2010-12-12 15:32:56 • ID: 1083
“Adaption” of Prehistoric Research to the NS-Regime
Nationalistic, antidemocratic and racist concepts became immensely popular in German prehistorians in the post-WW1 years. Concepts of prehistory, derived from these ideas were widely compatible with the Nazi-ideology. It is therefore no surprise, that no single academic discipline in Germany had a higher level of mobilization for the National socialist Party than the prehistorians.
Pape reports, that at least 512 of 594 prehistorians during the years 1933-1945 in Germany were members of the party. One of the most influential figures in the process of ideologization of German Prehistory before 1930 was Gustaf Kossinna [1858-1931], a linguist and a professor of prehistory in Berlin, who tried to define archaeological cultures by specific artifact types ("Sharply defined archaeological cultural areas correspond unquestionably with the areas of particular people or tribes").
According to him the superior Aryan race could be equated with the ancient Germans, an expansive and powerful culture, which spread through heroic migrations from the Nordic Countries into the South and East. Regions, where artifacts had been found that he considered being "Germanic", were part of ancient Germanic territory. Using these arguments Kossinna was an early mastermind and pioneer of national socialistic (NS) expansionistic and repressive policy. In the 1920ies Prehistoric research in Germany was not a reputable and well-funded academic subject.
The first dedicated chair in Prehistory was established in 1928 at Marburg, followed by chairs in Berlin, Königsberg, Breslau and Tübingen. After 1933, the year of Hitler’s accession to power, the situation changed and the Nazi-party did much for funding prehistoric excavations and institutionalize prehistoric archaeology at universities and on an administrative level. The number of university chairs was raised to 25 until 1942 and the number of institutes of the state archaeological service (“Landesämter für Vorgeschichte”) to fourteen.
At the end of the Nazi-era, prehistory was firmly established as an independent discipline. Academic archaeological research during the Third Reich became 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, archaeologists could not make their career without being connected with at least one of these organisations.
Within these institutions, Kater distinguished three levels of science: (1) pseudo-science; (2) ideological `Zweckwissenschaft' (science with ideological purposes); and (3) relatively independent research. There were indeed several high ranked scientific excavations of Palaeolithic sites during the Third Reich: Weinberghöhlen in Mauern (Bohmers), Ilsenhöhle in Ranis (Hülle) and the Lone-Valley Project (Wetzel) that did not show ideological impact on a superficial level.
Anyhow, it has to remembered that the leaf-point cultures at Ranis and at Mauern were ideological abused by their excavators to localize the beginnings of Upper Palaeolithic in central Germany (where else?). Prehistorians “adapted” very quickly to the political changes after 1933. The spectrum of behaviour patterns of the protagonists that remained in Germany and were not retired or expelled by the National socialists (Kühn, Obermeier, Bersu, Weidenreich, von Merhart), ranged from pure opportunism to total identification with the Nazi ideology.
Even Nazi-adherents like K.H. Jacob-Friesen (see attached external file)sometimes heavily opposed pseudoscience that was performed under the auspices of Rosenberg or Himmler. This attitude should not be confused with political opposition.
The conquest of large parts of Europe by the Nazis facilitated the excavations, unavailable for German Prehistory before WW2. For example Zotz was active in Moravany / Slovakia, Bohmers and Schwabedissen worked in Dolni Vestonice and Predmost. These activities should not be taken as an evidence of international cooperation.
Even for “moderate” German scientists (Zotz) it was self-evident, that science in the occupied countries could only flourish under a strong German leadership and within the given ideological frame.
Members of the “Amt Rosenberg” under the direction of H. Reinerth and the SS-Ahnenerbe with the “Sonderkommando Jankuhn”, met again in the occupied east Europe in the competition for excavation sites and looting the cultural goods of the occupied countries.
Overall the “Amt Rosenberg” was more effective in looting operations that the “Ahnenerbe”. There are no indications that the majority of the German Prehistoric Archaeologists resisted the NS indoctrination and Gleichschaltung (bringing into line).
In contrast there is much evidence that the NS ideology perfectly matched with their "Weltanschauung".
Most of them made a second sucessful career in post war Germany, even if they had been members of the SS and officers of a concentration camp for “political criminals” (Rieck) or served as the head of prehistory at the “Ahnenerbe” organisation, which was involved in several highly criminal activities (Jankuhn).
