|
The "culture" of Neanderthals has been examined for a long time by researches for its
complexity and its contrast to cultural behaviour of anatomically modern humans. It is still
discussed a question, if Neanderthal were predecessor of Homo sapiens sapiens or not.
Genetic studies show more clearly, that anatomically modern humans constitute a distinct
group that was more successful from the biological point of view. Though these two human
species are different, they lived side by side with a material culture, which was identical for a
long time. This fact is very interesting. It is impossible to distinguish technologies and tools of
anatomically modern humans from Neanderthals osteological rests (for example. Orschied –
Weniger 2000; Kozlowski 2000; Zilhao - d'Errico eds. 2003).
Research of Middle Palaeolithic has been interesting in the Czech Republic too. Thanks
to a comprehensive knowledge of our researches (Maška 1885), the Czechs were the first
scientists, who suggested an existence of Neanderthals. Excavations of "Šipka", "Čertova
díra" or "Švédův stůl" caves cannot be used from the methodological point of view, but they
played a historical role (Maška 1984, 1986a,b, 1988a,b; Klíma 1962). The cave "Kůlna"
represents a unique position in European context (Valoch 1988; Valoch et al. 1969). Its
importance lies in an amount of archaeological and paleontological finds as well as
documented stratigraphic sequences, which enable to observe trends of Neanderthals
behaviour from the end of Riss glacial to the beginning of the Würmian interpleniglacial.
Recently we have no comparable site in the region of the Czech Republic.
Thanks to the importance of the site, the archaeological material is mainly analysed by
both home and foreign researches (K. Valoch 1984, 1988a,b; P. Neruda 2000, 2001a,b,
2003; E. Boeda 1985, M.-H. Moncel - Neruda P. 2000, G. Tostevin 2000). They have defined
raw material distribution models, technology and typology of Taubachian and Micoquian
assemblages. Regarding taphonomy, we dispose of less information and thus the
reconstruction of hunting practices and nonutilitary behaviour is still very difficult. Only lists of
species have been described, sometimes with MNI index (Musil in Valoch et al 1969;
Zelinková 1998). Partial taphonomy analyses with a view to hunting have been done by
foreign colleagues (Patou-Mathis et al. 2005). Fragmented animal bone with traces of human
manipulation offers considerable information potential with interdisciplinary coverage. K.
Valoch (1980) noted their existence but the material has not been yet seriously and
completely analysed. The problems are the amount of pieces, time needed for evaluation
and need of interdisciplinary approach.
Significance of the information potential, hidden in the animal osteological collection, is
shown in interdisciplinary works (Brugal J.-P. – Meignen L. – Patou-Mathis M. 1998;
Connard N. J. – Prindiville T. J. – Adler D.S. 1998), where artefacts are reviewed
from different angles, often focused on features typical for anthropic manipulation. It was
proved gradually that Neanderthals used bones not only as a grease source or building
material for shelters but also as a production tool, for example as bone retoucher (Martin
1907/10; Patou-Mathis 2002; Auguste 2002) or even as way of possible aesthetic expression
(Valoch 1996, 1997; Marquet – Lorblanchet 2003). It looks that Neanderthal mental potential
was higher than we are willing to accept. Its level is very difficult to reconstruct and the
question requires interdisciplinary approach where animal osteological artefacts manipulated
by human play a key role. Such information are preferred in the research of mentioned
Neanderthal and anatomically modern humans coexistence and in searing for answer of a
question, why one population perished and the other become more successful. There are
mostly compared Chatelperronian and Aurignacian in European context. An important
criterion is the use of organic material (for instance volume Zilhao-d'Errico eds. 2003).
Artefacts found in cave Kůlna may become a valuable contribution to existing discussion,
especially when it is possible to cohere discoveries in a long time period. There are even
indications, which suggest complicated development in the Central Europe (contribution of
Micoquian to Szeletian, Neanderthal population survival, penetration of Aurignacian etc.).
Grant Goal
The grant is focused on the research of fragmented animal bone material, which shows
traces of human manipulation. The material of Taubachian layer 11 and animal bones from
Micoquian layers 7c, 7a and 6a will be analysed. There is considerable amount of material in
both complexes. This makes a significant set from the statistical point of view. Certainly it will
be not only interesting to define differences between those two cultures, but also to describe
development trends in Micoquian. Nowadays there is a set of 3700 bone pieces, which show
marks of intentional manipulation. Majority of bones has extant found information, which can
be revised in research-book.
