The public and private use of space in Magdalenian societies: Evidence from Oelknitz 3, LOP (Thuringia, Germany)

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 361–375

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

The public and private use of space in Magdalenian societies: Evidence from Oelknitz 3, LOP (Thuringia, Germany) Sabine Gaudzinski-Windheuser ⇑ MONREPOS Archaeological Research Centre and Museum for Human Behavioural Evolution, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Germany Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Institut für Altertumskunde, Arbeitsbereich Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie, Schloss Monrepos, 56567 Neuwied, Germany

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 10 January 2014 Revision received 3 September 2015

Keywords: Private and public use of space Magdalenian Oelknitz Spatial analysis Dwelling structure Activity zones Settlement behaviour

a b s t r a c t The site of Oelknitz (Thuringia, Germany) is among the largest and in terms of spatial organisation most complex Magdalenian open air sites known to date, rich in evident structures. The current paper reports evidence from the youngest, latest phase of occupation at Oelknitz Structure 3. It is demonstrated that this structure represents a dwelling construction characterised by different spatially distinct activity zones. Several hypotheses can be drawn from this evidence in order to understand basic principles on Magdalenians’ settlement behaviour and their social cohesion. Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The reconstruction of past hominin behaviour is among the most important research goals in current Pleistocene Archaeology. Hominin behavioural strategies based on the study of material remains are often used for inferences on the complexity of hominins’ cognitive capacities and/or the social complexity of hominin populations. The disentangling of past hominin behaviour is closely intertwined with studies on the spatial and temporal resolution of the archaeological substrate analysed (Gaudzinski-Windheuser et al., 2011; Leroi-Gourhan and Brézillon, 1966, 1973; Pigeot, 1984, 1987; Audouze et al., 1984; Julien et al., 1988; Terberger, 1997; Enloe and David, 1989; Bullinger et al., 2006; Pumettaz, 2007; Sensburg, 2007; Sensburg and Moseler, 2007; Street and Turner, 2013). Piece plotting of artefacts and bones and their quantitative spatial distribution, piece plotting of elements with defined taphonomic variables, refitting studies on lithics, stones and bones and micromorphological studies on sediment formation are employed to narrow down the temporal resolution of the past hominin activities and their relation to each other. Two basic concepts were introduced to outline the chronological and chorological perspectives of the archaeological record: the ‘‘living-floor” and the ‘‘palimpsest” concepts. Whereas the concept ⇑ Address: MONREPOS Archaeological Research Centre and Museum for Human Behavioural Evolution, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Germany. E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2015.09.001 0278-4165/Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

of the ‘‘living-floor” encompasses spatially and temporally highly restricted, more or less contemporaneous hominin activities (Villa, 1976, 2004), a palimpsest refers to the superimposition of an unknown number of biotic and abiotic activities and processes which might have become transformed, disrupted and/or partly erased during the process of conflation into a single archaeological spatial unit (e.g. Bailey, 1981, 2007). The introduction of these concepts was not immediately useful with regard to proposals for hominin behavioural strategies during the Pleistocene. Though these concepts sharpened our awareness of the time-scale perspective in archaeological assemblages this awareness often led either to an overall reluctance to draw wider-ranging inferences on hominin behavioural strategies from the archaeological record or even to an over-interpretation. Various reasons are responsible here. Among them is the complexity of the ‘‘palimpsest” concept (compare Bailey, 2007). Depending on the scale of temporal resolution, all archaeological assemblages must literally be considered as palimpsests (Bailey, 2007). A further aspect refers to the rather ambiguous conceptuality of the ‘‘living floor” that was never quantitatively defined. Due to the high variability of the Pleistocene archaeological record, these factors, among others, led to a highly inconsistent use of both terms. What we are basically facing here is the lack of correspondence between different scales of time preserved in the archaeological record, i.e. the time and duration of the action of an individual and the geological time represented by the sedimentological milieu in which these actions are embedded (Vaquero et al., 2012a).

362

S. Gaudzinski-Windheuser / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 361–375

Against this background and in order to answer behavioural questions claims have been made to allocate the abstract concept of the archaeological level a lower ranking significance and instead define assemblages according to a behavioural scale of time in that behavioural meaning should be disentangled from events that form and shape the archaeological record (Vaquero, 2008). This approach was successfully applied to high resolution Middle Palaeolithic sites (Vaquero, 2008; Vaquero et al., 2012a, 2012b). However, for the majority of Middle Palaeolithic palimpsest sites suffering from low rates of sedimentation and low spatial and chronological resolution, this approach presents us with analytical challenges. Though spatial patterning is a reoccurring latent feature in the Middle Palaeolithic, these patterns still represent palimpsests where it is, at best, only possible to impose general long term trends in behaviour. The aspect of the importance of the scale of temporal resolution has also repeatedly been emphasised for the analysis of Upper Palaeolithic high resolution archives (Julien et al., 1992). With the Early Upper Palaeolithic in Europe humans start to systematically organise their living space and it is here at the boundary from the Early to the Middle Upper Palaeolithic that we witness the origins of dwelling. From now on the archaeological record repeatedly reveals spatial evidence which we sometimes easily interpret as habitation structures as this evidence shares characteristics which are familiar to us due to ethnographic preconceptions and/or ethnographic analogies. However, also for these high resolution sites different conceptions in the temporal scale of resolution of an archaeological dataset can lead to fundamentally different interpretation about the character of these allegedly easily to read records. The Magdalenian site of Gönnersdorf (Germany) provides us with a good example here. Studies on lithic raw-materials combined with the overall spatial record could demonstrate a distinct stratigraphy of raw-materials documented in some of the pit structures (Terberger, 1997). This evidence led to the overall perception that the site and its site furniture was consecutively reused by groups coming from different territorial catchment areas carrying these differing raw-materials. This interpretation put its mark on Gönnersdorf in that it defined the scale of resolution for all consecutive interpretations of other aspects of the archaeological evidence at Gönnersdorf. Recent faunal studies (Street and Turner, 2013) indicated though that Gönnersdorf must be looked upon as a camp site that was continuously occupied for most of the year. This interpretation set the agenda for a different and much higher scale of resolution that was from now on applied for interpretations at Gönnersdorf. In consequence the site is now perceived as a camp site where groups from different catchment areas met and subsisted together throughout the majority of the year (Street and Turner, 2013). The Gönnersdorf example demonstrates the importance of defining a general scale of resolution when analysing and interpreting complex Magdalenian open-air sites. A clearly defined scale of resolution which could easily be revised if need be, leads to homogeneous interpretations especially for sites which must be analysed by a large team of researchers. Gönnersdorf also shows that faunal analysis could have a great potential to provide the general scale of resolution with which a site could be interpreted and it demonstrates the importance to comprehend spatial structures as they open a window into past social interactions and cultural identities. Defining a general scale of resolution enables the consideration of ‘‘activity systems”, organised in time and space (Rapoport, 1990). ‘‘Activity systems” describe human motivations and activities as an expression of and shaped by a common idea, a common identity (Rapoport, 1990). Their identification enables us to draw conclusions on the meaning of the archaeological record as an expression of the internal setup and organisation of Upper Palaeolithic

