The Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in Central Europe: The record from the Bükk Mountain region 9780860548775, 9781407350066

Table of contents :
Cover Page
Title Page
Copyright
Abstract
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Plates
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: The Szeletian and Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in the Bukk Mountain Region - History of Research
Chapter 3: Theoretical Considerations and Methodology
Chapter 4: Paleoenvironment and Chronology
Chapter 5: Middle and Upper Paleolithic Sites in the Bukk Mountains of Northeast Hungary and East Slovakia
Chapter 6: Lithic Raw Material Utilization in the Bukk Mountains and the Carpathian Basin During the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition
Chapter 7: A Comparison of Site Functions at Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic Sites in the Bukk Mountains
Chapter 8: Early Upper Paleolithic Settlement Patterns in Northeast Hungary and East Slovakia
Chapter 9: Conclusions
Bibliography

Citation preview

BAR  S693  1998   ADAMS  

The Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in Central Europe The record from the Bükk Mountain region

THE MIDDLE TO UPPER PALEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN CENTRAL EUROPE

Brian Adams

BAR International Series 693 B A R

1998

The Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in Central Europe The record from the Biikk Mountain region

Brian Adams

BAR International Series 693 1998

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 693 The Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in Central Europe

© B Adams and the Publisher 1998 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9780860548775 paperback ISBN 9781407350066 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9780860548775 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd/ Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 1998. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

EMAIL

PHONE FAX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

ABSTRACT

This work reports on the issue of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Central Europe, and focuses on the archeological evidence from Middle and early Upper Paleolithic sites in northeast Hungary and east Slovakia. Unlike most approaches to this issue in this part of the Old World, less emphasis is placed on typological comparisons between sites. Rather, other data sets not commonly used to examine the issue of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition are used to investigate the question of human behavioral changes at this time. These data sets include lithic raw material transfers, lithic edge wear analysis, and settlement patterns.

Based on the author's typological, technological and raw material analyses of Middle and early Upper Paleolithic assemblages from the Bukk Mountains of northeast Hungary, it is argued that the data do not support models of acculturation or gradual cultural evolution during the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in this region. Szeletian assemblages, which date to approximately 40,000 years ago and which are currently accepted as "transitional" links between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic, are interpreted here as specialized activity variants of a local early Upper Paleolithic Aurignacian adaptation. A model of early Upper Paleolithic subsistence and settlement practices in northeast Hungary and east Slovakia is presented.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I must thank several individuals and organizations for the successful completion of this work. Analysis of Hungarian Paleolithic collections and collaboration with Hungarian archeologists was made possible in part by a work research grant from the International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), with funds provided by the United States Department of State. Neither organization is responsible for the views expressed. Additional funds were provided by the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Preliminary research in Central and Eastern Europe was supported by a grant from the Anthropology Department at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Erdelyi-Bacskay of the Hungarian State Geological Institute allowed me to use her laboratory for some of my edge-wear work, and together we spent many productive hours discussing various aspects of lithic analysis. Family and friends provided much support. My parents provided much moral support while preparing this work. Ilona Matkovszki has been a constant source of encouragement, and helped me to endure the often tedious processes of research and writing. Paula Luesse, Susan Brannock-Gaul and Jarrod Burks produced many of the figures in this work. All artifact drawings were done by the author from the original pieces.

Dr. Olga Soffer was a constant source of encouragement and advice during my graduate studies and work completion, and I thank her for her assistance and patience. I also thank my committee members, Dr. Stanley Ambrose, Dr. Lawrence Keeley and Dr. Steven Leigh. I have learned much from all of my committee members during the writing of this work, and look forward to continued productive interactions with them all in the future. I am also indebted to Dr. James Phillips of the University of Illinois at Chicago, who provided me with my first opportunity to work on an Old World Paleolithic project, and gave me the chance to participate in all aspects of archeological research, from field survey to artifact analysis. Jim has taught me much about lithic analysis, and is a constant source of encouragement and inspiration. In Hungary, several archeologists made my research possible and enjoyable. Dr. Viola Dobosi provided unlimited access to the Hungarian Paleolithic collections in the Hungarian National Museum in Budapest, and graciously invited me to attend one of her recent excavations. On several occasions, Dr. Arpad Ringer of the University of Miskolc took time from his hectic schedule to enable me to comfortably study several Paleolithic collections in the Herman Otto Museum. Arpad and his wife introduced me to many of the beauties of Miskolc and the Bukk Mountains, and for this I am indebted to them. Dr. Katalin Biro helped me locate lab space and a microscope for edge-wear analysis in Budapest, and provided invaluable assistance with lithic raw material identifications. Katalin Siman freely shared her views on the Szeletian and gave me a chance to participate in her Paleolithic excavations in northeast Hungary. Dr. Erzsebet

II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

II

LIST OF TABLES

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

V

LIST OF PLATES

vi

CHAPTER!:

INTRODUCTION

1

CHAPTER2:

THE SZELETIAN AND THE MIDDLE TO UPPER PALEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN THE BUKK MOUNTAIN REGION - HISTORY OF RESEARCH

8

CHAPTER3:

THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODOLOGY

18

CHAPTER4:

PALEOENVIRONMENT AND CHRONOLOGY

24

CHAPTERS:

MIDDLE AND EARLY UPPER PALEOLITHIC SITES IN THE BUKK MOUNTAINS OF NORTHEAST HUNGARY AND EAST SLOVAKIA

34

LITHIC RAW MATERIAL UTILIZATION IN THE BUKK MOUNTAINS AND THE CARPATHIAN BASIN DURING THE MIDDLE TO UPPER PALEOLITHIC TRANSITION

88

A COMPARISON OF SITE FUNCTIONS AT MIDDLE AND EARLY UPPER PALEOLITHIC SITES IN THE BUKK MOUNTAINS

113

EARLY UPPER PALEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN NORTHEAST HUNGARY AND EAST SLOVAKIA

137

CONCLUSION

151

CHAPTER6:

CHAPTER 7:

CHAPTERS:

CHAPTER9: APPENDIX

153

BIBLIOGRAPHY

159

111

LIST OF TABLES

Table Table Table Table

I.I 2.1 4.1 4.2

Table 5.1 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table

5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14

Table Table Table Table Table

5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 6.1

Table Table Table Table Table Table

6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7

Table Table Table Table

6.8 7.1 7.2 7.3

Table 7.4 Table 7.5 Table 7.6 Table 7.7 Table 7.8 Table 7.9. Table 7.10 Table 7.11 Table 7.12 Table7.13 Table Table Table Table Table Table

8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6

Chronometric dates of the Szeletian in Central Europe 6 Mean length, width, and thickness measurements of Subalyuk and Szeleta bifaces 17 Chronometric dates from Hungarian loess sequences Recent, stadia!, interstadial and interglacial temperature and precipitation values for the Caprathian Basin region 30 Retouched tool categories used to classify Middle and early Upper Paleolithic assemblages Subalyuk Cave: Developed Mousierian 50 Subalyuk Cave: Late Mousterian Retouched stone tool types from Bi.idospest Cave 51 Lithic classification from Szeleta Cave, lower levels 52 Lithic classification from Szeleta Cave, upper level 53 Major tool categories at Szeleta Cave Lithic artifacts from lstall6sk6 Cave, lower level Lithic artifacts from lstall6sk6 Cave, upper level 54 Classification of Balla Cave lithic artifacts 55 Classification of Herman Ott6 Cave lithic artifacts Classification of lithic artifacts from Puskaporos Rockshelter Classification of Molotov utca lithics 56 Comparisons of Molotov utca biface with mean length, width, and thickness values of Szeleta Cave bifaces 57 Barca I pit-feature data Barca I lithic assemblage 58 Barca II pit-feature data Barca II lithic assemblage 59 Ordinal scale ranking of quality of various north Carpathian Basin lithic raw materials 98 Maximum dimensions of various lithic raw materials Local and non-local raw material utilization 99 Ultra-violet illumination of geological samples 100 Ultra-violet illumination of archaeological samples: lstall6sk6 Cave 1O1 Summary ofU.V. analysis of lstall6sk6 Cave artifacts 102 Proportion by weight of non-local raw materials at Bi.ikk Mountain Middle and Upper Paleolithic sites Proportion of raw materials derived from sources 40-100 km distant 103 Artifact density for Bi.ikk Mountain cave sites Amount of ash and charcoal from Bi.ikkMountain cave site features 121 Lithic reduction stages represented at Bi.ikkMountain Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic sites Szeleta Cave: results of microwear analysis of selected artifacts 122 lstall6sk6 Cave: results of microwear analysis of selected artifacts Istall6sk6 (Aurignacian II): materials worked as revealed by edge-wear analysis 123 Istall6sk6 (Aurignacian II): materials and activities as revealed by edge-wear analysis Ista116sk6(Aurignacian II): activities performed as revealed by edge-wear activities Debitage/tool: core ratios from Bi.ikk Mountains sites 124 Proportion of cores at Bi.ikkMountain sites Lithic artifact diversity from Bi.ikkMountain Middle and early Upper Paleolithic sites 125 Summary of site function data from Bi.ikkMountain Middle and early Upper Paleolithic sites Functional classification of Bi.ikkMountain Middle and early Upper Paleolithic sites based upon artifact density 126 Early Upper Paleolithic: Artifact density 141 Early Upper Paleolithic features Hearth features: Slovakian open-air sites 142 Post hole features: Slovakian open-air sites 143 Proportions of cores at early Upper Paleolithic sites 144 Artifact:core values for early Upper Paleolithic sites 145 IV

Table 8.7

Artifact diversity: early Upper Paleolithic

146

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Figure Figure Figure

1.1 1.2 2.1 4.1

Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22

Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

5.23 5.24 5.25 5.26 5.27 5.28 5.29 6.1

Figure 6.2 Figure Figure Figure Figure

6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6

Figure 6.7 Figure 6.8 Figure 6.9 Figure 6.10 Figure 6.11

Central and Eastern Europe 6 Major geomorphological features in Central Europe 7 Bifacial artifacts from Subalyuk Cave 17 Simplified chronology and lithology of West, Central and East European loess sections 31 Simplified Lithology of the Paks and Mende loess sections 32 Morphological divisions of the Biikk Mountains 33 Location of Middle and early Upper Paleolithic sites in the Biikk Mountains 60 Cave sites in the Hamor valley, west of Miskolc 61 Plan view of Subalyuk Cave 62 Subalyuk Cave, profile 63 Selected artifacts from Subalyuk Cave 64 Levallois core from Subalyuk Cave 65 Biidospest Cave, profile 66 Szeleta Cave, plan view 67 Szeleta Cave, profile 68 Selected artifacts from Szeleta Cave, lower complex 69 Selected artifacts from Szeleta cave, lower complex 70 Bifacial leaf points from Szeleta Cave, upper complex 71 Burins from Szeleta Cave, upper complex 72 Selected artifacts from Szeleta Cave, upper complex 73 lstall6sk6 Cave, plan view 74 Istall6sk6 Cave, cross sections 75 Istall6sk6 Cave, cross section 76 Selected artifacts from Istall6sk6 Cave 77 Aurignacian blades from lstall6sk6 Cave 78 Aurignacian blades from lstall6sk6 Cave 79 Selected artifacts from lstall6sk6 Cave 80 Box plot of carinate and keeled scraper values from west Central and Central/Eastern Europe Balla Cave, cross section 81 Herman Otto Cave, profile 82 Puskaporos Rockshelter, profile 83 Location of east Slovakian open-air Aurignacian sites 84 Pit Feature from Tibava 85 Barca II 86 Comparative histograms of Biikk Mountain cave assemblages 87 Lithic raw material sources in the north Carpathian Basin region of Central and Eastern Europe 104 Plot of lithic material quality by percentage representation in Biikk Mountain Middle and early Upper Paleolithic assemblages 105 Plot of weight of local raw material by total weight of lithic material Plot of weight of non-local raw material by total lithic raw material weight 106 Plot of raw materials derived from 15-100 km distant by total lithic raw material weight Plot of raw materials derived from sources 200-400 km distant by total raw material weight 107 Box plot of proportion of raw materials derived from sources between 15 and 100 km by period Box plot of proportion of raw materials derived from sources between 200 and 400 km by period 108 Proportion of non-local lithic raw materials in Middle and early Upper Paleolithic 109 Lithic raw material movement in the north Carpathian Basin region during the early Upper Paleolithic period 110 Lithic raw material movements in east Slovakia and northeast Hungary during the early Upper V

Figure Figure Figure Figure

6.12 7.1 7.2 7.3

Figure 7.4 Figure 7.5 Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

7.6 7.7 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5

Figure 8.6

Paleolithic period 111 Distribution of felsitic quarz-porphyry bifaces outside the Biikk Mountains 112 Box plots of Biikk Mountains Middle and early Upper Paleolithic Iithic assemblages Stem and leaf plot of artifact density 127 Box plots comparing Iithic reduction stages represented at Biikk Mountain Middle and early Upper Paleolithic sites 128 Microscopically examined artifacts from Szeleta Cave, upper complex 129 Box plot of proportion of cores in Biikk Mountain Middle and early Upper Paleolithic cave sites Box plot of tool diversity grouped by period 130 Plot of lithic artifact diversity by assemblage size 131 Distribution of Szeletian and Aurignacian sites in Central Europe 147 Distribution of Szeletian and Aurignacian sites in the Vah (Vag) River valley 148 Distribution of Szeletian and Aurignacian sites in Moravia 149 Comparative box plots of artifact density by site type Comparative box plots of proportion of cores at early Upper Paleolithic cave and open-air sites Comparative box plots of artifact:core ratios from early Upper Paleolithic cave and open-air sites 150

LIST OF PLATES

Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10

Microscopic crushing at distal tip of Szeletian biface Microscopic crushing at distal tip of Szeletian biface Microscopic impact scar at distal tip of Szeletian biface Edge rounding and pitted dry hide polish Dry hide polish Plant polish Example of post-depositional 'flint-on-flint' polish on Aurignacian blade Pitted dry hide polish and striations from piercing, Aurignacian blade Pitted dry hide polish and striations from piercing, Aurignacian blade Pitted dry hide polish and striations from piercing, Aurignacian blade

VI

132 133 134 135 136

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

Southeast Central Europe occupies a unique position in the Paleolithic record of Europe, as it is here that archeological cultures have been recognized which purportedly represent "transitional" industries between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic periods. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition occurred in this region approximately 40,000 years ago, and represents a significant event in human evolution. It was at this time that archaic forms of Homo sapiens, including Neanderthals, disappear from the fossil record and anatomically modem forms appear. The archeological record also documents changes at this time in stone tool technology and typology, symbolic and subsistence behavior. Current Approaches to the Middle to Upper PaleolithicTransition in Europe and Africa

