The Loess Regions in Central Europe in Prehistorical Times

8/6/2019 The Loess Regions in Central Europe in Prehistorical Times

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-loess-regions-in-central-europe-in-prehistorical-times 1/13

The Loess Regions of Central Europe in Prehistoric TimesAuthor(s): Alice GarnettSource: The Geographical Journal, Vol. 106, No. 3/4 (Sep. - Oct., 1945), pp. 132-143Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with theInstitute of British Geographers)

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1789265Accessed: 29/06/2010 08:18

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=black .

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 forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) and Blackwell Publishing are

collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Geographical Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1789265?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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

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

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

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1789265?origin=JSTOR-pdf



THE LOESS REGIONS OF CENTRAL EUROPEIN PREHISTORIC TIMES

ALICE GARNETT

The

relation of prehistoric settlements to the loess regions of central

Europe has received much attention recently from archaeologists, while

plant ecologists have made notable progress in the study of prehistoric changesin the vegetation of Europe.1 The results of their work appear to have been

overlooked by many geographers, so that out-of-date generalizations are often

repeated as accepted facts. It is still argued by some that Neolithic man foundespecial opportunity in the loess areas of central Europe because they were

"forest-free," "areas of natural steppe," or "an open corridor across forested

Europe."The loess country extends intermittently across Europe in basins and low-

lands within and fringing the Hercynian uplands of central Europe, from the

lower and middle Danube basin to the valley of the Rhine and north-western

Europe. Palaeolithic man, as represented by the mammoth and reindeer

hunters of Aurignacian and Solutrean times, is known to have frequented the

loess country, but in the long period from about 8000 to 3000 B.c, when

Mesolithic cultures were extending and developing over many parts of

forested Europe, the loess country seems neither to have offered specialattraction to prehistoric man, nor to have been settled by him (1). From about

3000 B.c. however there is a period of outstanding importance, associated

with the appearance and spread of Neolithic culture across Europe. This was

associated with a special, though by no means unique, concentration of settle?

ments in the loess country, and formed the Danubian civilization, which, from

Hungary to Belgium, was remarkable for the uniformity of its characteristic

features.

Unlike the preceding Palaeolithic and Mesolithic cultural stages, theDanubian culture in central and northern Europe for the first time developedan economy based partly on agriculture rather than on collecting and huntingalone. Cultivated plants included barley, wheat, peas, lentils, and flax, which

were grown in small plots. These were tilled with stone hoes, not with

ploughs, in a system of shifting agriculture presumably closely analogous to

that of some primitive African societies of to-day. Settlements were simple

pit dwellings in small groups of about twenty-five huts, the absence of

"Tells," i.e. mounds accumulated at one site and marking continuous occupa?tion over a prolonged period, suggesting the impermanence of settlements in

these loess regions. Cultivation was supplemented by the keeping of smallherds including sheep, oxen, and pigs (2).

To-day the loess regions are somewhat open featureless plains, well drained

and comparatively treeless. Locally however there may be woodland, and

many cultivated fruit trees, so that tree growth clearly is possible. Moreover

1I am indebted to both Dr. J. G. D. Clark and Dr. H. Godwin for their helpfulcriticisms and suggestions given me during the preparation of this paper.





134 the loess regions of central europe in prehistoric times

developed in natural clearings could be maintained against the return of the

forest." A vaguely defined viewpoint is also reflected in a paper by R. E.

Dickinsonpublished

asrecently

asMay 1944

in theGeographical Journal.

In

a discussion of the Middle Elbe Basin in which it is emphasized that "in the

history of human occupation of the area the most significant feature is the

natural plant cover," the loess is referred to as "forest-free land, with a steppeflora akin to that of the steppe lands of Eurasia" and "forest-free . . . areas of

prehistoric settlement," and a sketch-map of the natural vegetation indicates

the areas, presumably of loess, as "forest-free areas of early settlement."

Botanical evidence of post-glacial changes

The changes in the vegetation of Europe during post-glacial times have long

been investigated, and in the last twenty years by the new technique of micro-scopic pollen grain analysis. If geographical deductions are to be made

regarding man's relation to environment during prehistoric time, it is essential

that geographers should be fully aware of the trend of botanical research, and

of corresponding developments in the field of archaeological research.

