- Email: [email protected]
The Gravettian and the Epigravettian chronology in eastern central Europe: A comment on Bösken et al. (2017)
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/palaeo
The Gravettian and the Epigravettian chronology in eastern central Europe: A comment on Bösken et al. (2017) ⁎
György Lengyel , Jarosław Wilczyński Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Animals, Polish Academy of Sciences, Sławkowska 17, 31-016 Krakow, Poland
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Upper Palaeolithic Last Glacial Maximum Lithic tool typology
Bösken et al. (2017) aimed at contributing to the environmental variability of the Gravettian population in ‘southeastern’ Europe during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) with an interdisciplinary study at the Upper Palaeolithic site Ságvár Lyukas Hill (Hungary). However, the classification of the site as Gravettian is erroneous because the LGM archaeological record of eastern central Europe is composed of findings of another culture, the Epigravettian. This short comment on the paper of Bösken et al. (2017) presents the archaeological chronology between 34 and 16 kyr BP with a focus on the Gravettian–Epigravettian dichotomy.
Bösken et al. (2017) published the results of the detailed geological and malacological investigations of the Upper Palaeolithic site Ságvár Lyukas Hill in western Hungary, dated to the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) (Lengyel 2008–2009, 2010). Besides the specific aims of their paper, the results are an important contribution to reconstructions of the palaeoenvironment of hunter-gatherer societies during the LGM in the Carpathian Basin. While the natural science results in Bösken et al. (2017) are soundly presented, the archaeological classification of the site is misunderstood and thus the consequent implications to archaeological research are inaccurate. Bösken et al. (2017: 4) state that Ságvár Lyukas Hill is a Gravettian site and represents one of few dated to the LGM in southeastern Europe. However, the archaeological literature directly contradicts this statement; there are no Gravettian sites dated to the LGM in this region (Kozłowski, 2007; Svoboda, 2007), which is often mentioned as central Europe, or eastern central Europe (ECE – roughly the Western Carpathians and the Carpathian Basin) (e.g. Verpoorte, 2004). The last Gravettian hunter-gatherer camps in the chronology of the Upper Palaeolithic in ECE predate 24 kyr BP, which is the time of the greatest extent of the Fennoscandian ice sheet (FIS) (Marks, 2012; Stroeven et al., 2015). The Upper Palaeolithic human record in ECE consists of three ar-
⁎
chaeological cultures representing three hunter-gatherer populations: Gravettian ~34–24 kyr BP, Epigravettian ~24–16 kyr BP, and Magdalénian ~18–13 kyr BP (Maier, 2015; Svoboda, 2007). The Gravettian archaeological record is further classified into three sequential clusters. The earliest is the Early Gravettian, dated to ~34–30 kyr BP (Moreau, 2009). The next is the Pavlovian, dated to ~31–28 kyr BP (Svoboda, 2016). The last member of the Gravettian culture is the Late Gravettian, also called Willendorf–Kostenkian or shouldered points horizon (Grigorev, 1993; Kozłowski, 1996a; Svoboda, 2007), which occupied ECE between ~28–24 kyr BP (Wilczyński, 2016). At the onset of the maximal extent of the FIS, ~24 kyr BP, there is a significant change in the archaeological record, and the sites dated to between ~ 24 and 16 kyr BP are classified into another culture, the Epigravettian (Dobosi, 2004; Kaminská, 2016; Kozłowski, 1996b; Svoboda and Novák, 2004). The Epigravettian also can be divided into two chronological phases (Anghelinu et al., 2012; Cârcimaru et al. 2007–2008; Dobosi, 2004; Lengyel, 2014a; Svoboda and Novák, 2004). The early phase is contemporaneous with the FIS maximum extent roughly between 24 and 20 kyr BP, and the later phase dates to the time of FIS retreat. While Epigravettian sites are documented all over ECE, the third hunter-gatherer culture of this re-
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Lengyel).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2017.11.017 Received 14 September 2017; Accepted 4 November 2017 0031-0182/ © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Lengyel, G., Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2017.11.017
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
G. Lengyel, J. Wilczyński
Fig. 1. Mean ranges of calibrated radiocarbon dates of Late Gravettian and Epigravettian sites and layers of the Western Carpathians and the Middle Danube basin, calibrated using OxCal (Reimer et al., 2013), showing 95.4% probability (after: Antl–Weiser et al., 2010; Demidenko et al., 2017; Haesaerts et al., 1996, 2016; Kaminská, 2016; Lengyel 2008–2009; Oliva, 2009; Svoboda, 1991, 2008; Škrdla et al., 2016; Verpoorte, 2002; Vlačiky et al., 2013; Wilczyński, 2009; Wilczyński et al., 2012, 2015).
