Sort order:  

Status: 799 Treffer   •   Seite 1 von 80   •   10 Artikel pro Seite

2024-10-07 09:01:32   •   ID: 2387

From the river to the sea? The return of Einsatzgruppen on October 7th 2023

Figure1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 1 and 2: A late Neolithic battle axe of S/W-Germany origin. Figure 3 and 4: A middle Bronze Age spearhead, found during the 1890ies in S/W-Germany.

During the late Neolithic of Europe (Figure 1 and 2; Beaker cultures), an increasing social individuali-zation is emerging. This becomes apparent, among other things, from the changes in burial customs. Instead of collective graves, individual graves now predominated--See here: 1322 .

In the Interplay of individualization, increasing social stratification, inequality of wealth and the pursuit of prestige, an ideology of the splendid warrior emerged-see here: 1670 . The rise of individuality and the presence of battle-axes in the new burial tradition means they must have been part of some aspect of the individual, whether it be to show status, power, or warrior success.

The Bronze Age testified the global emergence of a warrior society with a culture, chacterized by a variety of new, efficient weapons that remained in use for the millennia to come. Since then, humans have always been very innovative in the destruction of other humans. Indeed, “War is the Father of All Things” (Heraclitus). Since the First World War, the dimension of an industrialized war has become clear to everyone.

At the beginning of August 1945, the Allies established an International Military Tribunal to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace. The Nuremberg trials revolutionized international law and for the first time attempted to adapt it to the conditions of modern military technology and its consequences.

One result of Nuremberg is the outlawing of aggressive war. Anyone who starts a war of aggression commits a crime against humanity.

"Splendid warriors" of Hamas attacked Israel - this unique rescue project of the Jews-on October 7th 2023 and committed massacres of civilians that can only be compared to the crimes of the German Einsatzgruppen during the Second World War.

The comparison is by no means so far-fetched: In one day, Hamas killed the same number of people (around 1200) as the Germans did every single day on the bloodlands of Eastern Europe (sensu: Timothy Snyder) between August 1941 and the end of the Second World War.

However, Hamas was even far more brutal in its methods. You can only imagine what the cry “From the river to the sea” would mean.....



Resources and images in full resolution:

2024-09-25 13:38:21   •   ID: 2386

Treasures in the loess - landscapes around Krems an der Donau

Plate 1
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Plate 1 and Figure 1: Loess gully called the "Steinaweg" near Göttweig / Lower Austria. Plate 1 shows a photo taken in August 2024. Figure 1 shows the Steinaweg as seen from the Göttweig Monastery (own work); Figure 2: Loess profile near Stratzing (own work); Figure 3: Cellar Lane (sunken road with wine cellars dug next to each other into the loess wall) from Fels am Wagram / Lower Austria (Wikipedia Commons); Figure 4-6 Gravette-Point from Willendorf (own work; Figure 7: "Micro-Saws“ or „Micro-Denticulates" are suggested to be an index fossil of the Pavlovian and were found at the Krems Wachtberg Cluster, Krems Hundssteig (Kesseldorfers findings) and at Gösing (picture by Thilo Parg, modified by JM); Figure 8: Ivory Pendant from my own collection-Lang -Mannersdorf; Figure 9: Artifacts from Kammern-Grubgraben from my own collection.

Loess is an eolian sediment formed under cold conditions, while paleosols are the modification of loess during warmer conditions.

Loess–palaeosol sequences provide the longest terrestrial records of global environmental change. In particular, sequences from the Central Loess Plateau in China span the past 2,5 Ma and many studies have shown that they provide proxy records of glacial–interglacial climatic cycles (Hunt et al. 1995).

However, loess-paleosol sequences rarely provide a complete picture of Quaternary climatic fluctuations and the interpretation of climatic change is often limited without the extensive use of absolute dating methods (C-14, TL, Paleomagnetism). Even sequences from neighbouring regions - for example from southern Moravia and Lower Austria - often do not match well.

Beside the lack of precise numerical age of numerous important key sequences and the continuous use of national stratigraphic schemes, the main problem are regional hiatuses in the record, mainly caused by erosion and secondary reworking of the original soils and the impact of different climates on pedogenesis.

In particular, loess stratigraphies in Austria, Czech and Slovakia are complicated by a more humid climate and a marked seasonality compared with the climate of the Pannonian - Danube loess belt, which led to a more complex stratigraphy (Sprafke et al. 2014; Sprafke 2016). In addition higher relief and higher humidity means that loess-paleosol sequences in Lower Austria were comperably more affected by erosion.

One should also consider, that shorter climatic events (in geological terms) often had surprisingly little influence on local pedogenesis compared with high-resolution, global deep-sea chronology.

The Lower Austrian loess record in the Krems vicinity includes some of the most famous loess profiles in Europe, such as the Göttweiger Interglacial (MIS5) and the “Paudorfer Bodenbildung” (Paudorf paleosol) an up to 1 m thick pedocomplex that developed during MIS 5. In Krems at the „Schießstätte“ a mighty (20m) loess profile includes early and middle Pleistocene paleosols, while at Stratzing a high resolution record of the late MIS3 has been detected (Hofer 2010, Sprafke et al. 2014; Sprafke 2016). Unfortunately all the classic profiles are without archaeological material.

Around Krems and within a 20 km radius, access to last glacial loess, nowadays can be found either during major earth movements (Strazig, Krems Wachtberg, Krems Hundssteig), during the course of construction work in old wine cellar lanes, where underground tunnels were dug deep into the loess, forming large cellar vaults for the storage of wine (Gösing am Wagram), from loam pits (Ziegelei Kargl / Langenlois) or in loess walls exposed by old gullies / sunken roads (Getzersdorf, Kammern-Grubgraben).