Resources and images in full resolution:
- Image: 2018-07-28_andi1.jpg
- Image: 2018-07-28_andrae.jpg
- Extern Link: www.quartaer.eu…1942_08_rust.pdf
- Extern Link: www.academia.edu…Unterm_Strich_Kein_mutiger_Aufsatzes_in_schwieriger_Zeit_von_Alfred_Rust_1900-1983_._Eine_forschungsgeschichtliche_Einordnung_von_Gernot_Tromnaus_unkritischer_Würdigung
- Extern Link: www.researchgate.net…231900330_Archaeology_in_the_Third_Reich_Academic_scholarship_and_the_rise_of_the
- Extern Link: www.yumpu.com…wissenschaft-und-weltanschauung-in-der-urgeschichtsforschung
- Extern Link: publikationen.badw.de…012973704.pdf
- Extern Link: www.biodidaktik.uni-jena.de…13+Potthast.pdf
- Extern Link: kops.uni-konstanz.de…Magisterarbeit_Krall.pdf?sequence=1
- Extern Link: e-archaeology.org…Kunow.pdf
- Extern Link: lisa.gerda-henkel-stiftung.de…pseudowissenschaftliche_begruendung_von_eroberungen?nav_id=4351
- Extern Link: www.google.com…url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwiaxcqfsOvkAhXEKFAKHUieDhEQFjAAegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zfo-online.de%2Findex.php%2Fzfo%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F3672%2F3672&usg=AOvVaw0MvdfItqz_YwwHMvTKPpxa
- Extern Link: www.gko.uni-leipzig.de…OnlBei01.pdf
- Extern Link: www.pfahlbauten.de…AmtRosenberg.pdf
- Extern Link: www.hsozkult.de…reb-3616
- Extern Link: www.google.com…url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=16&ved=2ahUKEwiHqsGypaDlAhXHK1AKHV0gBuo4ChAWMAV6BAgIEAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ufg.uni-kiel.de%2Fen%2Finstitute%2Fhistory-of-the-institute%2Fgeschichte-links%2FMueller_KielerSchule_Altertum_2010.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1g49q_RNLXS-hL3SEyzNH9
2010-12-07 17:03:56 • ID: 1010
Bromme Point and the Large Tanged Complex of N-Europe
The dimensions of these projectile points indicates that they comprised an excellent and efficient hunting weapon when used as spear heads. They were too heavy weighted for being arrow points.
On a techno-typological Niveau we have evidence of four major Late Paleolithic complexes in southern Scandinavia and North European plain: Hamburgian, Federmesser, Brommean and Ahrensburgian although these "entities" are heavily biased and may not reflect distinct complexes beyond an unified tanged-point horizon, as recently mentioned by Riede.
The oldest taxonomic unit of the tanged point complex during the last Glacial in N/E Europe is the Brommean, which is known from a narrow zone following the young moraine area around the Baltic Ice Lake, from Denmark, northern Germany, northern Poland up to Lithuania and Belarus.
Some isolated sites are also known from Central Poland. Brommean hunter-gatherers may have also been present along the southern coast of Baltic Ice Lake, which is now covered by Baltic Sea. According to multiple lines of evidence, the Brommean Culture is dated to the 2nd half of Allerød and the beginning of Dryas III period
The Brommean is characterized by a comparatively simple technology. Large cores exhibit a conical or sub-cylindrical shape and usually one striking platform only. Blades and flakes were detached by direct hard hammer percussion, as shown by presence of the distinct bulbs and thick butts of blades and flakes. In general, the homogenous Brommean assemblages have very simple tool-kits. They consist of large tanged points, up to 12 cm long, simple end scrapers and burins.
Brommean sites in Scandinavia are not numerous: 75 settlement sites and 240 single finds were reported by Eriksen, 1999. The number of Brommean sites in Germany, Poland and Lithuania are even smaller. Brommean assemblages in Poland are known from Rydno, a famous Late Palaeolithic ochre mining complex.
Rydno Brommean assemblages are located ca 800 km from Denmark and, according to Schild (1984), this could be explained as resulting from long distance movements to search of ochre. Anyhow, this assumption cannot be proved because in N-Germany and Denmark, up to no traces of Rydno ochre usage have been found.