The earlier hypothesis of post-glacial changes of climate and vegetationwhich forms the basis of Gradmann's hypothesis of settlement in southern

Germany in Neolithic time, was developed by Blytt (1882) and Sernander

(1908), from the evidence of peat bogs. Although in the light of recent

researches in pollen grain analysis there is criticism of certain aspects of this

hypothesis, some of the main issues are likely to remain accepted, and the

terminology may well persist though with modifications in its interpretation.

Briefly the periods identified for Europe are as follows (5):Pre-Boreal and Boreal time.?During the comparatively rigorous climatic

conditions following the retreat of the ice and marking the transition periodknown as Pre-Boreal, a cold steppe vegetation was gradually replaced by a

vegetation including birch and pine trees. Boreal time, succeeding this, and

dated generally from about 7500 to 5000 B.c, was marked by dry, and at the

same time increasingly warm conditions. Though the birch and pine remained

dominant the alder, elm, oak, and lime, had increasing importance, with, atthe same time, a rapid increase in the frequency of the hazel. In late Boreal

time the climate seems to have been both warmer, by at least 40 F., and dryerthan at the present time, and a great northward migration of xerophytic heath-

steppe plants took place from the direction of south-eastern Europe. This

migration presumably reached as far north as southern Sweden and as far

west as southern and eastern England (6).Atlantic time.?The succeeding Atlantic phase, lasting possibly from about

5000 to 2500 B.c, was associated with a progressive increase in humidity and

temperature. The period was marked by so conspicuous a climatic improve-

ment that a warm humid "climatic optimum" for post-glacial time was

reached towards its close. Deciduous forest was widespread, with the oak and

elm and other warmth-loving trees dominant. It is thought that this forest

vegetation covered even the limestone uplands with the exception of wind-

swept hill-tops and crests (6).Sub-Boreal time.?In the Blytt-Sernander scheme, the Atlantic optimum

forest period was followed by one of marked deterioration in rainfall. This



THE LOESS REGIONSOF CENTRALEUROPEIN PREHISTORICTIMES 135

phase, the Sub-Boreal, which is assumed to have lasted until about 500 B.c,was identified as markedly drier and slightly cooler. It marks the period

when,according

toGradmann,

thesteppe-heath

conditions of climate and

vegetation permitted the penetration of Neolithic man across central Europe,

including south Germany.Sub-Atlantic time.?From about 500 b.c. there has been so conspicuous an

increase in the precipitation and decrease in temperature that, in Great

Britain, for instance, peat bogs gained over forests. Elsewhere forests with

trees tolerant of colder conditions became characteristic.

The above scheme of climatic and related botanical changes was formulated

before the technique of pollen grain analysis had been developed. Though the

general system of terminology is still accepted by many, the sequence ofvegetation changes which the postulating of a dry Sub-Boreal phase especially

demands, is by some strongly disputed. This is a fact which has some signifi-cance in the interpretation of the prehistory of the loess. Von Post, the pioneerin the technique of pollen grain analysis, divided post-glacial time into three,not four, main phases of forest development in Europe. Stage I marked the

approach of the warm period characterized by the appearance and first

increase of relative heat-loving trees of different kinds. Stage II reached a

forest optimum (compare the Atlantic period of the older nomenclature).

Stage III coincided with a decrease in the characteristic trees of the warm

period and the appearance or return of the dominant forest constituents of the

present day (5). It is not suggested that this single post-glacial cycle was with?

out minor fluctuations towards increasing numbers of drought enduring tree

types, but the Sub-Boreal phase as such is not differentiated.

