to human skeletal remains, a possibly relativelylate industry in which esquilles nd burins, mostly diedre-form, predominate. End-scrapers, retouched blade-points, and backed penknives are represented only by afew pieces (Boriskovskij 963.)

The best-known industry of this area is that whichcomes from the uppermostlayer of KostjenkiI-Poljakovaand which is often termed the "Kostjenkian" proper. It ischaracterizedby burins of variousforms,often double or

combined with end-scrapers,blades with ventroterminalflatly retouched notch, notched points, and blade-pointsshowing partial ventral-surfacefashioning. Backed pen-knivesare quite rare; other small forms are missing.Fromthis set of finds also come interesting bone implements,decorated objects, animal figures, and the famous repre-sentationsof women (Efimenko 1958). The habitation of-Gagarino,also situated on the Don, provided an industryonly slightly different, with burins predominating, end-scrapers declining, notched points in small forms only,and ventroterminal notched blades absent; on the otherhand, numerous backed penknives appear. Figures ofwomen corresponding to those of Kostjenki I were also

found (Tarasov 1965).An independent group of sites between the Dniestr andthe Don is formed by sites in the region of the MiddleDniepr and its tributaries,of which the Desna is the mostimportant. On it lie PuskariI and Pogon, which can bothbe consideredpart of the stratigraphicallyolder complex,according to Velicko (1961). The much richer set of findsof PuskariI, to which that of Pogon perhaps corresponds,consists of 160 burins, 250 end-scrapers, 200 backed pen-knives, about 20 not very typical notched points, and550 points, of which 280 are retouched bilaterally, 100are terminal-obliquely retouched (truncated), and 170have one side blunted (a'dosabattu),often arch-shaped.

Among the latter, gravette-like forms and forms remini-scent of Chatelperron points can be found. Bone tools-were represented by hoe-liked used ribs (Boriskovskij1953).

At Avdejevo on the Sejm were excavated a rich boneindustry, ornamented objects as well as two representa-tions of women, and a stone inventory in which piecesesquillespredominate, burins are quite numerous, andbacked penknives, notched points, end-scrapers, andvarious blade-points are represented (Gvozdover 1950).Other industries to be found in this area (e.g., Mezin,Eliseevici, Timonovka, Kiev-Kyril Street), some withoutnotched points or gravettesor backed penknives, all sug-

gest the existence of still other typologically differinggroups. The bone implements and works of art, however,

are very much alike, and diffierent from their counterparts

in Western Europe, and they provide the basis for the

idea of a unified "East-Gravettian" which included thewhole Eastern Upper Palaeolithic.

In one of the few caves with numerous Upper Palaeo-lithic layers, Sjuren I in the Crimea, were three horizonsin an interesting sequence. In the lower layer were founda numberofvariouslyretouched micro-blades,along withbladed end-scrapers, burins, and points, some of themecaille'snd Mousteroid forms.The inventory ofthe middlelayer does not differ essentially; the ecaille's have dis-

appeared, the number of micro-blades has decreasedsharply, and the Mousteroid forms remain. Among theend-scrapersin both layers many Aurignacoid types areto be found. In the upper layer retouched and bluntedmicro-blades again predominate, Aurignacoid end-scra-pers become quite rare, and the archaic forms disappear;notched blades, gravette points, and fragmentary artifactsresembling Azilian pointsappearforthe firsttime. Theageof the habitations is unknown. The author assumes thatthese industries, which have analogies in the Caucasus,representan evolution on the spot (Vekilova 1957). Inanycase it is important that here fine implements made from

micro-blades make their appearancein the lower layer.The Upper Palaeolithic on the Dniestr provides thepicture of a rather quiet, continuous evolution, as far as itis possibletojudge from the publications of Cernyson themultistratal site of Molodova V and on Babin, Vorono-vica, and others. Layer 8 of Molodova V contains essen-tially the same types as the deeper horizons. Consideringlayer 7, dated by radiocarbon at about 24,000 years, wemust add various formsof micro-points,sticks with holes,Lyngby axe-like implementsof roe-antler, and bored andsharpened pieces of soft stone. These finds resemble theMoravian finds of Dolni Vestonice, Pavlov, and Pired-mosti so much that they must be considered closely

related. In layers 6-1, dated from 17,000-10,000 years(for exact C14 dates, see Ivanova 1965) the strongly re-touched points disappear, micro-points become rare, afew backed penknives can be added, and the rest of theinventory, consistingof burinsand end-scrapers,becomesgradually smaller and finer. In the fauna the reindeerdominates, and antler is used to make a few tools (Oernys1961).

We can hardly doubt that the stone industry of all tenlayers of Molodova V underwent a continuous develop-ment. In layer 7, a considerable flourishing of antlerfashioningand of the carvingof softstone can be observed.The radiocarbondates confirm the typogenetically based

hypothesisthat the Upper Palaeolithic of EasternEuropereached its full development without having been influ-enced by the Magdalenian. The only Magdalenian tooltype, namely the holestick,appearshere as early as about

24,000 yearsB.P. Although the technology of splitting roe-antler is similar to that of the Magdalenian, the leadingformsof the Magdalenian-borers, numerous penknives,and spear-headswith a gutter for blood-are completelyabsent here except for the borers found at Mezin (Sov-kopljas 1965b).

In Rumania an evolution of the "East-Giavettian"also took place. Nicolaescu-Plopsor (1962) divides it intothree stages, in the course of which there is a gradual

trend toward microlithic forms. The most important typeis the gravette-point, e.g., those at Ceahlau-Dirtu. More

exact knowledge of types is to be expected from the

extensive excavations taking place there. Like the multi-




Valoch:PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEstratal site of Molodova V, the four layers of the cave ofStanca Ripiceni, on the right bank of the Prut, give theimpressionof an evolution of a single group of industries.Layer 1 contains some thick Aurignacoid end-scrapers,numerous bladed end-scrapers,and a number of doubleangle-burins on concavely retouched blades, but on thewhole a relationshipwith the Eastern Upper Palaeolithicis indicated. There are still several massive end-scrapersin the succeeding layer 3, yet narrow bladeswith bluntedback surface as well as fashionedpieces of antler alreadymake their appearance. Characteristic of layer 5 are, inaddition to end-scrapers, strongly retouched bilaterally,and some blade-points, the increasing number of burinsand especially two pieces of roe-antler fashioned in themanner of the Lyngby-axes of Molodova V, layer 7.Layer 7 contains an increased number of penknives andgravette-like points, corresponding to the upper layersof

Molodova V (Moro?an1938).The later Upper Palaeolithic of Central Europe in-

cludes two large civilization groups: the Pavlovian (for-merly East Gravettian) and the Magdalenian. The Pav-

lovian is known especially from sites in Moravia (Pried-mosti, Dolni Vestonice, Pavlov, Petrkovice), Lower

Austria (Willendorf II, layers 5-9, Agssbach, Kamegg),

and western Slovakia (Moravany-Podkovica, Moravany-

Zakovska). The stone industry consists of numerous end-

scrapers, burins, penknives, gravette-points; notched

points (at Willendorf, Moravany, Petrkovice, Predmosti),

micro-saws (at Dolni Vestonice), and small geometric

forms (at Pavlov) also occur. The rich bone industry has

some unusual forms: long ivory points of round cross-

section, shovel-like implements made of big fragments of

mammoth bone, many polished ribs, cylindrical rubbers

of ivory, and numerous awls. The picture is completed by

decorative and art works of perfect form: necklaces offossil shells, animal teeth, and pebbles; pieces of bone and

ivory ornamented with short lines; figures of women (at

Dolni Vestonice, Petrkovice, Pavlov, Moravany, Willen-

dorf) and of animals (at Dolni Vestonice, Pavlov, Pired-

mosti); and exceptionally, a figure of a man (Brno II)

and an engraving of a woman (Predmosti). Dolni Ves-

tonice has provided, for the first time in the Palaeolithic,

fired clay figures (women, animals). This advanced group,

with undoubtedly close relations to the East European

Upper Palaeolithic, was termed Pavlovian by Delporte

(1959b) and by Klima (1963); it is dated back into the

Stillfried B and the beginning of the succeeding loess

period, some time between 28,000 and 24,000 years B.P.

A late phase of this Pavlovian group of Central Europe

has been found at Saigvair and Arka, in Hungary and

dated at the end of the Upper Wiirm, between 19,000

and 13,000 years B.P. (Kretzoi and Vertes 1965b).

Kozlowski (1965) has recently attempted a territorial

and facial division of the "Gravettian" of Central and

Eastern Europe by means of statistical indices. An essen-

tially statistical treatment of all the well-studied Palaeo-

lithic finds would be highly desirable and would, when

combined with the corresponding list of types, serve as a

useful basis for more general conclusions. Kozlowski has

raised a new and very interesting problem for Central

Europe by presuming an evolution in this area similar tothat of the French Upper Palaeolithic, and by classing

some of the complexes of finds (such as Jenerailka and

Lubna in Bohemia, Stanca Ripiceni, layer 5, and Mobo-

dova V, layer 9) with the Protomagdalenian (analogouswith layer 4 of the Laugerie Haute and Abri Pataud).Disregardingthe more general problems connected withthe Protomagdalenian,I would like to point out that the

above-mentioned layer of Stanca Ripiceni cannot be so

interpreted because of its antler artifacts,which are con-

sideredpeculiar to the Pavlovian.

It is remarkable that the Pavlovian civilization, sostrongly represented in this area, barely extends to the

western part of Central Europe. The only significant site

here is the Weinberg caves near Mauern, in Bavaria,

where a female statuette of limestone was also found

(Zotz 1955). If the very simple industry of Mainz-

Linsenberg, with fragments of three female figures, be-

longs to the same group, then this would be its western-

most appearance.Remarkably, though, some suggestions of the French

Perigordiancan be found in this western part of Central

Europe. Quite isolated in Middle Germany (Ilsen cave

near Ranis, layer 4), an industry appearsshowing typicalChatelperron points with no analogy at all in (except

perhaps Puskari I?) the East. Typogenetically, this in-

dustry can only be a descendant of the Chatelperronianof France. Zotz has also recently reported the single find

of a double-notched point of the Font-Robert type in

Dollnstein, Bavaria (Freund 1963), another type with no

analogies in the East.The second large Upper Palaeolithic group of Central

Europe is the Magdalenian, which is unequivocally ofWestern origin and whose eastern limits are marked bythe caves of the Moravian Karst (Pekarna), of Lower

Austria (Gudenushohle), and of southern Poland (Mas-

zycka). The stone industry shows, in addition to thecommon end-scrapers, burins, backed penknives, and

characteristic ong borers, specializedforms such as Kent-

type knives with broken backs (at Etzdorf in Thuringia,

Burkhardtshohle in Wuirttemberg, Eilsbrunnh6hle in

Bavaria, and Zitny cave in Moravia), arched knives (at

Burkhardtshohleand Probstfels in Wiirttemberg), and

burinswith a deep notch on their left sides (at Olknitz in

Thuringia, Pekafrnaand Borky I in Moravia), which

possiblyindicate the existence of different facies. In con-

trastto the ivory and mammoth bone of the Pavlovian, in

the Magdalenian it is roe-antler that serves as the raw

material for bone implements-spear-heads of oval to

edged cross-sectionwith a gutter for blood, hole-sticks,harpoons, and needles with eyes. Art is first of all repre-

sented by engravingsof animals (at Pekarnain Moravia,

Kniegrotte in Thuringia, Mittlere Klause in Bavaria,and

Petersfels n Baden) manufacturedin the Franko-Canta-

brian style. Bored and ornamented rings of bone (atPetersfels n Baden and Kri'z-cave n Moravia) also have

numerousanalogiesin France.A specificway ofrepresen-

tation of women is found in the figurines of Petersfels

(Baden), Olknitz and Nebra (Central Germany), andPekairna Moravia), and alsoin the engravingsof Hohlen-stein (Bavaria),as well as of La Roche, Fontales, and La

Gare de Couze (France).

Another independent, but closely related, group is theHamburgian, discovered by Rust (1937) in Meiendorfand limited to North Germany. The stone industry,with

characteristic Zinken and notched points, is accompanied

Vol. 9 -No. 5 December 1968 363



by numerous implements made of roe-antler, of whichone harpoon and the so-called strap-cuttersdeservemen-tion. Carvings of animal heads in amber and sandstoneresemble those of the Magdalenian.

Surveying the Upper Palaeolithic of Central and East-ern Europe, we may observe firstof all that the typologicaldifferentiation of regional groups which began in theMiddle Palaeolithic has increased in intensity. Only theSzeletian can be typogenetically assigned to the Middle

Palaeolithic with any certainty; the Praesolutrean, con-temporarywith the Szelatian, still has a decidedly MiddlePalaeolithic character. The concentration of the Aurig-nacian in the eastern part of CentralEurope and its com-plete absence in Eastern Europe seems to testify to asource in the inner Carpathian region. I have suggestedelsewhere that the industry designated as the Tayacian,Fontechevade facies, would probably be that source(Valoch 1966). The Olschewian insofaras it can be con-sidered an independent civilization at all, is certainly akinto the Aurignacian, as is indicated, among other things,by their concentration in the same region. One mightimagine that the typologically advanced Aurignacian+ Olschewian influenced the more primitive contem-

porary Mousterian and that this contact resulted in theSzeletian, a Middle Palaeolithic industry enriched withUpper Palaeolithic forms. This would also explain why apure unmodified Middle Palaeolithic with leaf-points (thePraesolutrean) s maintained in southern Germany, wherethe pre- or early stages of the Aurignacian seem to bemissing.

The Szeletian appears to survive fairly long in CentralEurope, as late as about the time of the Stillfried B, and itgradually incorporates more and more influences fromthe rest of the Upper Palaeolithic. The Aurignacian and

A l

FIG. 6. UpperPalaeolithic.

=-Leaf-point Industries Aurignacian Olschewian

Eastern GravettianComplex \\\\\\\\Magdaleniari

...Hamburgian wUpper Palaeolithic from the. Crimea, Urals,and Caucasus

*Rock-paintings from Kapova Cave in Urals

Olschewian, at first quite distinct, eventually merge,

occurring in France as the Aurignacian with bone-points

predominant. On the other hand, there are isolated in-

fluences of the western Perigordian in Germany.

Similarly, in Eastern Europe the leaf-point industries

of Streleckaia-Sungir can be associated with the Middle

Palaeolithic with leaf-forms of that area; the latter may

also have originated under the influence of an advanced

Upper Palaeolithic industry. The origin of the earliest

blade industry of the Spicyna type (Kostjenki XVII) isobscure, but the following possibility might be considered:

In the eastern part of the Mediterranean, there is a com-

plex of finds, stratigraphically in the middle of the Middle

Palaeolithic industries, called the "Praeaurignacian."

While studying the finds of Yabrud at the University of

Cologne, I became convinced that we have here a true

blade industry more progressive than the early Aurig-

nacian of Central Europe, containing many flakes and

Mousteroid forms, but at the same time lacking true

keeled-scrapers, the minimum precondition for classifica-

tion with the Aurignacian. A connection between this

"Praeaurignacian" and the typical Aurignacian is hardly

presumable, but the retouched blades and blade-points

would permit further evolution to such an industry as the

Spicyna type.

In the course of further evolution, numerous typo-

logically different groups of industries were established

throughout the vast territory of the East-European Plain.

They existed at the same time and influenced one another.

The habitations known from many sites (huts, tents?)

witness to a certain stability of settlements. In contrast to

the area of Kostjenki on the Don, where a sequence of

different industries is observable, there seems to be an

essentially undisturbed evolution of a single group in

Molodova on the Dniestr.The origin of the cultural stream called "East Gravet-

tian," which flourished in the form of the Pavlovian in

the eastern part of Central Europe, must be sought in this

developed Eastern European Upper Palaeolithic. This

civilization, penetrating from the east, may have followed

the Aurignacian as it moved gradually westward and

eventually met with the surviving remains of the archaic

Szeletian during the Middle Wiirm Stadial. By the end

of the Upper Wiirm, the Magdalenian had reached the

eastern edge of Central Europe from the west. The

regional groups pertaining to the "East Gravettian" de-

veloped farther to the southeast, beginning with Hungary

and Slovakia (Valoch 1960).

THE LATE PALAEOLITHIC

Only in the last 20 years have we begun to accumulate

some knowledge of the industries which preceded the

Mesolithic, falling into the late phases of the Wiirm

Glacial and constituting the typological link between the

Upper Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic. These industries

are frequently denoted as the Epipaleolithic, but I prefer

the term Late Palaeolithic, following the usage in Polish

research dealing intensively with these questions. Theycover a period of only about 3,000 years; Schild (1964)

considers the lower limit to be about the middle of the

Allerod (the time of the French Azilian) .




Schwabedissen (1964) provided the first survey of theLate Palaeolithic industries from northern Germany(which he called the "Federmessergruppe"), the charac-teristic type of which is a small knife with arched bluntedback. The stages of Ahrensburg, Callenhardt, and Born-wisch (Rust 1951), all confined to North Germany andthe adjacent regions, also belong here.

Schild (1960, 1964) has intensively studied the veryrich Late Palaeolithic of Poland and has distinguished

several groups of industries there. He has also pointed outthe typological significance of one of its most importantelements the occurrence in great numbers of short flakeend-scrapers. He discerns two great cycles of industries

(or civilizations): (a) the cycle of Mazowsze, charac-terized by double-notched points with ventrobasal surface

retouch of the Swidry type and divided into numerous

typologically differing industries (Swidry, Dobiegniewo,Pludy types, etc.); and (b) the as yet little-known cyclecontaining industries of the Tarno6w and Witow types.The absolute age of the industry of Witow comes to10,815 ? 160 years.

Similar finds have been reported from Moravia (Tis-nov, Bucovice) by Klima and Valoch, and the strati-graphical position of such an industry was obtained for

the first time from the excavation in the Kulna cave in

Czechoslovakia. In close sequence with the Magdalenian,there are two layers containing an industry preliminarilydesignated as the Epimagdalenian and accompanied byremains of red deer. It contains, in addition to some othertypes, a number of short flake end-scrapers. Vertes hasreported a similar industry from Szekszaird-Palank, Hun-gary, dated at 10,350 ? 500 years (Kretzoi and Vertes1965b). Rumania has already produced two groups of theLate Palaeolithic (Nicolaescu-Plopsor 1952, 1958), theone, with

double-notched points, pertaining to the Ma-zovsze cycle (at Scaune-Ceahlau), and the other desig-nated as "Azilian" (at the Hotilor cave near Baile Her-culane). The gradual development of a Gravettoid in-dustry up to the Late Palaeolithic or even into theMesolithic is demonstrated through the many layers ofthe rock-shelter Crevena Stijena in Yugoslavia (Brodarand Benac 1958). This stage can be completed withnumerous industries, some of them surface finds from theDonaumoos and from around Futrth (Freund 1963), andpossibly also an Epimagdalenian with the head burials ofKaufertsberg, upper layer, Stadel am Hohlenstein in theLonetal, and Grosse Ofnet( ?), in South Germany.

That the Upper Palaeolithic groups of the southernplain of the U.S.S.R. also developed into a Late Palaeo-lithic seems to be indicated by numerous finds (e.g., theupper layers of Vladimirovka on the Bug ((ernys 1953)Bolsaja Akkarza and Amvrosievka at the Asovian See,layer 2 of Anosovka II [Kostjenki XI], possibly Zuravka,Borsevo II, etc. (Efimenko 1955). The exact temporal,stratigraphical, and typological position of these com-plexes, however, is not clear. To the north (e.g., on LakeCvitjaz, and at Krumplevo and Neman in Bielorussia),we find characterized by double-notched points and pos-sibly connected with the Mazowsze cycle. The differentlyarranged Upper Palaeolithic of the Crimea (Krajnov

1960) seems to have reached the phase of the Late Palaeo-lithic with its industries showing arched knives suggestiveof Azilian points (in the upper layer of Sjuren I, the lowerlayer of Sjuren II, Layer 8 of Tas-Air, etc.). In the north-

FIG. 7. Late Palaeolithic.

%0X0X\Federmessergruppen ,:Ahrensburg-Lyngby |||||Mazovian

_=_Epimagdalenian ////////Epigravettian + Tarnowian

AKLate Pallaeolithic from the Crimea

ern part, on the Cusovaja in the Central Urals, lies the~

possibly Late Palaeolithic site of Talickogo, which inclines

typologically toward the Siberian Late Palaeolithic

(Bader 1960).The recognition of this Late Palaeolithic as a definite

phase of evolution is very important. On the one hand, itbridges the typological and genetic gap between the~

Upper Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic. On the other

hand, it automatically reduces both the age and the

duration of the Mesolithic, since its lower limit can onlybe the end of the Late Palaeolithic, estimated at about

6, 000 B.C. With regardto culture we aredealing herewitha continued evolution of the Upper Palaeolithic civiliza-

tion, as well as that of the "East Gravettian" (in the~

broadest sense of the word) and of the Magdalenian and

its North-European facies.

THE FINAL PALAEOLITHIC

The discovery of the Late Palaeolithic has shown more

clearly than ever that the "Middle Stone Age" is sensu

stricto no proper Stone Age period, but only a final phase,possibly quite short, of the Old Stone Age. Further, the

typological diffierence between the Mesolithic and the~

Upper Palaeolithic, not to mention the Late Palaeolithic,

is much smaller than that between the Middle and the

Upper Palaeolithic, where new achievements (e.g., art,

living facilities, funerals) changed the entire cultural

picture.The preserved inorganic and organic inventory of the~

Mesoithi ie h mrsino eaec fpe

ofIG 7. ate Palaeolithic. h emMsltichs tpeet

tyonlogieauthriy owa erdrted Sberiadiin.Lt aaeti

Vol.9 JNo.5 December968 365



Our knowledge of the division and characteristics of

these groups of industries is admittedly limited. The

reason for this is that, at least in the better-known Euro-

pean area, the microlithic material always presents essen-

tially the same, or at least very similar, forms, with the

result that some decades ago it was held that a unified

Tardenoisian spread almost over the whole of Europe (or,

perhaps, the Azilio-Tardenoisian in the west and the

Swiderio-Tardenoisian in the east). Only well-stratified

complexes of finds together with an exact statistical treat-

ment of the types will make clear the difference among

the groups.

Schwabedissen (1944) surveyed and divided the Final

Palaeolithic of northwestern Germany, outlining in par-

ticular the Nordic groups with core- and ring-axes

(Lyngby, Duvensee, Oldesloe, Ertebolle) and the micro-

lithic groups (Kirchdorf, Halten, Boberg, Hiilstein).

Gramsch (1960) has presented a picture of the Final

Palaeolithic of the Mark Brandenburg, and Schuldt

(1961) has published the important results of excavations

carried on in the Hohen Viecheln, Mecklenburgia, of a

habitationwith rich

stone, bone,and wood industries.

The Thuringian industries have been treated by Feustel

(1961), and W. Taute and F. Naber are now working on

the Final Palaeolithic of western and southern Germany.

This means that we shall very soon have an outline of the

Final Palaeolithic in the western and northwestern part

of Central Europe. There are a number of unpublished

complexes of finds in Czechoslovakia, especially in Bo-

hemia; in Moravia the discovery of Smolin is just being

reported; and an upper Final Palaeolithic has been dis-

covered at Sered, in Slovakia. Austria and Hungary have

so far been able to report but a few surface finds. The

Final Palaeolithic of the countries of Southeastern Europe

is as yet insufficiently examined.

FIG. 8. Final Palaeolithic.

\\\\\\\\Microlithic Industries Macrolithic Industries

~_Bone Industries 4~//////ndustries with GravettianT4radition

inal Palaeolithic from the Crimea ||||Double-notched-point

Industries

The very rich Final Palaeolithic of Poland has been

rather intensively studied. Wieckowska (1964) and Wiec-

kowska and Marczak (1965) have attempted a typological

treatment as well as a division of the finds. It is interesting

that no double-notched points are known from the Polish

Final Palaeolithic, despite the fact that it presumably

develops out of the Mazowsze cycle.

The U.S.S.R. has a fairly rich Final Palaeolithic

(Beregovaja 1960). Formozov (1 954) has pointed out that

the northern belt, up to the Oka and the upper Volga,

has a group with double-notched points which can be

connected with the Late Palaeolithic in Poland (at Borki,

Jelin Bor, Sknjatino). Still farther to the northeast, on the

Kama, there is a Final Palaeolithic containing long

narrow blades, as well as the corresponding cores, bladed

end-scrapers, and angle-burins; both geometric forms

and double-notched points are absent there (Bader 1960).

On the other hand, on the Desna, there existed groups

with relatively few geometrically arranged microliths,

and with an accompanying industry inclining toward the

Upper Palaeolithic. Of course, the question remains open

whether, in particular cases, this is not a Late Palaeolithicinstead (e.g., Smjacka XIV). The Crimean Final Palaeo-

lithic is well known. It consists stratigraphically of several

layers (Tas-Air, Sjuren II, Murzak Koba, San Koba,

Fatma Koba); typologically, it is a development of the

Late Palaeolithic.3

To sum up, the Final Palaeolithic of Central and

Eastern Europe can be seen as follows: Groups of crude

tools containing core- and ring-axes and connected with

southern Scandinavia reach up to North Germany. The

bone industry of the Kunda type, from the Maglemosean

(Indreko 1948), dominates the countries of the Baltic. In

all of Central Europe there is only one microlithic inven-

tory without any double-notched points; since it willprobably be possible to divide this inventory into several

typologically different groups, it should not be designated

as Tardenoisian. In Eastern Europe, there seem to be at

least one group with double-notched points and another

with a stronger Upper Palaeolithic tradition. The Crimea

presents an evolution of its own from as early as the Upper

Palaeolithic.

CONCLUSION

The cultural development of the Old Stone Age appearsto us, on the basis of present knowledge, to have been on

the whole continuous. The distribution of particular

typological groups became more and more restricted

over time; in the Early Palaeolithic, a group might cover

much of a continent, but by the Final Palaeolithic we

have only local facies confined to narrow areas, for

example those within the microlith circle of Central

Europe. Large ethnic migrations over an area of several

hundreds of kilometres, as were suggested some years ago

for the Perigordian (from Asia Minor to France) are no

longer hypothesized. Where a "wandering" of certain

typological and technological elements is traceable, we

3 I have been unable to take into account any of the work reportedin Materialy issledovaniao archeologiiSSSR,vol. 126 (1966), U istokovdrevnich ultur, pochamezolita,edited by N. N. Gurina.




