image/svg+xml
91
X/1/2019
InterdIscIplInarIa archaeologIca
natural scIences In archaeology
homepage: http://www.iansa.eu
Book reviews
Volume X ● Issue 1/2019 ● Pages 91–93
Moravia at the onset of the Upper
Paleolithic.
Petr Škrdla. Czech Academy
of Sciences, Institute of Archeology, Brno
(2017), Brno, Czech Republic, 159 pp.,
ISBN 978-80-7524-011-8.
et al.
, 2016), as well as site dating and
problems concerning the various levels of
spatial analyses of fnds.
The following four chapters are devoted
to particular technocomplexes present in
Moravia during this period, specifcally the
Szeletian, the Bohunician, the Líšeň/Podolí
type and the Aurignacian. Finally, in a rather
brief conclusion, the author tries to answer
four basic questions, namely: “where?”,
“when?”, “what?” and “who?” In the part
devoted to the “where?” question, the author
focuses his attention on the settlement
geography and settlement strategies of the
Early Upper Palaeolithic foragers. The
results of the absolute dating methods
(radiocarbon dating, termoluminescance
and optically stimulated luminescence)
give the answer to the “when?” question.
Within the framework of the “what?”
question, the author summarizes the actual
fnds and main trends in lithic production
during the studied period. Finally the
“who?” question addresses the problem
of the creators of the Moravian EUP lithic
industries. With respect to this question, the
author concludes that, while the Szeletian
industries, which follow the local Middle
Palaeolithic traditions, were probably still
made by the local Neanderthal population,
other EUP industries, starting with the
Bohunician, were created by anatomically
modern humans (AMH).
Concerning the main part of the
monograph, which is a description of the
Moravian EUP sites, I would like to go
through particular chapters devoted to the
Moravian EUP technocomplexes. The
author begins with the Szeletian. He uses
this traditional term (
cf.
Červinka, 1927,
66; Prošek, 1953; Allsworth-Jones, 1986;
Oliva, 1991), although he is surely aware
of all the problems connected with it. In
particular, it is a fact recently pointed
out that the stratigraphy of the type site
Szeleta cave in Hungary, excavated at the
beginning of the twentieth century (Kadić,
1916), is rather problematic and that a part
of bifacial tools found at the site could be
dated to the Middle Palaeolithic, whereas
another part of the meticulously retouched
leaf points probably belong to the Late
Gravettian period (Lengyel
et al.
, 2016).
Another fact, which the author is surely
familiar with, is the probable discontinuity
between the Moravian Early Szeletian and
Late Szeletian with the poplar leaf shaped
points of the Moravany-Dlhá type, which is
particularly known from western Slovakia
(Kaminská
et al.
, 2011). The Szeletian term
would therefore deserve a major revision;
however, this is not part of this monograph.
On the contrary, the author sticks to the
traditional point of view. A fundamental
research question remains, whether it is
even possible to defne this technocomplex
solely on the basis of the presence of the
bifacial reduction, which has been proven
in many diferent industries to be dated
from the Middle Palaeolithic up to the
Bronze Age. The author presents the sites
of Vedrovice V (Valoch, 1993), Moravský
Krumlov IV (Neruda and Nerudová, eds.,
2009) and Želešice III (Škrdla
et al.
, 2010a)
as the main Moravian stratifed Szeletian
sites; however, he also mentions other,
predominantly, surface sites, which could
be dated to this technocomplex.
Much attention is devoted to the
technocomplex of Bohunician, which is a
topic that has been already studied by the
author over a long period (
e.g.
Škrdla, 1996).
Individual subchapters discuss the stratifed
and dated assemblages originating from
particular sites in Bohunice (Valoch, 1976;
Škrdla, Tostevin, 2005) and on the Stránská
skála hill (Svoboda, Bar-Yosef, eds., 2003),
and also from the recently excavated sites
of Tvarožná X (Škrdla
et al.
, 2009) and
Ořechov IV (Škrdla
et al.