Some climatic considerations

Geographers are more directly within their province when considering the

climatic implications of the problem. In one of his later publications (4^),Gradmann brings forward a climatic argument in support of botanical theory

when he discusses likely rainfall tendencies from the evidence of the presentdistribution of rainfall in central Europe. Assuming that a dry Sub-Boreal

phase did in fact exist, he argues that forests would thin out in those regions

which, by a reduction of rainfall, were brought to steppe-like climatic con?

ditions. A mean annual rainfall of 400 millimetres in central European latitudes

now favours a steppe-heath climate. The loess regions round Magdeburg, a

typical loess area, happen to coincide with one of the driest parts of Germany,and receive a mean annual rainfall of only some 500 millimetres (20 inches).Hence Gradmann argues that if, during Sub-Boreal time there was a reduction

of only 100-200 millimetres in the annual rainfall this would have brought

steppe-heath conditions to the locality, and all regions that to-day receive sucha rainfall (500 millimetres), must in Sub-Boreal time have had critical steppeclimates.

Two comments are suggested at once by this argument. One is, that not all

of the loess and other areas of Neolithic settlement lie to-day near this assumed

critical rainfall limit, so that the vegetation of these localities may not neces?

sarily have been reduced to the steppe-heath climate; the other comment is



136 the loess regions of central europe in prehistoric times

that we have no evidence as to whether the rainfall did in fact deteriorate byas much as 20 per cent. at this time, if indeed the Sub-Boreal phase existed

at all. Botanists have related thesteppe-heath

relict flora found in some of

these "critical" regions to the preceding Boreal phases of plant migrations,and not to a dry phase subsequent to the Atlantic forest period. Incidentally,Gradmann's argument does at least admit the principle that climatic rather

than geological factors are of first importance in determining these differences

of vegetation. Indeed, he points out that the loess of central Germany should

be wooded to-day, and that its treeless character is mainly due to the effects of

cultivation, while oak-forest soils denote apart from anything else the exist?

ence of a former tree-cover.

Much detailed research in palaeobotany and archaeology has been carried

out in the Breckland region near Cambridge. In spite of the differences intheir location, the Breckland shows striking similarities with the Magdeburgloess region both in soils, vegetation, and climate. While no claim is made

that deductions from one region can be applied to the other, the similarities

are worth noting, for whatever may have been the climatic tendency in the

so-called Sub-Boreal period, the relative degree of climatic "continentality"in central Europe (typified by Magdeburg) as compared with East Anglia

(typified by Cambridge) may well have shown little difference from that of

to-day. In Boreal and Atlantic time, Qreat Britain was separated from the

continent, and land and sea distributions in north-west Europe had assumed

the general pattern of the present time.

A study of the monthly means (Tables, p. 142) reveals a degree of similaritywhich is surprising as Magdeburg is one of the driest and most continental

parts of central Germany. For instance, there is very little difference in manyof the monthly rainfall means. As would be expected, the relative humidityat the more continental station is lower in summer, but this is offset to some

extent by a slightly heavier rainfall. Means and extremes of temperaturesshow that though there is a tendency to greater extremes at Magdeburg,

Cambridge suffers from a longer period of the year when frosts may occur.

These, indeed, may be lethal to the vegetation in this district even in June (7).Other points in the tables suggest a comparatively close climatic analogybetween the two regions.

In the Breckland, the conditions of soil and sub-soil somewhat resemble

those of the Magdeburg and other loess regions; they are dry and permeable,with loess-like and sandy formations. Some features of the vegetation are also

similar to those of the steppe-heath areas under discussion. Thus, as in the

middle Elbe region, heath is characteristic of the Breckland vegetation of

to-day. It includes a drought-resistant flora (7) with several species that are

rare or not found elsewhere in Britain, some of which are characteristic of the

steppes of south Russia (6, p. 70). Furthermore, though heath is dominant inBreckland to-day, it has not always been so, and birch and pine, oak and

beech all regenerate there to-day; some 40,000 acres were being reafforested

in 1934. Pollen analysis in the Brecklands shows that a one-time birch-pineforest was replaced later by alder and oak-mixed forests which persisted dur?

ing the Atlantic phase in regions where to-day there is the so-called "natural

heath." This forest cover continued with only minor changes right down to



THE LOESS REGIONSOF CENTRALEUROPE IN PREHISTORICTIMES 137

the opening of the Neolithic period (8), and there is strong evidence to suggestthat the changes which then occurred were initiated mainly by human rather

thanby

climatic influences.