Valoch:PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEwould now rather suggest only a slow and gradualpenetration. It remains completely uncertain to whatextent such influences represent trade and borrowing ofcultural riches and to what extent an invasion by anotherethnic groupis indicated.

Such changes are observable in all phases of the OldStone Age. We can see the penetration of hand-axes fromFrance to the western and northern parts of CentralEurope as early as the Early Palaeolithic. Hand-axesseem to have come also across the Caucasus from AsiaMinor. In the Middle Palaeolithic, the Micoquian spreadfrom its centre in South Germany to the north (Hessen)and northeast, along the Bohemian massif as far as SouthPoland, and fromtheresouthwardinto Moravia.Anothercentre of the Micoquian that has been suggestedis far tothe southeast, perhaps in the Crimea, from whence itspreadnortheast to the Volga (?) and northwest into theUkraine.

The questionof the origin, development, and relation-shipsof the leaf-pointsis of continuing interest.Accordingto present knowledge, it can be supposed that the estab-

lishment of morphologically genuine leaf points, as wellas of numerous more primitive preform,s, ook place in-dependently in various places in Europe as early as theearly phases of the Middle Palaeolithic (during the EemInterglacial). This tradition developed in several groupsof industries, so that toward the decline of the MiddlePalaeolithic there were pure Middle Palaeolithic indus-tries with leaf-points in some regions of Europe. I wouldlike to assume that these industries, like the Szeletian, notonly were evolving toward the Upper Palaeolithic, butwere already absorbing influences from neighboringgroups of Upper Palaeolithic character. Consequently,the leaf-pointwould have to be considered as an achieve-

ment of the Middle Palaeolithic.The Upper Palaeolithic of Central Europe may haveinfluenced the evolution of the Aurignacian of France.On the other hand, weak influences of the westernChatelperronianand the Font-Robert stage can be seenin Germany. The western origin of the Central EuropeanMagdalenian and of the Pavlovian of Eastern Europe canbe considered certain. Whether the early blade industriesof Eastern Europe are to be traced to the "Praeaurig-nacian" of the eastern Mediterranean must for the timebeing remain a hypothesis only. Relations between theSouth-European (Yugoslav) Upper Gravettian and cor-responding phenomena irnnorthern Italy, and perhaps

even the Grimaldian, are as yet unknown, but notexcluded.

All three great civilizations (Perigordian, Pavlovian,Magdalenian) took part in the establishment of the LatePalaeolithic in Central and Northern Europe; in EasternEurope, the Upper Palaeolithic of the various regionsprovided the basis for similar development. The FinalPalaeolithic can be interpreted as essentially a continuousevolution of the preceding Late Palaeolithic. In thenorthern part of Central Europe, there is an invasion ofthe Nordic crude tools (core- and ring-axes), but theydisappear rapidly as one proceeds southwards. The bonecivilization on the Baltic surely goes back to Upper

Palaeolithic traditions (Magdalenian?). The shifting ofthe double-notched point group from Poland to the upper

Volga is likely to represent the most significant migration

Some phenomena may be explained by convergence,

of which the Middle Palaeolithic provides two good

examples: (1) the existence of two widely separated

Micoquian centres, and (2) independent appearance of

the leaf-points in several regions of Europe. Were related

groups of people concerned here ? Other widely separated

convergent phenomena can be understood as a general

trend of evolution. These are the principal characteristics

of the individual stages: the habit of Early Palaeolithic

man of chiseling his tools from whole stones (choppers,

hand-axes); the establishment of strongly differentiated

Middle Palaeolithic flake industries, preceded by the

Early Palaeolithic Clactonian; the origin of blade indus-

tries, bone implements, and art in the Upper Palaeolithic;

and finally the development of microlithic forms in the

Late and Final Palaeolithic.

The different ethnic groups probably maintained con-

tact, whether on friendly or unfriendly terms, in all the

stages and thus preserved some mutual influence in cul-

tural forms. The significance of the many statisticallydemonstrated facies of the Middle Palaeolithic, differing

both typologically and technologically, remains obscure.

The groups lived near one another in a small territory

(the southwest of France) during a relatively short period

of time (in the Lower Wiirm); only in isolated cases do

they constitute successive stages. The survival of the

typical Middle Palaeolithic Levalloisian technique in

some of the Aurignacian industries in Moravia shows that

the role of technology in the definition of industries is far

from clear. Is it possible in such a case to infer a genetic

relationship, or is this a case of convergence (or, possibly,

something else) ?

I have nowhere touched upon the question of theassociation ofdifferent civilizations with particular human

types or groups, for this is a matter ofpalaeoanthropology.

If, however, one considers cultural evolution to be depen-

dent upon the evolution of mankind, then some con-

sequences would follow from the above deductions: the

various morphologically different sapiens forms must

have originated in different regions; some progressive

types of Palaeoanthropines were probably the bearers of

those industries which later developed into the Upper

Palaeolithic blade industries; other Palaeoanthropines,

while they may have reached a relatively advanced state

of evolution within the limits of their primitive characters,

remained bearers of the surviving modified (e.g., Szele-tian) or even retarded (the Mousterian and Praesolutrean

of the Middle Wurm Interstadial Podhradem and the

beginning of the Middle Wurm Stadial) archaic indus-

tries. It is very questionable, on the other hand, whether

the numerous facies of the Mousterian complex, distin-

guished only technologically, or the typologically different

groups of the East European Upper Palaeolithic or of

the microlithic Final Palaeolithic of Central Europe, for

example, represented distinct ethnic groups. (Of course,

these three examples cannot be considered as either

identical or equivalent.)

The end of the Old Stone Age in the area under con-

sideration is still very obscure. As we have already men-tioned, the lower limit of the Final Palaeolithic was

reduced by the incorporation of the Late Palaeolithic.

On the other hand, the Central European Neolithic has

Vol.9- No. 5 December968 367



been radiocarbon-dated as early as the fifth millennium

B.C., making the duration of the pure Final Palaeolithic

only some 3,000 years. The hypothesis is being offered

ever more frequently, however, that while the farmers

were penetrating from the southeast, groups of hunters,

fishers, and collectors with a purely Final Palaeolithic

civilization continued to live on the banks of lakes and

rivers and were only assimilated in the course of time.

Such a symbiosis of human groups with different economic

bases can be presumed to have existed in the border zonesof the advanced agricultural civilization radiating from

the high cultures of the Near East. It would seem prob-

able that the Final or Late Palaeolithic human groups of

Southeastern Europe, closer to the cradle of agriculture,

themselves participated in the formation of the farmer

tribes which penetrated into the north, and that these

latter in turn incorporated other groups. May this perhaps

be the explanation for the absence (??) of a true Final

Palaeolithic in Southeast Europe and the presence there

of a potteryless Neolithic? The new civilizations may

have spread eastward into the Ukrainian steppes in the

same way, possibly with even greater participation of the

Final or Late Palaeolithic human groups. This change

probably took place much more simply in the northern

wooded areas (see Brjusov 1952). No economic shift wasconcerned there, for hunting and fishing remained the

bases of the economy even in the Neolithic. The transition

was accomplished in external characters of civilization

(pottery, whetted axes and hatchets, etc.) without altering

either economic base or ethnic composition.

Comments

by EMMANUEL ANATI*

Jerusalem, srael, 28 ii 68

It was a pleasure to read this stimulating,

well-written synthesis of a broad subject.

Central and Eastern Europe is an area of

the utmost importance for the under-

standing of Old World prehistory and

can well be considered in the context of

general cultural evolution in the Eurasian

continent. I shall confine myself to a few

general comments.

Central and Eastern Europe lie be-

tween two of the world's richest areas in

Palaeolithic finds: Western Europe andthe Near East. Any ethnic movement and

any transmission of cultural traits from

Central Asia and the Near East to West-

ern Europe and vice-versa were bound to

pass through this area. Traces of such

movements, however, have not yet been

clearly identified. Lower Palaeolithic men

and their cultures did not originate in

Europe, and if, as it seems, Central and

Eastern Europe was an area of transit and

of active human contact, one is surprised

by the paucity of finds there as compared

with the wealth of artifacts known from

Western Europe and from the Near East.Most of the classic Lower Palaeolithic

sites in the Near East have provided hun-

dreds and sometimes thousands of well-

shaped and well-defined bifacial tools and

flake artifacts; the same abundance is

observed in Western Europe. Such wealth

contrasts sharply with the general pattern

of scantiness appearing in Valoch's de-

scriptions: "... a pebble shaped like a

chopping-tool," at Pestlorinc; ".... a

rather primitive object," at Steinheim;"... the fragment of a biface-fashioned

artifact," at Gura Kamenka IV; "...

isolated pebble-tools," at Oka and Mos-kva; ". .. not a single hand-axe or other

unobjectionably stratified Early Palaeo-

lithic industry has come from Eastern

Europe as far as the Urals"; etc.

It seems probable that in each major

Palaeolithic period certain regions of

Central and Eastern Europe remained

uninhabited and untransited by man,

perhaps mainly for ecological reasonssuch as the presence of marshes, deep

forest, or extensive ice cover. An adequate

mapping of such areas for each period

would be a valuable contribution, as it

would advance our knowledge of the pos-

sible routes of ethnic movements and cul-

tural connections. Still, no doubt can

exist that man lived in much of the area,

and used it for transit, throughout the

Pleistocene. His needs and his techno-

logical abilities are likely to have been

broadly similar to those of his fellow men

from Western Europe or the Near East.

It is unlikely that the human groups weredrastically smaller in Central and Eastern

Europe than in Western Europe or the

Near East. Some of the Lower Palaeo-

lithic sites so far discovered may have

been just way-stations and not steadily

inhabited localities, but this does not

seem to be the only reason for the paucity

of finds in the area as a whole. It is reason-

able to assume that for at least some of

the living levels that have been studied,

most of the material industry was not

found because it was not preserved. This

may point to the possibility that Lower

Palaeolithic man in the area used woodand other perishable materials in a rela-

tively higher percentage than did con-

temporary men living in other areas.

Considering past misuse of the idea of

prehistoric migrations, it is understand-

able that Valoch is so much opposed to it.

Ethnic movements are, however, likely to

have occurred in Central and Eastern

Europe, just as they did in the Near East,

Central Asia, North Africa, and Western

Europe. They ought to be considered in

terms of the way of life of the period

under discussion and the Palaeolithic

rhythm of cultural evolution. Varioussubtypes of humans are detected in Eur-

ope, and it is highly unlikely that all of

them originated there and that all evolved

exclusively in Europe. Likewise, various

types of material culture must have been

introduced to Europe from outside, main-

ly from Southwestern Asia. In the enor-

mous length of time of each detectable

period, the introduction of a new cultureor the arrival of a new human group may

represent a very slow process, lasting

several thousands of years; on the other

hand, in some cases the process may have

been much more rapid. Distances be-

tween Central and Eastern Europe and

Western Europe or the Near East are

rather small when compared with dis-

tances crossed by prehistoric man else-

where, for instance with those crossed by

the early human groups who, from their

original home in Asia, ultimately reached

Tierra del Fuego. Even today, nomad

Bedouins on the Arabian Peninsula maycover as much as 1,000 kilometers in a

single season. There are evidences of

large-scale migrations in post-Palaeo-

lithic times, and there is no reason to be-

lieve that similar happenings never took

place in the area during the Palaeolithic.

Considering the recurring patterns of

material culture in Eurasia, it is hard to

accept the presence of many Lower Pa-

laeolithic localized regional facies in Cen-

tral and Eastern Europe. Most of these

facies are likely to be related to wider

cultural patterns. In Eurasia in general,

marked local facies usually show up inthe Middle Palaeolithic and tend to be-

come clearer and better defined in the

Upper Palaeolithic, when the rhythm of

cultural evolution becomes much faster

and detectable changes in material culture

representshorter time periods than before.

Each major Old World region, e.g.,

Western Europe, the Near East, North

Africa, or Central and South Africa, has

made some major contribution to the

general evolution of Palaeolithic material

culture. Each area, sooner or later, has

given birth to some new material pattern

which reflected the use of new techno-logical inventions, new tools and weapons,

and new methods of food-getting, and

which projected its influence into neigh-

bouring areas. Undoubtedly, one of the




Valochz:PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEajor contributions of Central and East-

ern European prehistoric man to the

general evolution of material culture is to

be found in the Szeletian (and Pre-Solu-

trean, in their various facies and denomi-

nations). The Szeletian seems to be one

of the few cultural assemblages likely to

have been born and developed in the area

which definitely influenced further ma-

terial development throughout Europe.

As in the Kostjenki area, so throughoutEurasia in the Upper Palaeolithic, groups

of people making certain material cultures

lived in the vicinity of other human

groups making different material cul-

tures. For generations and perhaps for

centuries, these various patterns of ma-

terial culture evolved separately and co-

existed in the vicinity of each other with-

out mixing; they succeeded in maintain-

ing their typological autonomy. As I had

the opportunity of discussing some years

ago (1963: 127-29), extremely significant

conclusions must be drawn from this fact

as to Upper Palaeolithic social structureand social relations. Indeed, only a very

specific social pattern could have allowed

such a situation.

I have some difficulty in accepting the

idea that Palaeolithic art developed in-

dependently in different regions as a con-

sequence of "widely separated convergent

phenomena." The range of subject mat-

ter, the approach to specific subjects, the

recurrent patterns of symbols and the

repetitious connections between specific

figures and symbols, the use of similar

"decorative" patterns in variou, areas, all

point to the fact that Palaeolithic art,from the Atlantic coast of Europe to Cen-

tral Asia, is the expression of the same

well-defined and rather dogmatically

conceived ideology. Art seems to have

expanded with the ideology it reflects, and

it is likely that Palaeolithic art and the con-

cepts it illustrates originated somewhere

and diffused from a core to the periphery.

I am rather reluctant to accept the

term "Final Palaeolithic" for "Meso-

lithic," as these terms have a different

significance in the current terminology.

The problem of defining the cultures

which are chronologically located be-tween the end of the Upper Palaeolithic

and the beginning of Neolithic is a prob-

lem facing prehistoric archaeology in

various Old World regions; we should

attempt to solve it in a way acceptable

universally. Usually, early "Mesolithic"

phases show general material charac-

teristics quite similar to the Upper Pa-

laeolithic, while final "Mesolithic" tends

to have a great many Neolithic-like ele-

ments. For most areas it is impossible tointroduce this period en bloc into the

Palaeolithic. Perhaps a suggestion I pro-

posed ( 1965, 1968) for the correspondingNear Eastern cultures might be accept-

able for Central and Eastern Europe and

other areas as well: The term "Meso-

lithic" should be used, not to define a

period, but only to define material indus-

tries of a transitional character which are

predominantly microlithic. Contempor-

ary industries showing belated and some-

times degenerate Palaeolithic traditions

with a predominance of larger flint tools

should be termed Epi-Palaeolithic. In-

dustries with Neolithic-like elements such

as axes, adzes, sickle-blades, and arrow-heads of types non-existent in earlier

complexes should be termed "Proto-

Neolithic." The period as a whole is so

diversified culturally that one cannot use

the same term to define it and its cultures;

the only safe term would probably be a

geological one like Early Holocene or

Early Post-Glacial.

Valoch's article is highly valuable for

the order it brings to an enormous quan-

tity of data and for the up-to-date syn-

thesis it provides. Scholars will disagree

with it in minor details, but we can safely

view it as a major contribution to the pre-history of Central and Eastern Europe.

by FRAN9OIS BORDES*

Talence,France.28 iII68

This is a long awaited and a very useful

paper.

I do not see anything especially "primi-

tive" about the hand-axe from Steinheim;

it looks to me like a good Middle

Acheulean, the more so since it is made

of Triassic sandstone.

As a general rule, the Acheulean has

pebble tools as well as hand-axes. One,two, three pebble tools found alone may

just as well belong to the Acheulean as to a

"pebble culture." They may even belong

to the Upper Palaeolithic or later periods.

Another old idea that should be dis-

carded is that there are always many

hand-axes in the Acheulean. The propor-

tion may vary from 2 or 3% to over 40%,

depending on the site, the part of the site

excavated, the type of Acheulean, its

stage of evolution, and the time, or the

method, of making the collection.

The term "Micoquian" should be re-

stricted, for the present at least, to West-ern and German sites. The sites from

Poland probably belong to another tradi-

tion, and Kiik Koba is certainly not

Micoquian.

The confusion between "prepared

striking platform" and "Levallois tech-

nique" (predetermination of the shape of

theflake by a special preparation of the

core) has dangerous implications.

Although I created the term "Charen-

tian" for the Quina-Ferrassie type of

Mousterian, I am at a loss to imagine

what a "Charentian of Micoque tradi-

tion" is, unless it is a Mousterian with ahigh percentage of scrapers and some

hand-axes-an assemblage which is not

unknown in France in the "eastern facies

Charentian," the hand-axes being pear-

shaped and only remotely Micoquian-

like.

On the basis of Behm-Blancke's pub-

lication, the material from Ehringsdorf

very strongly resembles the Quina type

of Western Europe, in which bifacial

types (not hand-axes in the Acheulean

sense) are sometimes quite numerous. It

does not seem to lead directly to theBlattspitzen cultures of Germany or to the

Szeletian, at least no more than do the

Micoquian of Klausenische type, or even

the Mousterian of Acheulean tradition

(which does exist in Central Germany,

near Zigenhein, where it was found by

A. Luttropp and where I have seen it).

Tata, on the other hand, could be a

diminutive offspring of Ehringsdorf, but

is certainly a special type of Mousterian,

while Subalyuk, from what I have seen,

is much more Western-like. In assessing

the Central European "Tayacian," one

must keep in mind, as Valoch points out,the possibility of natural action on man-

made flakes or tools. The absence of any

"Levalloisian" facies in Central Europe

is perhaps the consequence of the absence

of an abundant and readily available

supply of flint.

I heartily agree with Valoch that there

were several centers for the development

of Upper Palaeolithic out of the Middle

Palaeolithic. In the West, the Lower

Perigordian comes out of the Mousterian

of Acheulean tradition. It seems quite

probable that the Szeletian has its origin

in the Blattspitzen cultures. In Russia, theKostienki-I-Sungir culture probably has

a different origin, perhaps in the Mous-

terian of Russia itself; at the same time,

other types appear, whose origin is less

clear. As to the Aurignacian, while there

may be some Aurignacoid implements at

Russian sites, I do not know of any

Aurignacoid culture here.

I do not think the distinction between

Aurignacian and Olschewian in Central

Europe is a valid one. At Istallosko, in

the lower level, there are a good number of

split-base bone points, identical with the

ones from the French Aurignacian I, andwhile the flint tools are so few that it is

obvious they would not suffice for the

maintenance of even a very few men, all

of them are such as might be found in an

Aurignacian assemblage. This is clearly a

hunting site, not a living site, and every-

where the so-called Olschewian is repre-

sented by the scanty flint assemblages

with typical bone points that are to be

expected from hunting sites. Further, the

Olschewian assemblages are mostly found

in mountain caves.

Outside of France, I do not know of

any true burinbusqul. Although the keeled(or carinate) scraper is a normal con-

stituent of Aurignacian assemblages, it is

not always the dominant type. In the Old

Aurignacian. on the other hand, scrapers

Vol. 9 -No. 5- December 1968 369



on retouched blades and retouched blades

are common (in the Aurignacian I of la

Ferrassie, carinate scrapers, typical and

atypical, account for 3.04%, scrapers on

retouched blades 14.9%, and retouched

blades 6.8%; in layer 5 of Vogelherd,

carinates account for 3.05%, scrapers on

retouched blades 10.5%, and retouched

blades 13.42%). The relationship sup-

posed by Muiller-Beck between the

"Aurignacian blades" from Vogelherdand the Jerzmanowice points is not valid

and recalls the old confusion of these

Aurignacian blades with the Solutrean

"pointes a face plane." If the sculptures

at Vogelherd seem "a little early," it is

only from a theoretical point of view,

since sculpture had to begin somewhere.

I do not see any obvious relationship be-

tween the horse sculptures from Vogel-

herd and Sungir, except that they both

represent horses.

There would be much to say about the

so-called Pavlovian. I do not know well

the implements from Pavlov, but Klima'sbeautiful publication on Dolni Vestonice

permits one to get more than a fair know-

ledge of this site. It is clearly Upper

Perigordian in the western ense.I can (with

one exception) put a tool from the open-

air site of Carbiac (Dordogne) on each of

Klima's illustrations, and from Klima's

count, the proportions also seem verymuch alike. The typological differences,

for two sites so far apart in space, are so

slight that it is amazing. The exception is

the "micro-saw," which, however, does

occur, though rarely, in France in some

Upper Perigordian and in the "Proto-Magdalenian" (Final Perigordian). The

bone tools from Dolni Vestonice can also

be found in the French Upper Peri-

gordian. Dolni Vestonice seems to be an

eastern extension of the Upper Peri-

gordian (which could even stretch to

Kostienki IV). The term "Pavlovian"

should be restricted to Pavlov, or to the

Willendorf-Kostienki I (Upper level)

complex.

In 1954, I counted at least one carinate

(plus two atypical) in the Pre-Aurig-

nacian of Jabrud. The "hole-stick" (if

this means the "baton de commande-ment") is already known in the Lower

Aurignacian in France and Germany

(Vogelherd) and is not specifically Mag-

dalenian, and there are numerous Mag-

dalenian sites without "spear-heads with

a gutter for blood."

Valoch seems to think that the idea of

multiple cultures coexisting in a "small

territory" (the southwest of France) pre-

sents problems; but 10,000 to (at most)

20,000 people in an area bigger than

Czechoslovakia would certainly have had

elbow room. As for the significance of the

different facies of the Mousterian "dis-tinguished only technologically" (andtypologically ), I believe that although

they probably do not represent great

racial differences, they do represent dis-

tinct ethnic groups. Any other explana-

tion raises more problems than it solves,

and if, even today-with books, easy

travel, radio, television, population pres-

sure, etc.-there are significant cultural

differences between European subcul-

tures, why not in Palaeolithic times?

by DESMONDCOLLINS*

London,England. 14 iii 68

This article will clearly be valuable, since

the literature of the Slavic languages sum-

marised here is inevitably a closed book

to most Western scholars. It is encourag-

ing to read that "large ethnic migrations

. . . as were suggested for the Perigordian

(from Asia Minor to France) are no longer

hypothesised," even though Valoch and

other writers who have come to favour

local cultural development have not en-

tirely got away from the "Gravettian"

terminology, which largely presupposes

such migrations.

Valoch follows other authors in dis-

tinguishing a pebble-tool industry from a

flake-tool industry. Mlazice, for example,

is grouped with the pebble-tool industry.

In the collections from there that I exa-

mined in 1966, however, two typical

chopping tools and nine rather more

dubious choppers were accompanied by

eighteen flakes which are Clactonian in

character and compare closely with those

of the Swanscombe Lower Gravels in

spite of the difference in raw material.

Following Warren (1951), it is clear that

the Clactonian contains a typical, if small,

chopping-tool component. Mlazice ac-

cordingly differs little from the Clactonian

and shares with it typical traits such as

the Clactonian notch and biconical core.

One may reasonably surmise that earlier

occurrences of chopping tools in this area

may be earlier stages of the Clactonian.

Also, it is somewhat misleading to

equate Wangen and Wallendorf with

Hundisburg and Markkleeberg in a single

flake-tool industry. While Hundisburg

shares hand-axes and Levallois flakes with

Markkleeberg, Wangen and Wallendorf

have neither; they are purely Clactornian,

as Toepfer (1961c) has pointed out, hav-

TABLE 1

INDICES FOR SIDE-SCRAPERS AND

PRADNIK KNIVES AT Two POLISH SITES

Krakow- Ciemna

Wavel Cave

IR (Side-scrapers) 13.8 32.64

IRCP (Pradnik 1.8 34.32knives)

IR + IRCP 15.6 66.96

ing Clactonian flakes, Clactonian notches,

and, at Wallendorf, the biconical core.

Both are small assemblages (Wangen 38

artefacts, Wallendorf 86) and the absence

of chopping tools may reflect the fact that

in the later Clactonian, as from Little

Thurrock (Wymer 1957), this type may

form less than 1% of the artifacts. I agree

that Hundisburg may be grouped with

the Acheulian. Metrical indices for the

flakes come out very close to those for the

Acheulian and distinctly outside the

range for the Clactonian (see, for

example, the figures for two of these in-

dices given in Table 1). The five Clac-

tonian sites seem to form a developmental

sequence spanning the Holstein.

I venture to doubt whether Markklee-

berg and Hundisburg are really at all

closely related to Lebenstedt, which seems

to be of much later date, but they do

seem to resemble the more nearly con-

temporary assemblages from Bakers Hole

and Ebbsfleet Lower Gravel, both typo-

logically and in their fauna. Again, the

view that Taubach and Ehringsdorf are

part of the same development seems un-

tenable. Ehringsdorf has limaces and

Quina retouch and is typical of the

Charentian, albeit quite strongly Leval-

lois. Taubach, by contrast, lacks Charen-

tian types. With denticulates and "de-

generate" hand-axes, it groups much

better on the Acheulian side of the spec-

trum, and (along with Rabutz and per-

haps French Levallois denticulate sites

like Evreux II) can be conveniently

labelled Taubachian.

TABLE 2PERCENTAGES OF RACLOIRS, GRATTOIRS, AND BURINS

AT AURIGNACIAN SITES IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Trends Line Features

SITES

RACLOIRs BURRINS SCALED "BUSKOIDS" RGB

Obciny 28.4 26.2 6.7 14.8 88KeChneC 13.3 26.8 3.1 12.4 186

Stranska 9.6 29.5 1.2 20.8 240BorkyII 12.0 47.5 5.0 10.8 183D. VestoniCespodni 10.5 48.0 6.2 4.0 125D.V. objeCtI 2.6 69.1 3.6 0.4 461




Valoch: PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEaloch admirably reveals the com-

plicated problem of the Leptolithic of

Central Europe. The existence of a true

Aurignacian here in the French sense

remains disputed. Using figures for some

of the Czech Aurignacian sites, one can,

I think, make out quite a plausible

developmental sequence (see Table 2).