Bromme points are quite big compared with Ahrensburgian or Swiderian points and they are frequently seen as spear points. The general feature of tanged point evolution over the North European Plain is the decreasing size of projectiles in both the western (Brommean followed by Ahrensburgian) and eastern parts of the region (Brommean followed by Swiderian) over time. In the Preboreal period, tanged points lost their importance and were generally replaced by microliths as composite arrow head
There is some evidence that the large eruption of the Laacher See-volcano, located in western Germany and dated to 12,9 k.a BP, had a dramatic impact on hunter-gatherer demography all along the northern periphery of late Paleolithic societies.
In Southern Scandinavia and Northern Germany we observe a simplification of the material culture with a the loss of bow-and-arrow technology, and the emergence of the Bromme technocomplex. Most of the known Bromme settlements are in well-drained sandy soil and lack organic remains. Faunal remains from the eponymous Bromme site include reindeer, wolverine, beaver, swan, and pike but elk seems to have been more important than reindeer.
The Bromme culture flourished at the end of Allerod and the beginning of the Younger Dryas. Two alternative chronologies have been proposed for the Brommian: a long chronology where the late Hamburgian (Havelte Phase) switched to a tanged point industry and a short chrology, where the Bromme culture was related to the late Federmesser groups.
The relationship between the Hamburgian and the Southern Scandinavian Bromine culture is unclear. A find from Lovenholm in eastern Jutland, if really in primary context, may indicate of a transitional phase, with a combination of Havelte-type tanged arrowheads and Bromme points.
At several sites in Northern Germany there are assemblages combining points of the Federmesser and Bromme complexes. The chronological and cultural significance of this grouping is still hard to determine, since the temporal homogeneity of most of these assemblages is rather uncertain.
An interesting hypothesis has recently put forward by Riede et al.: Around 12,920 years BP, the Laacher See volcano, located in present-day western Germany, erupted catastrophically. With a calculated magnitude of ~ 5.8, the Laacher See eruption was one of the largest volcanic events of the Late Pleistocene in the Northern Hemisphere.
In the course of the eruption, near-vent ejecta devastated some 1,400 km2 of land and a total estimated area of more than 225,000 km2 was affected by tephra falling out of a Plinian eruption column that may have reached a height of 40 km.
It is interesting to see that the the time of the Laacher See eruption marks the important transition from northwestern Federmesser to Bromme culture in southern Scandinavia and from northeastern Federmesser to Perstunian (a Brommean equivalent) in the sub-Baltic region.
Riede has argued that the Mega eruption of the Lacher See vulcan had multicausal consequences for the demography of the late Allerød leading to a sudden drop in demic connectedness, disruption of traditional exchange and communication networks which in turn led to a disappearance of more complex skills such as the arrow and bow technology.
Surf the Blog: see here 2201 , here 1304 , here: 1243 , here: 2171 , and here 1459
Provenance: Collection B. Möndel (GER)
Resources and images in full resolution:
- Image: 2018-10-15_bromme1.jpg
- Image: 2018-10-15_bromme2.jpg
- Extern Link: www.researchgate.net…305770441_2D_geometric_morphometric_analysis_casts_doubt_on_the_validity_of_large_tanged_points_as_cultural_markers_in_the_European_Final_Palaeolithic
- Extern Link: journal.lithics.org…331
- Extern Link: www.researchgate.net…37912777_Der_Ausbruch_des_Laacher_See-Vulkans_vor_12920_Jahren_und_urgeschichtlicher_Kulturwandel_am_Ende_des_Allerod_Eine_neue_Hypothese_zum_Ursprung_der_Bromme-Kultur_und_des_Perstunien_The_eruption_of_the_L
- Extern Link: www.researchgate.net…figures?lo=1
- Extern Link: www.sciencedirect.com…S030544031300232X
- Extern Link: donsmaps.com…schleswig.html
2010-11-13 06:04:45 • ID: 1008
Going Levallois
Some reserachers suggest, that the Levallois technique allows a higher mobility in particular within the rich semi-arid environments of the mammoth steppe.
The definition of Levallois is straigtforward: The volume of the Levallois-Core is conceptualized as two surfaces separated by a plane of intersection. These surfaces are hierarchically related and non-interchangeable, one being a dedicated surface of striking platform and the other a dedicated flaking surface.