societies. ‘‘Activity systems” are embedded in ‘‘systems of settings”, i.e. settlement structures and structures, including outdoor areas and/or entire cultural landscapes (Rapoport, 1990). The current paper reports findings from the Magdalenian site of Oelknitz (Germany), one of the largest and most complex Magdalenian open-air sites known to date (Gaudzinski-Windheuser, 2013). With Oelknitz 3, LOP an analytical unit was chosen which takes the concept of a behavioural scale in time into consideration, representing a variety of individual behavioural episodes preserved in the archaeological record. Faunal analysis provides the scale of resolution in that evidence is given that the structure was occupied in spring. The record provides a very rare example for the interplay between the public and private use of space in Magdalenian societies. Why is this of relevance? With the beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic in Europe humans started to weave a world beyond what could be perceived solely from their senses. This is illustrated amply by anthropomorphic creatures such as the ca. 40.000 year old ‘‘Lion Man” from Hohlestein-Stadel in Germany or the ca. 17.000 year old ‘‘Horned God” from Les Trois Frères in France (Hahn, 1970; Clottes and Lewis-Williams, 1996) or by burial practices that started around 35.000 years ago. With that we catch a momentary glimpse at a cosmology that provided a system of values and it is not farfetched to assume that just like today this cosmology was at the base of rules and regulations according to which these earliest societies organised their every-day life. These rules and regulations can be identified in various archaeological sources from the Upper Palaeolithic record (e.g. female figurines, Gaudzinski-Windheuer and Jöris, 2015). They become particularly apparent, however, in how humans organised their living space where we encounter the presence and / or absence of spatial patterning in the larger settlements so characteristic especially for the late Magdalenian. With the spatial analyses of these sites we are tracking rules and regulations and thus the social glue that determined the earliest societies of Europe. Recent spatial studies based on zooarchaeological evidence at the late Magdalenian site of Gönnersdorf (Germany) (Street and Turner, 2013) identified areas where a specific task was mastered by common efforts, which is otherwise only revealed to us by engravings left on slate (e.g. from Gönnersdorf, plate No. 67b, late Magdalenian) (Bosinski et al., 2001). In contrast, the role of the individual and thus the concept of privacy has to the authoress’ knowledge, not been addressed by a spatial study of the archaeological record. This however is of great importance for our understanding these earliest societies as considered in context, it provides insight into the systems of values behind the set of social rules and regulations that we occasionally encounter in the late Magdalenian archaeological record. It is against this background that the analysis of spatial structures became a focus of research attention at the MONREPOS Archaeological Research Centre and Museum for Human Behavioural Evolution where this evidence is studied with a diachronous, holistic research strategy. 2. The Magdalenian site of Oelknitz The site of Oelknitz (Thuringia, Germany) is among the largest and in terms of spatial organisation most complex Magdalenian open air sites known to date. Main excavations at Oelknitz were undertaken from 1957 to 1967 by Günther Behm-Blancke and Rudolf Feustel (Behm-Blancke, 1976; Feustel, 1989). In the course of these excavations a total area of ca. 850 m2 was uncovered. The archaeological record is characterised by seven areas of spatially distinct concentrations of finds (Structures 1–7) (Fig. 1). The segmentation of the spatial record is based on the deductive evaluation of the spatial distribution of stone blocs, lithics, bones

S. Gaudzinski-Windheuser / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 361–375

(Fig. 1, above) and pits, hearth structures and soil discolorations (Fig. 1, below) (Gaudzinski-Windheuser, 2013). The structures are different in character and display circular arrangements of stone blocks (Oelknitz 2), or stone slabs and blocks, lithic material and faunal remains (Oelknitz 1 and 4) or wreath-shaped arrangements of stone enclosing an empty interior (Oelknitz 3). These structures can be accompanied by numerous pits and/or hearths and/or circular features of soil discoloration (Oelknitz 3 and 7). Two areas of disturbance from earlier excavations run through the site in a North–South direction (Fig. 1). Already at first sight it is striking that latent and evident features, among them especially numerous pits, overlap in their spatial distribution indicating that the site was occupied more than once (Fig. 1, below). In order to evaluate their contemporaneity their internal stratigraphy was analysed showing that they have been dug from different horizontal levels. Combined reading of this evidence together with numerous other indicators showed that an early phase of occupation (EOP) can clearly be distinguished from a last phase of occupation (LOP) (Gaudzinski-Windheuser, 2011, 2013). The temporal offset between the two phases of occupation could not be measured with 14C dating.

363

Excavation at Oelknitz during the 1950s and 1960s focussed on the documentation of the numerous evident structures found at the site. These features were meticulously documented by drawings (Scale 1:10 and 1:20) as well as by an exhaustive photo documentation. The position of bones and lithics and other find materials was also documented in that way and the comparison between the two types of documentation witnesses a remarkable attention to detail. Unfortunately, only the find material that was found deposited in the pits was labelled, so that only the origin of these finds is still known today. All other finds which were associated with the find horizon, from which the pits had been dug, were stored according to a very general spatial attribution. As a result the 3-dimensional provenance of the majority of finds is unknown and their provenance can only be attributed to particular areas within the individual structures. 3. Evidence from Oelknitz 3, LOP The current paper reports the LOP evidence of Oelknitz 3, located in the south-western part of the site. It will be demonstrated that Oelknitz 3 LOP represents a dwelling for which distinct

Fig. 1. Groundplan of the open air site of Oelknitz. Above: spatial distribution of lithics, bones and unmodified stones. Below: spatial distribution of pits (hatched structures), hearths (outlined in black and labelled ‘‘Herd”) and soil colourings (outlined in black) located underneath the spatial distribution of lithics, bones and unmodified stones (Fig. 1 above). Areas of disturbance are indicated with the label ‘‘Störung Neumann”. The dashed lines indicate the subdivision of the spatial archaeological record into workunits for analysis and labelled ‘‘Structure 1–7”.

364

S. Gaudzinski-Windheuser / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 361–375

activity areas can be distinguished. AMS dates give ages about 12.630 ± 75 uncal. BP (OxA-8076), 12.670 ± 110 uncal. BP (OxA5717) and 12.790 ± 110 uncal. BP (OxA-5716) (Hedges et al., 1998). Oelknitz 3 (Fig. 2) spreads across an area of ca. 60 m2 and is clearly separated from Oelknitz 1, 2 and 4 by zones containing only very few finds (compare Fig. 1). The eastern part of the structure is disturbed by an older excavation undertaken during the 1930s during which part of the find horizon was destroyed (‘‘Störung Neumann”). The pits remained unaffected by these investigations and were excavated and documented together with the remaining evidence during the 1950s and 60s. Oelknitz 3 is characterised by the spatial distribution of stone blocks, which are arranged to form an approximately circular structure. In the centre a large concentration of charcoal (Fig. 2 and 47/60) was documented and interpreted as remains of a fire. The area around the fire, i.e. the centre of the annular structure contains hardly any bones and lithics. Only some finds were found disentangled between the stone blocks. In addition bones and lithic artefacts form a distinct triangular spatial concentration in the southern part of Oelknitz 3. Due to their internal stratigraphy over 70 pits (Pits 21/58, 22/28, 23/58, 24/58, 25/58, 26/58, 27/58, 28/58, 29/58, 1/60, 2/60, 3/60, 4/60, 5/60, 6/60, 7/60, 10/60, 11/60, 15/60, 16/60, 17/60, 18a/60, 19/60, 21/60, 24/60, 25/60, 27/60, 28/60, 30/60, 31/60, 33/60, 35/60, 37/60, 38/60, 39/60, 50/60, 51/60, 52/60, 53/60, 57/60, 58/60, 62/60, 64/60, 65/60, 68/60, 71/60, 75/60, 76/60, 79/60, 80/60, 82/60, 83/60, 84/60, 87/60, 88/60, 90/60, 91/60, 92/60, 93/60, 97/60, 101/60, 102/60, 103/60, 106/60, 108/60, 109/60, 110/60, 115/60, 118/60, 119/60, 120/60 und 121/60) (Fig. 2) were identified to accompany and underline the annular arrangement of finds in Oelknitz 3, LOP (Gaudzinski-Windheuser, 2013). The eastern boundary of Oelknitz 3 is characterised by soil discolorations which together with the pits 28/58, 27/58, 21/58, 25/58, 23/58, 22/58, and 24/58 follow a segment-shaped form (Fig. 2). In general the pits are characterised by different sizes and shapes and most of them are filled with bones and lithics. In order to more closely determine the character of the pits, their vertical and horizontal shape, depth, contents as well as information on their microstratigraphy were analysed (Gaudzinski-Windheuser, 2013). At Oelknitz small pits with a coloured fill up to 20 cm in depth occasionally display an infilling that could clearly be interpreted as wedging. Apart from the wedging, these pits are usually empty. Pits 113/60 and 32/60 (Fig. 3) serve as examples here. Therefore features with a coloured fill, measuring 10–20 cm in depth and up to 20 cm in diameter were interpreted as post stands. The overwhelming majority of these features produced no finds. Thus, for Oelknitz 3 LOP it was argued that the following pits resulted presumably from post stands: pits 2/60, 5/60, 21/60, 35/60, 39/60, 52/60, 62/60, 64/60, 68/60, 80/60, 87/60, 92/60, 103/60, 115/60. The following pits show multiple phases of use and have also been interpreted as post stands in their last phase of use: 24/60, 31/60, 79/60, 93/60, 119/60 (Fig. 2, Gaudzinski-Windheuser, 2013). Other pits can be interpreted in terms of ‘‘caches”. This is suggested by an analysis of the content of the pits as well as by their depths and width (Gaudzinski-Windheuser, 2013). Examples for pits interpreted as caches are given in Fig. 4, illustrating pit 75/60 and 7/60. Pit 75/60 served as a depot for tool blanks, pit 7/60 must be interpreted as an antler depot, which will be outlined below. 4. Material and methods Due to the method of documentation applied during excavation at Oelknitz, spatial studies had to focus on the graphic documentation (Fig. 2) combined with results from the analysis of the findmaterial uncovered from the pits.