Gravettian in ECE, as we know today, is that Gravettian lithic hunting weapon tool types are absent in Epigravettian, such as the shouldered point, microgravette or Gravette point, Late Gravettian rectangle (ventrally bi-truncated and backed or steeply retouched bladelet), fléchette, and the bifacial leaf point (Fig. 3) (Kozłowski, 2013; Lengyel et al., 2016; Wilczyński, 2016). The Epigravettian during the FIS maximum has a low proportion of lithic armatures, which most often are simple backed bladelets (Lengyel, 2014a; Maier, 2015). However, after FIS started retreating, the later Epigravettian lithic inventories were again abundant in armatures, but without the style of the Gravettian weaponry (Lengyel, 2014a). The lithic assemblage of Ságvár entirely lacks the Gravettian armature types and has a decreased frequency of armature compared to the previous periods (Lengyel, 2014b). Only backed bladelets and retouched points were found in the armature. In the Hungarian Upper Palaeolithic chronology the “Gravettian
gion, the Magdalénian, arrived from western Europe, left abundant occupational remains only north of the Carpathians, and a few sites in Moravia, and none in the Carpathian Basin (Maier, 2015). The Magdalénian seems to have been partly coeval with the later Epigravettian phase. To support that Gravettian sites are not dated to the maximum extent of FIS, Fig. 1 presents calibrated radiocarbon dates from ECE. These derive from a database which includes only those dates with standard deviation less than 600 radiocarbon years. Fig. 1 shows the mean values of OxCal calibrated radiocarbon dates (Reimer et al., 2013) by layers of sites, and indicates the 95.4% probability. The sole overlap involves Mogyorósbánya (Hungary) and the lower layer of Kašov (Slovakia) (for site location see Fig. 2), at 100 years. Fig. 1 thus shows that the latest Gravettian occupations are not associated with the peak of the LGM, which in turn is highly correlated with the Epigravettian. The striking difference between the Epigravettian and the
2
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
G. Lengyel, J. Wilczyński
Fig. 2. Map showing the sites radiocarbon dated. 1: Grub–Kranawetberg, 2: Willendorf II, 3: Milovice, 4: Moravany–Žakovska, Moravany–Lopata II, Banka-Horné fraské role, 5: Kraków–Spadzista, 6: Cejkov I, Kašov, 7: Trenčianske Bohuslavice, 8: Jaksice II, 9: Petřkovice, 10: Mogyorósbánya, 11: Grubgraben, 12: Ságvár, 13: Madaras, 14: Stránská Skála IV, Brno–Štýřice III, 15: Mohelno–Plevovce, 16: Esztergom, 17: Targowisko 10, 18: Nadap.
human settlement at Ságvár was established under interstadial phases and mild climate (Gábori–Csánk, V., 1978; Sümegi et al., 1998). The results of Bösken et al. (2017) now presented sound evidence for cold glacial environment. However, because they did not bring new data to support the Gravettian classification of the site Ságvár, all of their achievements regarding human palaeoenvironment are relevant to the Epigravettian instead of the Gravettian. We think the classification scheme of GEM misled them to form this conclusion. Nevertheless, a thorougher reading of the archaeological literature would have helped them avoid this misunderstanding.
Entity Model” (GEM) (Dobosi, 2000) has been used to classify archaeological assemblages between 32 and 15 kyr BP. GEM can be misleading in the view of ECE research because it uses the term Gravettian for chronologically and culturally different hunter-gatherer populations, suggesting they are lineally related. However, even GEM distinguished Ságvár and the similar lithic industries from the chronologically earlier and later ones with sound archaeological data (Dobosi, 2000, 2004, 2016). This difference was enough significant to separate Ságvár and further Hungarian sites similar to Ságvár in a new group of the Epigravettian era of ECE, called Ságvárian, which was specific to the inner Carpathian basin (Kozłowski, 1979; Tolnai–Dobosi, V., 2001). The name Ságvárian recently was proposed to be eliminated, and Ságvár was classified Early Epigravettian (Lengyel, 2016). Bösken et al. (2017) concluded that Ságvár was occupied during a typical cold LGM climate. The revision of GEM's radiocarbon ages and the archaeological evidence of Ságvár also suggested cold environmental conditions for the human occupation (Lengyel 2008–2009, 2009, 2010, 2014b) instead of what had long been claimed, that the
Acknowledgments G. L. was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland, agreement No. UMO-2016/23/P/HS3/04034. J. W. was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland, agreement No. UMO-2015/18/E/ HS3/00178.
3
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
G. Lengyel, J. Wilczyński
Fig. 3. Armatures from the Late Gravettian (1–9), Epigravettian of LGM (10 −21), and the Epigravettian of post LGM (22–29). Jaksice II: 1–5; Kraków–Spadzista: 6–8; Trenčianske Bohuslavice: 9; Ságvár: 10–21; Nadap: 22, 23; Esztergom: 24–27; Targowisko 10: 28, 29. Fléchette: 1, 2; Backed ventrally truncated bladelet: 4, 5; Backed–truncated bladelet: 3; Gravette point: 6; Microgravette point: 7; Bifacial leaf point: 9; Shouldered point: 8; Abruptly retouched bladelet: 10, 21; Backed bladelet: 11–20. Curved backed point: 22, 24, 26–29; Arched backed point: 25; Backed point: 23 (composed from Kaminská, 2016: Fig. 7; Lengyel, 2016: Fig. 3, Wilczyński, 2009: Fig. 7; Wilczyński, 2015: Fig. 20; Wilczyński et al., 2015: Fig. 9).