The flaking surface is prefigured to detach a flake of predetermined morphology. The fracture plane for the removal runs parallel to the plane of intersection, and the junction between the flaking surface and the striking platform is perpendicular to the axis of percussion and oriented to allow the removal of flakes from the flaking surface.
Different basic concepts of Levallois have been described: Lineal and recurrent techniques. Unipolar and bipolar, flake or blade-oriented techniques, and a convergent or centipedal technique.
Provenance: Collection E. Perez (FR)
Resources and images in full resolution:
- Image: coretw1.jpg
- Extern Link: journals.plos.org…journal.pone.0186082
- Extern Link: pdfs.semanticscholar.org…6c2918fa0695ec8c4c8c5123774d6ed37987.pdf
- Extern Link: www.researchgate.net…251037426_Le_debitage_discoide_et_le_debitage_Levallois_recurrent_centripede
- Extern Link: pdfs.semanticscholar.org…03fbbc7ab070c6c952265193349bc6b94b85.pdf
2010-10-03 06:11:42 • ID: 1005
Khirokitia: The insularity of the late aceramic Neolithic in Cyprus
Khirokitia gives evidence of an organized society using surrounding fortifications for communal protection.
The buildings within this wall consist of “anachronistic” (compared to the mainland) round structures merged close together (Fig.2).
The lower parts of these buildings are often of stone. Their external diameter varies between 2.3 m and 9.2 m while the internal diameter is only between 1.4 m and 4.8 m.
Khirokitia was not the first aceramic Neolithic village on the island, indeed it was late and about 20 other villages from this culture are known in Cyprus.
In contrast, the site of Shillourokambos represents an earlier period of colonization from the Anatolian.
Parekklisha-Shillourokambos was occupied from 8300 BC to 7000 B.C. Here large quantities of obsidian blades and bladelets were found which were brought from Cappadocia (Anatolia) in finished form
Naviform cores and Byblos points (Figure 3) show, that the first farmers at Shillourokambos were part of the PPNB sphere.
Until recently the cat was commonly believed to have been domesticated in ancient Egypt, where it was a cult animal. But at Shillourokambos the remains of an 8-month-old cat buried with its presumed human owner was excavated.
This findings suggest a special relationship between man and cat at this early date.
The date of the burial far precedes Egyptian civilization. Together with the new genetic evidence, it places the domestication of the cat in a different context.
The tools are made from local chert and obsidian imports are extremely rare. These features clearly reflect that the communities of the late aceramic Neolithic in Cyprus did not participate in the dense networks of the Levantine / Asiatic mainland at this time.
Figure 2 shows a photo I took in 2004- my third visit to this important site. Figure 3 was taken with permission by the Cyprus National Archaeological Museum in Nikosia.
Suggested Reading: The Best short Introduction and for free!: Cyprus- a dynamic Island: see here: Cyprus-Dynamic Island
Provenance: Collection J. Meller
Resources and images in full resolution:
- Image: 2018-06-26_Khiro_visit04_round_huts.jpg
- Image: 2022-04-13_F1DC88672EF44E4DB1C52A6602564C96.jpeg
- Extern Link: www.mcw.gov.cy…4EF92D50616EFE49C225719B00314171?OpenDocument
- Extern Link: www.prehistoire.org…515_pj_020517_101056.pdf
- Extern Link: www.academia.edu…Cyprus_during_the_Neolithic_Period
- Extern Link: www.bu.edu…swiny.pdf
- Extern Link: www.exoriente.org…NEO-LITHICS_2011_1.pdf
- Extern Link: www.sidestone.com…cyprus-a-dynamic-island
2010-09-28 12:25:05 • ID: 1004
Ein Avdat: Elongated Levallois Point with broken tip
At the opening of the canyon the water of numerous springs descends into two deep pools in a series of waterfalls. First Middle Paleolithic Ensembles above this area were found during the 1970ies and 80ies by A.E. Marks and coworkers.
The broken Levallois point (6,5 cm long) comes from a small Middle Paleolithic surface collection from the Ein Avdat area (former Collection of Professor Levenstein). The point with an extensively facetted platform, seen in Figure 2, fits well into the scientific context of Marks findings at the nearby Rosh Ein Mor and resembles similar items from there (shown in Goder Goldberger 2020).
