At Hohler Fels Schelklingen, there were four distinct Magdalenian ... Venus figurirres and engravings on stone slabs, as at Gönnersdorf, ..... Hohle Fels Hütten,.
Volm:1e 3, Number 3
September 1989 JWPREB 3(3) 235-372 (1989)
Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1989
ISSN 0892-7537
The Magdalenian in Western Central Europe: Settlement Pattern and Regionality
Journal of WORLD
PREHISTORY
Gerd-C. Weniger 1
lvfagdalenian material fronz nortlzern Switzerland, soutlnrestern and soutlzeastern Germany, tlze middle Rlzine, and central Germany is examined for differences among these geographical areas. Several regionalfeatures, including a broad range of archaeological data, can be identified and indicate two regional groupings, a soutlzwestern and a nortlzeastern. Tlze first includes ·sites fronz central Germany and tlze middle Rlzine, while the second includes northern Switzerland and southwestern Germany. The soutlzeastern German sites cannot befirmly placed within this pattern because of the insecure data base. The main differences are in prey species, hunting and settlement patterns, and some characteristics of the mobile art. The comparison does not allow a finer Separation, although the two regional groups could probably be subdivided into smaller geographical units. Alternative explanations are discussed andfurther avenues of research are proposed. KEY WORDS: Magdalenian; Central Europe; regionality; settlement pattern; site-types.
INTRODUCTION
PLENUM PRESS • NEW YORK AND LONDON
The region investigated here reaches from the Elbe valley in the north to the Alps in the south, including the southern parts oftheGerman Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany and northern Switzerland. This is the so-called "middle mountain zone," at 500-l 000 m above sea level (asl). The area consists of river valley and some basin landscapes. The main river systems are the Danube, fl.owing from west to east, and the Rhine, which 1
Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Serrano 159, E-28002 Madrid, Spain. 323 _Q~92-JS32lR9.l0900-DJJ-3$:01$J)010-'-~-~-Q~O-~T~.,.'''"-~'-•.ht•.~h;_.,_,.._C-:-~...~-'-;t::- .._
324
Weniger
Fig. L Distribution of Magda1enian sites studied in western Central Europe (circle, cavef rockshelter; triang1e, open-air site). (1) Moosbühl; (2-12) Rislisberghöhle, Käsloch, Köpfli, Koh1erhöh1e, Brügglihöhle, Heidenküche, Bütten1och, Birseck-Ermitage, Kastelhöhle, Abri Chesselgraben, Hollenberghöhle 3; (13-15) Schweizersbild, Kesslerloch, Freudenthal; (16) Munzingen; (17) Teufelsküchen; (18, 19) Petersfe1s, Gnirshöh1e; (20) Bildstockfels; (21) Probstfe1s; (22) Napoleonskopf; (23) Dietfurt; (24) Schussenque!le; (25-32) Felsställe, Hohle Fels Hütten, Schmiechenfels, Hohler Fels Schelk1ingen/Helga-Abri, Sirgenstein, Geissenklösterle, Brillenhöhle; (33) Burkhardtshöhle; (34-37) Spitzbubenhöhle, Vogelherd, Hohlenstein-Stadel/Hohlenstein Kleine Scheuer; (38) Kleine Scheuer Rosenstein; (39-40) Bärenfelsgrotte/Spitalfels; (41-43) Kleine Ofnet, Hohlenstein Ederheim, Kaufertsberg; (44-46) Kastlhänghöhle, Klausenhöhlen, Heidenstein; (47) Barbing; (48) Steinbergwand; (49) Rennerfels; (50) Wildscheuer; (51) Wildweiberlei; (52) Andernach; (53) Gönnersdorf; (54) Oberkassel; ·(55) Alsdorf; (56-59) Teufelsbrücke, Ranis Herdloch/Ilsenhöhle, Kniegrotte; (60) Königsee-Garsitz Bärenkeller; (61) Lausnitz; (62-64) Kahla-Löbschütz, Hummelshain, Oelknitz; (65) Gera-Binsenacker; (66) .Etzdorf; (67) Ahlendorf; (68) Saaleck; (69) Bad Frankenhausen; (70) Nebra; (71) Friedensdorf; (72) Zinkenberg; (73) Groitzsch; (74) Halle-Galgenberg; (75) Aschersleben.