perspectives (in Russian). Археологія і давня історія України 24, 38–52. Dobosi, V.T., 2000. Upper Palaeolithic research in Hungary – a situation report from 2000. Praehistoria 1, 149–159. Dobosi, V.T., 2004. After the golden age (Hungary between 20 and 16 ka BP). In: Dewez, M., Noiret, P., Teheux, E. (Eds.), The Upper Palaeolithic. General Sessions and Posters. Acts of the XIVth UISPP Congress, University of Liege, 2–8 September 2001, BAR International Series 1240. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 153–168. Dobosi, V.T., 2016. Tradition and modernity in the lithic assemblage of Mogyorósbánya Late Palaeolithic site. Acta Archaeol. Acad. Sci. Hung. 67, 5–30. Gábori–Csánk, V., 1978. Une oscillation climatique a la fin du Würm en Hongrie. Acta Archaeol. Acad. Sci. Hung. 30, 3–11. Grigorev, G.P., 1993. The Kostenki-Avdeevo archaeological culture and the WillendorfPavlov-Kostenki-Avdeevo cultural unity. In: Soffer, O., Praslov, N.D. (Eds.), From Kostenki to Clovis. Upper Paleolithic? Paleo-Indian Adaptations. Springer, New-York, pp. 51–65. Haesaerts, P., Damblon, F., Bachner, M., Trnka, G., 1996. Revised stratigraphy and chronology of the Willendorf II sequence, Lower Austria. Archaeol. Austriaca 80, 25–42. Haesaerts, P., Damblon, F., Neugebauer–Maresch, C., Einwögerer, T., 2016. Radiocarbon chronology of the Late Palaeolithic Loess Site of Kammern Grubgraben (Lower Austria). Archaeol. Austriaca 100, 271–277. Kaminská, L., 2016. Gravettian and Epigravettian lithics in Slovakia. Quat. Int. 406A,
References Anghelinu, M., Niță, L., Steguweit, L., 2012. Not that original after all: the chrono–cultural framework of the Upper Paleolithic on the Bistrița valley (Northeastern Romania). Arheol. Mold. 35, 7–46. Antl–Weiser, W., Fladerer, F.A., Nigst, Ph.R., 2010. Grub/Kranawetberg (Lower Austria) – insights into a Gravettian micro–region in Eastern Austria. In: Neugebauer–Maresch, Ch., Owen, L. (Eds.), New Aspects of the Central and Eastern European Upper Palaeolithic – Methods, Chronology, Technology and Subsistence. Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission, Band 72, OAW; Wien, pp. 231–245. Bösken, J., Sümegi, P., Zeeden, C., Klasen, N., Gulyás, S., Lehmkuhl, F., 2017. Investigating the last glacial Gravettian site ‘Ságvár Lyukas Hill’ (Hungary) and its paleoenvironmental and geochronological context using a multi-proxy approach. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo. 2017.08.010. Cârcimaru, M., Anghelinu, M., Nita, L., Margarit, M., Dumitrascu, V., Dimitru, F., Cosac, M., Carstina, O., 2007–2008. A cold season occupation during the LGM. The Early Epigravettian from Poiana Ciresului (Judetul Neamt, North–eastern Romania). Acta Archaeol. Carpath. 52–53, 27–58. Demidenko Yu, E., Škrdla, P., Rios-Garaizar, J., 2017. Epi-Aurignacian with SagaidakMuralovka-type microliths in the south of Eastern Europe and its European
4
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
G. Lengyel, J. Wilczyński
IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55 (4), 1869–1887. Škrdla, P., Nejman, L., Bartík, J., Rychtaříkova, T., Nikolajev, P., Eigner, J., Nývltova Fišáková, M., Novák, J., Polanská, M., 2016. Mohelno – a terminal Last Glacial Maximum industry with microlithic tools made on carenoidal blanks. Quat. Int. 406, 184–194. Stroeven, A.P., Hattestrand, C., Kleman, J., Heyman, J., Fabel, D., Fredin, O., Goodfellow, B.W., Harbor, J.M., Jansen, J.D., Olsen, L., Caffee, M.W., Fink, D., Lundqvist, J., Rosqvist, G.C., Stromberg, B., Jansson, K.N., 2015. Deglaciation of Fennoscandia. Quat. Sci. Rev. 147, 91–121. Sümegi, P., Krolopp, E., Hertelendi, E., 1998. A Ságvár–Lascaux interstadiális őskörnyezeti rekonstrukciója. Acta Geogr. Geol. Meteorol. Debrecina 34, 165–180. Svoboda, J., 1991. Stranská skála: Výsledky výzkumu v letech 1985–1987. Památky Archeol. 82, 5–47. Svoboda, J.A., 2007. The Gravettian on the Middle Danube. Paléo 19, 203–220. Svoboda, J., 2008. Formation of the archaeological layers, structure of the site and features. In: Svoboda, J. (Ed.), Petřkovice, on Shouldered Points and Female Figurines. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Institute of Archaeology, Brno, pp. 31–45. Svoboda, J., 2016. Settlement units and human fossils. Spatial context, stratigraphies and chronology. In: Svoboda, J. (Ed.), Chronostratigraphy, Paleoethnology, Paleoanthropology, Dolní Věstonice II, The Dolní Vestonice Studies. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Institute of Archaeology, Brno, pp. 16–48. Svoboda, J.A., Novák, M., 2004. Eastern Central Europe after the Upper Pleniglacial: changing points of observation. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 34, 463–477. Tolnai–Dobosi, V., 2001. About Ságvárian: chronological–cultural sketch of the Upper Palaeolithic in Hungary. In: Ginter, B., Drobniewicz, B., Kazior, B., Nowak, M., Poltowicz, M. (Eds.), Problems of the Stone Age in the Old World. Jagellonian University, Institute of Archaeology, Kraków, pp. 195–201. Verpoorte, A., 2002. Radiocarbon dating the Upper Palaeolithic of Slovakia: results, problems and prospect. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 32, 311–325. Verpoorte, A., 2004. Eastern Central Europe during the Pleniglacial. Antiquity 78, 257–266. Vlačiky, M., Michalík, T., Nývltová Fišáková, M., Nývlt, D., Moravcová, M., Králík, M., Kovanda, J., Péková, K., Přichystal, A., Dohnalová, A., 2013. Gravettian occupation of the Beckov Gate in western Slovakia as viewed from the interdisciplinary research of the Trenčianske Bohuslavice–Pod Tureckom site. Quat. Int. 294, 41–60. Wilczyński, J., 2009. Targowisko – a new Late Glacial site in southern Poland. Eurasian Prehistory 6, 95–118. Wilczyński, J., 2015. Lithic inventory discovered in the Kraków Spadzista Trench E1 – the results of the excavation carried out in 2012. In: Wojtal, P., Wilczyński, J., Haynes, G. (Eds.), A Gravettian Site in Southern Poland: Kraków Spadzista. ISEA PAS, Kraków, pp. 51–82. Wilczyński, J., 2016. Variability of Late Gravettian lithic industries in southern Poland: a case study of the Krakow Spadzista and Jaksice II sites. Quat. Int. 406A, 129–143. Wilczyński, J., Wojtal, P., Sobczyk, K., 2012. Spatial organization of the Gravettian mammoth hunters site – Kraków Spadzista (southern Poland). J. Archaeol. Sci. 39, 3627–3642. Wilczyński, J., Wojtal, P., Łanczont, M., Mroczek, P., Sobieraj, D., Fedorowicz, S., 2015. Loess, flints and bones: multidisciplinary research at Jaksice II Gravettian site (southern Poland). Quat. Int. 359–360, 114–130.