From the evidence of the Breckland heaths which represent a comparatively"maritime" locality, west of the central European loess basins, we may turn

to that of more typical "continental" loess regions farther east, in the mid-

Danube Hungarian basin. Here areas of dry sandy soils and of loess are

extensive. The vegetation to-day is conspicuous for its steppe-like character-

istics and it has often been marked as steppe in sketch-maps showing vegeta?tion in relation to prehistoric sites. Yet the researches of Hungarian botanists,srimmarized by de S06 (9), show that the last climatic steppe phase even for

this region was coincident with the Boreal period, as in western Europe.

Since then the vegetation gradually became wood-steppe, until finally theAlfold was very largely a region of "marsh and oak-forest" into which Neo?

lithic man must have had to advance. Admittedly some areas may have had a

thinner tree growth than others, with a wood-steppe flora, but it is remarked

by de S06, that to-day the forest trees grow equally well on the loess, sands,and alluvial soils of the Alfold, and that the microscopic analysis of charcoals

from prehistoric sites at Toszeg, in what is now a very dry and treeless

sector of the Alfold, shows the presence of oak, birch, willow, poplar, elm,and beech. Yet to-day the vegetation is notable for its steppe-like character-

istics. This barrenness is regarded by Hungarian botanists as a very recent

historical development, related to cultural rather than to climatic influences.

If, as is suggested by Hungarian researches, a climatic steppe has not occurred

in the relatively dry continental regions of east-central Europe since Boreal

time, surely this must be equally true of the more westerly located or, climati-

cally, more "maritime" loess regions of central and western Europe, includ?

ing regions in central and southern Germany? Also, by analogy it may be

argued that the Sub-Boreal period was not one of steppe-heath conditions, in

any of these regions. The first historical steppe in the Hungarian basin is

described as post-Roman, while the truly arid Pusztas which have been so

notable a feature of the vegetation, were mainly the result of the Turkish con-quests, and developed as recently as the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,when agriculture ceased and towns, villages, and even forests, were destroyedand the country used for pasture. These facts emphasize the fallacies that

may arise from an interpretation of facts of prehistory in relation to the

apparent "natural" vegetation of the present day.

Prehistoric man and forest clear ance

Apart from the above points of discussion, there are other arguments thatwould seem to disprove completely the thesis of an "open loess way," and

from which it would appear that the character of the climate and vegetationin Sub-Boreal time is immaterial to the whole question. The correlation ofthe more recent archaeological and botanical researches has made it possibleto date the period of the Danubian advance across Europe fairly tlosely. The

spread of the Neolithic farmers has been identified as occurring well withinthe Atlantic phase, which implies therefore an advance during the optimumphase of forest development in Europe, and there is no reason why the loess

10



138 THE LOESSREGIONS OF CENTRALEUROPE IN PREHISTORICTIMES

should not have been forested then, like other parts of Europe. Equally it is

not without interest that the later Mesolithic food gatherers, fishers, hunters,and collectors, of Boreal and Atlantic times, showed a marked avoidance of

the loess. It is true that some Mesolithic groups, notably the Maglemosians,

adapted themselves to a forest habitat, but such people appear to have been

confined to the lowland plain of northern Europe. In the highland zone of

central Europe the principal later Mesolithic culture was the Tardenoisian,and this, although widely distributed in the zone from Westphalia, Franconia,and Wurtemberg, to Upper Silesia and Poland, is, as several prehistorianshave remarked, e.g. Clark (1, pp. 192-5), notably lacking from the loess belts

within this area. The distribution of Tardenoisian settlements is of special

significance to the present study for, with a material culture ill adapted to

forest, Tardenoisian man was highly selective in the choice of his sites. Whennot located on lake sides or exposed uplands, they were almost invariablyassociated with areas of sandstone or sandy soils, as Clark has demonstrated (1).These are areas that would tend to be less wooded, and a remarkably close

correlation of sites with such areas has been recorded from the scattered

sandstone of the Weald, and sandy localities in Germany, Poland, etc. The

late Tardenoisian and early Neolithic cultures overlap in time in Europe, but

Tardenoisian man, who was not an agriculturalist, did not occupy the same

areas as Neolithic man. Tardenoisian man showed, by the choice of sites and

in his culture, such reluctance to penetrate the denser forests, that it is surely

significant that the loamy terrain of the loess, hitherto supposed to have been

only lightly wooded or with steppe-heath characteristics, should be quitewithout evidence of Tardenoisian occupation.