Methodological approaches
Evaluation of the material should be carried in three levels representing corresponding
disciplines. Carnivores create also of bone accumulations and pseudoartefacts and
determine of their share is a basic criterion, affected a composition of an assemblage and
results (cf. for instance Gaudzinski - Turner 1999; West 2001, Villa - Bartram 1996).
Taphonomic analysis can distinguish such an assemblage with anthropic manipulation
(D'Errico - Villa, 1997). The expert can evaluate cut-marks and grooves on the bone surface
in a sound way and interpret (D'Errico - Giacobini, 1988; D'Errico - Laroulandie, 2000), in cooperating
with a palaeontologist, their relation to a certain animal species and a body part.
Importance of such an analysis resides in the revelation of repeated marks in the
archaeological and osteological inventory, determination of human and animal part on their
creation and determination of utilitary and non-utilitary activities on the cultural anthropology
base. Those indications may compose a base for the study of Neanderthal economical
behaviour and determination of their mental abilities. To minimalize mistakes resulting from
wrong interpretation, it is convenient to compare existing models both in the frame of one
"culture" and between cultures generally (especially cultures from different time period like
Taubachian and Micoquian). This approach allows us to determine evolvement trends.
The archaeological part, supervised by the proponent Mgr. Petr Neruda Ph.D., would cover
revision of individual artefacts according to the research research-book followed by analysis
of spatial structure of the osteological material in question and its correlation with other
disposition structures as fireplaces and artefacts for production of chipped stone industry.
Many bones show traces of their use as retoucher and this fact evokes their correlation with
production artefacts (workshops).
The osteological part, carried out by Mgr. Gabriela Dreslerova, will be focused on taphonomy
analysis of examined se of animal osteological material. It is necessary to accurately
determine species composition, body part (the fragment comes from) and ways of its
fragmentation. Certain trends of Neanderthal behaviour indicate process of specialisation
and standardisation in Micoquian and it would be very interesting to investigate if similar
effect can be found even in the area of osteological material processing.
The analysis of processing traces will be performed by Mgr. Martina Galetová Ph.D., who
dealt with a similar subject in her doctoral studies under F. d'Erricco in France for the period
of Magdalenian. Her task would be mainly to distinguish intentively made cuts from grooves,
which could indicate non-utilitary practice. F. d'Erricco deals with the same matter in South
African site of Blombos Cave, which is supposed to be connected with anatomically modern
human (Henshilwood et al. 2004; Henshilwood and Marean, 2003). Comparison of
conclusions based on cave Kůlna findings and similar sites would be certainly interesting.
A synthetic part of the work would assess results of the three mentioned disciplines and it
would try to find parallels or differences in time-culture horizons. Even now we can expect
very interesting conclusions resulting from comparison of the layers 11 and Micoquian layers
7c-6a. Final conclusions will certainly contribute to other synergistic questions as economy of
source usage, matter of specialisation, population mobility, reconstruction of cave spatial
structure etc.
Solution Course
The project should run for three years. The material analysis will be carried out first two
years. It will proceed in three parallel levels, which will be connected together. To optimalize
the process, it will be necessary to analyse the collection in sets of approx. 50 pcs. This
approach will allow all three experts to work at the same time. First, there will be revision of
research data and assessment of findings positioning, which will be put to a relational digital
database.
Second, an archaeological part will be succeeded the palaeolongical analysis focused on
taphonomy questions. It should cover a species determination, specification of the animal
body part the bone comes from, way of fragmentation and its size.
The third task will be to analyse cut-marks and grooves with a microscope. The aim of this
step will be to determinate anthropic manipulation on bones and distinguish accidental cuts
from intentively made grooves. It may also cover an analysis of their pattern.
The first two years would be dedicated to the analysis of the collection. Expected work extent
is 1800 pcs of bones per year. The third year would be used to finish analyses, obtain picture
and photographic documentation, interpretation of obtained results and manuscript
preparation.
Reasons for Project solution
The matter of the proposed project weds perfectly with main trends of Palaeolithic research
around the world. So far it has not been analysed throughoutly despite researchers
described its significance. To participate in the discussion concerning this matter with
arguments based on our own resources, it is necessary to avail the existence of a registered
collection, which is dated with good fidelity and the possibility of interdisciplinary co-operation
of three specialists. There is also another important fact, the built team allows to carry out the
work on one spot, which helps significantly to reduce manipulation with artefacts. The
manipulation as a negative factor endangers collection's items.