While this development is strongly

Aurignacian in its earlier stages (con-

sistently high values for Aurignacian re-touched blades and for the carinate

group-buskoids), it is not identical to

that of Western Europe and deserves a

separate name.

A second rather plausible evolution has

been suggested by Grigoriev (1966) from

Krems-Hundsteig via Willendorf II 5-9

and Pavlov to Kostjenki I 1. The "Du-

four" assemblages of the Krems group

are of course very widespread, and seem

to be "Aurignacian" in origin. These

"Aurignacians" of Obciny, Krems, and

southwestern France may well have a

common origin (say in Fossellone), butalternatively it could be argued that any

Leptolithic trend in the Charentian will

inevitably produce an "Aurignacian";

for the carinate is only a steep limace

modified by lamellar retouch, and Aurig-

nacian retouched blades are essentially

Charentian. Furthermore, the lamellar

retouch inevitably produces bladelets of

the sort used to make the Dufours, Krems

points, and backed bladelets as found in

the "Pavlovian."

None of these suggestions, nor the

rather numerous misspellings and mis-

translations, should be allowed to detractfrom the fact that this survey is a most

valuable source of data on the present

state of the Palaeolithic in Central and

Eastern Europe, and a good starting

point for the relevant critical discussion

which characterises sciencc.

by HENRI DELPORTE*

Paris, France.25 iii 68

Valoch's paper is a very interesting sur-

vey of the Palaeolithic of Central and

Eastern Europe, based on an objective

view of the facts. For a long time, Centraland Eastern European prehistorians have

tried to find, in their excavations, exactly

the same civilisations as in France;

workers ofa newgeneration-among them

Valoch-have succeeded in isolating for

study the local and regional tool-assem-

blages and so defining them as to con-

tribute to an attempt at the precise state-

ment of their relationships with the tool-

assemblages of Western Europe. This new

orientation demands the abandonment of

the idealistic hypothesis of the eastern

origin of the civilisations, a hypothesis

formerly defended, mistakenly of course,by a number of French prehistorians.

For the Upper Palaeolithic (which

interests me particularly), Valoch's paper

confirms the existence of three regional

complexes, connected one with another

by transitional zones: the Western, the

Carpatho-Pannonic, and the Russo-

Ukrainian. A very detailed analysis has

permitted Valoch to establish new dis-

tinctions and produce a more realistic

view of the Palaeolithic industries and

facies.

Here I want to present a few observa-tions-not criticisms, but only notes and

ideas:

1) In spite of a lot of C14 dating, the

geological and chronological correlations

between Western, Central, and Eastern

Europe are still inaccurate. Valoch and

Bordes (1957) have proposed a general

relationship between the loesses of Central

and Western Europe, but today it is

apparent that the facts are more complex;

and the work of Soviet students of the

Pleistocene and prehistorians on correla-

tions with Eastern Europe is still very

limited.2) The beginning of the Upper Pa-

laeolithic seems to come at about the

same time in Western, Central, and

Eastern Europe: in the former Gottweig

Interstadial, for which Musil and Valoch

would substitute the Podhradem, and

which recent work (by Leroi-Gourhan

and the Dutch palynologists) has shown

to be extremely complex in Western

Europe. The :ituation is not yet very

clear in the U.S.S.R., for one of the

oldest assemblages, that of the lower level

of Sungir, is dated to 20,540 B.P.

3) In Central Europe, the separationbetween Aurignacian and Olschewian is

not absolute: the Olschewian could be a

"facies de carence" of the Aurignacian.

The hypothesis of a kind of merging of

these industries to form the typical Aurig-

nacian of Western Europe would, how-

ever, be tempting if the dates obtained for

the various industries were consistent

withi it.

4) Western influences certainly oc-

curred in the industries of Central Europe,

but the example of Chatelperron points

in level 4 of Ilsenhohle (Ranis) is not

convincing; the Chatelperron pointsoccur here in an evolved industry with

Gravette points, relatively recent, and

may constitute a recurrence, perhaps on

account of a technical weakness or the

characteristics of the raw material.

5) Valoch thinks that the Aurig-

nacian does not exist in Eastern Europe;

but the appropriately distiinguished Spi-

cyna group seems to have Aurignacian af-

finities (end-scrapers on retouched blades,

more or less "burins busques," etc.).

6) I think that it is necessary to dis-

tinguish, on the one hand, the Kostenkian

proper, which is very homogeneous(Kostenki I, Gagarino, Avdeevo, etc.),

and, on the other hand, a different facies,

more evolved and certainly more recent

(Mezine, Eliseevitchi, Kiev, etc.).

Aside from the above remarks, I fully

agree with Valoch's ideas, particularly on

the origin in the Middle Palaeolithic of

the Prae-Solutrean, Szeletian, and prob-

ably the Russian Streletzkaia-Sungir

group, a process which closely corre-

sponds to the origin of the Western

Chatelperronian in some final facies of

the Western European Mousterian.

by GISELA FREUND*

Erlangen,WestGermany.0 ix 67

Valoch's article should be well received.

It constitutes a step toward making the

Central and Eastern European Palaeo-

lithic better known, especially among our

non-European colleagues. A detailed

commentary on this complex subject,

skilfully condensed by Valoch in these

few pages, would be too voluminous and

complicated. I would therefore like to

restrict my comments to just a few points,

drawing mainly upon my own experience.Naturally, in comparison with Western

Europe, the Central and Eastern Euro-

pean Middle Palaeolithic appears to be

quite poor. This picture can be expected

to change considerably, at least for the

western half of Central Europe, after

complete study of the Sesselfelsgrotto

(actually a rock-shelter) in Neu-Essing on

the lower reaches of the Altmuehl Valley

(under excavation by L. Zotz and G.

Freund since 1964) and the surface site

on the Speckberg near Eichstaett in the

Middle Altmuehl Valley region (under

excavation by H. Mueller-Beck since1964). Here also, a number of phases can

be worked out-something which up to

now was not believed possible.

Contrary to Valoch, I would not in-

clude the cultural remains of the Riss

Glaciation in the Middle Palaeolithic.

Further, as Zotz and I have pointed out

to him on several occasions, the industries

of the stratigraphically sub-divided Mous-

terian of the Sesselfelsgrotto do not rep-

resent a Tayacian. The small tools on

flakes which he mentions in connection

with the Sesselfelsgrotto are, to our know-

ledge, very special elements of this par-ticular site, observed nowhere else; they

are found alongside of the large classic

scraper forms and at no time appear to

represent a "Micro-Mousterian". (Inci-

dentally, we would like to suggest washing

the sediment over graduated screens as a

very good method for recovering the

smallest elements of a culture level. Only

in this way were we able to recover the

microlithic flakes.) Definite microlithic

artifacts, the edges of which have a semi-

steep angle of retouch, often alternated,

are found in all five zones of the main

culture level (see Freund and Zotz 1968).The artifacts from the Sesselfelsgrotto

which Valoch saw and to which he refers

in this article were recovered from the

first test trench in 1964. Itl the meantime,

Vol. 9 JNo.5 December 1968 371



the amount of material has increased

tremendously. There has never been any

reason to believe that a Tayacian existed.

It appears to us that simply to rename

the Eastern Gravettian of Eastern Europe,

the onetime "Upper Aurignacian" of this

area, "Pavlovian," without consideringthe fact that the industry of loc. typicusis

neither published nor well known, rep-

resents a rather unfortunate move. Also,

the grouping together of such differentindustries as, for example, Predmosti,

Willendorf II (levels 5-9), Moravany-

Podkovica, etc. is an unsatisfactory

approach. In considering the western ex-

pansion of this "Pavlovian," we would

like to mention the ca. 50-cm.-long "ivory

spade" from Abri I in the village of Neu-

Essing (next to Abri II = Sesselfelsgrotto;

see Zotz 1960); it is the only known

specimen of its kind from the western part

of Central Europe, and its only satisfac-

tory parallels are to be found in the bone

material from Predmosti. In addition, the

silex industry of Abri I shows a numberof similarities with those of the Pavlovian.

(Klima has recently undertaken a com-

parative study of the Pavlov and Abri I

sites.)

As to the difficult question of the pro-

gressive advance of the bearers of the

4'1eaf-blade groups," for example the

Szeletian (which Valoch sees as a regres-

sion), a number of positive things can besaid when one considers the different

leaf-blade groups and their Eurasiatic

,distribution (see, e.g., Freund 1952). The

name "Szeletian" should, for con-

venience's sake, be restricted to the Hun-garian complex, only, as was decided

with good reason during the 1966 Szeleta

Symposium in Budapest.

by MIKL6s GABORI*

Budapest,Hungary.15 ix 67

Valoch's study-a valuable and interest-

ing survey-shows at the same time that

solutions to the problems of the Paleolithic

depend very much on what part of the

world these problems are viewed from.

The author examines the development of

the Paleolithic (or, to be more exact, itstypogenetics) primarily in the north of

Europe. The development of types may,

of course, best be followed where the

material is more abundant; but the study

of biological evolution has shown that

populations often decline precisely in the

area in which they evolved and later re-

establish themselves en masse elsewhere.

The Lower Paleolithic is so varied and

uncertain that grouping the industries isas yet impossible. For example, the micro-chopper industry of Vertesszollos cannot,in my opinion, be associated with the

-Heidelbergian, even if such an industryas, the "Heidelbergian" should exist at

all; it seems to me instead to carry

southern impulses. The small size of the

implements cannot be accounted for by

their material; such an adaptation can

hardly be expected in that period and at

that level of human evolution (Kretzoi

and Vertes 1965c). The possibility of a

relationship between the pebble-indus-

tries of the Lower and the Middle Paleo-

lithic, suggested by the similarity between

the Vertesszollos pebble-industry and the

Middle Paleolithic of Tata, is not to be

excluded, but the hypothesis of introduc-

tion of a microchopper tradition from thesouth seems more appropriate in view of

the fact that the temporal distance is still

problematic. The evolution of microliths

in the Lower Paleolithic can not be

traced; thus it seems unlikely that

Vertesszollos is the descendant of some

other industry.

The Lower Paleolithic covers a far

wider field than that under discussion.

The industries, of, for example, the

Vallonet or-later-the Terra Amata

(Lumley et al. 1963, Lumley 1966,

Howell et al. etc.), together with other

finds from Southern Europe, may accountfor the appearance of some of the Lower

Paleolithic industries. Whether these in-

dustries are related to the Middle Paleo-

lithic of Southern or Southeastern Europe

(Charentian, Pontiniano-Charentian,

Pontinian, generally what is called

"Pebble-Mousterian") is another impor-

tant point to be further examined.

In my estimation, the pebble-group

first appeared in Europe in the South and

from there gradually influenced the

North; whereas the Lower Paleolithic

with hand-axes gained ground in the

northwestern territories. A similar re-gional distribution and a west-to-east ex-

pansion may be observed in the Middle

Paleolithic. The expansion may have

taken place in several waves (Thoma

1962). I would not preclude the possi-

bility of a certain amount of migration;

Valoch's rejection of migration appears

to me too rigid.

Dividing the Middle Paleolithic in-

dustries into facies, in the absence of a

system for the eastern part of Central

Europe and Eastern Europe similar to

Bordes's, is uncertain and results in too

many new group names. The statisticaltreatment which might clarify the situa-

tion must await the development of a

system of types covering this area. The

division of the Central European typical

Mousterian into two groups is also prob-

lematic in the following ways: (1) I can-

not place Gudenus and Krapina in the

same facies ("Sipkian"). The latter seems

to be a blend of two different industries,

one approaching the typical Mousterian

(in the Central European sense) and the

other an Eastern or Southeastern Euro-

pean Charentian (with pebble culture).

The two may originally have been separ-ated stratigraphically. (2) I cannot accept

the grouping of the industries of Sipka,

Subalyuk, and the minor sites in Tran-

sylvania in the same facies. Subalvuk is a

rather typical (Central European Mous-

terian), but the Transylvanian sites differ

from it and seem to display Western in-

fluences (perhaps from the direction of

Yugoslavia?). These industries may have

become "atypical" when they were

shifted to the mountains. (3) Valoch has

suggested that the industry of the recently

excavated site at erd should be considered

a separate facies similar to an early

Charentian (in the Western sense). Thissite, where the development of a single

culture may be observed in more than

one level, throws new light upon the

development of the Middle Paleolithic

(Cabori and Csank 1966, 1967). Veter-

nica cave (Malez 1958, 1959) in Yugo-

slavia is also important in this respect.

Here industry cf the lower bed is Charen-

tian and that of the upper one resembles

a typical Mousterian. Such a facies shift

is assumed to have taken place in Betalov

spodmol (Yugoslavia) as well (Brodar

1956). The material from Repolust and

Gudemus, which is very important fordefining the facies, must be re-examined

in the light of these discoveries. The

transitional industries of the southeastern

Alps, best represented by Mixnitz, might

be termed "defective Mousterian." They

may have been represented at open sites

as well as caves and are probably related

to industries from northeastern Yugo-

slavia.

I agree with Valoch's summary of the

Middle Paleolithic except for the fact that

he concentrates, again, upon the northern

part of Central Europe. The charac-

teristic feature of Central Europe incontrast to Western Europe is indeed the

absence of Levalloisian technique, where-

as the outstanding feature of the Mous-

terian of the northern Flachlandtundra is

precisely the Levalloisian technique; at

this point I revert to the hypothesis as to

regional distribution and direction of

expansion offered above.

A brief and simple outline-hypotheti-

cal and provisional, of course-under dis-

cussion is the following: In Southern

Europe (including the foothills, of the

Alps, the northern part of Yugoslavia,

the margins of the southeastern Alps, andthe western part of Hungary) a Mous-

terian with pebble culture developed (or

was introduced?) in the Lower Paleolithic

-analogous in developmental terms to

the "charentien sur galet" version of the

later Western Charentian. In the western

part of the zone there were, of course,

definitely Levalloisian-type industries as

well. This vast group, if it was not autoch-

thonous, must have been spreading in a

west-to-east direction.

North of the Danubian basin, the

Mousterian was a Middle Paleolithic with

leaf-shaped points, Levalloisian tech-nique, etc., the typogenetics of which has

been excellently summed up by Valoch.

The spread within this area has been

dealt with by Bosinski (1963). Between




Valoch:PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE.he two areas, the interior of the Alps

forms, as it were, an island, very seldom

influenced by the West (e.g., Cotencher).

These zones seem to represent not only

typological or cultural, but also climato-

ecological, relations. Local and often

long-term internal development of the

various industries and also, beginning

with the last interglacial, some migration

within these zones must (perhaps no more

than infiltration or penetration) be taken

into account.

There is, as Valoch suggests, some

possibility of influence from the opposite

direction: the apparent effect of the

eastern and southern Rumanian Middle

Paleolithic on the industries of the Balkans

and-at the same time-on that the

lower bed of Subalyuk cave. In the

Balkans, influences from a different direc-

tion may also be assumed (Leroi-Gourhan

1962: 264).

The genetic relations of the Mouster-

ian-Szeletian have been established by

myself. I think it impossible, however,

that the Szeletian of Western Hungary or

elsewhere should have developed out of a

Tata-type, Micro-Pontinian-like indus-

try. The basis of the Bukk Szeletian is the

local Mousterian; the Transdanubian is

related rather to the industry of the Ger-

man Blattspzitzen. In my opinion these

are industries of entirely different origin.

As to the chronology of the Szeletian, I

agree with the author: the earlier stage

of the culture may have existed up to

Stillfried B; This is supported by several

typological observations. As regards ori-

gin: if the Szeletian developed under theinfluence of the Aurignacian + Olsche-

wian out of the Mousterian, why are

there no bone implements in the Szeletian

when the Aurignacian + Olschewian

abounds in bone implements?

The question may be raised whether or

not it is proper to call all the industries

with leaf-shaped points within and round

the Carpathian basin "Szeletian." If so,

this culture must have several (chrono-

logical-local) variants. The Bukk Szele-

tian constitutes an almost separate group;

the Transdanubian (e.g., Jankovich cave,

Dzerava skala) is typologically different,and so is the industry of Moravany-Dlha

and Vlckovce in Slovakia. Again, there is

another industry with leaf-shaped points

from Northern Hungary which typo-

logically points towards the western part

of Central Europe with its earlier, Clac-

tonian tradition. All these are variants of

the Szeletian within the Carpathian basin

alone.

I do not think one is justified in replac-

ing Gravettian by Pavlovian. Quite a

number of sites drop out of the "Pav-

lovian": Pavlov, Bodrogkeresztur, Saig-

var, the Micro-Gravettian group of thecaves (other than W 3, which might

prove an exception), and the Istrian

Gravettian cannot be connected, even

typologically. Kamegg and Langmnan-

nersdorf represent, again, different com-

positions, different relations (Brandtner

1955, Angeli 1953). Even Willendorf 5-9

cannot be termed simply "Pavlovian."

The Pavlovian is a special group, a highly

developed form of the Gravettian; the

industry or culture of the Gravettian

cannot come under the general term

Pavlovian, even though the two are in-

separable. Kostjenkian, and later Mezy-

nian, might be a proper designation.

The constituents and the Eastern roots

of that culture are obvious (Gabori and

Gabori 1957, Gaibori 1960). Its appear-

ance in Central Europe was a slow pro-

cess, through successive migrations that

can easily be traced. The migration wave

seems likely to have come to rest before it

reached the Eastern Carpathians (Ceach-

lau, etc.). Instead of generalizing about

the Gravettian, I think it more appro-

priate to locate the various groups (cf.

Felgenhauer 1959), if only because these

groups may reveal the scope and direction

of movement as well as the relations

between the lesser and greater ethnic

units. Again, I favor a statistical ap-

proach, but with some such basis of

classification as, for example, whether

mammoth or reindeer was the principal

object of the hunt (the difference being

likely to represent different ways of living

and thinking). In my opinion, the ultimate

aim of research is to go beyond typo-

genesis (which does not necessarily indi-

cate the phylogenesis of the cultures) to

paleoethnography and historical in-ference.

A final note: a subject so highly differ-

entiated and comprehensive both in space

and in time is much easier to comment

upon than to work up in all its details.

Thanks are due to the author for this

excellent survey.

by ALEXANDERGALLUS*

Melbourne,Australia.19ix 67

It is important for CURRENT ANTHRO-

POLOGY to encourage synthetic articles on

regional and topical units. My aim hereis not so much to appraise the merits of

the present paper, as to raise the question

of methodology in general.

Valoch saw as his main task a geo-

graphical and morphological classifica-

tion of tool complexes (types, facies,

groups, industries etc.; he uses these

terms rather indiscriminately, probably

repeating the terms employed in his

sources) and the enunciation of opinionsabout their origin, development, mutual

influences, expansion, and place in space

and time. The question I want to raise is

whether there is any justification todayfor restricting oneself to a description and

analysis of tool complexes and consciously

leaving out what Valoch calls the "palaeo-

anthropological" aspect.

Should pre-"history" not be based on

"palaeoanthropology"? Authors appar-

ently tend to confuse the analysis of the-

productsof human creative activity with

pre-"history." Such analysis leads only to

meaningful assertions about the artifacts

themselves and their development; that

is, it leads to a history of technology,

rather than to a history of mankind. The

constructs developed so far and used by-

Valoch and by many other modern

authors are unable to raise our thinking

to a higher level of abstraction than that

of the documents we have gathered. The

units of classification offered are not,

ethnic units, but morphological types.

The relation of these morphological units

to ethnic units, specified in space and time

remains unexamined, and the subject as a

whole remains opaque to historical inter-

pretation.

Further, it is disconcerting to ponder-

the outcome of a method based on the-

statement of opinions, offered as simple

judgments with no otherjustification than

a survey of various authors and their

views. By all means, Valoch may be right;

but how are we to decide? Are we sup-

posed to proceed to a show of hands-so

many experts saying aye and a lesser

number being against it-and all this in

lieu of methodical proof? This, I fear, is a

regressive step even beyond "Siedlungs-

archaologie" or "Kulturkreis" theory

(Closs 1956), the constructs of which

have proved too sweeping, but which at

least offered an ethnic interpretation oftheir morphological units and attemp-

ted to develop a method of writing

history.

Approaches have been made, since the

downfall of these schools, towards clarifi-

cation of concepts (Tax et al. 1953,

Kroeber 1953), but many authors are

content to by-pass the problem by setting

up morphological analysis as an appar-

ently separate discipline in itself, one

which threatens to absorb prehistory,

especially aided by more sophisticated

excavation techniques and by a mathe-

matical approach (statistics, graphs, com-puters, etc.) which satisfies the need for

objectivity. Periodicals are surcharged

with this kind of work and even dis-

courage attempts to transcend this level.

They may be right in so doing, however,

as long as the current vague "methodo-

logy" of offering opinions about the

anthropogeographic and vaguely his-

torical meaning of morphologically classi-

fied material prevails. One suspects an

early connection with classical archaeo--

logy, especially with methods developed

in the appreciation of art-styles, from

Winkelmann to modern art-historians.The ambitious term "culture" for what

is often no more than an assemblage-

of human tools points in the same

direction.

Vol.9 - No. 5- December 968 373



Perhaps a new beginning could be

made if authors would insist on the

following:

1) Selection of a minimum unit for

analysis, such as (a) a living floor or

settlement or (b) a cemetery.

2) Treatment of this unit in full, in-

cluding (a) statistical analysis of the tool-

complex as developed by the Bordes

school; (b) typology and technology of

the tools; (c) ecology of the biologicalniche-food, habitat, climate; (d) infer-

ences about religious practices, etc. from

grave-goods, art, and other available data.

3) Comparative analysis of such units

and of their development in space and

time, based on statistical and typological

methods.

4) Formulation of a working hypo-

thesis as to the ethnohistorical validity

and an attempt at historical interpreta-

tion.

Perhaps by now I have succeeded in

showing that treating one small aspect of

man's progress through time (changingmorphology of artifacts) is carrying

specialization too far. These remarks have

to be taken, of course, as a criticism of

modern trends in general; they are not

meant to detract from the usefulness of

Valoch's catalogue or survey as a means

of data organization.

by ASOK KUMAR GHOSH*

Cambridge,Mass., U.S.A. 27 in 68

This magnificent, extensive paper will be

extremely interesting to prehistorians

concerned with the typo-technologicalevolution of the Palaeolithic culture, es-

pecially those who are not competent in

Central and Eastern European languages.

At the outset, I must admit that I have

no practical field experience in the area

which Valoch has described (although I

have had the opportunity to examine

some of the collections from both Eastern

and Central Europe). I will therefore

restrict my comments to general ones and

leave the more detailed comments to

others.

If I understand Valoch correctly, he is

primarily trying to establish that theevolution of the Palaeolithic in Central

and Eastern Europe was a process of

continuous cultural development. He

considers the area as a single culture area,

with some broad regional divisions. To

my mind, the cultural unit should also

include Western Europe, if not other sur-

rounding regions as well. Valoch sees

Western Europe, particularly France, as

a separate culture area. How far is this

correct in the light of the spatial distribu-

tion of the Palaeolithic culture complex?

In the Early Palaeolithic period, he

sees two distinct cultures: the chopper-chopping (pebble) tool complex (or

"group," according to Valoch) and the

Abbevillian-Acheulian complex. He ar-

gues that the "Early Palaeolithic remains

from Germany to Rumania belong to the

pebble-tool group that existed here in-

dependently of the biface." Two similar

hypotheses come immediately to mind:

(a) the division of the Palaeolithic of

India into two distinct cultures, the Soan

pebble culture in the North and the

Peninsular biface culture in the South;

and (b) Movius' idea of a western bifacial

and an eastern chopper-chopping tool

tradition. Neither of these hypotheses isnow considered valid. Valoch himself

will probably soon point out a relation-

ship between the pebble-tool and the

Abbevillian-Acheulian "groups."

Valoch has attempted to describe the

spread of hand-axes in terms of "radiation

from the area of the Acheulian, gradually

decreasing as one proceeds eastward." In

fact, hand-axes appear again further east,

in the Middle East and in India.

If the evolution of the Palaeolithic is to

be considered a continuous process, then

we need to know the criteria for defining

its subdivisions. If geological stratigraphyis a criterion, then the arbitrary divisions

of Early, Middle, and Upper should

correspond to cultural horizons. Valoch's

view that the Middle Palaeolithic evolved

from the Early Palaeolithic should be

supported with more evidence. The

Middle Palaeolithic in the area concerned

contains Early Palaeolithic culture traits

(types and techniques) as well as new

ones.

Valoch has suggested some new terms

for certain industries. He has retained

such other terms as Mousterian, Aurig-

nacian, Micoquian, Tayacian, etc. All ofthe latter terms, however, have definite

cultural (techno-typological) and strati-

graphic connotations, and the industries

of Central and Eastern Europe so named

may in fact be typological and or techno-

logical mutations or variants. I think it

would be appropriate to include in the

designation of an industry a prefix de-

noting the country in which it is found.

The use of the terms "Late Palaeo-

lithic" and "Final Palaeolithic" is a bit

confusing. The bridging of the typological

and genetic gap is evident; every archaeo-

logist knows that the end of a culturalperiod does not necessarily mean the end

of the culture and the extinction of the

people. Moreover, the Mesolithic period

denotes a new economic achievement,

and that is the main basis for the tripartite

division of the Stone Age.

by FRANKHOLE*

Houston, Tex., U.S.A. 8 iII68

Valoch's review is important and useful

for the large numnber of readers who do

not have access to the voluminous litera-

ture concerning Central and EasternEurope. A careful and comprehensive

review of this sort, however, raises as

many questions about the development

and interconnections of the industries in

the Paleolithic as it answers. Chief among

these is whether one can hope to under-

stand the evolution of the Paleolithic by

plotting the distribution of the types of

tools in time and space. Clearly this is an

important first step, but an explanation

of the distributions requires another

approach and the use of quite different

sets of information. To avoid going into

tedious detail, I shall only cite one

example from the review.The Middle Paleolithic is treated like

the other subdivisions by plotting the geo-

graphic distributions of the industries. As

Valoch points out, the Middle Paleolithic

lasted for some "150,000 years from the

beginning of the Riss Glacial to the

Middle Wurm-Interstadial Podhradem."