, 2017). Attention
is also paid to the settlement micro-
regions with the appearance of the mostly
surface sites determined as Bohunician,
such as the eastern margin of the Brno
basin (Svoboda, 1987), Bobrava river
valley (Valoch, 1956; Škrdla,
et al.
, 2011),
surroundings of Mohelno (Škrdla, 1999;
Škrdla, 2012), and the Ondratice micro-
region (Mlejnek, 2015). Quite unsystematic
is the presence of another chapter devoted
to other European Bohunician sites and to
Bohunician analogies outside of Europe.
The topic of this monograph is the Early
Upper Palaeolithic (EUP) period in
Moravia (Czech Republic). It is a synthesis
of the current state of knowledge about this
period and also the conclusion of the results
of the project funded by Grant Agency of
the Czech Republic titled “The Early Upper
Paleolithic occupation in Brno-basin and
surrounds”, which was realized between
2008 and 2012 and, indeed, was directed by
the author of the reviewed publication.
The book presented is divided into six
chapters. In the introduction the author
briefy acquaints the reader with the
situation in Moravia at the beginning of
the Upper Palaeolithic, describing the
geographical conditions, and than pays
his attention to certain methodological
problems, such as the method of searching
for new stratifed sites, which has been
recently described in some of the author’s
previous papers (Škrdla
et al.
, 2011; Škrdla
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2019 ● X/1 ● 91–93
Book Reviews
92
This is probably due to the personal interest
of the author with this issue and also due
to the relevance of the Bohunician as the
possible frst AMH migration wave to
Europe. Important could also be the fact that
Bohunician sites are not so numerous as sites
dated to other EUP technocomplexes (
e.g.
Aurignacian); it was therefore possible to
mention also the other assemblages outside
of Moravia. Moreover, the Bohunician is
the only Palaeolithic technocomplex with a
type site and central settlement area (Brno
basin) located in Moravia.
Rather surprising is the defnition of the
independent Líšeň/Podolí industrial type
based just on the single excavated site Líšeň/
Podolí I (Líšeň VII – Hrubé Podsedky;
Škrdla, 2016). The reason for this defnition
is, according to the author, the fact that
this assemblage shares attributes typical
for three diferent central European EUP
technocomplexes (Bohunician, Szeletian
and Jerzmanowician – LRJ). However, it
is also true that other assemblages assigned
to other particular EUP technocomplexes
difer one from another and it remains
questionable as to whether it is appropriate
to defne an independent industrial type just
on the basis of an assemblage from a single
site. Another reason for the defnition of the
Líšeň/Podolí type could be the uniqueness
of this site due to the presence of the pierced
and ochre-coloured tertiary mollusc shells.
It is one of the oldest proofs of jewellery
fabrication in Europe, which makes this
site absolutely exceptional. It is noteworthy
that the note in this book is the very frst
publication of this fnd, although it could be
expected to fnd the frst publication of this
unique fnd as a paper in some prestigious
peer-reviewed scientifc journal rather than
in a conclusive monograph.
Finally, the Aurignacian, the frst
European culture probably created by
AMH, is mentioned as the last of the
EUP technocomplexes. Although Moravia
belongs to regions with a high density of
Aurignacian sites, only a limited space
is devoted to this technocomplex in the
book reviewed. All the stratifed sites are
described: Mladeč Caves with fnds of
the AMH bone remains associated with
the Aurignacian antler and stone tools
(Teschler-Nicola, ed., 2006); Stránská skála
hill settlement cluster near Brno (Svoboda,
Bar-Yosef, eds., 2003); Líšeň I – Čtvrtě
stratifed site (Škrdla,
et al.
, 2010b); Líšeň
VIII – Na Výhonem (Škrdla,
et al.
, 2013);
Napajedla III (Škrdla, 2007); Vedrovice Ia
(Oliva, 2016, p.296); and Milovice I (Oliva,
2016, p.219). By contrast, a description of
lithic assemblages from numerous surface
sites is missing (
e.g.