Institute Readiness
The central project-processing site will be Anthropos Institute. The animal ostelogical
collection is deposited in its depository and thus the manipulation will be administratively
easier. A significant advantage from the financial point of view is the fact, that two of three
experts are full-time employee of Anthropos Institute MZM (P. Neruda, G. Dreslerová).
Another considerable advantage for the taphonomic part of the project is existence of an
extensive osteological collection, which makes the quality determination of fragmented
material much easier. Otherwise this interpretation is quite complicated. The technical
background of the institute is on a high level. We can use existing computers and binocular
magnifier Nikon with possibility of digital pictures, which was bought under another grant
project. We suppose to buy only supplementary close-up lenses for better magnifying and a
manipulation table for micro-shift, which is necessary for delicate manipulation with the item
during work and photographing.
If there is a need of a better microscope, we count with use of external resources within the
Faculty of Natural Science, because the purchase of such a quality equipment would
increase the budget and existence of this appliance would not be worthwhile at a nonspecialized
institute.
Expected Results
The expected result of the project is a manuscript covering obtained knowledge. It will be
necessary to decide according to the extent its publication as an article or a monograph. We
suppose to present conclusions in articles and at scientific events.
Another output will be detailed description of the collection integrated to programs DEMUS
and CES.
Project Significance
The interdisciplinary analysis of the animal osteological collection from the cave Kůlna would
represent another important step in findings processing from significant Middle Palaeolithic
site in the area of Central Europe. The previous interpretation of mentioned Taubachian and
Micoquian layers (non-published doctoral thesis of P. Neruda) showed the importance of
questions connected to the organic material. Those questions are still opened and it is rather
difficult to solve some key matters, which are related to many partial analyses. Project
conclusions may contribute to answer questions of cave spatial structure, hunting economy,
formation of bone industry as an important Early Palaeolithic phenomenon and non-utililary
practice of Neanderthals. Results presented both as a monograph and discourses at
international scientific events may play an important part of our country in international
archaeological or cultural-anthropological discussion.
Preliminary results
Poster (Hugo Obermaier Gesselschaft 2008) - pdf
Poster (Hugo Obermaier Gesselschaft 2009) - pdf
Poster (SKAM 2009, Polsko) - pdf
Prezentation (Kvartér 2009, Brno) - ppt
Poster (OIS 3, Brno 2010) - pdf
References:
AUGUSTE
P (2002) Fiche d´éclats diaphysaires du
Paléolithique moyer: Biache-Saint-Vaast (Pas-de-Calais) et
Kulna (Moravie, République tchèque). In M
Patou-Mathis (ed.): Industrie de l´os préhistorique.
Cahier X. Compresseur, percuteurs, retouchoirs, pp. 39-57.
BOËDA
E. 1995: Caractéristiques techniques des chaines
operatoires lithiques des niveaux micoquiens de Külna
(Tchecoslovaquie). In: Les industries à pointes foliacées
d´Europe Centrale, PALEO – Supplément, Nº
1, Actes du Colloque de MISKOLC – Juin, 57-72.
BRUGAL
J.-P. – MEIGNEN L. – PATOU-MATHIS M. 1998: Économie
préhistorique: les comportements de subsistance au
Paléolithique. XVIIIe Rencontres Internationales
d´Archéologie et d´Histoire d´Antibes.
Éditions APDCA, Sophia Antipolis. 73-83.
CONNARD
N. J. – PRINDIVILLE T. J. – ADLER D.S. 1998:
Refitting Bones and Stones as a Means of Reconstructing Middle
Paleolithic Subsistence in the Rhineland. In: Brugal J.-P. –
Meignen L. – Patou-Mathis M. eds.: Économie
préhistorique: les comportements de subsistance au
Paléolithique. XVIIIe Rencontres Internationales
d´Archéologie et d´Histoire d´Antibes.
Éditions APDCA, Sophia Antipolis. 273-290.
D'ERRICO
F, AND GIACOBINI G (1988) L'apport des études de surface
pour l'interpretation des modification sur l'os au paléolithique
moyen: L'Homme de Néanderthal, La technique. Liège,
pp. 39-47.
d´ERRICO
F. – HENSHILWOOD Ch. – NILSEN P. 2001: An engraved
bone fragment from c. 70,000-year-old Middle Stone Age levels at
Blombos Cave, South Africa: implications for the origins of
symbolism and language. Antiquity, 75, 309-318.