There are currently four models which attempt to explain the apparent discontinuities between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic periods. According to the first model, Upper Paleolithic populations are viewed as the result of local evolutionary change over time: anatomically modem Homo sapiens and associated culture evolved from local populations of Neanderthals (Smith 1982; Svoboda l 986a,b ). The second model postulates that European Middle Paleolithic groups experienced a period of acculturation by newly arrived groups of modem Homo sapiens bearing Upper Paleolithic material culture (AIisworth-Jones 1986, 1990; Anikovich nd., 1992; Harrold 1989). According to the third model, Middle Paleolithic groups were quickly replaced by anatomically modem populations which moved into Europe from more southern regions (Stringer 1989; Stoneking and Cann 1989). Finally, the fourth model postulates that the differences between Middle and Upper Paleolithic cultures can be attributed to differences in the types of resources exploited by human groups and corresponding variations in subsistence and settlement behavior (Binford 1979, 1982; Gamble 1979; Kozlowski 1988a; Soffer 1989). A major problem with the first two models is the emphasis placed upon interassemblage comparisons of lithic tool inventories, neglecting other useful data sets, such as lithic raw material exploitation and fauna] data. The third model is hampered by controversies surrounding the use of genetic material to reconstrnct

human evolution and by reliance upon human fossils of debatable age. The fourth model differs from the others in its attempt to describe the differences between Middle and Upper Paleolithic cultures in terms of changes in human subsistence and settlement behavior. Behavioral information has been obtained through the analysis of fauna! material and lithic raw material sources. This model thus relies upon a more comprehensive data set than the first two models, and less controversial data than the third model. This approach has not been applied to the "transitional" material from Central Europe. In this work, I re-examine Middle Paleolithic, Szeletian, and early Upper Paleolithic data from northeast Hungary within this more behavioral framework. Behavioral approaches indicate that in general, the differences between Middle and Upper Paleolithic can be attributed to differences in subsistence behavior. On the basis of South African data, Binford (1982: 178; 1984:245) has argued that a major distinction between Middle and Upper Paleolithic subsistence practices was a shift from scavenging behavior during the former period to greater reliance on hunting during the latter period. Both Binford ( 1982, 1984) and Klein ( 1987, 1989) argue that Middle Paleolithic humans were not as capable of hunting large-sized mammals as were Upper Paleolithic humans. In Europe, recent analysis of Middle Paleolithic material in Italy suggests that before 55,000 years ago, Neanderthals practiced "nonconfrontational scavenging" of old-aged prey, exploiting food resources which were highly dispersed (Stiner 199I, 1994). Analysis of associated Mousterian lithic assemblages indicates that relatively large flake tools produced by centripetal core reduction were used, which Kuhn (I 990, 1991, 1995) has argued relates to the more intense, prolonged use of tools and greater frequency of transport. The lithic and fauna! evidence suggest that reliance on scattered resources at this time was associated with frequent movements and ephemeral occupations by human groups. Middle Paleolithic sites dated to after 55,000 B.P. have produced fauna! remains which indicate that modem hunting techniques were being practiced. Rather than rely upon widely scattered food sources, subsistence behavior centered

BRIAN ADAMS

Paleolithic period in Europe. Particular attention is paid to the acculturation model, which is currently popular among Old World prehistorians. This model is reviewed and critiqued in detail below.

upon the exploitation of specific, localized resources. Lithic technology is dominated by the technique of platform core reduction, which produces large numbers of relatively small flakes per core (ibid.). Tools from these sites are not intensively modified or re-sharpened, with little evidence of long-distance transport. Combined faunal and archeological evidence from these later sites suggests that human groups were less mobile than earlier Middle Paleolithic groups. Human groups did not range as far as the pre-55,000 B.P. inhabitants of the region, and established longer occupation sites (Stiner 1994).

Chapter 2 presents a detailed discussion of the origins of the "Szeletian" concept in Central Europe. In this chapter I focus on early and recent excavations in northeast Hungary, and evaluate the criteria which has been used to classify the Szeletian material as transitional between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic. Current theories of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Central Europe are next summarized and critiqued. Shortcomings of the currently popular acculturation model are emphasized. An alternative approach to the transition in Central Europe is proposed which relies less on lithic typological comparisons and instead incorporates other data sets related to settlement and mobility patterns. This approach is based upon both my detailed analysis of archeological assemblages from the Bukk Mountains of northeast Hungary and published data from eastern Slovakia.

Based upon faunal and archeological data from the Russian Plain, Soffer ( 1989) has argued that the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition likewise involved a change in subsistence practices. Fauna associated with the Streletskaya culture, an early Upper Paleolithic culture exhibiting Middle Paleolithic traits, suggests that these groups utilized small territories and were opportunistic, exploiting a wide range of animal species. Contemporaneous with the Streletskaya culture was another early Upper Paleolithic group termed the Spitsynian culture. Faunal data indicate that subsistence was based upon fewer animal species and suggest that human groups were being more selective in their choice of prey. In addition, the distribution of raw materials that these groups occupied more extensive areas than their contemporaries.

Chapter 3 is a presentation of the theoretical and methodological approaches I have employed to investigate the question of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition. Included here are discussions of archeological, ethnographic, and ethnoarcheological approaches to the study of prehistoric hunter-gatherers. I consider approaches which relate settlement and mobility patterns to subsistence behavior. While I do not attempt to reconstruct changes in subsistence practices at the transitional period, I do discuss the affect such practices will have on settlement type and lithic raw material acquisition and transport patterns.

These examples suggest that the Middle to Upper Paleolithic involved changes in subsistence and settlement practices. The evidence also indicates that the nature of such changes was not the same every where. Middle Paleolithic groups appear to have obtained resources "episodally", as they were encountered, and scavenging of animal carcasses may have been an important part of the subsistence system (Binford 1987: 18; 1983:75). By the Upper Paleolithic, subsistence practices involved the exploitation of fewer species. Settlement pattern data indicate greater variability. The Italian data suggest a trend from greater to less mobility at the end of the Middle Paleolithic, while the Russian material indicates a cooccurrence of both highly mobile and less mobile human groups.

In Chapter 4, paleoenvironmental conditions during the last interglacial and glacial period in the study area are discussed. The chronological framework of this period is also presented here.

Approach to the Problem

A detailed discussion of key Middle, "transitional", and early Upper Paleolithic sites is presented in Chapter 5. First, I present data I collected from my analysis of lithic assemblages from Bukk Mountain sites in northeast Hungary. This is followed by a discussion of early Upper Paleolithic open-air sites from eastern Slovakia.

In the remainder of Chapter 1, I present a definition of the "transitional" Szeletian material in Central Europe, followed by a discussion of current attempts to fit this material into models of cultural evolution during the

After a presentation of the site data, I present in Chapter 6 a detailed discussion of the concept of a Middle to Upper Paleolithic "transitional" culture in the Bukk Mountains of northeast Hungary. Origins of the term

2

THE MIDDLE TO UPPER PALEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN CENTRAL EUROPE: BDKK MOUNTAIN REGION

transition in Europe. Since its initial recognition in Hungary, Szeletian material has been identified in Moravia and Slovakia.

"Szeletian" are discussed, and changing interpretations of the Szeletian material are presented. Here I question the evidence of an in-situ evolution from Middle to Upper Paleolithic in this region, and suggest that the Szeletian is not a "transitional" industry, but an early Upper Paleolithic phenomenon which may represent a facies of the local Aurignacian.

Several sites from Moravia, Slovakia and Hungary have been classified as Szeletian. Although approximately 100 Szeletian sites are reported in Moravia, only V edrovice V has produced material from a buried context (Oliva 1991), so that most collections cannot be equivocally defined as Szeletian.

A detailed discussion of lithic raw material data from Bukk Mountain cave and open-air sites is presented in Chapter 7. First, I present a discussion of the distribution and differing quality of lithic raw materials utilized in the region. Next, differences between the Middle and early Upper Paleolithic collections are discussed. This data is compared with published data from other parts of the Carpathian Basin.

Currently, the largest, in-situ Szeletian collections are those from Vedrovice V in Moravia (Valoch 1984) and Szeleta Cave in the Bukk Mountains of Hungary (Kadic 1916a). Based upon the assemblages from these sites, I define the Szeletian as a non-Levalloisian, early Upper Paleolithic industry characterized by the production of flake and blade tools. Typologically, Szeletian assemblages are dominated by leaf points, end scrapers, burins, and retouched blades. Although Szeletian assemblages are claimed to contain Middle Paleolithic tool types (eg. denticulates, notches, and side scrapers), my analysis of the collections from Szeleta Cave indicate that such types are relatively rare or are in fact not tools but "pseudo-tools", created by post-depositional activity (Chapter 5).

In Chapter 8, I discuss differences in site functions represented at Bukk Mountain Middle and early Upper Paleolithic sites. A variety of data sets are involved in this discussion. Some of the data are derived from my own analysis of the archeological material, while published site reports were consulted for additional information, such as artifact density and features. Chapter 9 presents a similar discussion, but instead compares early Upper Paleolithic data from the Bukk Mountains with data from the open-air Slovakian Aurignacian sites. In these two chapters I demonstrate that Middle and early Upper Paleolithic settlement pattern in the Bukk Mountains were different, and propose that the Slovakian and northeast Hungarian early Upper Paleolithic sites represent functional facies of a single early Upper Paleolithic occupation of the region.

Szeletian material has been chronometrically dated to between about 44,000 and 37,000 B.P. in northeast Hungary, and in Moravia to between about 40,000 and 37,000 BP (Ailsworth-Jones 1986; Oliva 1991; Siman 1990). This places the material within a short period of climatic warming during the last glacial period (Table 1.1). In terms of stone tool technology and typology, the Szeletian is very similar to other Upper Paleolithic assemblages, especially the Aurignacian, with which it is contemporary (Ailsworth-Jones 1986; Kozlowski l 988a:2 l 4 ). The occurrence of some Middle Paleolithic tool types has led some to view the Szeletian as an example of acculturation of local Neanderthal populations by incoming groups of anatomically modern humans (Ailsworth-Jones 1986:91). Others have interpreted the Szeletian sites as special purpose sites produced by the makers of Aurignacian material (Brandtner l 950;Frayer 1976; Neustupny and Neustupny 1960). In the latter case, Szeletian and Aurignacian material is believed to be the product of a single culture, with observed differences representing differences in site activities.

The Szeletian in Central Europe

Southeast Central Europe, as used here, refers to an area of approximately 125,000 km2 within the modern territories of Austria, the Czech and Slovak Republics, and Hungary (Figure 1.1). The dominant geographical features of this region are the Carpathian Mountains, the Carpathian Basin, and the Danube River drainage area (Figure 1.2). Within this larger region, important Middle and Upper Paleolithic material has been found in northern Hungary, Moravia in the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. These same areas have also produced archeological material which is considered to be "transitional" between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic periods. The Szeletian material from northeast Hungary was the first of these "transitional" cultures to be recognized, and continues to occupy an important position in debates over the Middle to Upper Paleolithic

3

BRIAN ADAMS

(Brew 1946; Sackett 1968:68). Secondly, there is currently insufficient data to associate human physical remains with any of the postulated ancestors of the Szeletian. The identification of a tooth from a Jankovichian site in Slovakia as Neanderthal is not certain (Smith 1982:682). Third, as I discuss in more detail in Chapter 4, it is premature to consider the "Jankovichian" a legitimate archeological industry, as it is defined on the basis of a very small number of artifacts from very few sites in the Transdanubian region of north central Hungary and southern Slovakia.

Current Approaches to the Middle and Upper Paleolithic Transition in Southeast Central Europe

Previous research into the Szeletian in northeast Hungary has focused upon its origins and supposed genealogical relationships with other Paleolithic cultures, such as the Bohunician material in Moravia and the Jankovichian in Transdanubian Hungary. Such studies are heavily based upon descriptions of stone tool types and interassemblage comparisons (Allsworth-Jones 1986; Dobosi 1989; Oliva 1986; Svoboda l 986a,b, I 987, I 988; Valoch I 986). While such studies are important and necessary first steps, such data bear limited behavioral information needed to address questions of human adaptations at this time. Studies which attempt to reconstruct behavioral correlates of the Szeletian material are rare, despite existence of potentially useful data in the Hungarian, Czech, and Slovakian literature (Kadic I 916a; Mott! 1938; Oliva 199 I: Prichystal 1989; Siman I 988; Valoch 1989).

Finally, the acculturation model proposes that local populations of Neanderthals possessing Middle Paleolithic material culture came into contact with newly arrived groups of anatomically modern Homo sapiens bearing Upper Paleolithic material culture (Aurignacian). The result of contact was the adoption of Upper Paleolithic technology by Neanderthals which produced archeological assemblages such as the Szeletian, characterized by blade core technology together with Middle Paleolithic tool types, such as side scrapers, denticulates, and notches. Such a pattern is not supported by anthropological conceptions of the acculturation process. Blade production is a complex technological process, requiring several steps, and may have been practiced by a few part-time specialists within a group (Bordaz 1970:56; Gibson 1984; see also Cross [I 990:50] for a similar discussion of biface production by specialists). While recent research has demonstrated the variability of Middle Paleolithic lithic reduction strategies and indicates that blade blanks were systematically produced during this period, the intensity and complexity of blade production increased synchronically with the advent of the Upper Paleolithic (Kozlowski 1990; Mellars 1996:393; Tuffreau 1992; Turq 1992). Evidence of the more complex nature of Upper Paleolithic blade technology is the addition of the soft hammer technique to the reduction system (Otte 1990:440). If complexity is measured in terms of number of steps and percussion blows used to create a flake or blade tool, systematic blade tool production is more complex than flake tool production (Campbell 1985:389). A retouched flake on a Mousterian flake blank requires fours major production steps and 111 individual percussion blows, while an Aurignacian backed blade requires nine steps and 251 percussion blows. According to Linton (l 940a:500)

According to the acculturation model currently advocated by several researchers in Central Europe, "transitional" archeological assemblages are viewed as the material expression of contact and interactions between Neanderthal and anatomically modern populations (Allsw011h-Jones 1986; Kozlowski 1988a; Valoch I 986). This model, which was first proposed by Prosek in 1953. is most eloquently presented by Ailsworth-Jones (1986) with regard to Szeletian material of Central Europe. Szeletian material is incorporated into a more inclusive set of transitional industries which exhibit both Middle and Upper Paleolithic stone tool types. These include the Bohunician material in Moravia and the Jankovichian material in Slovakia and n011h-centralHungary. A key element of Ailsworth-Jones' acculturation model is his attemptto associate Szeletian material with Neanderthal human remains. No Szeletian sites have produced human remains, but Neanderthal teeth were recovered from Jankovichian sites in Slovakia and north Hungary. Assuming that the Szeletian and Jankovichian are essentially the same, Ailsworth-Jones concludes that the Szeletian too was produced by Neanderthals. There are problems with this model. First, the attempt to unite the Szeletian with Bohunician and Jankovichian material 1s based primarily upon the occurrence ofbifaces in all three cultures. The basis for such arguments has been questioned by areheologists, as the presence of a single common tool alone does not provide evidence of cultural links between groups

.. .in culture transfer complex elements do not uniformly tend to replace simple ones, in fact any very high degree of complexity probably

4

THE MIDDLE TO UPPER PALEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN CENTRAL EUROPE:

BOKKMOUNTAIN REGION

Previous interpretations of the Szeletian have thus focused mainly upon typological comparisons between sites. The acculturation model specifically attempts to explain the typologically "mixed" nature of Szeletian tool assemblages in terms of culture contact. I believe that a full understanding of the Szeletian and the contemporary Aurignacian must be based upon a wider data set which can be utilized to reconstruct patterns of human adaptation at this time. Although archeologists have called for approaches to the transitional material which focus on past human behavior, little work has yet been conducted (Harrold 1989; Kozlowski l 988b:349; Soffer 1989). In this work I examine the transitional material from northeast Hungary from through an analysis of not only artifact typology, but also several other data sets, including lithic raw material utilization patterns, site distribution, and site :function.

increases the difficulty of individual learning and thus makes transfer harder. The rate at which technological change is likely to have occurred during the Paleolithic is illustrated by transitional material from southern Israel (Marks and Perring 1988). Here, Levantine Mousterian assemblages from Boker Tachtit in the Central Negev indicate a gradual development of tool blank production techniques, while tool morphologies remained unchanged. In this case technological change is gradual, not sudden. Acculturation often involves the transfer of specific objects, such as tools, utensils and ornaments, while the transfer of "patterns of behavior" is more difficult (Linton l 940b:485). There are also data which suggest that immigrant groups are more likely to "...borrow more heavily from those already on the ground ...", since the latter have successfully adapted to local conditions (ibid:491 ). This suggests that the evidence for acculturation of local Neanderthals should be the opposite of that proposed by Ailsworth-Jones. It is more likely that local Neanderthal groups would have initially imitated certain artifact types, such as end scrapers and burins, while at the same time retaining their own non-blade technological procedures. A new, more complex technological method of production would have been more difficult to replicate. Kozlowski (l 988b:352) describes such a situation for the Moravian "early" Szeletian, in which an essentially Middle Paleolithic technology is associated with both typical Middle and Upper Paleolithic tool types. These assemblages, however, are derived from surface scatters and are of questionable integrity. In any event, it is extremely difficult to recognize unequivocal evidence of culture change in the archaeological record, particularly change resulting from interactions between populations (T1igger 1968:42), and it is suggested here that this is especially true when dealing with the meager material remains of highly mobile Paleolithic hunting and gathering groups. In light of these shortcomings in the data, I conclude that Ailsworth-Jones' acculturation model is built upon a very weak foundation. There is no strong support for the conclusion that there is a genealogical relationship between the Szeletian, Jankovichian, and Bohunican, little evidence that Neande1thals are associated with Jankovichian material, and finally very little data to justify the recognition of a ".Jankovichian"culture.