It must therefore be characterized by

great climatic changes. It is also a period

during which the industries became

"richly divided." Obviously time can be

controlled to only a limited extent in

most of the sites; but both time and

environment seem crucial to under-standing the possible relationships be-

tween industries, the reasons for the geo-

graphic distributions, and the causes for

change in local sequences. Moreover, we

must also try to see human groups carry-

ing out their daily activities: e.g., what

kind of game did they hunt? what kind of

shelter did they need? how many people

would the land support? in which areas

was human occupation precluded at any

time?

Explanations for the observed distribu-

tions are more likely to be found after a

careful consideration of the topographic,climatic, and cultural factors than they

are by confining ourselves to "typo-

genetic" relations, although these are im-

portant to know in the first place. To

speak of waves of influence ("the Mico-

quian wave becomes ever weaker as one

proceeds eastward ... .") is to give a

spurious life to stone tools and may have

the effect of clouding our minds to more

constructive thinking. It should be clear

that I am not criticizing the job Valoch

has done, for it is essential; I am asking

that he or other workers take the next

step of putting the data into a largercontext that offers more explanatory

opportunity.

Aside from these general remarks, there

are some particular points that need

clarification. First, the term "typogene-

tic" contains an implication of biological

relationship which I think is unwar-

ranted. The statement

One might imagine that the typologicallyadvanced Aurignacian + Olschewian influ-enced the more primitive contemporaryMousterian and that this contact resulted inthe Szeletian, a Middle Paleolithic industryenriched with Upper Paleolithic forms.

gives more flesh and blood to artifacts

than many archeologists would admit.

Related to the above criticism is the

question of the advizability of calling end




Valoch:PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEcrapers "Aurignacoid." Giving a fami-

liar label to artifacts that are similar typo-

logically but not very close geographically

tends to shift the focus of analysis away

from the local situation to the possibility

of obscure and remote relationships. Such

a practice has a long tradition and we all

resort to it for convenience on occasion,

but the drawbacks may more than out-

weigh the gains, especially in a com-

parative treatment such as the one underreview.

Finally, the use of the phrase "all three

great civilizations (Perigordian, Pav-

lovian, Magdalenian)" is misleading, for

the term "civilization" refers to much

more complex organizations of people

than are implied in the Upper Paleolithic

remains. In the present context perhaps

"technological traditions" or "assem-

blages" would be more appropriate.

by DAVID M. HOPKINS*

MenloPark, Calif., U.S.A. 4 iII 68I would like to offer a speculation as to a

possible relationship between increasing

population density and the observed in-

crease in cultural diversity during the

Palaeolithic in Europe. If, as seems likely,

the earliest human populations were all

small, nomadic bands who lived by

hunting and gathering then we might

imagine that annual friendly meetings of

different bands took place for trading and

in order to acquire wives (the near-

universality of incest taboos would suggest

that from very early times human groups

avoided inbreeding, for obvious adaptivereasons). The probability that contacts

among human groups were friendly is

perhaps enhanced by the fact that the

sparse populations did not need to com-

pete for territory and thus a central cause

of intergroup hostility may not yet have

existed. As the populations increased,

they exerted more pressure on resources,

and the utilization of one band's custo-

mary territory by a neighboring band

may have heightened intergroup hostility

and reduced the frequency of friendly

contacts; in the meantime, local popula-

tions had increased to an extent that itbecame unnecessary to go outside the

group for mates. Restriction of bands or

groups of bands to increasingly well-

defined territories may have contributed

to a tendency toward regional specializa-

tion of technology as a way of making

maximal use of the resources of areas to

which individual groups were now re-

stricted. Increasing regional specializa-

tion decreased the economic value of a

wife from a different band equipped to

cope with a somewhat different set of

resources. These tendencies would height-

en linguistic differentiation, which wouldfeed back to reduce friendly contact and

easy flow of ideas and technology. Thus

increasing differentiation of local cultures

would have continued until the time

when early organized civilized communi-

ties, with their homogenizing political

and bureaucratic control of large areas,

began to develop.

A similar evolution seems to me to have

taken place, much later, in the Americas:

there, a fairly homogeneous "palaeo-

Indian" culture existed over much of the

hemisphere during the interval 13,000-10,000 years ago and then began to

differentiate very rapidly in the manner

that cultural and technological differen-

tiation seems to have taken place in

Europe perhaps 50,000 years earlier.

by I. K. IVANOVA*

Moscow, U.S.S.R. 15 ix 67

Valoch's review is of great interest be-

cause of the large body of evidence bear-

ing on the European Paleolithic that it

covers. Certain points, general as well as

particular require comment.As far as the general problems of

(Central and) Eastern European strati-

graphy are concerned, it should be noted

that certain indications of climatic fluc-

tuations in the middle of the Wuirm,

corresponding to Valoch's Podhradem

Interstadial, are known from the Soviet

Union. In fact, a clear transition from the

Middle to the Upper Paleolithic appears

to have been associated with this time

(Ivanova, 1965b: 52-53). A more impor-

tant climatic change seems to have occur-

red, however, in the following Paudorf

Interstadial (whicn Valoch considersonly an oscillation).

The widespread occurrence in the

extraglacial area of the U.S.S.R. of a

typical fossil soil of Paudorf age is sug-

gestive of such a change. Radiocarbon

measurements give the following dates for

this soil: 29,000?1,250 (H-1866/1287)

for a wood sample from the shore of the

Belaya River in Bashkirya; 24,900 ? 1,800

(MO-337) for a humus sample from

Bryansk district; 24,200 ? 1,680 (MO-

342) for humus from a loess section near

Mezin village in the Ukraine; and

29,650 ?1,230 and 28,100 ?1,000 (H7P-15) for charcoals from cultural layer IX

of the Molodova V site near the Dniestr

river (Ivanova 1966).

A set of similar dates is known from

Siberia, where a rise in temperature dur-

ing so-called Kargin time was so impor-

tant that it may even constitute an inter-

glacial (Kind 1965). It is highly probable

that a fossil soil dating from this time and

later eroded provided material for those

intercalations of washed-in humus from

the Kostenki region which, as Valoch

mentions, have been dated to about

20,000 years (no true fossil soils are knownfrom the Kostenki area; the two bands of

redeposited humus occurring there may,

due to their transportation, produce age

values lower than the true ones). On the

whole, an important rise in temperature,

interstadial in nature, is fairly well con-

firmed for a period from 29,000 to 25,000

years ago.

The change of climate corresponding

to Valoch's Podhradem Interstadial is far

less distinct in the U.S.S.R. It cannot be

traced in platform sections and may only

rarely be recognized in the slopes of theriver valleys, as is particularly the case in

the Dniestr river region. Soil formation

processes were rather weak at this time.

Both paleontological and paleobotanical

indications for an important rise in tem-

perature are lacking. Such a pattern is

illustrated, by the profile from the Molo-

dova V Paleolithic site, where this "inter-

stadial" is most pronounced (Ivanova

1966: Fig. 20).

As to the areal extent of the Paleolithic

in Eastern Europe, without dwelling on

the many uncertainties that still exist the

following may be noted: The Europeanpart of the U.S.S.R. was widely occupied

in Mousterian time, and man had by this

time moved rather far to the north. Thus

a rich Mousterian site, with a large body

of unifacial and bifacial points, discoid

cores, and side-scrapers and the remains

of a mammoth, has been discovered in

stratified position near Khotylevo, north-

west of the town of Bryansk (Zavernyaev

1961, Zavernyaev and Schmidt 1961).

This site is associated with a basal pebble

horizon from the 25-meter terrace of the

Desna river which contains a warmth-

loving molluscan fauna (Motouz 1967);hence it probably belongs to the end of

Riss-Wurm (Mikulino Interglacial). Iso-

lated Mousterian finds are known from

rather far to the north in the Oka River

basin, near the town of Belev (Lyubin

and Petrakov 1964). Mousterian finds are

reported also from still farther north, but

their reliability is not yet proved (as is

particularly the case for the Early Paleo-

lithic finds in the Moscow area mentioned

by Valoch). In any case, Mousterian

Man reached as far as 540 N. latitude.

As to whether the Crimea was the

center of development of Mousterianculture, as Valoch suggests, it is difficult

to say. Certain paleogeographical features

of the Crimea are important here: In

pre-Karangat (pre-Riss-Wuirm) time, a

deep regression of the Black Sea basin

took place, and the draining of the shallow

Asov sea made the Crimean peninsula

part of the mainland. In Karangat (Riss-

Wiirm) time, a large sea transgression

occurred and the Crimea was undoubted-

ly separated from the continent, forming

a rather small island. It was inhabited by

men as is confirmed by the finding of a

Mousterian point in the Karangat de-posits (Gvosdover and Nevesskyi 1961),

but it was isolated. Furthermore both in

the Crimea and in the Russian Plain,

Mousterian sites associated with Riss-

Vol. 9 ;No. 5 December 1968 375



Wurm time are rare and are mostly

associated with the first half of the Wurm.

Hence it would seem that the Crimea

can hardly be assumed to have been a

center of development of the Mousterian

culture.

As to the age of oldest Upper Paleolithic

cultures from the Russian Plain, which

occasionally do contain Mousterian-like

and Szeletian-like artifacts: In the course

of last year's geological investigations inKostenki region, in the Desna basin, in

Volyn, and elsewhere, no Upper Paleo-

lithic strata older than Paudorf time were

identified. This is in part corroborated by

the radiocarbon dating evidence. Layer 5

of Kostenki I seems to be no older than

Paudorf. The Sungir site near Vladimir is

obviously of post-Paudorf age, although

the culture layer may be somewhat older

than the 14,600 ?600 years (Ivanova,

1965c; 148-52).

I am far from the thought of solving

the problems of the dispersal of Paleolithic

cultures throughout Eastern Europe, butI would like to point out certain facts for

the Russian Plain (without involving the

regions far to the south):

1) This territory was rather densely

inhabited in Mousterian time (Riss-

Wurm? first half of Wiirm).

2) There is no reliable evidence for an

Upper Paleolithic earlier than Paudorf

time.

3) During the Paudorf and sub-

sequent periods, distinctive Upper Paleo-

lithic cultures developed over a large part

of the Russian Plain. In certain of them,

isolated archaic elements were preservedfor a long time.

4) In late-glacial times (15,000-

11,000 years ago), the Russian Plain was

extensively occupied by Late Paleolithic

people. In this period, an earlier-con-

ceived tradition of building dwellings out

of mammoth bones became widely

popular.

by RICHARD G. KLEIN*

Evanston, ll., U.S.A. 13 iII67

Valoch has admirably attempted to bring

together in one article a large quantity ofinformation on the Pleistocene prehistory

of Central and Eastern Europe. The

article is written in the respectable tradi-

tion wherein it is supposed that the

principal task of the Pleistocene pre-

historian is to reconstruct culture history

through an evaluation of differences and

similarities among stone artifact assem-

blages from various times and places. Tothe non-specialist, articles written in thistradition must appear to contain a be-

wildering array of site names and tool

types and very little about human beings

and theiractivities in the past. Withoutwishing to belittle Valoch's splendid

effort, I feel that if Pleistocene prehistory

is to be anything more than an intellectual

pursuit for a small number of highly

specialized scholars, it is essential that

more effort be directed towards gaining

information about actual human be-

havior in the Pleistocene. In my opinion,

multivariate statistical procedures such

as those used by Binford and Binford

(1966) and Freeman (1964, 1966) offer

the greatest promise in this regard.

I will limit my further comments on

Valoch's paper to one. This is that the

humic beds encountered in the colluvialdeposits overlying the second terrace at

Kostenki on the Don are not fossil soils as

stated by Valoch. Rather, they are beds

of redeposited humuc (Lazukov 1957,

Rogachev 1957, Velichko 1957). There-

fore, they cannot be directly correlated

with in situ soil formations elsewhere in

European Russia or in Central Europe.

Further, they cannot be assumed to have

originated during an interstadial, and

the cultural horizons which occur in them

cannot constitute proof that the Upper

Paleolithic began on the Don, as perhaps

elsewhere, in an interstadial. All thisshould be made quite explicit in any

discussion of the Kostenki group of sites.

by B. KLIMA*

Brno,Czechoslovakia.0 xi 67

The author shows how Paleolithic re-

search in the areas under consideration

has changed in the past few years andhow earlier conceptions of the chronology

have been modified. Nevertheless, we can

see in his article that some of the periods

are still not clearly defined. Most of the

cultures, if narrowly defined, can onlyroughly be placed in chronological order,

and when an attempt is made to relate

cultural-historical patterns, mainly classi-

fied typologically, to stratifigraphy the

results are sometimes even contradictory.

For this reason, the author has often been

forced to offer alternative hypotheses.

How rapidly a conception can change

is demonstrated in the fact that since the

submission of Valoch's manuscript, new

aspects have already appeared. One of

these is the idea, quite correct in my

opinion, that the typical mammoth-hunt-

ing culture of the upper Paleolithic ori-ginated in Central Europe (Grigoriev,

1966). This idea, first offered some time

ago, has recently been made more con-

crete by C14 dates (Klima, 1967). The

development of the cultures proceeded in

a much more complicated manner than

was earlier believed, due to a number of

influences (among them natural factors)

resulting in faster cultural change in par-

ticular areas and periods and irregulardistribution of settlements. Such culturalcenters as, for example, the Kostienki

region, Southern Moravia, the Dordogne,

etc. developed independently of eachother; one cannot underestimate this fact.

How little research in the Paleolithic

field has yet been done and how risky our

deductions sometimes are is indicated by

the fact that the discovery of new sites,.

the collecting of new materials, or re--

search in other scientific disciplines can

change the chronological system in just a-

few years. Nevertheless, we are justified

in, and even committed to, constructing-

new conceptions. The compiling of this

material by Valoch is the more worth-

while for us because it also includes the

East European areas, in which the Paleo-

lithic often evolved along diversifiedlines.

by JANUSZK. KOZLOWSKI*

Cracow,Poland. 15 VIII67

So extensive is the scope of the paper by

Valoch that it is impossible to discuss all

the problems dealt with in it, however

interesting and often controversial they

may be. Therefore, I shall confine myself

to several selected questions, especially

those more closely connected with the

territory of Poland.

The Middle Paleolithic of Central andEastern Europe has not yet been treated

in a monograph based upon uniform

criteria of typological and technological

classification, for such criteria have yet to

be developed. We need, for example, uni-

form criteria for the typological classifica-

tion of diagnostic forms for the Central

European Mousterian industries, with

special attention to such forms as the

bifacial knife-scrapers of the Bockstein-

schmiede, Konigsaue, Pradnik, Staro-

selje, Sukha Metchetka, and other types.

These tool types, mentioned here by way

of example, have some characteristics incommon, e.g., bifaciality, general shape,

some asymmetry of the working part, and,

in some specimens, truncated blades, but

at the same time they differ in certain

very essential typological and, especially,

technological elements, e.g., the way of

forming the tip, among other methods by

the burin technique, as in the case of

knives of the Pradnik type. The typology

of indicators can not constitute a starting

point for an adequate grouping of indus-

tries until it has been standardized. This

effort should be a collective one on the

part of a number of investigators. Thetypological symposia initiated by Prof.

Schwabedissen well illustrate the needs

and enormous difficulties in this area.

Under the circumstances, it is difficult

to use statistical typological criteria for

the classification of Mousterian industries

in Central and Eastern Europe. The

essential starting point for the generally

accepted divisions of Mousterian indus-

tries in Western Europe was the typo-

logical index of side-scrapers (IR). This

index shows far less stability in the indus-

tries of Eastern and Central Europe, par-

ticularly in inventories which are markedby the same group of indicators, e.g., the

presence of knives of the Pradnik type.

An additional difficulty arises from the

fact that these tools are sometimes re-

376 CURRENI' ANTrHROPOLOGY



garded as bifacial side-scrapers, some-

times as hand-axes. Even when they are

classified with the side-scrapers, however,

the indices obtained do not fall within the

quantitative ranges characteristic of the

IR in Western Europe. This situation is

exemplified by two inventories marked

by the presence of specific bifacial forms

-and knife-scrapers of the Pradnik type,

namely Krakow-Wawel (Ginter, Kowal-

ski, and Kozlowski 1967) and CiemnaCave (data after the paper by Morawski),

which represent the two extremes of the

vcycle of Pradnician industries. Both these

inventories belong to the industries with

Pradnik knives of the Levalloisian tech-

nique (IL for Krakow-Wawel, 58.2; for

Ciemna Cave, 43.07), the latter being, in

addition, characterized by the Leval-

loisian typology (ILty = 37.16). As re-

gards the IR, on the other hand

these inventories differ extremely (see

Table 1).

The difference between the IR within

this one group of inventories and onetechnological facies is comparable to the

difference between Mousterian Group I

(Charentian) and Group III as defined

by Bordes.

Similar fluctuations can also be seen in

the index of hand-axes (IB) and that of

Group III, which, however, unlike IR,

seem to proceed consistently as the whole

industrial cycle evolves. A decrease in the

IB with the evolution of the cycle is

evidenced by the stratigraphic sequence

of the Wylotne rock-shelter (Chmielewski

1965: 84-85) and by the zero value of

this index in the upper layer of CiemnaCave, which is the latest in the whole

cycle. The index of Group III increases

throughout the cycle, reaching 18.64 in

Ciemna Cave.

In view of these difficulties, one must

be careful not to attribute too much uni-

formity to groups of industries established

on the basis of one set of indicators only

(e.g.), Valoch's Mousterian group with

bifacial tools. One should also be cautious

when determining the relationship of

such a group (or groups) to the Western

European divisions, especially as regards

units existing only in theory (e.g., Charen-tian with hand-axe tradition).

The second group of Mousterian

inventories distinguished by Valoch seems

still more complex. He refers it to the

typical Mousterian (dividing it into two

subgroups, one with tools of small size

and the other with tools of normal size),

for the IR (ess) (e.g., Tata, 52.0; Krapina,

over 55; Sipka, with an index of 37, is an

exception) and are marked by the pres-

ence of bifacial tools (Tata) or their

absence (Bojnice) and often also by a high

index (up to 15) of Group III. A common

feature of these inventories (exceptingSipka) is the frequent production of tools

on natural stones or pebble tools (e.g., at

Tata, Krapina, Nandru, and sites in

Western Slovakia). This last fact, along

TABLE 1

COMPARISON OF FLAKES FROM EARLY PALAEOLITHIC SITES

IN TERMS OF Two METRICAL INDICED

MEAN MEAN SIZE OF

SITES RELATIVE THICKNESS OF SAMPLE

THICKNESSa BUTT (MM)

Swanscombe Acheulian 23.37 5.36 235

Hundisburg 21.90 6.27 58

Swanscombe Clactonian 33.76 13.17 256

Mlazice 33.49 13.26 18

Clacton 31.08 9.78 177

Wangen 29.81 9.91 35

Wallendorf 28.43 11.47 76

a Expressedas a percentage of the longest dimension.

with the presence of side-scrapers that

resemble the Pontinian ones, suggests dis-

tinct southern references. For this reason

I should be inclined to treat it (except forSipka), not as analogous to the typical

Mousterian, but rather as a kind of

southern variant, with specific typological

and technological characters, of the "east-

ern" Quina. (In this I agree with Gabori

and Csank [1967].) Some of its inventories

do include, in addition to tools typo-

logically similar to these discussed above

and a high IR (e.g., in Subalyuk Cave,

lower horizon, 50, upper horizon, 60

[Kadi6 1940]), a fairly distinct group of

Mousterian points (Subalyuk Cave, lower

horizon, 24%, upper horizon, 7%) which

on account of its Levalloisian techniquegives these inventories a typical Mous-

terian appearance. This may be due,

however (and this seems to be

Valoch's view insofar as Subalyuk Cave is

concerned), to the influence the Moustero-

Levalloisian industries of Southeastern

Europe of the Dniestr, Bacho-Kiro, and

Macedonian-Peloponnesian types.

The territorial range of industries of

this group and the range of those indus-

tries which, taking into consideration all

the qualifications, may be regarded as

based on the inventories of the Antonow-

ka I, Czokurcza, and Sukha Metchetkatypes are non-Levalloisian while those of

the Antonowka II, Staroselje, and Khoty-

levo types are Levalloisian (20 <IL <40).

(Taking advantage of this opportunity,

I wish to point out that the site of

Kholodnaia Balka, often mentioned in

the context of Staroselje, represents quite

a different group, devoid of bifacial forms,

with a fairly high IR and the Levalloisian

technique of production of flakes and

blades.)

There is far less difference of opinion

on the Upper Palaeolithic of Central and

Eastern Europe than there is on theMiddle Palaeolithic, largely because of

the general agreement as to the main

criteria of classification (Kozlowski 1965).

Major controversies, however, do arise in

connection with considerations of the

genesis of particular Upper Palaeolithic

complexes and the tracing of the autoch-

thonous development of Aurignacoid in-dustries in Central Europe. Stipulating

for the right to differ on these matters

(Kozlowski 1966a), I shall, nevertheless,

postpone the discussion of them for an-

other occasion. Here, instead, I should

like to draw the atuthor's attention to the

fact that the Polish sites with Aurignacoid

remains, which he listed in a single group,

represent well-differentiated complexes

(cf. Kozlowski 1966b). Piekary II (to-

gether with Piekary V and the Upper

Palaeolithic ensemble of Krakow-Wawel)

belongs to a group marked by specific big

blades, massive high flake end-scrapers,and fairly numerous burins, and in gen-

eral refers to the early sites of the Dniestr

Upper Palaeolithic (Babin phase). The

industry from Krakow-Sowiniec corre-

sponds very closely with the East Slova-

kian Aurignacian ensembles (e.g., Tib-

ava), whereas Gora Pulawska provides

Aurignacian ensembles with a large num-

ber of small armatures, something like

Krems and Dufour lamelles hand-axe

(? Micoquian) traditions partly coincide,

namely, in Slovakia and southern Poland.

Last year's discoveries in Raj Cave near

Kielce indicate the presence of Mous-terian industries in the territory of Poland,

going back into one of the Early Wurm

interstadials (? Brorup) and charac-

terized by a very high proportion of side-

scrapers, especially those made on pebbles

(in which they approximate typologically

the sites on the Middle Danube), and

by a non-Levalloisian technique, the

ILam and IFs being, however, fairly

high.

On the other hand, I quite agree with

Valoch that the presence of leaf-shaped

points is not a distinctive characteristic of

a separate Mousterian group, since boththe groups of Mousterian industries

known from Poland and distinguished

here, i.e., the Prldnician group and the

southern group of the "eastern Quina,"

Vol.9 ;No.5 December968 377



contain leaf-shaped points (e.g., respec-

tively, Okiennik Cave [Krukowski 1939:

Table 4: 4] and, among other localities,

Raj Cave near Kielce). These two groups

of industries seem to have played some

role in the genesis of the Upper Palaeo-

lithic complexes with leaf-shaped points

(the first of them, hypothetically, as

regards the West Slovakian Szeletian,

the other as regards the Danube and

Bukk Mountains Szeletian).Valoch seems to have paid too little

attention in his classification of Middle

Palaeolithic industries to the technique of

manufacturing of flakes and unretouched

tools. A phenomenon similar to the

division of Prldnician industries into the

Levalloisian and non-Levalloisian groups

(both of which arose under the same, as a

rule, raw-material conditions) can be

seen among the Eastern European Mous-

terian industries with bifacial tools: whose

statistical-typological parameters refer

them to the East European facies of the

Aurignacian with microlithic armatures(of Muralovka type).

Now I shall deal rather at length with

some aspects of the East European Upper

Palaeolithic. One of the fundamental

problems is the date of the beginnings of

the Upper Palaeolithic in the Russian

Plain. The opinion which has repeatedly

appeared in literature is that the Upper

Palaeolithic began later in that area than

in Central Europe, i.e., not before the

Paudorf ( = Stillfried B) Interstadial.

However, at Gornova in the Byela River

valley in the southern Urals, isolated

tools, obviously Upper Palaeolithic incharacter, were discovered in a horizon

underlying a fossil soil dated to 29,700

? 1,250 years B.P., and thus placing

the cultural horizon in the Arcy or

Podhradem Interstadial (Bader 1965b).

The use of the sites from the Kostienki-

Borshevo region as a basis for a decision

on the main geochronological problems

of the Upper Palaeolithic seems, at the

present stage of knowledge of their strati-

graphy and geomorphology, premature.

First of all, the synchronization of the sites

that occur in these particular "fossil soils"

is very difficult, because they are not soilsformed in situ, but rather humus inter-

beddings which came into existence as a

result of the displacement of humus ma-

terial from the slopes of the pre-Quater-

nary rocks surrounding the Don valley.

Moreover, the rhythm of these humus

interbeddings is very uneven: two or

several thin layers, varying remarkably

in thickness, separated by a layer or

several layers of volcanic ash. These facts,

as well as the erosive processes which have

disturbed the horizontal arrangement of

all the strata (e.g., at Markina Gora),

suggest that the classic synchronization ofthe sites of this region needs verification.

This opinion is also supported by the

radiocarbon datings obtained recently,

among others those quoted by Valoch.

A different situation has, however, been

found on the middle Dniestr, where the

profile of Molodova V exhibits a number

of fossil soils formed in situ (only enriched

by the solifluction from the slopes) which

correspond to the pedocomplex of Still-

fried B (cultural layers 7-10, the upper-

most dated at 21,000 ?800 years B.P. and

the ninth at 26,140? 1,000B.P.), the Pod-hradem Interstadial of the Middle Wurm

(soil with cultural horizon 10a), and theEarly Wurm climate oscillations (soils

with Mousterian cultural horizons dated

more than 40,000 years B.P.).