D'ERRICO
F, AND LAROULANDIE V (2000) Bone technology at the middle-upper
palaeolithic transition. The Case of the worked bones from
Buran-Kaya III level C (Crimea, Ukraine): Orschiedt Jorg, Weniger
G. –Ch. (éd.): Neanderthals and Modern
Humans-Discussing the Transition.: Neandertal Museum, pp. 322.
GAUDZINSKI
S. - TURNER E. 1999: The role of early humans in the
acculmulation of European Lower and Middle Palaeolithic bone
assemblages: An Introduction. Römisch-Germanisches
Zentralmuseum Monographien, Band 42, Mainz.
HENSHILWOOD
C, D´ERRICO F, VANHAEREN M, VAN NIEKERK K, and JACOBS Z
(2004) Middle Stone Age Shell Beads from South Africa. Science
XXX.
HENSHILWOOD
C, and MAREAN W C (2003) The Origin of Modern Human Behavior:
Critique of the Models and Theit Test Implication. Current
Anthropology 44:627-651.
KLÍMA
B. 1962: Die Erforschung der Höhle Švédův stůl
1953-1955. Anthropos č. 13 (N.S. 5). Brno.
KOZLOWSKI
J. K. 2000: The Problem of Cultural Continuity between Middle and
the Upper Paleolithic in Central and Eastern Europe. In:
Bar-Yosef O. – Pilbeam D. eds.: The Geography of
Neandertals and Modern Humans in Europe and the Greater
Mediterranean, Peabody Museum Bulletin 8. Harvard University,
77-105.
MARQUET
J.-C. – LORBLANCHET M. 2003: A Neanderthal face? The
proto-figurine from La Roche-Cotard, Langeais Indre-et-Loire,
France), Antiquity; Dec 2003; 77, 298; Academic Research Library,
661-670
MARTIN
D. 1907-1910: Recherches sur l´évolution du
Moustérien dans le Gisement de la Quina (Charente).
Premier volume. Industrie Osseuse. Paris.
MAŠKA
K. J. 1884: Pravěké nálezy ve Štramberka.
ČVMSO I, 15-22, 64-69.
MAŠKA
K. J. 1885: Čelist předpotopního člověka nalezená v
Šipce u Štramberka. ČVMSO II, 27-35.
MAŠKA
K. J. 1886a: Pravěké nálezy ve Štramberka.
ČVMSO III, 57-65, 119-123, 163-174.
MAŠKA
K. J. 1886b: Der diluviale Mensch in Mähren. Ein Beitrag zur
Urgeschichte Mährens. Programm der mähr.
Landes-Oberrrealschule in Neutitschein. Neutitschein.
MAŠKA
K. J. 1888a: Nové výzkumy v jeskyních
štramberských. ČVMSO V, 121-124.
MAŠKA
K. J. 1988b: O kostěných výrobcích
diluviálních z jeskyň štramberských.
ČVMSO V, 88-89.
MONCEL
M.-H. – NERUDA P. 2000: The Kůlna Level 11: some
observations on the debitage rules and aims. The originality of a
middle Palaeolithic Microlithic Assemblage (Kůlna cave, Czech
Republic). Anthropologie XXXVIII/3, 219-248.
NERUDA
P. 2000: The Cultural Significance of the Bifacial Retouch. The
Transition From the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Age in Moravia.
In: Orschiedt J. – Weniger G.-C.: Neanderthals and Modern
Humans – Discussing the Transition: Central and Eastern
Europe from 50.000 – 30.000 B.P., Wissenschaftliche
Schriften 2, Neanderthal Museum 2000, 151-158.
NERUDA
P. 2001a: La distribution des matières premières au
Taubachien à la grotte Kůlna. In: Préhistoire et
approche expérimentale, Préhistoires 5, 349-362.
Montagnac 2001.
NERUDA
P. 2001b: Využití surovin v taubachienu z jeskyně Kůlny
(vrstva 11), Acta Mus. Moravia, Sci. soc. LXXXVI: 3-25.
NERUDA
P. 2003: Střední paleolit v moravských jeskyních.
Nepubl. rukopis disertační práce. FF MU Brno.