Altogether the find material recovered from the pits comprises ca. 1750 elements. Among them are lithics (n = 1338), animal bones and teeth (n = 442), organic tools or tool production debris (n = 27), modified and/or unmodified rocks (n = 18). For taxonomic identification of the bone assemblage the comparative collection of MONREPOS Archaeological Research Centre and Museum for Human Behavioural Evolution was used. Skeletal elements were quantified according to the following criteria: the number of identified specimens (NISP), the minimum number of individuals (MNI), the number of skeletal elements (MNE), and the minimum number of animal units (MAU) (Lyman, 1994). MNI were calculated counting the most common anatomical part of a particular taxon taking into account body side, age and sex. In the current context the analysis of the lithic assemblage was restricted to document the qualitative and quantitative composition. Analysis of the raw-materials used for tool production was undertaken using the lithic comparative collection of MONREPOS Archaeological Research Centre and Museum for Human Behavioural Evolution. In order to characterise more clearly the spatial record uncovered from the find horizon, size plotting of finds was undertaken. The study had to be restricted to the analysis of the photo- and drawn documentation. Both sets of documents were digitalised and the individual finds were measured from the plans for their length and width and were plotted for different size categories. Size plotting considered elements up to 10 cm length, elements between 10 and 20 cm and finds larger than 20 cm. The graphic documentation distinguishes between unmodified stone blocks, lithics and bones. For this analytical step results revealed for the different find categories were compiled to a single sample. Refitting studies were also implemented focussing on bones and lithics. For the current analysis the significance of refitting studies cannot be developed to its full potential due to the method of documentation applied during excavation at Oelknitz. However, despite a lack of information on the exact provenance of individual finds forming the find horizon, refitting studies have the potential to demonstrate a contemporaneity between finds forming the find horizon and finds deposited in pits underneath the find horizon. Moreover refitting studies permitted an evaluation of whether the contents of the pits represent a homogeneous deposition of finds resulting from a short use life of the pit or finds that accumulated over a long period of time as result of a long use life of the evident structure(s). These studies can also provide indications for the contemporaneous use of neighbouring pits. Finally, qualitative and quantitative piece plotting per pit was undertaken to characterise their contents. It is assumed that the spatial association of particular finds and/or find categories within pits or in pits located next to each other can be used to argue for the contemporaneity of finds and thus serve to evaluate the idea of spatially restricted activity areas. 5. Results 5.1. Studies on organic find material A total of 442 bones and teeth were uncovered from the pits attributed to Oelknitz 3, LOP. Of these 264 bones and teeth could be determined taxonomically (Table 1). The faunal remains are homogeneously well preserved. Five large mammal species are present, representing a MNI of 13. Bird bones complete the assemblage. With an MNI of 5, horse is the most common taxon in the assemblage. The skeletal element representation for horse is dominated by humerus, femur and the metatarsus that have a high nutritional value (Table 2) (Fig. 5) (Gaudzinski-Windheuser, 2013). Bones from juvenile individuals represent a complete foetal

S. Gaudzinski-Windheuser / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 361–375

365

Fig. 2. Oelkniz. Groundplan for Oelknitz 3, LOP viewed from the North. Lithics and unmodified stone slabs are given in black, bones are indicated in light grey. The hatched structures indicate pits. Pits interpreted as post stands in their last phase of use are given in dark grey. Areas outlined in black indicate soil-discolorations. Dotted areas indicate charcoal concentrations. ‘‘Störung Neumann” indicates a zone of disturbance. The photo shows the situation in the field from the South. The arrow indicates the position of a large stone slab for orientation.

366

S. Gaudzinski-Windheuser / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 361–375

Fig. 3. Oelknitz 3. Left: Pit 113/60. The upper part of the pit with traces of post packing is separated by sterile sediment from an earlier phase of use. Right: Pit 32/60 with traces of post packing.

Fig. 4. Oelknitz 3, LOP. Pit 75/60 (left) and Pit 7/60 (right).

horse humerus. The length of the diaphysis (677 mm) corresponds to the length of a recent warmblood foetus in its 29–33th week (compare Habermehl, 1961) indicating that its mother died in spring. Among the reindeer remains antler fragments (n = 22) most of them displaying human modification represent the most common element. For Vulpes lagous mandibles (MNE = 7), humeri (MNE = 3) and tibiae (MNE = 6) were frequently documented. For Lepus mainly humeri (MNE = 3) and scapulae (MNE = 4) were recorded.

Table 1 Large mammal and bird remains, Oelknitz 3, LOP. NISP = number of identified specimen per taxon, NISPC = number of identified specimen per taxon with cut marks and/or traces of marrow processing. NISPG = number of identified specimen per taxon with traces of carnivore gnawing. NISPjuv = number of identified specimen per taxon, young individuals. MNI = Minimum number of individuals calculated from NISP including age classes.

Aves Lepus europaeus Vulpes lagopus Equus sp. Rangifer tarandus Mammuthus primigenius n

NISP

NISPC

NISPG

NISPjuv

MNI

14 13 25 181 30 1 264

6 1 2 25 12 1 47

– – – 1 – – 1

– – – 10 – – 10

4 2 4 5 1 1 17

Finally, among the birds Anser anser is only represented by three ulnae with traces of human modification. Apart from reindeer, faunal elements of all species are characterised by anthropogenic modification attesting to the butchery of the individuals. Carnivore gnawing was not observed. It is striking that articulating faunal elements occur in similar frequency for the different species indicating articulation of parts of their skeletons during deposition (Gaudzinski-Windheuser, 2013). This is also underlined by articulating horse remains found together in the same pit within Oelknitz 3, LOP (see below). The assemblage is completed by a fossil shark-tooth. It can be excluded that the tooth had been part of the sedimentary matrix in which the Magdalenian finds survived. Thus the tooth must have been collected by humans. In addition to the faunal assemblage, organic tools or tool production debris (n = 27) was also recovered from the pits. Among these were worked ivory representing female figurines and their production waste (Fig. 6.1). A further longitudinal ivory fragment shows pitting of its surface indicating the use of the fragments as a retoucher. Moreover numerous antler fragments showing traces of splintremoval were recorded (Fig. 6.2). Fragments of a baton (Fig. 6.3) and a complete projectile point (Fig. 6.4) made of antler complete the assemblage. An entire antler beam with a tip showing distinct red coloration is also part of this assemblage.

S. Gaudzinski-Windheuser / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 361–375 Table 2 Qualitative and quantitative composition of horse, Oelknitz 3, LOP. NISP = number of identified specimen per taxon, MNE sin. = Minimum number of left elements, MNE dext. = Minimum number of right elements, MAU = Minimun Animal Units. Molar fragments of horse are not listed in the table.