The Magda1enian in Western Centra1 Europe
325
flows northwest from the Alps. More than 150 Magdalenian sites are known from this area and 75 of them are included in this study (Fig. 1). Caves and rockshelters predominate in northern Switzerland, Swabia, and Bavaria, and open-air sites (many of them surface sites only) in the middle Rhine and central Germany. Many open-air and small cave sites are poorly known. Most were excavated before World War II and the collections are often dispersed or lost. Some have never been published. Work on the Magdalenian began in this area in 1866 when Fraas started excavating the open-air site of Schussenquelle in the Alpine foöthills in southwestern Germany (Müller-Beck, 1983). The site produced a rich fauna of > 400 reindeer (Adam, 1966) but very few stone artifacts. In 1870, Fraas conducted equally unsophisticated excavations at Hohler Fels Schelklingen in the southern Swabian Jura. Since that time, the Swabian Alb has been a focus ofPaleolithic research with numerous caves and rockshelters. Important modern excavations have been at Brillenhöhle (Riek, 1973) and the Felsställe rockshelter, which yielded one of the richest Magdalenian lithic inventories in Central Europe (Kind, 1987). Hohler Fels Schelklingen was reexcavated in the late 1970s, revealing an important sequence of four Magdalenian layers (Hahn, 1977). A rocksheiter outside the cave, Helga-Abri, was also reexcavated (Hahn, 1984a). Other small caves in the eastern Swabian Alb include sites in the Bruckersberg area (Riek, 1957) andin the Eselburger valley (Hahn, 1984b). The important material from Bockstein and Hohlestein in the Lone valley is still not published in detail (Hahn et al., 1973). Petersfels is one of the most important Magdalenian sites outside the Swabian Alb. It is a cave, slightly above the valley floor, with a !arge, well-preserved living area in front. It was first excavated in 1927 (Peters, 1930; Peters and Toepfer, 1932; Mauser, 1970). Excavations in front of the cave in the 1970s revealed a sequence of Magdalenian occupations (Albrecht, 1979; Albrecht et al., 1983). Another duster of sites in the Iods area of the upper Rhine Valley, of which the most important is the open-air site ofMunzingen (Padtberg, 1925), was excavated before World War IL Excavations ofMagdalenian sites began in Switzerland soon after those in Swabia. In 1873, Merk began the excavation of Kesslerloch in northern Switzerland (Merk, 1875), which was continued by Nuesch and Heierli (Nuesch, 1904; Heierli, 1907). The cave had a rich Magdalenian deposit >2m thick but the stratigraphy was poorly studied; in 1980, a test pit outside the cave provided new information about the site (Ammann, 1988). The Schweizersbild rocksheiter (Nuesch, 1896) has the same history as Kesslerloch. Beyond the Schafthausen area, the valleys in the Swiss Jura were intensively investigated during the first two decades of this century. South of Basel is an important duster of small and medium-sized caves; one of them, Hollenberg-Höhle 3, was excavated in the 1950s and the
326
Weniger
collections have been restudied recently (Sedlmeier, 1982). In the southern Swiss Jura, there isanother group of sites near Olten. There were many old excavations and one in the 1970s at a new site, the small cave of Rislisberghöhle (Barr, 1977; Stampfli, 1983). The !arge open-air site of Mossbühl, which yielded rich collections and some interesting habitation structures, lies at the southern edge of our area of investigation (Barr, 1973, 1975; Schwab, 1972). In Bavaria, there is an important series of sites in the lower Altmühl valley, but all suffered from early and inadequate excavation and most are still unpublished .. To the west, at the border with Swabia, is a small duster of sites in the Nördlingen Basin, of which one, Kaufertsberg, has been recently reinvestigated (Kaulich, 1983). The only modern excavation has been at the open-air site of Barbing, where, unfortunately, no fauna was preserved (Reisch, 1974). Gönnersdorf, one of the most important Magdalenian sites in Central Europe, lies in the middle Rhine valley; it was discovered in the late 1960s and excavated using modern techniques. Andernach is across the Rhine from Gönnersdorf; it was first investigated by Schaaffhausen at the end ofthe last century (Schaaffhausen, 1888; Eosinski and Hahn, 1973) but has recently been reexcavated (Veil, 1982, 1984). Alsdorf, at the northwestern edge of our area, isanother recently excavated open-air site. Part of it had already been destroyed but the remainder yielded a rich Iithic industry and habitation structures; unfortunately, there was no fauna preserved (Löhr, 1979). Oberkassel, one of the rare Magdalenian hurials (Veil, 1978), has been long known. Excavations in the Lahn caves dateback to the 1870s, so documentation of them is fragmentary. There are many sites in central Germany; most of them are open-air, often in sandy Sediments, and many are surface sites with no organic preservation. There are also sites in the loess areas and some caves. Two of the most important sites are the caves of Kniegrotte and Teufelsbrücke. Kniegrotte was excavated in the 1930s by an amateur, so we have no Stratigraphie data (Feustel, 1974). Teufelsbrücke, nearby, was excavated in the early 1970s, but the sediments had been badly disturbed by 1ater prehistoric occupations and by amateurs so, again, Stratigraphie data are lacking (Feustel, 1980). Well-preserved, open-air sites, some in 1oess sediments and some with habitation structures, include Oelknitz (Behm-Blancke, 1970; Musil, 1985), Nebra (Hanitzsch and Toepfer, 1963; Toepfer, 1965), Bad Frankenhausen (Feuste1, 1977), and Saaleck. The collections from Saaleck are stored partly in the German Democratic Repub1ic (Hanitzsch, 1978) and partly in the Federal Republic of Germany (Terberger, 1987). lt is thus apparent that the data available from the different regions of western Central Europe vary in quality. Only central Germany, southwestern
The Magdalenian in Western Central Europe
327
Germany, and northern Switzerland have dense distributions of sites. There are few sites in the middle Rhine, although, fortunately, most of these have been recently excavated using modern techniques. In southeastern Germany, however, most of the excavations were dorre at the beginning of the century and there has been no reevaluation of the sites. On the whole, we are dependent in Central Europe mainly on data from old excavations that are controlled only partially by the results of modern studies; interpretation is, therefore, sometimes difficult. The first synthesis of the Magdalenian in Central Europe was by Schmidt (1912). Since then, regional syntheses have been written for Switzer1and by Bandi (1947, 1968), for Bavaria by Birkner (1936) and Freund (1964), for Swabia by Hahn (1979, 1981) and Weniger (1982, 1987a), for the middle Rhine by Eosinski and Hahn (1973) and Veil (1978), and for central Germany by Feustel (1979). Although Magdalenian sites are less frequent and less rich in western Central Europe than in southwestern France or northern Spain, the density of sites is quite remarkable, and the available data are still manageable in quantity, which is an advantage. There is also information on Sedimentation, geological deposits, paleoclimate, and paleovegetation, which makes possible more detailed study of man-land relationships in the various topograpic zones. Ethnoarchaeological approaches and a general interest in social behavior have seriously altered Paleolithic research in the last two decades. One important field of research is now regionality. The identification of regional groups is common in later prehistoric research but is only now beginning in Old World Paleolithic studies (Brown, 1987). The Magdalenian is probably the most suitable Paleolithic technocomplex for analysis of regional components and their relationships, and indeed, only by the identification of regional differences can we establish what the term Magdalenian really means. For example, is it comparable to an ethnohistorical taxonomic levellike the subarctic Indians, or perhaps the Northern Athapaskan, or the Plateau Indians?
RADIOCARBON DATING AND CHRONOLOGY Some 84 radiocarbon dates are available (Fig. 2), covering a time span from 17,100 to 10,230 B.P. Mostdates fall between 13,000 and 12,000 B.P. and, therefore, within Bölling. The majority of dates is from southwestern Germany; the multilayered site of Petersfels has 35 dates (Jaguttis-Emden, 1983) and the two occupations at Felsställe have seven radiocarbon dates (Jaguttis-Emden, 1987), which, 1ike Petersfels, are mostly between 13,000 and 12,000 B.P. These two sites may bias the overall distribution.
328
Weniger
The Magdalenian in Western Central Europe
329
(n)
10
1
CENTAAL GERMANY (n-13)
~----------------~
...
10
1
MIDDLE RHINE AREA (n·6)
r:=c--,
10
r=l--,
...
1
NORTHERN SWITZERLAND (n ·7)
L---------------------------~
...
ro1
R~"ffi"
GERMANY (n·58)
.
10
Cb
=
-
...
ALL DATES WESTERN CENTAAL EURO PE (n·84)
20
10
Fig. 2.
I
I
19
18
=1
17
I h
16
1!i
=l I I I I I 14
13.L
12
~ KYR BP
11
10
Distributions of radiocarbon dates for the Magdalenian of western Central Europe. (Medians are indicated by filled triangles.)
Although Petersfels has more than seven stratified archaeologicallevels (Al brecht, 1979), the occupations all fall within about 1000 years and do not cover the whole time depth of the Central European Magdalenian. This is a general problem, that no sites are known with long sequences. Other rich sites, like Kesslerloch and Kniegrotte, which probably had several different phases ofMagdalenian, were excavated many years ago. The two dates from Kniegrotte seem to suggest a Ionger sequence but it is no Ionger possible to establish the relationships among the radiocarbon dates, stratigraphy, and artifacts. At Hohler Fels Schelklingen, there were four distinct Magdalenian layers (Hahn, 1977). Four radiocarbon dates for two of the layers indicate a long sequence from 17,100 B.P. ± 150 years (H.5120-4569) in the lowest
layer (IIa) to 12,770 B.P. ± 110 years (H.5312-4907) in Layer Ib, underlying Layer Ia, which yielded a biserial barbed bone point. Unfortunately, the area of excavation was very limited and the sequence may be disturbed (J. Hahn, personal communication), but the site does give some indication of the potential duration ofMagdalenian occupation in Central Europe. Munzingen, in the upper Rhine Valley, supports an early Magdalenian settlement. The older excavations by Padtberg (1925) are dated to 15,870 B.P. ± 135 years (H.4156-3373), but limited work nearby in the 1970s yie1ded a date of 12,130 B.P. ± 95 years (H.4738-4660). The faunas and lithic artifacts from the two excavations are different, so two occupations may be indicated (Albrecht, 1981). The archaic character ofPadtberg's bone-antler industry (notably the polishers made on horse ribs, which resemble Gravettian types) support a date early in the Late Glacial (Berke, 1981) . However, the main Magdalenian occupation was between 14,000 and 11,000 B.P., with a peak during Bölling. After Bölling, there was a gradual decline in the Magdalenian presence until its end at the boundary of Alleröd and Y ounger Dryas. The radiocarbon chronology is partly supported l::J.y the stages that have been proposed for the mobile art (Bosinski, 1982). Spearthrowers decorated with sculpted horses from Kesslerloch and Teufe1sbrücke, contour decoupee from Kesslerloch and Oberkassel, and semicircular batons decorated with buckles from Kesslerloch and Freudenthai have parallels in the French Magdalenian IV, dating to the beginning ofBölling (Bosi~ski, 1982, p. 49). Venus figurirres and engravings on stone slabs, as at Gönnersdorf, represent a younger stage and are comparable to French Magdalenian V (Bosinski, 1982, p. 60). A final stage of the Magdalenian is represented by schematic engravings ofhorses from Schweizersbild, Saaleck, and Groitzsch. An early phase is probab1y represented by the unique art objects from Kniegrotte (Bosinski, 1982, p. 51), which, together with the other archaic elements such as bone points (sagaies) with lateral grooves and triangles among the stone tools, might suggest French Magdalenian III. There are no observable differences in the radiocarbon record between regions (Fig. 2), although few dates are known from Switzerland, the middle Rhine, or even central Germany. The Magdalenian in Central Europe probably began before 15,000 B.P., as is indicated by the dates from southern Germany and also by the Polish cave of Maszycka, with two radiocarbon dates for the Magdalenian of 14,250 B.P. ±240 years (Ly-2453) and 15,490 B.P. ± 310 years (Ly-2454) (Kozlowski, 1987). Thus, the once postulated hiatus in the human occupation of Central Europe during the Late Glacial maximum is slowly being filled (Weniger, 1989a). Although the radiocarbon record indicates quite a long Magdalenian occupation in western Central Europe and although the data from the different regions are uneven, we may assume that most sites fall within a
330
Weniger
The Magdalenian in Western Central Europe
narrow span of about 2000 years. This facilitates our comparison of sites and regions.
331
X
,.....
,.....
~
~ -e
r-.V)
0
~
I I
I I
I I
;;E
The retreat ofthe glaciers after the Late Glacial maximum seems to have been very rapid (Brunnacker, 1960; Frenzel, 1983). The climate ameliorated quickly, but the forest returned more slowly from its southern European refugia. This allowed the development of a rich herbaceous grassland (Weniger, 1982; Frenzel, 1983), which supported a !arge and diverse herbivore fauna, including very !arge forms such as mammoth, woolly rhino, and bison. Up to 10 species are recorded in the Magdalenian (Table I), a greater diversity than is known e1sewhere in the midlatitudes. The richness of the herbivore biomass is further indicated by the presence of three carnivore species, cave lion, cave hyena, and wolf, which fed upon the same types of prey and were therefore highly competitive. During Bölling, archaic faunal elements such as mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, cave lion, and cave hyena slowly disappeared from Central Europe. In the second half of the Late Glacial, there seem to have been refugia in Bastern Europe, with its more continental climate and still open vegetation cover, so archaic species probably became locally ätinct later in that region. The extinctions seem to have been a response to the recovery of the forest during Bölling, since mammoth had survived in the region during the Late Glacial maximum and is also documented during the early Late Glacial (Weniger, 1989a). Although the Iandscape was still open in Bölling, the advancing forest must have greatly increased competition for food between the !arge herbivores. Overall, reindeer and horse were the predominant species (Weniger, 1982, p. 121). In addition, there are also marked regional differences in faunal compositions (Table I). Muskox is represented only in the southwestern part of Central Europe, while-saiga antelope occurs only in the middle Rhine Valley and central Germany. These two species perfectly refiect the assumed climatic and vegetational differences: the southwest had a more humid, tundralike character and the northeast was drier and more continental. The occurrence ofmammoth in more than half ofthe central German sites supports this model. Another significant difference is the frequency of ibex, which is documented in most of the Swiss sites and one-third of the southwestern German sites (Table I) but is rare elsewhere. The alpine nature of the fauna in the southwest is further supported by the almost exclusive presence of chamois in this zone. Reindeer and horse are the two predominant species but there are also significant regional differences between their frequencies (Tables I and II).
,...._
-~ J5
ENVIRONMENT AND FAUNALASSEMBLAGES
I I
"'0
,...._
;;:
r--00
e.r:::
c
~
-~
I I
~ \00
-g;.
i:5
r:::
I I
~~
~
~
,.....
,...._
,.....
~
"'~
~ -:;..,
"'v;
I I
~ -:;..,
~
~ 0
~
~
0
"51
p::;
.r::: u
"' "ö
,...._
E
"'r--
~
"' .....
,...._
~
V)V)
~
ü
~
0
"'
X
~
Cii
..0
,.....
,.....
,.....
,...._
~ \00
~ -;.
~ _o
c
~
....
,...._
,.....
,.....
~
"0
M~
0~ -o
~ .... ~
"' ·c:;
p::;
~
~
~ ...-::,
6'?-
"'
"0
0.. IZl
e0 >
V)
~
_"'
-
.... >.0
,...._
u 0
-e
0 0
~
::e
::-:~
~ "'
:::0
,...._
E E
"'r--
I I
~
'i'r--oo
::: -= :::
,...._
'i'-
Q
~ _o
......
V)
~
,.....
~ ......
6'?-
_o
...... V)
c
,.....
,...._
"'"'~
~
0~
6'?-
"'o
"'"'~
~
:r: ..J '0
e
~
e 0
~
e=....
~
::ce:"'
~
~ r--o
-e
....
,...._
,...._
"0
'i'-
~
E-
"'"'~
"':;..,
~
,..... "' ~
·;;
r::: ..... 0
·en
0
L..
"' p::;..o
E
5
"0
c:
-E
~ -~IZl('l r:::-
::; II
~.
"' E 0"'
§
r:::
r::: ~s
';j
"'0 z :::E Jl ~
..c ....
....
...... o
iö'
::>
;;
..,""
(J(l
;J " 3:: ..,
.,"
~ ::> cj;i'
"
"'
(!)
0'
:::>
0'
·-
300 6492 Es Bu Pf 2472 Petcrsfels
? ?
Kaufcrtsberg I Mittlere Klause Obere Klause
?
24
Barhing A
?
182 Bu Bb Es
28
? ?
111 Bb Bu Es
27
?
?
?
? Pf Bb Du
22
> 100 ?
61 Db Du Es
Knstlhiinghöhle
Hohlenstein Ederheim
Heidenstein
Steinbergwand
?
54 ?
?
Kleine Ofnet
?
25 Bu Bb Es/Pf ?
> 10
< 10
+ -+
+ -+
++ +
+-
+ 10-15
+
+ -- +
+ +
+
-+
50 648 Bu Es Tr 292 Munzingen
?
'? + +
< 10 557 Db Pf Bu 516
Felsställe I!Ib
? ?
+- +
+
10-20
300 Bu Tr Es 53
+
+
+
+
?
?
+
+ ?
+
V
~
+
++
+ +
?
?
?
Cd-1/2 medium Ee-2 Iarge Ee-4 !arge Ee-4 !arge
Bd-1/2 medium Bd-2 medium
Obermaier (1914)
Obermaier (1914)
Kaulich (1983)
Rcisch ( 1974)
Fraunho1z et al. (1911)
Narr (1965); Freund (1964); Dehn and Sangmeister ( 1954)
Dirkner ( 1933); Freund ( !964)
Gumpert ( 1933), Freund ( !964)
Weniger (1982)
Gumpcrt ( 1931)
Mauser (1970); Albrecht (1979)
Weniger ( 1982)
Kind ( 1987)
Weniger (1982)
Weniger (1982)
Weniger (1982), Riek (1973)
Schmidt (1912), Paradeis (1907)
Weniger ( 1982)
Kind (1987), Schmidt (1912)
Weniger (1982)
Weniger (1982), Koken (1909)
Kind ( 1987), Riek ( 1959)
Weniger (1982)
Weniger (1982)
Reference
??-1 small ? ?a-l/2 small? + ?b-1 small +? Bb-1 small/ medium? ? ? small/ medium? Bc-2 ? medium + Be-'? medium + Be-? medium '? '? medium? ? ? ? medium?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Vi
small Ab-I small/ medium? +? Ab-? small +? Ab-2 small + Ab-2 small +? Aa-? small Ae-1 small/ medium? ? medium?
-
+
g,
?' ~
+ Ab-I
dJ
c.::
"'
~
ö"'
z:::>
.0 I 00-200 m 2 , small sites cover 50 MNI
Some open-air sites, like Schussenquel!e and Oelknitz, yie1ded > 500 or > 150 MNI of 1arge herbivores, but smaller assemblages of < 20 MNI are also reported, as from Fe1sställe, Nebra, or Bad Frankenhausen, and probably result from poor preservation: faunal assemblages from caves tend to be !arger than those from open-air sites. Only the results of the 1968 excavation of Gönnersdorfare available, so the fauna is :·'i!,il
r,
7
':: :'!; ::~,11
!' \(
\ );2: •\
~
I
~ ''
~
11
10
:·.r:;::~
I
:·:.,,11!
. ·-t;. .... ~
:\\\-[: I
' /. ') l\
·::':::::ij) I
I
'pJ
;'·r ./ - 'J:~'~r \•
'(
·' I........_\\.
' < ,\1
\\
:::'1!1j
I ·I··· ·,\;;;;tl\1'·:t';:.·., r \:Ir::
r r:/.rr :~::: '/j' I.:::: :r: I
' •
1·
l1{ 1 1:'!/,
.
'. '
' ',,- '
:-
t
:
,:l''•il
h
,•'·')'"''!
. ' ,ql ,d•)l
./t.,.
12
7q
;1;\);t!1
'• ; !1: ri·Vi;' 1 '•:·it'!~tl!'
"'
9
.:::;;;1!.
, v) • '\\
'\1 I
\~',:·~.'.
\!..... \' \ \
8
'!
,,·,.:"11 ,,,,r >;:.:ll
,l!tl!.l
'I ..,., l•d'
9
i
~·~·~
j
j
I
Ii
''
(
4
0
I~
\-~---~)\ ~( '{ )
1\ ~I~~:':·
13
Fig. 5. Venus figurines. (!, 5) Gönnersdorf (from Eosinski and Fischer, 1974); (2, 6) Nebra (from Toepfer, 1965); (3) Oelknitz (from Bosinski, 1982); (4) Andernach (from Bosinski, 1982); (7-9) Petersfels (from Mauser, 1970); (10) Königsee/Bärenkeller (from Feustel, 1970); (II) Moosbühl (from Schwab, 1985); (12) Gönnersdorf (from Bosinski, 1982); (13) Oelknitz (from Feustel, 1970).
.\
I
\
"'
'L_j_ \
slJ
2cm.
-
~r-
10)
Fig. 6. Venus engravings. (!) Andernach (from Bosinski, 1982); (2, 3) Gönnersdorf (from Eosinski and Fischer, 1974); (4) Petersfels (from Albrecht and Berke, 1980); (5, 6) Hohlenstein (from Bosinski, 1982); (7) Teufelsbrücke (from Bosinski, 1982); (8) Felsställe (from Bosinski, 1982); (9) Schweizersbild (from Bosinski, 1982); (10) Kniegrotte (from Bosinski, 1982).
Weniger
350
. fflT~
,,)~)~\(:,
/~~~t'......~h
, r:\ \
t
1
;;11''·--------~
,,
~
\~
~ ,·:-;
\\'\,....
ft \----:;1\A.,,_"y
r \;:. \((\\ --...:.
"'
r!JIJIV
.
AY)!
----;- 500 km unlikely. Further, his routes cross well-defined boundaries in artifact typology, do not coincide with site-types of seasonal occupations, and contradict the ethnohistorical record of subrecent caribou hunters (Burch, 1972, p. 346; Smith, 1975). Also, his model cannot satisfactorily accommodate the horse-dominated sites. Instead, careful examination of the archaeological data permits us to reconstruct another type of Settlementpattern and subsistence strategy. Each of the three main site-types can be further subdivided. The Iarge sites include a set of frequently reoccupied sites and a second set of sites that were probably occupied only once. The medium sites include !arger and smaller
The Magdalenian in Western Central Europe
355
variants, as do also the small sites (the subtype of extremely small sites without cores). Other site-types may be revealed by other features, such as the stone and bone-antler tool-kits and the relationship to their debitage, artifact distributions within a site, frequency ofbone types by species, and taphonomic studies. At some sites, there are indications of special activities. HollenbergHöhle 3 (Sedlmeier, 1982), which is a small site (Ab-1), produced a !arge quantity of jet-some of it unmodified and some made into pendants; more than 30 mollusks; 70 pieces of red ocher; several Sandstone slabs for processing ocher; and-11 reindeer antlers. Other faunal remains include at least five reindeer, represented mainly by metapodials, but the dominant species are ptarmigan and hare, each represented by at least 20 individuals. There were no signs of a hearth or even burned artifacts. Only one core is reported and the tools make up an extraordinary value of almost 40% of the lithic inventory. The site has been seen as a special hide-working area, or as a "cache." The small site of Gnirshöhle I (Aa-l), which lies inside a small cave system beyond the daylight zone (Albrecht et al., 1977), produced one core and a few stone tools (> 33% ofthe assemblage), seven sewing needles, some mollusks, several pieces of jet, and some stone slabs which are probably the remains of a hearth. Although slightly disturbed by a badger's burrow, the assemblage probably is complete and represents a special activity. At the small site of Bärenkeller/Königsee-Garsitz in central Germany (Feustel et al., 1971; Feustel and Musil, 1977), no cores are reported, the percentage of tools reaches 58%, and there were more than 20 bone-antler tools and traces of a simple hearth. The outstanding object is an unusual Venus figurirre of ivory (Fig. 5: 10). The excavators interpret the site as a ritual place (Feustel. et al., 1971), and its atypical composition is obvious. These examples indicate the variety of assemblage composition found within one site-type. In general, small sites are more varied than are other types, as is also shown by the composition of the tool-kits, which rarely follow the basic structure (see above). Small sites are our best opportunity to observe special, isolated events, which are usually not detectable in the Paleolithic record. However, precise excavation techniques can sometimes permit the recognition of individual events in !arge sites as weil. Recent examples are Andernach (Veil, 1984; Floss and (Terberger, 1987) and Felsställe (Kind, 1987).
MOBILEART
As noted above, mobile art has some chronological significance and occurs in each subregion, but usually only at the !arge sites. This suggests
Kniegrotte Teufelsbrücke Saaleck Oelknitz Groitzsch D Nord
Oberkassel Gönnersdorf Andernach
Hohlenstein Edcrheim Mittlere Klause Obere Klause
Kleine Scheuer Rosenstein Petcrsfels
Schweizerbild Rislisberghöhle Kesslerloch
Site
Schweizersbild Moosbühl Petcrsfels Felsställe Hohlenstein Ederheim Gönnersdorf '68 Andernach Bärenkeller Kniegrotte Teufelsbrücke Oelknitz Nebra
Site
9 3 I
14 3 I -
5
9
2
3
2
2
6
-
+
-
++
74
-
-
4
2
13
2
-
I
61 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
II
-
-
2
3
-
3
3
-
-
-
Stone
-
-
15
I
Jet
+
5 400
4 I
Number of Vem1s engravings
-
-
+
I
5 400
-
Stone
-
4
Antler
Raw material
-
-
Bone
Raw material
-
I I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I?
10 -
-
I I
I
I -
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
I
-
-
-
-
-
4
2
-
-
-
-
I
7
-
-
-
3
-
-
-
-
I
9
12
-
8
-
2 I 3
-
++
> 150
-
-
I
2
-
4 -
-
-
3
-
2
-
4
I I
-
2
-
-
-
Stone Other !arge Woolly rhinoceros lbex lnsects Birds herbivores Pebble Antler ßone slabs Jet Ivory
Zoomorphic Representations Separated by Species and Raw Material
2 2
Horse Reindeer Mammoth
Table V.
3
-
-
18
Antler
Raw material
Venus Representations and Their Raw Material
Ivory
I?
Number of Venus figurines
Tablc IV.
w
Vo
~
w
"""'
...0
M c
~
n ...;:;"'
g"'
"' \'!.
~
"' :;·
;;;·
"'
;;-
..."'"
ao
"'
"' 3:
=-
>-l
...
~·
~
"'"'
0\
358
Weniger
that its function was related to the assembling of people and, therefore, to social activities (cf. Conkey, 1980, 1985). The social aspect of mobile art makes it a useful instrument for the identification of different groups or traditions. Abstract decorations are known primarily from the bone-antler industry (Svoboda, 1976) but have never been studied systematically, so our study is confined to figurative examples. These can be divided into anthropomorphic [mostly Venus figurines or engravings (Figs. 5 and 6)] and zoomorphic representations. More than 500 female representations are known (Table IV), and > 200 animal representations. The mobile art from western Central Europe is dominated by the extraordinarily rich collection from Gönnersdorf, with > 400 female representations and > 150 zoomorphic engravings (Tables IV and V), so that analysis of it must be double: both including and excluding the Gönnersdorf material. Among the female depictions, > 400 are engravings and only 45 are Venus figurines, although they are generally more varied than the engravings (Table IV); if we exclude Gönnersdorf, figurines are more frequent than engravings. Both forms are documented in all regions, except Bavaria, which Iacks figurines. In northern Switzerland, only Moosbühl has yielded a small possible Venus figurine (Fig. 5: 11). It is very abstract and therefore difficult to interpret, but it has some parallels to a smaller example from Petcrsfels (Fig. 5: 9) and both are made on jet. Similarly, Petcrsfels is the on1y site in southwestern Germany with Venus figurines, although recent excavations at Hohler Fels Schelklingen produced a still-unpublished fragment ofjet which might be the back of a Venus (J. Hahn, personal communication). Two sites in the middle Rhine and three in central Germany have yielded figurines. Venuses occur on four different raw materials-ivory, antler, stone, and jet (Table IV)-of which ivory and jet are the most important. Jet was used only in southwestern Germany and northern Switzerland, while ivory was used only in the middle Rhine and central Germany. Ivory figurines are very much alike [except the peculiar example from Bärenkeller (Fig. 5: I 0)] and are distinct from those on jet (Fig. 5). The close connection between the middle Rhine and the central German sites is also shown by the stone figurines reported from Gönnersdorf (Fig. 5: 12) and Oelknitz (Fig. 5: 13). Venus figurines on jet also differ from those on ivory in the presence of distal perforations or notches, which indicates their use as pendants (Fig. 5: 7-9). These are Iocated at the end of the upper body, so that the figurines would hang in an upright position. A fragment of a possibly perforated Venus figurine has been reported from an area of Gönnersdorf excavated after 1968 (Bosinski, 1982, PI. 56: 5), but the presumed perforation is at the center of the statuette, just on the break; this perforation is unique and may be accidental. It is possible that the figurines without perforations
The Magdalenian in Western Central Europe
359
or notches were also used as pendants, for example, by suspending them in Ieather covers as occurs in subarctic Indian contexts. Neverthe1ess, at least there were regionally different methods of suspending them. Some unique figurine forms occur at sites like Petcrsfels (Bosinski, 1982, PI. 33: 1, PI. 34: 1, 2) or Andernach (Bosinski, 1982, PI. 92), but on the whole the figurines are probab1y a Central and Eastern European tradition and may refiect much older Gravettian origins (Bosinski, 1982). Engravings of Venuses are regionally much more homogeneous. Although not common, except at Gönnersdorf, they are evenly distributed over the whole area (Table IV). They are usually on stone slabs, but Petcrsfels produced some very small and barely recognizable examp1es on a piece of bone (Fig. 6: 4) and Kniegrotte produced a very distinctive and peculiar example engraved on antler (Fig. 6: 20). Another unique female sign within Central European is the vulva engraved into a stone block from Oelknitz (Bosinski, 1982, PI. 74). Most of the representations are very·stylized and only the upper body and legs are engraved (Fig. 6). The Gönnersdorf collection covers the entire range of variation (Bosinski and Fischer, 1974): some figures have a more elaborate upper body, often with arms (Fig. 6: 1-2), and some plaquettes even show complete scenes (Fig. 6: 3), which are interpreted as dancing (Bosinski and Fischer, 1974). While the Venus figurines reveal regional differences, the engravings are alike in form and raw material, and they were a basic feature common to all groups in western Central Europe. Zoomorphic representations are reported from 16 sites (Table V). There are only 15 sculptures in the round, including eight spearthrowers sculpted as horses from Kesslerloch and Teufelsbrücke, a bird from Andernach, two contours decoupees from Kesslerloch and Oberkassel, a baton with a head of an animal from Oberkassel, and three insects made of jet from Petersfels, Kessler!och, and Kleine Scheuer Rosenstein (Bosinski, 1982). Engravings are more numerous and the most important collection is of > 150 specimens on schist slabs from Gönnersdorf. Except at Gönnersdorf, antler was the preferred raw material, followed by stone slabs and bone; ivory, jet, and pebbles were of minor importance (Table V). Overall, horse was most frequently drawn (57%), then mammoth (30%) and woolly rhino (3%). Ifwe exclude the Gönnersdorf collection, horse is even more predominant (72%), followed by reindeer (9%) and mammoth (4%). (These figures do not include the recently excavated and still unstudied material from Andernach.) If we count species by site, horse is represented at 12 sites, mammoth, woolly rhino, and reindeer at 3, and ibex and birds at 2 each. The engraving of a !arge herbivore from Petcrsfels is difficult to identify (Bosinski, 1982, p. 34); Mauser thought it a bovid, but his drawing (1970, PI. 89) more resembles an ibex. Other species are represented only by single
Weniger
360
The Magdalenian in Western Central Europe
361
examples. Some regional variation may exist in the drawings of mammoth and woolly rhino: they are reported from two sites in central Germany, from the middle Rhine valley, and from Bavaria, but they are absent from the southwestern zone (Table V). Eosinski and Fischer (1980) have proposed a chronological scheme based on stylistic features. Their oldest phase is represented by the horse engraved on a perforated baton from Kesslerloch (Fig. 7: 1), which they see as a static, stylized representation. Examples of a later phase are seen as naturalistic and spontaneaus (Fig. 7: 2-6, 9, 11) and are regarded as typical of the "photographic style." Examples of their final phase are also shown in Figure 7 (Fig. 7: 8, 10, 12-14). The horse from Kesslerloch is very unusual. The same kind of interior hatching also occurs on the "grazing reindeer" from the same site (Bosinski, 1982, PI. 8) and on a reindeer from Petersfels (Bosinski, 1982, P1.24). Other horses with interior hatching are known from the Moravian site of Pekarna (Bosinski and Fischer, 1980, PI. 104). Kesslerloch and Pekarna, but not Petersfels, are thought to include an early Magdalenian phase. Unfortunately, the stratigraphies ofthe sites arenot weil controlled, so that material from different phases may be mixed. However, it remains possible that this type ofinterior hatching, which does not represent hair but is an attempt to give more plasticity to the body, does reftect an earlier phase of mobile art of the region. Some aspects of the mobile art thus reftect the homogeneity of the region, and others regional differences. The latter are differences in raw material, motifs, style, and, perhaps, function.
RAW MATERIAL PROCUREMENT Lithic raw material was usually obtained from within 20 km of a site (Weniger, 1989b), but most sites also have a small quantity of nonlocal material. In southwestern Germany, sites in the eastern part of the Swabian Albshowconnections both with southern Bavaria (Fig. 8) and with the upper Rhine valley. Cretaceous ftint from the Aachen-Maas area or the northern end-moraines is an important part of the lithic industries in the middle Rhine area (Fig. 8), where it occurs in various amounts at all sites. At Gönnersdorf and Andernach, it was used in great quantity, and obtaining it from > I 00 km away involved a strategy which is reftected in the low number of cores at these sites (Weniger, 1989b). The two Lahntal sites reveal a pattern that is clearly directed to the Rhine valley and, beyond, to the same sources as were exploited from Gönnersdorf and Andernach. There are few data on raw material procurement in central Germany. Kniegrotte and Teufelsbrücke obtained most of their raw material, a Cretaceous ftint, from end-moraines
Fig. 8.
Regional and :mpraregional connections indicated by raw rnaterials. Solid lines, material for fiaked stone; dashed lines, rnollusks and jet.
lying > 60 knt to the northeast and may have had a procurement strategy similar to that of the middle Rhine area. A quartzite from Kniegrotte and Groitzsch probably comes from the Becov region, more than I 00 km away. Other materials, such as jet, fossil or marine mollusks, and amber, also show intra- and interregional connections (Fig. 8). The Mainz Basin was a very common sou~ce of fossil mollusks in western Central Europe and mollusks from it occur in many sites in northern Switzerland, southwestern and southeastern Germany, and central Germany, making it a supraregional center. Fossils from the Steinheim Basin occur in the eastern and western parts of the Swabian Alb in southwestern Germany. Mollusks from the northern Swiss site of Kahlerhöhle probably come from the upper Danube
362
Weniger
area (Sedlmeier, 1988), so the Swiss Jura also was connected with the Swabian zone. Jet indicates further relationships between Swiss and Swabian sites: thejet from Mossbühl in the Swiss Mittelland (Schwab, 1985) and from Hollenberghöhle 3 in the Swiss Jura (Sedlmeier, 1982) probably comes from the Swabian Alb. Jet also shows a connection between central Germany and the Swabian Alb. These raw materials can be seen as evidence of a net of exchange and communication within western Central Europe. Other fossils relate to sources outside the area under study (Fig. 8). Some southwestern German and Swiss sites yielded mollusks froin the Paris Basin (Sedlmeier, 1988; Weniger, 1989b). Other mollusks in southwestern Germany come from the Atlantic coast and even the Mediterranean coast. Medditerranean mollusks also occur in sites of the middle Rhine, southern Germany, and northern Switzerland. These examples indicate an orientation toward western and southern sources, while the small pieces ofamber from Mossbühl (Schwab, 1985) indicate connections with the northwestern European Plain. In the latter zone, amberwas usually exchanged in an east-west direction between Hamburgian sites from Poland to England (Burdukiewicz, 1987).