Oliva, 1987). This
could be due to the fact that a description
of numerous Moravian micro-regions
with the Aurignacian settlements would
perhaps exceed the expected extent of
this publication. One interesting piece
of information is that the Aurignacian
spread into Moravia as late as during its
middle phase. The presence of the early
Aurignacian, which is known, for example,
from the near Danube valley (Willendorf
II, archaeological horizon 3; Nigst and
Haesaerts, 2012), has not yet been recorded
here. It could be caused by the longer
survival of the older technocomplexes of
the Bohunician and Szeletian in Moravia.
As minor faws in this book, rare typos
may be mentioned. Furthermore, the
discussion and conclusion sections could be
somewhat longer. In conclusion, however,
it can be stated that, after a book devoted
to an Upper Palaeolithic settlement on the
middle reach of the Morava River (Škrdla,
2005), the author has come up with another
precious summarizing monograph which
should not be missing from the bookshelves
of anyone interested in the central European
Palaeolithic.
Ondřej Mlejnek
References
ALLSWORTH-JONES, P., 1986.
The Szeletian
and the Transition from Middle to Upper
Palaeolithic in Central Europe.
Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
ČERVINKA, I.L., 1927.
Pravěk zemí českých.
Brno: J. Slovák.
KADIĆ, O., 1916. Die Ergebnisse der
Erforschung der Szeleta Höhle.
Mitteilungen
aus dem Jahrbuche der königlichen
Ungarischen Geologischen Reichsanstalt
, 23,
161–301.
KAMINSKÁ, Ľ., KOZŁOWSKI, J.K.,
ŠKRDLA, P., 2011. New Approach to
the Szeletian – Chronology and Cultural
Variability.
Eurasian Prehistory
, 8(1–2), 29–
49.
LENGYEL, G., MESTER, Z., SZOLYÁK, P.,
2016. The Late Gravettian and the Szeleta
Cave, northeast Hungary.
Quarternary
International
, 406A, 174–183.
MLEJNEK, O., 2015.
Paleolit východních
svahů Drahanské vrchoviny.
Dissertationes
Archaeologicae Brunenses/Pragensesque, 18,
Brno: Masaryk University.
NERUDA, P. and NERUDOVÁ, Z., eds., 2009.
Moravský Krumlov IV. Vícevrstvá lokalita
ze středního a počátku mladého paleolitu
na Moravě.
Anthropos, 29, N.S. 21. Brno:
Moravské zemské muzeum.
NIGST, P.R. and HAESAERTS, P., 2012.
L´Aurignacien en Basse Autriche: résultats
préliminaires de l´analyse technologique
de la couche culturelle 3 de Willendorf II
et ses implications pour la chronologie du
Paléolithique supérieur ancien en Europe
centrale.
L´Anthropologie
, 116, 91–138.
OLIVA, M., 1987.
Aurignacien na Moravě.
Studie Muzea Kroměřížska, 1987. Kroměříž:
Muzeum Kroměřížska v Kroměříži.
OLIVA, M., 1991. The Szeletian in
Czechoslovakia.
Antiquity
, 65, 318–325.
OLIVA, M. 2016.
Encyklopedie paleolitu a
mezolitu českých zemí.
Brno: Moravské
zemské muzeum.
PROŠEK, F., 1953. Szeletien na Slovensku.
Slovenská archeológia
, 1. 133–164.
ŠKRDLA, P., 1996. The Bohunician Reduction
Strategy.
Quarternaria Nova
, 6, 93–107.
ŠKRDLA, P., 1999. Mohelno – stanice z období
přechodu od středního k mladému paleolitu na
Moravě.
Přehled výzkumů
, 40, 35–50.
ŠKRDLA, P., 2005.
The Upper Palaeolithic
on the Middle Course of the Morava River.
Dolní Věstonice Studies, 13. Brno: Institute
of Archaeology of the Czech Academy of
Sciences, Brno.
ŠKRDLA, P., 2007. Napajedla (okr. Zlín).
Přehled výzkumů
, 48, 317–321.