Mandible Maxilla Ribs Cervical Thoracal Caudal Vertebrae Fragments Scapula Humerus Radius Ulna Metacarpus Carpale Oc coxae Patella Femur Tibia Metatarsus Mt4 Tarsale/Carpale Sesamoid Phalanx 1 Phalanx 2 Phalanx 3

NISP

MNE sin.

MNE indet.

MNE dext.

13 8 57 5 1 1 2 1 8 2 1 4 6 2 1 13 2 9 2 10 1 5 3 5

1 1 – – – – – – 5 1 – 1 1 – – 2 – 4 – 4 1 – – –

1 2 4 5 1 1 3 – – – – 1 – 1 – 1 – 4 1 3 – 5 2 4

1 1 – – – – 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 – 1 5 2 1 1 3 – – – –

%MAU 33.3 44.4 – 15.5 1.5 1.5 11.1 77.7 22.2 11.1 44.4 – – – 88.8 22.2 100 – – – 27.7 11.1 22.2

Bone fragments showing traces of working have been interpreted as debris from splint-removal and from the production of female figurines (Gaudzinski-Windheuser, 2013). 5.2. Study of inorganic find material Lithics (n = 1338) form major part of the find material uncovered from the pits. The lithic assemblage was produced from Baltic Flint. Only four tools and a core made on Devonian Quartzite. About 8% of the total assemblage consists of cores and coreproduction debris, whereas with ca. 20% the percentage of tools within the assemblages is relatively high. Cores (n = 21), flakes (n = 371), chips (n = 86), blades (n = 174) and blade fragments (n = 251) were documented in addition to various tools (n = 219) and debris. The majority of the lithics does not exceed 85 mm in length, although blades up to 210 mm were documented. Among the tools

367

burins dominate the assemblage with a frequency of 36% followed by scrapers with 25.6% and backed bladelets with 14.2% (Table 3) (Gaudzinski-Windheuser, 2013). The assemblage also contains unmodified schist and slate fragments, as well as fragments of siliceous clay, sandstone and travertine. In addition, pebbles survived within the assemblage with anthropogenic traces indicating their use as smoothers or retouchers. A pebble showing a horse shot in the heart by an arrow was also recovered (Fig. 7). Finally, modified and/or unmodified rocks (n = 18) complete the assemblage. Among them are quartz fragments altered by heat. Retouched slate fragments which most probably represent female figurines are also present (n = 4) (Fig. 8), as well as 3 worked sandstone geodes which could have been used as lamps. Moreover the fragment of a slate plaquette showing part of a horse head was also documented (Gaudzinski-Windheuser, 2013). 5.3. Size plotting The maximum spatial extension of lithics, bones and stone blocks on the find horizon is clearly annularly restricted, a spatial pattern that opens up to the South (Fig. 9d). The maximum dispersal of finds extends in North–South direction to 6,50 m and to 6,20 m in West-East direction. Size plotting of elements larger than 20 cm already reveal the annular setup of the spatial structure and moreover distinguish an inner subdivision into an inner and an outer annular ring mostly formed by unmodified stone blocks (Fig. 9a). The inner and outer annular rings envelope the centre of Oelknitz 3, LOP which is more or less void of finds but characterised by a soil discoloration and a charcoal concentration interpreted to result from the presence of a fire (Figs. 2 and 9a). Size plotting of the next smaller category of finds (elements 100–200 mm in size) reveals a further element of spatial organisation (Fig. 9b). It becomes apparent that the area between the inner and the outer annular rings is further subdivided by three clearly defined roundish find patches isolated from each other. The spatial extension of the individual patch exactly fits and fills the space between the inner and outer annular ring (Fig. 9b). This pattern of spatial organisation is consolidated by evidence from size plotting of the next smaller category, finds smaller than 100 mm (Fig. 9c). According to this evidence two additional circular concentrations of finds can be identified. A further, smaller circular arrangement of finds smaller than 100 mm is located outside the annularly shaped structure, in the North-West (Fig. 9d).

Fig. 5. %-Mau for horses, Oelknitz 3, LOP.

368

S. Gaudzinski-Windheuser / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 361–375

Fig. 6. Oelknitz 3, LOP. 6.1 Ivory. Female figurines. 6.2 Antler. Worked antler beam. 6.3 Fragment of a baton. 6.4 Projectile point.

Table 3 Qualitative and quantitative composition of lithic tools, calculated according to the functional parts of the tools, Oelknitz 3, LOP.

Scraper Burin Bohrer Backed badelet Rückenspitzen Retouched blade Splintered piece Total

n

%

66 93 26 37 3 4 30 259

25.6 36 10 14.2 1.1 1.5 11.6 100

Fig. 7. Oelknitz 3, LOP. Engraved gravel.

S. Gaudzinski-Windheuser / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 361–375

369

The annular organisation of Oelknitz 3, LOP is basically borne by the spatial distribution of lithics and stone blocks. Bones are restricted to the eastern rim of the structure. Here, their spatial distribution follows the extension of soil-discolorations and the spatial distribution pattern of the pits. Bones form also part of a triangular concentration of finds in the southern part of the structure (Fig. 9d). These aspects are evident from the graphic documentation of the find horizon and should not be commented upon as the quantitative composition of the finds cannot be reconstructed for the different sectors of Oelknitz 3, LOP. 5.4. Refitting studies

Fig. 8. Oelknitz 3, LOP. Female figurines made from gravels.

In several cases these circular concentration of finds in the find horizon cover particular pit structures. These pits were analysed for their contents and these studies justify an interpretation as caches for raw-material for some of these pits as will be described below. Moreover, size plotting of the smaller size categories reveal an isolated triangularly formed accumulation of finds in the southern part of the structure, encompassed by the annularly shaped arrangement of stone blocks (Fig. 9b and c). The spatial extension of the overall maximum spatial distribution of finds of all size classes at Oelknitz 3, LOP is congruent with the overall annularly shaped spatial pattern mainly revealed by size plotting of the largest category (Fig. 9d). Moreover, dark soildiscolorations together with the spatial distribution pattern of the pits form the eastern boundary of the structure (Fig. 9d). In the southern and western part of Oelknitz 3, LOP the spatial extension of the pit distribution overlap with the maximum spatial extension of finds of all size classes. Only in the North the spatial distribution of pits exceeds the maximum spatial extension of finds though their spatial arrangement traces the run of the annular structure described above (Fig. 9d). The congruence and correlation of the various elements of the spatial record indicate the contemporaneity of the latent and evident facets that form the archaeological evidence of Oelknitz 3, LOP.

The overwhelming majority of the finds from the find horizon consisted of unmodified stones and stone blocks. This category of finds is only very rarely documented among the content of the various pits. On the other hand, bones and lithics numerously recorded in pits were only occasionally found on the find horizon (Fig. 2). As a result a refitting between finds from the find horizon and finds originating from pits could not be archived. Refitting of lithics was successfully undertaken within Pit 75/60 (Fig. 4). The content of the pit represents numerous blade fragments made from Baltic flint. These fragments could be refitted to from 8 complete and two incomplete blades with a length up to 21 cm. The blades were intentionally broken and could again be refitted to form part of a large blade core. At Oelknitz the primary raw-material used for tool production was Baltic flint. Exposures of Baltic flint come from the Elsterian till located at a distance of ca. 10 km from the site. The flint collected from this southern till is often fissured and the nodules are often fragmented with signs of cracking. As the overwhelming majority of lithics from Oelknitz do not exceed 100 mm in length it is most probable that the raw-material used in production was locally sourced. As raw-material which enables the production of large blades cannot be found locally, the flint must have been brought in from a longer distance. Qualitatively excellent Baltic flint which could have served the purpose is exposed in the Saalian till. These exposures can be found at a distance of 50–80 km from the site. Hence, analysis of the raw-material underlines the assumption that pit 75/60 served the purpose of a depot. It should be remarked upon that a female figurine was also part of the infilling of this pit. Evidence for refitting also comes from pit 30/58. Here the left metatarsal of a horse could be fitted to a cuneiform and a cuboid, indicating that this skeletal element was deposited in the pit when still in articulation. It should be mentioned that numerous lithic refits within pits have been observed in Oelknitz 3, EOP (Gaudzinski-Windheuser, 2013). Raw-material analysis indicates that even in cases where flakes could not be directly refitted, they were produced from the same flint nodule. Remnants of a particular flint nodules were found spatially distributed over adjacent pits (GaudzinskiWindheuser, 2013). Comparable results cannot be reported for Oelknitz 3, LOP. Refitting studies undertaken could not demonstrate the integrity and homogeneity of the contents of all pits. However, these studies could demonstrate the relatively short use life for some of the pits, a fact that could be interpreted to reflect spatially concentrated activity areas. The fact that lithics could not be refitted between several pits underlines this interpretation. 5.5. Results of the qualitative and quantitative find plotting Evidence from refitting studies indicate the integrity of the pit infill for at least part of the evidence found at Oelknitz 3, LOP. This is underlined by quantitative piece plotting per pit. Pit 7/60 (Fig. 4) serves as an impressive example here. The contents of the pit is