The site was detected by Marks et al. in 1969 by a large surface scatter of Middle Paleolithic tools. The site was not a simply a deflated surface concentration, but showed a clear in-situ pattering.
With more than 44000 artifacts Rosh Ein Mor is one of the largest open-air Middle Paleolithic sites in the Levant and a cornerstone for the Southern Levantine Middle Paleolithic chrono-stratigraphy.
Of major interest was the detection of two nearby sites, Boker Tachtit and Boker, assigned to the IUP and EUP Paleolithic respectively.
Lithics from Rosh Ein Mor are characterized by a trend toward the production of elongated blanks, through both Levallois and true volumetric core reduction (Marks & Monigal, 1995).
Regarding retouched tools, a high proportion of Upper Paleolithic types as compared to Middle Paleolithic types is present.
Technologically a broad spectrum of different Levallois modes has been identified at Rosh Ein Mor, different from the more monotonous convergent unipolar method with minimal striking platform preparation from typical Tabun-D ensembles.
Therefore the Rosh Ein Mor Ensemble does not really fulfill the definition to the early Middle Paleolithic / Tabun D- Paleolithic of the Levant, as earlier suggested.
Initial C-14 dating gave an age > 50 k.a. Paleoenvironmental data showed, that the site was used during a cool and moist period in an open grassland environment.
A 230Th/234U burial age of c 200 k.a. was reported in 2002, but remained controversial.
Recently U-series for dating calcite crusts on the artifacts, gave an age around the MIS4/3 boundary and therefore to a late Middle Paleolithic.
The site of Rosh Ein Mor is constantly used as a cultural marker for the presence of "Tabun D" type industries in the Negev. A re-analysis of the lithic assemblage shows that the techno-typological characteristics fit better within the late Middle Paleolithic variability than within the early Middle Paleolithic. Using the powerful tool of U-series for dating calcite crusts on the artifacts a cluster of dates between ~70-35 ka has been obtained.
Taking into consideration the central Negev highlands paleoclimate record and the geomorphological setting, this study presents valid data to suggest that Rosh Ein Mor was occupied during MIS 4 and possibly into MIS 3 (Mae Goder-Goldberger 2019).
Maybe the technological system from the site could be used as one "forerunner" for the technological innovations of the IUP and EUP of the nearby Boker Tachtit 4 and Boker sites.
This is supported by new data from the nearby late Middle Paleolithic site of Far‘ah II with a lithic inventory similar to Rosh Ein Mor (M Goder-Goldberger 2020). This locality is about 50 k.a. old.
All these new data point to an autochthonous gradual shift in the Negev from the late MP to the IUP, as already sugested by A Marks decenia ago.
Provenance: Collection Levenstein (ISR)
Resources and images in full resolution:
2010-09-27 03:13:15 • ID: 1003
Cleaver from Tabelbala-Tachenghit
The collections of the Institute of Humane Paleontology in Paris hold a large sample from Tabelbala, including large Cleavers and Handaxes (10-26 cm) and a series of smaller handaxes (6-10 cm). Large flake cleaver (Tixiers Type II, IV and VI) are abundant.
The production of Large Cutting Tools (LCTs; handaxes, picks and cleavers made from flakes > 10 cm) was present in Africa from almost the beginnings of the Acheulian technocomplex at ca 1,7 Ma ago until the MSA. Decennia ago Isaac described this Innovation as a cognitive treshold in Human evolution.
„ it appears possible that a ‘threshold’ exists in stone technology, so that certain techniques are either present or absent and intermediate expressions are virtually non-existing.
The tools and debitage of two assemblages may differ markedly as a consequence of application or non-application of only one specific technique: a possible example of this is the removal of blades with a punch.
All African Acheulian industries of confirmed early Middle Pleistocene date involve the manufacturing of tools from large flakes (i.e. greater than 10 cm); whereas no series of flakes of this size have been reported from any Oldowan assemblage.
It is suggested that the striking of large flakes involved the ‘formulation’ of a set of deliberate techniques quite separated from those used in the flaking practiced throughout the time span of the Oldowan” (Isaac, 1969).
It has been argued, that the Levallois prepared core technique sensu Boeda (1995) was already present in nuce during the African Acheulian. The most prominent examples are from the Vaal River (Victoria West technique) in South Africa and from Tabelbala-Tachenghit.