Valoch is undoubtedly right in viewing

as the foundations for development of the

Upper Palaeolithic in the Russian Plain

two groups of industries which evolved in

that region over a comparatively long

period: (a) the Kostienki-Strielecian

(Sungirian) industries and (b) the "bur-

in" industries with Upper Palaeolithic

substrate tools-mainly burins (above all,

truncated angle ones), end-scrapers,

blades, and a small number of armatureson blades, but without steep retouch. To

these two groups of industries I would,

however, add a third one, namely, (c) the

industries with Aurignacoid indicators,

represented by Siuren I (lower and

middle horizons), the Dniestr group

(Babin phase), and possibly Radomyshl

(where many Aurignacian remains are

also encountered besides the Upper Pa-

laeolithic substrate forms of Mousterian

traditions). Further developmental stages

of these industries are represented by

Muralovka, Miusski Liman near Odessa,

and horizons 2 and 3 of the Kostienki Isite. The occurrence of Aurignacian diag-

nostic artifacts in the group of end-

scrapers, blades, and armatures is a dis-

tinctive feature of these industries. The

beginnings of this group were undoubted-

ly in the cool phase (W2) preceding the

Stillfried B oscillation (according to the

nomenclature adopted for the Russian

Plain, the Briansk Interstadial), perhaps

in a Middle Wiurm interstadial (Arcy,

Podhradem). Besides, the presence of one

of the oldest art objects (at Muralovka,

investigated by N. D. Praslov) is also

associated with the Aurignacian group.The date of the appearance of the in-

dustries with backed blades in the Russian

Plain is controversial. The ensemble of

the lower layer of the Telmanian site at

Kostienki is particularly interesting in

this respect. It occurs at the top of the

humus interbeddings on the 18-24 m.

terrace of the River Don and is marked

by the presence of well-developed types

of points and backed armatures and fre-

quent geometric forms, also produced by

the micro-burin technique. The differen-

tiated typology of the backed blades and

the advanced state of the technique indi-cate that this ensemble must have been

preceded by a long period of develop-

ment. Hence, it is very likely that the

beginnings of industries with backed

blades took place before the Paudor

(Stillfried B) Interstadial, though we still

lack material to document this develop-

ment irrefutably.

The further development of industries

with backed blades followed several lines,

based, in all probability, on their crossings

with the "burin" traditions of substrate

industries of Kostienki XVII type and

industries with flake tools.

Of the industries which developed thetradition of backed blades, the Kostienki-

Avdieyevo cycle, which has not been

defined clearly by the author, is of special

interest. For lack of space, I can only

mention, without describing in detail, the

successive complexes of which this indus-

trial cycle is made up: Berdyzh on Sozh,

earlier than the steppe phase of Wiirm 3;

Kostienki I (upper horizon, 11,750 years

B.P.); Avdieyevo (? Bolling); Kostienki

XIII; Kostienki XVIII; and Gagarino.

The problems arising in connection with

the Kostienki-Avdieyevo cycle are prob-

lems of the relations between the UpperPalaeolithic of the Russian Plain and that

of Central Europe and the role played in

these relations by the Dniestr area; for in

this area appeared the prototypes of the

single-shouldered points (pointesd cran, in

layer 7 of Molodova V) which later be-

came common both in the Russian Plain

and in Central Europe (where they occur

in the West Slovakian and Lower Aus-

trian groups of "East Gravettian" in-

dustries).

Other groups and cycles of industries

with backed blades in the Russian Plain

also have connections with CentralEurope. Examples of such complexes in

Poland are the ensemble of the upper

("East Gravettian") horizon of Mamu-

towa Cave, which is fairly closely related

to the sixth layer of the Molodova V site,

and the industry of Maly Antoniow in the

Swittokrzyskie Mountains, which corre-

sponds to the late industries with backed

blades and burins in the Russian Plain.

Similar questions emerge towards the

end of the Palaeolithic, as evidenced not

only by remote influences of the Mazow-

szan industries on the Crimean cycle, but

also by the effects of the Grenian indus-tries of Byelorussia on the middle phase

of the Mazowszan cycle in eastern and

central Poland. It seems to me that

Valoch has not stressed these very impor-

tant instances ofconnections between Cen-

tral and Eastern Europe strongly enough.

by JiRI KUKLA*

Prague,CZechoslovakia.1 ix 67

Valoch's article will surely be of great

interest, especially for scientists who can-

not easily get publications from the

Eastern European countries or who donot understand their languages. I would

have welcomed, however, a slightly more

critical approach to the data reviewed.

Valoch might have pointed out, for




example, that although we know that

special seasonal activities of Paleolithic

man must have considerably influenced

the nature of the tool inventories of briefly

occupied sites, very little attention is

generally paid to this fact.

As for the stratigraphy, especially of

the last glacial, Valoch's scheme is simple

but not very fortunate. The Middle

Wurm Interstadial, hinted at by so many,

is here at last presented, under the title"Podhradem," as one of the most impor-

tant episodes of the last glaciation. Un-

fortunately, no clear evidence exists for

such an interstadial in the Podhradem

cave. The facts about the stratigraphy of

Podhradem cave, as reported by Musil

(1965), Valoch (1965b), Pelisek (1965),

and Opravil (1965), are summarized in

my Figure 1. The sediments which Musil

and Valoch (1966) have considered as

representing W 1/2, or the "Podhradem

Interstadial," comprise a thick series of

loam and limestone debris of unequal

petrographical composition and paleon-tological content. In the inner part of the

cave, the whole layer of sediments, almost

3 m. thick, has been exposed, underlying

0.6-1 m. of younger sediments layers 1-7

and resting upon 1.5-2 m. of yellow cave

loess (layer 19). Two samples of charcoal

embedded in soil have been dated. The

first sample, GRN-1918, clearly corre-

sponds to the well-defined fireplace at the

base of layer 6, although the Groningen

report indicates that the soil has been

dated. The second sample consists of

scattered charcoal fragments embedded

in the humic soil of layer 8 (K. Valoch,personal communication) and not be-

longing to any distinguishable hearth.

These fragments were found only about

10 cm. below the intact surface of the

cave fill and no more than 50 cm. above

the rock base. Contamination is not only

possible, but, according to Opravil

(1965), more than probable; found here,

far from the nearest mountains, were

Pinus cf. mugo Turra, Pinus cf. cembraL.,

and Fagus silvatica L.

Three sections may be clearly distin-

guished within the so-called W 1/2 series

of Podhradem cave:1) Layers 8-10, containing fauna and

flora indicative of a comparatively severe

climate (Alopex lagopus, Microtus nivalis,

Pinus cf. mugo). The few implements that

have been found seem to correspond to

the Upper Paleolithic, but they are not

typical. The top layer, 8, is dated to 32-

33,000 years B.C. by a possibly contami-

nated sample.

2) Layers 11-16, with a striking pro-

portion of partly uncorroded limestone

debris (95% at the base) and with black

soils with humus content as high as 5%.

A fauna which provides no evidence ofclimate and a few artifacts, possibly re-

deposited and not indicative, were found

in layer 15. This section is strongly dis-

turbed by cryoturbation.

U C O | PELISEK 65) R14DATES REMARKS id

MU SIL 65) cctn dc (~~~~~~~~~~VALOCH5a) P: ( KUKLAI

z ~~~~~ ~~~ z -

o~~~~~~~~r cJ U)I

2 u j < wW

F~~ ~ o c -,o0 0 u -c0

W ~~~~~~ 0~V3LICL :Z 1 1| 1 11 lll Z <C: C0

1-3 DARK ROWN HIOL.

VI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%

5s BR.YELLOW W3 O

6 GREY. BR. GRN`IQI8,S0IL4

a8 BROWN I VA DSSED CHAR-

4t ?A;9 BROWN COAL GRNBIBa 0I.J 329902i500 BRP

10 BROWN - -SOIL,. ORN174.:1 DARKBR. 324201P1OS0BR From outside trans- co

0.aBOTHPOSSIBLY pre aeilz

. A 12 LIGHT R. 0. CONTAMINA7ED. c ported material z

FA' IV a L D g xt | oPKIumouo 13 BLACK-.B Co~. 4m Klhmu

15 YELL-BR. ~~~~~~~~~~ z ~soils disturbed

16 BELACKR.- Ao by cryoturbation.J

____BLACK 0x .0 0.

12 BROW . .::N I wu Probablepresence

IV4jTBROWNI g l < of disturbed not - co

. :.-.: mI XI ll F recognized warm O

18 BROWN ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~climatethin layer.>

3 a-f - DARKBR. 1o

19YELL.R. WI

4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~U<

FIG. 1. Stratigraphy of the Podhradem Cave.

[Credit: J. Kukla]

3) Layers 17 and 18, with a low pro-

portion of limestone debris (35%), not-

ably corroded. The fauna is one commonin broadleaf forests (Sus scrofa) and in-

cludes no elements indicative of a severe

climate. At least the lower part of this

section is strongly disturbed by cryotur-

bation.

I see no logical reason to consider layers

8-18 as corresponding to one climatic

oscillation only, still less reason to date

the complex by its uppermost layer and

to assume that the faunal remains found

are more or less contemporary.

An analogous profile, in a very similar

position, has been found in gve'diuv stul

cave, in the neighbourhood of Podhradem(see Klima 1961, Musil 196 1). Here a

dark-coloured series similar to layers 8-18

of Podhradem is dated to W 1/2, W 1,

and RW and contains, in addition to Sus

scrofa, Equus mosbachensisabeli, Equus hy-

druntinus,and Homo neanderthalensis Van-

ur-a 1965). Dicerorhinus sp. is reported

from unstratified position. All the avail-

able evidence favours a parallel between

this dark loam series and that of Pod-

hradem.I must take this opportunity to warn

once again against the danger of deriving

incorrect stratigraphic schemes from thesediments in horizontal caves (Kukla and

Lozek 1958). When excavated and evalu-

ated by present methods, these sediments

cannot yield detailed records of Pleisto-

cene stratigraphy, for the following

reasons:

1) Except in talus fans in the en-trances or under the chimneys, the sedi-

mentation rate is very low, seldom ex-

ceeding 5 cm. per 1,000 years, and it

decreases rapidly with the distance from

the entrance. Therefore the frequent

retreat of the cave entrance caused by

deepening of the valley results in low

stratigraphical value of the older sedi-

ments.

2) There is intensive redeposition of

older sediments and theirfaunal and archeo-

logical remains, increasing with distance

from the entrance. Burrowing animals

and collapse of lower levels of the cavesystem greatly contribute to the distur-

bance of the fill. Since conditions favour

the preservation of faunal remains, it is

usually impossible to recognize bones as

redeposited.

3) Cryoturbation deeply disturbs the

fill (Alimen 1950, Prosek 1951). Slides of

muddy soil are sometimes transported

deep into the cave, slipping over the

inclined icy bottom of the gallery.

The methods of evaluation generally

used are too rough for such complicated

conditions. As a result, mixed faunas, in-

cluding forest, steppe, and arctic elements(Musil and Valoch 1966), or mixed

collections of implements are described.

Only very careful separate evaluation of

autochthonous finds, such as bones in

Vol.9 -No. 5- December 968 379



anatomical position, undisturbed accu-

mulations of microfauna or molluscs,

artifacts or burned bones inside hearths,

etc., can show us the way out of this un-

pleasant situation. Unfortunately, most

of our information on the Middle and

Early Wurm in Europe comes from caves.

Substantial changes in our conception of

this period must therefore be expected in

the future.

by G. C. MOHAPATRA*

Chandigarh,ndia. 2 iii 68

A comprehensive study of the Central and

East European lithic culture complex

was long overdue. Valoch has rendered

a valuable service to world prehistory by

synthesising the latest results obtained

from this region. In order to put the

evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central

and Eastern Europe in proper perspec-

tive, he has compared his observations

with the Western European material.

Similar comparisons, however brief, withdata collected from Africa and Asia would

have been appreciated by those of us who

are interested in general trends of develop-

ment of prehistoric cultures all over the

globe. Nevertheless, the detailed study of

minute regional distinctions has its merits

and will be appreciated by specialists.

Such regional studies, which are steadily

gaining popularity due to their critical

approach, invariably highlight the pecu-liarities of each culture. These peculiari-

ties are more or less due to different

ecological setups, and therefore, if a cul-

ture is to be interpreted in relation to itsenvironment, it is they, and not the over-

simplified general trends of prehistory of

the textbooks, that should be magnified,

analysed, and compared. On this account

Valoch's efforts are praiseworthy.

Valoch finds more differences than

similarities in comparing the Palaeolithic

cultures of Central and Eastern Europe

'with those of Western Europe. Of course

the results are still far from crystalised;

but if Valoch's views still hold good when

lithic research in this region has reached

maturity, a recasting of the lithic ter-

-minology will become imperative. Someof us in India are trying to interpret the

lithic cultures of this subcontinent against

their own regional background. Like the

Pan-African prehistorians, we have

broken away from the conventional lithic

terminology and have developed a new

one strictly for use in Indian contexts.

That Valoch is aware of the problem of

terminology and is trying to take steps in

this direction is attested by his substitution

of the term "Final Palaeolithic" for

"Mesolithic"; the latter term has, he says,

"'only the authority conferred by tradi-

tion." His own division of the Palaeolithicinto five phases (Early, Middle, Upper,

Late, and Final) is, however, neither

-traditional nor discerning. The use of the

term Palaeolithic in Western Europe has

strict chronological implications: the end

of the Palaeolithic coincides with the end

of the Pleistocene. Therefore, Valoch's

"Final Palaeolithic" should be termed

something other than Palaeolithic if he

intends to use the traditional Palaeolithic

terminology in its pure form. In India we

have faced similar problems and, in an

attempt to deal with them, have coined

the broad terms Early, Middle, and Late

Stone Age, which roughly correspond,chronologically, to the Lower Palaeo-

lithic, the Middle and Upper Palaeo-

lithic, and the Mesolithic and Neolithic

respectively (Mohapatra 1962: 59).

I cite the Indian instance because at a

number of points the Indian lithic indus-

tries are closely comparable to the in-

dustries in certain parts of Central and

Eastern Europe. For instance, the pebble-

tool industry with its characteristic plain

wide-angel flake accompaniment (the

Buda industry of the Germany-Rumania

region) closely corresponds to the So-

hanian pebble-tool industry of East Pun-jab (Mohapatra 1966). The Middle

Palaeolithic of South and West Germany,

in which "the Levallois types (points,

blades, cores) and the Levallois technique

(prepared striking-platform) are almost

completely absent," is very similar to the

Middle Stone Age culture complex in

India; though not completely absent,

the Levallois types and the technique

are observable in negligible amountshere in what is predominantly a small

flake-tool culture (Mohapatra 1959,

1962).

The Upper Palaeolithic is a period ofextreme specialisation in tool-types, as a

consequence of the different environ-

mental requirements of different regions.

Therefore, it is very natural that the lithic

industries of the Upper Pleistocene

(Wiirm Glacial) should vary widely from

region to region. This is observable in a

comparison of the Upper Pleistocene

lithic industries of India with those of

Western Europe. Valoch's paper shows

that, nearer home as well, the lithic in-

dustries of this period are peculiarly local

products. Therefore, Valoch's question,

"Is an Early Upper Palaeolithic corre-sponding chronologically to those of

Central and Western Europe absent in

Eastern Europe ?", although very per-

tinent, does not go far enough; for unless

the "absence" of an Early Upper Palaeo-

lithic is indicated by a cultural hiatus,

then any local culture may represent it.

As I have suggested above, it is futile to

search for exact equivalents, since no two

regions are alike. There has been in the

past an uncritical overemphasis on gener-al similarities (sometimes superfluous)between industries found continents

apart. This has obscured the true picture,especially of the genesis and the individual

peculiarities of a culture, and has at

various times been profitably exploited

by the exponents of hyper-diffusionism.

bY KARL J. NARR*

Muinster/Westfalen,Germany. 5 ix 67

Obviously lack of space prevented Valoch

from adequately presenting either the

material itself or even sufficient refer-

ences; and the specialist who knows the

basis of his views is similarly restricted by

lack of space for an adequate discussion.

To dwell on minor points would not do

justice to Valoch's courageous essay, so Ishall restrict my comment to some general

remarks.

1) Valoch's chronology of the Pleisto-

cene period is a serviceable working

hypothesis for his purpose, though I think

that the pre-Eemian part of his table is

much too detailed in view of recent dis-

cussions. I agree in general with his sub-

division of the last glacial period, but I

object to some of the terminology. Above

all I think it is impossible to name the

period between ca. 40,000 and 32,000

B.P. "G6ttweig." Here Valoch follows

Movius (1960), who relied mainly onGross and on Woldstedt and disregarded

opposed views emerging from fieldwork

in the Central European type regions

(see also CA2:427-54). In the meantime,

even Gross has discarded his old views,

e.g., in a rather misleading article in CA

(7: 239-42), on which I shall someday

write a separate comment.

2) My opinion about the dating of

several finds and archaeological entities

differs from Valoch's. However, I shall

refrain from a discussion since it would

amount mainly to a shortened version of

what I have said elsewhere (e.g., Narr1963, 1967).

3) Valoch requests more statistical

studies for the middle Palaeolithic of

Central and Eastern Europe and suggests

some statistical differentiations, e.g., the

relative amount of side-scrapers. We do

not know, however, what phenomena of

the historical reality are reflected by such

statistical data. I am not sure that the

curves always represent groups or stages

(see Narr 1956 and, for a general evalua-

tion of the "statistical method," Narr

1967). The old cynical gradation "lies

--damn lies->statistics" may well apply,to a certain degree, to some archaeo-

logical statistics, whose basis is often not

"objective" (e.g., Bordes's distinction

between "pointe" and "racloir conver-

gent"; see de Heinzelin 1960 and also the

ironical illustration by Laurent 1965)

and whose interpretation is at present

one-sided. Incidentally, since Valoch

pays due attention to the work of G. Bonc-

Osmolovskij, it seems worthwhile to men-

tion that this scholar used statistics, e.g.,

the different percentages of side-scrapers,

to compare the strata of Kiik Koba with

those of important sites in France asearly as 1926 (see summary by Hancar1937).

4) There is a current trend to reject

the concept of "migration" and to restrict

'380 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY



Valoch:PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEdiffusion." This is a highly complex and

difficult question. As I have said elsewhere

(e.g., Narr 1963, 1966), I cannot help

feeling that the term "migration" has

become colored by the concept (or mis-

concept) of "migration period" in Euro-

pean history and that some authors

equate "migration" with ,"mass migra-

tion" or "conscious and purposeful migra-

tion across long distances. " Climatic

changes and the shifting of ecologic zones

during the Pleistocene period must have

caused, at least, much "migration" by

slow drifting of small groups. (I am sure

that only lack of space prevented Valoch

from adequately evaluating the ecologic

factors determining, fostering, or hamper-

ing the course of events.) As regards

"diffusion" versus "autochthonous de-

velopment," Valoch obviously is fully

aware that these processes do not exclude

one another in the forming of cultural

entities. However, when discussing such

questions, we must not neglect a certain

"hierarchy" of cultural elements and

must place more emphasis on clearly

defined types (e.g., keeled scrapers, split-

base points, let alone styles of art) than

on less definite forms, which are more

likely to be "invented" or "developed" in

more than one region and in more than

one period. Some attempts to derive,

e.g., the Aurignacian from "local roots"

are neglecting this principle. (Statistics

by their very nature tend to level the

different values of phenomena )

5) It is one of the most urgent, though

difficult, tasks of Palaeolithic archaeology

to desistfrom reconstruction of past events

on the basis of mere typological (including

statistical) analysis. We must try to con-

sider all available information on the

economy, habitat, settlement patterns,

and even styles of art, hints on religion,

and so on (see also Narr 1954: 30-34 and

1965: 9). Unfortunately these are scarce

or even lacking in many instances and

often enough remain very uncertain. Of

course, a short essay like that of Valoch

cannot aim at a detailed presentation and

thorough evaluation of this kind of source.

Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that

the mere forms and techniques of artifacts

may lead us to reconstructions of little

bearing on relevant cultural conditions

and historic events. Oakley (1952: 297)

rightly stated that

. .. if, with the aid of a Wellsian time-machine, we could actually meet Acheulianpeople in South Africa and compare themwith their contemporariesat Swanscombe, wemight be astonished by the differences.

This certainly applies to other Palaeolithic

industries and across shorter distances

too.

byJIRIEUSTUPNII

Prague,Czechoslovakia. x 67

It seems logical that the pebble tools

found across large expanses of Central

Europe are variants of the most ancient

form of man-made tools. The Vertes-

szollos industry too seems to fit this

primitive pattern, though its tools are

made of much smaller pebbles than is

usual. The differences between pebble

industries may reflect the fact that the

shapes of tools became set only gradually

with the development of abstract thinking

of their makers. We must be careful,however, in the search for the beginnings

of tool production to concentrate upon

the study of assemblages from camp sites

with reliable stratigraphical data; at least

some of the tools must show traces of

intentional working; and the assemblage

must be associated with other evidence of

man's life and activity (bones of animals

hunted, fire, etc). Isolated finds and finds

that do not meet these requirements are

nevertheless important in that they stimu-

late further excavation and investigation.

It is not possible to decide definitely

whether the settlement of the Paleolithicwas continuous or whether there occurred

shifts or even replacements of populations

in Central and Eastern Europe. The

author rules out the possibility of large-

scale and sudden migrations in the Upper

Paleolithic, admitting only slow shifts and

the diffusion of archaeological pheno-

mena. Since mankind did not originate

in Central and Eastern Europe, it is clear

that people must have come there from

elsewhere; but they hardly came in a

single wave. We must always take into

account the possibility of peripheral shifts

resulting in the extension of the settlementarea (Gjessing 1964). Large-scale and

sudden migrations are not probable at

such an early stage of mankind's develop-

ment, except under unusual circum-

stances such as environmental or climatic

changes. The conclusive archaeological

evidence is still missing, but it seems

probable that the Paleolithic hunting and

food-collecting populations and their

archaeological industries developed with-

in their original territories, if not during

the whole Paleolithic, at least in its

Middle and Upper phases (Zebera 1958,

Neustupny 1961: 22, 26, 30).If the assumption of a typological de-

velopment from the Lower Paleolithic

hand-axes to the Middle Paleolithic

points and further to the Early Upper

Paleolithic leaf-shaped points is correct,

then there is a gap in this development in

Central and Eastern Europe, because

hand-axes of the Abbevillian-Acheulean

type are found in large numbers in the

western part of Europe only. Further the

author includes the Middle Paleolithic of

the eastern part of Central Europe in the

so-called East-European group of the

typical Mousterian because it seems tohave lacked the necessary preconditions

for the appearance of leaf-shaped points

-which, however, he considers as in-

digenous. Does this mean that we are not

yet sufficiently informed about the role of

hand-axes in the Lower Paleolithic and

of Mousterian points in the Middle Paleo-lithic in Central and Eastern Europe?

There is no reason to suppose that there

were large-scale migrations of populations

bearing a Mousterian with bifaces to

Central and Eastern Europe, where they

might have given rise to the domesticdevelopment of leaf-shaped points.

The Aurignacian, Szeletian, and Ols-

chewian may have been contemporaries,

but only in separate regions. In primitive

hunting and food-collecting society, the

coexistence of several alien groups in the

same region is hardly probable. There

are some indications, however, that these

could be simply local facies of the same

civilisation, for parts of the industries are

identical (see Neustupny and Neustupny

1961: 22-23), indeed the author himself

points out the close ties between the

Aurignacian and Olschewian and hintsat the possibility that they represent two

facies of the same civilisation. In the

future the historical relations between the

Aurignacian, Szeletian, and Olschewian

will have to be traced from all possible

viewpoints: owing to the limited vari-

ability of the material, the archaeological

criterion is not necessarily decisive.

Though the Balkan Peninsula belongs

geographically to Southeastern Europe, I

would like to draw attention to its ties

with Central and Eastern Europe. A

number of archaeologists (e.g., Milojcic

1958, de Sonneville-Bordes 1965, Puljanos1963) have argued for the existence of

Middle Paleolithic and Mousteroid in-

dustries in Greece; but the finds from the

Pineios River valley in Thessaly bear a

surprising resemblance to the finds from

the Aurignacian-Szeletian orbit in Cen-

tral Europe, and the same seems to be

true of the fnew finds from the western

part of Peloponnesus (Servais 1961).

The author divides his "later Upper

Palaeolithic" into the Pavlovian (for-

merly the Eastern Gravettian), dated

28,000-24,000 B.P., with a late phase

(Sagvar and Arka in Hungary) dated to19,000-13,000 B.P., and the Magda-

lenian. He does not specify the temporal

relations between them. He mentions the

absence of Magdalenian sites of Lower

Austria, Moravia, and southern Poland.

Is it not possible that here the Pavlovian

was not replaced by the Magdalenian,

but only altered by Magdalenian in-

fluences coming from the west (Neu-

stupny 1963) ? A direct and simple suc-

cession of the Magdalenian to the Pav-

lovian would leave a gap in the settlement

of the eastern part of Central Europe. It

will be the task of future research toascertain the relations between the Pav-lovian (Gravettian) and the western

Magdalenian, and to establish every-


B



where the late phases of the Pavlovian.

Where neither the Magdalenian nor its

influence is found, the late Pavlovian must

have persisted.

To the late Paleolithic groups discussed

by the author must be added the Ostro-

mer group, which in Bohemia and

Moravia is very close to the Polish Tar-

nowian, but which, according to Vencl

(1966: 338), has no relation either to the

Magdalenian, the Epi-Magdalenian, or

the "Federmessergruppe."

The author's introduction of the term

"Late Palaeolithic" may be justified,

because this period does have some

features which set it apart from the pre-

ceding Upper Paleolithic; it can appar-

ently be defined archaeologically, geo-

logically, paleontologically, etc. Renam-

ing the period generally termed the Meso-

lithic "Final Palaeolithic", on the other

hand, seems at best premature. It is

necessary to take into account not only

the character of its industries but other

important aspects as well: changes in the

artistic expression, changes in settlement

and economy, and the trend of further

development. Like others, I used to speak

of the Epi-Paleolithic instead of the Meso-

lithic; but this was at a time when the

classification of archaeological industries

was considered the only criterion for the

division of prehistory into periods. Using

other criteria as well, the term "Final

Paleolithic" might appropriately be ap-

plied to the East and Central European

Mesolithic. Any such change of name,

however, must take into consideration

the neighbouring regions too. The NearEast, including the southern tip of the

Balkan Peninsula, witnessed in the Meso-

lithic, or perhaps as early as in the late

Upper Paleolithic, that revolutionary

change in the economy of prehistoric

mankind, the transition from hunting

and food-collecting to agriculture. The

pre-ceramic horizon (the aceramic Neo-

lithic) in the Near East may in fact be a

developed Mesolithic, in which the

changes that came into full view in the

succeeding Neolithic were in preparation.

That is why I think that the firmly estab-

lished archaeological term "Mesolithic"should be retained. The renaming can

wait until archaeology works out a his-

torically based division of European and

world prehistory into periods. So far few

such attempts have been made (but see,

e.g., Jennings and Norbeck 1964 for the

New World).