144–165. Kozłowski, J.K., 1979. La fin des temps glaciaires dans le bassin du Danube moyen et inferéeur. In: de Sonneville–Bordes, D. (Ed.), La fin des temps glaciaires en Europe. CNRS, Paris, pp. 821–835. Kozłowski, J.K., 1996a. The Danubian Gravettian as seen from the northern perspective. In: Svoboda, J. (Ed.), Paleolithic in the middle Danube region. Archeologický ústav AV ČR, Brno, pp. 11–22. Kozłowski, J.K., 1996b. The latest Aurignacian and “Aurignacoid” elements in the Epigravettian of the Carpathian Basin. In: Palma di Cesnola, A., Montet–White, A. (Eds.), The Late Aurignacian, Colloquia of the XIII International Congress of the U.I.S.P.P. (Forli). The Upper Palaeolithic Vol. 6. A.B.A.C.O., Forli, pp. 83–98. Kozłowski, J.K., 2007. Gravettian north of the Carpathians and of the Sudetes. Paléo 19, 221–241. Kozłowski, J.K., 2013. Raw materials procurement in the Late Gravettian of the Carpathian Basin. In: Mester, Zs (Ed.), The Lithic Raw Material Sources and the Interregional Human Contacts in the Northern Carpathian Regions. Polska Akademia Umiejętności, Kraków–Budapest, pp. 63–85. Lengyel, G., 2008–2009. Radiocarbon dates of the “Gravettian Entity” in Hungary. Praehistoria 9–10, 241–263. Lengyel, G., 2009. A ságvári felső paleolit telep és a Kárpát–medencei Gravetti kőnyersanyagai. In: Ilon, G. (Ed.), MOMOSZ VI. Őskoros Kutatók VI. Összejövetelének konferenciakötete. KÖSZ & VMMI, Szombathely, pp. 223–231. Lengyel, G., 2010. An aspect to the re–evaluation of Ságvár (Lyukas–domb) Upper Palaeolithic site. Folia Archaeol. 54, 25–37. Lengyel, G., 2014a. Backed tool technology at Esztergom–Gyurgyalag Epigravettian site in Hungary. In: Biró, K.T., Markó, A., Bajnok, K.P. (Eds.), Aeolian Scripts: New Ideas on the Lithic World, Studies In Honour of Viola T. Dobosi. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, pp. 121–129. Lengyel, G., 2014b. Distant connection changes from the Early Gravettian to the Epigravettian in Hungary. In: Otte, M., le Brun–Ricalens, F. (Eds.), Modes de contacts et de déplacements au Paléolithique eurasiatique: Modes of contact and mobility during the Eurasian Palaeolithic ERAUL 140 – ArhéoLogiques 5. Université de Liege, Liege–Luxembourg, pp. 331–347. Lengyel, G., 2016. Reassessing the Middle and Late Upper Palaeolithic in Hungary. Acta Archaeol. Carpath. 51, 47–66. Lengyel, G., Mester, Z., Szolyák, P., 2016. The Late Gravettian and Szeleta Cave, northeast Hungary. Quat. Int. 406A, 174–183. Maier, A., 2015. The Central European Magdalenian: Regional Diversity and Internal Variability. Springer, New York. Marks, L., 2012. Timing of the Late Vistulian (Weichselian) glacial phases in Poland. Quat. Sci. Rev. 44, 81–88. Moreau, L., 2009. Geißenklösterle. Das Gravettien der Schwäbischen Alb im europäischen Kontext. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen. Oliva, M., 2009. Geography, stratigraphy and dating. In: Oliva, M. (Ed.), Milovice: Site of the Mammoth People Below the Pavlov Hills. Moravské Zemské Museum, Brno, pp. 22–24. Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C.E., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P., Haflidason, H., Hajdas, I., Hatté, C., Heaton, T.J., Hoffman, D.L., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer, B., Manning, S.W., Niu, M., Reimer, R.W., Richards, D.A., Scott, E.M., Southon, J.R., Staff, R.A., Turney, C.S.M., van der Plicht, J., 2013.
5
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/palaeo
The Gravettian and the Epigravettian chronology in eastern central Europe: A comment on Bösken et al. (2017) ⁎
György Lengyel , Jarosław Wilczyński Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Animals, Polish Academy of Sciences, Sławkowska 17, 31-016 Krakow, Poland
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Upper Palaeolithic Last Glacial Maximum Lithic tool typology
Bösken et al. (2017) aimed at contributing to the environmental variability of the Gravettian population in ‘southeastern’ Europe during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) with an interdisciplinary study at the Upper Palaeolithic site Ságvár Lyukas Hill (Hungary). However, the classification of the site as Gravettian is erroneous because the LGM archaeological record of eastern central Europe is composed of findings of another culture, the Epigravettian. This short comment on the paper of Bösken et al. (2017) presents the archaeological chronology between 34 and 16 kyr BP with a focus on the Gravettian–Epigravettian dichotomy.
Bösken et al. (2017) published the results of the detailed geological and malacological investigations of the Upper Palaeolithic site Ságvár Lyukas Hill in western Hungary, dated to the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) (Lengyel 2008–2009, 2010). Besides the specific aims of their paper, the results are an important contribution to reconstructions of the palaeoenvironment of hunter-gatherer societies during the LGM in the Carpathian Basin. While the natural science results in Bösken et al. (2017) are soundly presented, the archaeological classification of the site is misunderstood and thus the consequent implications to archaeological research are inaccurate. Bösken et al. (2017: 4) state that Ságvár Lyukas Hill is a Gravettian site and represents one of few dated to the LGM in southeastern Europe. However, the archaeological literature directly contradicts this statement; there are no Gravettian sites dated to the LGM in this region (Kozłowski, 2007; Svoboda, 2007), which is often mentioned as central Europe, or eastern central Europe (ECE – roughly the Western Carpathians and the Carpathian Basin) (e.g. Verpoorte, 2004). The last Gravettian hunter-gatherer camps in the chronology of the Upper Palaeolithic in ECE predate 24 kyr BP, which is the time of the greatest extent of the Fennoscandian ice sheet (FIS) (Marks, 2012; Stroeven et al., 2015). The Upper Palaeolithic human record in ECE consists of three ar-
⁎
chaeological cultures representing three hunter-gatherer populations: Gravettian ~34–24 kyr BP, Epigravettian ~24–16 kyr BP, and Magdalénian ~18–13 kyr BP (Maier, 2015; Svoboda, 2007). The Gravettian archaeological record is further classified into three sequential clusters. The earliest is the Early Gravettian, dated to ~34–30 kyr BP (Moreau, 2009). The next is the Pavlovian, dated to ~31–28 kyr BP (Svoboda, 2016). The last member of the Gravettian culture is the Late Gravettian, also called Willendorf–Kostenkian or shouldered points horizon (Grigorev, 1993; Kozłowski, 1996a; Svoboda, 2007), which occupied ECE between ~28–24 kyr BP (Wilczyński, 2016). At the onset of the maximal extent of the FIS, ~24 kyr BP, there is a significant change in the archaeological record, and the sites dated to between ~ 24 and 16 kyr BP are classified into another culture, the Epigravettian (Dobosi, 2004; Kaminská, 2016; Kozłowski, 1996b; Svoboda and Novák, 2004). The Epigravettian also can be divided into two chronological phases (Anghelinu et al., 2012; Cârcimaru et al. 2007–2008; Dobosi, 2004; Lengyel, 2014a; Svoboda and Novák, 2004). The early phase is contemporaneous with the FIS maximum extent roughly between 24 and 20 kyr BP, and the later phase dates to the time of FIS retreat. While Epigravettian sites are documented all over ECE, the third hunter-gatherer culture of this re-
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Lengyel).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2017.11.017 Received 14 September 2017; Accepted 4 November 2017 0031-0182/ © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Lengyel, G., Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2017.11.017
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
G. Lengyel, J. Wilczyński
Fig. 1. Mean ranges of calibrated radiocarbon dates of Late Gravettian and Epigravettian sites and layers of the Western Carpathians and the Middle Danube basin, calibrated using OxCal (Reimer et al., 2013), showing 95.4% probability (after: Antl–Weiser et al., 2010; Demidenko et al., 2017; Haesaerts et al., 1996, 2016; Kaminská, 2016; Lengyel 2008–2009; Oliva, 2009; Svoboda, 1991, 2008; Škrdla et al., 2016; Verpoorte, 2002; Vlačiky et al., 2013; Wilczyński, 2009; Wilczyński et al., 2012, 2015).
Gravettian in ECE, as we know today, is that Gravettian lithic hunting weapon tool types are absent in Epigravettian, such as the shouldered point, microgravette or Gravette point, Late Gravettian rectangle (ventrally bi-truncated and backed or steeply retouched bladelet), fléchette, and the bifacial leaf point (Fig. 3) (Kozłowski, 2013; Lengyel et al., 2016; Wilczyński, 2016). The Epigravettian during the FIS maximum has a low proportion of lithic armatures, which most often are simple backed bladelets (Lengyel, 2014a; Maier, 2015). However, after FIS started retreating, the later Epigravettian lithic inventories were again abundant in armatures, but without the style of the Gravettian weaponry (Lengyel, 2014a). The lithic assemblage of Ságvár entirely lacks the Gravettian armature types and has a decreased frequency of armature compared to the previous periods (Lengyel, 2014b). Only backed bladelets and retouched points were found in the armature. In the Hungarian Upper Palaeolithic chronology the “Gravettian
gion, the Magdalénian, arrived from western Europe, left abundant occupational remains only north of the Carpathians, and a few sites in Moravia, and none in the Carpathian Basin (Maier, 2015). The Magdalénian seems to have been partly coeval with the later Epigravettian phase. To support that Gravettian sites are not dated to the maximum extent of FIS, Fig. 1 presents calibrated radiocarbon dates from ECE. These derive from a database which includes only those dates with standard deviation less than 600 radiocarbon years. Fig. 1 shows the mean values of OxCal calibrated radiocarbon dates (Reimer et al., 2013) by layers of sites, and indicates the 95.4% probability. The sole overlap involves Mogyorósbánya (Hungary) and the lower layer of Kašov (Slovakia) (for site location see Fig. 2), at 100 years. Fig. 1 thus shows that the latest Gravettian occupations are not associated with the peak of the LGM, which in turn is highly correlated with the Epigravettian. The striking difference between the Epigravettian and the
2
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
G. Lengyel, J. Wilczyński
Fig. 2. Map showing the sites radiocarbon dated. 1: Grub–Kranawetberg, 2: Willendorf II, 3: Milovice, 4: Moravany–Žakovska, Moravany–Lopata II, Banka-Horné fraské role, 5: Kraków–Spadzista, 6: Cejkov I, Kašov, 7: Trenčianske Bohuslavice, 8: Jaksice II, 9: Petřkovice, 10: Mogyorósbánya, 11: Grubgraben, 12: Ságvár, 13: Madaras, 14: Stránská Skála IV, Brno–Štýřice III, 15: Mohelno–Plevovce, 16: Esztergom, 17: Targowisko 10, 18: Nadap.
human settlement at Ságvár was established under interstadial phases and mild climate (Gábori–Csánk, V., 1978; Sümegi et al., 1998). The results of Bösken et al. (2017) now presented sound evidence for cold glacial environment. However, because they did not bring new data to support the Gravettian classification of the site Ságvár, all of their achievements regarding human palaeoenvironment are relevant to the Epigravettian instead of the Gravettian. We think the classification scheme of GEM misled them to form this conclusion. Nevertheless, a thorougher reading of the archaeological literature would have helped them avoid this misunderstanding.
Entity Model” (GEM) (Dobosi, 2000) has been used to classify archaeological assemblages between 32 and 15 kyr BP. GEM can be misleading in the view of ECE research because it uses the term Gravettian for chronologically and culturally different hunter-gatherer populations, suggesting they are lineally related. However, even GEM distinguished Ságvár and the similar lithic industries from the chronologically earlier and later ones with sound archaeological data (Dobosi, 2000, 2004, 2016). This difference was enough significant to separate Ságvár and further Hungarian sites similar to Ságvár in a new group of the Epigravettian era of ECE, called Ságvárian, which was specific to the inner Carpathian basin (Kozłowski, 1979; Tolnai–Dobosi, V., 2001). The name Ságvárian recently was proposed to be eliminated, and Ságvár was classified Early Epigravettian (Lengyel, 2016). Bösken et al. (2017) concluded that Ságvár was occupied during a typical cold LGM climate. The revision of GEM's radiocarbon ages and the archaeological evidence of Ságvár also suggested cold environmental conditions for the human occupation (Lengyel 2008–2009, 2009, 2010, 2014b) instead of what had long been claimed, that the
Acknowledgments G. L. was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland, agreement No. UMO-2016/23/P/HS3/04034. J. W. was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland, agreement No. UMO-2015/18/E/ HS3/00178.
3
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
G. Lengyel, J. Wilczyński
Fig. 3. Armatures from the Late Gravettian (1–9), Epigravettian of LGM (10 −21), and the Epigravettian of post LGM (22–29). Jaksice II: 1–5; Kraków–Spadzista: 6–8; Trenčianske Bohuslavice: 9; Ságvár: 10–21; Nadap: 22, 23; Esztergom: 24–27; Targowisko 10: 28, 29. Fléchette: 1, 2; Backed ventrally truncated bladelet: 4, 5; Backed–truncated bladelet: 3; Gravette point: 6; Microgravette point: 7; Bifacial leaf point: 9; Shouldered point: 8; Abruptly retouched bladelet: 10, 21; Backed bladelet: 11–20. Curved backed point: 22, 24, 26–29; Arched backed point: 25; Backed point: 23 (composed from Kaminská, 2016: Fig. 7; Lengyel, 2016: Fig. 3, Wilczyński, 2009: Fig. 7; Wilczyński, 2015: Fig. 20; Wilczyński et al., 2015: Fig. 9).
perspectives (in Russian). Археологія і давня історія України 24, 38–52. Dobosi, V.T., 2000. Upper Palaeolithic research in Hungary – a situation report from 2000. Praehistoria 1, 149–159. Dobosi, V.T., 2004. After the golden age (Hungary between 20 and 16 ka BP). In: Dewez, M., Noiret, P., Teheux, E. (Eds.), The Upper Palaeolithic. General Sessions and Posters. Acts of the XIVth UISPP Congress, University of Liege, 2–8 September 2001, BAR International Series 1240. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 153–168. Dobosi, V.T., 2016. Tradition and modernity in the lithic assemblage of Mogyorósbánya Late Palaeolithic site. Acta Archaeol. Acad. Sci. Hung. 67, 5–30. Gábori–Csánk, V., 1978. Une oscillation climatique a la fin du Würm en Hongrie. Acta Archaeol. Acad. Sci. Hung. 30, 3–11. Grigorev, G.P., 1993. The Kostenki-Avdeevo archaeological culture and the WillendorfPavlov-Kostenki-Avdeevo cultural unity. In: Soffer, O., Praslov, N.D. (Eds.), From Kostenki to Clovis. Upper Paleolithic? Paleo-Indian Adaptations. Springer, New-York, pp. 51–65. Haesaerts, P., Damblon, F., Bachner, M., Trnka, G., 1996. Revised stratigraphy and chronology of the Willendorf II sequence, Lower Austria. Archaeol. Austriaca 80, 25–42. Haesaerts, P., Damblon, F., Neugebauer–Maresch, C., Einwögerer, T., 2016. Radiocarbon chronology of the Late Palaeolithic Loess Site of Kammern Grubgraben (Lower Austria). Archaeol. Austriaca 100, 271–277. Kaminská, L., 2016. Gravettian and Epigravettian lithics in Slovakia. Quat. Int. 406A,
References Anghelinu, M., Niță, L., Steguweit, L., 2012. Not that original after all: the chrono–cultural framework of the Upper Paleolithic on the Bistrița valley (Northeastern Romania). Arheol. Mold. 35, 7–46. Antl–Weiser, W., Fladerer, F.A., Nigst, Ph.R., 2010. Grub/Kranawetberg (Lower Austria) – insights into a Gravettian micro–region in Eastern Austria. In: Neugebauer–Maresch, Ch., Owen, L. (Eds.), New Aspects of the Central and Eastern European Upper Palaeolithic – Methods, Chronology, Technology and Subsistence. Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission, Band 72, OAW; Wien, pp. 231–245. Bösken, J., Sümegi, P., Zeeden, C., Klasen, N., Gulyás, S., Lehmkuhl, F., 2017. Investigating the last glacial Gravettian site ‘Ságvár Lyukas Hill’ (Hungary) and its paleoenvironmental and geochronological context using a multi-proxy approach. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo. 2017.08.010. Cârcimaru, M., Anghelinu, M., Nita, L., Margarit, M., Dumitrascu, V., Dimitru, F., Cosac, M., Carstina, O., 2007–2008. A cold season occupation during the LGM. The Early Epigravettian from Poiana Ciresului (Judetul Neamt, North–eastern Romania). Acta Archaeol. Carpath. 52–53, 27–58. Demidenko Yu, E., Škrdla, P., Rios-Garaizar, J., 2017. Epi-Aurignacian with SagaidakMuralovka-type microliths in the south of Eastern Europe and its European
4
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
G. Lengyel, J. Wilczyński
IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55 (4), 1869–1887. Škrdla, P., Nejman, L., Bartík, J., Rychtaříkova, T., Nikolajev, P., Eigner, J., Nývltova Fišáková, M., Novák, J., Polanská, M., 2016. Mohelno – a terminal Last Glacial Maximum industry with microlithic tools made on carenoidal blanks. Quat. Int. 406, 184–194. Stroeven, A.P., Hattestrand, C., Kleman, J., Heyman, J., Fabel, D., Fredin, O., Goodfellow, B.W., Harbor, J.M., Jansen, J.D., Olsen, L., Caffee, M.W., Fink, D., Lundqvist, J., Rosqvist, G.C., Stromberg, B., Jansson, K.N., 2015. Deglaciation of Fennoscandia. Quat. Sci. Rev. 147, 91–121. Sümegi, P., Krolopp, E., Hertelendi, E., 1998. A Ságvár–Lascaux interstadiális őskörnyezeti rekonstrukciója. Acta Geogr. Geol. Meteorol. Debrecina 34, 165–180. Svoboda, J., 1991. Stranská skála: Výsledky výzkumu v letech 1985–1987. Památky Archeol. 82, 5–47. Svoboda, J.A., 2007. The Gravettian on the Middle Danube. Paléo 19, 203–220. Svoboda, J., 2008. Formation of the archaeological layers, structure of the site and features. In: Svoboda, J. (Ed.), Petřkovice, on Shouldered Points and Female Figurines. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Institute of Archaeology, Brno, pp. 31–45. Svoboda, J., 2016. Settlement units and human fossils. Spatial context, stratigraphies and chronology. In: Svoboda, J. (Ed.), Chronostratigraphy, Paleoethnology, Paleoanthropology, Dolní Věstonice II, The Dolní Vestonice Studies. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Institute of Archaeology, Brno, pp. 16–48. Svoboda, J.A., Novák, M., 2004. Eastern Central Europe after the Upper Pleniglacial: changing points of observation. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 34, 463–477. Tolnai–Dobosi, V., 2001. About Ságvárian: chronological–cultural sketch of the Upper Palaeolithic in Hungary. In: Ginter, B., Drobniewicz, B., Kazior, B., Nowak, M., Poltowicz, M. (Eds.), Problems of the Stone Age in the Old World. Jagellonian University, Institute of Archaeology, Kraków, pp. 195–201. Verpoorte, A., 2002. Radiocarbon dating the Upper Palaeolithic of Slovakia: results, problems and prospect. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 32, 311–325. Verpoorte, A., 2004. Eastern Central Europe during the Pleniglacial. Antiquity 78, 257–266. Vlačiky, M., Michalík, T., Nývltová Fišáková, M., Nývlt, D., Moravcová, M., Králík, M., Kovanda, J., Péková, K., Přichystal, A., Dohnalová, A., 2013. Gravettian occupation of the Beckov Gate in western Slovakia as viewed from the interdisciplinary research of the Trenčianske Bohuslavice–Pod Tureckom site. Quat. Int. 294, 41–60. Wilczyński, J., 2009. Targowisko – a new Late Glacial site in southern Poland. Eurasian Prehistory 6, 95–118. Wilczyński, J., 2015. Lithic inventory discovered in the Kraków Spadzista Trench E1 – the results of the excavation carried out in 2012. In: Wojtal, P., Wilczyński, J., Haynes, G. (Eds.), A Gravettian Site in Southern Poland: Kraków Spadzista. ISEA PAS, Kraków, pp. 51–82. Wilczyński, J., 2016. Variability of Late Gravettian lithic industries in southern Poland: a case study of the Krakow Spadzista and Jaksice II sites. Quat. Int. 406A, 129–143. Wilczyński, J., Wojtal, P., Sobczyk, K., 2012. Spatial organization of the Gravettian mammoth hunters site – Kraków Spadzista (southern Poland). J. Archaeol. Sci. 39, 3627–3642. Wilczyński, J., Wojtal, P., Łanczont, M., Mroczek, P., Sobieraj, D., Fedorowicz, S., 2015. Loess, flints and bones: multidisciplinary research at Jaksice II Gravettian site (southern Poland). Quat. Int. 359–360, 114–130.
144–165. Kozłowski, J.K., 1979. La fin des temps glaciaires dans le bassin du Danube moyen et inferéeur. In: de Sonneville–Bordes, D. (Ed.), La fin des temps glaciaires en Europe. CNRS, Paris, pp. 821–835. Kozłowski, J.K., 1996a. The Danubian Gravettian as seen from the northern perspective. In: Svoboda, J. (Ed.), Paleolithic in the middle Danube region. Archeologický ústav AV ČR, Brno, pp. 11–22. Kozłowski, J.K., 1996b. The latest Aurignacian and “Aurignacoid” elements in the Epigravettian of the Carpathian Basin. In: Palma di Cesnola, A., Montet–White, A. (Eds.), The Late Aurignacian, Colloquia of the XIII International Congress of the U.I.S.P.P. (Forli). The Upper Palaeolithic Vol. 6. A.B.A.C.O., Forli, pp. 83–98. Kozłowski, J.K., 2007. Gravettian north of the Carpathians and of the Sudetes. Paléo 19, 221–241. Kozłowski, J.K., 2013. Raw materials procurement in the Late Gravettian of the Carpathian Basin. In: Mester, Zs (Ed.), The Lithic Raw Material Sources and the Interregional Human Contacts in the Northern Carpathian Regions. Polska Akademia Umiejętności, Kraków–Budapest, pp. 63–85. Lengyel, G., 2008–2009. Radiocarbon dates of the “Gravettian Entity” in Hungary. Praehistoria 9–10, 241–263. Lengyel, G., 2009. A ságvári felső paleolit telep és a Kárpát–medencei Gravetti kőnyersanyagai. In: Ilon, G. (Ed.), MOMOSZ VI. Őskoros Kutatók VI. Összejövetelének konferenciakötete. KÖSZ & VMMI, Szombathely, pp. 223–231. Lengyel, G., 2010. An aspect to the re–evaluation of Ságvár (Lyukas–domb) Upper Palaeolithic site. Folia Archaeol. 54, 25–37. Lengyel, G., 2014a. Backed tool technology at Esztergom–Gyurgyalag Epigravettian site in Hungary. In: Biró, K.T., Markó, A., Bajnok, K.P. (Eds.), Aeolian Scripts: New Ideas on the Lithic World, Studies In Honour of Viola T. Dobosi. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest, pp. 121–129. Lengyel, G., 2014b. Distant connection changes from the Early Gravettian to the Epigravettian in Hungary. In: Otte, M., le Brun–Ricalens, F. (Eds.), Modes de contacts et de déplacements au Paléolithique eurasiatique: Modes of contact and mobility during the Eurasian Palaeolithic ERAUL 140 – ArhéoLogiques 5. Université de Liege, Liege–Luxembourg, pp. 331–347. Lengyel, G., 2016. Reassessing the Middle and Late Upper Palaeolithic in Hungary. Acta Archaeol. Carpath. 51, 47–66. Lengyel, G., Mester, Z., Szolyák, P., 2016. The Late Gravettian and Szeleta Cave, northeast Hungary. Quat. Int. 406A, 174–183. Maier, A., 2015. The Central European Magdalenian: Regional Diversity and Internal Variability. Springer, New York. Marks, L., 2012. Timing of the Late Vistulian (Weichselian) glacial phases in Poland. Quat. Sci. Rev. 44, 81–88. Moreau, L., 2009. Geißenklösterle. Das Gravettien der Schwäbischen Alb im europäischen Kontext. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen. Oliva, M., 2009. Geography, stratigraphy and dating. In: Oliva, M. (Ed.), Milovice: Site of the Mammoth People Below the Pavlov Hills. Moravské Zemské Museum, Brno, pp. 22–24. Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C.E., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P., Haflidason, H., Hajdas, I., Hatté, C., Heaton, T.J., Hoffman, D.L., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer, B., Manning, S.W., Niu, M., Reimer, R.W., Richards, D.A., Scott, E.M., Southon, J.R., Staff, R.A., Turney, C.S.M., van der Plicht, J., 2013.
5