The Wachau and the adjacent areas along both sides of the Danube (Wagram and the Kamp Valley; Traisen Valley) were never covered by ice shields during the Quaternary. However, during glacial periods, especially during marked cold episodes, these areas were part of the European periglacial tundra that extended between the ice shields of the Alps and the Eurasian Ice Sheet. Nevertheless the area was populated even during the LGM, because favorable climatic micro-regions may have existed (Rosenburg, Kammern- Grubgraben).

The Krems sites are preserved in the Loess, overlying a terrain spur, at the confluence of the Krems river and the Danube, the Kamp Valley is an important axis between the Middle Danube region towards Moravia while the Traisen River is fed by water from the water rich Lower Austrian Limestone Alps.

I have already described the cave and abri -stations of the Krems valley with predominantly Middle Paleolithic findings in an earlier blog entry; See here: 2299

During last 120 years several other sites were detected in the Krems-, the Kamp- and the Traisen Valley and its surroundings, some of them gained major importance after modern excavations (Stratzing, Krems Wachtberg-Cluster, Kammern-Grubgraben), some were reinterpreted (Langmannersdorf, Langenlois). Some sites are awaiting reecavation see here: 1486 , here: 1675 , here: 1194 , and here: 1675

The following list is in accordance with the literature by Obermaier (1907), Neugebauer-Maresch (1993), Weinfurter (1950) and others. Non included here are the findings near Horn and Tulln and locations more upstream at the Danube in the Wachau (Willendorf, Aggsbach, Spitz)

Gobelsburg: total of eight find spots with up to seven strata: Gravettian with partly microlithic inventory. Occasional organic artefacts.

Gösing am Wagram: In total 14 find spots with Upper Paleolithic artefacts (mainly Gravettian) are known from older unsystematic excavations.

The site Gösing-Setzergraben (Buchinger 2020) was found during renovation of an old wine cellar in the loess and was unfortunately almost completely destroyed. It was excavated in 2014 and represents the first modern excavation in the area.

The remnants of the uppermost of in total four cultural layers yielded lithics, faunal remains and the remains of an in situ preserved hearth. This layer was dated to ca 26,5 k.a. BP.

The raw material of the site was mostly collected from local sources and its composition is similar to that at Krems Wachtberg.

Backed bladelets and microgravettes are common but the most characteristic element are microdenticulates, diagnostic for the Pavlovian in Eastern Austria and Moravia (Krems-Wachtberg, Krems Hundssteig-modern excavations and Kesselsdorfers findings, Willendorf 2/5 (?), Dolni Vestonice, Pavlov, Jarošov-Podvršťa and Boršice).

Hadersdorf am Kamp: Gravettian artefacts including some microliths.

Kammegg: This interesting site has affinities both to the (Epi)-Gravettian and the Magdalenian. No absolute dating available.

Krems-Wachtberg Cluster; See here: 1486 and here: 2189

Krems Hundssteig; See here: 1194 , and here: 1520

Krems-Stein- Förthofgraben: Aurignacian

Stratzing / Galgenberg: Aurignacian; See here: 1194

Meidling near Krems: Upper Paleolithic

Langmannersdorf; See here: 1594 and here: 1675

Langenlois: Gravettian

Senftenberg: Aurignacian

Steinaweg ;See figure 1: Upper Paleolithic

Rosenburg: Epiaurignacian according to Skrdla, dated to ca. 20 k.a. BP. See here: 1675

Ruppersthal: Epi-Aurignacian around 21 k.a. BP

Unterloiben: Upper Paleolithic

Getzersdorf: Aurignacian

Monographs: Some pdfs are accessable on the net for free (!)

Die jungpaläolithischen Stationen in der Ziegelei Kargl in Langenlois, Niederösterreich: Die Ausgrabungen von 1961 bis 1963.(Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission, Wien 2019)

Das Jungpaläolithikum von Krems-Wachtberg: Die Steinartefakte der Ausgrabungen 2005‒2015 (Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission, Wien 2024)

Krems-Hundssteig - Mammutjägerlager der Eiszeit: Ein Nutzungsareal paläolithischer Jäger- und Sammler(innen) vor 41.000-27.000 Jahren (Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission, Wien 2008)

Das Silexinventar der gravettienzeitlichen Fundstelle Gösing-Setzergraben“; MA Thesis ; Wien 2020

H. Obermaier: Die am Wagramdurchbruch des Kamp gelegenen niederösterreichischen Quartärfundplätze : Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis des älteren Jungpaläolithikum in Mitteleuropa (Wien 1908)



Resources and images in full resolution:

2024-05-31 07:33:15   •   ID: 2382

Blattspitzen in Central Europe –Sink the Fossille Directeur concept!

Plate 1
Plate 1: Bifacial Foliate from Lake Turkana (MIS 7-3); Figure 1: Bifacial Foliate from Thebes Nord (MIS 5-3); Figure 2: Uni- and Bifacial Points from Namibia (MIS 5-3); Figure 3: flat bifacial Tool ("Faustkeilblatt") from Lichtenberg , Lower Saxony (early MIS 3); Figure 4: "Blattspitze" (Leafpoint) from Lenderscheid probably MIS 3; Figure 5: "Blattspitze (Leafpoint) from Moravany Dlah (late MIS3).

Figure 1
While in Africa the Presence of Bifacial Foliates in the MSA was recognized since the 1930s (Aterian, East and South African MSA), in Central Europe, Blattspitzen were for a long time seen as Ispecific Markers of the Solutrean (Obermaier 1912, Goodwin and van Riet Lowe 1929, Leakey 1936).

For Central Europe, it were Prošek (1953) and Freund (1952) who, in the 1950s, attempted a systematic survey of the „Blattspitzen Culture“. They were able to prove that this technocomplex was older than the Solutrean of W-Europe. Subsequently these ensembles were dated to an interstadial of the last glaciation (MIS 3).