370

S. Gaudzinski-Windheuser / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 361–375

Fig. 9. Oelknitz 3, LOP. Size plotting for elements on the find horizon. (a) Elements larger 20 cm, (b) elements 10–20 cm, (c) elements smaller 10 cm, (d) compilation of differing latent and evident features. Orange line: Maximum spatial distribution of finds on the find horizon, Blue line: Maximum spatial distribution of finds on the find horizon larger than 20 cm (Outer ring), Green line: Spatial distribution of finds on the find horizon 10–20 cm (Inner ring) and run of the post stand, Green circle: find cluster with elements 10–20 cm in size, Black circle: find cluster with elements smaller 10 cm, Red outlines: soil-discolorations. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

characterised by the occurrence of 7 modified and unmodified reindeer antler beams. An interpretation as a cache for antler provisioning seems plausible especially when the faunal context is considered. At Oelknitz 3, LOP reindeer mainly served as a supplier of raw-material not as a meat resource. Reindeer remains only rarely occur in Oelknitz 3, LOP (NISP = 30). Within the sample postcranial remains are underrepresented (NISP = 8). Results of piece plotting also illustrates spatial association of particular finds and/or find categories within pits or in pits located next to each other. Fig. 10 illustrates that different find categories show a differing spatial distribution. Horse remains (Fig. 10a) are almost exclusively restricted to the eastern part of Oelknitz 3, LOP. A selective deposition of skeletal elements from this animal can be observed. Whereas in pit 6/60 teeth and phalanges are represented, pit 7/60 displays teeth and ribs. The contents of pit 30/60 is characterised by the presence of bones of the extremities as well as carpal- and tarsal bones. In pit 119/60 the rump dominates with ribs and vertebrae. Spatial patterning can be observed when considering the distribution of other species. Reindeer remains numerously occur in pits 7/60 and 119/60. Worked and unworked antlers were deposited in pit 7/60 and it was already outlined that the content of this pit was interpreted in terms of an antler provisioning. Splints of worked reindeer antler cluster in the eastern part of the structure whereas the postcranial reindeer material tends to be distributed in pits in the southern part. Bird bones represent part of the infilling of pits, mainly located around the eastern rim of the structure (pits 23/58, 26/58, 28/58, 30/58 and 2/60). The same is true for the majority of the fox bone (pits 23/58, 24/58, 4/60, 5/60, 30/60 and 31/60). Vulpes bones only occur in the neighbouring pits 28/60, 30/60 and 31/60. Skull fragments are deposited in pit 28/60, three isolated tibiae occur in pit 30/60, three isolated humeri can be found in pit 31/60 (Fig. 10a). Whereas the spatial distribution of bones excludes the northwestern part, lithics can also be found in this part of Oelknitz 3, LOP. As for the bones the lithics display spatial distribution patterns. Backed bladelets are almost exclusively restricted to the southern (pits 88/60, 93/60, 97/60, 101/60, 103/60) and northern

rims (pits 3/60, 6/60, 15/60, 16/60, 30/60 and 37/60) of Oelknitz 3, LOP. The frequent occurrence of elements of blank production can be outlined for the western part of Oelknitz 3, LOP. It appears that in the northern part of Oelknitz 3, LOP unmodified longer blades are often associated with backed bladelets. This association was documented for the following pits: 80/60, 93/60, 97/60, 101/60, 103/60, 118/60, 120/60. Characteristic for the contents of the pits in the western part of Oelknitz 3, LOP is the presence of cortical flakes and crested blades (pits 53/60, 58/60, 62/60, 64/60, 75/60 and 76/60). Pit 75/60, interpreted as a blade cache as described above is located in this part of the site. Tools made from Devonian Quartzite are restricted to the eastern part of the Oelknitz 3, LOP (pits 21/58, 30/58 and 7/60). A spatial distribution pattern for tools made from organic material cannot be observed (Fig. 10c). This is in contrast to inorganic remains with direct or indirect anthropogenic traces (Fig. 10d). A spatially restricted area can be outlined where neighbouring pits contained fragments of slate (pits 21/60, 25/60, 27/60, 80/60 and 119/60). In this part of the structure the spatial distribution of slate fragments corresponds to the distribution of fragments of ivory (pits 21/60, 29/60 and 119/60) (Fig. 10b). A concentration of fragments of argillaceous schist is evident for the south-eastern part of Oelknitz 3, LOP (in pits 24/58, 30/58, 1/60, 2/60, 3/60, 5/60, 6/60 and 24/60). Summarising the evidence presented above, several pit clusters either containing similar and/or corresponding associations can be outlined. Remnants of faunal exploitation generally concentrate in the eastern and the southern part of Oelknitz 3, LOP. Within this general distribution pattern further qualitative differentiations can be recognised. Reindeer antler is, for example, distributed in the eastern part of this area whereas the postcranial remains are rather located in the South. Bird bones are restricted to the East (Fig. 11, Zone F); fox bones concentrate in the South-East (Fig. 11, Zone G). Other find categories also concentrate in this part such as retouched blades (Fig. 11, Zone J), tools made from Devonian Quartzite (Fig. 11, Zone I) and argillaceous schist fragments (Fig. 11, Zone D).

S. Gaudzinski-Windheuser / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 361–375

371

Fig. 10. Oelknitz 3, LOP. Pit contents. Qualitative and quantitative find plotting for (a) faunal remains, (b) lithic tools, (c) organic tools, production waste and shark tooth, (d) inorganic remains with anthropogenic traces.

In contrast, the contents of the pits in the northern part of Oelknitz 3, LOP is differently characterised. Here the occurrence of fragments of ivory (Fig. 11, Zone E) is located in the immediate vicinity to pits with slate fragments (Fig. 11, Zone D). Quartz fragments modified by heat occur in association with bone debris from butchering activities (Fig. 11, Zone B). In close spatial association to Zone B are pits containing backed bladelets and long blades (Fig. 11, Zone A). Faunal remains occur rarely in these pits. Finally, the contents of pits in the western part of Oelknitz 3, LOP is defined by elements of stone tool production. Here is an obvious concentration of pits that contain blades, crested blades, cortical flakes and heated quartz debris (Fig. 11, Zone C). Pit 75/60 interpreted as a blade cache is located in this part of the site. 6. Discussion and conclusions The open-air site of Oelknitz represents one of the most important compendia on Magdalenian lifeways known to date because of the outstanding quality of the fossil record (GaudzinskiWindheuser, 2013). Unfortunately, due to the method of documentation during excavation the full analytical potential for studies on this high resolution open-air site cannot be applied. This is especially true for particular aspects of spatial analysis which suffer from insufficiently detailed information on the provenance of individual finds which formed the find horizon. Despite these problems it had been possible to extract important information on Magdalenian’s spatial organisation. With Oelknitz 3, LOP an analytical unit was chosen which promised to represent a clearly demarcated living space. Complex information on Magdalenian’s spatial organisation was expected by contemporaneous behavioural episodes intended to be identified through the analysis of latent and evident features. Faunal analysis provides a scale of resolution for Oelknitz 3 LOP in that evidence is given that the structure was occupied in spring. The overall pattern which characterises the spatial base frame of Oelknitz 3, LOP is revealed by size plotting of the various elements constituting the find horizon. These analyses demonstrated a strictly structured pattern, with an annually shaped inner and an outer ring around a fire. The annually shaped structures are congruent and complementary with the spatial distribution of pits and soil discolorations. The maximum spatial extension of finds on the find horizon is congruent with soil discolorations which have been documented in the western part of the Oelknitz 3, LOP (Fig. 2).