CONCLUSIONS
The Magdalenian in Western Central Europe >.
c
.,0.
""§
.,
0
E
e c:
"' ·;
01)
0)
u
0)
.,
~ .... 0
.,
"0
"0
0
"'
.,c
-5
~
"' u OJl·r;;
""§;
::c
0 "' Qp:~
.....l
0
Cll
~0
-= -= ";;;";;;-
0)
"c:'"
0
0
~.,
c
c ""§;
"'
~ 0
0
...l
., ~ 0
c 0
~
iii
.,c
.Cl
::c
"' -58 0 .,
Eu Eg
::::.a
20::
C'•
....
.,0.
., "' ~
0)
.,
0
'Ö"' "0 .,
"c:"'
·- c
:2::.2 0::
., -o ...... "' c_ 0 .,
"'
.~
::CO::
'"
~
ö
·o..
4
-5
c
"' "§:
~
;:J
...l
c
"'
"'
g"'
0
0
-
.::0 e"'
~
0)
~ 0
0
>
::c
-
Cll
E
g
E.s
"'-= 20::
0)
0
Cl)
-= -;:;"0 "'"'
"' c -=:5., cc"'
V
E
.c "'
-5
"'
0)
Cll
::c
0)
u
c
12
C'•
C'·
•
"0
~
"ö
~
~ ..c: ~ :l
"' E .... .,
.,
X 0
::;
0
~
"0 .,
·=~~~
:g
2
...._
....
.c "'
"'
"'
"'"'""c ;.::~ -~ 2 l ~-::::. o. e 6 0)
.,
-"
2"'
c
"'"" -= . . --..c: E.:!
Jlv
E E
0)
"' :ö
~ c
C'•
~ 0
.,....
"0
~>.
0
g
·;;;
·;:; 0::
"0
"'
c
;:J
.,
-;;;
"0 "0
;;:
c
., .....,
...l
~ 0
0
~
::c
iii
"'u X
C'·
"'
=~
.... .,
OJ
:c
b""
-=
";;;-
.3
"' Ci..
0 "' Qp:~
~
0
"0
"0
"' u e.o·c:;;
"'0
.
?:.... ·;:; -=b
"'"'c 0 "Eh ., 0:: ., -= b
c
C'•
"'~ :l
"0
E 0)
.....,
r55
c
The data presented above do not include all aspects ofthe archaeological record but still reveal a complex picture of Magdalenian settlement in western Central Europe. The geographical dustering of sites may be infiuenced by nonprehistoric factors but does provide a common background against which regional features can be observed (Table VI). The composition of the large-herbivore faunas refiects environmental differences. Muskox and saiga antelope indicate climatic and vegetational differences between the more humid or alpine southwest and the drier and more steppic northeast during the Late Glacial. This is supported by the probable Ionger survival of mammoth and woolly rhino in the eastern part of western Central Europe. The relative importance of ibex in the southwest is also environmentally significant. The main prey species also differ among the five regions and refiect these environmental differences. In the southwest, reindeer was the most important prey, followed by horse (or, in northern Switzerland, probably by ibex). In the northeast, horse was predominant and reindeer second. Reindeer may have been less' important in central Germany than in the middle Rhine; not enough is known about the Bavarian sites. The lithic assemblages are much more homogeneous. Backed bladelets, burins, and endscrapers are the three most frequent classes in most sites
363
~t~
"0
c c
., -"'
-eo::::~
....
X
0
z~
Cll
"0 .,
:l
'c:"
~
~
00. .§
....
Q,) ·1-o c._ u !l) ·Q,)
Cl) · -
o....c:
>-
Cl)-
ll)
l-o
~ -~1:0 ~C;
..c 0 !l)ö CO g
j
0..
$....;
11.)
c~
·:a 2
o
.c "'
:::
-;;;
~0
?;
c
C'•
;:; .....,
3
3
::c
Cll
"'
X~
"' .c c -..-;
"0
>.
f:!
~
"§OS·;;; E Cl)
;:J
8c
-52c& 0
0.. :-e
I~
P::::C~
.,u 1-o Q,) __ OIJ
.S!
-~ ~ ~
:i
2
"'~
...._ 0)
-5
-"
"' ., c 1-o~·0 c: ~ "' ..c: ·--0>'-"0 "0 . c fJ~~
8
....
..0:'-
c
E
·c
"'
Cl)
0)
~·.s
., "' e-o ·- c -
:l
v; · u
E:.a
0::::
O...l
c
~
...!: e.>
o:g},~ :~g ·a .s!§ ~::; ..g ·;::: .S g. .S! ;;; ~ E E .._ ., ...._ '"E5bEto~ ·;: : ~ ;; .: : -ao·.:::[ g0 ~"' ., "'0.00.... "' ~ ~ ~ "' E ~ ·.... 0.
-;;: "'
2
>. ~
~
~
c .,
"'E E E
~~ 0)
Cll
0.
e
~ ;ee~'"~g-.,g~::a ~· C