The examples in Figures 2 & 3 show, that the „bifacial option“ was always present not only during the MSA but also during the European Middle Paleolithic since OIS 9-7.

A variety of influences had an impact on whether this option was used or not. I would really appreciate the introduction of multivariate analyses in the evaluation of good excavated sites in order to quantitatively evaluate how these influences affected individual layers of a site. Prehistory has a lot to learn from medical statistics!

Figure 2
G. de Mortillet in the 1870s, as well as Francois Bordes in the 1960s, assumed that a certain artifact was actually an intentionally produced end product, but these hypotheses have been completely deconstructed in the last 80 years, especially by Harold Dibble.

For example, the series of MSA points in Figure 3 shows that the blanks were produced from rather thick flakes that were first transformed into unifacial points and in some cases subsequently into bifacial points. The series therefore only shows the transformation process at the time of detection.

The phenomenon was described in detail by M. Kot on the basis of findings in Weimar Ehrigsdorf (MIS7) (Kot 2017).

What we call leaf points were functionally very different instruments, that could be used as spear points or as knives, which have some similarities with other tools from the Keilmesser /Middle European Micoquian entity (Rots et al. 2022; Kot and Richter 2012).

All of these stories show that prehistorians believed that a single artifact - in this case the leaf point - was sufficient to define an entire “culture” and a particular period in glacial chronology. Behind all this, explicit or not, was the influential concept of the “Fossille Directeur".

Figure 3
Fossile directeurs (en: Index fossils), are used by geologists to define and identify geological periods (or faunal stages). Index fossils must have a short vertical range, a wide geographical distribution and rapid evolutionary trends.

The principle was introduced by William Smith at the beginning of the 19th century, who described the chronostratigraphic sequence of geological units by their faunal succession for the United Kingdom in 1815 (Harries 2015).

Gabriel de Mortillet during the 1860s developed the idea to define time-periods by their typical stone tools which acted like the fossile directeurs of the geologists and seemingly the idea is still present in the minds of Prehistorians (Nemergut et al. 2019).

However, Mortillet did two important things. Firstly, he standardized the typological approach, a concept that was borrowed from Classical Archaeology, and Secondly, he linked typology with the chronological informations that were available at his time.

Figure 4
In this tradition, researchers assumed a linear and global evolution of artifacts from the simple to the sophisticated and suggested, that one can safely deduce the absolute age of a tool by its appearance, if the geological and relative age of a similar tool in a dateable context had already been established.

Dating methods of course are much further ahead today, and as result of a better chronological control the concept of Fossile Diecteurs, can only be used to a very limited extent although prehistorians sometimes seem to forget this fact.

A positive example of the validity of the concept is, for example, the Noailles Burin, which is rarely found outside the “Gravettian“.

However, in the case of handaxes, these iconographic artifacts that were once used to define the early and middle Pleistocene „Acheulean“, are now known from the early Pleistocene into the Holocene from a global perspective.
Figure 5


If a Fossile directeur is a tool that can be tracked within defined temporal and spatial boundaries, then bifacial foliates/ Blattspitzen / Leaf points are not an example of proof of such a concept.

In central Europe almost identical tools can be found from OIS 7 (Ehringsdorf), MIS 4 (Hohle Fels), early MIS3 (Sesselfels Grotto, Mauern, Ranis), late MIS 3 (Moravany-Dlhah), MIS2 (upper strata of Szeleta, Trenčianske Bohuslavice).

Leafpoints were part of very different cultural entities like the Middle European Micoquian / KMG-Group, the Lincombian-Ranisian-Jerzmanowician (LRJ), the so called early and late Szeletian, which by the way the may not represent the same cultural tradition and technocompexes of a Gravettian / post- Pavlovian age- mainly in Western Slovakia and Hungary.

A look at South East Europe (for example Muselievo and Samuilitsa MIS4) and Africa shows the same phenomenon but probably with a greater temporal depth.

In this respect, it would be time to finally abandon the concept of the „Blattspitzengruppen“ and recognize that this term is rather an artefact of research tradition than a phenomenon of real prehistoric life.

Sugested Readings:

Goodwin, AJH; van Riet Lowe, C (1929): "The Stone Age cultures of South Africa". Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 27: 1–289.

Leakey, LSB (1936): Stone Age Africa - An Outline of Prehistory; Oxford University Press.

Nemergut, A et al. (eds.; 1919) 16th SKAM Lithic Workshop “Fossil directeur” - A phenomenon over time and space 21–23 of October 2019, Nitra, Slovak Republic.

Małgorzata Anna Kot (2013): The Earliest Middle Palaeolithic Bifacial Leafpoints in Central and Southern Europe. Technological Approach, PhD Thesis, Warsaw.



Resources and images in full resolution:

2024-05-26 11:33:58   •   ID: 2381

Men the Hunter or Gender Equality?

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figures 1-4: These are possible projectile points from the IUP (Carmel Region / Israel), the EUP (Ahmarian from Kebara / Israel), the Gravettian (Flechette from Fourneau du Diable), the "Willendorf-Kostenkian" (Morvavany in W-Slovakia) and the Solutrean (Shouldered point from Fourneau de Diable) -all from my personal Collection.

The "Men the Hunter" hypothesis, named after an influential symposium in Chicago in 1966,- see: 1261 held that throughout human evolution, men hunted and women gathered - and that they rarely switched these gender roles.

Some, particularly female researchers (e.g. Linda Owen, Olga Soffer), challenged this notion early on, but for a long time there was only scant evidence for hunting women.

Of course the "Men the Hunter" hypothesis is older than the mentioned conference.