Circular find clusters documented by size plotting of finds smaller than 200 mm structure the space between the inner and outer annular ring. Some of these clusters cover pits interpreted as caches. Moreover, the spatial distribution of pits classified as post hole stands corresponds to the spatial extension of the inner annular ring (pits 2/60, 5/60, 21/60, 35/60, 62/60, 64/60, 68/60, 87/60, 92/60) (Fig. 9d). The spatial congruence and complementarity of the differing spatial components of the archaeological record argue for the contemporaneity and causality of these features. Refitting studies could demonstrate that the contents of at least some of the pits was integer and homogeneous. This is also underlined by qualitative and quantitative piece plotting of the overall contents of the pits. Pits interpreted as caches could be defined and it was demonstrated that neighbouring pits often contained similar and/or corresponding find associations. It can thus be concluded that this evidence results from differing integer activity areas (Fig. 11). Activities in the western and northern part of the living structure focussed on use and production of lithic tools. Production and use of backed bladelets occurred in the northern and southern part of the structure, whereas blank production is restricted to the western part, around pit 75/60 interpreted as a blade cache (Fig. 4). The eastern and northern part of the living structure are dedicated to the curation of stone tools, processing of fox and bird carcasses as well as the processing of butchered horse remains. The fabrication of organic tools is evident for the north-eastern area of the living structure. It is above all the strictly subdivided northern and eastern part of the structure which can be emphasised as the main centre of activity. It is this strict subdivision in the spatial arrangements that argumes against the interpretation of this area as a toss zone. These activities occurred around an area measuring ca. 3.70 m  2 m, enclosed by a post stand amidst a fire (Fig. 11). Pits are rare in this part of the living structure. The same is true for finds deposited on the find horizon, as was already mentioned. These indications justify an interpretation in terms of a rest-area of a dwelling structure. The presence of empty circular locales in the spatial organisation of an activity area play a prominent role in ethnographical observations made by Binford (1983). He describes empty circular areas surrounded by low-utility animal carcass parts to result from carcass processing activities, the empty areas representing the spots where the carcass was originally placed before exploitation. A comparable spatial organisation was suggested for Level II1 at the Magdalenian site of Verberie (France) (Enloe, 2006). As the

372

S. Gaudzinski-Windheuser / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 361–375

Fig. 11. Oelknitz 3, LOP. Spatial distribution patterns for particular find categories in pits plotted against results of size plotting of finds (compare Fig. 9).

distribution of numerous animal carcass parts around these empty areas is imperative to the interpretation of empty areas as carcass processing locales, a corresponding interpretation can be excluded for Oelknitz 3, LOP. A plausible interpretation for Oelknitz 3, LOP is an open-ended tent reconstruction supported by a circular post stand. The post stand does not mark the outer limits of the dwelling but are remnants of an upright load bearing inner construction. The outer limits of the dwelling are marked by the overall circular distributions of finds on the find horizon which exceeds the spatial extension of the inner post stand structure. Considering the relatively small extension of space enclosed by the inner upright post stand structure it seems plausible to suggest a superstructure formed by an awning made e.g. of fur. If the larger elements of the annular stone arrangement are interpreted in terms of weights for an awning it seems plausible

to suggest a flexible wall-solution here that could be adjusted to different needs to keep the option to work in the open. This zone probably represents the traffic area of the dwelling which followed a strict spatial organisation where differing raw-materials and resources are separately exploited and caches for logistically cost-intensive raw-materials were installed. The central resting zone around a fire is laid out in an area sheltered by the post stands in the inner part of the dwelling, an area shielded and secluded from traffic. This is also underlined by indications that the spaces between the post stands are partly closed to provide additional shelter from view. A number of three to four persons could have shared space here. It can generally be outlined that Oelknitz 3, LOP represents a roofed dwelling construction, with an inner sheltered resting area surrounded by a traffic zone. Flexible walls that could probably be adjusted to individual needs ensured free movement around the

S. Gaudzinski-Windheuser / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 361–375

main activity zones in the traffic area. The dwelling opens towards large unroofed hearth structures as will be described below. 6.1. Oelknitz 3, LOP in its site context Oelknitz 3, LOP was probably contemporaneous with other structures uncovered at the site. Refitting studies of horse teeth indicate the contemporaneous use of Oelknitz 1, 2 and 3, LOP (Fig. 1) (Gaudzinski-Windheuser, 2013). The spatial proximity between Oelknitz 2 and Oelknitz 3 is striking. Oelknitz 2 consists of a roughly circular arrangement of stone slabs enclosing an area of ca. 6 m2. The presence of two hearths in this part of the site is evident. A hearth was recorded in the centre of the circle of stone slabs, a second hearth on the south side of Oelknitz 2 was located in the gap between the circle of stones. An additional row of stones trails from this feature in a south-west direction. Only few bones and lithics were associated with Oelknitz 2 and these were found between the stone slabs of the external hearth. The fact that the centre of the circular arrangement is void of finds is interpreted in terms of human cleaning activities. In contrast to Oelknitz 3, LOP pits have not been documented for Oelknitz 2. For Oelknitz 2 an interpretation is given as an external hearth construction which might have been in contemporaneous use with Oelknitz 1 and Oelknitz 3, LOP (Gaudzinski-Windheuser, 2013). As the centre of activity within dwelling Oelknitz 3, LOP was probably located to the North and North-East, it seems plausible to suggest that the entire construction was oriented towards this direction. The area immediately to the North has already been described with Oelknitz 2. The area in the immediate northeastern vicinity of Oelknitz 3, LOP is characterised by the absence of pits. Large hearth structures are also located here. Analysis of this part of the site (Oelknitz 5) provided an interpretation as a waste area (Brasser, 2012, 2013). Whereas horse individuals in Oelknitz 3, LOP are represented by elements high in nutritional value, in Oelknitz 5, LOP a definite dominance of remains low in nutritional value can be observed (Brasser, 2012, 2013). Direct indication of a contemporaneous use of Oelknitz 3, LOP and Oelknitz 5 has yet to be demonstrated. Oelknitz 1 is located to the West and clearly spatially separated from Oeknitz 3, LOP. It has been suggested that find deposition clearly resulted from primary butchering of horses (GaudzinskiWindheuser, 2012). As for Oelknitz 5 indications for a clear dwelling construction are not given (Gaudzinski-Windheuser, 2013; Brasser, 2012, 2013). 6.2. Oelknitz 3, LOP and its significance for our knowledge on social organisation during the Magdalenian If the reconstruction provided for Oelknitz 3, LOP is accepted some general conclusions for our knowledge of human settlement behaviour during the Magdalenian can be drawn. The observation that humans’ activities focus around a hearth structure located in the centre of a dwelling represents one of our most fundamental ethnographic preconceptions with enormous consequences for the interpretation of the archaeological record. Even methodical tools which consider this assumption as a prerequisite have been developed for the identification of dwelling-walls (Binford, 1978, 1983; Stapert, 1990). What we see here with Oelknitz 3, LOP is a spatial structure, which clearly represents the reversal of this spatial pattern. The centre of the dwelling functioned as a resting area surrounded by a marginal traffic zone. The boundary between the interior dwelling space and the exterior is dissolved by a flexible wall solution which ensures an enlargement of the traffic zone.