Valoch's concluding synthesis gives a

clear overall picture of the stone indus-

tries and thus forms the archaeological

basis for a historical conception of the

beginnings of mankind's development in

Central and Eastern Europe. Such a

historical conception, however, wouldhave to comprise all the historically im-

portant factors: the natural environment

of prehistoric men, the means of sub-

sistence, dwellings, arts, anthropological

problems, and many others. The author

could not include them in his work,

because its extent is limited. This com-

ment, too, had to be kept within certain

limits, and therefore I have mentioned

only a few facts supplementing the

author's conclusions. I could not mention

the many conclusions with which I agree.

Some important works not included in

the author's list of references deserve a

brief mention here: Syntheticworks: Banesz

(1965c), Bairta (1954), Klima (1957),

Neustupny (1959, 1962), Prosek and

Lozek (1954), Zebera (1958); Mono-

graphs: Bader (1965), Feustel (1959),

Klima (1957), Kukla (1961), Neustupn'y(1963), Prosek (1961), Vencl (1966).

Fundamental general works by the archaeo-

logists of the last generation who laid

grounds for the present development of

archaeology: Absolon (1935, 1949), Bayer

(1925), Breuil (1923-25), Obermaier

(1928). The most important works on the

Paleolithic of Greece are the following:

Garrod (1939), Milojcic (1958), Puljanos

(1963), Servais (1967), Skutil (1950), de

Sonneville-Bordes (1965).

by JOHN PFEIFFER-

New Hope, Pa., U.S.A. 6 iii 68

As an up-to-date survey of the Palaeo-

lithic in Central and Eastern Europe,

Valoch's article helps fill a major gapin our knowledge; publishing such

articles is just what CURRENT ANTHRO-

POLOGY should be doing. It will be of

special value to those attempting to fit

information from Southwestern Europe,and particularly from France, into a

broader framework.

A most important point is alluded to in

passing and perhaps merits further em-

phasis. The fact that Bordes's statistical

method has been used in a preliminary

analysis of Middle Palaeolithic tool assem-

blages in the Crimea and on the Russian

Plain has significance as a move toward

quantitative approaches which, we may

hope, will be extended and make possible

increasingly sophisticated comparative

studies involving assemblages from differ-

ent regions. It would be interesting tolearn, either from correspondence or from

another article, how extensively Bordes's

method and related methods are being

applied in Europe and elsewhere.

by PHILIP E. L. SMITH*

Montreal,Canada.13 iii 68

Valoch is to be congratulated and

thanked for this excellent work of syn-

thesis. Prehistorians who are themselves

residents and specialists in Central and

Eastern Europe will undoubtedly be able

to discover errors of fact or of interpreta-tion, but those prehistorians of other

countries who are largely unable to visit

the sites and collections or even, often

enough, to read the publications must

feel a debt of gratitude for what will

surely be recognized as a classic survey

article. From the substantive point of

view it is a most valuable paper. Many of

Valoch's hypotheses are stimulating and

provocative, e.g., his discussion of the

origins of the Aurignacian. His pc-ition

on group movements vs. local develop-

ments is a very reasonable one, and there

is a welcome absence of polemics in dis-

cussing the factors involved in cultural

changes and replacements. His view that

purely Western European terms such as

Solutrean and Tardenoisian should not

be pushed across to Eastern Europe is

very sound; perhaps the same caution

should be exercised for the term Tayacian,

which Valoch does use freely. I shall limit

my comments to a few points, although

there are many others I should like to

discuss, e.g., the present dispute over the

nature of the Upper Palaeolithic "houses"

in the U.S.S.R., or Valoch's use of the

term Final Palaeolithic instead of Meso-

lithic.

I wish Valoch had spent a little time to

indicate the methodological basis for his

archaeological units, i.e., just what he

means by such terms as civilization, in-

dustry, etc. A number of prehistorians in

the countries discussed in this paper are

today examining and debating the use of

archaeological terminology (e.g., Schild

1965); it would have been helpful in

evaluating some of Valoch's statements

to have had some idea of his own inter-

pretation of such terms. Although I hold

no particular brief for Kozlowski's hypo-

thesis of Proto-Magdalenian in Centraland Eastern Europe, I am puzzled that

Valoch rejects its possible presence at one

site (Stanca Ripiceni) "because of its

antler artifacts, which are considered

peculiar to the Pavlovian" (p. 363). If I

understand his statement properly, surely

this is taking a somewhat restricted view

of the definition of prehistoric archaeo-

logical units. Also, the meaning of his

term typogenetic s not altogether clear to

me.

Valoch pays very little attention to en-

vironmental and ecological aspects and

concentrates almost entirely on typo-logical and chronological ones. Neverthe-

less, even a necessarily condensed article

such as this one could have benefited from

a brief discussion of some of the studies

which have already been attempted by

prehistorians of Central and Eastern

Europe: for example, the distinction

which Boriskovski (1965) makes in the

Ukrainian Upper Palaeolithic between

two main groupings-one in the peri-

glacial region, where mammoth was the

main game and solidly built houses were

used, the other in a less rigorous environ-

ment on the southern fringes near thecoast of the Black Sea, where cattle and

bison were hunted and the groups were

apparently more nomadic without solid

or permanent structures. (One might see




Valoch:PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEin Eastern Europe another grouping as

well, based on subsistence and environ-

mental factors, in the Crimean and Trans-

caucasian cave sites, where mixed game

was the rule.) How meaningful do the

typological distinctions become when ex-

amined against these backgrounds?

Valoch refers to the Upper Palaeolithic

in theDniestr basin as exhibiting a "rather

quiet, continuous evolution." On the

other hand, Ivanova and Chernysh

(1965) have indicated that there is a cul-

tural hiatus, at least at the important site

of Molodova V, between ca. 22,000 and

17,000 B.P. which was apparently the

period of greatest cold in the region. I

wonder if Valoch accepts his "hiatus,"

and if so whether it can be detected at

other sites in Eastern Europe. Incident-

ally, this hiatus, if generally confirmed,

would be interesting insofar as a some-

what similar hiatus related to climatic

severity, and at approximately the same

time, is claimed in the Upper Palaeolithic

of the Zagros Mountains in Iraq (Solecki

1963). Indeed, the Upper and Late

Palaeolithic industries (to adopt Valoch's

terminology) of Eastern Europe present

some very interesting analogies with the

industries of the Zagros (e.g., the Bara-

dostian-Zarzian group with the industries

of such sites as Molodova V and some

Crimean ones), and the very probable

presence of the Baradostian and Zarzian

in Transcaucasia indicates that Eastern

and Central Europe constituted a region

open at both ends-to the Middle East as

well as to Western Europe-at this time.

Perhaps this was less true in the MiddlePalaeolithic, for the bifacial flaking and

foliates found in Southeastern Europe

(e.g., the Crimea and Volga regions)

seem to be almost or completely absent in

the Iraqi and Iranian sites. It is not clear

that Valoch's comparison of the incidence

of Levallois technique in Eastern and

Central Europe with that of other regions

is meaningful, for he gives the erroneous

impression (pp. 355, 356) that prepared

striking platforms are what characterize

this technique.

In the past a common interpretation of

the Upper Palaeolithic of the SouthRussian Plain has been that it represented

a stolid, conservative sequence of big-

game hunters, remarkably homogeneous

geographically and with relatively few

changes occurring through time in eco-

nomy, settlement locales, and even ideo-

logy, i.e., a co-tradition with changes

taking place throughout at roughly the

same tempo (for example, see Boriskovski

1958: 319-20). There has been for some

time reason to believe that this is not a

wholly accurate picture. Perhaps the

shifts and changes in artifact styles are

less abrupt than they appear to be inWTesternEurope, but there has also un-

doubtedly been a tendency in the past to

play down this aspect and to emphasize

cultural continuity and indigeneous de-

velopments. In recognizing freely the co-

existence of typologically different tradi-

tions within restricted areas and in accept-

ing the important role of diffusion (in-

cluding "invasions" in some cases),

Valoch goes a long way towards building

a more reliable model of what really

happened. This precision will be in-

creased as finer stratigraphies are con-

structed and chronometric data obtained,

so that eventually the phenomena can be

interpreted in processual terms accept-

able to all prehistorians-that is, to pro-

vide a genuine palaeoanthropology.

In summary: this is a paper which

furnishes very valuable information and

gives us a great deal to think about.

by GUNTER SMOLLA*

Frankfurt/Main,Germany. 5 ix 67

Valoch must be congratulated for this

very useful concise review. He is right to

be as cautious as possible; but concerning

the question of the earliest artifacts, his

scepticism seems to me to be carried too

far. G. Riek's excavations at Heidenheim-

Schnaitheim should provide us with a

sound basis for discussion of this question

in Central Europe. Contrary to Valoch's

suggestion, pebble tools and Middle Pa-

laeolithic hand-axes occur together in

Hessen, as in other regions of the Old

World (Kruger 1962: 40). The quartzite

sites in Hessen mentioned by Valoch are

typical factory sites like those of Africa

and Asia.I am not convinced that the term

"Tayacian" is very useful for describing

those tantalizing Middle Paiaeolithic in-

dustries. The late M. Stekelis once told

me that on the basis of his observations

during the excavations carried out by

Neuville, the "Tayacian" of the Oumm-

Quatafa in the Judaean desert seemed to

him to represent only a downward migra-

tion of some of the smaller artifacts from

the overlying "Acheuleen moyen" layer.

I feel obliged to offer this observation

without further comment. Valoch's views

as to the genesis and connections of theMiddle Palaeolithic industries are stimu-

lating, but it must be kept in mind that

they are no more than working hypo-

theses.

As to the duration of the Upper Palaeo-

lithic, I shall say only that C14 years need

not be solar years and that climatic

changes may affect the time scale. I am

not at all a doubting Thomas concerning

C14, but I should not be surprised if the

duration of some parts of the Upper

Palaeolithic should prove to be some

1,000 years longer than it seems todav.

Valoch likes to use the term FinalPalaeolithic instead of Mesolithic; in his

region this term is quite useful, but in

others it is not (cf. Schwabedissen

1964).

The "macrolithic" industries are not

restricted to Northwestern Europe; while

the term "Campignien" is gone, the crude

artifacts remain in various parts of the

Old World (Smolla 1960: 54-55; 1967).

by D. DE SONNEVILLE-BORDES*

Talence,rance. 8 iii 68The very useful paper by Karel Valoch

calls for some observations about the

Upper Palaeolithic in Central Europe.

Aurignacian: Valoch reviews the statis-

tical characteristics I established (1965)

for the lithic material from layers 4 and 5

of the Vogelherd, Wurtemberg (excava-

tions by G. Riek). To me, the lithic

material of Vogelherd, the lower level of

which has yielded numerous and typical

split-base bonepoints, is typically Aurig-

nacian and very homogenous. Muller-

Beck (1965) finds typogenetic connections

between this material and the Jerzmano-

wice leaf-point industry. Indeed, he assi-

milates the leaf-shaped points of the

Jerzmanowician with the point-shaped,

bilaterally retouched Aurignacian blades

which are typical of the French Lower

Aurignacian and which are represented

at Vogelherd by some beautiful examples.

These tools are absolutely normal in this

context and have nothing to do with any

cultural contamination. There are no

typological reasons why the Vogelherd

Aurignacian should be chronologically

different from the other Aurignacian

assemblages with split-base bonepoints inwestern Central Europe.

We have established that this Aurig-

nacian from Vogelherd, in contrast to the

Aurignacian of Southwestern France, has

no burins busques. According to Valoch,

the Aurignacian from eastern Central

Europe has burins busques; but are they

indeed typical burins busques (bogenstichel,

arched burins), that is, "dihedral burins

with a burin blow opposite a series of

convex-shaped burin blows, ending in a

notch"? What some authors who use our

typological classification have referred to

by this term are in fact atypical burinsbusquds.From level 5 of Willendorf II,

Felgenhauer (1959, part 3; Fig. 28, no. 9)

shows a dihedral canted burin, with a

slightly convex side, such as can be found

in all the Upper Palaeolithic cultures. In

his fine publication on Dolni Vestonice,

what Klima shows as burins busques are

also atypical ones (1963: Fig.23, nos. 273,

274; Fig. 45, nos. 663, 664). It would be

better to call them "burins carenes" (cari-

nate burins), as did, at the beginning of

this century, the French typologists M.

Bourlon and A. and J. Bouyssonie. The

typological distinction is sometimes diffi-cult to make. We have discussed this prob-

lem, describing and illustrating this type

of burin, in a recent paper (Mommejeane

Bordes, and de Sonneville-Bordes 1964).




If the burins busquesthat Valoch indi-

cates in the Aurignacian of eastern Cen-

tral Europe all belong to this type, one

must conclude that there are no typical

burins busques in this part of Europe, just

as there are none in Spain and Belgium

(de Sonneville-Bordes 1961).

Magdalenian: According to Valoch, the

Magdalenian, originating in Western

Europe, is one of the two important

groups of the final Upper Palaeolithic inCentral Europe (the other being the

"Pavlovian"). The statistical and typo-

logical study of several series of the

Magdalenian from Southern Germany

(de Sonneville-Bordes 1968) and Switzer-

land (de Sonneville-Bordes 1963) pro-

vides the following details:

The Magdalenian of Southern Ger-

many (Rhineland, Souab Jura) is late, as

is the one from Switzerland (Schaffouse):

its harpoons, its works of art (Petersfels),

its lithic typology make it comparable to

the Upper Magdalenian (V-VI) of

France. This German-Swiss Magdalenianhas some unique features as well: (a) its

end-scraper, burin, and borer indices are

more or less equal (each about 1/5 of the

tool kit), while in France the burin index

is always greater than the end-scraper

index and the borers seldom account for

more than 5%; (b) the indices of dihedral

burins and burins on retouched trunca-

tion are more or less equal, while in

France the former is almost always

greater; (c) parrot-beak burins, charac-

teristic of the French Magdalenian VI,

are totally absent; (d) besides Azilian

points and thumb-nail scrapers, the seriescontains tools which seem more specific

to this facies-rectangles; shouldered

points, often with a distal truncation;

and points with an angular back.

It is incontestable that typological

resemblances exist between the Aurig-

nacian and the Magdalenian of western

Central Europe and the corresponding

cultures in Southwestern France and

that this demonstrates cultural connec-

tions between these two zones. On the

other hand, these two great cultures

present marked differences from those of

the classical zone. Who could be as-tonished at the existence of distinct facies

of cultures of such wide geographic ex-

tension at a time when diversity in Europe

was already well developed?

bySLAVOMIL VENCL*

Prague,Czechoslovakia. ix 67

The general summary of the state of re-

search on the Palaeolithic provided by

Valoch's interesting article undoubtedly

contributes to the elimination of mis-

understandings caused by the traditional

focusing on only a few European regions.In this respect, his paper differs rather

significantly from other synthetic works,

for example, Muller-Karpe (1966) and

Leroi-Gourhan (1966), which are as a

rule poorer in information as regards

remote or linguistically less accessible

regions and thus establish an erroneous

idea of complete absence or paucity of

Palaeolithic settlement in such regions.

On the other hand, scope of this work has

necessitated condensation of information

to the extent that a number of important

works have been omitted (for Czecho-

slovakia, e.g., Banesz 1965, Klima 1961,

Prosek and Lozek 1954, Zebera 1958).One would welcome, in the future, a

discussion of the problems of each indivi-

dual period, e.g., Late Palaeolithic,

Mesolithic, at least as thorough as that of

the Palaeolithic as a whole in this paper.

I should like, instead of commenting

on particulars, to advance a few general

remarks concerning the present article as

representing generally accepted opinions:

1) It is quite remarkable to observe that

it is apparently easier to solve problems

relating to the genesis of cultures (cf.

Gallus 1966) in the Palaeolithic than to

treat the same problems as regards themore recent prehistoric periods, in spite

of the fact that the material sources avail-

able for the Palaeolithic are considerably

poorer both in quantity and in quality.

While we do not know the origin of the

Neolithic Linear culture or of the Bronze

Age Unetice culture, in spite of the fact

that thousands of stratified finds from

settlements and cemeteries are available,

the origin of some Palaeolithic industry

(the material of which is often limited to

mere surface finds or cave layers) can

evidently be established simply by demon-

strating some technological or morpho-logical similarity or even successive occu-

pation of one and the same site (so-called

geographical continuity of settlement).

These "typogenetic" judgements are not

even hampered by gaps of 10,000 years,as may be seen in a number of schemes

linking the successive industries known

today in narrow regions (such as Hungary

or Central Germany) in local genetic

chains (e.g., for Czechoslovakia, Zebera

1958 and 1965, and, in the present paper,

the suggested relation of Tayacian and

Aurignacian; cf. also Mottl 1951). It is

however, obvious that the kind of judg-ment which cannot be made on the basis

of richer sources, e.g., those for the Bronze

Age, can hardly be made without exceed-

ing the limits of the substantially poorer

material sources for the Palaeolithic. The

substantial reduction in quality and quan-

tity of sources for this period must, on the

contrary, necessarily be reflected in a

reduced scope of interpretation as com-

pared to the more recent prehistoric

periods. The poverty of the sources

(together with the inadequately detailed

dating of the Palaeolithic) does not at

present permit any more than very weaklysupported alternative hypotheses as re-

gards the origin of Palaeolithic industries

(a better expression than "culture"; Narr

1963), and these hypotheses cannot pro-

vide support for further interpretations

(cf. in the present article the debatable

opinion on the process of the origin of

Homo sapiens derived from the very prob-

lematic knowledge of the process of cul-

tural development).

2) The meaning of such expressions

as "tradition of leaf-shaped points" (often

employed in connection with the genetic

continuity of artifacts from the Eem and

Gottweig periods) is unclear. If we con-sider the leaf-shaped point to be an im-

plement (e.g., a sickle) and not a materi-

alization of an abstract idea invested with

an inherent will to develop, then what

would the analogous expression, "tradi-

tion of bronze sickles" mean in connection

with the problem of the origin of indivi-

dual prehistoric cultures?

3) The idea of convergent evolution,

e.g., the independent origin of leaf-shaped

points in various places of Europe at

approximately the same time, is more an

exaggerated a priori reaction to the for-

merly generally accepted notion of largemigrations than an objective interpreta-

tion of the material sources. How, in fact,

it is possible to speak seriously of conver-

gent development if (a) the most accurate

dating is maximally accurate within

periods of a millenium, and (b) we know

from the more recent prehistoric periods

that a serviceable invention spreads and

also changes at a rapid rate? Is it, on the

basis of today's scattered sources, really

possible to speak of continuity in the full

sense of the word (i.e., without having to

ignore gaps of several thousands ofyears) ?

4) The comparison of industries thecharacteristic feature of which is their

atypicalness (in this article, e.g., the

Baume-Bonne type of Tayacian and the

Tata type of Mousterian) is questionable.

Atypicalness as a basis for a comparison is

in a certain sense an argument ex silentio:

it does not permit one to ascertain the

degree of similarity and therefore in-

volves the danger that phenomena of

only accidental similarity will be digested

or genetically associated (Vencl 1964).

5) It is dangerous to interpret arch-

aeological phenomena as substantial

features of the historical process; anarchaeological phenomenon can at times

apparently bear witness to a situation

that never existed. Valoch (1965a) has

observed that distinctive regional cultural

groups (which later developed indivi-

dually in the course of several more recent

phases of the Pleistocene) took shape in

the course of the Central European

Middle Palaeolithic. The question must

arise whether the existence of some of the

archaeologically dissimilar cultural

groups is not a pseudohistorical pheno-

menon: if the Middle Palaeolithic of

Central Europe employed exclusivelylocal raw materials (hence materials

differing in quantity, quality and dimen-

sions) for the manufacture of industries,

the archaeological difference need not




Valoch:PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEautomatically signify a process of in-dependent development in a certaingroup of people, but may on the contrarysometimes be a purely archaeologicalphenomenon, demonstratingthe imprac-ticability of perfectly identical shaping ofraw materials of different qualities evenby the same people. (There can, at thesame time, be no doubt as to the objectiveexistence of some distinctive Middle

Palaeolithic groupsin Central Europe.)6) I consider the periodic succession

(i.e., Upper Palaeolithic, Late Palaeo-lithic, Mesolithic) to be correct, and, in-deed, have been supporting it for some

time (Vencl 1964). I doubt, however,whether it is right to replace the term"Mesolithic." It seems to me that if everyshift or partial change in the meaning ofa term resulted in its replacement byanother one, our system of symbolswouldcease to be intelligible, since any changemade only in consideration of present

circumstances and not with a view tothe future can only be a temporary one.What matters here is only the interpreta-tion of the term; Mesolithic is no longerto be considered as an independent

unit on the level of Palaeolithic and

Neolithic.Interest in the knowledge of historical

processes has in recent years becomegeneral; but historical interpretationmust correspondto the state of knowledgein the archaeology of the Palaeolithic and

cannotbe consideredvalid simplybecause

it is an expressionof contemporary, moreor less generally accepted but still a priori,opinions or because it is diametricallyopposed to similarly unsupported older

opinions.

Reply

by K. VALOCH

Brno,Czechoslovakia. vi 68

I am very much pleased by the interest

my article has evoked. I thank all thecommentators for their-comments,agree-ing, complementing, and critical; I havefound them very instructive. I have or-ganized my reply in terms of a number ofissues under which most of the criticalcomments can be subsumed. I would liketo say beforehand that my article wasfinished in the winter of 1965-66 and sodoes not contain sources later than 1965;that the volume of work in this area pre-cluded the detailed listing of referencesthat Neustupny and Vencl would havewished; and that, as Collinshassuggested,

the translationfrom the original Germanmay have caused some confusion.

The over-all conception.I have taken as

an indicator of the Palaeolithic of the

region under consideration the stone andbone industries most frequently rep-resented by remains preserved from thattime. This choice has led to a kind ofhistory of Palaeolithic technology whichlacks, as a number of the commentators(Hole, Klein, Narr, Neustupny, Smith)have correctly observed, the many otherfactors, ecological (topography, climate)and cultural (dwellings, funeral rites,

ways of hunting, art, etc.), which mustcontribute to a historyof mankind duringthe Palaeolithic period. To have includedall these factors, however, would haveexpanded the article immensely; more-over, our concrete knowledge about mostof them is so fragmentary, as Narr haspointed out, that the hypothetical charac-ter of the conclusions would not havebeen much altered. Even the apparentlyeasy problem of the relationship of manto his environment is best approached bymeans Qf broad continental, or evensupercontinental, surveys, where it ispossible to speakof climatic zones, glacialor interglacial. The more detailed viewwith reference to specific cultures thatthis report would require would be diffi-cult to achieve, partly because of ourlack

of knowledge of the detailed chronologyand of the conditionswhich in fact existedin the particular region, especially insuch a morphologically complex regionas Central Europe. In order to suggest,for example, that the concentration ofsites of the Moravian Szeletian on the

slopes is climatically conditioned, onemust first know whether the climate ofthe time was a moderate, interstadialone(in which the valleys, at least, were surelywooded) or a cool, stadial one (in whicheither loesswas being formed or the slopeswere being denuded and the valleys filledby solifluction); lacking knowledge of theages of the sites and their exact strati-graphic positions, it is impossible to saywhich climate prevailed, for the periodthese sites represent may have been aslong as 10,000 years. Again, not knowingthe ages of the sites on the Russian Plain,

one should hesitate to interpret the differ-ences among them as regional, even withthe considerable climatic difference thatcan surely be assumed between the areaalong the coast of the Black Sea and theregions to the north.

Terminology.The majority of criticisms(Anati, Ghosh, Gallus, Hole, Koztowski,Mohapatra, Neustupny, Smith, Smolla,Vencl) were, quite justly, concentratedupon this point. The general lack of uni-formity in the terms used for the Palaeo-lithic and the confusion as to their mean-ings is accentuated in Central Europe by

the habits peculiar to particular lan-guages. For example, in the Slavoniclanguages and German the term in gener-al use is "Palaeolithic culture"; in Polish,this is being replaced by "cycle" (Schild1963, 1965), while in French the term"industry" is most frequent. My term"civilization" (once suggested by L. Zotz)is no less broad or inappropriate than the"culture" it replaces; possibly, however,the notion of "culture" in the specificallyarchaeological sense may yet be applic-able to the Palaeolithic (Fridrich,Klima,and Valoch 1968).

The other terms I have used may bedefined as follows:

Industry-an assemblage of artifactsfrom a single layer of a given site; also,more generally, all the assemblages of a

given period or region, as in the phrase

"bone industryof the Magdalenian."Type-two or more industries similar

both morphologically and typologically.Group-two or more industriessimilar

in content, related (i.e., part of the same

culture), and close together in time.

Complex-two or more industries orgroups differing in age but possibly part

of the same culture.Facies-one aspect of a given culture,

usually geographicallydefined and differ-

ing typologically and/or chronologicallyfrom other aspectsof that culture.

The newly introduced Polish termino-

logy is extremely detailed, and, in that itindependently names each regional group(przemysl) of a certain cycle, it may bedifficult to use, for on an all-Europeanscale it could easily contain several hun-dred terms. Making the terminology of

the Palaeolithic more accurate is an im-portant task, one that perhaps demandsinternationalco-operation (possiblywith-in the framework of CA?). How difficult

it is to reach agreement in such an area,however, has been shown with referenceto a much simpler matter by the Sym-

posium on Nomenclature of Types of

Stone Tools for Central Europe to whichKozlowski refers. One of the motives for

this symposiumwas precisely the fact thatthe Palaeolithic of Central Europe con-tains a whole series of forms which escapethe terms and definitionsvalid in Western

Europe.The term "typogenetic" is used by mein a double sense: (a) to describe an

apparent relationship between tempor-ally consequent forms of a particular tool

type (e.g., the couteaua dosof the MiddlePalaeolithic and the couteauChatelperron

point of the Upper Palaeolithic in

France); and (b) to describe the changesin industries from one phase to another inthe quantitative representation and/ortypological character of basic forms (e.g.the gradual decrease in number ofscrapers and the concurrent increase innumber of

burinsof various new forms

from the Lower to the Upper Aurignacianin France and in Moravia).

The conceptions "palaeoanthropo-logy" and "prehistory" have been used




in the sense current in Czech andGerman. In English,in contrast,"Palaeo-anthropology" refers solely to thestudy of human skeletal remains and is infact equivalent to "osteology of fossilman"; "prehistory" deals with the evalu-ation of the material remains of humansociety from the time before writtenrecords (and is followed by protohistoryand history); and "archaeology" is a set

of methods for practical fieldwork theobjects of which may belong to any timeperiod, even the historical (cf. "medievalarchaeology").