ORSCHIEDT
J. – WENIGER G.-C. 2000: Neanderthals and Modern Humans –
Discussing the Transition: Central and Eastern Europe from 50.000
– 30.000 B.P., Wissenschaftliche Schriften des Neanderhal
Museums, Bd. 2, Neanderthal Museum.
PATOU-MATHIS
ed. 2002: Retouchoirs, compresseurs, percuteurs... Os a
impressions et éraillures. Fishes de la Commission de
nomenclature sur l'industrie de l'os préhostorique, Cahier
X, Éditions Société Préhistorique
Francaise, Paris.
PATOU-MATHIS
M. – AUGUSTE P. – BOCHERENS H. – CONDEMI S. –
MICHEL V. – MONCEL M.-H. – NERUDA P. – VALOCH
K. 2005: Les occupations du Paléolithique moyen de la
grotte de Külna (Moravie, République Tcheque):
nouvelle approches, nouveaux résultats. In: A. Tuffreau
(sous la dir. de), Peuplements humains et variations
environnementales au Quaternaire. Colloque de Poitiers, 18-20
septembre 2000. BAR International Series 1352,Ed. John end Erica
Hedges Ltd. Oxford, 69-94.
TOSTEVIN
G. B. 2000: Behavioral Change and Regional Variation across the
Middle to Upper Paleolitihic Transition in Central Europe,
Eastern Europe, and the Levant. Dizertační práce,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, June 2000.
Autorizovaná faksimile, UMI Dessertation Service.
VALOCH
K. 1965a: Jeskyně Šipka a Čertova díra u
Štramberku. Anthropos č. 17 (N.S. 9). Brno.
VALOCH
K. 1980: Knochenartefakte aus dem Micoquien (Schicht 7c) in der
Kůlna-Höhle im Mährischen Karst. AMM, Sci.soc., LXV,
7-18.
VALOCH
K. 1984: Le Taubachien, sa géochronologie, paléoécologie
et paléoethnologie. L´Anthropologie, Tome 88, nº2,
193-208. Paris.
VALOCH
K. 1988a: Le Taubachien et le Micoquien de la grotte Kůlna en
Moravie (Tchécoslovaquie). In: L´homme de
Néanderthal, vol. 4, La Technique, ERAUL, 31, Liège,
205-207.
VALOCH
K. 1988b: Die Erforschung der Kůlna-Höhle 1961-1976.
Anthropos, 24, N.S. 16, Brno.
VALOCH
K. 1989: Osídlení a klimatické změny v
poslední době ledové na Moravě. AMM, Sci. soc.
LXXIV, 7-34.
VALOCH
K. 1996: Anfänge ästhetischer Empfindungen im
Paläolithikum Mährens und Böhmens. In: Svoboda
ed.: Paleolithic in the Middle Danube Region, Spisy
Archeologického ústavu AVČR v Brně, svazek 5, Brno,
273-278.
VALOCH
K. 1997: Les os utilisés au Paléolithique inférieur
et moyen en Moravie et le problème d´amas d´os
de grands mammifères. In: Hannus L. A. – Rossum L. –
Winham R. P. (eds.): Proceedings of the 1993 bone modification
conference, Hot Springs, South Dakota, Occasional Publication NO.
1, Archeology Laboratory, Augustana College, Sioux Falls, South
Dakota.
VALOCH
K. 1997b: Adaptabilita prvních hominidů ve střední
Evropě. Pravěk NŘ 7, 5-15.
VALOCH
K. et al. 1969: VALOCH K. – PELÍŠEK J. –
MUSIL R. – KOVANDA J. – OPRAVIL E.: Die Erforschung
der Kůlna-Höhle bei Sloup im Mährischen Karst
(Tschechoslowakei). Quartär, Band 20, Bonn, 1-45.
VILLA
P. – BARTRAM L. 1996: Flaked bone from a hyena den. PALEO
(Les Eyzies de Tayac-Sireuil), no. 8, 143-159.
WEST
D. ed. 2001: Proceedings of the International Conference on
Mammoth site Studies, University of Kansas Publications in
Anthropology 22, Lawrence.
ZELINKOVÁ
M. 1998: Osteologický materiál z vnitřních
prostor jeskyně Kůlny. AMM, Sci. geol., LXXXIII, 147-157.
ZILHAO
- D'ERRICO eds. 2003:The Chronology of the Aurignacien and of the
Transitional Technocomplexes. Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural
Implications.
|