For a long time, the Western countries' model for the division of labor, which was essentially based on the idea that men were "naturally" best suited to hard physical labor, was uncritically applied to prehistoric hunter-gatherers.

In fact, the anatomy of men is usually stronger than that of a woman.

But in addition to pure strength, other factors in successful hunting, such as patience, endurance, individual skills and the ability for long-distance running play an important role.

There is growing evidence that women are physiologically better suited to endurance events such as long distance running than men. This advantage has some implications for hunting, as one well-known hypothesis is that early humans pursued their prey on foot over long distances until the animals were exhausted (Lacy and Ocobock 2023).

The cumulative ethnographic record seems to be clear: In a recently published analysis on published data of 63 different foraging societies on different continents, 50 (79%) of them had documentation on women hunting.

Of the remaining 50 societies, 41 had sufficient data on whether women’s hunting was intentional or opportunistic.

36 (87%) of the foraging societies described women’s hunting as intentional, while only 5 (12%) societies assumed woman’s hunting as opportunistic. This record is in clear contradiction to what is commonly thought (Anderson et al. 2023).

A recent meta-analysis looked at the published records of burials from the late Pleistocene and early Holocene across the Americas, using data where sufficient information on division of labour was available (Lacy and Ocobock 2023).

The circumstances of 429 individuals from 107 sites were analyzed. 27 individuals could be linked to big game hunting tools -, mainly projectile-points-, 11 individuals were female and 15 male. The sample was sufficient to justify the conclusion that women's involvement in early big-game hunting was likely "non-trivial," the researchers finally stated.

However, the discovery of projectile points in graves does not automatically mean that the equipment was used by the buried person, so some uncertainty still remains. There could be some bias in the data.

Ideally, the association of projectiles with an individual of unequivocal female sex (anatomical and if possible determined by DNA) in a grave is not always the proof of a femal hunter.

Burial-associated projectile points can result from homicide, hunting accident, or stratigraphic mixing.

Therefore excavation techniques have to demonstrate the integrity of the site and have to exclude that the individual had been killed by the projectiles that were found.

Happily, and as a proof of principle, in 2018 a burial of an femal individual was excavated in the Andes Mountains of Peru (9 k.a. Cal. BP). The body had been buried with an extensive kit of stone tools and the stratigraphic integrity of the grave was beyond any doubt.

The toolkit found in the burial, according to the report, was most possibly once stored in a perishable container such as a leather bag, and included projectile points and other tools that may have served for scraping and cutting together with nodules of red ocher maybe used to preserve hides (Haas et al. 2020).

Why am I focusing on this excavation in particular?

After more than 150 years of research, the possibilities of finding new, untouched Palaeolithic graves in Europe have probably been largely exhausted.

Future research using more sophisticated techniques will certainly take place on other continents and will probably be able to confirm or reject the hypothesis of Gender equality in hunting strategies during the Stone Age.

Suggested Reading:

Cirotteau;T et al. Lady Sapiens: Breaking Stereotypes About Prehistoric Women; Hero (2023).

Devore; I (Ed.), Lee, RB (Ed.) Man the Hunter; Aldine Pub (1968).



Resources and images in full resolution:

2024-05-15 11:17:13   •   ID: 2379

Vale Comprido Point from Laugerie haute

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
This is a rare, 5 cm long, broad Vale Comprido point from Laugerie Haute.

It was made on a broad blank and shows lateral retouching together with some careless basal thinning (Figure 1-4).

The Proto -Solutrean with Vale Comprido Points was already described earlier in the Blog- see here: 1607 and seems to be the earliest manifestation of the Protosolutrean across the entire early Solutrean interaction sphere in Iberia and at a limited number of sites in S/W France, especially at Laugerie Haute.

The lithic technology of the Protosolutrean with Vale Comprido Points has been used to support the idea of an autochtoneous evolution of the Solutrean from the preceding late Gravettian in S/W Europe. Therefore it is possible that Solutrean technology is not a „sudden“ break in the succession of Technocomplexes in Franco-Iberia, as long suggested but an evolutionary process.

Based on archaeological and experimental evidence, Vale Comprido point production was in detail described first by T. Aubry some years ago.

The lithic production was oriented towards the detachment of naturally pointed flakes and blades, most often from unidirectional cores. Subsequently the blanks were transformed into points.

The points are usually directly uni- or bilateral retouched at their convergent edges (Figure 1),

Although we know points without further basal modifications, Vale Comprido points normally shown some basal thinning- best seen in Figure 4. Sometimes the technique of thinning resembles the fluting of Clovis projectiles, certainly a convergence phenomenon.

Based on observations on macrofractures, at least some Vale Comprido points were indeed used as projectiles. Both TCSA and TCSP of the point show a direct correlation with the width and thickness of the projectile.

TCSA and TCSP do not allow to proof, that a tool was used as projectile, but they allow to suggest what kind of launching system (spear, dart, arrow) fits to the presumed projectile. Regarding the point in this post, a dart or spear are the most probable launching systems, that were used.

Provenance:

Ex Champagne and Espitalié collection

References:

Alcaraz-Castaño, M. (2015) Central Iberia around the Last Glacial Maximum. Journal of Anthropological Research,71, p.565-578.


Almeida, F. (2000) The terminal Gravettian of Portuguese Estremadura. (PhD Southern Methodist University)

Zilhão, J.; Trinkaus, E. (eds) Portrait of the Artist as a child. The Gravettian Human skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho and its Archaeological Context, Trabalhos de Arqueologia, vol.22, Instituto Português de Arqueologia.

Zilhão, J. & Aubry, T. (1995) -La pointe de Vale Comprido et les origines du Solutrén. L’ Anthropologie 99 (1), p.125-142.