I am consciousof the fact that the term"Tayacian" is too vague and broad. Inusing it here (e.g., "Tayacian of theBaume-Bonne type, Fontechevade"), I

only wanted to indicate the over-all simi-larity ofthese industries, not yet publishedor analyzed, to the published French in-dustries in order to allow the reader toform a kind of preliminary idea of theirnature. I consider this to be only a tem-

porarysolution (cf. Valoch 1968a).The misunderstanding in the case of

the Levallois technique is most likelyattributable to the translation. Dibitage

Levallois is apparent in the Middle Palaeo-lithic only in Southeastern Europe; in

Central Europe, there is merely facettage

in connection with debitage non-Levallois

until the appearance of dibitage Levallois

in some industries of the early UpperPalaeolithic in Moravia.

The origins of the designations of thecultures of the region in question are asfollows: Olschewian, from Mt. Olsheva

in the Karavanki Mountains of northernYugoslavia; Szeletian, from the Szeletacave in Hungary; Pavlovian, from thesite of Pavlov in Czechoslovakia; Kost-jenkian, from the site of Kostjenki, on theDon near Voronjezh, U.S.S.R.; Tarno-

wian, from the site of Tarnow in Poland;Mazowian, from the Mazowsze region inPoland.

Criticism of the terms "Late Palaeo-lithic" and "Final Palaeolithic" was ex-

pected. The discoveryof Late Palaeolithicindustries during the past 20 years is asignificant contribution of Central Euro-

pean archaeology,rendering substantiallymore exact our knowledge about thedecline of the Old Stone Age in thisregion. From the point of view of method-ology, the term seems to me to be fittingfor the time being (cf.Neustupny, Vencl).In using the term "Final Palaeolithic," Iwanted to indicate the absolutecontinuityof the Mesolithic with the precedingPalaeolithic, as well as the hiatus betweenit and the following Neolithic, in theregions described. The term cannot, ofcourse, be applied in the Near East, wherethe Mesolithic really does form a link

between the Palaeolithic and the Neo-lithic; nor can be applied in the moreremote regions of Africa and Asia, wherethe concept of "Late Stone Age" hasquite a different content. From the com-

ments, it would appear that the Meso-lithic is defined in a number of differentways. On the basis of the geologicalcriterion less han 10,000 .P.), the majorpart of our Late Palaeolithic would per-haps be Recent and thus Mesolithic; theclimato-palaeontological criterion (theappearance of postglacial forest fauna) isconditioned by zonal distribution andtherefore not usable; the much more

reliable typological criterion (microlithi-zation of tools) cannot be applied herebecause of the uncertainty as to the occur-rence of microlithization in the LatePalaeolithic, despite the high ratio oftypical microliths (triangles)in theUpperPalaeolithic (e.g., Pavlov et al.) I suggestthat the economic base of society is the

only division marker ustified historicallyin this case. Muller-Beck, although herecommends retaining the term "Meso-lithic," nevertheless correctly says of theterm "Neolithic" that its original chrono-logical-stratigraphic meaning has been

overshadowed by its economic-culturalmeaning (Grahmann and Muller-Beck1967: 316, 319). It is only reasonablethat an analogous economic-culturalmeaning should be assigned to the term"Palaeolithic"; and the whole of the"Mesolithic" of Centraland EasternEur-ope (excluding the easternBalkans,wherea pre-ceramic Neolithic appears) wouldfall into a Palaeolithic so defined. Analternative to this detailed division intomore phases has been suggested by Lap-lace (1966), who combines the Upper,Late, and Final Palaeolithic under the

single term "Leptolithic."Stratigraphy, chronology.Concerning the

problems raised by Ivanov, Kukla, andNarr, I must report that recent studies inHolland (Hammen et al. 1967; Vogel andZagwijn 1967) have demonstrated theexistence of a Middle Wurm Interstadial,here called Hengelo, which coincideswithour Podhradem. The somewhat morerecent Denekamp Interstadial is thenidentical with our Stillfried B. Ourhypothesis as to the existence of twosuch climatic oscillations in close suc-cession (Musil and Valoch 1966) is

thus supported from another part ofEurope.

The radiocarbon dates for certainCentral European sites-Dolni WVestonicebrickworks, Pavlov, Podhradem, Willen-dorf II/4, Aggsbach-have been correc-ted in Groningen; a slight increase hasoccurred in all of them (Vogel and Water-bolk, 1964; Vogel and Zagwijn 1967).

Kukla's comment is outside the frame-work of this article, as it primarily con-cerns my summary of the research donein the cave of Podhradem. Opravil(written communication) holds that

dwarf mountain-fir and beech may wellhave occurred together in the complexconditions of the Moravian Karst andtherefore their co-occurrence among thecharcoal samples does not constitute proof

of contamination. Musil (oral communi-cation) refers to his publication quotedabove and repeats that the fauna is notredeposited (as is shown by finds of bonesin anatomical position and a continuousevolution of cave bears from the lower tothe upper beds). He explains the contem-poraneity of forestand steppe species as aconsequence of ecological differences be-tween the Karst region and the non-karst

environment.Migrations, evolution, relations. Com-

ments by Anati, Gabori, Ghosh, Hopkins,Narr, Neustupny, Smith, and Vencltouch upon various aspects of theseproblems. One of the aspects of myrefusal to employ the concept of "migra-tion" has been well grasped by Narr; theidea of diffusion seems to me more accept-able. This does not, however, at all ex-clude migration over many hundreds ofkilometres within a given area (e.g., thesteppes of Central Europe). I see con-tinuity of settlement also in terms of such

an area. A hiatus of several thousands ofyears in one locality (Molodova V) doesnot prove that the wider area of EasternEurope, and even the Dniestr region itself,did not contain some culture developingcontinuously. Again, there is for the timebeing a gap in the radiocarbon dates of atleast 10,000 years between the Pavlovianand the Magdalenian in Czechoslovakia;in Hungary, however, Sagvar is dated inthis range. In any case, the contem-poraneity of cultures (e.g., the Szeletian,the Aurignacian, and the Olschewian) insuch a region must be seen in terms of a

range of several thousands of years; atpresent there is no measure which mightproduce a more minute division.

Vencl's critical considerations are cer-tainly justified in essence, and they arerelevant not only to my article, but alsoto the manner of drawing conclusionsfrom archaeological material in the Pa-laeolithic in general. Some of his com-parisons with examples of my work arenot quite appropriate, but detailed dis-cussion of these is impossible here. Hisopinion must definitely be thought overand considered.

Lower and Middle Palaeolithic. Besidesthe comments by Anati, Bordes, Collins,Freund, Gabori, Kozlowski, Neustupn',Pfeiffer, and Smolla, I have taken intoconsideration M. Brodar's letter (Ljubl-jana) and L. Vrtes' oral communication(Budapest). Brodar demands correctionof the name of a site; what I have referredto as Monastir in Serbia should properlybe Bitola in Macedonia. Vrtes tells methat in his opinion the chopper fromPestldrinc, which I have mentioned as aquite singular find from this site, is apseudo-artifact, and further that he had

already suggested (1965) the existence ofthe epi-chopper industry in the Riss/Wurm Interglacial.

Concerning the Heidelbergian, I nowbelieve that the finds uncovered by Rust




Valoch: PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEnd Zebera may be seen as human tools

(cf. Grahmann and Muller-Beck 1967).

It is a matter of fact that both Central

and Eastern Europe are relatively poor

in Lower Palaeolithic materials; but it is

also a fact that the very extensive present-

day research is continually producing

new pieces of knowledge. In this connec-

tion I might also mention the discovery

of implements together with an Upper

Biharian fauna at the site of Strainska

skala, near Brno, Czechoslovakia (Musil

and Valoch 1968). According to Musil,

these finds may come from the Gunz/

Mindel Interglacial.

I have used the term "Micoquian" in

the sense of Bosinki (1967), a sense in

which it fits into the framework of the

Polish industries ("Pradnician") and

those of southern Russia. I have referred

to as "Charentian of Micoquian tradi-

tion" an industry having essentially the

same inventory of types as the Charentian

(including typical, though rather rare,

Quina scrapers) but containing in addi-

tion some elements of the Micoquian.

According to Bosinski's definition, this

latter industry would be a Central Euro-

pean Micoquian.

Upper Palaeolithic. The comments by

Bordes, Collins, Delporte, Freund, Gab-

ori, Klima, Neustupny, Smith, and de

Sonneville-Bordes are related to several

questions. As regards the relationship be-

tween Aurignacian and Olschewian, that

these are two independent cultures is at

present no more hypothetical than that

they are two facies (hunting and dwelling)

of a single culture. I have chosen the

former alternative to point up the specific

character of each of them as well as the

differences between them. (According to

Brodar, the site of Lokve cave is not "near

Trieste," as I have stated, but near

Rijeka.)

The Upper Aurignacian of Moravia

does in fact contain a majority of burins

of the type burin carene';I would argue,

however, that the true burinbusque' arched

burin) also occurs.

The idea of a relationship between the

Central European Aurignacian of the

Krems Hundsteig type to the Pavlovian

was presented, on typogenetic grounds,

concurrently by Grigoriev (1966) and

Laplace (1966). I have recently offered

my own point of view, including a sum-

mary of the chronological deficiencies of

this hypothesis (1968b). At the same time,

I expressed my opinion concerning the

contents and volume of the Pavloviansuggesting that, within the framework ofthe gravettoid industries (industriesd lame

a dos) extending all over Europe, itconstitutes an independent regionalgroup. Its development, like that of allthe other recent groups, includes a seriesof phases distinguishable chronologicallyand typologically. The question of simi-larity between certain of the industries

(e.g., that of Dolni Vestonice) and theFrench Perigordian will still have to bestudied.

The problem of the Proto-Magdalenianinvolves chronology. If the French Proto-Magdalenian is, as Bordes suggests in hiscomment, the "Final Perigordian" (ca.

20,000 years B.P., abri Pataud), thenlayer 9 of Molodova V, dated to 28-

29,000 B.P. (according to Ivanova's com-ment), must belong to a very early phaseof the "Eastern Gravettian."

The "baton de commandement" (baton

perce)occurs,even in the region described,earlier than in the Magdalenian (Molo-dova V/7, Predmosti, Pavlov), but alongwith several other bone objects it consti-tutes a set typical of the Magdalenian ofCentralEurope.

References CitedABRAMOUA, Z. A. 1962. Palaeoliticeskoe

isskustvo na territorii SSSR. ArcheologiaSSSR A4-3.

ABSOLON, K. 1935. "L'Aurignacien tres

ancien (quartzitique) dans l'Europe Cen-trale, avec ses industries osseuses." CongresPrdhistoriqueeFrance,Xie Session,1934, pp.1-6. Le Mans. [JN*]

-- -. 1949. The diluvial anthropomorphic

statuettes and drawings, especially the so-called Venus statuettes, discovered inMoravia. ArtibusAsiae 12:201. [JN1]

ADRIAN, W. 1948. Die Frage dernorddeutschenEolithen.Paderborn.

ALIMEN, H. 1950. Indications climatiquesdans les couches archeologiques d'un abrisol polygonal de Mouthiers, Charente.Bulletin de la SocietePrehistorique ranfaise47:286-88. tJK*]

ANATI, E. 1963. Palestine before he Hebrews.New York: Alfred A. Knopf [EA*]

-- -. 1965. "Prehistoria de Palestina," in

Enciclopedia e la Biblia, vol 5, pp. 1182-1236. Barcelona: Garriga. [EA* ]

-- -. 1968. Anatolia's earliest art. Archaeo-logy21:22-35. [EA* ]

ANDERSEN, S. TH. 1961. Vegetation and itsenvironment in Denmark in the EarlyWeichselian Glacial (Last Glacial). Dan-marks Geologiske Undersdgelse I Raekke,no. 75.

ANGELI, W. 1953. Der Mammutjagerhaltvon Langmannersdorf an der Perchling.Mitteilungen der PrdhistorischeKommission6:1-118. [MG*]

AUTLEV, P. U. 1963. Abadzechskaianizne-paleoliti/eskajatojanka.Majkop.

BADER, 0. N. 1960. Osnovny je etapy etno-kulturnoj istorii i paleogeografii Urala.

Paleolit neolitSSSR MIA 79:4, 88-103.-- -. 1965a. Stojanka Sungir i jejo archeo-

logiceskij oblik. Stratigrafiai periodizaciapaleolitavostoWnojcentralnoj vropy INQUA1965) pp. 57-65.

- - -. 1965b. "Pamiatniki paleolita na

juzhnom Urale i ikh stratigrafitcheskoieznatchenie," in Anthropogenjuzhnogo rala,pp. 239-45. Moskva-Leningrad. [JKK*r]

---. 1965c. Kapovajape&lera.Paleoliti"eskajazivopis (La Caverne Kapovaia. Peinturepaleolithique). Moskva. [JN* ]

BANESZ, L. 1965. K. otazkam povodu, tri-

denia a rozsirenia aurignacienu v Europe(Quelques considerations sur l'origine, lasubdivision et 1'extensionde I'Aurignacienen Europe). Slovenskdarcheoldgia13:261-318. [JN, SV ]

BARTA,J. 1965.Notes about the Palaeolithicin Rumania. Anthropozoikum,bornikgeo-logickchvedA 3:123-40.

- - -. 1965b. Slovensko stars'ej strednejdobekamennejDie Slowakei in der alteren undmittleren Steinzeit). Bratislava.

BAYER, J. 1925. Die altere Steinzeit in denSudetenlandern. Sudeta,ZeitschriftfiirVor-undFriihgeschichte: 19-20. [JN*]

- - -. 1929. Die Olschewakultur. EiszeitundUrgeschichte:83-100.

BEHiM-BLANKE, G. 1960. AltsteinzeitlicheRastplatze im Travertingebiet Taubach-Weimar-Ehringsdorf. Alt-Thuringen.

BEREGOVAJA, N. A. 1960. Paleoliticeskiemestonachozdenija SSSR. Materialy iissledovaniao archeologiiSSR 81.

BINFORD, L. R., and S. R. BINFORD. 1966.A preliminary analysis of functional vari-ability in the Mousterian of Levalloisfacies. AmericanAnthropologist8 (2, part2) :239-95. [RGK*]

BITIRI, M. 1964. Azarea paleolitica de laBoinesti. Studii si Cercetari e Istoria Vecche15(2) :167-86.

BONC-OSMOLOVSKIJ,G. A. 1940. PaleolitKryma I. Grot Kiik-Koba. Moscow-Lenin-grad.

BORDES,F. 1950. L'evolution buissonante desindustries en Europa occidentale. Con-

sideration theorique sur le Paleolithiqueancien et moyen. L'Anthropologie9:393-420.

BORISKOVSKIJ, I. P. 1953. Paleolit Ukrajiny.Materialy i issledovania o archeologiiSSSR40.

---. 1958. Le Paleolithique de l'Ukraine.Annales du Serviced'InformationGdolooiques,GdographiquestMin6ralogiques, o. 7.

[PELS r]-- -. 1963. O6erki po paleolitu bassejna

Dona. Materialy i issledovania o archeologiiSSSR 121.

- --. 1965. A propos des recents progres desetudes pal6olithiques en U.R.S.S. L'Anthro-pologie69:5-29.

BOSINSKI,. 1963. Eine mittelpalaolithischeFormengruppe und das Problem ihrergeochronologischen Einordnung. Eiszeit-alterundGegenwart 4:124-40.

-- -. 1967. Die mittelpaldolithischen undeim westlichen Mitteleuropa. Fundamenta,Reihe A, Band 4: Koln.

-- -. 1968. "Die Steinartefakte," in DeiBocksteinschmiede.dited by R. Wetzel andG. Bosinski. Stuttgart.

BRANDTNER, FR. 1955. Kamegg: Eine Frai-landstation des spaten Palaolithikums inNiederosterreich. Mitteilungen der Pra-historische ommission :1-88. [MG*]

BREUIL, H. 1923-25. Notes de voyage pale-olithique en Europe Centrale. I. Les in-dustries paleolithiques en Hongrie. II. Lesindustries paleolithiques du loess deMoravie et Boheme. III. Les cavernes deMoravie. L'Anthropologie 3:323-46; 34:515-52; 35:271-91. [JNf ]

- - -. 1925. Stations paleolithiques en Tran-sylvanie. Bulletin de la Societtde SciencedeCluj2 :193-217.

BRjusov, A. JA. 1952. Ocerkipo istoriiplemenevropejskojasti SSSR v neolitii'ekujupochu.Moskva-Leningrad.

BRODAR, M. 1960. Die hochalpine Aurignac-Station Mokriika jama, in Festschrift firL. Zotz, pp. 99-115. Bonn.

BRODAR, M. and A. BENAC. 1958. CrvenaStijena 1956. Glasnik zemlmuzejaSarajevu

13:21-64.BRODAR, S. 1956. "Ein Beitrag zum Karst-palaolithikum." IV. Proceedings of theINQUA Congress, ome-Pisa,pp. 737-42.

[MG*]CERDYNCEV, V. V., V. A. ALEKSEJEV, N. V.

Vol. 9 * No. 5 December1968 387



KIND, V. S. FOROVA, F. S. SAVELSKIJ,I. D. SOULDERZICKIJ,nd I. V. CURIKOVA.1965. Radiouglerodyje daty laboratoriiGeologiceskogo instituta (GIN) AN SSSR.Geochimija 2:1410-22.

6ERNY?, A. P. 1953. Volodimirivskajaaleo-liti6na tojanka.Kijev.

---. 1961. Paleoliti6cnatojankaMolodoveV.Kijev.

---. 1965. Rannyj i srednyj paleolit Prid-nestrovja. Trudy kommissii p0 izu&eniucetvertizcnogoerioda 5.

CHMIELEWSKI, W. 1961. Civilisation dejerzmanowice.Warszawa.

- - -. 1965a. "Archeologiceskije kulturyverchnego pleistocena na territorii Polsi."Stratigrafia periodizaciapaleolitavostoWnoicentralnoi vropy,INQUA 1965), pp. 15-23.

-- -. 1965b. Dzeije grup ludzkich zamiesz-kujacych ziemie polskie w plejstcenie.Warszawa. [JKK * ]

CLOSS, ALOIS. 1956. Kulturhistorie undEvolution. Mitteilungen erAnthropologischenGesellschaftn Wien86:1-47. [AG* ]

DELPORTE, H. 1959a. Les stations Leptoli-thiques de region de Kostienki-Borchevo.Pallas8 (2), fasc. 3.

- - -. 1959b. Notes de voyage leptolithiqueen Europe Centrale. I. La Tch6coslo-

vaquie. Rivistadi Science reistorische4.---. 1963. L'Aurignacien et le Perigordienen Europe centrale. Bulletin de la Soci6teMeridionale de Speoogie et de Prehistoirepp. l 14-130. [HD * ]

DUMITRESCU, M., P. SAMSON, E. TERZEA,C. RADVIESCU, and M. GHICA. 1963.Pestera "La Adam," statiune pleistocene.Lucrarile institutuluide Speleologie "EmileRacovita"1-2:229-91.

EFIMENKO, P. P. 1953. Pervobytnoebscestvo.Kijev.

- - -. 1958. Kostienki.Moskva-Leningrad.EFIMENKO, P. P., and I. P. BORISKOVSKI.

1957. Telmanskoe paleoliticeskoe pose-lenija. Materialy i issledovania0 archeologiiSSSR 59:191-234.

FELGENHAUER, F. 1959a. Willendorf in der

Wachau. MitterlungenPrahistorischen om-mission der Osterreichischen kademie derWissenschaften-9.

- - -. 1959b. Probleme der gegenwertigenAltsteinzeitforschung. BeitrdgeOsterreichszur Erforschung er Vergangenheit. Kultur-geschichte,ymposion959:12-22. [MG*]

FEUSTEL, R. 1959.Zum Problem der "Heidel-berger Kultur." Ausgrabungen nd Funde4-5:221-25. [JN ]

- - -. 1961. Das Mesolithikum in Thuringen.Alt-Thuiringen:18-75.

FORMOZOV,A. A. 1952. Niznepaleoliticeskiemestonachozdeniaja Prikubanja. Kratkiesoobk6enffanstituta storiiMaterialnoiKultury46:31-41.

- - -. 1954. Periodizacija mesoliticeskich

stojanok evropejskoj casti SSSR. SovRtskajaarcheologija1:38-51.- --. 1958. Pescernaja stojanka Staroselje i

jejo mesto v paleolite. Materialy issledovaniapoarcheologiiSSR 71.

FREEMAN, L. G., JR. 1964. Mousteriandevelopments in Cantabrian Spain. Un-published Ph.D. Dissertation. Universityof Chicago. Chicago, Illinois. [RGK ]

- - -. 1966. The nature of Mousterian faciesin Cantabrian Spain. AmericanAnthro-pologist68 (2, part 2) :230-37. [RGK ]

FREUND, G. 1952. Die Blattspitzen desPa]aolithikums in Europa. Quartdr-Biblio-thek1.

- - -. 1963. Die altere und mittlere Steinzeitin Bayern. Jahresberichteder BayerischenBodendenkmalpftege:9-167.

FRIDRICH,J., B. KLIMA, and K. VALOCH.1968. Systematika pojmu "kultura" vpaleolitu. Archeologicke~ozhledy 0 :308-11.

GABORI,M. 1953. Le Solutreen en Hongrie.Acta Archeologica Academiae ScientiarumHungaricae: 1-68.

- --. 1960. Der heutige Stand der Paliaolith-forschungin Ungarn. Archaeologiaustriaca.27:64-74. [MG* ]

GABORI, M., and V. CSANK. 1967. Unnouveau site mousterien en Hongrie. ActaArchaeologicaAcademiaeScientiarumHun-garicae19:200-28. [MG, JKK ]

GABORI, M., and V. GABORI. 1957. Lesstations de loess paleolithiques de Hongrie.Acta ArchaeologicaAcademiae ScientiarumHungaricae:1-117. [MG* ]

GALLUS, A. 1966. Comment on: Transition

from Mousterian to Perigordian: Skeletaland industrial, by L. Pradel. CURRENT

ANTHROPOLOGY 7:39-40. [SV* ]GARROD, D. A. E. 1939. Excavations in the

cave of Bacho Kiro, North East Bulgaria(with sections by Bruce Howe and JamesH. Gaul). Bulletinof theAmericanSchoolofPrehistoric esearch 5:46-126. [JN ]

GINTER, B., S. KOWALSKI, and J. K.KOZLOWSKI. 1967. Stanowisko aleolitugor-

nego i srodkowego a Wawelu w Krakowie.Studia do dziej6w Wawelu, 4. In press.

[JKK ]GJESSING, GUTORM. 1964. Adherence to the

group territory.Folk 6:55-62. [JN ]GLADILIN, V. N. 1966. Razlicnyje tipy in-

dustrii v must je Russkoj ravniny i Kryma

i ich mesto v rannem paleolite SSSR.Paper given at the VII Congres Inter-national des Sciences Pr6historiques etProtohistoriques,Prague, 1966.

GoRJANOVIc-KRAMBERGER, K. 1906. Derdiluviale Mensch von Krapina im Kroatien.Wiesbaden.

GRAHMANN, R. 1955. The Lower Palaeolithicsite of Markkleeberg and the other com-parable localities near Leipzig. Trans-actionsof the American hilosophical ociety 5(6) :509-687.

GRAHMANN, R., and Hj. MOLLER-BECK.

1967. UrgeschichteerMenschheit. tuttgart.GRAMSCH, B. 1960. Der Stand der Mittel-

steinzeitforschung in der Mark Branden-berg. Wissenschaftliche eitschriftder Hum-boldt-Universitdt u Berlin, Gesellschaftlich-

Sprachwissenschaftliche.eiha 9:221-93.GRIGORIEV, G. P. 1966. "The Krems, Willen-

dorf and Pavlov Cultures in CentralEurope," in Archaeology: Old and NewWorld, pp. 7-24. Moscow: AkademiaNaukSSSR. [DC, BK*]

- - -. 1966. Kremsskaja, villendorfskaja ipavlovskaja kultury v srednej Evrope.Archeologija tarogo novogo vRta,pp. 7-24.Moskva.

GUENTHER, W. E. 1959. "ZurAltersdatierungder diluvialen Fundstelle von Krapina inKroatien." Bericht iiber die 6. TagungderDeutschenGesellschaftur Anthropologiep.202-9.

GUNTHER, KL. 1964. Die altsteinzeitlichenFunde der Balver Hohle. Bodenalterttumer

Westfalen .GVOZDOVE:R, M. D. 1950. 0 razkopkach

avdeevskoj paleoliticeskoj stojanki v 1947g. Kratkie oobsZ6enianstituta storii Material-noiKultury 1:17-27.

GvoZDOVER, M. D., and E. N. NEVESSKIJ.

1961. The discovery of a Mousterian pointon the southern coast of the Crimea (inRussian). Byilleten Komissii po izucheniyuchetvertichnogoerioda 6. [IKI * ]

HAMMEN, T. VAN DER, G. C. MAARLEVELD,

J. C. VOGEL, and W. H. ZAGWIJN. 1967.Stratigraphy, climatic succession andradiocarbon dating of the Last Glacial inthe Netherlands. Geologie en Mifnbouw46(3) :79-95.

HANCAR, FRANZ. 1937. Urgeschichte Kau-kasiens. Bacherzur Ur- undFrzihgeschichte.

Wien: A. Schroll. [KJNW]HEINZELIN DE BRAUCOURT, JEAN DE. 1960.

Principes de diagnose numerique entypologie. Acade'mieRoyale de Belgique,Clas sede Sciences.Me'Imoiresn 40, ser. 2,

HENRI-MARTIN, . 1957. La grotte Fonte-chevade. I. Archives e l'Institutde Paleonto-logieHumaine,M6moire 8. Paris. -

INDREKO, R. 1948. Die mittlereSteinzeit inEstland.Stockholm.

ITERMANN,. 1962.Ein Faustkeil des "HomoSteinheimensis." Eiszeitalterund Gegenwart13:19-23.