Specific prepared core techniques at these sites were especially used in the production of blanks for cleaver production. After detachment of the predetermined large flake, only minor modifications were necessary to produce the desired end product, a flake-cleaver. This can be assumed as another milestone in the evolution of knapping techniques.
While a Middle Pleistocene age is assumed for Tabelbala-Tachenghit, new research on Victoria West cores excavated from the Canteen Kopje in central South Africa shows a high degree of planing depth in the production of LTCs at this site already about 1 Ma ago (Li et al. 2018).
This somewhat still insecure age is based on the Al26/Be10 method and Paleomagnetism. Anyhow, the authors refer to multiple features, that bring the Victoria West technique, beside some conceptional differences, into a close relation to much later prepared core techniques including Levallois:
"a careful radial knapping of two hierarchically relaxed asymmetrical surfaces; (ii) maintenance of lateral and distal convexities for the detachment of the predetermined preferential flakes; (iii) the sub-parallel angle of the large negative flake impressions in relation to the plane of intersection of the two core surfaces; (iv) the nearly perpendicular orientation of the striking platforms relative to the technological axes of preferential flakes; and (v) freehand hard hammer percussion for the final removals" (Sharon and Beaumont 2011).
Provenance: Collection E. Perez (FR)
Resources and images in full resolution:
- Image: 2022-10-13_IMG_1086.jpg
- Image: 2022-10-13_IMG_1088.jpg
- Extern Link: rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org…170288.full.pdf
- Extern Link: www.academia.edu…Victoria_West_-_A_Highly_Standardized_Prepared_Core_Technology
- Extern Link: www.researchgate.net…249179405_Acheulian_Giant-Core_Technology_A_Worldwide_Perspective
- Extern Link: www.academia.edu…Life_history_of_a_large_flake_biface
- Extern Link: journals.openedition.org…3014
2010-09-20 17:27:29 • ID: 1011
La Gane Rock Shelter at Groléjac (Dordogne)
The spoil and debris from the abri was dumped directly into a near vineyard, where B. Mortureux picked up a large number of typical Aurignacian artifacts.
Some of these Aurignacian pieces are shown here: carinated scrapers, small bladelet-cores, burins, including one burin busque, pointed blades and a bec.
The material is somewhat exotic, made not only from local flint, but also from imported chalcedony and jasper. If this fact is due to a selection bias is unknown. Despite cores for bladelet production the collection is devoid of bladelets.
La Gane in the scientific discourse: The rock-shelter of the La Gane is of major interest, because it remains one of the last large Paleolithic sites in the department of Dordogne that has never been the subject of systematic research.
The discovery of this deposit in 1926 goes back to Denis Peyrony, who classified La Gane as a Historical Monument on July 19, 1927. Thereafter, no scientific excavation was carried out there before the end of the Second World War.
It was in 1947 that Jacques Labrot, a teacher at the Lycee de Brive (owner of the nearby Roc-de-Combe site, which he excavated in 1966 and 1967 with F. Bordes), who undertook, in collaboration with Camille Arambourg (Professor at the National Museum of Natural History of Paris) very punctual work on the site until the early fifties. In a short communication he described a Mousterian and an Aurignacian layer and some Mesolithic material.
His descendants donated the site to the French state and renewed excavations began in 2012- we will certainly hear more news about this large and hopfully partial intact site during the next years. Figure 2 (Wikimedia Commons) gives you an impression of this enormeous rock-shelter.
Some straight laminar products, evoking the presence of a Gravettian, together with the presence of a burin of Noailles, are also present.
About fifteen Retouchers made on diaphysis fragments of large herbivores are mainly attributable to the Middle Paleolithic at the site, and were already described for other Mousterian sites in S/W-France.
In this region they became frequent in the later phases of the Middle Paleolithic, particularly, but not exclusively, in association with the Quina type Mousterian.
This fits to a limited number of typical Quina scrapers from the site.
Provenance: Collection Van der Keulen (BE)
Resources and images in full resolution:
2010-09-07 05:44:33 • ID: 1002
The Ertebølle lifestyle
The Ertebølle Complex during the late Mesolithic falls within the Atlantic-phase. It roughly coincided with the first farmers further south (LBK). In the Atlantic, climate was warmer and moister than today and deciduous dense forests covered Europe. The Baltic coastline was often flooded to a level of 5m-6m higher than now.