General considerations seem therefore to suggest that the direction of geo?

graphical emphasis may have been fundamentally wrong in assuming that

Neolithic man, unable to modify a forest environment to suit his needs, made

use of more open country only. At a very early stage in human history

primitive man, by forest clearance, may have induced important modifications

on the plant associations, without these changes being in any way related to

climatic differences. There is a growing weight of evidence to show thatoften a "natural" heath and steppe flora in western Europe exist more probablyas a result of, rather than as a cause of, man's early occupation of the land.

That man could, and did, clear surfaces of tree growth at an early stage in

human history is a point of view put forward with increasing emphasis by

ecologists and archaeologists, and there are a number of researches on these

lines published in recent years, of which geographers should be aware.

Pioneer work in this direction was published by J. Iversen (10), in studies of

the heath lands of Denmark, and his approach to the subject has been followed

and applied to the Breckland region in East Anglia, by H. Godwin (8). J. Iver?

sen demonstrated that the Neolithic phase in Denmark fails in the oak-forest

period. Pollen grain analysis however reveals a decline in the elements of high

forest, associated presumably with forest destruction. That this factor and not

climate was the cause of the change in vegetation is indicated by the local

increase in birch, hazel, and alder, due to the rapid regeneration of these

species in the cleared areas. These forest changes are dated by archaeological

finds, and an extensive layer of charcoal suggests a horizon of forest burning.



THE LOESSREGIONS OF CENTRALEUROPEIN PREHISTORICTIMES 139

In addition, a convincing new line of evidence is the sudden increase, at this

horizon, in non-tree pollens, including representatives of both cereal and

plantain pollens.The latter are

particularly

useful as criteria of the cause of

the changes since the plantain species here found are usually associated with

human disturbance of the natural vegetation. Iversen demonstrates that the

so-called natural heaths of central Jutland were originally areas of open oak-

forest and were first destroyed with the clearance of the surface for agriculture

by Neolithic man; the great continuous areas of heath were especially de?

veloped from this early beginning during the ensuing Iron Age.Recent researches by H. Godwin on the Breckland country (8) show a similar

record. These heaths seem likewise to have first developed as the result of

human interference on native oak forests. Pollen analysis shows that the early

pine and birch forests were, in Atlantic time, replaced by the oak forest, whichpersisted with only minor changes, down to the Neolithic occupation. Before

this stage, non-tree pollens are negligible, but after the opening of the Neo?

lithic phase there is a remarkable increase in non-tree pollens, including,

significantly, those of grasses and the ribwort plantain, a species associated

only with low open vegetation.Since therefore it is increasingly clear that Neolithic man was well able to,

and indeed did, penetrate forested country, then his preference for the loess

of central Europe warrants a different explanation. Four quite obvious

suggestions may be advanced. First, for early farming peoples, these areas

provided soils in the main very fertile, and in such localities high yields would

be guaranteed for relatively little agricultural effort. Secondly, unlike the

heavy clay lands, or stony uplands, these regions had the inestimable advantagethat their light loamy soils could easily be worked with primitive agricultural

implements; an important consideration for man before the age of metals and

before the use of the plough. Thirdly, the loess, naturally well drained, pro?vided both dry sites and suitable material for pit dwellings. And finally,whether the regions were lightly or densely wooded, their comparatively level

and dry surfaces could in any case be cleared relatively easily by firing if by

no other process.

Early methods of forest clearance

The ways and means of forest clearance that may have been adopted at this

early stage have been discussed by archaeologists, and the evidence has been

summarized in a paper of considerable importance and interest to geographers,

by G. Clark, entitled "Farmers and forests in Neolithic Europe" (11). Clark

draws attention to the careful selection of some Neolithic sites in relation to

soil conditions, such that "the inference is unavoidable that the neolithic

farmers were more concerned with the ease of working and fertility of the soil

than with its forest cover, . . . the crucial fact is that the Danubians colonizedsoil which competent authority pronounces to have been forested" (11).