IVANOVA, . K. 1961. Stratigrafija molo-dovskich mnogoslojnych paleoliticeskichstojanok v srednem Pridnestrovje i ne-kotoryje obsie voprosy stratigrafii paleo-

lita. TrudyKommissii o izuceniu etvertizcnogoperioda18:94-108.

- - -. 1965a. "Stratifraficeskoe polozenijemolodovskich paleoliticeskich strojanokna srednem Dnestru v svete obsichvoprosov stratigrafii i absolutnoi geo-chronologii verchnego pleistocena Evropy."Stratigrafiai periodizacia paleolita vostfnoii centralnoiEvropy (INQUA 1965) pp.123-40.

- --. 1965b. "The significance of fossilhominid finds and of their culture to thestratigraphyof the Quaternary Period" (inRussian). Chetvertichnijeriod i ego istoryia.Moscow: Nauka. [IKI * ]

- - -. 1965c. Thegeological ge offossil man (inRussian). Moscow Nauka. [IKI * ]

- --. 1966."The stratigraphy of the UpperPleistocene of Middle and Eastern Europeaccording to the studying of loesses" (inRussian). VerkhnUjpleistocen. MoscowNauka. [IKI * ]

IVANOVA,. K., and A. P. CHERNYSH.1965.The Paleolithic site of Molodova V on theMiddle Dniestr. Quaternaria:197-217.

[PELS ]JACOB-FRIESEN,K. H. 1949. Die Altsteinzeit-

funde ausdemLeinestalbei Hannover.Hildes-heim.

JENNINGS,JESSE D., and EDWARD NORBECK.Editors. 1964. Prehistoricman in the NewWorld. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. [JN*]

KADIC, 0. 1940. Cserepfalu videk6nek bar-langjai. Barlangkutatas 6:204-25.

KIND, N. V. 1965. Absolute chronology ofthe main stages of the last glaciation and

postglacial period in Siberia (in Russian).In Chetvertichnijeriod ego storija.Moscow:Nauka. [IKI * ]

KLIMA,B. 1957. Ubersicht iiber die jiingstenpalaolithischen Forschungen in Mahren.Quartar :85-130. [JN* ]

- - -. 1958. Upper Palaeolithic Art in Mora-

via. Antiquity 2 (125):8. [JN ]- --. 1961. Die archaologische Erforschung

der Hohle "Sv6duv stul" in Mahren.Anthropos 3, N.S. 5:7-96. [JK*]

---. 1963. Dolni Vestonice.Praha.- - -. 1967. Archeologicke rozhledy 19 (5).

[BK*]KORMOS,. 1912. Die Palaolithsiedlung von

Tata. Jahrbuchder UngarischenGeologischenAnstalt20:1-66.KOZLOWSKI,J. K. 1961. Probla klasyfikaciji

gornopaleolitycznychrzemyslbw ploszczamilisciowatymi.Krak6w.

-- -. 1965. Studia nad zr6onicowaniem

kulturowym w paleolicie gornym Europy

sr6dkowej. Pracearcheologiczne.-- -. 1966a. Nieskolko zamietchani po

powodu gipotezy o zapodnoevropeeskommestnom genezise oriniakskoi industrii.Archaeologiaolona9:225-33. [JKKi ]

-- -. 1966b. Uwagi o przemyslach ory-niackich w Polsce (Remarques sur l'Aurig-nacien en Pologne). Folia Quaternaria24:1-32. [JKK ]

KRAJNov,D. A. 1960. Pescernaja stojankaTag-Air I kak osnova dlja periodizacii

poslepal kultur Kryma. Materialy issled-ovaniapoarcheologii SSR 91.

KRETZOI,M., and L. VE~RTRS. 965a. UpperBiharian (Intermindel) pebble-industryoccupation site in Westernr Hungary.CURRENTANTHROPOLOGY:74-87.




Valoch:PALAEOLITHIC IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE--. 1965b. The role of Vertebrate faunaeand Palaeolithic industries of Hungary inQuarternary stratigraphy and chronology.ActaGeologicaHungarica :125-44.

- - -. 1965c. Lower Palaeolithic hominid andpebble-industry in Hungary. Nature205-6.

[MG*]KROEBER, A. L. Editor. 1953. Anthropology

today. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. [AG*r]

KRUGER, H. 1959. Friuhpaliiolithische Ge-rbllartefakte vom Typ "Pebble-tool" in

Oberhessen ? Eiszeitalter und Gegenwart10:165-98.-- -. 1962.Altsteinzeit-Forschung in Hessen.

FundberichteusHessen2:6-43.KRUKOWSKI,ST. 1948. "Paleolit, in Encyklo-

pediaPolskaIV/V, pp. 1-117. Krak6w.KUKLA,. 1961. Stratigraficka pozice ceskeho

stareho palcolitu (Stratigraphische Posi-tion des tschechoslowakischen Altpalao-lithikums). Pamdtky rcheologicke2:18-29.

[JN*]---. 1967. Comment on: The Pleistocene

epoch and the evolution of man, by C.Emiliani. CURRENTANTHROPOLOGY:37-39. [JK* ]

KUKLA, J., and V. LOZEK. 1958. To theproblems of investigation of the cavedeposits. CeskoslovenskyrasI 11:19-83.

[JK*]LAPLACE, G. 1966. Recherchesur l'origineet

l'evolutiondes complexeseptolithiques. tcoleFrancaise de Rome, Melanges d'Archeo-logie et d'Histoire, Suppl. 4: Paris.

LAURENT.1965. Heureuse rehistoire. erigeux:Pierre Fanlac. [KJN ]

LAZUKOV, G. I. 1957. Geogloia stojanokkostienkovsko-borsevskogo rajona. Mater-ialy i issledovaniao archeologiiSSR59:135-173.

LEROI-GOURHAN,A. 1962. Paleolithique duPeloponese. Bulletin de la Socidtd Prd-historiqueranfaise59:249-65. [MG*]

- -. 1966. Laprdhistoire. aris [SV ]LUMLEY,H. DE and B. BOTTET. 1960. "Sur

1'evolution des climats et des Industries au

Riss et au Wurm d'apres le remplissage dela Baume-Bonne (Quinson, B.-A.)" Fest-schriftfurL. Zotz, pp. 271-301. Bonn.

LUMLEY, H. DE, et al. 1963. La grotte duVallonet. Roquebrune-Cap-Martin (A.-M.) Bulletin du Musee AnthropologiquetprehistoriqueeMonaco10:5-20. [MG*]

LYUBIN, V. P. and I. I. PETRAKOV.A Mous-terian occurrence at Zolotarikha near thetown of Belev, Toula district (in Russian).ByulletinKommissiipo izucheniyu hetvertich-nogoperioda29. [IKI * ]

MALEZ,M. 1958. Einige neue Resultate derpalaonthologischen Erforschung de HohleVeternica. Paleontologiajugoslavica, S.N.1 :19-24. [MG*]

- - -. 1959. Das Palaolithikum der Veter-nicahohle. Quartar 10-11:171-88.

[MG*]MASKA, K. J. 1886. Der diluviale Mensch in

Mdhren.Neutitschein.

MESZAROS,y. and L. VERTES.955. A paintmine from the Early Upper PalaeolithicAge near Lovas (Hungary). Acta Archeo-logica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae.5:1-34.

MILOJ6I6,VL. 1958. Die neuen mittel und-altpalaolithischen Funde von der Balkan-halbinsel. Germania6:319-24. [JN*]

MOHAPATRA, G. C. 1959. Middle Stone Ageindustries of Orissa. Journalof thePalaeonto-logicalSociety fIndia 4: 35-50. [GCM*r]

---. 1962. The Stone Age culturesof Orissa.Poona. [GCM* ]

-- -. 1966. Preliminary report of the explora-tion

and excavation of Stone Age sites inEastern Punjab. Bulletin of the DeccanCollegeResearchnstitute25 :221-37.

[GCMW]MOMMIEJEAN, ., F. BORDES, and D. DE

SONNEVILLE-BORDES. 964. Le Perigordien

superieur a burins de Noailles du Roc deGavaudun, Lot-et-Garonne. L'Anthropo-logie 68 :253-316. [DSB ]

MOROSAN,N. N. 1938. La station pal6o-lithique de Stanca Ripicent. Dacia 5-6:1-22.

MOTOUZ, V. M. 1967. Quaternary molluscsfrom the Khotylevo Lower Paleolithiclocality, Bryansk district (in Russian).ByulletinKomissiip0 izucheniyuhetvertichnogo

perioda33. [IKI * ]MOTTL, M. 1951. Die Repolusth6hle bei

Peggau und ihre eiszeitlichen Bewohner.Archaeologia ustriaca :1-78.

Movius, H. L. 1960. Radiocarbon dates andUpper Palaeolithic archaeology in Centraland Western Europe. CURRENT ANTHRO-

POLOGY1:355-91.MtuLLER-BECK,Hj. 1957. Das obereAltpalio-

lithikum n Sudwestdeutschland.onn.- - -. 1965. Eine "Wurzel-Industrie" des

Vogelherd-Aurignaciens, FundberichteausSchwaben,NF. 17 (FestschriftffirG. Riek):43-51.

MiULLER-KARPE, H. 1966. Handbuch derVorgeschichte,. Munchen. [SV ]

MUSIL, R. 1961. Die Hohle Sv6duv stil, eintypischer H6hlenhyanenhorst. Anthropos13, N.S. 5:97-260. [JK ]

-- -. 1965. Die Barenhbhle Pod Hradem.Die Entwicklung der H6hlenbaren imletzten Glacial. Anthropos 8, N.S. 10:7-92.

[JK ]MUSIL, R., and K. VALOCH. 1966. Beitrag

zur Gliederung des Wurm in Mitteleuropa.EiszeitalterundGegenwart 7:131-38.

- - -. 1968. Stranska skala (Moravia,Czechoslovakia) and its meaning for thestudy of the Pleistocene. CURRENT ANTHRO-

POLOGY 9. In press.NARR, KARL J. 1954. Formengruppen und

Kulturkreise im europaischen Palaolithi-kum. 34. Bericht der Rdmisch-GermanischenKommission 951-53:1-40. [KJN ]

-- -. 1956. Die Steinwerkzeuge ans der zeit

des Neandertalers, in Der Neandertaler ndseine Umwelt.Edited by Kurt Tackenberg.Beiheft 5 der "BonnerJahrbiicher." Bonn:R. Habelt. [KJN * ]

- --. 1963. Kultur, UmweltundLeiblichkeit esEiszeitmenschen. tuttgart.

-- -. 1965. Die Altsteinzeitfunde aus demHohlenstein bei Nordlingen. BayerischeVorgeschichtsbldtter0:1-9. [KJN * ]

---, editor. 1966. Handbuchder UrgeschichteI. Bern and Mutnchen: Francke. [KJN ]

--- 1967. Studien zur A'lterenund MittlerenSteinzeit der JNiederenLande. Bonn: R.Habelt. [KJN * ]

NEUSTUPN+, J. 1959. Stary paleolit v Cesko-slovensku (Le Paleolithique inferieur enTchecoslovaquie). Acta UniversitatisCaro-linae, PhilosophicatHistorica3:5-12.

[JN*]- - -. 1962. Zum tschechoslowakischen Me-

solithikum. Mitteilungen erAnthropologischenGesellschqftn Wien92:239-46. [JN* ]

---. 1963. The Late Gravettian (Magda-lenian) in Czechoslovakia. MuneraArchaeo-logicaIosephoKostrzewski.. oblata,pp. 71-77. Poznan. [JN*]

NEUSTUPNf, E., and J. NEUSTUPNI. 1961.Czechoslovakia efore he Slavs. London andNew York. [JN*]

NICOLAESCU-PLOP?OR,C. S. 1958. Sur lapresence du Swid6rien en Roumanie.Dacia 2:5-34.

- - -. 1962. Das Palaolithikum in Rumanien,Forschungsberichte ur Ur-u. Fr2ihgeschichte5:77-95.

NICOLAESCU-PLOP?OR,C. S., and D. Nico-LAESCU-PLOP?OR.1963. The possible exis-tence of the protohominids in Rumania'sVillafranchian. Dacia 7:9-25.

NICOLAESCU-PLOP?OR,C. S., and I. N.MORO?AN. 1959. Sur le commencement du

Paleolithique en Roumanie. Dacia 3:9-33.OBERMAIER,H. 1928. "Die altere Steinzeit,"

in 3'. Schrdnil, Vorgeschichte ohmens undMdhrens,pp. 1-34. Berlin-Leipzig. [JN * ]

OBERMAIER,H., and P. WERNERT. 1929. Alt-Palaolithikum mit Blatt-Typen. Mitteil-lungen der Anthropologischer eselschaftWien59:293-310.

OPRAVIL, E. 1965. Ergebnisse der Holzkohl-enanalyse aus der Grabung der Hbhle Pod

Hradem. Anthropos 8, N.S. 10:147-49.[JK ]

PATTE, E. 1918. Coup-de-poing en Quart-zite des environs de Monastir (Serbie).Bulletin de la SocietePrehistorique ran;aise,sep. 1-3.

PELISEK,J. 1965. Die Quartarsedimenten derHohle Pod Hradem in mittleren Teil desMahrischen Karstes. Anthropos18, N.S.10:109-32. [JK*]

POTOCKIJ,. P. 1961. Sledy rannego paleolitav bassejnach rek Oki i Moskvy v Moskov-skoj oblasti. Bjulletin Kommissiipo izuc'eniuCetverticnogoperioda6:157-61.

PRO,EK, F. 1951. Vyzkum jeskune Dzerev6skaly v Malych Karpatech. Archeologicke'rozledy3:293-98. [JK ]

-- -. 1953. Szeletien na Slovensku. Slovenskdarcheologia :133-94.

-- -. 1961. Mladopaleolithicka obydli vCeskoslovensku (Die jungpalaolithischeWohnstaitte in der Tschechoslowakei).Pamdtgy rcheologicke2:57-75. [JN ]

PROSEK, F., and V. LOZEK. 1954. Stratigra-ficke otazky ceskoslovenskeho paleolitu(Stratigraphische Fragen des Palaolithi-kums in der Tschechoslowakei). Pamdtkyarcheologicke5:35-74. [JN, SV*]

PULJANOS, A. N. 1963. Novyje nachodkypaleolita v Greciji (New palaeolithic findsin Greece). Sovetskaja rcheologija:227-29.

[JN* ]RIEK, G. 1934. Die Eiszeitjdgerstationam

Vogelherd. eipzig.ROGANCEV, . N. 1953. Novye dannye o

stratigrafii verchnego paleolita vostocno-evropejskoj raviny. Materialyi issledovaniapo archeologii SSR39:39-58.

-- -. 1955. Aleksandrovskoe poselenie drev-nekamennogo veka u sela Kostienki naDonu. Materialyi issledovania o archeologiiSSSR45.

-- -. 1957. Mnogoslojnyje sojanki kostien-kovsko-borsevskogo rajona na Donu iproblema razvitija kultury v epochuverchnego paleolita na russkoj ravnine.Materialy i issledovania o archeologiiSSSR59:9-134.

RUST, A. 1937. Das altsteinzeitlicheRentier-jagerlageMeiendorf.Neumiinster.

-- -. 1951. Prehistoire du Nord Ouest del'Europe a la fin des temps glaciaires.L'Anthropologie5:205-18.

-- -. 1956. Artefakteaus der Zeit des HomoHeidelbergensisn Sld- und JNorddeutschland.Bonn.

- --. 1962. Die Artefakteder AltonaerStufevonWittenbergen.eunmiinster.

SCHILD, R. 1960. Extension des elements detype tarnowien dans les industries del'extreme fin du Pleistocene. ]ttude sur lachronologie de certaines industries ducycle mazowien. ArchaeologiaPolona 3:7-64.

- --. 1964. "Paleolit kofncowy schylkowy,"in Materialy do prahistorii ziem Polskich. I.Paleoliti Mezolit. Warszawa.

-- -. 1965. Remarques sur les principes dela syst6matique culturelle du Pal6olithique(surtout du Pal6olithique final). Archaeo-

logiaPolona8:67-81. [PELS ]

SCHULDT,E. 1961. Hohen Viecheln. SchriffenderSektionfurFriihgeschichteA W Berlin. 10.

SCHWABEDISSEN, H. 1944. Die mittlereSteinzeit im westlichen Norddeutschland.

Offia-Bcker 7.

Vol. 9- No. 5- December 968 B* 389



- - -. 1954. Die Federmessergruppen desNordwesteuropaischen Flachlandes. Offa-Bicher 9.

SEREBRJANNYJ, L. R. 1965. "Primenenieradioglerodnogo metoda v cetverti6nojgeologii." Stratigrafia periodizaciapaleolitavostoynoicentralnoi vropy. INQUA 1965).

SERGEIEV, G. P. 1950. Pozneaselskaja sto-janka v grote u sela Vychvatincy (Mol-davija). Sovetskaja rcheologija 2:203-12.

SERVAIS,J. 1961. Outils paleolithiquesd'lRlide. Bulletin de Correspondanceellenique

85 (1): 1-9. [JN* ]SKUTIL,J. 1950. Balkanske paleolitikum(L'occupation paleolithique de la Penin-sule Balcanique). ObzorprehistorickyRevueprehistorique) 14:261-328. [JN*]

SMOLLA, G. 1960. Neolithische Kulturer-scheinungen. tudien zur Frage ihrer Her-ausbildungen, Antiquitas, part 2, vol. 3.Bonn. [GS * ]

- - -. 1967. Epochen der menslichenFr2ihzeit.Freiburg/Mutnchen. [GS*]

SOLECKI,. S. 1963. Prehistory in ShanidarValley, northern Iraq. Science139: 179-93.

[PELS * ]SONNEVILLE-BORDES, D. DE. 1965a. Obser-

vations statisques sur 1'Aurignacien duVogelherd, Lonetal (Wiurttember),fouillesG. Riek. Fundberichte us SchwabenNF. 1

7(FestschriftfiirG. Riek): 69-75.- - -. 1965b. Le Paleolithique en Grece.

L'Anthropologie9:603-6. [JN* ]- - 1961. Le Paleolithique sup6rieur deBelgique. L'Anthropologie5:421-43.

[DSB?]-- -. 1963. Le Paleolithique superieur en

Suisse. L'Anthropologie7:205-68.[DSB ]

- - -. 1965. Observations statistiques surl'Aurignacien du Vogelherd, Lonetal,Wurtemberg (fouilles G. Riek). MelangesG. Riek, Fundberichteaus Schwaben, N.S.17:69-75. [DSB * ]

-- -. 1968. "Observations statistiques sur leMagdalenien du Petersfels (fouilles E.Peters)", in Beitrage zur Urgeschichte er

FriihenMenscheitund rherUmwelt(FestchriftA. Rust). In press. [DSB * ]SOVKOPLJAS, I. G. 1965a. Radomyslskaja

stojanka-pamjatnik na6alnoj pory poznegopaleolita. Stratigrafia periodizaciapaleolitavostoc'noientralnoiEvropy (IJFQUA 1965),pp. 104-16.

- - -. 1965b.Mezinskajastojanka.Kijev.TARASOV, L. M. 1965. Paleoliticeskaja sto-

janka Gagarino. Paleolit i neolit SSSR 5,Materilay i issledovaniapo archeologiiSSSR131:111-40.

TAX, SOL et al. Editor. 1953. An appraisalofanthropologyoday. Chicago: University ofChicago Press. [AG*]

THOMA, A. 1962. Le deploiment evolutif deI'Homo saPiens. Anthropologia Hungarica

5:1-179. [MG*]TODE, A., et al. 1953. Die Untersuchung derpalaolithischen Freilandstation von Salz-gitter-Lebenstedt. Eiszeitalter und Gegen-wart3:144-220.

TOEPFER,V. 1961a. Die altpalaolithischenFeursteinwerkzeuge von Hundisburg. Jah-resschriftfiir MitteldeutscheVorgeschichte5:35-69.

- --. 196 lb. Das Altpalaolithikum im Fluss-gebiet der unteren Saale und der Mittel-elbe. Geologie10:570-85.

- - -. 1961c. "Das Altpaliolithikum inPleistozanen Schotterablagerungen derUnteren Saale und mittleren Elne." Pro-ceedingsof the INQUA Congress, Warsaw,1961, vol. 4, pp. 425-37. [DC*]

-

- -. 1964. Borky II, eine Freilandsiedlungdes Aurignacien in Brno Malomerice.Acta Musei Moraviae,scientiae ocialae49:5-48.

- --. 1965a. Die Hohlen Sipka und Certovadira bei Stramberk. Anthropos, .S. 9.

- - -. 1965b. Die altsteinzeitlichen Bege-hungen der Hohle Pod hradem. Anthropos,N.S. 10:93-106.

-- -. 1966. Die Quarzitindustrie aus derHohle Byci skala in Mahren. Quartdr17:51-89.

- - -. 1967. Die Steinindustrie von der Fund-stelle des menschlichen Skelettrestes I ausder Hohle Kuilna bei Sloup (Mahren).Anthropologie: 21-31

VALOCH, K. 1968a. Le remplissage et lesindustries du Paleolithique moyen de la

grotte Kilna en Moravie. L'Anthropologie.In press.

- - -. 1968b. Uber einige Entwicklungsfragendes mitteleuropaischen Jungpalaolithi-kums. Archeologicke'ozhledy. n press.

VALOCH, K. and F. BORDES. 1967. Loess deTchecoslovaquie et loess de France duNord. L'Anthropologie 1 (3-4): 279-88, 2illustrations. [HD * ]

VAj?URA, . 1965. Neue Funde von Restendes Neanderthalmenschen aus der HohleSv6duv suil (Schwedentisch Grotte) inMahrischem Karste. KlubprfirodovedeckjfiMoravskdmmuseu Brne'1965:1-24. [JK * ]

VEKILOVA, E. A. 1957. Stojanka Sjuren I ijejo mesto sredi paleoliticeskich mesto-nachozdenij Kryma i blizajsich territorii.Materialy i issledovaniapo archeologiiSSSR59:235-323.

VELI6KO, A. A. 1961. Geologiceskijvozrastverchnegoaleolita centralnych ajonovrusskojravniny.Moskva.

VENCL, S. 1964. Discussion. Referdtv opracovnichvysledczchc'eskoslovenskychrcheo-logoui:8-1. [SV*]

- - -. 1966. Ostromerska skupina (Le grouped'Ostromer, nouveau groupe du Paleo-lithique tardif en Boheme). Archeologicke'rozhledy18:307-40. [JN*]

VERESCAGIN, N. K. 1957. Ostatki mlekopi-tajuscich iz nezne6etverticnych otlozeniiTamanskogo poluostrova. Trudy zoologi-ceskogonstitutaANSSSR 22:9-74.

VE~RTES, L. 1955a. Neue Ausgrabungen undpalaolithische Funds in der h6hle von

Istallosko. ActaArchaelogica cademiaecien-tariumHungaricae :111-3 1.-- -. 1955b. 'Ober einige Fragen des mittel-

europaischen Aurignacien. Acta Archae-logicaAcademiea cientiarium:279-91.

-- -. 1958. Beitrage zur Abstamming desungarischen Szeletien. Folia archaeologia10:3-15.

- --, editor. 1964. Tata, eine mittelpalao-lithische Travertin-Siedlung in Ungarn.Archaeologica ungarica,S.N., 43.

- --. 1965. Typology of the Buda-industry,a pebble-tool industry from the HungarianLower Palaeolithic. Quaternaria:185-95.

VOGEL, . C., and H. T. WATERBOLK. 1964.Groningen radiocarbon dates V. Radio-carbon :349-69.

VOGEL, J. C., and W. H. ZAGWIJN. 1967.Groningen radiocarbon dates VI. Radio-carbon :63-106.

WARREN, S. H. 1951. The Clacton flintindustry: A new interpretation. Proceedingsof theGeologistsAssociation 2:107-35.

[DC ]WERNERT, . 1957. Stratigraphie paleonto-

logique et prehistorique des sedimentsquaternaires d'Alsace Achenheim. Me-moiresde Servicedu CarteGeiologique lsace etLorraine .

WIECKOWSKA,. 1964. "Mezolit, in Ma-terialydoprahistoriiziemPolskich; I. Paleoliti mesolit.Warszawa.

WIECKOWSKA, H., and M. MARCZAK. 1965.Pr6ba podzialu kulturowego mezolituMazowsza. II Konferencjanstituta Historii

KulturyMaterialnej,Warszawa.WYMER,J. 1957. A Clactonian flint industry

at Little Thurrock. Proceedings of theGeologistsAssociation 8: 159-77. [DC*W]

ZAGWIJN,W. H. 1961. Vegetation, climateand radiocarbon datings in the LatePleistocene of the Netherlands. I: Eemianand Early Weichselian. Memoires, Geo-logical Foundation of the Netherlands,N.S. 14:15-45.

ZAMJATNIN, S. N. 1961. Stalingradskajapaleoliti6eskaja stojanka. Kratkije soob%s-cengaInstitutaArcheologiiANSSSR 82:5-36.

ZAVERNYAEV,. M. 1961. The KhotylevoLower Paleolithic locality (in Russian).Bryanskij blastnoi raevedcheskijuzej.

[IKIA]ZAVERNYAEV,. M., and E. A. SCHMIDT.

1961. A new occurrence of the LowerPaleolithic on the Upper Desna (in Rus-sian). Sovetskayarkheologiya. [IKI ]

ZEBERA, K. 1952. Les premiers monumentsde travail humain en Boheme. RozpravyUstrfednihoistavueologickeho 4.

-- -. 1958. Ceskoslovenskoe starsidobekamenne'(Die Tschechoslowakei in der alterenSteinzeit). Praha. [JN, SV ]

- - -. 1965. Das Bohemien, eine Ger6ll-industrie als Vorlaufer des mitteleuropai-schen Mousterien. Quartdr 5-16:47-60.

ZEUNER,E. F. 1958. 4th edition. Dating thepast. London.

ZOTZ, L. 1951. Die AltsteinzeitkundeMittel-europas. tuttgart.

---. 1955. Das Palaolithikum in den Wein-

bergh6hlenbeiMauern. Quartdr-Bibliothek2.-- -. 1960. Die Forschungen des Institutsfur Urgeschichte der Universitaet Erlangenim Altmuehltal. PraehistorischeZeitschrift39 (1) . [GF* ]

Documents

Evolution of the Palaeolithic in Central and Eastern Europe