373

Considering the density of the numerous traces of occupation which scatter and cluster around the hearths of Oelknitz 2 and Oelknitz 5 (Fig. 1) we must assume that these hearth structures clearly formed an intrinsic element of activities located around Oelknitz 3, LOP. These areas could be cut off if wished by the adjustment of a temporary awning. It seems plausible to suggest, however, that the majority of activities were not undertaken while this area was sheltered by the awning but in the open air. That Magdalenians clearly organised their space not only in dwellings but also in areas unsheltered by roofs is underlined by reinterpretations of find concentrations as activity areas in the open air which had formerly been reconstructed as dwellings e.g. at Gönnersdorf (Germany) (Bosinski, 1979; Jöris et al., 2011), or evidence from Swiss Magdalenian sites (Bullinger et al., 2006; Leesch et al., 2010) where activities centred around open-air hearths. What we see at Oelknitz 3, LOP could be interpreted as just a differing spatial solution to the same behavioural pattern. There are obviously many other ways to interpret the exact setup of Oelknitz 3, LOP. One could easily argue that the empty area around the fire was not used as a resting area but served as a centre of activity which had been cleared from debris. What is important from the above outline however is that we can distinguish sheltered and secluded areas, probably hidden from view to shelter the individual space. This pattern could be interpreted in terms of a private and public use of space. Magdalenian settlement sites are highly diverse and it is quite obvious that we cannot generalise the spatial pattern identified at Oelknitz 3, LOP. It might nevertheless be possible to excerpt basic principles immanent to late Magdalenian settlement behaviour. What Oelknitz demonstrates is that we have to look beyond ethnographical descriptions and models as our preconceptions can distort our perspective on how our ancestors used and organised their space (compare Wobst, 1978). As Leroi-Gourhan (1965: 150) states ‘‘the organisation of space is not simply the arrangement of a technical commodity that secures the necessities of survival. Rather it is the symbolic expression of a universal human need for an environment that provides fixed points of reference in order what is otherwise an unstructured surrounding universe‘‘. Thus, the identification of patterns of spatial organisation in the archaeological record opens up an unequivocal perspective for our understanding of social interactions and social cohesion and as already outlined, might even reveal insights into the system of values that underpinned the set-up of late Magdalenian societies. In this context, analyses at Oelknitz emphasise the role of the individual during the late Magdalenian as we witness the concept of privacy as a prerequisite for dwelling construction. Spatial analyses of other Magdalenian sites argue for a clear division of labor and show that the exploitation of animal carcasses was clearly governed by a community achievement (Enloe and David, 1989, 1992, 2014; Street and Turner, 2013). These activities were located in high traffic areas with a public character enabling interaction and communication with others. What we witness at Oelknitz 3, LOP is clearly different in character and was archived by a community of only a very small number of persons. A flexible wall solution was chosen for this dwelling which enabled contact with others around the traffic areas with outside hearths but also protected the private space. The emphasis on privacy is even pronounced by the presence of an inner sheltered and secluded space which in this context was interpreted as a resting area. Numerous definitions for ‘‘privacy” can be found. In a more recent study Moore (2003) defends the view that privacy with its different cultural manifestations is objectively valuable and forms an essential part of human wellbeing (Moore, 2003). Moreover, in an earlier study Schwartz (1968) evaluated private behaviour and its effect on modern societies. He emphasises the stabilizing effect of privacy on groups and on the maintenance of social order

374

S. Gaudzinski-Windheuser / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 361–375

and claims that privacy forms an essential element of human evolution. A further aspect that came to light from the analyses at Oelknitz, which again emphasises the role of the individual is indications of private property. The fact that at Oelknitz 3, LOP the cache depots are located in the ‘‘interior” part of the dwelling could indicate that the rawmaterials stored here were not intended to be shared with the entire group. These caches were of certain logistical value. This is also underlined by the spatial association with a female figurine. Female figurines in the Magdalenian have been interpreted as symbols of common identities which played a particular role in the logistical setup of these societies (Gaudzinski-Windheuer and Jöris, 2015). Thus, one could argue that we are dealing with individual property here. Claims for the existence of individual property during the late Magdalenian are also made based on results of use-wear studies on ornaments (Alvarez-Fernandez, 2011). Analyses at Oelknitz emphasise these interpretations and underline that ornaments were probably not mere components of standardised and commonly worn garb but served to emphasise personal individuality. Again, this stresses the role of the individual in late Magdalenian societies. This is quite remarkable given that we are dealing with a period in which we witness a very high standardisation in behaviour e.g. in tool production, in certain artistic expressions or in subsistence strategies, a period during which humans refrained from depicting themselves as individuals, which is in stark contrast to what we see in the highly naturalistic animal depictions of this period or in caricatures of individual humans from the earlier middle Magdalenian at La Marche (France) (Pales and Tassin de Saint Péreuse, 1976). Personal individuality obviously formed an ingredient important for late Magdalenians system of values and their social cohesion. These results are of consequence as our social set up today is rooted in these earliest Societies of Europe.

Acknowledgments The authoress’ thanks goes to Geoff Smith (MONREPOS) for the correction of the English text, to Regina Hecht (MONREPOS) for the preparation of the figures, to Olaf Jöris (MONREPOS) for comments on a very early version of this paper and to unknown reviewers.

References Alvarez-Fernandez, E., 2011. Personal ornaments made from molluscs shells in Europe during the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic: News and Views. In: Ç akırlar, C., Stosel, V. (Eds.), Shells of Mollusca: Environmental Adaptations, Ideological Expressions. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 1–8. Audouze, F., Cahen, D., Keeley, L.H., Schmider, B., 1984. Le site Magdalénien du Buisson Campin à Verberie (Oise). Gallia Préhistoire 24, 99–143. Bailey, G.N., 1981. Concepts, timescales and explanations in evonomic prehistory. In: Sheridan, A., Bailey, G. (Eds.), Economic Archaeology. BAR International Series 9, Oxford, pp. 97–117. Bailey, G., 2007. Time perspectives, palimpsests and the archaeology of time. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 26, 198–223. Behm-Blancke, G., 1976. Das jungpaläolithische Zeltlager von Oelknitz bei Jena. Ausgrabungen Funde 21, 30–32. Binford, L.R., 1978. Dimensional analysis of behaviour and site structure, learning from an Eskimo hunting stand. Am. Antiq. 43, 30–361. Binford, L.R., 1983. In Pursuit of the Past. Thames and Hudson, New York. Bosinski, G., 1979. Die Ausgrabungen in Gönnersdorf 1968–1976 und die Siedlungsbefunde der Grabung 1968. Der Magdalénien-Fundplatz Gönnersdorf 3. Franz Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden. Bosinski, G., d‘ Errico, F., Schiller, P., 2001. Die gravierten Frauendarstellungen von Gönnersdorf. Der Magdalénien-Fundplatz Gönnersdorf, vol. 8. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. Brasser, M., 2012. Horse exploitation at the Late Upper Palaeolithic site of Oelknitz (Thuringia) with special reference to Canine modifications. Quatern. Int. 252, 175–183.

Brasser, M., 2013. Die Struktur 5 der Magdalénien-Fundstelle Oelknitz – Befundanalyse, faunistische und lithische Untersuchungen zum Jungpaläolithikum in Thüringen. Alt-Thüringen 42, 5–78. Bullinger, J., Leesch, D., Plumettaz, N., 2006. Le site magdalénien de Monruz. 1. Premiers éléments pour l’ analyse d’un habitat de plain air. Archéologie neuchâteloise 33.1: Hautrive. Clottes, J., Lewis-Williams, D., 1996. Les chamanes de la préhistoire, transe et magie dans les grottes ornées Seuil, Paris. Enloe, J.G., 2006. Geological processes and site structure: assessing integrity at a Late Paleolithic open-air site in Northern France. Geoarchaeology 31, 523–540. Enloe, J.G., David, F., 1989. Le remontage des os par individus: le partage du renne chez les Magdaléniens de Pincevent (La Grande Paroisse, Saint-et-Marne). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 86, 275–281. Enloe, J.G., David, F., 1992. Food sharing in the Palaeolithic. Carcass refitting in Pincevent. In: Hofman, J.L., Enloe, J. (Eds.), Piecing Together the Past: Applications of Refitting Studies in Archaeology. BAR International Series, vol. 578, Oxford, pp. 296–315. Enloe, J.G., David, F., 2014. Les stratégies de chasse et le partage des animaux. In: Julien, M., Karlin, C. (Eds.), Un automne à Pincevent. Le campement magdalénien du niveau IV20. Société préhistorique française Mémoire LVII, Paris, pp. 551–560. Feustel, R., 1989. Oelknitz, Ot. von Rothenstein, Kr. Jena (Bez. Gera). In: Herrmann, J. (Ed.), Archäologie in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik. Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart, pp. 379–380. Gaudzinski-Windheuser, S., 2011. An introduction to living structures and the history of occupation at the late upper palaeolithic site of Oelknitz (Thuringia, Germany). In: Gaudzinski-Windheuser, S., Jöris, O., Sensburg, M., Street, M., Turner, E. (Eds.), Site-Internal Spatial Organization of Hunter-Gatherer Societies: Case Studies from the European Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. Verlag des RGZM, Mainz, pp. 127–139. Gaudzinski-Windheuser, S., 2012. Indication for social interaction during the Central European Late Upper Palaeolithic: evidence from the Magdalenian site of Oelknitz, Structure 1 (Thuringia, Germany). Quatern. Int. 252, 165–174. Gaudzinski-Windheuser, S., 2013. Einblicke in spätjungpaläolithisches Siedlungswesen. Die Fundstelle Oelknitz (Thüringen, Deutschland). Die Siedlungsstrukturen 1–3. Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz. Gaudzinski-Windheuer, S., Jöris, O., 2015. Contextualising the female image – symbols for common ideas and communal identity in upper palaeolithic societies. In: Wenban-Smith, F., Coward, F., Hosfield, R., Pope, M. (Eds.), Settlement, Society, and Cognition in Human Evolution. Cambridge University Press, 288, p. 314. Gaudzinski-Windheuser, S., Jöris, O., Sensburg, M., Street, M., Turner, E. (Eds.), 2011. Site-Internal Spatial Organization of Hunter-Gatherer Societies: Case Studies from the European Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. Verlag des RGZM, Mainz. Habermehl, K.-H., 1961. Die Altersbestimmung bei Haustieren, Pelztieren und beim jagdbaren Wild. Paul Parey Verlag, München. Hahn, J., 1970. Die Stellung der männlichen Elfenbeinstatuette aus dem Hohlenstein-Stadel in der jungpaläolithischen Kunst. Germania 48, 1–12. Hedges, R.E.M., Pettitt, P.B., Bronk Ramsey, C., van Klinken, G.J., 1998. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 25. Archaeometry 40 (1), 227–239. Jöris, O., Street, M., Turner, E., 2011. Spatial analysis at the Magdalenian site of Gönnersdorf (Central Rhineland, Germany). In: Gaudzinski-Windheuser, S., Jöris, O., Sensburg, M., Street, M., Turner, E. (Eds.), 2011. Site-Internal Spatial Organization of Hunter-Gatherer Societies: Case Studies from the European Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. Verlag des RGZM, Mainz, pp. 53–80. Julien, M., Audouze, F., Baffier, D., Bodu, P., Coudret, P., David, F., Gaucher, G., Karlin, C., Larriere, M., Masson, P., 1988. Organisation de l’espace et fonction des habitats magdaléniens du bassin parisien. In: Otte, M. (Hrsg.), De la Loire à l’Oder. Les civilisations du paléolithique final dans le nord-ouest européen. BAR International Series, vol. 444, Oxford, pp. 85–124. Julien, M., Karlin, C., Valentin, B., 1992. Déchets de silex, déchets de pierres chauffées. De l’intéret des remontages à Pincevent (France). In: Hofman, J.L., Enloe, J. (Eds.), Piecing Together the Past: Applications of Refitting Studies in Archaeology. BAR International Series, vol. 578, Oxford, pp. 287–295. Leesch, D., Cattin, M.-I., Müller, W., Plumettaz, N., 2010. Hearths and hearth-related activities in Magdalenian open-air sites: the case studies of Champréveyres and Monruz (Switzerland) and their relevance to an understanding of Upper Paleolithic site structure. In: Poltowicz-Bobak, M., Bobak, D. (Eds.), The Magdalenian in Central Europe. New finds and Concepts. Fundacja Rzeszowskiego Osrodka Archeologicznego, Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego, SKAM – Flintreaders Society, Rzeszów, pp. 53–69. Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1965. Le Geste et la Parole: la Mémoire et les Rythmes. Albin Michel, Paris. Leroi-Gourhan, A., Brézillon, M., 1966. L’habitation magdalénienne no 1 de Pincevent près Montereau (Seine-et-Marne). Gallia Préhistoire IX, 263–385. Leroi-Gourhan, A., Brézillon, M., 1973. Fouilles de Pincevent, essai d’analysis ethnographique d‘un habitat magdalénien, la section 36. Gallia Préhistoire Supplement, vol. 7. CNRS, Paris. Lyman, R.L., 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Moore, A.D., 2003. Privacy: its meaning and value. Am. Philos. Quart. 40, 215–227. Pales, L., Tassin de Saint Péreuse, A., 1976. Les gravures de La Marche. II: Les Humains. Editions Orphrys, Paris. Pigeot, N., 1984. Elements d’un modèle d’habitation magdalénienne (Étiolles). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 84, 358–363.

S. Gaudzinski-Windheuser / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40 (2015) 361–375 Pigeot, N., 1987. Magdaléniens d’Étiolles: Économie de débitage et organisation sociale (l’unité d’habitation U5). Gallia Préhistoire Supplement, vol. 25. CNRS, Paris. Pumettaz, N., 2007. Le site magdalénien de Monruz 2: Étude des foyers à partir de l’analyse des pierres et de leurs remontages. Archeologie neuchâteloise, vol. 38. Neuchâtel. Rapoport, A., 1990. Systems of activities and systems of settings. In: Kent, S. (Ed.), Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 9–20. Schwartz, B., 1968. The social psychology of privacy. Am. J. Sociol. 73, 741–752. Sensburg, M., 2007. Die räumliche Organisation der Konzentration IIa von Gönnersdorf. Verlag des RGZM, Mainz. Sensburg, M., Moseler, F., 2007. Die Konzentrationen IIb und IV des MagdalénienFundplatzes Gönnersdorf (Mittelrhein). Verlag des RGZM, Mainz. Stapert, D., 1990. Within the tent our outside? Spatial patterns in Late Palaeolithic sites. Helinium 29, 14–35. Street, M., Turner, E., 2013. The Faunal Remains from Gönnersdorf. Verlag des RGZM, Mainz.

375

Terberger, T., 1997. Die Siedlungsbefunde des Magdalénien-Fundplatzes Gönnersdorf. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart, Konzentrationen III und IV. Villa, P., 1976. Sols et niveaux d’habitat du paléolithique inférieur en Europe et au Proche Orient. Quaternaria 19, 107–134. Villa, P., 2004. Taphonomy and stratigraphy in European Prehistory. Before Farming 1, 1–20. Vaquero, M., 2008. The history of stones: behavioural inferences and temporal resolution of an archaeological assemblage from the Middle Palaeolithic. J. Archaeol. Sci. 35, 3178–3185. Vaquero, M., Chacón, M.G., García-Antón, M.D., Gómez de Soler, B., Martínez, K., Cuartero, F., 2012a. Time and space in the formation of lithic assemblages: the example of Abric Romaní Level. J. Quatern. Int. 247, 162–181. Vaquero, M., Alsonso, S., García-Catalán, S., García-Hernández, A., Gómez de Soler, B., Rettig, D., Soto, M., 2012b. Temporal nature and recycling of Upper Palaeolithic artefacts: the burned tools from the Molí del Salt site (Vimbodí i Poblet, northeastern Spain). J. Archaeol. Sci. 39, 2785–2796. Wobst, H.M., 1978. The Archaeo-Ethnology of hunter/gatherers or the tyranny of the ethnographic record in archaeology. American 43, 303–309.