Attention is drawn in many publications to the advantages to primitiveman of forest clearance by burning. Its importance in relation to vegetation

changes, whether artificially or naturally induced, is emphasized for instance

by C. Sauer (12) when discussing ways in which original woodland may have

been replaced by grassland, in the evolution of the North American Prairies,



140 THE LOESSREGIONSOF CENTRALEUROPEIN PREHISTORICTIMES

and by O. Schmieder, who concludes that in the humid Pampa grasslands of

South America an original scrub-forest cover was replaced by prairie as a

result of forest fires lighted by Indians before the arrival of the Spaniards (13).Iversen (10), as noted earlier, draws attention to a significant horizon of char?

coal as a likely index of forest burning in Neolithic times in Denmark, while

Clark (14) points out the advantages of burning in a system of shifting agricul?ture such as seems to have been practiced by Neolithic man. This system,

involving the abandonment of plots after only a few years of cultivation with

stone hoes, would mean that systematic and permanent clearance of the land

would be uneconomic, and, as happens where burning is practised to-day,cultivated patches in the charred and partially burned forest benefit from the

potash in the ashes. Burning likewise stimulates the growth of herbs, "the

mainstay of early cattle feeding" (14).Apart from the possibilities of clearance by burning, there remains clear-

ing by felling. Long before the arrival of Neolithic man in central and

western Europe, his Mesolithic predecessors, particularly in the Maglemose

cultures, had developed over many parts of Europe "a spectacular, rich,and distinctive equipment of heavy tools adapted to wood working in a forest

environment" (1), (15), so that tree felling would not, presumably, have been

unknown to Neolithic man coming later to these regions. Clark (11) instances

a number of investigations showing the efficacy of stone age implements for

tree felling. Huts have been built from the timber cut and trimmed with stone

hatchets ground at the edge; "with a polished Danish flint hatchet 8 inches in

diameter, hafted in part of the root of an oak, an oak tree 8 inches in diameter

was cut down without injury to the blade"; again, "a fir-tree 17 centimetres

in diameter can be felled in seven minutes using an axehead of chipped flint,

and in five with one of polished stone." Clark ends his suggestive paper with

the apt comment that "the contrast between the areas settled by prehistoricman and those shunned by him, was not as between forested and "open"

lands, or even as between "densely" and "lightly" forested, so much as

between those which he could and those which he could not cultivate" (11).

In conclusion,the

position maybe summarized

brieflyas follows: From

an original surmise that Neolithic man followed the distribution of "natural

forest clearings," a theory was developed that these areas of presumed natural

steppe-heath evolved during the phase of deteriorating, drier climate, known

as Sub-Boreal. Later researches in some cases dispute the existence of a pro-nounced or prolonged dry Sub-Boreal phase, and in any case the advance of

Danubian man in Europe is placed prior, and therefore unrelated to, such a

climatic phase. Finally, quite recent research increasingly points to the some-

what startling possibility that the changes in the characteristic vegetation from

forest to steppe-heath may largely be due to biotic rather than to climatic

developments associated with processes of forest destruction carried out byprimitive man himself.

Natural vegetation

Some of the geographer's difficulties in discussing the type of problemraised in this paper arise from the frequent use of imprecise geographical ter-

minology, such as for example the term "natural vegetation." Has this ex-



THE LOESSREGIONSOF CENTRALEUROPEIN PREHISTORICTIMES 141

pression any real meaning or exact definition ? Thirty years ago, or more, the

term seems to have had no place in geographical writings; neither Herbertson

nor Hardy used it in their work on natural regions, or vegetation regions, andThompson, in a well-known general geographical reference work publishedin 1907, refers to "characteristic" rather than "natural" vegetation (16). No-

where in geographical literature does the geographical implication of the word

"natural" seem to be clearly defined, though it is widely used both in this

country and on the continent. If causal relationships between man and the

plant cover are to be traced with reference not only to the present but also to

historic and-prehistoric time, then surely, some definition should be agreed

upon. The plant associations that make up the vegetative cover, even more

than other aspects of the physical environment, have never been static

elements of the landscape. The effects of both biotic and climatic changes,

working sometimes with and sometimes against each other, are continuously

operative, and have at some periods and in some regions led to peculiarly rapid

adjustments in the flora.