The Ertebølle population settled near the beaches, on islands and along rivers and estuaries away from the forests on a higher degree of sedentarity than during the early Mesolithic.
The mainstay of the Ertebølle economy was focused on shell-food exploitation and fish, but in terms of caloric intake, elk, red deer, roe deer, wild pig and aurochs were of even more importance.
Beside the domestication of dogs and the use of pottery, the Ertebølle society did not adopt a Neolithic lifestyle.
Sociologically, Several „push and/or pull” theories have been proposed to explain the introduction of agriculture in northern Germany and in Scandinavia. “External” theories discuss the possible role of vanishing resources and / or population pressure.
Internal models focus on suggested social phenomena. One model proposes that social competition would have triggered the neolithisation of the Ertebølle Complex
A second model proposes that a certain conservative mentality of the Ertebølle-people prevented the adoption of the “Neolithic package” for many generations (Raemaekers 1997).
The genetic evidence is straight forward: Genetic modeling sees the Mesolithic/ Neolithic transition mainly as a replacement model.
From the west and south, hunter-gatherers (Western Hunter- Gatherers or WHG) during the Early Mesolithic shared a common genetic signature derived from foragers emerging from a Southern and West/ Southern ( S/W-France; Iberia) refugium they inhabited since the LGM.
Further to the east, in the territory of today’s Russia, early Mesolithic foragers (Eastern Hunter-gatherers or EHG) derived of an ancestry, referred to as Ancient North Eurasian ancestry (ANE), from a population related to the Upper Paleolithic Mal’ta population in Siberia.
Late Mesolithic foragers / the Ertebølle people in Scandinavia were modeled as admixed between WHG and EHG.
As already described the Early Neolithic holds the genetic signature of Anatolian farmers following the Danube and Mediterranean coast into Central and Southern Europe where they existed in parallel and admixed with local foragers for the following two millennia.
Their genetic traits are finally found in Southern Scandinavia around 4,0 cal BC with the Funnel Beaker Culture. Their ancestry can mainly be traced back to Central European farmers, but with substantial admixture from European hunter-gatherers (Krause et al. 2017).
Suggested Reading: Bratlund et al.: Tybrind Vig: Submerged Mesolithic Settlements in Denmark; 2013
Provenance: Collection T. Holk (DK)
Resources and images in full resolution:
- Image: 2018-08-05_erteblle.jpg
- Extern Link: www.biorxiv.org…113241.full.pdf
2010-08-29 07:08:06 • ID: 1009
Stone Tools after the Stone Age: The Bronze Age of the Levant
In Northern Europe the production of delicate sickles and a variety of highly sophisticated daggers made of Flint even peaked during the the early Bronze Age.
The study of stone artefacts from the Levantine Bronze and Iron Age has been neglected for a long time, but gathered more interest after the seminal work of S. Rosen.
Large geometric artefacts appear at the very beginning of Middle Bronze Age and some of them are shown here.
While the traditional interpretation as sickles is based on the presence of gloss on many of these instruments, microscopic analysis has shown, that artifacts, traditionally seen as sickles may have had several other functions (for example the use as threshing sledge inserts).
Suggested Reading:
S. Rosen: Lithic after the Stone Age ; 1997 (see complete attached file)
Provenance: Collection Levenstein (ISR)
Resources and images in full resolution:
- Image: 2018-08-05_after_the_stone_age.jpg
- Extern Link: www.academia.edu…LITHICS_AFTER_THE_STONE_AGE
2010-08-26 03:06:34 • ID: 1001
Abri Lartet and the Vallon de Gorge d'Enfer (Dordogne; France)
All artifacts are made on thick blades from local flint and from unipolar cores- very typical for an early Aurignacian in the greater Aquitaine. The tools come from strata dated around 35-32 k.a BP (Pre–AMS bulk samples). Maybe they are about 40 k.a. Old (using calibration, pretreatment protocolls and a Baysian Approach).
The Vallon de Gorge d'Enfer is a small valley, originating from the right bank of the Vézère, about 1.5 km north of Les Eyzies, between the Rock of Tayac and the site of Laugerie-Basse.
