Beyond animality and humanity. Landscape, metaphor and identity in the Early Upper Palaeolithic of Central Europe

Author(s):  
Martin Porr ◽  
Fiona Coward ◽  
Robert Hosfield ◽  
Matt Pope ◽  
Francis Wenban-Smith
Author(s):  
Andrzej Wiśniewski ◽  
Marcin Chłoń ◽  
Marcel Weiss ◽  
Katarzyna Pyżewicz ◽  
Witold Migal

Abstract This paper attempts to show that manufacture of Micoquian bifacial backed tools was structured. Data for this study were collected using a comprehensive analysis of artefacts from the site Pietraszyn 49a, Poland, which is dated to the beginning of Marine Isotope Stage 3. Based on the whole data set, it was possible to distinguish four stages of the manufacturing process. During manufacturing, both mineral hammer and organic hammer were used. The tools were usually shaped due to distinct hierarchization of faces. The study has also shown that the shape of bifacial tools from Pietraszyn 49a is very similar to the other Micoquian examples from central Europe. The ways of shaping of some tools are finding their counterparts also in the Early Upper Palaeolithic inventories, but the similarities are rather limited to the narrow range of preparation of bifacial form.


Author(s):  
Paul Pettitt

Since their initial discovery in the nineteenth century, human figurines have formed a noticeable part of the artistic record of the 30,000 years of the European Upper Palaeolithic. Some figurines—particularly the ‘Venuses’ of the Mid-Upper Palaeolithic (Gravettian sensu lato)—have long served as icons of Upper Palaeolithic cultural achievement. This chapter reviews our current understanding of figurines of western and North Central Europe. Their first manifestation is with a few enigmatic examples during the Early Upper Palaeolithic (Aurignacian) of southwest Germany. A far more visible and geographically widespread manifestation comes with the Mid-Upper Palaeolithic Venus figurines, and a similarly widespread occurrence comes with the highly schematic side-profile outlines of the Gönnersdorf type, which belong to the Middle and Late Magdalenian. The history of interpretation and current thinking of these figurine horizons is discussed in this chapter, which should be read in conjunction with Chapter 30 (Farbstein).


2021 ◽  
Vol 38 ◽  
pp. 103050
Author(s):  
Saman Heydari-Guran ◽  
Katerina Douka ◽  
Thomas Higham ◽  
Susanne C. Münzel ◽  
Katleen Deckers ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Dinnis ◽  
A. Bessudnov ◽  
N. Reynolds ◽  
T. Devièse ◽  
A. Dudin ◽  
...  

AbstractThe Streletskian is central to understanding the onset of the Upper Palaeolithic on the East European Plain. Early Streletskian assemblages are frequently seen as marking the Neanderthal-anatomically modern human (AMH) anthropological transition, as well as the Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic archaeological transition. The age of key Streletskian assemblages, however, remains unclear, and there are outstanding questions over how they relate to Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic facies. The three oldest Streletskian layers—Kostenki 1 Layer V, Kostenki 6 and Kostenki 12 Layer III—were excavated by A. N. Rogachev in the mid-20th century. Here, we re-examine these layers in light of problems noted during Rogachev’s campaigns and later excavations. Layer V in the northern part of Kostenki 1 is the most likely assemblage to be unmixed. A new radiocarbon date of 35,100 ± 500 BP (OxA- X-2717-21) for this assemblage agrees with Rogachev’s stratigraphic interpretation and contradicts later claims of a younger age. More ancient radiocarbon dates for Kostenki 1 Layer V are from areas lacking diagnostic Streletskian points. The Kostenki 6 assemblage’s stratigraphic context is extremely poor, but new radiocarbon dates are consistent with Rogachev’s view that the archaeological material was deposited prior to the CI tephra (i.e. >34.3 ka BP). Multiple lines of evidence indicate that Kostenki 12 Layer III contains material of different ages. Despite some uncertainty over the precise relationship between the dated sample and diagnostic lithic material, Kostenki 1 Layer V (North) therefore currently provides the best age estimate for an early Streletskian context. This age is younger than fully Upper Palaeolithic assemblages elsewhere at Kostenki. Other “Streletskian” assemblages and Streletskian points from younger contexts at Kostenki are briefly reviewed, with possible explanations for their chronostratigraphic distribution considered. We caution that the cultural taxon Streletskian should not be applied to assemblages based simply on the presence of bifacially worked artefacts.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document