5

BRIAN ADAMS

Table 1.1 Chronometric dates of the Szeletian in Central Europe Site Szeleta Cave Szeleta Cave Szeleta Cave Certova pee Vedrovice V Vedrovice V

Date (B.P.) 43,000 +/-1100 >41,700 32,620 +/- 400 38,400 +2800/-2100 39,500 +/-1100 37,650 +/- 550

Sample# GrN-6058 GXO-197 GrN-5130 GrN-2438 drN-12375 GrN-12374

Comments Lower complex Lower complex Upper complex Cave site Open-air

Figure 1.1. Central and Eastern Europe.

Byelorussia Warsaw• Kiev•

Poland Ukraine

Germany

France

Romania

Bucharest•

Bulgaria

6

THE MIDDLE TO UPPER PALEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN CENTRAL EUROPE:

BOKKMOUNTAIN REGION

Figure 1.2. Major geomorphological features in Central Europe.

--Km

0

500

North European Plain

·.-::·: -.... ~-.. --~:··.:

; _.--.::--. ·._:_··:.:· ;:·:

_

·:. ·-:.Carpathians -::.··.·. :: ...

.'.-:"::·:_:·.-:.-.:/(:!~\~/:_->'.:·.-._ Carpathian·.·_..·.··::·:·."·::::::.-·.-·· Basin _.:_:'._::)Ti-a·~~ylvai'.i:i~~: ..

·::: -:. ·:_. :_· .··._:.-_:·:· i. Alps:i::; ·::.·· . .. :. : . : ·. : ·.:.

___ ·:-;·•:.:_.((/ }>).·:··· _:.

',

ic · ·..

+:L\tr: ..

... .. .

·.···.·:

..

7

:

. :·: . .

l~i:I• ~::\:\:

CHAPTER2 THE SZELETIAN AND THE MIDDLE TO UPPER PALEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN THE BUKK MOUNTAIN REGION-HISTORY OF RESEARCH

Hungary, Kadic brought these artifacts to Vienna, Tele (Bohemia), Prague and Brno (Moravia) in 1908 to determine the age and cultural affiliation of the Szeleta Cave lithic artifacts. In Vienna, archeologist Dr. Hugo Obermaier concluded that the leaf points were typical western European Solutrean types, and moreover cast doubt on the authenticity of the points due to their pristine condition.

The Szeletian has become the "transitional" culture par excellence, demonstrating continuity between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic periods in Central Europe. Such has not always been the case, and interpretations of the Szeletian material have changed over time. In this chapter, I outline the historical development of the Szeletian concept, and then critique the data used to support the current model of the Szeletian as a "transitional" archeological culture. This is followed by a discussion of the Biikk Mountain and east Slovakian Aurignacian material, which is contemporary with the Szeletian material and has thus generated controversy among archeologists working in this area. My interpretations of the Aurignacian/Szeletian "problem" are presented at the end of this chapter.

In August 1911, Kadic was invited to the international paleoethnological conference in Tubigen, Germany. Here he presented a well-received paper on his work at Szeleta Cave. His colleagues agreed that the Szeletian material was identical to the Solutrean material of western Europe, and that two developmental phases were represented at Szeleta. The earlier phase was characterized by crudely flaked bifaces, while the more recent phase produced finely worked leaf points. In his original report, Kadic refers to the early phase as "Early Solutrean" (Fruhsolutreen), and later as "Protosolutreen" (Kadic 1934:40). The main characteristic of the "Early Solutrean" was the presence of thick, often asymmetrical bifaces. Aside from these types, the assemblage also produced artifacts which were interpreted as steeply retouched tools, made on blades and flakes. Due to its apparent crudeness and stratigraphic position, the "Early Solutrean" was considered the precursor of the "Developed Solutrean" (Hochsolutreen). The "Developed Solutrean" was found in the uppermost level (level 6), and consisted of thin, symmetrical leaf points accompanied by thin blades and amorphous flakes with sharp edges. Kadic never argued that the Early Solutrean was transitional between what are now recognized as Middle and Upper Paleolithic assemblages. Rather, he was more concerned with the construction of a developmental framework for "Solutrean" period sites the Biikk Mountain region.

1900-1915:Kadic and Hillebrand

Scientific investigations into the Paleolithic of northeast Hungary began around the turn of the century, when two large bifaces were discovered near the Szinva Brook during construction work in the city of Miskolc (Herman 1908). This and other discoveries led to the systematic investigation of caves in Biikk Mountains by Ottokar Kadic of the Hungarian Geological Institute in 1906 (Kadic 1907). Kadic visited 17 caves in this area and concluded that six warranted detailed examination, among which the largest was Szeleta Cave. Kadic supervised excavations at Szeleta Cave for eight years, from November 1906 through September 1913, during which time the complete sequence from surface to bedrock was described (Kadic 1916a). I present details of the excavations at this site in a separate chapter. For the present discussion is important to state that Kadic grouped the Szeleta Cave artifacts into two main groups: a lower assemblage characterized by crudely fashioned bifaces, and an upper industry with more refined bifacial tools. The lower assemblage has since been chronometrically dated to >41,000 B.P. (GXO-197), and was situated above a layer dated to 43,000 ±1100 B.P. (GrN-6058). The upper assemblage has been dated to 32,620 ±400 B.P. (GrN-5130).

Later inspection of the "Early Solutrean" material led to the conclusion that the crudeness of the material was the result of cryoturbation (Allsworth-Jones 1978:8, 1986:87). However, neither Kadic's stratigraphic profiles nor his descriptions of the various levels indicate that the deposits in Szeleta Cave were cryoturbated. Kadic was a geologist, and would surely have noted any evidence of cryoturbation in the cave

In 1907, the first bifacially worked laurel leaf points were recovered. Lacking comparative material in 8

THE MIDDLE TO UPPER PALEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN CENTRAL EUROPE:

BOKKMOUNTAIN REGION

In Hillebrand's scheme, the final phase of the Solutreen in the Biikk Mountains is represented by sites such as Puskaporos Shelter and Herman Ott6 Cave, where less carefully worked artifacts were found.

sediments. I attribute the crude nature of these artifacts in part to continual trampling by cave bears, which, judging by the richness of their remains, commonly utilized the cave as a den throughout the Pleistocene. The weight of an adult cave bear is estimated at 400 to 450 kg or 900 to 1,000 lbs (Kurten 1976:25). Continued trampling by such animals would have undoubtedly altered the appearance of lithic artifacts left in the cave. Indeed, post-depositional modification of cave bear bones (eg. scratching, fracturing, breakage) can in part be attributed to trampling during subsequent occupation by the same species (Gargett 1996:125).

Hillebrand used the term "Szeleta Culture" for the earlier, crudely worked assemblages of the "Protosolutreen" only. He also noted that West European Aurignacian tool types occured together with the Protosolutreen. This admixture of tool types was attributed to the migration of Aurignacian groups out of southwest Europe into Central and Eastern Europe. This is the earliest reference to the co-occurrence of Aurignacian and Szeletian material, yet, as will be discussed below, it is a view which is still advocated today.

Kadic's interpretation of the Szeleta material was based both on his knowledge of the cave's deposits and the opinions of scientists working in the west. Not trained in prehistory or archeology, Kadic accepted the views of professional archeologists. A slightly different and more elaborate interpretation of the Szeleta material was put forth by Hillebrand (1935), who assisted Kadic between 1909 and 1913. Hillebrand was an archeologist, and was thus more familiar with prehistoric material outside of Hungary and Central Europe. Unlike Kadic, Hillebrand did not consider the Szeleta Cave artifacts identical with the French Solutrean material. On the contrary, he sees the Hungarian "Protosolutreen" material as ancestral to all later European Solutrean material. Hillebrand contends that "Old Solutrean" material from the lower levels at Laugerie-Haute in France represents and early cultural migration wave out of Hungary into southwest Europe. In France, the Solutrean culture "blossomed" due to the favorable climate and the abundance of caves for habitation.

Hillebrand avoided the question of "Solutrean" origins in the Biikk Mountains. He did however suggest, but did not elaborate upon the idea, that both the Mousterian and "Protosolutreen" cultures may have originated northeast of the Biikk Mountains, where there may have been contact between both cultures (Hillebrand 1935:31). This is the earliest expression of the idea of possible interaction between Szeletian and Middle Paleolithic groups. 1920-1950:Hillebrand, Saad, Nemeskeri, Clarke and Parrington

During this period sporadic, small-scale excavations were conducted in Szeleta Cave. Nevertheless, these excavations did produce material which intensified the controversy surrounding the origins of the Szeletian material and its relationship to other European early Upper Paleolithic material.

In the Biikk Mountains, Hillebrand argues that the "Protosolutreen" gave rise to the Developed Solutrean, characterized by more refined bifacial leaf points. He also postulated a transitional "Early Solutreen" (Friisolutreen) between these two stages, but it is only represented by the material from Jankovich Cave in the Gerecse Mountains of north central Hungary.

During the spring and fall of 1928, excavations sponsored by the Miskolc Museum were conducted in association with the Ethnographic Museum of Cambridge (Kadic 1934). This project was directed by Hillebrand and Saad, with the participation of L.C.G. Clarke and F.R. Parrington of Cambridge (Saad 1929). Earlier excavations by Kadic had almost completely removed the upper strata which had produced the "Developed Solutrean" assemblage. Thus, the 1928 excavations were concentrated primarily in the lower, "Protosolutreen" levels, which had produced crude bifaces and other artifacts.

Hillebrand stresses that the Developed Solutrean differs from the French Solutreen in the technique of bifacial flaking. In the former, flaking is always irregular, while in the latter, retouch is more perpendicular to a point's long axis. Irregular flaking is also characteristic of the Hungarian Protosolutreen and the "Old Solutreen" at Laugerie-Haute, which Hillebrand argues is evidence of the common root of these industries.

The results of the 1928 season are significant because they provided the first evidence of the co-occurrence of bifacial leaf points and split-based bone points in 9

BRIAN ADAMS

This period witnessed renewed and intense interest in Szeletian origins, specifically its relationships with local Middle Paleolithic industries. According to Vertes, the BO.kkMountain Szeletian developed in-situ from a local Mousterian root as represented by the Subalyuk Cave assemblage. Vertes argued that small bifacially flaked artifacts, steep scrapers, and "primitive blade forms" were precursors to tool types found in the lower levels at Szeleta Cave. In addition, he argued that fauna! remains from both sites indicate that both "Subalyuk and Szeletian man" were cave bear hunters, indicating continuity in subsistence practices through time.

Szeleta Cave. On point is almost complete, while the other is a tip fragment (Saad 1929, figures 110 and 116). The excavations also produced classic Upper Paleolithic implement types, including two singleplatform blade cores and a dihedral burin (AllsworthJones 1978). Following a small-scale excavation by Maria Mott! in 1936, no work was conducted until 1947, when Saad and Nemeskeri opened several units throughout the cave. This excavation, which again was restricted to the "Protosolutreen" levels, produced only three lithic artifacts, all of which are crude bifaces (Saad and Nemeskeri 1955). More important was the discovery of an additional split-based bone point, compared to types found in the Aurignacian levels at nearby Istall6sk6 Cave. The excavators argued that this find provides additional evidence of an "Aurignacian I" occupation within the "Lower Szeleta" levels. These finds focused speculation on the relationship between the Szeletian and Aurignacian finds in the BO.kk Mountains, while less attention was paid to Szeletian origins.

Regarding the bone points found at Szeleta, Vertes accepted earlier arguments that these were the product of a separate cultural group, the "Aurignacians", who inhabited the BO.kkMountains contemporaneously with the "Szeletians". The discovery of bifacial leafpoints at the contemporary Aurignacian site of Istall6sk6 Cave, also in the BO.kkMountains, was likewise interpreted as evidence of the simultaneous occupation of the area by different cultural groups. According to Vertes, such objects represent "booty" obtained by one group from another.

1955-1970:Vertes, Gabori

Laszlo Vertes conducted the last intensive investigations at Szeleta Cave (Vertes 1959a, I 968). In 19 57, as part of his comprehensive study of cave sediments, he collected sediment samples from the remaining lower levels for particle size, petrological, botanical, and geochemical analyses (V ertes 1959). In I 967, as part of the "Szeleta Symposium", Vertes ( 1968) exposed profiles in three locations inside the cave. The 1967 investigations are of great significance because they provided the first, and as of yet only, chronometric dates for the Szeleta sequence.

Like Vertes, Gabori (1969) argues that the BO.kk Szeletian developed from a local Mousterian culture in the BO.kk Mountains. This is demonstrated by the presence of "mousteroid" artifacts in the Early Szeletian collection. The Developed Szeletian in tum evolved from the Early Szeletian. 1980-1990:Dobosi, Simao, Ringer, Ailsworth-Jones

The accumulation of additional geological, chronometric, paleontological and archeological data over the past twenty years has resulted in new and varied interpretations of the Szeletian material. Dobosi (1989) places the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Hungary between 50,000 and 30,000 B.P.. More precisely, she states that the transition occured during the Hengelo Interstadial, which in Hungary is represented by the level between Basaharc lower soil complex and the Mende Upper humus zone. According to Dobosi, there is no direct evidence for a local evolution from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic in northeast Hungary. Further, she argues that there is no genetic link between the lower and upper levels at Szeleta, and, like Hillebrand, believes that the term "Szeletian" should be restricted to the lower levels only.

V ertes advocated the use of the terms "Early Szeletian" and "Developed Szeletian" in place of "Protosolutreen" and "Developed Solutreen" respectively. This reflects his view that the Szeletian represents a distinct archeological culture with no ties to the west European Solutrean. This idea was confirmed by radiocarbon dates obtained from the 1967 excavations, which indicated that the Developed Szeletian from the upper levels at Szeleta Cave dated to 32,620 ± 400 B.P. (GrN 5130), and the Early Szeletian from the lower levels dated to 43,000 ± I 100 B.P. (GrN-6058). Vertes rejects the concept of a "Late" or "Degenerate Solutreen", as advocated by Kadic, and like Hillebrand argues that BO.kk Mountain sites with crudely worked bifacial artifacts., such as Puskaporos Rockshelter, represent workshops of the Developed Szeletian. 10

THE MIDDLE TO UPPER PALEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN CENTRAL EUROPE:

BOKKMOUNTAIN REGION

material into a more inclusive set of hypothesized transitional archeological industries exhibiting both Middle and Upper Paleolithic stone tool types, including the Bohunician in Moravia and the "Jankovichian" of northern Hungary and Slovakia. A key element of this acculturation of model is the association of Szeletian material with Neanderthal human remains. While no Szeletian sites have produced human remains, Neanderthal teeth have been recovered from "Jankovichian" sites in northern Hungary and Slovakia. A further complication is the issue of the "Jankovichian" as a legitimate archeological culture. I suggest that it is premature to consider the "Jankovichian" a legitimate archeological industry, as it is defined on the basis of a total of only 176 stone artifacts (of which 142 are retouched) from eight sites in the Transdanubian region of northern Hungary (Gabori-Csank 1986). The site of Jankovich Cave produced the largest assemblage of 125 artifacts, while the remaining seven sites produced assemblages of between only two and 15 stone artifacts. Unless additional sites are recognized and accurately dated, the Jankovichian must viewed with caution.

Recently, Siman (1990) has emphasized the shortcomings of Kadic's original excavations and the limitations of the Szeleta data. Siman suggests that the Szeletian developed locally from a Micoquian Middle Paleolithic root (Svoboda and Siman 1989). Like Dobosi, she sees no genetic ties between the lower and upper material from Szeleta. Rather she argues that differences in biface types and lithic raw material utilization reflect discontinuities in the prehistoric occupation of the site. Regarding the "Aurignacian" material found during the Saad and Nemeskeri excavations, Siman states that this represents a separate occupation by Aurignacian groups, and that this material is more similar to the Early Szeletian material than the Developed Szeletian. Ringer (1989,1990), like Siman, argues that the Bukk Mountain Szeletian probably developed from interactions between a local variant of the Central European Micoquian, which he terms "Babonyien", and early Aurignacian groups. He recognizes three developmental phase of the Szeletian. The first phase is termed Lower Szeletian and is characterized by assemblages with carinated scrapers indicating Aurignacian influence together with small Micoquian "handaxes" of Babonyien type. This is followed by the Upper Szeletian with exhibits a continuation of Babonyien retouch techniques. The final stage is termed "Solutrean-Szeletian", and is characterized by bifaces which, according to Ringer, resemble those of the French Solutrean. Kozlowski (1988b) accepts Ringer's position, stressing the influence of the newly arrived Aurignacian on local Middle Paleolithic groups.

Summary of the Szeletian Concept

This brief summary of research into the origins and significance of the Szeletian in northeast Hungary indicates how views have changed over time. Initially, the Szeletian material was incorporated into the general European developmental framework, within which it was considered analogous to the western European Solutrean material. At this time, there was little concern over origins. Instead, attempts were made to define developmental stages with the "Solutrean" period. With time, the uniqueness of the Szeletian data was emphasized, and soon it was accepted as a distinct archeological entity. The application of chronometric dating techniques in the 1960's demonstrated that the material was much older than the Solutrean. Indeed, the Szeletian proved to date to the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic, and not the end. Once the great antiquity of the Szeletian material was established, renewed interest in its relationship to local Middle Paleolithic cultures developed. It was at this time that the Szeletian was considered a likely candidate as a "transitional" industry between the Middle and early Upper Paleolithic in Central Europe.

Ailsworth-Jones (1990) has presented the most elegant and detailed version of the "acculturation" model of Szeletian ongms, which interprets transitional archeological material as the result of contact between Neanderthals and modern humans: ...the Szeletian, starting from a middle paleolithic base, became what it did thanks only to the impact of an outside force, upper paleolithic in nature and specifically associated with the Aurignacian. This model is actually an elaborate expression of views originally presented by the Slovakian archeologist Prosek, who argued that the Szeletian material in Slovakia was the outcome of interactions between immigrating Aurignacian groups and local Mousterian groups in the Carpathian Basin (Prosek 1953). Ailsworth-Jones attempts to incorporate the Szeletian

Traditionally, research on the "transitional" Szeletian culture in Hungary and elsewhere in Central Europe has focused upon its internal development, origins, and relationships with other Paleolithic cultures. These 11

BRIAN ADAMS

cntJ.que the concept of an in-situ Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in this region based upon specific examples from the archeological record. As I will demonstrate, key links in the chain of the "transitional" argument are based upon weak evidence. Such arguments must be based upon solid archeological and chronological data, which I contend is not the case.

studies are heavily based upon stone tool types and comparisons of assemblages between different sites (Ailsworth-Jones 1986; Dobosi 1989; Oliva 1986; Svoboda 1986a,b, 1988; Valoch 1986). While important, such data bear limited behavioral information which is necessary if questions regarding the nature of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition are to be addressed.

I have demonstrated above that several scholars derive the early Upper Paleolithic Szeletian material from a local Middle Paleolithic base in the Bukk Mountains. In order to evaluate these claims for an in-situ evolution, a brief review of the Bukk Mountain Middle Paleolithic data is presented.

Currently, the acculturation model enjoys wide acceptance by Old World prehistoric specialists (eg. Clark and Lindly 1989; Klein 1989:339; Svoboda and Siman 1989). There are fundamental problems with this model. The attempt to unite the Szeletian with other hypothesized "transitional" industries, such as the Bohunician of Moravia or the Jankovichian of west Hungary and Slovakia, is based upon the occurrence of a similar tool type in all three cultures, the bifacial leaf point. It has been argued that the presence of a common tool type alone does not necessarily indicate cultural links between groups, especially when one is dealing with bifacially worked artifacts lacking hafting elements, such as notches or stems, which are potentially useful cultural markers (Brew 1946; Sackett 1968:68). One key element of the acculturation model, as stated above, is the association of Neanderthal dental remains with Jankovichian assemblages, and thus indirectly to the Szeletian. However, the taxonomic classification of the teeth in question is uncertain (Smith 1982:682), and as argued above, the association between Szeletian and Jankovichian material is debateable.

Subalyuk Cave

Subalyuk Cave represents the longest and best documented Middle Paleolithic sequence in the Bukk Mountains and has produced the largest Middle Paleolithic collection in this region. Vertes (1959b) presents the first systematic attempt to trace the developmental stages of the Mousterian and early Upper Paleolithic in Hungary. Based upon his reanalysis of the Subalyuk collection, Vertes concluded, like the original excavators, that two cultural complexes exist: a "Developed" Mousterian from the lower levels, and a "Late" Mousterian from the upper levels. In addition, he noted a tendency towards blade production in the Developed Mousterian levels, and argued that the origins of both the Aurignacian and Szeletian cultures can ultimately be traced to the Developed Mousterian. Further, Vertes recognized bifacially worked artifacts in both complexes at Subalyuk, which he considered evidence for the initial appearance of Szeletian characteristics. For Vertes, two traits clearly indicate that the Early Szeletian developed from the Mousterian as represented at Subalyuk Cave. First, as already noted, bifaces were found at Subalyuk. Second, both Subalyuk and Early Szeletian assemblages produced bifacially worked sidescrapers and points with "zigzag" retouch on the lateral edges. Vertes concluded that the Szeletian can be considered a "long-lived" Mousterian which was influenced by Upper Paleolithic cultures. The transition from Middle to Upper Paleolithic occurred, according to Vertes, sometime during an early WUrmstadia! period.

Based upon my analysis of the Szeleta Cave lithic collections presented in Chapter 3, and upon studies of others (eg. Kozlowski 1988b), I consider the Szeletian to represent an Upper Paleolithic archeological culture with no "transitional" characteristics linking it to an immediate Middle Paleolithic predecessor. As I demonstrate in Chapter 4, prepared blade core technology was commonly utilized in both the upper and lower complexes. After bifaces, retouched blades and bladelets, and endscrapers dominate the tool kits in both assemblages. While not common, bone points, including split-based types, have also been recovered from Szeleta Cave. Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in the Biikk Mountains:Archeological and Chronological Evidence

Later, Gabori (1969) reiterated Vertes' scenario of the transition in the Bukk Mountains. Further, he argues that based upon a chronometric date (GXO-198) from Bi.idospest Cave, the transition occurred sometime before 37,000 B.P.

Having presented a detailed discussion of the origins of the concept of a "transitional" Szeletian culture, I now

12

THE MIDDLE TO UPPER PALEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN CENTRAL EUROPE: BOKK MOUNTAIN REGION

(91.4% of all retouched artifacts) and 10 blade tools (6.1% of all tools), while 98 (78.4%) flake and 26 (20.8%) blade tools exist in the lower complex (n=l25 tools). Regarding bifaces, only five (3.1% of all retouched tools) exist in the upper complex, and 2 (1.6% of all retouched tools) in the lower complex. These data indicate that tools made on blade blanks actually decrease with time at Subalyuk Cave, and do not support contentions that there was an increased production of blade tools reflecting an evolution towards Upper Paleolithic technologies. At the same time, bifaces increase in number, but always represent an insignificant element in the assemblages, and are never "common" as stated by Gabori (1969:157). As Table 2.1 indicates, these bifaces are short, thick and irregular in shape, and are not analogous to the Szeleta types (Figure 2.1).

More recently Dobosi (1989) argues that there is no good evidence of "genetic" contact between the Hungarian Middle and Upper Paleolithic. She correctly states that the Developed Mousterian from the lower levels of Subalyuk Cave are too early to have been related to the Upper Paleolithic. Babonyien Micoquian

Recently Ringer (1983) has argued that there is another possible Middle Paleolithic base in the Biikk Mountains from which the early Upper Paleolithic Szeletian developed. This culture, termed "Babonyien" after its initial discovery near the community of Saj6babony in northeast Hungary, is believed by Ringer to be a local variant of the Middle Paleolithic Micoquian. The Micoquian is known from Germany and Moravia, and is characterized by little to no use of the Levallois technique, and the production of small bifacial tools, many of which are core tools (Bosinski 1967, 1971; Mania and Toepfer 1973; Valoch 1988). Based upon the presence of bifacially worked "axes", "axescrapers", and triangular bifaces, this culture is considered by Ringer to be the root of the Biikk Mountain Szeletian. A major criticism of this hypothesis is that the "Babonyien" has been defined on the basis of five surface sites only.

As stated above, the "Babonyien" Micoquian culture cannot at present be considered a potential ancestor of the Szeletian due to a lack of in-situ sites. Until such sites are found, I contend that the "Babonyien" material can only be viewed as the result of post-depositional displacement of Pleistocene cultural remains, and is not a legitimate precursor of the Szeletian. Further, until Babonyien material is found in an undisturbed context, it is premature to consider it a legitimate prehistoric culture.

Siman (in Svoboda and Siman 1989) rejects Ringer's interpretation of the Babonyien material. Although she questions the validity of term due to a lack of in-situ material, she does argue that these sites may actually represent special open-air workshops produced by the makers of the Early Szeletian assemblages.

Finally, chronological continuity between the Biikk Mountain Middle and Upper Paleolithic material cannot be demonstrated. Based upon fauna!, pedological, and botanical data, the lower level group (levels 1-6) at Subalyuk Cave is currently believed to date to the end of the last interglacial and/or to the beginning of the Wurm, while the upper level group (levels 7-17) probably represent the period just prior to the first Wurm stadia! period (Gabori and Gabori-Csank 1977). According to Ringer (I 990, figure I), the end of the lower complex dates to between 70,000 and 80,000 B.P., while the end of the upper complex falls between 50,000 and 60,000 B.P. The data indicate a gap of approximately 10,000 years between the final occupation of Subalyuk Cave and the earliest Upper Paleolithic levels at Szeleta Cave (43,000 ±1100 B.P) and Istall6sk6 Cave (44,300 ±I 900 B.P.).

Discussion of the "Transitional" Argument

I contend that the above attempts to link the Subalyuk Cave and Babonyien material to the early Upper Paleolithic material in the Biikk Mountains rely to heavily on the presence/absence of certain lithic tool types, and neglect to consider problems of chronological discontinuity. Arguments based upon archeological data stress an apparent increase in the production of blade tools at Subalyuk, and the production of bifaces analogous to those at Szeletian sites. Chronological problems stem primarily from the lack of chronometric dates from Subalyuk.

I contend that no convincing evidence has been derived from Bukk Mountain Middle Paleolithic sites to support the hypothesis that there was an in-situ development of Upper Paleolithic cultures in this region. Rather, the data all indicate that there was a clear break between the two periods, both

My inspection of the retouched artifacts from the upper and lower complexes at Subalyuk Cave revealed that while blades are present in both, they are not common. The upper complex (n=l63) produced 149 flake tools

13

BRIAN ADAMS

Upper Paleolithic cultural material in Europe. In the Bukk Mountains, Aurignacian material has been documented at Istall6sk6, Fesko, and Szeleta Caves. In addition, open-air sites classified as Aurignacian have been found in eastern Slovakia, in the Hemad River valley and the Vihorlat Mountains. These latter sites are especially significant because they are contemporaneous with the controversial Szeletian material from this area, and several authors have remarked that Szeletian and Aurignacian assemblages are often indistinguishable (Svoboda 1988: 174; Svoboda and Siman 1989:311; Vertes 1955c:283, 1961).

chronologically and in terms of material culture. Other important differences between these two periods are discussed in more detail in Chapters 7 and 8. The Aurignacian and Szeletian in Hungary and Slovakia

have presented evidence which indicates to me that there is inadequate data to support the established model that a Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition occurred in the Bukk Mountain region of northeast Hungary. I have emphasized that the Szeletian and Aurignacian in this area are contemporary, and that material items considered diagnostic of each (eg. bone points, bifacial leaf points) can be found at sites assigned to both cultures. I propose that the Szeletian and Aurignacian sites represent functionally specific aspects of a single early Upper Paleolithic adaptation, and argue that the "Szeletian" does not represent a "transitional" culture. Ashton ( 1983) has presented such an interpretation of the contemporary Early Aurignacian and Lower Perigordian in southwest France, which he considers to be seasonal variants of a single early Upper Paleolithic culture. I argue that a similar case can be made for the Aurignacian and Szeletian material in Hungary and east Slovakia. Comparative histograms of Bukk Mountain lithic assemblages (Figure 5.34), to be discussed in Chapter 5 , demonstrate the similarity of the Szeletian and other early Upper Paleolithic assemblages in the area. This similarity is especially apparent when the distorting effect of the numerically dominant biface category is eliminated from the Szeleta Cave assemblages. These graphs demonstrate that the Szeletian is an early Upper Paleolithic phenomenon, similar to the Aurignacian, with the addition of special-purpose, bifacial artifacts added to the lithic tool inventory.

The initial discovery of Aurignacian material in the Bukk Mountains was made by Hillebrand in Istall6sk6 Cave (Hillebrand I 9 I 3). Hillebrand recognized the material as very similar to Aurignacian material found in Lower Austria at Willendorf, and classified it as "Upper Aurignacian". Although carinate endscrapers were not recovered, the excavations did produce several split-based bone points and Aurignacian blades. Finally, Hillebrand considered the small collection from nearby Fesko Cave as "Protosolutreen", despite the fact that a split-base bone point similar to those oflstall6sk6 Cave was recovered. While later excavations m Istall6sk6 Cave by Saad (1927,1929), Kadic (1934,1944) and Mott! (1945) provided additional artifactual material, no significant theoretical advances regarding the Aurignacian in Central Europe were made until Vertes conducted investigations at the site in the late l 940's and early 50's (Vertes 1955b). Vertes ( 1955b) identified two Aurignacian complexes at Istall6sk6 Cave: Aurignacian II from the upper cultural levels, and Aurignacian I from the lower levels. V ertes considered the Aurignacian II material to be a late, developed Aurignacian, but stressed that the material cannot be precisely classed with well known West European Aurignacian material because some important tool types are missing. One of these, as Hillebrand already noted, was the carinate endscraper. Although Vertes (1955b) claims that burins are lacking, I identified six burins in the Aurignacian II collection in the Hungarian National Museum (Figure 5.18).

The idea that Aurignacian and Szeletian material was produced by a single prehistoric culture has been advocated before, first by Brandtner (I 950: 112), then by Neustupny and Neustupny (1960: 103) and Barta (1965: 179). These were, however, only cursory treatments of this issue, and no attempts were made to obtain strong supportive data for this hypothesis. A brief summary of the historical background of research into the Aurignacian period is presented below. Aurignacian in the Biikk Mountains and east Slovakia

A significant contribution of Vertes' work was the collection of C-14 samples. Samples obtained from the upper, Aurignacian II levels produced dates of 30,900 ± 600 B.P. (GrN-193 5) and 31,540 ± 600 B.P. (GrN-

Archeological material classified as Aurignacian represents the initial, undisputed appearance of early

14

THE MIDDLE TO UPPER PALEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN CENTRAL EUROPE: BOKK MOUNTAIN REGION

(Kosicka kotlina), between the Slovakian Ore and Slanske Mountains, while the East Slovakian Lowlands consist of the hilly contact area between the northern Danubian Lowlands and the Vihorlat Mountains, and the floodplains of the Ondava, Laborec, Uh, Latorica and Tisza Rivers (Demek and Stiida 1971). The Kosice Basin and the East Slovakian Lowlands are separated by the high Slanske Mountains, which reach elevations of 800-900 m, with the highest peak, Simonka Mountain, at 1092 m a.s.l.

150 I). Vertes placed the Aurignacian II occupations in the Wurm I/II interstadial, which is now equated with the Hengelo interstadial. The Aurignacian I material has produced chronometric dates of 39,700 ±900 B.P. (GrN-4658) and 44,300 ± 1900 B.P. (GrN 4659), making this one of the earliest Upper Paleolithic sites in Central Europe. Pesko Cave, located approximately 2.5 km south of Istall6sk6 Cave, is also reported to have produced an Aurignacian II assemblage (Gabori I 969: 160; Svoboda and Siman 1989:290; Vertes 1956:17), and has been chronometrically dated to 34,600 ±580 B.P. (GrN4950). The lithic assemblage from Pesko Cave is small. Vertes (1965:319) lists 27 stone artifacts and 4 bone points. I examined 12 lithic artifacts in the Hungarian National Museum, consisting of 3 unretouched flakes, 8 unretouched blades, and one retouched blade. The latter . exhibited scalar retouch along its right lateral edge. The bone tools together with a chronometric date do suggest to me that the Pesko material can be assigned to the Aurignacian, but the lithic assemblage is too small for comparisons with other Aurignacian collections.

The Aurignacian occurrences in this area are represented by open-air sites which have also produced pit features interpreted as structures. Using the old alpine glacial chronology, these sites have been dated to the Wurm I/II interstadial and the early Wurm II stadia!. Using more recent and refined chronostratigraphic data, the sites can be considered contemporaneous with the Hengelo interstadial, which has been chronometrically dated to 37,800 ±4,500 45,000 ±5,500 at Mende in Hungary. The Aurignacian in this region is contemporary with the Szeletian, and Barta ( 1965: 179) has suggested that both may represent different facies of a common early Upper Paleolithic culture. The presence of so-called "Mousteroid" lithic elements (eg. sidescrapers, triangular points, denticulates, notches) in assemblages from these sites is cited as evidence of a local evolution of the Aurignacian in this region (Barta and Banesz 1981), al though Barta ( 1965: 179) also considers a possible source in southeast Europe.

Based upon the new artifactual and chronometric data, Vertes hypothesized that the lower Aurignacian I material at Istall6sk6 Cave was most similar to material found in southeast Europe. He argued that the Aurignacian I most likely moved into the Bllkk Mountain region via the Danube River from southeast Europe, and soon came into contact with, but did not mix with, the contemporary Early Szeletian. The Aurignacian II material, however, was considered by V ertes to have evolved in the Bllkk Mountains from a local Mousterian base, although elsewhere (Vertes 1956) he states that this culture have developed in the southeast Alps.

Based upon geological, botanical, and archeological data, a developmental sequence of the east Slovakian Aurignacian has been proposed (Banesz 1976b). The early Aurignacian is primarily represented by Barca II. Here archeological material and pit features were found in a fossil soil on early Pleistocene gravel deposits of the Hemad River. The occurrence of charcoal from thermophilous tree species (Quercus) is the basis for placing the occupation in an interstadial period. No fauna] material was recovered from the site. The assemblage is dominated by so-called "archaic" forms such as notches, denticulates, sidescrapers, and triangular points. The most common individual tool type is the endscraper on flake.

Gabori ( 1969), Dobosi (! 989), and Siman (Svoboda and Siman I 989) essentially reiterate Vertes' ideas about Aurignacian origins. Gabori considers Bulgaria as the origin point of the Aurignacian I material, and argues that the Aurignacian II material developed from a local Mousterian culture in the southeast Alps. While not as specific about origins, Dobosi and Siman agree that the Aurignacian is an intrusive phenomenon in northeast Hungary.

The Middle Aurignacian is represented by the site of Kechnec I. While the site was found in the upper part of an interstadial soil, charcoal from Pinus cembra was also found, indicating cool conditions. Base upon this data, Kechnec I is believed to date to the early part of the Wurm II stadia!. The lithic assemblage is

In east Slovakia, Aurignacian sites occur in the Hernad River valley and the East Slovakian Lowlands, near the Vihorlat Mountains (Figure 5.28) The Hernad Valley occupies the north-south oriented Kosice Basin

15

BRIAN ADAMS

dominated by endscrapers on symmetrical blades, followed by burins. However, busked burins, which are typical in western European Aurignacian assemblages, are absent. "Archaic" lithic tools continue during this phase. The Late Aurignacian occurs at Barca I and Tibava. These sites are also placed in the Wunn II stadia!. These assemblages are described as more "bladey" than Middle Aurignacian assemblages. At Barca, "archaic" forms decrease, and endscrapers on blades dominate at Tibava. Discussion

On the one hand, both the Hungarian and Slovakian archeologists agree that in many respects the Aurignacian is an intrusive phenomenon in Central Europe, while on the other, connections with local Middle Paleolithic cultures are suggested. In any case, it is agreed that Aurignacian material is fundamentally different than Middle Paleolithic material in this area. Further, archeologists in both Hungary and Slovakia have noted the contemporeneity and similarity of the Szeletian and Aurignacian in this region, and while it has been suggested that the two cultures may in fact represent a single early Upper Paleolithic entity, the generally accepted view is that both cultures are the product of distinct groups living side by side in this region. The co-occurrence of bone points and leaf points (made on identical lithic raw material) at Bukk Mountain Aurignacian and Szeletian sites, and the presence of bifaces at open air Aurignacian sites in east Slovakia, made from felsitic quartz porphyry obtained from the Bukk Mountains, suggests that the sites are contemporary and functionally related. Based upon this evidence, I argue that the Szeletian and Aurignacian represent different facies of a single early Upper Paleolithic adaptation. More specifically, Szeletian sites, which are chiefly recognized by the occurrence of bifacial leaf points, represent specialized activity sites produced by the same human groups responsible for the Aurignacian sites in the Bukk Mountains and northeast Hungary. In the following chapters, I provide archeological data to support this conclusion.

16

THE MIDDLE TO UPPER PALEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN CENTRAL EUROPE:

BOKKMOUNTAIN REGION

Table 2.1 Mean length, width, and thickness measurements of Subalyuk and Szeleta bifaces.

Length Width Thickness Width/Thickness

Subalyuk Lower 43.5 34.0 17.0 2.0

Szeleta Lower 58.0 31.6 10.9 2.9

Subalyuk Upper 45.2 34.0 14.5 2.3

Szeleta Upper 86.6 35.3 10.6 3.3

Note: Smaller width/thickness values indicate thicker bifaces.

Figure 2. I. Bifacial artifacts from Subalyuk Cave.

0

1

2

3

4

cm

17

5

CHAPTER3 THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODOLOGY

Based upon ethnographic studies, Binford recognizes two basic, idealized hunter-gatherer adaptations which may be viewed as polar opposites along a continuum of hunter-gatherer behavior. These two adaptations are termed foragers and collectors, and each is associated with a different set of site types. In a similar manner, Heffley (1981) has shown how Northern Athabaskan settlement patterns vary according to resource structure.

An underlying assumption of current arguments about the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transitions is that culture change is a "normative" or "transformational" process, by which change occurs slowly and gradually through time (Bettinger and Bawnhoff 1982; Binford 1965). As has been discussed above, the archeological and chronometric data from the Bukk Mountain region do not support such a view of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition. The changes observed in material culture do not suggest that gradual, in-situ development occurred in this region. Further, "normative" approaches have failed to adequately explain the apparent co-existence of different prehistoric cultures (eg. Szeletian and Aurignacian).

The model foraging group is the San of southern Africa, although "pure" foraging groups are found primarily in equatorial forest regions where necessary resources are evenly distributed across the landscape (Binford 1980). The Ache of Paraguay represent a more accurate picture of the foraging adaptation (Jones 1982). Foragers practice an "encounter" strategy of resource procurement, in which food is gathered on a daily basis as it is located. Such groups are said to "map on" to resources and move consumers to the desired foods. Foragers do not practice storage, so that "bulk procurement" of resource is uncommon. Two sitetypes are produced by foragers. The first is the residential base, where processing, manufacture, and maintenance activities are performed and from which day-long resource procurement trips are conducted. The second site-type are locations, which are used on a daily basis in the performance of extractive activities. As foragers do not secure large amounts of food at such sites and do not practice storage, locations are generally occupied for very short periods. Locations may be highly dispersed, and usually contain few artifacts due to short duration of occupation and limited range of activities performed.

Alternative approaches to the archeological record, which have not been systematically applied to the question of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Central Europe, rely upon optimal foraging models and attempt to relate mobility and settlement behavior to the structure of the environment and the patterning of resources (Bettinger and Bawnhoff 1982; Binford 1980, 1982; Dyson-Hudson and Smith 1978; Heffley 1981 ). Such theoretical approaches allow differences in such phenomena as artifact typology, technology, and lithic raw material acquisition patterns to be viewed not only as behavioral adjustments to gradual, long-term temporal changes in the environment, but also as responses to the seasonally changing availability of resources or the primary reliance upon specific types of resources.

Resource Structure and Settlement Patterns Binford ( 1980, 1982) has discussed synchronic variability in material culture due to seasonally determined variations in site functions, and the influence of resource structure on settlement patterns. As a group of hunter-gatherers moves across the landscape, individual sites may be reoccupied but utilized for different purposes. In such cases, the tool assemblages associated with the varied functions of a particular site may differ significantly even though they represent the material remains of a single group. Stated another way, a single hunter-gatherer group may leave several different archeological signatures at the assemblage level of analysis depending upon the particular activities conducted at a site or sites.

The "collector" adaptation is modelled on the subsistence-settlement system of the Nunamiut Eskimos. Collectors practice a "logistical" system in which a group supplies itself with specific resources through specially organized task groups. This pattern is related to environmental conditions in which critical resources are highly dispersed. Under these conditions, special task groups must be utilized to exploit dispersed resources, not on an encounter basis as foragers do, but by targeting specific resources for acquisition. Task groups conduct resource acquisition trips from a residential camp which may be occupied for several months a year. Collectors typically rely on stored food for part of the year, and as a result secure resources in large quantities.

18

THE MIDDLE TO UPPER PALEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN CENTRAL EUROPE: BOKK MOUNTAIN REGION

site annually. In the former example, site visibility will be low, while repeated occupation in the latter case will produce highly visible remains of human occupation.

Collectors generate five types of sites. Like foragers, collectors establish a residential base and locations. In addition, the logistical system is associated with field camps, stations, and caches. Field camps are temporary campsites occupied for extended periods of time by special task groups exploiting specific resources. Individuals perform basic subsistence activities at field camps while securing resources. Stations serve as information gathering sites, and are rarely associated with foragers. Collectors may use stations to observe movements of game or as hunting stands. Caches are used for the temporary storage of resources obtained by the special task groups.

An important criticism of the collector model is that it

is based upon modem, highly mobile Eskimos utilizing gas-powered snowmobiles and other technologies not available to Paleolithic groups. While such devices undoubtedly make travel and transport over longdistances easier, the absence of such technology does not necessarily preclude such long-distance movements. Jenness (I 922: 133) reports that during the summer, when sled transportation was not possible, Copper Eskimo carried 90 kg packs on their backs for distances of about 5 km a day. These packs contained tents, weapons, blankets, clothing and cooking utensils (Jenness I 928: 132; see also Balikci I 970:31). Also, sleds for transporting goods often consisted simply of bear skins pulled by dogs or humans (Balikci 1970: 12; Jenness 1928: 118).

Binford (I 980) stresses that these two basic types of hunter-gatherer subsistence-settlement systems are highly idealized models, and that individual groups may practice a combination of both depending upon seasonal factors. Jones ( 1982: 186) has noted that, under certain conditions, collectors will behave like foragers, and vice versa. He relates each strategy to the "patchiness" of resource distribution. A foraging strategy is most efficient at exploiting a "fine-grained" environment with resources evenly distributed across a region. A collector strategy, on the other hand, may be the best solution in "patchy" or "coarse-grained" environments, especially if the target resources occur as dense "patches", such as reindeer herds, which are seasonally abundant and highly localized (ibid: 187). In such cases, the resource is available in such quantities that a surplus for later consumption can be secured. However, if resource distribution is coarse-grained but not characterized by seasonal superabundance of important resources, a foraging pattern may be employed. Similarly, Heffley (198 I) argues that, based upon Hom's model of the relationship between resource predictability and distribution and group location, the exploitation of evenly spaced, stable resources (eg.moose) is associated with a dispersed settlement system of small groups, while the use of mobile, clumped, unpredictable resources (eg. caribou) is correlated with large social groups concentrated in a central base. Northern Athapaskan groups, such as the Upper Tanana, often shifted seasonally between these two types of settlement patterns, depending upon available resources (ibid 141).

Finally, Binford (1982) stresses that foraging and collecting systems are the products of modem human behavior, and neither may have been practiced before the appearance of modem Homo sapiens. Despite these criticisms, the models are useful heuristic devices, and can be used as a first step in the interpretation of site functions and mobility patterns. Resource Structure and Mobility

Dyson-Hudson and Smith (1978) have demonstrated, based upon least-cost models, how resource structure influences group mobility and territoriality. Exploitation of resources characterized by low mobility is most successful by groups with small, defended territories. On the contrary, dispersed, highly mobile resources are most efficiently exploited by groups which are also highly mobile and which do not establish well-defined, exclusive territories. While there is no evidence for the active defense of territories during the Paleolithic period, the exploitation of restricted areas should be archeologically observable in lithic raw material acquisition and distribution data, which should indicate a reliance upon local lithic sources. Likewise, the exploitation of more extensive areas should be correlated with the more intensive utilization of lithic raw materials from more distant areas. Lithic raw material patterns during the Middle and early Upper Paleolithic are discussed in detail in Chapter 6.

Other factors can also affect the degree to which a group conforms to a particular strategy. Foragers tend not to relocate sites if resources are dispersed and ubiquitous across the landscape. However, if resources are "clumped" and localized, for example around a waterhole or spring, a !,'T0Upmay relocate at a particular

19

BRIAN ADAMS

perspectives. I present data which I have collected from my analysis of lithic assemblages from eight sites in the Bukk Mountain region of northeast Hungary. I chose these sites, and this region, because of the key role they have played in the formulation of the concept of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in this area specifically, and Europe in general. In addition, I include data I derived from published sources on early Upper Paleolithic assemblages from open-air sites in Slovakia to the north.

A similar approach, but more directed towards archeological problems, is presented by Bawnhoff and Bettinger (1982). They argue that hunter-gatherer groups can be classified as either "travellers" or "processors". Travellers practice a low-cost subsistence strategy involving the intensive exploitation of high quality resources, such as large game, but which also requires high caloric input in resource search time. Processors, on the other hand, are more reliant upon a broad range of low quality resources involving higher extraction and processing costs than those relied upon by travellers. Travellers tend to be more mobile and cover larger areas than processors, who spend more time seeking resources closer to a residential base.

My analyses incorporate typological, raw material utilization, and lithic edge-wear data. These data sets are combined with archeological and geographical data derived from an exhaustive search of the relevant literature.

Discussion

I employ recent models of hunter-gatherer settlement systems as interpretive :frameworks for the data presented here (Bawnhoff and Bettinger 1982; Binford 1982). Although such approaches have been criticized for relying too heavily upon the behavior of recent hunter-gatherers, they do offer a first step in the derivation of human behavioral patterns from archeological data in this region. Traditional lithic typological-based arguments, utilizing one line of pure archeological data alone, have led to the current stalemate in addressing the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Central Europe. While I am aware of the shortcomings of the use of ethnographic analogy in archeological research (eg. Heider 1967), the use of analogy can assist in the reconstruction of prehistoric human behavioral patterns by illuminating the differences between modern and past behavior, which Yellen (1977) refers to as the "spoiler" approach. Ideally, ethnographic data can help isolate general processes of human behavior which will assist in explaining observed patterns in the archeological data (Binford 1972; Gould 1978).

These theoretical approaches are heuristically valuable as they permit the archeological data to be interpreted in terms of human behavior. Differences in such data sets as lithic raw material, artifact densities, and artifact typology and technology can be viewed as responses to different resource bases and/or to variations in site :functions, and need not be explained by recourse to simplistic goal-oriented models of gradual, directional evolutionary change. The models also provide criteria for the recognition of different site types based upon :functionalvariability. As is discussed in the following chapters, the different patterns of lithic raw material acquisition observed in the Middle and early Upper Paleolithic collections can be understood when the influence of variations in resource structure on settlement patterns are taken into consideration. Similarly, variations in site :functionsat a single point in time provide an alternative interpretation to scenarios which argue for the contemporaneous occupation of an area by distinct cultural groups. Not only is the latter position based upon the unproven assumption of correspondence between lithic artifact assemblages and ethnic identity, but it also fails to convincingly account for the unexpected presence of purported culturally diagnostic artifacts m different "cultural" contexts (eg. Aurignacian split-based bone points in Szeletian assemblages). Methodology

My first goal is to reconstruct the behavioral patterns which can best explain the occurrence of archeological material now referred to as "transitional". I demonstrate how human settlement patterns differed during the Middle and early Upper Paleolithic using lithic raw material data, and assess the data presented to support arguments of in-situ cultural evolution in this area.

The purpose of this work is to re-examine archeological material from important Middle, "transitional", and early Upper Paleolithic sites in the Bukk Mountain region of northeast Hungary from a variety of

My second goal is the formulation of an alternative model to explain the Szeletian phenomenon, a model which stresses and seeks to explain the synchronic variability among early Upper Paleolithic assemblages

20

THE MIDDLE TO UPPER PALEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN CENTRAL EUROPE: BOKK MOUNTAIN REGION

minerals exhibit distinct colors which differ from those visible in ordinary light (Gleason 1960). Application of ultra-violet illumination has been used successfully to differentiate different cryptocrystalline raw materials utilized at archeological sites (Church 1994; Hillsman 1992; Hofman et al. 1991; Jarvis nd.). I used a portable Raytech Versalume longwave and shortwave ultraviolet lamp to investigate geological samples from Central European sources and archeological artifacts from the Istall6sk6 Cave collection. The geological samples were inspected in the Lithotecha of the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest.

in the Bukk Mountain region. Approaches to the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Central Europe, as elsewhere, have focused on changing frequencies of stone tool types and shifts in stone tool technology. Such "transformational" approaches ignore or underemphasize the influence of varied site function on the formation of the archeological record. As a group of hunter-gatherers moves across the landscape, individual sites may be reoccupied but utilized for different purposes (Binford 1982). In such cases, tool assemblages, artifact densities and features associated with the varied functions of a particular site may differ significantly even though they represent the material remains of a single group. Stated another way, a single hunter-gatherer group may leave several different archeological signatures at the assemblage level of analysis depending upon the particular activities conducted at a site or sites. Adopting this approach to the archeological record, I argue that the Szeletian material does not represent the complete artifactual inventory of a single, distinct cultural group (the "Szeletians"), but rather the material remains of specialized activities conducted during the early Upper Paleolithic period.

Archeological Correlates of Hunter-Gatherer Sites

The influence of site function on material culture has been intensively studied by Binford (1980, 1982) as has been discussed in detail. One advantage of such an approach is that it permits the derivation of a series of predictions about the material remains associated with particular hunter-gatherer sites (Ahler et al. 1992; Carlson 1979). Such sites include residential camps, extraction locations, field camps, caches, and stations. Residential camps

Lithic Raw Materials, Mobility, and Interactions

As discussed above, residential camps are the site from which nearby resources are exploited. Among foragers, residential camps are short duration occupations, occupied by a complete residential group.

One of the most valuable sources of information about hunter-gatherer movements and interactions is lithic raw material source data. By identifying the sources of such raw materials it is possible to determine the size of the area within which a prehistoric group moved or maintained contacts. Size of exploitation area can in turn aid in inferring the type of subsistence practices characteristic of a particular group (Dyson-Hudson and Smith 1978). In Chapter 6 I discuss the various sources of lithic raw materials utilized during the Middle and early Upper Paleolithic periods. This is followed by an examination of current interpretations of raw material acquisition patterns, and a discussion of lithic raw material procurement zones. Finally, I present the results of my examination of Bukk Mountain lithic assemblages, and discuss the implications these findings have for settlement system reconstruction. Counts and weights of the different raw material types from eight Bukk Mountain Paleolithic sites are presented in the Appendix.

Such camps will leave several distinct signatures in the archeological record. Due to relatively short periods of occupation, there will be a light density accumulation of cultural debris. Artifact diversity will be moderately high due to the performance of a full range of extractive and maintenance activities. Compared to collector base camps, to be discussed below, forager residential camps will have smaller and less diverse features. Finally, due to short duration of occupation, there is little clean up of debris. Residential camps generated by collectors are similar to those of foragers. Density of cultural material may be higher due to longer occupation periods and/or occupation by larger groups. Artifact diversity will also be high due to the wide range of activities performed. Feature diversity is also expected to be high due to the performance of multiple activities. Features may include the remains of substantial objects such as houses. As such sites may be occupied by larger groups than those of foragers, the former may be larger than the latter. Long periods of occupation will result

Also in Chapter 6, I present a discussion ofmy analysis of the lithic raw material utilized at Istall6sk6 Cave. This analysis involved the use of an ultra-violet lamp to distinguish different types of raw material from each other. Under ultra-violet (U.V.) lighting, certain

21

BRIAN ADAMS

for future use, especially if such materials are unavailable in the area. Archeologically, caches may be visible as pits, bone accumulations, or lithic artifact hordes, the latter in the rear or less accessible parts of caves.

in more "organized" trash disposal; ie. "activity areas" may be more visible than at forager base camp sites (Kelly 1992). Finally, collector base camp sites will be spatially complex due to site reoccupation. Extractive locations

Stations

These sites are associated with the daily acquisition of specific resources which are transported back to the residential camp. These sites are characterized by extremely low artifact densities as a result of minimal occupation duration. Artifact diversity will also be low, and may be limited to a single artifact type, as each location is usually associated with the exploitation of a specific resource. Few features also result, due to the exploitation of single resources. Features which may occur are restricted to hearths. These sites are very small, as they are only occupied by those individuals directly involved in production. Finally, extractive locations are characterized by low spatial complexity, as reoccupation is not likely and because duration of occupation is low. However, as stated above, reoccupation may occur if the site is located near a critical resource, or if it is located in a cave with very restricted spatial boundaries.

I expect stations to leave few archeological signatures. Sites used to gather information (eg. monitor game movement) would have been short duration occupations. As activities at these sites center around the evaluation of resource location and availability, I expect them to generate few material remains. Measuring Archeological Correlates of Foragers and Collectors

Three aspects of forager and collector sites can be examined when assessing site :functions. These are intensity of occupation and range of activities performed (Ahler et al. 1992: IOI), and site location. Intensity of occupation

Several archeological indicators of intensity or duration of occupation exist:

Field camps

This site type represents one which is unique to collectors. These sites :function as temporary centers for special purpose task groups. As such, they are occupied for periods in excess of one day, and generate debris resulting from both short-term subsistence activities and special-purpose resource acquisition. These are intensively used sites which produce a high density of cultural debris. There may be evidence of transient structures, such as a lean-to or hut. As such sites are associated with the exploitation of specific resources, they will also produce evidence of the production and use of specialized tools. However, artifact diversity is still expected to be lower than base camps.

I .Density of cultural material per site level. 2.Relative abundance of ash and charcoal. 3.Number and diversity offeatures. 4.Stage of tool reduction. 5.Site complexity. I measure artifact density by calculating the total volume (in cubic meters) of a particular level, then dividing the total number of artifacts from the level into this figure. In some cases, such as Subalyuk and Szeleta Caves, the total number of artifacts per level are reported in the original site reports, and I have used these published figures in my calculations. In other cases, exact counts are not given by the excavators, and I rely on my own counts.

Caches

The abundance of ash and charcoal is difficult to quantify, as the thickness and extent of such deposits is not always reported. In some cases hearth thickness is given or can be derived from published figures. Often, only relative terms such as "little" or "abundant" are used to describe these deposits.

Caches represent the temporary storage of resources which have been collected "in bulk" by the smaller task groups for use by the larger social groups, especially during periods of seasonal unavailability. In addition, artifacts may also be horded as "insurance" if a group anticipates returning to a particular site (Binford 1979:257). For example, lithic tools or raw material for tool production may be stored at cave or rockshelter site

Stage of artifact reduction refers to the amount of tool production performed at the site. Different debitage

22

THE MIDDLE TO UPPER PALEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN CENTRAL EUROPE: BOKK MOUNTAIN REGION

and artifact classes produced during different stages of the lithic reduction process can be used to reconstruct the amount stone tool production which occurred on a particular site (Collins 1975). Four artifact categories reflecting successive stages in the reduction process are used here (Ahler et al. 1992):

I .Initial stage Cores, utilized flakes, rough bifaces, preforms. 2. Intermediate stage Biface preforms, thick biface fragments, backed unifaces, reduced cores. 3. Fully reduced Unifaces, hafted bifaces, thin biface fragments, prepared cores.

4.Exhausted artifacts Exhausted cores, intensely retouched artifacts.

Shorter occupations will be dominated by initial and/or intermediate stages of production, while occupations of longer duration will exhibit all reduction stages. Range of activities performed

Several methods were used to infer site functions. High power microscopic examination of artifact edges was used to determine how certain tools were used (Keeley 1980). Ratios of debitag~/tools to cores were calculated to separate specialized lithic workshops from multifunctional sites (Soffer 1985). Also, specialized lithic workshops are expected to produce higher percentages of lithic cores. Finally, diversity of artifact types was used as an approximate measure of the range of activities performed. Presentation of Data

A variety of graphic and statistical techniques were used to present and interpret the data using MYSTAT statistical and graphics program (Hale 1992). As a first step, visual summaries of the data were created using techniques of exploratory data analysis, or EDA (Velleman and Hoaglin 1981). These graphic presentations include two-way scatter plots, stem-andleaf displays, and boxplot (or "box and whisker") displays. A stem-and-leaf display is basically a histogram turned on its side. Instead of presenting data values as simple bars, the stem-and-leaf displays each

individual data value as a "leaf' on a stem composed of the first one or digits of a data value. These displays reveal where values are concentrated, the symmetry of the data set, gaps in the data, and stray values (ibid: 1). MYSTAT also displays the median and first and third quartile scores (Hale 1992:40). On the stem-and-leaf display, the 25th and 75 th percentile ranks are termed the lower and upper hinges respectively, and are designated by an "H". Therefore, each "H" marks the midpoint if the data values which fall in the groups above and below the median value. Boxplots are another way of graphically presenting a set of data, but presents less detail than a stem-and-leaf diagram. A boxplot presents the data as a box from both ends of which extend lines or "whiskers". The median value of a variable is presented by a vertical line through the box. The ends of the box represent the upper and lower hinges. The distance between the hinges is termed the "Hspread" and represents the distribution of fifty percent of the data values. The "whiskers" represent the range of data values within 1.5 Hspreads of each hinge. Any points beyond this range are termed outliers, and are shown by an asterisk, while points more than 3 Hspreads from each hinge are called far outliers and are symbolized by circles. Within the boxes comparing two or more data sets, parentheses or "notches" are observed around the median line (Velleman and Hoaglin 1981:73). Notches delineate a confidence interval around the median (ibid:79). Nonoverlap of the notch intervals of two boxes indicate that the two population medians are different at the 95% level.

CHAPTER4 PALEOENVIRONMENT AND CHRONOLOGY Paleoenvironment

Last Interglacial

The Middle, Transitional, and Upper Paleolithic remains of southeast Central Europe span a period characterized by changing environmental conditions (Figure 4.1 ). This period can be divided into a warm, moist interglacial period and a subsequent cold, dry glacial period, punctuated by short warming episodes (interstadials). Each period was characterized by distinct environmental conditions associated with particular vegetational and fauna! communities. Paleoenvironmental conditions have been reconstructed for these periods based upon sedimentological, pedological, palynological, macrobotanical, and fauna! data.

The last or most recent interglacial is referred to as the Eem, Mikulino, or Riss/Wurm (Gerasirnov and Velichko 1982). This period lasted for about I 0,000 years, and has been radiometrically dated to 125,000 115,000 B.P. in Central Europe (Kukla 1975; Pecsi 1979). At the Paks loess exposure in west-central Hungary (Figure 4.2), the Mende-Base (MB) soil complex has been TL dated to between 121,000 ± 16,000 and 124,000 ±17,000 B.P. (Butrym and Maruszczak 1984; Pecsi 1987). At Mende, the BD 2 paleosol has recently been TL dated to between 114,000 and 124,000 (Frenzel et al. 1992: 115). The uppermost part of the PK III soil complex in Moravia is dated to 114,000 B.P. (Starke! 1977). The Stillfried A soil in Lower Austria dates to this period (Draxler 1980), as do the PK III complexes at the following sites from the former Czechoslovakia: Litomefice I, II; Letky; Sedlec; Nove Mesto; Zamarovce; Jeneralka; Modfice; Dolni Vestonice; Zdanice; Bulhary (Kukla 1975).This period falls within isotope stage Se (Mangerud 1991).

Prior to the advent of chronometric dating techniques, the last glacial period in this region was divided into three cold periods (Wurm I, II, and III), and a period of climatic amelioration (Wurm I/II interstadial) in accordance with chronologies based upon alpine sequences (Movius I 960; Vertes I 955a). Recent geomorphological and malacological studies, combined with chronometric dating techniques have demonstrated that this system is overly simplistic, and a more refined picture of the last glacial in Central Europe has emerged (Allsworth-Jones 1986; Starke! 1977; Kukla 1978). Starke! (1977:352) divides the last glacial into two main units, consisting of an Early Glacial and the Pleniglacial. Others (Butzer 1971; Kozlowski 1988a; Svoboda and Siman 1989) recognize finer subdivisions of this period: an early Wurm (Early Glacial), a Lower Pleniglacial (Pleniglacial A), an Interpleniglacial, an Upper Pleniglacial (Pleniglacial B) and a Late Glacial.

As Table 4.2 indicates, the climate at this time was warmer and moister than current conditions in southeast Central Europe (Frenzel 1968; Lozek 1967; Valoch 1989; Wagner 1979a,b ). Parabraunerde soils, associated with temperate deciduous forests (Kubiena 1953; Papadakis 1969), are the dominant type at this period. Temperate, mixed hardwood deciduous forests were the predominate vegetation during the interglacial (Frenzel 1964, 1968; Frenzel et al. 1992). Although "small steppe islets" may have existed, the dominant setting has been described as "monotonous" deciduous forest (Gerasimov and Velichko 1982). These forests included linden/oak, oak/spruce, linden, and hornbeam/spruce/oak communities. Mollusk data also indicate that environmental conditions were warm and moist (Kukla I 975; Wagner I 979 a,b; Lozek I 967). Mountain vegetation consisted of broad-leaved and coniferous forests (Frenzel et al. 1992).

In Hungary, data pertaining to the last interglacial and glacial cycle have been derived primarily from the loess sequences of Paks and Mende (Figure 4.2). New TL dates derived from these profiles suggest that some paleosols are older than had been previously determined, necessitating a revision of the local chronostratigraphic framework (Zoller and Wagner 1990). As comprehensive revisions of the sequences at Paks and Mende have yet to be presented, I employ the frameworks presented by Pecsi ( 1979) and Butrym and Maruszczak (1984). Chronometric dates derived from Central European loess sequences are presented in Table 4.1.

Early Wurm Starke! (1977:364) dates the early Wurm glacial to 115,000 - 75,000 B.P.. In earlier chronologies, this period was referred to as Wurm I (Movius 1960, Figure

24

THE MIDDLE TO UPPER PALEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN CENTRAL EUROPE:

BOKKMOUNTAIN REGION

vegetation..." (Lozek 1967:389), consisting of tundra forms and species requiring high mineral-salt soils (typical of soils formed on loess). During full glacial conditions, open grass- and herb-steppes were widespread in Europe (Frenzel 1968). The survival of deciduous tree species (linden, hornbeam, hazel) in some areas during the Lower Pleniglacial suggests that this period of the last glacial event was less severe than the Upper Pleniglacial.

1). The Early Wurm belongs to isotope stages Sd through Sa (Mangerud 1991). At Pa.ks (Figure 4.2), the advent of cool, continental conditions in the middle Danube Basin in represented by loess packet 16 (Pecsi 1979). Above this is the Basaharc Base (BA) soil, which has been TL dated to 80,000 - 85,000 B.P. (Butrym and Maruszczak: 1984), and represents the end of the first phase of cooling during the Wurm. In Moravia, this same period ends with the formation of the PK II soil complex (Svoboda 1989).

Vertebrate fauna from southeast Central Europe, specifically Moravia, Bohemia, Slovakia, and Hungary indicate that taiga, tundra, and steppe species were dominant (Musil 1985; Janossy I 986; Janossy and Voros 1979). These include saiga antelope, Equus sp., wisent, wild ass, arctic hare, arctic fox, mammoth, and woolly rhino. In addition, forest forms are also found associated with deposits from this period. These include roe deer, beaver, elk, wolf, brown bear, and aurochs.

The Basaharc Base and PK II soil complexes represent the Amersfoort and Bn5rup Interstadials, which according to Starke! (1977:356) were drier and more temperate than the preceding cool phase. During the Brorup, the Carpathian Basin was dominated by steppe with pine-birch-spruce groves and thermophile elements, while the higher elevations of the Carpathian Mountains were dominated by spruce-fir forests with pines and thermophile vegetation (Frenzel 1973). During the intervening cool phase between the Brorup and Amersfoort Interstadials, loess steppe dominated the region, except the mountains, where tundra, wooded tundra and wooded steppe conditions prevailed (ibid).

The northern part of the Pannonian Lowlands, which includes the southern edge of the Carpathians, has produced a fauna typical of warmer conditions than those found in the Czech and Slovak Republics. Forest forms predominate, including pine marten, boar, wild cat, red fox, red squirrel, roe deer, beaver, elk, wolf, brown bear, and lynx (Musil 1985). This warmer fauna may reflect less severe conditions away from the glacial front, and/or the influence of mountainous terrain with protected valleys. Interpleniglacial

Lower Pleniglacial

The onset of the most recent and severe cycles of glacial advances and retreats is termed the Lower Pleniglacial. According to Starke! (1977:365), world wide climatic deterioration began about 73,000 B.P .. At Pa.ks in Hungary, the onset of this period can be dated to about 80,000 B.P., following formation of the Basaharc Base soil complex, and is represented by the 15 loess packet (Pecsi 1979). The Wurm II loess from the Dolni Vestonice brickyard in Moravia also belongs to this period. This period falls within isotope stages 3 and 4.

Between approximately 40,000 and 30,000 B.P., a climatic amelioration took place which is referred to as the interpleniglacial (Kozlowski 1988a; Svoboda 1988, 1989; Valoch 1989). This period is associated with two interstadial phases: Hengelo and Denekamp. These will be discussed in more detail below.

Glacial advances were associated with cold, dry continental conditions (Starke! 1977). These cold periods were punctuated by warmer, moister events (interstadials), when the glacial ice retreated. The climate was cool and continental in nature, with a significant drop m winter temperatures and precipitation (Table 4.2). A dominant geological process at this time was the deposition of fine-grained eolian loess, derived from glacial outwash, recently exposed till, and rocky' surfaces exposed to frost action (Butzer 1971).

Upper Pleniglacial

After about 30,000 B.P., during isotope stage 2, glacial conditions returned to southeast Central Europe, lasting until approximatt.Jy 13,000 B.P. (Butzer 1971; Starke! 1977; Svoboda 1989; Valoch 1989). This was a period of more severe environmental conditions than the Lower Pleniglacial. Glaciation reached its maximum extent during this period, at about 20,000 B.P. In Hungary, this period is represented by loess deposits above the Mende Upper (MF) soil complex, dated to 27,000 to 28,000 B.P. (Pecsi et al. 1979:377). At Pa.ks, the return of glacial conditions is represented by loess

In general, the periods of glaciation in Central Europe were associated with "...a varied and peculiar steppe 25

BRIAN ADAMS

boar, wild cat, red fox, beaver, wolf, brown bear, aurochs, moose, and Irish elk [Janossy 1986; Musil 1985]). The Austrian, Moravian and Hungarian loess sequences have provided evidence of at least four major interstadial events which based upon chronometric data, can be correlated with those documented in western Europe. These include the Amersfoort, Brorup, Hengelo, and Denekamp Interstadials.

12 . In Moravia, deposits of Upper Pleniglacial age are found above the PK I soil complex, dated to 28,000 29,000 B.P. at Dolni Vestonice (Allsworth-Jones 1986:37). An arid, continental climate returned to the region.

Grass- and herb-steppes dominated the landscape, while deciduous vegetation disappeared (Frenzel et al. 1992). In the mountains, boreal vegetation predominated. Arctic deserts formed in the immediate forelands of the glaciers. Steppe and tundra animals predominate in faunal collections from this period (Musil 1985). These include saiga antelope, Equus sp., reindeer, arctic hare, mammoth, woolly rhino, pika, hamster, musk-ox, arctic fox, and marmot.

Amersfoort and Brorup interstadials

These two interstadials occurred early in the Wi.irm, shortly after the onset of the Early Wurm. In the Hungarian loess profiles, these periods are represented by the Basaharc Base soil complex, TL dated to 80,000 - 85,000 B.P. (Butrym and Maruszczak 1984). The PK II soil in Moravia is believed to represent the Amersfoort Interstadial. Likewise, in Lower Austria, the Sti!l:fried A soil series is believed to date to this period. Both the PK II and Stillfried A soil complexes are not separated by an abrupt boundary from the last interglacial soil (PK III, Gottweig), and as a result the end of the last interglacial is sometimes erroneously dated by these interstadial soils to around 75,000 B.P. (Allsworth-Jones 1986:37).

Conditions were probably less severe along the northern edge of the Pannonian Lowlands (Janossy 1986; Musil 1985). The fauna indicates that taiga forests may have existed in this area. Late Glacial

The Late Glacial begins around 13,000 B.P. according to Butzer ( 1971). In Moravia this period begins sometime after 15,000 B.P., although, aside from the Magdalenian assemblage from Pekama Cave, dated to 13,000 - 12,500 B.P., there are few chronometric dates (Svoboda 1989). No evidence of this phase of the Wi.irm has been found at the Paks or Mende loess profiles in Hungary. The uppermost humus at the T api6si.ily profile near Mende has been chronometrically dated to 16,750 ±400, placing its formation in the Upper Pleniglacial (Pecsi et al. 1979:374). The Late Glacial was a period of rapid deg!aciation, and ended about 10,000 B.P ..

Hengelo and (Interpleniglacial)

Denekamp

interstadials

The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Central Europe was approximately contemporary with two interstadials, Hengelo and Denekamp (Dobosi 1989; Valoch 1989). These two events represent a significant warming event, and are collectively referred to as the Interpleniglacial. The evidence for these two events in southeast Central Europe will now be addressed.

Interstadials

The Hengelo Interstadial dates to about 39,000 B.P. (Svoboda 1989; Valoch 1989). In Hungary, it is represented by the Basaharc Double (BD) soil complex, which at Paks has been TL dated to 37,000 - 41,000 B.P. (Butrym and Maruszczak 1984). Soil and relict permafrost data from Central Europe suggest that the mean annual precipitation was about 200 mm/year, and that the mean temperature of the coldest month was about -13 ° C. The mean annual temperature was about 2 ° to 4 ° C (Table 4.2).

The cold, dry glacial conditions were punctuated by warmer periods termed interstadials. During these periods, woodlands encroached upon the steppes, forming "steppe-woodlands" in some areas (Frenzel 1973; Svoboda 1989; Valoch 1989). As Table 4.2 shows, the temperatures were warmer during these interstadials than during stadia! periods, although precipitation was still low (Lozek 1967; Starke! 1977; Svoboda 1989; Wagner 1979b).

Evidence from Poland indicates that open pine/larch forests were the dominant vegetation in northern Central Europe, while tundra faunas were absent (Starke! 1977). In Moravia, the environment was characterized by steppe conditions with copses of trees

Vertebrate fauna! remains indicate that while steppe fonns were still common in Central Europe, tundra forms decrease significantly and forest (especially taiga) forms become more abundant (pine marten, otter,

26

THE MIDDLE TO UPPER PALEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN CENTRAL EUROPE:

BOKKMOUNTAIN REGION

upon cUtTentreconstructions of the Wurm glacial event, the old "Wurm I/II" designation would correspond to the Brorup and Amersfoort Interstadials, dated to between 80,000 and 85,000 B.P. in Central Europe.

(including firs, birch, and willow) at elevations over 300 m a.s.l. (Kozlowski 1988a; Svoboda 1986). Dobosi (1989:232) claims that during the interstadials of Hungary (including Hengelo) "...there was enough arboreal vegetation for fire even on the most continental Great Plain".

The chronometric dating of sites which had originally been placed in the "Wurm I/II Interstadial" revealed that such sites are actually more recent in age, falling within the period now refened to as the Interpleniglacial. For example, the Aurignacian levels at Istall6sk6 Cave were originally dated by Vertes (l 955a,b) to the "Wurm I/II". Chromometric dates derived from the site indicated that these levels actually date to between approximately 31,000 and 44,000 B.P., contemporary with the Hengelo and Denekamp Interstadials. Similarly, at Certova pee in west Slovakia, the "Wurm I/II" cultural level has been chronometrically dated to 38,320 ±2480, again placing the occupation in the Hengelo Interstadial (Barta 1969:221 ). Although no chronometric dates have yet been derived from the east Slovkian open-air Aurignacian sites, their placement in the "Wurm I/II Interstadial" (Banesz l 976a,b) must be reconsidered, and I contend that, like elsewhere in Central Europe, these occupations actually date to the Interpleniglacial period, between about 40,000 and 30,000 B.P ..

The Denekamp interstadial has been dated to approximately 30,000 to 32,000 B.P.(Starkel 1977:356). At Mende in Hungary, this interstadial is represented by the Mende Upper (MF) soil complex (Pecsi 1987:40). The upper part of this complex (MF 1) has been chronometrically dated to 27,000 - 28,000 B.P., while the lower part (MF 2) is believed to be contemporary with the Stillfried B soil in Austria and the PK I soil in Moravia. In Austria, the Paudorf/Stillfried B soils have been chronometrically dated to 28,200 - 28,340 B.P., while in the brickyard at Dolni Vestonice II, (Moravia), the PK I soil complex has been dated to 28,300 - 29,000 (Allsworth-Jones 1986:38). At the Stillfried site in Lower Austria, pollen evidence indicates that grassland steppe was the dominant vegetation, although elm, alder, and hazel pollen are also present (Frenzel 1973 :224). In western Austria, the data suggest that wooded steppes with subalpine and spruce forest were more common (Frenzel 1973). These forests included spruce, pine, stone pine, larch, fir, oak, linden, elm, alder, hornbeam, ash, maple, and hazel. Similar arboreal species are represented in other pollen samples from Slovenia in the southwest part of the Carpathian basin (Laibach Moors) and Ostrava (Cesky Tesin) (ibid.). In western Central Europe, the environment is described as consisting of grasses and herbs on plateaus and high tenaces, with gallery forests in sheltered river valleys (Hahn 1987). Hahn (ibid:253) states that such an environment was characterized by a "...mosaic like patchy resource distribution".

Biikk Mountain Region Paleoenvironment Geomorphology The Biikk Mountains are part of the North Hungarian or Intra-Carpathian mountains. This region consists of two geological units: the Bukk/Northern Borsod Karst region, and the Tokaj/Zemplen Mountains (Pecsi and Sarfalvi 1977; Pecsi 1970). The Bukk and Northern Borsod Karst region is rich in springs, sinkholes, and caves. The Bukk Mountains are composed of Carboniferous, Permian, and Triassic deposits (Schreter 1959). Carboniferous and Permian bedrock are found primarily in the northwest Bukk, and consists of alternating beds of slate, sandstone, dolomite, and limestone. The remainder of the range is composed of Triassic limestone and slate deposits.

A discussion of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition and the Interpleniglacial in Central Europe must address the issue of the term "Wurm I/II interstadial" used in the old literature (eg. Vertes 1955a; Banesz l 976a,b ). The term "Wurm I" was originally used to designate what is now refened to as the Early Glacial (Movius 1960). This was followed by the Gottweig Interstadial or "Wunn I/II Interstadial", which in turn was followed by the "Wurm II" glacial event, now termed the Lower Pleniglacial. These designations were utilized prior to the advent of radiometric dating techniques, and relied instead upon conelations based upon botanical, pedological, and fauna! data. Based

The Bukk Mountains are divided into three separate sections which form concentric rings (Figure 4.3). The first zone is the central planated plateau, or High Bukk with an average elevation of 900 m above sea level (a.s.l.). The High Bukk is sunounded by the Middle Bukk, a low, level planated surtace with broad dissected foothills. The Middle Bukk ranges between 27

BRIAN ADAMS

a.s.l.) in the Lower Bukk produced charcoal which indicates that deciduous forests with some pine and larch existed during the Early Wurm (Hollendonner in Bartucz et al. 1940). As the climate deteriorated during the Early Wurm, these deciduous forests were replaced by pine and larch forests. Charcoal from Istall6sk6 Cave (535 m a.s.l.) in the Middle Bukk reveals that by the Middle Wurm, pine-larch-spruce forests dominated (Sarkany and Stieber 1955).

650 and 750 m a.s.l. The Lower Bukk (300-400 m a.s.l.) is primarily composed of colluvial deposits derived from higher elevations. East of the Bukk Mountains is the Tokaj/Zemplen range, which reaches elevations between 600 and 700 m a.s.l. These mountains were produced by Upper Miocene and Lower Pliocene volcanism. This area was an important source of obsidian during prehistory, including the Paleolithic. Southeast of the Bukk Mountains is the Great Hungarian Plain. The mountains and plain are separated by the "Bukkalja", a zone of flat alluvial fans created by tributaries of the Tisza River. These fans gradually merge into the foothills of the Bukk Mountains. This transition zone is between I 00 and 200 m a.s.1.

Data from paleontological and archeological sites indicate that several species of herbivores inhabited the mountains during the Pleistocene (Janossy and Voros 1979; Siman 1988). Mountain species, such as ibex and chamois, were very common. Other species include wild ass, wild horse, reindeer, red and roe deer, moose, giant deer ("Irish elk"), woolly rhinoceros, mammoth, aurochs, and bison. Carnivores include cave and brown bear, wolf, hyaena, and lion.

Late Pleistocene (Wiirm) environmental conditions

Plains

Mountains

The Great Hungarian Plain has a complex geomorphological history due to the combined processes of subsidence and deposition (Mihaltz 1965). A deposition rate of 1 m every 2000 years has been estimated for the Great Plain (Pecsi et al. 1979; R6nai 1969). Due to these processes, approximately 30 m or more of sediments have accumulated in this basin since the beginning of the Wurm glaciation (R6nai 1969). At Mende in the northwest edge of the Great Plain, the fossil soil complex Mende-Upper (MF), chronometrically dated to 28,000-29,000 B.P. (Denekamp Interstadial) was found at 9-10 m below ground surface (Pecsi et al. 1977; Figure 4.2). Thus, archeological evidence of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in the Great Plain region must be sought in deeply buried contexts.

The North Hungarian Mountains were not glaciated during the Pleistocene, although periglacial conditions did exist. The cold, semi-arid climate resulted in largescale degradation of the mountains due to intensive cryofraction. Stone fields and rock flows formed on slopes as bedrock was :fractured and eroded. Generally speaking, denudation of the landscape was intense at this time. Processes such as frost weathering, frost heaving, gelisolifluction and cryoplanation dominated (Szekely 1973, 1987). The net result of this activity was a general lowering of elevations and infilling and widening of depressions. According to Szekely (1987:179) surfaces in the adjacent eastern Matra Mountains were lowered 30 m during the Pleistocene, while valleys were widened 50-150 m.

As in the mountains, evidence of periglacial activity, such as frost sacks, frost wedges, stone rings, and striated soils, has been documented in the Great Plain (Pecsi 1963). Although the Wurm was in general a cold, dry period, pa!eogeographic evidence indicates that the Great Plain was effected by hydrological processes at this time (Borsy 1989; Pecsi et al. 1979; Szo6r et al 1991). Approximately half of the Great Plain is composed of "infusion loess", loess which has been redeposited due to fluvial, floodplain, marsh and lake sedimentation. Mollusc analysis of these sediments indicate that conditions along major drainages varied between complete inundation to drier periods when moist grasslands and fresh green

Despite this high degree of mechanical weathering and erosion, surfaces were sufficiently stable to permit the formation of mountain forests during the Wi.irm glaciation. Palynological and macrobotanical data from this region indicate that during the Wurm stadials, loess-steppe reached elevations of 400-450 m a.s.l (Lower Bi.ikk), above which was an open sub-arctic "taiga-belt" with sub-alpine vegetation (Z6lyomi 1953). The taiga-belt reached elevations of 900-1000 m a.s.l (High Bi.ikk), and was dominated by Larix, Pinus cembra, P. silvestris, and Picea forests with some deciduous fom1s (Acer pseudo-platanus, Quercus cf pelraea, Sorbus ac:uparia). Subalyuk Cave (270 m

28

THE MIDDLE TO UPPER PALEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN CENTRAL EUROPE: BDKK MOUNTAIN REGION

meadows developed (Pecsi et al. 1979:547). Species adapted to muddy pools in shallow, stagnant water dominate at this time. In southern Hungary, infusion loess has been radiocarbon dated to between 18,000 and 24,000 B.P., during the Upper Pleniglacial period. Beyond these wetter locations, soils developed on aeolian loess deposits. Analysis of these paleosols indicate that these were chemozem soils which developed under dry continental steppe conditions (Pecsi 1965). Thus, although the Carpathian Basin was situated north of the limit of continuous permafrost during the late Wurm (Frenzel et al. 1992), the geographical data indicate that active stream systems existed in this region (Borsy 1989).

(BD 2 ) of the Basaharc Double soil complex dates to between 114,000 and 124,000 B.P., placing it within the last interglacial (ibid). The upper soil (BD 1), radiocarbon dated to 30,700 ±350 (Lb. HV.8538) and > 32, I 00 ± 720 (H 8116), and at Paks to 37 ,000-41,000 B.P., formed during the warm Hengelo interval of the Wurm. This complex is dominated by pine and Betula (birch) pollen. A loess layer between the two Basaharc soils is dominated by Artemisia and herb pollen, which indicates a period of open, dry conditions. The Basaharc Double soil is overlain by a loess (13) rich in herb, grass, and cereal pollen, especially Gentianaceae (gentian). The environment at this time was open with patches of woody plants. Above loess 13 is the Mende Upper soil complex (MF 1, MF 2 ), dated to 29,800 ±600 B.P. Soil MF 2 is dominated by tree pollen, including pine, birch and alder, although grasses and herbs are still abundant.

A unique data set from the "blue clays" of the Tisza River, near the communities of Kiskunfelegyha.za, Tiszazug, and Kecskemet, provides information regarding the former Late Pleistocene vegetation along stream valleys in the Great Plains (Jarai-Koml6di 1991; Tuzson 1929; Z6lyomi 1953). Here macrofaunal remains consisting of in-situ tree stumps and roots of Pinus cembra, P. montana, Larix decidua, as well as needles and cones from P. montana, have been recovered. Arboreal pollen from these levels is dominated by Pinus (65.6%-68.8%), followed by Betula (25.3%-18.5%) and Salix (5.0%-10.7%) (Z6lyomi 1953). Fauna! remains found in association with the botanical material include mammoth, Alces alces, Cervus elaphus, Equus abeli, and Sus scrofa. Although no chronometric dates have yet been obtained, these deposits are believed to date to the "Wurm I/II" and early "Wurm II", now designated as "interpleniglacial", which dates to between approximately 30.000 and 40,000 B.P. These data indicate that in the Great Hungarian Plain, wooded river valleys, dominated by conifers, existed in grassy steppes dming the middle of the Wurm glacial period. This is suppmted by recent palynological data, as discussed below.

In summary, the Mende profile indicates that during the Wurm, the Great Plain experienced alternating periods of cool, dry climate and warm temperate, less dry climates. During the cold, dry intervals, grasses dominated while trees became more common during the warmer, moister interstadial periods. In either case, grasses appear to have always constituted an important percentage of the floral spectrum. Paleontological finds from the Great Plain and the Tisza floodplain indicate that at least nine species of herbivores inhabited this region during the Pleistocene (Janossy and Voros 1979). These finds are dominated by mammoth remains, especially teeth, which undoubtedly reflects a preservation bias. Other forms include woolly rhinoceros, giant deer, red deer, reindeer, wild horse, bison, aurochs, and moose. Carnivores are represented by cave bear, lion, and hyaena.

Pollen analyses of the loess deposits at Mende, located in the Godollo-Monor Hills at the northwest edge of the Great Plain, provide additional data on the environmental conditions of the Great Plain (Pecsi et al. 1979; Urban 1984). Six paleosols have been identified at Mende (Figm-e 4.2). The oldest soil (Mende Base:MB) is dominated by tree pollen (90% pine), and until recently was correlated with the last interglacial. Recent reanalysis indicates that this soil is probably older (Frenzel et al. 1992: 115) The earliest loess layer (15) is dominated by Artcmisia pollen, indicative of a dry, cold steppe. New TL Jates indicate that lower soil 29

BRIAN ADAMS

Table 4.1 Chronometric dates from Hungarian loess sequences

Site

Lab#

Reference

121,000±1600 124,000±1700

Pa.ks/MB

Lu-16 Lu-17

Butrym and Maruszcza.k 1984

114,000-124,000

Mende/BD 2

77,000±10,000 81,000±10,600 87,000±11,300

Pa.ks/BA

37,800±4500 39,000±4700 41,400±5000 45,000±5500 30,700±350 >32,100±720

Pa.ks/BD2

Date

Glacial Event Last Interglacial

Ammersfoort/ Brorup Interstadials

Hengelo Interstadial

Denekamp Interstadial

Late Glacial

Frenzel et al. 1992

Lu-12 Lu-13 Lu-14

Mende/MF

16,750±400

Tapi6suly

"

Lu-7 Lu-8 Lu-9 Lu-10 " Hv-8538 Pecsi et al. 1979 H-8116 "

"/BD1

27,800±600 27 ,200± 1400 27,855± 1589 28,700±3400 33,500±4000 35,000±4200

Butrym and Maruszcza.k 1984

Mo-422 Pecsi et al. 1979 1-3130 Hv-5422" " Lu-4 Butrym and Maruszczak 1984 Lu-5 Lu-6 II

Pa.ks/MF

Hv-1615 Pecsi et al.1979

Table 4.2 Recent, stadia!, interstadial, and interglacial temperature and precipitation values for the Carpathian Basin region (Source: Frenzel et al. 1992)

Period

Mean Annual Precip(mm)

Mean Annual Temp(°C)

Mean July/ August Temp (°C)

Mean Jan/Feb Temp (°C)

Recent*

550

9.8

21.1

-2.8

Interglacial

850

9.8 - 10.8

21.1-23.1

-0.8- +1.2

Stadials

450-300

0.2- -2.2

13.1-11.1

-14.8- -18.8

Interstadials

350-250

3.8 - 1.8

17.1-16.1

-12.8- -14.8

*Based upon climate data from Nyiregyhaza, Hungary, located in the northern Carpathian Basin (Pecsi and Sarfalvi 1977) 30

THE MIDDLE TO UPPER PALEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN CENTRAL EUROPE:

BOKKMOUNTAIN REGION

Figure 4.1. Simplified chronology and lithology of West, Central and East European loess sections (After Frenzel et al. 1992).

Age ka B.P.

Normandy

Isotope Stages

5

4

~

-------

20

Ukraine Molodovo II.

3.5 1

10

VienneseMoravia MiddleDanubian Basin Dolni Basin Stillfried estonice Mende

111111111 111111111

St.Romain 111111111

2

Denekamp

30

i:,::.

---

///Bi, -

Hengelo

-

111111111 h1 111111111 h2

-0

-=--= ----

1111111 Blh ::::.~:::: MF1 -< ..-l p

-

0

Hv-1615 16750t400 BP

0 0 0 0 a, 0 0 - 0

6

Q)

~

a.

g

Lo

.s

[;

::,

g

sz

>

oe

g

g

.!!

~0 8. C.

6l

£l

£0

a,~

ll

ii a.

0)

gz )(

£0

0

ue -

!

§~~R~5ls.i!i'5~2°

L£

6l

2

£l

a a

I ll

~

0 m

e

L

~

g

Ll 9L

£l

s.i!

s.i!

~

J;!

0

0 .>


a. a. ::,

a.

sz

)(

a,

£l

C. E 0

ll

6l

ii

6l

0

~

ai > 0

LL

::,

LL

.s

LL

9L

9l

9l

£l

ai ~

.>