As the position stands, it would appear that the term "natural vegetation"

may be interpreted by different writers in any one of the following ways,

according to the geographical bias of the subject under discussion:

1. The natural vegetation is that which characterized a region immediately

prior to the time when the plant cover was first extensively affected or altered

byman's

occupationof the land. In the

lightof modern research it would

seem that, for many parts of Europe, this must now refer to the vegetation of

the distant Atlantic period, before the advent of Neolithic man to these

regions.2. It is that plant cover to which the present-day vegetation would revert

if left abandoned and undisturbed by man for an appreciable period of time.

In Europe this vegetation would presumably come to resemble most closelythat characteristic of the Sub-Atlantic, and not of the Atlantic period, as in

the first definition.

3. It is the plant cover that exists to-day on uncultivated, as distinct from

cultivated surfaces. This may well be the interpretation that most geographersintend, but the present-day "uncultivated" vegetation is itself so often the

product indirectly or directly of man's interference that the epithet "natural"

is peculiarly inappropriate. Moreover, the present uncultivated plant cover

can in no case be cited as indicative of conditions even in historic still less

prehistoric times, without a careful examination of the position. Amongbotanists the term "natural vegetation" has only a limited and specializedusage, the more favoured botanical expression being "climax vegetation,"which, unlike any of the above definitions refers rather to the vegetation whichwould now exist had no abnormal influences ever been at work.

The very fact that such general ambiguity is possible regarding the use of

one of our most commonly accepted and basic geographical terms, surely callsfor both clarification and an agreed more precise understanding.



142 THE LOESS REGIONSOF CENTRALEUROPEIN PREHISTORICTIMES

CLIMATIC TABLES (see Reference 18)

J. F. M. A. M. J. J. A. S. O. N. D. Total

Mean monthly rainfall (inches)Cambridge 1*5 1*2 1*4 1-3 i*8 21 2-2 2*3 i-6 2-3 1-9 1-9 21*5Magdeburg 1-3 1*2 1-4 15 17 2-1 2*6 2*0 1-5 17 1-4 1*5 20

Highest monthly rainfall (inches)Cambridge 4-1 2-6 3-5 3-1 4-0 3-5 5-0 2-9 4-8 3-8 5-6 3-3Magdeburg 3-3 2-5 31 3*i 57 3*9 7'8 5'8 4*2 4"3 3*4 3'?

Lowest monthly rainfall (inches)Cambridge o-8 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-5 0-4 0-5 0-2 o-8 0-5 1*2 0-3Magdeburg 0*5 0-2 0-3 0*2 0-2 0-4 0-2 o-i 0-3 o-i o-i 0-3

Mean monthly relative humidity (per cent.)Cambridge 91 89 85 82 78 78 78 80 84 87 90 91Magdeburg 85 82 77 70 65 66 69 71 75 81 85 86

Average daily sunshine (hours)Cambridge 17 27 3*9 5*5 6-5 67 6-5 6-o 5-0 3-3 21 1*3Magdeburg 1-5 2-3 3-5 5*i 6-8 6-8 6-3 5-9 4-9 3*i i*8 i-i

Mean monthly temperature (?F.)Cambridge 37 39 42 47 53 59 62 61 57 50 43 39Magdeburg 32 34 39 47 56 62 65 64 58 49 39 34

Average daily maximum temperature (? F.)Cambridge 45 46 50 55 63 68 71 71 66 58 49 45Magdeburg 37 39 47 56 67 72 75 73 67 56 45 38

Average daily minimum (? F.)Cambridge 34 33 34 3& 44 4$ 52 52 48 42 37 35Magdeburg 27 29 33 39 47 52 56 55 49 42 35 3?