Several rock-shelters and caves occupy the rocky Terraces of the Gorge-d'Enfer Valley.
Within the Small Valley there are a total of seven well-known Paleolithic sites, with rich Paleolithic findings, spanning a time-frame from the Châtelperronian to the late Magdalenian. Some Middle Paleolithic tools were found in the debris from the early excavations, but they are rare.
Unfortunately these sites were excavated to „early“ - during the infancy of Palaeolithic research...
It is of interest that almost no Mousterian tools are known from Gorge-d‘Enfer valley, in contrast to the diachronic settlement systems of other tributaries of the Vezere (for example the Beune rivers-see 1418 and the Castelmerle valley-see 1358 ). The causes for this observation remain unknown.- Stuff for later research...
Coming from the Vézère side and following the course of the valley, the abris Pasquet: (Early Aurignacian), du Poisson: (Early Aurignacian and Gravettian) and the Abri Lartet with Châtelperronian and Early Aurignacian are on the righthand side.
„The L'Abri Poisson shelter was discovered in 1892 by Paul Girod, and dates from the Aurignacian. In 1912 Jean Marsan identified the fish carved in the ceiling of a small abri that made the site famous.
1.05 m long, it is etched and carved in low relief on the ceiling of the vault, enhanced with red pigment. This salmon's attitude is characteristic of a male exhausted by spawning.
The theme is rare since only ten fish have been identified in the Paleolithic cave art. The attribution of these works to the Gravettian is probable (D. Hitchcock 2012).“
The lithics are characterized by Gravettian artifacts: Gravettes, backed lamelles, Flechettes, burins on truncation and Noailles burins- certainly a mix of non recognized multiple strata.
Also, on the right side is the Grand Abri, an immense, almost 40 meters long, 30 meters deep and with a height of 15 meters, the largest site of the Vallon de Gorge d'Enfer (Magdalenian), heavily destroyed since 1793.
These destructions took place because abundant accumulations of fossilized bones in cave fillings had been recognized as phosphate sources for the production of gunpowder during the French revolution...
The end of the valley is bifurcated with the emptied L'Abri de Bil-bas, the Grotte d'Abzac (Magdalenian and the famous double phallus on a bâton percé) and the Grotte d'Oreille d'Enfer (Traces of early Aurignacian and an abundant Noaillian).
The age of several engravings from the Grotte d'Oreille d'Enfer remains unclear. From a stylistically view, the herbivores, that were depicted, point to be pre-Magdalenian age.
Further, non-documented excavations, took place until D. Peyrony excavated the site with a scientific approach and established a final stratigraphy.
A Châtelperronien is followed by an Aurignacien I (Aurignacien ancien with split-based spear points).
In my view the valley offers great potential for up-to-Date excavations, similar to the Castelmerle area, especially for the evaluation of the early Aurignacian in the Aquitaine.
Suggested Reading and Surf the Blog
Le Paléolithique supérieur en Périgord, Bordeaux, Delmas, 1960. (Figure 3: Seminal work, very rare and a "must" for every Scientist and Collector!)
L'affaire de l'abri du poisson ,patrie et préhistoire Randall White Éditions Fanlac 2007
Surf the Blog-see here 1717 , here 1703 , here: 1483 , here: 1457 and here 1687
First Publication of this post: 2011; Major Revision 25/09/2019
Provenance: Collection Van der Keulen (BE)
Resources and images in full resolution:
- Image: 2019-09-25_poissonIMG_0525.jpg
- Image: 2019-09-25_lartet.png
- Image: 2022-10-09_08443FCA67D54D7694D276D671DAC36C.jpeg
- Extern Link: www.donsmaps.com…gorgedenfer.html
- Extern Link: www.persee.fr…bspf_0249-7638_1907_num_4_3_11533
- Extern Link: www.academia.edu…Herkert_2012_Le_vallon_de_Gorge_dEnfer_et_lAbri_du_Poisson
- Extern Link: www.persee.fr…bspf_0249-7638_1970_num_67_6_4247
- Extern Link: www.persee.fr…bspf_0249-7638_1959_num_56_3_3570?q=+Gorge+d%27Enfer
- Extern Link: www.europreart.net…preart.htm
- Extern Link: www.europreart.net…preart.htm
- Extern Link: www.persee.fr…pal_1145-3370_1990_hos_1_1_1411