Zilhão, J. ; Aubry, T. ; Almeida, F. (1997) – L’utilisation du quartz pendant la transition Gravettien-Solutréen au Portugal. Préhistoire et Anthropologie Méditerranéennes 6, p.289-303.


Zilhão, J. ; Aubry, T. ; Almeida, F. (1999) - Un modèle technologique pour le passage du Gravettien au Solutréen dans le Sud-Ouest de l’Europe. XXIVème Congrès Préhistorique de France. p.165-183.



Resources and images in full resolution:

2024-04-28 14:50:35   •   ID: 2378

Homo Ludens

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 1 and 2: Unusual MSA (Fig. 1) and Neolithic (Fig. 2) lithics from the Sahara, possible objects of children play.

Figure 3: The famous Magdalenian spear thrower, called „faon aux oiseaux“ from Le Mas-d’Azil (from Dons Map), an almost identical specimen is known from Bédeilhac (Ariege).

Figure 4: Hand stencils from Sulawesi; older than 45 k.a. BP.

Figure 5: Panel of Horses from Grotte Chauvet; putatively from the Aurignacian.

In this Neoliberal world the play has become widely an issue of profit and competition - but the play is essentially much more…

"People only play where they are human in the full sense of the word, and they are only fully human where they play."(Friedrich Schiller).

„Homo Ludens“ („man as player") is an important work on cultural studies, first published in 1938 by the late Dutch Historian Johan Huizinga (Holder of the Chair of General History at Leiden University since 1915). It places a cultural-historical definition of man as „Homo ludens“ alongside the older anthropological concept of „Homo sapiens“ and the historical concept of „Homo faber“.

Huizinga had already hinted at the conviction "that human culture arises and unfolds in play - as play" in his inaugural lecture (1903) and had outlined it in more detail in lectures since 1933.

In this late work, he proposed a "the very independent and very primary character of play", which is "older than culture", and seeks to establish that ultimately "in the function of play, which is an independent quality [...], the feeling of man's embeddedness in the cosmos finds its first, highest and most sacred expression".

He emphasised that he was not concerned with viewing play in its significance as a product and component of culture, but rather with revealing the playful as a constitutive element of any cultural activity.

According to him, human play is characterised, among others by following issues:

-The game is free - in this respect it opens the mind to the realms of Freedom (sensu: Schiller)

-The game takes place within certain limits of space and time

-The game is not connected with any material interest and no profit can be made from it

- For Huizinga, play is the opposite of seriousness and is loosely associated with "a group of ideas - play, laughter, folly, joke, jest, comedy, art, etc."(Huizinga 1938).

Using cross-cultural examples from the humanities, economics and politics, Huizinga examined play in all its diverse manifestations - as it relates to language, law, war, knowledge, poetry, myth, philosophy, art and more.

Starting from Platon, Huizinga traces the contribution of "man as player" through the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and the early modern period.

Although Huizinga used ethnographic literature as proxy to prehistoric times, something we would certainly consider highly problematic today, the idea about the significance of play in Paleolithic culture seems to be a fruitful hypothesis for further discussion and research.

So far, only works dealing with the role of play among children in the Paleolithic have been published (Nowell 2021). Indeed the diminutive stone tools in Figs. 1 and 2 were always discussed as children's play since their first discovery.

But play does not end in childhood, and cave paintings and portable art in particular may provide further insights into the role of play.

Far from providing systematic review, I mention here the scatological humor of the Bouquetin from Le Mas-d’Azil, shown in Figure 3, or the playful element of the multiple handstencils left behind by Homo Sapiens in parietal art since at least 45 k.a, (Figure 4) in which children were demonstrably also involved, as well as the animals on cave walls that appear to be in motion by their repetitive pattern -for example at Lascaux or Chauvet (Figure 5).

To summarize, I really believe that it would be worthwhile for prehistorians to take a closer look at Huizinga's theses....

References:

M. Eigen and R. Winkler: Das Spiel Naturgesetze steuern den Zufall Piper, 1990

J. Huizinga Andreas Flitner (Hrsg.): Homo ludens. Vom Ursprung der Kultur im Spiel. Reinbek 2009

Hüther and Quarch: Rettet das Spiel! Hanser 2019

A. Nowell: Growing Up in the Ice Age; Oxbow Books, 2021



Resources and images in full resolution:

2024-04-16 10:29:55   •   ID: 2376

Ideology instead of Science: Researchers that are right but for the wrong reasons

Plate 1


Plate 1: A Lincombian-Ranisian-Jerzmanowician (LRJ) Leaf Point with incomplete dorsal retouch together with an endscraper on blade, made with the same characteristics, from Kleinheppach, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany, already introduced in the blog- see here: 1603 and 2366 .

Subsequent Figures in this Blog-entry show further Paleolithic Leaf Points / Blattspitzen / Bifacial Foliates from Europe and the Near East. Figure 1: Late Middle Paleolithic from Goldberg and Mauern in Southern Germany (MIS 3 around 50 k.a. BC); Figure 2: Early Middle Paleolithic from Weimar Ehringsdorf (MIS 7 around 220 k.a.BC), Figure 3: Solutrean from Solutré (around 20 k.a.), Figure 4: Fayum A Neolithic around 5,5 k.a.BC.

The LRJ-Technocomplex was first excavated in Germany by Werner Hülle during 1932-1937 at the Ilsenhöhle in Ranis (Thuringia). Until now this site remains the only place in Germany with a stratified LRJ.

Figure 1
At Ranis in Zone 2, an industry with numerous fine, leaf shaped points of different sizes appeared next to and slightly above Zone 1 with a poor Middle Paleolithic and below an typical Aurignacian in Zone 3. However, „Jerzmanowice points“ were only found in Zone 2 and were often accompanied by numerous end scrapers on blades.