Average of monthly maxima (? F.)Cambridge 54 56 63 69 75 81 84 83 78 68 59 55Magdeburg 49 51 64 73 84 87 90 88 82 70 57 51Valencia .. 53 54 56 61 68 72 71 71 69 62 57 55

Average of monthly minima (?F.)Cambridge 20 21 23 26 30 38 43 42 36 29 24 21

Magdeburg 11 14 21 29 35 43 47 46 39 3? 22 16Valencia ..29 30 31 34 3** 43 46 46 42 35 32 30

REFERENCES

(i) J. G. D. Clark, 'TheMesolithic settlement of northern

Europe.'Cam?

bridge, 1936.

(2) V. G. Childe, 'The dawn of European civilization' 1939, pp. 96-98; see

also *The Danube in Prehistory,' 1929* P- 42, 43-

(3) A. Penck, 'Das Deutsche Reich,' in A. KirchhofFs 'Landerkunde des

Erdteils Europa,' vol. I, 1887, s. 441, and quoted by R. Gradmann (4^),

and G. Clark (11).

(4) R. Gradmann. Publications include: (a) 'Das Pflanzenleben der schwabi-

schen Alb,' 1898, 1900, and 1936; (b) "Das mitteleuropaische Land-

schaftsbild nach seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung," Geogr. Z. 7 (1901)

361-77, 435-47; (c) "Beziehungen zwischen Pflanzengeographie und

Siedlungsgeschichte,"Geogr. Z. 12 (1906)305-25; (d) "Uber die Bedeutungpostglazialer Klimaveranderungen fur die Siedlungsgeographie," Z. dtsch.

geol. bes. Bd. 62; (e) "Die geographische Bedeutung der postglazialen Kli-

maschwankungen," Verh. u. Wiss. Abhand. des Deutschen Geographentages

zu Magdeburg, 1929, pp. 166-85 (Pr- Breslau, 193?)-

(5) For a general survey of the technique of pollen analysis, see H. Godwin,

"Pollen analysis, an outline of the problems and potentialities of the

method," Pts. 1 and 2, New Phytol. 33 (1934)-



THE,LOESS REGIONSOF CENTRALEUROPE IN PREHISTORICTIMES 143

(6) A. G. Tansley, 'The British Isles and their vegetation.' Cambridge, 1939.

(7) A. S. Watt, "Studies in the ecology of Breckland,"J. Ecol. 24 (1936) 117-

38; see also Tansley (6), p. 70.

(8) H. Godwin, "Age and origin of the Breckland Heaths of East Anglia,"Nature, 154 (1944) 6.

(9) R. de S06, (a) "The vegetation and the development of the Hungarian

Puszta," Fdldraji Kozlemenyek, 59 (1931) (In Hungarian, with summary in

English); (b) "Die Vegetation und die Entstehung der ungarischen Puszta,"

J. Ecol. 17 (1929) 329-50-

(10) J. Iversen, "Landnam i Danmarks Stenalder" (Land occupation in Den-

mark's Stone Age), Danm. geol. Unders. II Rk. 66, p. 68. Copenhagen,

1941. This is reviewed by H. Godwin, "Neolithic forest clearance,"

Nature, 153 (1944) 5"-

(11) J.G. D.

Clark,"Farmers and forests in Neolithic

Europe," Antiquity, 19(i945)57-7i-

(12) C. O. Sauer, "A geographical sketch of Early Man in America," Geogr.

Rev., October 1944.

(13) O. Schmieder, "The Pampa, a natural or culturally induced grassland?"Univ. Calif. Publ. Geogr. 2 (1927) 255-70.

(14) J. G. D. Clark, "Man and nature in Prehistory, with special reference to

Neolithic settlement in northern Europe," Occasional Paper No. 6, 1945.The University of London Institute of Archaeology.

(15) V. G. Childe, "The antiquity and functions of antler axes and adzes,"Antiquity, 16 (1942).

(16) 'The international geography/ edited by H. R. Mill, 1907.(17) K. D. Glinka, 'The great soil groups of the world and their development/

Ann Arbor, 1937, p. 78.

(18) The climatic tables are based on statistics in 'Klimakunde des DeutschenReiches.' Bd. II, Tab. 1939, Berlin; also from sources in A. S. Watt (7) andtables supplied by the Meteorological Office.

Documents

The Loess Regions in Central Europe in Prehistorical Times