Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T02:35:03.667Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the importance of spatio-temporal differences in the intensity of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic settlement in Central Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Slavomil Vencl
Slavomil Vencl*
Affiliation:
Institute of Archaeology, Malá Strana, Letenská 4, 118 01 Praha 1, Czechoslovakia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Introduction

The well-known fact that the sources of evidence concerning the pre-Neolithic period are seriously incomplete has not yet been analysed sufficiently, being concealed by the intensive interaction of very complex and variable factors. It is obvious, though, that even an imperfect attempt to quantify this problem could contribute to an explanation of the causes for the striking differences between the volume of archaeological source material from adjacent territories, or show the limits of attempts at a historical interpretation of the interrelationships between pre-Neolithic cultures. Unlike the post-Mesolithic period, the sources of the pre-Neolithic foraging societies suffer from reduced field visibility:

1 first of all, they are not usually indicated by colour contrasts in the feature fillings;

2 as a rule, they are reduced only to residues made of the most resistant materials;

3 because of the mobility of small hunter-gatherer groups, only limited accumulations of finds occur in temporary camps, both in extent and in volume, easily escaping attention;

4 Palaeolithic finds lie deeper under the present-day surface and are discovered less frequently than the remains of later periods;

5 the Palaeolithic record was, over tens of thousands of years – this partly under the extreme Pleistocene conditions – subjected to destruction more frequently than the post-Palaeolithic romains;

6 the intensity of the sedimentary and denu-datory processes differs regionally, and in other ways.

Type
Special section
Information
Antiquity , Volume 65 , Issue 247 , June 1991 , pp. 308 - 317
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albrecht, G. 1979. Magdaiénien-lnventare vom Petersfeis. Tübingen: Verlag Archaeologica Venatoria.Google Scholar
Allsworth-Jones, P. 1986. The Szeietian and the transition /rom Middie to Upper Paiaeoiithic in Centra] Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bagniewski, Z. 1979. Spotecznosci mysiiwsko-rybackie wrokresie od IX do III tysigclecia p.n.e. na terenie Polski potudniowo-zachodniej. Wroclaw: Prace Wrocfawskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego A 201.Google Scholar
Bagniewski, Z. 1987. Mezolityczne spofecznosci mysliwsko-rybackie poludniowej czqsci Pojezierza Kas-zubskiego. Wroclaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwer-sytetu Wrocfawskiego. Studia Archeologiczne 17.Google Scholar
Bárta, J. 1980. Paleolit a mezolit, Slovenskd archeologia 28: 119–36.Google Scholar
Bárta, J. & Banesz, L.. 1971. Výskum starsej a strednej doby kamennej na Slovensku, Slovenskd archeologia 19: 291–317.Google Scholar
Chmielewski, W., Schild, R. & WięCKOWSKA, H.. 1975. Paleolit i mezoJit. Prahistoria Ziem PoJskich I. Wroclaw: Ossolineum-PAN.Google Scholar
Feustel, R. 1974. Die Kniegrotte. Weimar: Herrmann Bòhlaus Nachfolger.Google Scholar
Feustel, R. 1989. Der Homo sapiens und das Jungpalaolithikum, in Herrmann, (ed.): 41–7.Google Scholar
Fridrich, I. 1973. Počatky mladopaleolitického osídlení Čech, Archeoiogické rozhJedy 25: 392–442. Google Scholar
Fridrich, I. 1982. Stfedopaleolitické osídJení Cech. Prague: Institute of Archaeology.Google Scholar
Geupel, V. 1985. Spätpaläoiithikum und Mesolithikum im Süden der DDR. Katalog Teil 1. Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Geupel, V. 1989. Spätpaläoiithikum und Mesolithikum im Süden der DDR. Katalog Teil 2. Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Gramsch, B. 1989. Archaologische Kulturen desm Mesolithikums, in Herrmann, (ed.): 55–64.Google Scholar
Hahn, J. 1977. Aurignacien, das altere Jungpaläolithikum in Mittei- und Osteuropa. Cologne: Böhlau Verlag.Google Scholar
Hanitzsch, H. 1972. Groitzsch bei EiJenburg. Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Herrmann, J. (ed.) 1989. Archdologie in der DDR 1. Leipzig: Urania Verlag.Google Scholar
Kind, C.-J. 1985. Die VerteiJung von Steinartefakten in Grabungsflachen. Tubingen: Verlag Archaeo logica Venatoria.Google Scholar
Klíma, B. 1963. Doíní Véstonice. Prague: Nakladatelství CSAV.Google Scholar
Klíma, B. 1976. Die paldolithische Station Pavlov II. Prague: Academia.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, J.K. & Koztowski, S.K.. 1975. Pradzieje Europy od XL do IV tysigcJecia p.n.e. Warszawa: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, J.K. 1977. Epoka kamienia na ziemiach poJskich. Warszawa: Pañstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, S.K. 1972. Pradzieje ziem poJskich od IX do V tysiqclecia p.n.e. Warszawa: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, S.K. 1989. Mesolithic in Poland. A new approach. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Wars-zawskiego.Google Scholar
Leitner, W. 1989. Zum Stand der Spàtpalàolithikumund Mesolithikum-Forschung in Osterreich, in Lippert, A. & Spindler, K. (ed.), Frühes Leben in den Alpen: 21–6. Innsbruck: Universitat.Google Scholar
Lunz, R. 1986. Vor- und frühgeschichte Südtirol. Band 1 Steinzeit. Bozen.Google Scholar
Mania, D. & Toepfer, V. 1973. Künigsaue. Berlin: Veröffentlichungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte in Halle. Band 26.Google Scholar
Oliva, M. 1987. Aurignacien na Moravĕ. Kromĕříí: Studie Muzea Kromĕřííska ’87.Google Scholar
Oliva, M 1989. Paleolit, in Belcredi, L. et al., Archeoiogické lokality a nálezy okresu Brno-venkov: 8–32. Brno: Okresní muzeum Brno-venkov.Google Scholar
Oliva, M. & Dolezel, J. 1985. Nové paleoliticé énálezy na Tišnovsku, Přehled výzkumu 1983: 17–19.Google Scholar
Oliva, M. & Strof, A. 1985. Přehled paleolitického osídlení Lysické sníženiny a blízkého okolí, okr. Blansko, Pfehled vyzkumu 1983: 10–17.Google Scholar
Otte, M. 1981. Le Gravettien en Europe Centrale 1–2. Bruges: de Tempel. Dissertationes Archaeologi-cae Gandenses 20.Google Scholar
Sachse-Kozlowska, E. 1978. Polish Aurignacian assemblages. Kraków: Ossolineum. Folia Quaternaria 50.Google Scholar
Schönweiss, W. & Werner, H.J. 1986. Ein Fundplatz des Szeletien in Zeitlarn bei Regensburg, Archäo-Jogisches Korrespondenzblatt 16: 7–12.Google Scholar
Valoch, K. 1960. Magdalénien na Morave. Brno: Anthropos - Moravské museum.Google Scholar
Valoch, K. 1978. Nové poznatky o paleolitu v Československu, Sborník prací Filosofické fakulty brněnské university E 22–23: 7–25.Google Scholar
Valoch, K. 1980. La fin des temps glaciaires en Moravie (Tchécoslovaquie), L’Anthropologie 84: 380–90, 673–4.Google Scholar
Valoch, K. 1987. Les questions du Pavlovien, Antiquités Nationales 18/19 (1986/87): 55–62.Google Scholar
Valoch, K. 1988. Die Erforschung der Kulna-Höhle 1961–1976. Brno: Moravské muzeum Anthropos Institut.Google Scholar
Vencl, S. 1977. Aurignacké osídlení v Hradsku, okr. Mélnik, Archeoiogické rozhledy 29: 3–44. 115–17.Google Scholar
Vencl, S. 1987. The Late Palaeolithic in Bohemia, in Burdukiewicz, J.M. & Kobusiewicz, M. (ed.). Late Glacial in Central Europe: 121–9. Wroclaw: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk.Google Scholar
Vencl, S. 1990. K otázkám casoprostorovych rozdílú v inten-zité paleolitickych a mezolitickych osídlení ve stfední Evropé, Památkv archeoiogické 81: 448–57.Google Scholar
In press. Bemerkungen zum Magdalénien in Böhmen, Anthropologie (Brno).Google Scholar
Weniger, G.-C. 1982. Wildbeuter und ihre Umivelt. Tübingen: Verlag Archaeologica Venatoria.Google Scholar