Like our example in Plate 1, Endscrapers of Zone 2 in Ranis occasionally show flat dorsal retouches (Müller-Beck 1968).

Hülle placed the LRJ into a warmer period, according to him into the EEM- interglacial. This position seemed to be substantiated by some incomplete and biased paleoclimatic data. We will see below that this misclassification fitted perfectly into Hülles "Völkischen" view of Prehistory.

The complete excavation report was only published decades later by the excavator and published in 1977 after his death by Hansjürgen Müller-Beck and Joachim Hahn (Hülle 1977).

As far as political events were concerned, we find Werner Hülle as early as 1932 as a member of the "Kampfbund für deutsche Kultur" founded by Alfred Rosenberg, the Nationals Socialist chief Philosopher, in 1929. Hülle had been a member of the NSDAP since May 1, 1933 and had also been a member of the SA since May 2, 1933. During the "Third Reich" he was the "right hand" of his master Hans Reinerth, an eminent and influential Prehistorian under the Protection of Alfred Rosenberg.

Figure 2
Academic archaeological research during the Third Reich was divided into two rival groups, “Amt Rosenberg” and Himmlers “SS-Ahnenerbe”. Although the coexistence of two organisations, who both claimed to be the authentic curators of German prehistory, prevented a complete “Gleichschaltung” of the discipline, especially young and well trained archaeologists could not make their career without being connected with one of these organizations or alternatively preferred to stay under the personal protection of Himmler or Rosenberg.

The examples in Figure 1-4 show that Blattspitzen are neither suitable as fossil directeurs nor are they the specific products selectively made by certain hominins. They were produced for at least 250 k.a. and made both by (Archaic) Homo sapiens and Neanderthals.

In the 1930s, it was already known that Homo sapiens had succeeded Neanderthals in Europe. At that time, most anthropologists suggested that Homo Sapiens had evolved from the Neanderthal clade - and of course, according the their Eurocentric views, this should have happened on the European continent.

The European finds at this time constantly demonstrated an association of Neanderthals with the Middle Palaeolithic (for example at Le Moustier), while Homo sapiens was always associated with the Upper Palaeolithic (for example at Cro-Magnon).

Science is a dynamic process, and only during the last 40 years it became increasingly clear that Neanderthals were essentially an European/Eurasian species. Modern humans migrated to Europe from elsewhere, most likely Africa, and replaced the Neandertals. This hypothesis is strongly supported by genetics and Anthropological findings.

Figure 3
The view of Nationalsocialists like Hülle and Bohmers, an "Ahenerbe" scientist, who at the same time when Hülle worked at Ranis, excavated the late Middle Paleolithic Blattspitzen at Mauern- see here: 1157 and 1528 , was straight forward and completely in line with the wishes of Reichsführer - SS Himmler and the fanatic Antisemite Rosenberg.

1. Allthough the evidence was poor, they dated the strata with Blattspitzen at Ranis and Mauern to the last Interglacial (EEM) and therefore at 120 k.a.

2. The Blattspitzen-horizons at both sites were suggested to be too perfect to have been produced by Neanderthals - according to Hülle and Bohmer's reasoning they must have been produced by Homo sapiens at a time significantly earlier than the first evidence of Homo sapiens in southern/western Europe (120 k.a. vs. 40 k.a.)

3. The hypothetical makers of the Central European Blattspitzen were Arian / Nordic man from Germany.

We notice, that with the help of some minor rhetoric operations, the important scientific impact of the Mauern and Ranis excavations was contaminated by Nazi- ideology. We will never know whether these attempts were an expression of nationalistic conviction, complete opportunism, or only the desire to open up new sources of funding further excavations.

What is clear, however, is that the results fitted both Himmler's and Rosenberg's world view. We do not know for sure whether the young scientists had any doubts about their statements.

Figure 4
Bohmers in 1937 wrote:„Until now almost every German, and without exception every foreign investigator, has assumed that the race migrated to Europe from somewhere in the East. The excavations at Mauern and Ranis have revealed for the first time the key that proves that the Cro-Magnon race must have developed in greater Germany.” (Pringle 2014).

Renewed investigations at Ranis took place in recent years,- see attached files, and showed that:

1. the Blattspitzen / „Jerzmanowice points“ in Ranis came from a layer with a very cold climate, dating to MIS3 at ca. 45-43 k.a. BP, while the Blattspitzen at Mauern were not connected with any Human remains. Anyhow, because they were found within a complete Middle Paleolithic / KMG Context, they were probably made by Neanderthals.

2. it was indeed Homo Sapiens who made the artifacts in Stratum 2 at Ranis. This was clearly evidenced by multiple Paleogenetic findings

3. and of course Homo Sapiens had by no means its roots in Central Germany...

In contrast to what can still be read, the involved archaeologists during the 1930ies worked at an excellent methodical level. Scientific standards were kept high, and there are only few references in their publications to their underlying racist worldview. Nevertheless the conclusions they drawed were fundamentally biased.

Hülle was right about the authorship by Homo Sapiens for the Leafpoints at Ranis but for the wrong and multiple ideological reasons - an older view was shaped by everyday European racism and a more recent view by the much more radical National Socialist ideology.

References:

HA Pringle: The Master Plan: Himmler's Scholars and the Holocaust, Harper Perennial 2014.

A. Bohmers, “Die Mauerner Höhlen und ihre Bedeutung für die Einteilung der Altsteinzeit,” in Ahnenerbe Jahrestagungen. Bericht über die Kieler Tagung 1939, ed. Herbert Jankuhn , 1944.