ŠKRDLA, P., 2012. Paleolitické osídlení
středního Pojihlaví. Mikroregionální studie.
Acta Musei Moravice. Scientiae Sociales
, 97,
15–44.
ŠKRDLA, P., 2016. Brno (k. ú. Líšeň, okr. Brno-
město).
Přehled výzkumů
, 57(1), 151–152.
ŠKRDLA, P., MATĚJEC, P., NEJMAN, L.,
2013. Podolí (k. ú. Podolí u Brna, okr. Brno-
venkov),
Přehled výzkumů
, 54(1), 115.
ŠKRDLA, P., MATĚJEC, P., RYCHTAŘÍKOVÁ,
T., 2010a. Želešice (okr. Brno-venkov).
Přehled výzkumů
51, 301–304.
ŠKRDLA, P., NEJMAN, L., RYCHTAŘÍKOVÁ,
T., 2016. A Method for Finding Stratifed Sites.
Early Upper Paleolithic Sites in Southern
Moravia.
Journal of Field Archaeology
, 41(1),
47–57.
ŠKRDLA, P., RYCHTAŘÍKOVÁ, T., BARTÍK,
J., NEJMAN, L., NOVÁK, J., 2017. Ořechov
IV: nová stratifkovaná lokalita bohunicienu
mimo brněnskou kotlinu.
Archeologické
rozhledy
, 69, 361–384.
ŠKRDLA, P., RYCHTAŘÍKOVÁ, T., NEJMAN,
L. KUČA, M., 2011. Revize paleolitického
osídlení na dolním toku Bobravy. Hledání
nových stratifkovaných EUP lokalit
s podporou GPS dat z dálkového průzkumu
Země.
Přehled výzkumů
, 51, 269–274.
ŠKRDLA, P., TOSTEVIN, G., 2005. Brno –
Bohunice. Analýza materiálu z výzkumu
v roce 2002.
Přehled výzkumů
, 46. 35–61.
ŠKRDLA, P., TOSTEVIN, G., MATĚJEC, P.,
NÝVLT, D., HLADILOVÁ, Š., KOVANDA,
J., MLEJNEK, O., NEJMAN, L., 2010b.
Brno (k. ú. Líšeň, okr. Brno-město).
Přehled
výzkumů
, 51, 269–274.
ŠKRDLA, P., TOSTEVIN, G., NÝVLT, D.,
LISÁ, L., MLEJNEK, O., PŘICHYSTAL, A.,
RICHTER, D., 2009. Tvarožná – Za Školou.
The Results of the 2008 Excavation Season.
Přehled výzkumů
, 50, 11–24.
SVOBODA, J., 1987.
Stránská skála. Bohunický
typ v Brněnské kotlině.
Studie Archeologického
ústavu ČSAV v Brně, 14, Praha: Academia.
SVOBODA, J., BAR-YOSEF, O., eds.,
image/svg+xml
IANSA 2019 ● X/1 ● 91–93
Book Reviews
93
2003.
Stránská skála. Origins of the Upper
Paleolithic in the Brno Basin, Moravia, Czech
Republic.
American School of Prehistoric
Research Bulletin, 47, Dolní Věstonice
Studies, 10. Cambridge: Peabody Museum
Publications, Harvard University.
TESCHLER-NICOLA, M., ed., 2006.
Early
Modern Humans at the Moravian Gate. The
Mladeč Caves and their Remains.
Wien, New
York: Springer.
VALOCH, K., 1956. Paleolitické stanice s
listovitými hroty nad údolím Bobravy.
Acta
Musei Moraviae, Scientiae Sociales
, 47, 5–34.
VALOCH, K., 1976.
Die altsteinzeitliche
Fundstelle in Brno – Bohunice.
Studie
Archeologického ústavu ČSAV v Brně, 4,
Praha: Academia.
VALOCH, K., 1993. Vedrovice V, eine Siedlung
des Szeletiens in Südmähren.
Quartär
, 43/44,
7–93.
image/svg+xml