R. Höhne, Die Ausgrabungen der Schutzstaffeln, possibly 1938

G.Freund: Die Blattspitzen des Paläolithikums in Europa, 1952

G. Freund. Das Paläolithikum der Oberneder-Höhle - Ldkr. Kelheim-Donau; 1987

G. Bosinski: mittelpaläolithischen Funde im westlichen Mitteleuropa, 1967

K. Günter: Alt- und mittelsteinzeitliche Fundplätze in Westfalen, Teil 1 + Teil 2; 1986, 1988

K. Günther: Die altsteinzeitlichen Funde der Balver Höhle. Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 8. Münster; 1964

Baales M et al. : Westfalen in der Alt- und Mittelsteinzeit; 2014

Richter J: Sesselfelsgrotte III. Der G-Schichten-Komplex der Sesselfelsgrotte; 1997



Resources and images in full resolution:

2023-11-29 14:31:58   •   ID: 2367

Better too much once than too little once: Redundancy in the Paleolithic

Mauretanian Sahara (Adrar-Wikimedia Commons)
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Several Localities especially in East Africa and the Sahara are characterized by large quantities of techno-typologically almost identical artifacts.

Examples of this development are shown in Figures 1-5 (Aterian Points (Figure 1-3 from the Mauretanien Sahara) or LCTs (Figure 4-5 from Olorgesailie / Kenya).

However, we are usually unable to distinguish whether such accumulations are the result of a short-term occupation with intensive lithic production or palimpsests that have been produced over a longer period of time. However, reports on well-studied sites suggests both scenaria may be possible.

If we assume that larger quantities of artifacts were produced in a limited time frame, it could be a case of provisioning specific place in anticipation of future needs (sensu Kuhn). Such behavior implies future planning, which, to the best of our knowledge, can already be assumed even for archaic Homo sp.

While palimpsest formation played a major role in Olorgesaillie, the Aterian artifacts, which by the way have a very specific "style", were found together on a surface location as if ordered and not collected.

"Better too much once than too little once" are common sayings that describe quite well what is hidden behind the term redundancy. Namely, identical or comparable things are available at least twice in parallel.

In the context of living in the Paleolithic, this ensured that the necessary lithics and the knowledge about their production remained available even in the event of loss.

Figure 4
Figure5
Copies of a tool do not necessarily have to be identical. Deviations in the design can enable a flexible and rapid response to specific problems, when needed. Parallel pathways and variability in lithic production may therfore better described as safety mechanisms that may be used in some circumstances and not others.

However, "redundancy" is sometimes used in everyday language as unnecessary process or tasks that can be removed without affect the output.

Drawing analogies with biological systems is sometimes dangerous, but in this case quite appropriate. In Biology, Redundancy is fundamental for all organisms to cope with environmental stress and harmful mutations. It plays a vital role in all key processes from genetics to development, immunity, nervous systems, musculoskeletal systems and visual processing.

On a deeper level, Genetic redundancy means that two or more genes are performing the same function and that inactivation of one of these genes has little or no effect on the biological phenotype. Such a genetic backup seems to be of major importance, otherwise it would have disappeared during evolution.

In many ways, the survival of organisms is ensured by the presence of large reserve capacities. The back-up / redundancy in lithic production may have been little different in the effects on survival of early hunter-gatherers....



Resources and images in full resolution:

2023-11-21 11:17:54   •   ID: 2366

Lincombian-Ranisian-Jerzmanowician (LRJ) in 2023: It was Homo sapiens stupid!



In my limited family collection, I hold only one 6 cm long artifact from the Lincombian-Ranisian-Jerzmanowician (LRJ) industry (Figure 1 and 2), already introduced in the blog- see here: 1603

Figure 1
It has to be stressed, that the definition of the LRJ is unfortunately solely based on one “fossile directeur” -the so called blade point-, manufactured on substantial, triangular cross sectioned blades.

On average, these Blade Points have a length around 9–10 cm, width of 3 cm, and thickness of 1 cm, often struck from opposed platforms cores. However, significantly smaller specimen, similar to the artifact shown here, are also known from several localities (for example at the Jerzmanowice type site and in Moravia).

The secondary retouch on blade points is regularly present on both dorsal (flat / semi-steep retouch) and ventral (flat retouch) surfaces. It was most possibly aimed at straightening and thinning the pieces, presumably for hafting as projectile points. No use-wear study has ever been made on Jerzmanowice points.

All evidence suggests that the Lincombran-Ranisian-Jerzmanovician points were primarily used as hunting weapons. At least there are many indications in a micro-morphological examination such as: "spin-off" detachments and pronounced bending fractures.

Although often referred to as "transitional" in the literature, technologically the LRJ is a purely Upper Paleolithic industry characterized by volumetric cores, cresting, uni- or bipolar technique and the use of soft hammer and and the presence of facetted butts.

Because the majority of the LRJ-sites represent short-term hunting camps or isolated stray findings, we hardly know any other artifact classes. However, at least some Upper Paleolithic burins and end scrapers have been discovered in Beedings near Pulborough in West Sussex / UK, while Middle Paleolithic tools are completely missing. The same observation has been made at Nietoperzowa Cave and Ranis and recently at some larger Moravian sites (See below).

In addition to Jerzmanowice points, LRJ assemblages may also contain bifacial Leafpoints (at Nietoperzowa Cave and Ranis). Until now, it was assumed that such mixing represents the evolution from completely Middle Paleolithic retouched leaf points to partially retouched Upper Paleolithic points, thus underpinning a "transitional" character of the industry. But it was most certainly just the other way round: At some sites, initial incompletely retouched points were transformed into completely retouched ones within a full upper Paleolithic system.

Figure 2
The LRJ is an industry of Middle and Northern Europe (UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Middle and Northern Germany, Moravia and Kraków-Częstochowa Upland).

The LRJ begins just before HE-4 event and can be placed before the Campanian Ignimbrite (CI) super-eruption. New highly precise data come from from layer 6 in Nietoperzowa Cave: 44 –42 k.a. cal BP and the Ilsenhöhle near Ranis: 47,5-45,7 k.a.cal BP, while data from the Jerzmanowician occupation in Koziarnia Cave (39-36 k.a. cal. BP) may indicate a persistent chronological position also after the CI eruption.

The upper limit for the Jerzmanowician is still estimated to c.35 k.a. Cal BP according to earlier dating programs. In my opinion these dates need revision for methodological reasons.

The greatest surprise, however, was reported this year by Hublin et al. (oral presentation 2023). During new excavations in the Ilsenhöhle cave in Thuringia, DNA from Homo sapiens (haplogroup N) was identified in 11 in-situ bone samples from the LRJ layer, thus falsifying older ideas that Neanderthals were the makers of the technocomplex.

Interestingly, Demidenko and Skrdla in 2023 presented the excavation results of various Early Upper Palaeolithic Moravian sites (Líšeň/Podolí I, Želešice III/Želešice- Hoynerhügel, Líšeň I/Líšeň-Čtvrtě, and Tvarožná X/Tvarožná, “Za školou”), suggestive for a LRJ, in a detailed paper.

It seems for me that they have finally discovered several of the long-sought residential LRJ-campsites although I have some doubts about the LRJ- classification of the findings. But who really knows how an the actefactual spectrum of an intact LRJ site might look like…

Figure 3
Consistent with recent results from other regions, C-14 data of the Moravian sites scatter just before the CI eruption. Importantly, the authors argue for an evolution of the LRJ from the local IUP (Bohunician / Emiran; Figure 3 with examples from the Negev from my collection) rather than suggesting the now untenable evolution from a bifacial Micoquian (s.l), made by Neanderthals. The paper seems very innovative to me and opens up completely new avenues for further research. Anyhow we need more data to confirm or reject their Hypotheses.

Demidenko and Skrdla: "We further propose that LRJ assemblages were produced by Homo sapiens, and that its roots are in the Bohunician industry. The LRJ originated as a result of a gradual technological transition, centering on the development of Levallois points into Jerzmanowice-type blade-points. It is also suggested that the LRJ industry first appeared in Moravia, in central Europe, and spread along with its makers (Homo sapiens) across the northern latitudes of central and western Europe. Accordingly, the IUP “Bohunician package” did not disappear in Europe but gave rise to another IUP industry successfully adapted for the then steppe-tundra belts in northern Europe" (Demidenko and Skrdla 2023).

I think that this is a valid hypothesis for further research.



Resources and images in full resolution:

2023-01-29 17:18:35   •   ID: 2365

Some random reflections about Prehistoric Research of the last 25 years

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure5
These are some random Lithics of my personal Collection-Figure 1 and 2 show a flat symetric Biface ("Faustkeil- Blatt") and a "Quina"-transversal Scraper from the Orne Region in Northern France.

Figure 3 displays a Mousterian Point transitional to a "Limace" from the central Sahara and an elongated Levallois Point from Burgundy / France.

Figure 4 displays a carinated scraper / core from the La Rochette Rockshelter in the Vezere Valley and Figure 5 a small Biface, most probably from the late Middle Paleolithic, from the Bergeracois Region in S/W-Fance.

Let's compare the knowledge around 1975 - the time when I started to seriously explore prehistoric archaeology - with the state of research in 2023:

It is evident that historical and political developments have a direct influence on our view on Prehistory.

During the last years, the bipolar system of the Cold War was replaced by a multipolar and probably even more dangerous world. In social sciences, there was a breakdown of the master narratives of the twentieth century and a questioning of previous theories.

Multidisciplinarity continued to develop and the combination of different disciplines yielded new insights. Examples are the combination of lithic studies with cognitive behavioral science or with evolutionary theoretical paradigms.

We observed the ongoing scientification and professionalization of the discipline, the development of postcolonial perspectives, and, more generally, a shift away from linear toward non-linear reasoning.

However, a counter-movement also developed, with the renewed attempt to establish unscientific narratives in research (here we are talking about the denomination of sponsored programs such as: "our way to Europe", or the re-ethnicization of views in some countries).

Cultural-historical interpretations were almost completely replaced by structural/functional, processual and post-processual, ecological and technological interpretations and a greater stringency in the interpretation of findings developed.

However, this was accompanied by a certain hyperskepticism that questioned almost all observations before the year 2000 (for example, the evidence of middle Paleolithic huts, the reference to Neanderthal burials by earlier serious scientists).

Absolute dating by physical science is still very successfully on the rise and often challenges older incomplete and patchy relative chronologies. Together with genetic data, finer chronologies are especially helpful in the formulation of improved theories, especially in the evaluation of "Transitions" in Prehistory.

Enormous advances in genetics and molecular archaeology had implications for our view of the planet's colonization history and can sometimes answer questions about migratory movements or autochthonous evolution. However, I think that the last question is overestimated - a late echo of outdated nationalist research agendas. I personally don't care what micro-genetic signature I might carry...

However, advances in genetics also created the danger of inappropriately linking genetic data with findings from other disciplines. A prominent example is the mixing of genetic data with assumptions about ethnogenesis and the mixing of such theorems with linguistic data (a particularly ugly example is the obsessive preoccupation with "Indo-European peoples"). Why on earth would one conflate genetic signatures with self-attributed identities and, moreover, with a hypothetical extinct language. Honni soit qui mal y pense....

The processing of large amounts of data (big data), which is becoming possible now, has brought new insights, but with the problem that, except for a few specialists, even professional observers can no longer verify the accuracy of the statements. Of course, this also applies to the interpretation of genetic data. However, it is still better to rely on scientific statements that can be verified or falsified than on counterfactual narratives from obscure sources.



Resources and images in full resolution: