ArticlePDF Available

Moravia during OIS 3: Cultural Relations


Abstract and Figures

Several interesting fi ndings and theories appeared during the last two decades in Moravia. The development of dating methods and the calibration of 14C data enables us to specify the chrono-stratigraphic position of main EUP sites in Moravia. Therefore questions of cultural relations and anthropological bearers are reopened and analysed in this paper with special attention to the Szeletian.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Volume 9–10
Edited by
Árpád Ringer
Miskolc 2008–2009
The publication of this volume was supported by the following institutions:
The Council of the City of Miskolc
The University of Miskolc
A Tudomány Támogatásáért Észak-Magyarországon Alapítvány
Front cover illustration:
The face of a Neanderthal child from Suba-lyuk Cave,
Hungarian Natural History Museum. Reconstruction and photograph by Gy. Skultéty.
The cleft of the Bársony house found in 1891, Hungarian National Museum.
Photograph by G. Kulcsár.
Back cover illustration:
Photo of Ottokár Kadić
Székely K. (szerk.): Kadić Ottokár a magyar barlangkutatás atyja – Önéletrajz
Budapest, Magyar Állami Földtani Intézet, 2010, p. 6.
HU ISSN 1586-7811
Prof. Dr. Gyula Patkó
Rector of the University of Miskolc
bears full responsibility for the publication.
Published by the Archaeolingua Foundation & Publishing House on behalf of the
Department of Prehistory and Ancient History, University of Miskolc, in collaboration with the
Herman Ottó Museum and the Miskolc Committee of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, digitised, photo copying,
recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.
H-1014 Budapest, Úri u. 49.
Word processing, desktop editing and layout:
Rita Kovács and Zsolt Mester
Cover design:
Erzsébet Jerem and Gergely Hős
Printed by: Prime Rate, Budapest
Editorial Preface ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Szeleta Workshop – Commemorating the 100th Anniversary of the Excavation at Szeleta Cave
October 12–15 2007. Miskolc ......................................................................................................... 7
György LENGYEL, Péter SZOLYÁK & Martina PACHER
Szeleta Cave Earliest Occupation Reconsidered ............................................................................. 9
Nouvelles données sur le Szélétien de Bükk ................................................................................. 21
William DAVIES & Robert HEDGES
Dating a Type Site: Fitting Szeleta Cave into Its Regional Chronometric Context ....................... 35
The Technology of the Szeletian Lithic Industry in the Context of Moravian EUP Cultures ....... 47
Martin OLIVA
Questions du Szélétien supérieur en Moravie ............................................................................... 61
Leaf Points in non-Szeletian Context ............................................................................................ 71
Les outils foliacés de la grotte Jankovich : la renaissance d’un problème ancien ......................... 81
The Role of Leaf Points in the Late Middle Palaeolithic of Germany .......................................... 99
Philippe DUPAS & Jean-Michel PIROT
Les stations de plein air à outils foliacés dans l’Est de la France ................................................. 115
Moravia during OIS 3: Cultural Relations ................................................................................... 125
East European Aurignacian and Its Early / Archaic Industry of Krems-Dufour Type
in the Great North Black Sea Region .......................................................................................... 149
András MARKÓ
Raw Material Use at the Middle Palaeolithic Site of Vanyarc (Northern Hungary) ................... 183
The Pioneer of Subcarpathian Palaeolithic Research .................................................................. 195
The Upper Palaeolithic Site at Budapest Corvin-tér .................................................................... 205
New Radiocarbon Data with Stratigraphical,
Climatic and Archaeological Contexts to the Palaeolithic Assemblage
of the Herman Ottó Cave, Miskolc-Alsóhámor, Northeast Hungary .......................................... 213
Upper Palaeolithic Blade Cores and Flake Cores from the Herman Ottó Cave,
Miskolc-Alsóhámor, Northeast Hungary ..................................................................................... 225
Radiocarbon Dates of the “Gravettian Entity” in Hungary ......................................................... 241
Dietrich MANIA
Gravettien zwischen Elbe und Thüringer Wald ........................................................................... 265
Vasile CHIRICA, Madalin-Cornel VALEANU & Codrin-Valentin CHIRICA
L’image de la femme dans l’art et les religions prehistoriques: l’orante .................................... 307
László G. JÓZSA
Depicted Obesity and Steatopygia on Paleolithic Statues ........................................................... 333
Book Review ...................................................................................................................................... 341
PRAEHISTORIA vol. 9–10 (2008–2009)
By studying articles concerning the Middle
to Upper Palaeolithic transition, we get the
impression that the cultural relations among
Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) cultures are
already established. However, recent research
about localities dated to the time range of
interest has reopened several problems that
should be discussed. This article builds upon this
phenomenon and examines the persistence of
Neanderthals, the Micoquian - Szeletian relation
and the character of an eventual acculturation of
Neanderthals by anatomically modern humans,
especially by Aurignacians. The beginning of
the the Aurignacian in Central Europe and the
transitional nature of the Bohunician phenomena
is still widely discussed.
During the last two decades several new
excavations have been undertaken in Moravia.
Mainly the region of Brno City has been
intensively excavated. A complex of sites with
Bohunician and Aurignacian occupation was
uncovered in the Stránská skála hill (Svoboda
1987a, b; Svoboda et al. 1991; Valoche et al.
2000; Svoboda & Bar-Yosef eds. 2003) and the
Bohunician eponymous site of Brno-Bohunice
also yielded sini cant nds (Valoch et al. 1976,
1982; Škrdla & Tostevin 2003, 2005; Tostevin
& Škrdla 2006). Krumlovský les, situated 40
km SW from the Brno, is directly related to
the aforementioned sites. Despite the intensive
survey (Neruda et al. 2004), we were able to
add only one Szeletian site with an abundant
assemblage – Moravský Krumlov IV, which
is situated 4.5 km from the key Szeletien site
Vedrovice V excavated by Karel Valoch from
1982 to with controle probing in 1983 (Valoch
et al. 1993). Only small assemblages are added
to these main sites (Pravlov IVd; Neruda &
Nerudová 2006). Vedrovice Ia strati ed open-
air site also yielded typical Aurignacian nds in
this region (Oliva 1993a, 2008). The extension
of the Aurignacian is well marked by the spatial
analysis of the settlement unit in the Napajedla
gate (Škrdla 2005) and by the rescue excavation
of the Milovice I open-air site that yielded an
interesting sequence of Aurignacian hearths
(Oliva 1989). This site opened the question
of the repeated occupation of this site and the
mobility of Aurignacian bearers.
In the context of these excavations, new
stratigraphic and dating projects have
been done. We obtained absolute data for
Bohunician, Aurignacian, Szeletian, and Middle
Palaeolithic sites. Today, the Bohunician is
well dated (Svoboda 2003b; Valoch 2008) and
a wide spectrum of data is available also for
Aurignacian, although it is dif cult to compare
them because of their different validity from the
methodological point of view. Little progress
was made at Middle Palaeolithic sites. The new
archaeological horizons (layer 1–4) in Moravský
Krumlov IV open-air site are out of the 14C range
* Anthropos Institute, Moravian Museum, Brno, Czech Republic. E-mail:
Several interesting ndings and theories appeared during the last two decades in Moravia. The development of
dating methods and the calibration of 14C data enables us to specify the chrono-stratigraphic position of main EUP
sites in Moravia. Therefore questions of cultural relations and anthropological bearers are reopened and analysed
in this paper with special attention to the Szeletian.
This paper was funded by grant n. DE 07P04OMG011 of the Ministry of Culture.
and it was necessary to use different methods.
New results are expected from the OSL dating
project, which covered all important Middle
and EUP cultures (Nejman et al. in press).
There is little progress in Moravia that concerns
the anthropology of the Middle to Upper
Palaeolithic transition. Middle Palaeolithic
Neanderthals (Vlček 1969) have been found
in Kůlna cave (Valoch 1988), Švédův stůl cave
(Rzehak 1906, 1909) and Šipka cave (Maška
1885). Traditionally we associate anatomically
modern humans with the Aurignacian on the
base of Mladeč caves nds that were analysed
in an interdisciplinary project (Teschler-Nicola
2006). The question of the symbolic meaning of
human presence in these caves is still discussed
(Oliva 1993b, 2006a, b; Svoboda 2000, 2001,
2006). The results of recent research that
attempted to date nds from other sites and
possibly associated with anatomically modern
humans are not convincing. The ndings of
Zlatý Kůň – Koněprusy (Bohemian Karst),
St. Prokop (Bohemian Karst) and Svitávka
(Moravia) are Magdalenian or even younger
(Svoboda 2003a; Svoboda, van der Plicht
& Kuželka 2002; Svoboda et al. 2004). The
question of the bearers of both Bohunician and
Szeletian cultures is still open.
The diversity of viewpoints is re ected in
the group of frequently antagonistic theories.
Some of them will be used to outline the main
problems of the EUP complex in Moravia.
Only strati ed and dated sites will be used as
evidence. (Fig. 1)
Fig. 1. Position of excavated sites dated to OIS 3 in Moravia.
1: Kůlna cave; 2: Pod hradem cave; 3: Šipka cave; 4: Čertova díra cave; 5: Mladeč caves; 6: Dzeravá skála;
7: complex of Stránská skála sites; 8: Brno-Bohunice; 9: Vedrovice Ia; 10: Vedrovice V;
11: Moravský Krumlov IV; 12: Milovice.
Moravia during OIS 3: Cultural Relations
Chronological position
The lack of new Middle Palaeolithic data was
already mentioned. First, the problem re ects the
limitations of 14C dating. It is impossible to use
this method for Taubachian layers or Micoquian
layer 9b-7c in the Kůlna cave and it is not
suited for layers 1–4 in the Moravský Krumlov
IV open air site, either. Second problem is the
paucity of charcoal samples in the clear context.
Hearths in Middle Palaeolithic sites are not
common. Therefore, usually bones and antlers
that are well preserved in the cave environment
are used for dating. The comparison of charcoal
and bone samples is rather problematic from
the methodological point of view because the
difference between these materials is not easily
controlled for (cf. e. g. Sinitsyn 2003, Tab. 1;
Zilhão & d’Errico 1999; Davis in this volume,
etc.)1. The use of other methods (ESR, OSL) is
limited mainly by postdepositional processes
(cf. Rink et al. 1996; Patou-Mathis et al.
2005; Michel et al. 2006). A new approach is
opened by using the HULU 2007 calibration
curve that re ects the climatic changes in the
Middle Palaeolithic (Weninger et al. 2007). It
is clear that there are methodological problems
in the calibration of data older than the limit
of dendrochnology (e. g. Bronk Ramsey et al.
2006; Pettitt & Pike 2001; Pettitt et al. 2003).
The correlation of the results of different dating
methods is still the most powerful tool for
interpretation and for this reason we need the
possibility to calibrate 14C (Fig. 2, Tab. 1).
For a long time only Kůlna cave was dated. 14C
date 45,660 uncal BP is the classical date for the
Moravian Middle Palaeolithic position of the
upper phase of Micoquian (Mook 1988)2. But
it is clear that we need more dates obtained by
Fig. 2. Correlation of calibrated 14C datasets (Weninger et al. 2007). Some ESR and OSL data are included.
1 It is interesting to stress the methodology of sample selection at Willendorf II (Haesaerts et al. 1996).
2 The samples GrN-10347 and GrN-6024 are not included in Fig. 2 because of the methodology (cf. Mook 1988).
Tab. 1. Calibration of 14C data from Moravia and Slovakia by CalPal software.
The HULU curves were used (Weninger et al. 2007).
14C-Age [BP]
Cal Age p(95%)
Cal Age p(95%)
cal BP(0=AD 1950)
Cal Age p(68%)
cal BC/AD
Cal Age p(68%)
Source of data
GrA-29904 29430 ± 200 32440 -31320 34390 -33270 31880 ± 280 33830 ± 280 Čertova díra cave Neruda 2006
GrA-29906 39940 ± 550 42760 -40520 44710 -42470 41640 ± 560 43590 ± 560 Šipka cave Neruda 2006
GrN-10347 44000 ± 2000 49900 -41100 51850 -43050 45500 ± 2200 47450 ± 2200 Kůlna cave Mook 1988
GrN-6024 38600 ± 950 42110 -39590 44060 -41540 40850 ± 630 42800 ± 630 Kůlna cave, 7a, Mook 1988
GrN-6060 45660 ± 2850 53950 -41030 55900 -42980 47490 ± 3230 49440 ± 3230 Kůlna cave, 7a, Mook 1988
GrA-11504 34530 ± 830 39920 -36240 41870 -38190 38080 ± 920 40030 ± 920 SS IIId, Upper soil Svoboda 2003
GrA-11808 35320 ± 320 34020 -32420 35970 -34370 33220 ± 400 35170 ± 400 SS IIId, Upper soil Svoboda 2003
AA-32059 37900 ± 1100 53950 -41030 55900 -42980 47490 ± 3230 49440 ± 3230 SS IIId, Upper soil Svoboda 2003
AA-32060 37270 ± 990 28010 -27610 29960 -29560 27810 ± 100 29760 ± 100 SS IIId, Upper soil Svoboda 2003
AA-32061 35080 ± 830 36680 -31680 38630 -33630 34180 ± 1250 36130 ± 1250 SS IIId, Upper soil Svoboda 2003
AA-41475 34440 ± 720 43210 -35370 45160 -37320 39290 ± 1960 41240 ± 1960 SS IIIc, Upper soil Svoboda 2003
AA-41476 36570 ± 940 39930 -33290 41880 -35240 36610 ± 1660 38560 ± 1660 SS IIIc, Upper soil Svoboda 2003
AA-41477 34530 ± 770 39620 -32940 41570 -34890 36280 ± 1670 38230 ± 1670 SS IIIc, Upper soil Svoboda 2003
AA-41478 36350 ± 990 33140 -29900 35090 -31850 31520 ± 810 33470 ± 810 SS IIIc, Upper soil Svoboda 2003
AA-41480 34680 ± 820 32010 -30650 33960 -32600 31330 ± 340 33280 ± 340 SS IIIc, Upper soil Svoboda 2003
AA-32058 38300 ± 1100 49900 -41100 51850 -43050 45500 ± 2200 47450 ± 2200 SS IIIc, Lower soil Svoboda 2003
GrN-12297 38200 ± 1100 34130 -32490 36080 -34440 33310 ± 410 35260 ± 410 SS III-1, Upper soil Svoboda 2003
GrN-12298 38500 ± 1400 33600 -32160 35550 -34110 32880 ± 360 34830 ± 360 SS III-2, Upper soil Svoboda 2003
GrN-12606 41300 ± 3100 34330 -32570 36280 -34520 33450 ± 440 35400 ± 440 SS IIIc, Lower soil Svoboda 2003
ANU-12024 32740 ± 530 36090 -32730 38040 -34680 34410 ± 840 36360 ± 840 Bohunice Nejman et al.
in prep
ANU-27214 35025 ± 730 39630 -35470 41580 -37420 37550 ± 1040 39500 ± 1040 Bohunice Nejman et al.
in prep
GrN-16920 36000 ± 1100 37390 -33590 39340 -35540 35490 ± 950 37440 ± 950 Bohunice-brickyard, 4a Svoboda 2002
GrN-6165 42900 ± 1700 32440 -31240 34390 -33190 31840 ± 300 33790 ± 300 Bohunice-brickyard, 4a Svoboda 2002
GrN-6802 41400 ± 1400 31270 -30110 33220 -32060 30690 ± 290 32640 ± 290 Bohunice-Kejbaly,
layer 4a
Svoboda 2002
Q-1044 40173 ± 1200 39960 -31240 41910 -33190 35600 ± 2180 37550 ± 2180 Bohunice-Kejbaly,
layer 4a
Svoboda 2002
OxA-14843 42100 ± 450 39920 -32600 41870 -34550 36260 ± 1830 38210 ± 1830 Bohunice Valoch 2008
OxA-14844 43200 ± 550 37510 -33430 39460 -35380 35470 ± 1020 37420 ± 1020 Bohunice Valoch 2008
OxA-14845 41250 ± 450 32430 -30550 34380 -32500 31490 ± 470 33440 ± 470 Bohunice Valoch 2008
OxA-14846 43600 ± 550 37370 -32410 39320 -34360 34890 ± 1240 36840 ± 1240 Bohunice Valoch 2008
OxA-14847 42750 ± 550 33820 -32340 35770 -34290 33080 ± 370 35030 ± 370 Bohunice Valoch 2008
OxA-14848 41350 ± 450 39960 -31240 41910 -33190 35600 ± 2180 37550 ± 2180 Bohunice Valoch 2008
Moravia during OIS 3: Cultural Relations
14C-Age [BP]
Cal Age p(95%)
Cal Age p(95%)
cal BP(0=AD 1950)
Cal Age p(68%)
cal BC/AD
Cal Age p(68%)
Source of data
GrN-2438 38400 ± 2800 45450 -34890 47400 -36840 39290 1960 41240 ± 1960 Čertova pec (cave) Valoch 1996
GrN-28451 24950 ± 570 29130 -26450 31080 -28400 36610 1660 38560 ± 1660 Moravský Krumlov IV
(l. 0)
Neruda et al.
GrN-12374 37650 ± 550 41080 -39480 43030 -41430 47490 3230 49440 ± 3230 Vedrovice V Valoch et al. 1993
GrN-12375 39500 ± 1100 43110 -39830 45060 -41780 27810 100 29760 ± 100 Vedrovice V Valoch et al. 1993
GrN-15513 35150 ± 650 40160 -36200 42110 -38150 34180 1250 36130 ± 1250 Vedrovice V Valoch et al. 1993
GrN-15514 37600 ± 800 41260 -39260 43210 -41210 33540 1200 35490 ± 1200 Vedrovice V Valoch et al. 1993
Beta-173341 34100 ± 320 39540 -35700 41490 -37650 37620 ± 960 39570 ± 960 Dzeravá skala (cave) Kaminská et al.
OxA-13860 35100 ± 400 40010 -36410 41960 -38360 38210 ± 900 40160 ± 900 Dzeravá skala (cave) Kaminská et al.
OxA-13861 24760 ± 130 28010 -27610 29960 -29560 27810 ± 100 29760 ± 100 Dzeravá skala (cave) Kaminská et al.
OxA-15534 31600 ± 900 36680 -31680 38630 -33630 34180 ± 1250 36130 ± 1250 Dzeravá skala (cave) Kaminská et al.
OxA-15535 31000 ± 1100 35940 -31140 37890 -33090 33540 ± 1200 35490 ± 1200 Dzeravá skala (cave) Kaminská et al.
Wk-14865 37370 ± 2060 43210 -35370 45160 -37320 39290 ± 1960 41240 ± 1960 Dzeravá skala (cave) Kaminská et al.
Wk-14866 33608 ± 569 39930 -33290 41880 -35240 36610 ± 1660 38560 ± 1660 Dzeravá skala (cave) Kaminská et al.
Wk-16829 33333 ± 820 39620 -32940 41570 -34890 36280 ± 1670 38230 ± 1670 Dzeravá skala (cave) Kaminská et al.
GrN-14826 29200 ± 950 33140 -29900 35090 -31850 31520 ± 810 33470 ± 810 Milovice, sector D,
Upper part
Svoboda 2002
GrN-22107 28780 ± 230 32010 -30650 33960 -32600 31330 ± 340 33280 ± 340 Milovice, sector L,
Upper part
Svoboda 2002
GrN-22108 32030 ± 370 36090 -32730 38040 -34680 34410 ± 840 36360 ± 840 Milovice, sector L,
Lower part
Svoboda 2002
GrN-26333 34160 ± 520 39630 -35470 41580 -37420 37550 ± 1040 39500 ± 1040 Mladeč I, position “a”,
Upper part
Svoboda 2002
GrN-26334 34930 ± 520 39920 -36240 41870 -38190 38080 ± 920 40030 ± 920 Mladeč I, position “a”,
Lower part
Svoboda 2002
VERA-3073 31190 ± 400 34020 -32420 35970 -34370 33220 ± 400 35170 ± 400 Mladeč1-human fossil Wild et al. 2006
VERA-3074 31320 ± 410 34130 -32490 36080 -34440 33310 ± 410 35260 ± 410 Mladeč2-human fossil Wild et al. 2006
VERA-3075 30680 ± 380 33600 -32160 35550 -34110 32880 ± 360 34830 ± 360 Mladeč8-human fossil Wild et al. 2006
VERA-3076a 31500 ± 420 34330 -32570 36280 -34520 33450 ± 440 35400 ± 440 Mladeč9a-human fossil Wild et al. 2006
GrN-1724 33100 ± 530 37390 -33590 39340 -35540 35490 ± 950 37440 ± 950 Pod Hradem Valoch 1996
GrN-1735 29400 ± 230 32440 -31240 34390 -33190 31840 ± 300 33790 ± 300 Pod Hradem Valoch 1996
GrN-1751 28200 ± 220 31270 -30110 33220 -32060 30690 ± 290 32640 ± 290 Pod Hradem Valoch 1996
GrN-848 33300 ± 1100 39920 -32600 41870 -34550 36260 ± 1830 38210 ± 1830 Pod Hradem Valoch 1996
GrN-14829 32350 ± 900 37370 -32410 39320 -34360 34890 ± 1240 36840 ± 1240 SS IIa, layer 4 Svoboda 2002
GrN-12605 30980 ± 360 33820 -32340 35770 -34290 33080 ± 370 35030 ± 370 SS IIIa, layer 3 Svoboda 2002
GrN-16918 32600 ± 1700 39960 -31240 41910 -33190 35600 ± 2180 37550 ± 2180 SS IIIb, layer 4 Svoboda 2002
AA-41479 33030 ± 620 37510 -33430 39460 -35380 35470 ± 1020 37420 ± 1020 SS IIIc, Upper soil Svoboda 2002
AA-41472 29020 ± 440 32430 -30550 34380 -32500 31490 ± 470 33440 ± 470 SS IIIf, hearth Svoboda 2002
GrA-34275 25170 130 28400 -27800 30350 -29750 28100 ± 150 30050 ± 150 Vedrovice Ia Oliva in press
more methods to control the deviation. There are
ESR datasets presented by Rink and Veronique
Michel but the results are disputable, especially
for Taubachian occupation and unfortunately
also for the youngest Micoquian layer 6a
(problems of method and post-sedimentary
processes; Rink et al. 1996; Michel et al. 2006).
We made a new attempt in collaboration with Ed
Rhodes and Ladislav Nejman applying the OSL
method. In some cases, it was dif cult to take
well controlled compact samples, especially for
layers 6a because of the high share of limestone
blocs in the loess sediment. Unfortunately, the
preliminary results are hardly comparable to the
previous ones. We are waiting for more TL data
(E. Rhodes, L. Nejman) to compare them with
the OSL samples.
The occupation of the Kůlna cave (Fig. 3.A) by
Micoquians of layer 7a is dated by 14C (GrN-
6060; 45,660 uncal BP) to 49,440 calibrated BP
(additional samples vary from 43 to 47.5 kyr cal.
BP; see tab 1). ESR dates of around 50±5 ka BP
agree quite well with this (Rink et al. 1996). OSL
dates are older – about 67,000 BP. The later layer
6a has not yet been adequately dated, because
the OSL samples vary from 30 to 71 ka BP.
The problem is explained by the sedimentation
processes, because the main sediments of
Magdalenian and Micoquian occupations are
not macroscopically distinguishable and we can
not control the contamination by younger quartz
grains (Nejman et al. in prep). Samples from the
etrance and the inner part of the cave differ and
in uence the wide time range of the 6a layer.
Despite these problems, new dating projects are
still in progress. We prepared the TL analysis of
burnt int/chert samples, and a bone with traces
(intentional cut marks, layer 6a) on the surface
is dated in the Oxford laboratory (in cooperation
with W. S. G. Davies).
New possibilities of Middle Palaeolithic dating
are related to other caves in Northern Moravia
– Šipka and Čertova díra caves, excavated
at the end of the 19th century (Maška 1884,
1885, 1886a, b, 1888). The Neanderthal lithic
assemblage from the Šipka cave (N49.5880°,
E18.1210°) was classi ed to the denticulate
Mousterian (Valoch 1965b), however, based
on the backed knives it is possible to correlate
it with the Micoquian as well (Fig. 4.10–17;
Neruda 2003, 2006). Therefore the sample
(GrA-29906), located near the hearth with a
Neanderthal jaw (Fig. 4. 9), was separated within
the framework of the critical revision of Maška’s
old excavation. The sample from the Šipka cave
is a burnt bone without collagen, but its position
in the cave is clear, i.e. near the hearth with
Neanderthal jaw. Groeningen lab dated only the
alkaline fraction, which is why the sample must
be older than 39,940 uncal BP (43,590 cal BP).
We do not know how much older, but we must
suppose more than 40,000 (uncal BP), which
means that this sample matches the Kůlna cave
layer 7a occupation (Neruda 2006). Due to the
absence of collagen in the Šipka cave sample,
we actually analyse a bloc of chert from the
same hearth place, but preliminary results are
younger than the 14C sample. It is dif cult to
control for the deviation because the sample
was not suf ciently heated and therefore the
OSL method was used (preliminary result
35,600±8800). But we cannot measure important
Fig. 3. Cross-sections.
A: Kůlna cave; B: Vedrovice V; C: Vedrovice Ia.
Red circle – position of OSL samples.
Moravia during OIS 3: Cultural Relations
Fig. 4. Middle Palaeolithic. 1–8: Kůlna cave; 9–7: Šipka cave. 1: discoid core; 2: prizmatic core; 3: blade; 4:
side scraper on blade; 5: side scraper with thinned back; 6: micoquian biface; 7: bone with grooves;
8: retoucher; 10–11: blade; 12–14: „éclat débordant“; 15: fragment of biface; 16: bifacial backed knife;
17: offset side scraper. 4, 7–8: Valoch 1988; 10–11, 16: Valoch 1965; others Neruda 2003.
features of the sediment and the calibration of the
date is unclear. Nevertheless, new 14C samples
from Middle Palaeolithic layers from the Šipka
and Čertova díra caves were collected for dating
with special attention to their stratigraphic
position (collaboration with S.G.W. Davis and
Oxford Laboratory).
A smaller cave – called Čertova díra (N49.5840°,
E18.1140°) – was situated near the Šipka cave.
Alas, it has been completely destroyed during
the rst half of 20th centrury. One fragment
of burnt bone was found in the collection of
the archaeological material. The traces of re
indicated anthropic manipulation but the spatial
and stratigraphic position is unclear. Also only
an alkaline fraction was analysed for the Čertova
díra sample (GrA-29904), which is younger
than the Šipka cave one. In this case we must
also suppose that the date is older than 29,430
uncal BP (33,830 cal BP), which means the time
of the EUP time range (Neruda & Valoch 2007).
However, it is impossible to nd an assemblage
(or artefacts) comparable to this chronological
position in Čertova díra cave. There are no
Szeletian, Aurignacian, or Bohunician artefacts
there. We can take into account only Gravettian
ones, but the date obtained is much older than
the Gravettian dataset in Moravia. The oldest
position of Gravettian is noted in Austria
where layer 5 in the Willendorf II site is dated
around 30,500 uncal BP and similarly Krems
– Hundsteig could be the oldest Gravettian
in a Central European context (Neugebauer-
Maresch 2008). Although the right context of
Čertova díra sample is not obvious, it could be
an interesting contribution to the question of the
Neanderthal surviving in Moravia during stage
3 similarly to other European regions. Several
surface sites with an interesting mix of Middle
and Upper Palaeolithic features are documented
in the surroundings (Neruda 2006; Jelínková
2007) and their dating could be helpful for
the observed problem. For this reason, new
eldwork is carried out in the upper section of
the River Odra. Samples from the Čertova díra
caves are analysed in the Oxford Laboratory in
collaboration with W. S. G. Davis.
The dating of Szeletian occupation in Moravia
is based on two sites – Vedrovice V and the new
multilayer site Moravský Krumlov IV. Both
localities are situated in the Krumlovský les
region about 50 km SSW from the Kůlna cave.
The best-known site is Vedrovice V (Valoch et
al. 1993). The 14C dateset is considered to be the
classical example for the Szeletian in Central
Europe. It is necessary to stress that the two data
of this dataset are sometimes irregularly taken
into account (cf. Adams & Ringer 2004).3 The
youngest – 30.170 uncal BP is contaminated by
recent roots and the older one has no relation
to the Szeletian layer (Valoch et al. 1993;
Nejman et al. in prep). The right sequence has
two signi cant peaks around 42 and 39.5 kyr
cal BP. New 14C data managed by the Max-
Planck-Institute for Evoultionary Anthropology
(Leipzig, Germany) will be published (pers.
com. P. Nigst). The comparison with the TL
samples is still in progress. OSL dating by
Ed Rhodes and Ladislav Nejman shows some
differences. Szeletian artefacts lie in the lower
part of interpleniglacial soil, mainly between
the Upper and Middle OSL samples, that is,
under the horizon of gravel which is included
in the middle part of paleosoil (Fig. 3.B). The
upper OSL sample (45 kyr BP) matches the 14C
dates well, the lower samples are older (middle
sample – 60 kyr BP, lower sample 102 kyr BP),
but it must be stressed that this method dates the
sediment, not human activity. The lowest sample
is obviously contaminated by soli uction of
older sediments. The documented stratigraphic
sequence did not contain the last interglacial
horizon. This one is probably covered by
interpleniglacial soil developed on the rest of
the eroded eemian sediment.
3 The data table usually used (Valoch 1996, Annexe 1) contains the incorrect cultural classi cation of two
samples (GrN-17261, GrN-19106, cf. Valoch et al. 1993).
Moravia during OIS 3: Cultural Relations
The dating of Moravský Krumlov IV (N49.0452°,
E16.411°) layer 0 is somewhat complicated due
to the lack of organic materials. Two ribs of a
young Rhino or mammoth were found and the
preservation of compacta was very poor (Neruda
– Nerudová & Oliva 2004). Therefore it was
possible to date only the rest of the collagen
and due to its low degree the age of the sample
must be older as well as the Šipka and Čertova
díra samples (GrN-28451 – 24,950 ± 570 BP,
i.e. 38,560±1,660 cal BP). For this reason we
included this site into the OSL dating project
mentioned above. The OSL data indicate an
older chronostratigraphic position of Szeletian
layer than in the Vedrovice case. The upper part
of the cultural layer is dated to 43,600±3,300
BP and the base of the cultural layer to 64,600
± 7,000 BP (Nejman et al. in prep.). The upper
sample correlates with Vedrovice V calibrated
14C data. The lower sample around 64,000 BP is
too early, but it is important to note that the base
of the cultural layer is contaminated by older
sediments just like in the case of Vedrovice V. It
is an apparently pararendzina soil that consists
of several overlaid blocs of the same soil with
slightly different soli uted horizons at the
base (Fig. 5). From the sedimentological point
of view the pararendzina soil is redeposited.
However, the re tting and spatial distribution
of all lithic pieces indicate in situ position. Only
one explanation ts this pattern: the artefacts lie
in a paraautochtonic position. This means that
a big bloc of soil was displaced from a higher
position while the primary relationship among
the artefacts was preserved (cf. Nerudová in this
volume). The cross-section shows obviously
more than three sublayers of a pararendzina
soil divided by the horizons of soli uctions.
Recently we obtained a new dataset of four
data (Oxford lab) that are comparable to the
Vedrovice V cluster (Neruda et al. in prep).
Bohunician is exclusively dated by samples
from the eponymous site in Brno-Bohunice (14C
Fig. 5. Stratigraphic position of layers 0, 1 and 2. Szeletian layer 0 is situated in the upper part
of pararendzina soil (arrows). Position of two OSL samples is indicated by black circles.
dates 43.6–36 kyr uncal BP (Tostevin & Škrdla
2006; Valoch 2008) and workshops in the
Stránská skála hill (Valoch et al. 2000; Svoboda
2003a, b). Both site complexes are within Brno.
The obtained datasets are very homogenous
and two main periods are distinguishable in
the case of the Stránská skála sites. The older
dataset correlates with the lower part of the
interpleniglacial paleosoil and falls to the range
from 41 to 38 (Svoboda 2003a) or 41 - 37 kyr
uncal BP (Svoboda 2003b). The upper part of
the paleosoil, with Bohunician artefacts at its
base, is dated between 38.5 – 30 kyr uncal BP.
We would see the overlap of these two datasets
as a result of the coarse-grained stratigraphic
value of paleosols in loess, where the visible
layers may, in fact, include several smaller-
scale oscillations (Svoboda 2003a). The oldest
14C data from the Bohunician layer in Brno-
Bohunice is the TL date 47.4±7.3 kyr BP
(Valoch et al. 2000).
In contrast to Bohunician, the Aurignacian
data cluster is more dispersed from the
methodological point of view (Tab. 1). The
calibration curve (Fig. 2) is composed of early
obtained dates (Pod hradem cave, Valoch 1965a),
isolated samples (e.g. Vedrovice Ia, Oliva 2006,
2008), and the relatively homogenous datasets
of Brno – Stránská skála (Svoboda 2003b) and
Milovice I sites (Oliva 1989). The earliest data
are documented in Willendorf II (37.9–38.9 kyr
uncal BP) and they establish the beginning of
Aurignacian in the Middle Danube region to 38–
39 kyr uncal BP (e.g. Haesaerts & Teysandier
2003; Bolus & Conard 2001; Bolus 2003). Such
a horizon for this culture is supported also by
sites in Germany, e.g. Geissenklösterle (38,400
uncal BP; Richter et al. 2000; Conard et al. 2003),
Sessefelsgrotte and Keilberg-Kirche (37,500
– 38,600 uncal BP; Uthmeier 1996, 2007). A
similar position is indicated by the oldest date
from Dzeravá skála (Slovakia; Wk-14865:
37,370±2,060 uncal BP, i.e. 41,240±1960 cal
BP; Kaminská et al. 2005). Such a position of
early Aurignacian is not supported by data from
Moravia. The oldest Moravian Aurignacian is
dated to 34 – 33 kyr uncal BP (40–36 kyr cal
BP). The typical Moravian Aurignacian is later,
but it must be emphasized that only some of
the known sites are dated because the majority
of the sites were found during surface surveys
(Oliva 1987b) and several of them could be
older (cf. Valoch et al. 1985).
Bohunician data overlap with Micoquian ones
(Fig. 2). This means parallel development in
contrast to Aurignacian, which is separated (only
in Moravia) clearly from Middle Palaeolithic
occupation. The data for the Moravian Szeletian
succeed the Micoquian ones. The difference
between Kůlna layer 7a and the earlier peak
of Szeletian occupation in Vedrovice V and
Moravský Krumlov IV is about 3,000 years if we
take into account the new samples. Kůlna layer
6a and some sites in the Bořitov region on the
western border of the Moravian karst probably
fall within this time range (Valoch 1977, 1978;
Oliva 1987a, 1991a). There is neither evidence
of discontinuity nor parallel development. In my
opinion, we can interpret this as “evidence” for
determining the cultural relations and probably
also the relationships of the producers of these
material cultures. Several other arguments
support the hypothesis that the Szeletian is the
product of the late Neanderthals (e. g. Bar-Yosef
& Svoboda 2003; Svoboda 2003; Oliva 1991,
1995, 2006; Valoch 1996 etc.). In this sense
I see the Szeletian as a Middle Palaeolithic
culture in the time frame of EUP. There is an
interesting relation between the Szeletian and
the Micoquian occupation in Austria, where
only several isolated leaf points are documented
(Trnka 1990) as well as only one signi cant
Micoquian assemblage in Gudenushöhle
(Derndarsky 2001). Such a relation probably
means that the region of Niederösterreich could
be relatively uninhabited and therefore open
for early Aurignacian colonisation (cf. 14 data
for Austria and Moravia). A similar relation we
see also in the Brno region, where the Szeletian
sites respect the Aurignacian and Bohunician
Cultural relations of EUP cultures
The comparison of particular features of
human behaviour provides the background
Moravia during OIS 3: Cultural Relations
for the following analyses (Tab. 2). The table
is divided into three main units that consist of
spatial patterning, namely the use of caves,
technology, typology of material culture, and
raw material economy. The similarity between
the Micoquian and the Szeletian is evident,
but some differences have to be noted too
(Oliva 1991b, 1995). The Bohunician and the
Aurignacian are clearly different, especially
from the technological point of view.
The topic of this paper is the position of the
Szeletian in cultural relations. Traditionally,
the Szeletian was de ned as an autochthonous
Middle Danubian way of the Middle-to-Upper
Palaeolithic transition. Nonetheless, the main
question is the independence of this culture. In
my opinion, we can specify two main models
from the evolutionary point of view. The rst
model views the Szeletian as a result of the
independent development of the Micoquian
during the EUP. This means that we can
understand the Szeletian as the upper phase of
the Micoquian. The second model depicts the
Szeletian as a result of the development that
depends on acculturation processes (Valoch
1996; Nigst 2006) when the incoming cultures
(e.g. the Aurignacian or Bohunician4) interact
with the local substrate (the Micoquian?).
(Tab. 2)
The rst model is supported by technology,
typology, dating and raw material economy at
the lower phase of the Szeletian. The Szeletian
creates compact settlement networks over parts
of the Middle Danubian landscape and correlates
with the regions of Micoquian occupation. The
same raw materials are used in both cultures
(the same raw material economy, especially
at the older Szeletian in Moravia (Nerudová
1997), and a very similar technological pattern
is noted for the tool manufacture process
(Neruda 2000, 2005; Neruda & Nerudová 2005;
Tostevin 2000). The technological analyses
are supported also by re ttings from the new
site Moravský Krumlov IV, where the speci c
Tab. 2. Comparison of several features for the Micoquian, Szeletian, Bohunician and Aurignacian
cultures in Moravia. 1: higher share of imported raw materials is documented for Upper Szeletian
sites (without dating); 2: mainly retouchers from fragments of heavy bones; 3: problem
of Levallois pieces in Szeletian/Bohunician sites in the contact zone.
Features Micoquian Szeletian Bohunician Aurignacian
Cave using +++ + - ++
Open air sites + ++ +++ ++
Relation to the big river + - + -
Using of “UP Zones” - - - +++
Using of imported RM ++ ++/+++ (1) + +++
Middle Pal. Tools +++ +++ ++ +
Upper Pal. Tools + ++ ++ +++
Leaf Points + +++ + +
Organic Tools + (2) ? ? +++
Suprizmatic ++ ++ + +
Discoid +++ +++ - -
Levallois - -/+ (3) +++ -
Prizmatic + + ++ +++
Anthropology Neanderthals ? ? AMH
4 If the bearers of the Bohunician were anatomically modern humans, then they were able to affect the Szeletian
(Svoboda 2004).
mode of leaf point production was de ned. This
mode shows similarities with the bifacial back
knife morphology (Neruda & Nerudová 2005;
Nerudová in this volume). From the typological
point of view, the bifacial tools represent a
common feature. A succession of 14C data
supports the model that associates Neanderthals
with the Szeletian.
The second model is supported by changes
in the use of caves and the change in the tool
type spectrum. We have got no evidence of
Szeletian base camps in caves. The Szeletian is
characterized mainly by open-air environments.
The caves were used only occasionally. We
have noted the isolated leafpoints (Neruda &
Valoch 2007) in the Pod hradem cave (Fig.
6.1–2), Rytířská cave (Fig. 6.3–4) and Křížova
cave (Fig. 6.7), but when we add also the raw
material distribution and the distribution of
surface sites, these indicate that the absence of
cave base camps in the Szeletian is not crucial
for the general interpretation. It is interesting to
stress that the main Szeletian settlement units
are situated near the Moravian Karst region
and overlay the Micoquian settlement pattern,
determined based on the use of the raw material
sources. From the typological point of view, the
preference for leafpoints in the Szeletian cannot
support this model because we can explain
the typological variability as a process of
standardization that we can see in the technology
of both the discoid and the prismatic methods in
Micoquian layers in Kůlna cave (Neruda 2003,
2005; Oliva 1987a, 1991a, b). Nevertheless, if
these differences are understood as evidence of
Szeletian independence from the Micoquian or
the results of acculturation, we must take into
account both Neanderthals and anatomically
modern humans (theoretical construct) as
makers of the Szeletian (cf. Oliva 1995, 2006).
The interesting question is the role of the
Aurignacian in the EUP complex. It must be
stressed that there is a clear discontinuity between
the Micoquian and the Aurignacian in Moravia.
The possible acculturation of Neanderthals by
the bearers of the Aurignacian can be indicated
(1) by the presence of Aurignacian-like blades
in Micoquian layers in Kůlna cave, (2) by the
coexistence of the bifacial types and blade cores
at surface sites in the Bořitov region situated
west of the Moravian Karst (Oliva 1987a,
1991a), or (3) by the presence of Aurignacian-
like endscrapers in the Szeletian assemblages
(Valoch 1990, 1996).
First, the development of blade technology in
Kůlna cave is more signi cant (Fig. 4: 2–4). It
is impossible to explain the presence of blades
in the Micoquian through the contamination
from the uppermost layers. There is no proof
for Aurignacian occupation in the Kůlna cave.
In addition, the earliest evidence of real blades
is documented for layer 7c, dated around 70,000
BP (ESR data – Rink et al. 1996). There is also
evidence for the technological development of
blades from layers 7c to 6a (Oliva 1991a, b;
Neruda 2003, 2005) and the presence of the
blade technology in the Szeletian (Nerudová
2002). These lines of evidence prove the
independence of these technological features in
the Micoquian.
Second, the Bořitov region seems to be crucial
for the question of Neanderthal survival because
of its assemblages with the Middle Palaeolithic
bifacial tools in the context of real blade cores.
Unfortunately no strati ed sites are found to
solve the problem of the homogeneity of the
assemblage. The new eld research organized
by the staff of the Anthropos Institute focuses
on the stratigraphy of known sites to nd
in situ archaeological horizons or possible
Third, an important region where we can study
the issue of possible acculturation is the area
of Krumlovský les, especially in the vicinity
of Vedrovice. Relatively long excavations
documented several Aurignacian and Szeletian
sites, but only the Aurignacian from Vedrovice
Ia and the Szeletian from Vedrovice V are dated.
It is interesting that no Aurignacian sites contain
leaf points as evidence of contact or secondary
intrusion (although a many are open air sites).
The noted Aurignacian-like end-scrapers
are isolotated and should be understoodd as
Moravia during OIS 3: Cultural Relations
accidental results of the forming of the thick
blanks (tools made on thick supports) and
therefore their signi cance is limited.5 The
answer to the question of the in uence of the
Aurignacian on the Micoquian or the Szeletian,
we must look at stratigraphy and dating. The
Aurignacian site Vedrovice Ia is dated around 30
kyr cal BP by 14C (25,170 uncal BP, GrA-34275)
Fig. 6. Szeletian leaf points. 1–2: Pod hradem cave (Valoch 1965a); 3–4: Rytířská cave (Jarošová 2002);
5–6: Moravský Krumlov IV, layer 0; 7: Křížova cave (Valoch 1960).
5 Bladelets are not documented in the context of the Szeletian layers.
but the TL date is 36 ka BP (Oliva 2008; Nejman
et al. in prep.). The interval is too long and it is
obvoius that the chronological position is not
well established. However, even if we take into
account the older date, we should note the time
gap between the Szeletian and the Aurignacian
occupation of this region. It can support the
theory based on the zoning of the Szeletian and
the Aurignacian at the beginning of the EUP
complex. If we suppose an acculturation activity
in Moravia, it must have been rather during the
Szeletian about 35,000 uncal BP, ca., 38–39 cal
BP, i.e. at the time of the full development of
this culture.
The Bohunician is a widely discussed
phenomenon. Recently, we have divided three
main views of the Bohunician published in
Moravian articles. The oldest view depicts the
Bohunician as part of the Szeletian. Valoch
described assemblages with both bifacial tools
and Levallois points as Szeletian of Levallois
facies (Valoch 1976). Later, in contrast to
this theory, Oliva explained the presence
of leafpoints in assemblages with Levallois
blanks as evidence of intercultural contacts
and stressed the Upper Palaeolithic character
of the industry (Bohunician - Oliva 1981). The
new excavations of the Brno-Bohunice open-
air site provided real leafpoints made on site
in the context of Levallois technology (Fig. 7).
This means that the presence of leafpoints in
Brno-Bohunice is dif cult to explain simply
as a result of intercultural contact (cf. Škrdla
& Tostevin 2005; Tostevin & Škrdla 2006). In
addition, the absence of such leafpoints and the
lack of evidence of their knapping on Stránská
skála is very interesting from this point of view
because the site is located on the source of
raw material. The new application of Valoch’s
theory is projected into the view that suggests
the possibility that the presence of the Levallois
technology re ects the quality of raw material,
the relation of these sites to the source of raw
material, and site function (Nerudová 2003).
Unambiguous Bohunician is only found in
the Stránská skála and assemblages at distant
sites contain leaf points. In my opinion, the
in uence of the Bohunician site position to its
assemblages must be analysed in the future. All
of this reopens the question: Is the Bohunician
really an independent culture?
The most traditional view presents the
Bohunician as a “transitional” industry with
Upper Palaeolithic features (Bar-Yosef 2003;
Fig. 7. Bohunician artefacts from Brno-Bohunice (Tostevin & Škrdla 2006). 3, 4: leaf points.
Moravia during OIS 3: Cultural Relations
Oliva 1981; Svoboda 1980, 1987a, 2003a;
Svoboda 1991; Svoboda & Škrdla 1995)6,
probably created by anatomically modern
humans who came to Europe maybe around
44,000 cal BP. The attribute analyses are different
from the Szeletian, Micoquian, and Aurignacian
ones (Tostevin 2000). The Bohunician occurs on
a very limited area in Moravia with analogies
in the Near East (e.g. Valoch 1976; Marks
1983; Škrdla 2003) and Ukraine. However,
there is no regional continuity among them, all
the evidence creates isolated islands (Valoch
2008). This means that no evidence supports
the model of migration from one centre of this
technocomplex to a new territory (cf. Svoboda
2004; Oliva 2006). The main problem of
Bohunician independence is its occurrence in
the context of a different cultural context in
Central Europe, e.g. at the Aurignacian open-air
site Hradsko (Vencl 1977; Neruda & Nerudová
2000)7 as well as the associations with the
Szeletian that was mentioned above in the SW
border of the Brno region.
The latest theory is based on the presence of
the Levallois blade technology in the Middle
Palaeolithic context of Western Europe (Valoch
2008). Valoch proposes that the Bohunician
is the nal stage of Middle Palaeolithic blade
industries in the frame of EUP complex,
comparable to Seclin, Rocourt, and other
western European Middle Palaeolithic sites
with blade production. His theory is based on
the fact that the analogies among all examples
of Bohunician distinctions are very distant
and similarly dated. This means, according to
Valoch, that this technology was independently
invented in different regions.
The anthropology of the Transition
Neaderthal remains were found in several caves
(Kůlna, Šipka, Švédův stůl) but their dating is
for the most part unclear except for the Kůlna
Neanderthal remains from layer 7a. In conform
to dating of Šipka cave jaw we suppose that
Neanderthals persisted in Moravia probably in
several refuges (Neruda 2006). One of them
could be situated in northern Moravia, the other
may be situated in the Krumlovský les and the
Bořitov regions.
We also know the bearers of the Aurignacian.
The most important nds are the remains of
anatomically modern humans that were found
in the Mladeč caves in Central Moravia. Other
anthropological remains from the Zlatý kůn at
Koněprusy cave, St. Prokop cave and Svitávka
sites are much later (Svoboda 2003a; Svoboda,
van der Plicht & Kuželka 2002; Svoboda et
al. 2004). It is dif cult to solve the problem
of Bohunician makers. Anatomically modern
humans in Central Europe are dated around
31 kyr uncal BP (35 kyr cal BP) in the Mladeč
caves (Teschler-Nicola 2006)8 and 35 kyr uncal
BP in the Peştera cu Oase in Romania (Trinkaus
et al. 2003a, 2003b). However, it is possible that
the presence of Anatomicaly Modern Humans
in Europe was earlier but was not re ected in
the archaeological record (cf. Near East).
A more complicated issue is the anthropology of
the Szeletian. Unfortunately, we have no human
remains and the probability to nd any is low.
Scholars suppose that the Szeletian was made
by Neanderthals (e.g. Oliva 1991b; Valoch
1996; Svoboda 2004). In this point of view,
6 Djindjian et al. (2003) stresses no transitional industry in the Central European region. For a de nition, see also
Kuhn 2003.
7 J. A. Svoboda explains the occurrence of Levallois technology in the context of Aurignacian tools as the result
of postdepositional processes (Svoboda 2003a).
8 This chronological position is based on the direct dating of human remains (Teschler-Nicola 2006). Two dates
on calcite layers that originally sealed the nd layer at Mladeč supported the attribution of the hominin remains
to the Early Upper Paleolithic (34,160 +520–490 BP, GrN-26333; 34,930+520–490 BP, GrN-26334), but
contamination problems due to reservoir effects needed to be taken into consideration (Svoboda, van der Plicht
& Kuželka 2002).
the question of supposed acculturation (Valoch
1996; Nigst 2006) is not important because
genetic studies disprove the possibility that
Neaderthals and anatomically modern humans
Nonetheless, there is still the possibility that the
Szeletian was not associated with Neanderthals.
In this case the Szeletian was the independent
culture used anatomically modern humans.
Recently, the second model appears to be a
theoretical construct.
Both theories, which explain the Szeletian either
as the result of acculturation or as an independent
culture, are related to the necessary presence of
anatomically modern humans in Central Europe
toward 44,000 cal BP (cf. chronological position
of Szeletian – Figs 2, 8).
The anthropology of the Bohunician is more
complicated because its genetic root in the
Middle Palaeolithic substrate is unknown. Both
possibilities – Neanderthals or anatomically
modern humans – are still probable.
Fig. 8. Cultural relations during OIS 3 in Moravia.
Moravia during OIS 3: Cultural Relations
Based on the previous information, we can
propose the following model of development
during the OIS 3 in Moravia (Fig. 8).
Similarities between the Szeletian and the
Micoquian archaeological cultures suggest a
close relationship. This relationship has been
stressed in recent articles (Allsworth-Jones
1986; Ringer 1995; Valoch 1990, 1996; Svoboda
2004; Oliva 1991b, 2006).9 I my opinion, we
can de ne such a relation more precisely and
understand the Szeletian as the upper phase
of the Micoquian, independently developed in
Central Europe. We can suppose some contacts
with anatomically modern humans during the
EUP complex, mainly in the upper phase of
the Szeletian (Oliva 1991b). This phase is not
dated by any method. We know nothing about
the end of this culture. On the basis of typology
and raw material distribution we suppose
that Szeletian sites in the Drahany highland
(Vyškov-Prostějov city) are later (Oliva in this
volume). It is interesting to note some proofs
of Szeletian-Aurignacian contacts (the use of
the Troubky-Zdislavice chert etc.). This means
that Neanderthals could be acculturated by
anatomically modern humans (Aurignacians)
but until the upper phase of EUP. In my opinion,
we must test the possibility that the Aurignacian
settlement unit respected the Szeletian (or the
late Micoquian) one during the rst part of EUP
complex. Contacts between the Szeletian and
Bohunician are still discused.
The Aurignacian in Moravia shows evidence of
modern behaviour during OIS 3. Technology,
typology, raw material economy, land use,
and symbolic aspects differ from the other
EUP cultures. But the level of coexistence is
not yet clear and must be examined. The main
problem is the solving of early Aurignacian
in the territory of Moravia. Unfortunately,
stratigraphic sequences – comparable to those
in Germany – are not available. The only
exception is the superposition of the Bohunician
and the Aurignacian in the Stránská skála sites
(Svoboda & Bar-Yosef eds. 2003).
The phenomenon of the Bohunician is
probably the most interesting but also the most
complicated question of the Middle to Upper
Palaeolithic transition. It is clear that we need
new strati ed sites with comparable industry
from the different regions and stratigraphic
situations. Although such conditions are
dif cult to nd in one place, the new ndings
in Pravlov IVd (Neruda & Nerudová 2006),
Tvarožná (Škrdla 2007) or in Dzierżław I (Fajer
et al. 2005) are promising.
ADAMS, B. & RINGER, Á., 2004. New C14
Dates for the Hungarian Early Upper
Palaeolithic. Current Anthropology 45/4,
August–October, 541–551.
ALLSWORTH-JONES, P., 1986. The Szeletian
and the transition from Middle to Upper
Palaeolithic in central Europe. Oxford.
BAR-YOSEF, O. & SVOBODA, J. A., 2003.
Discussion. In: Svoboda, J. A. & Bar-
Yosef, O. (eds), Stránská skála. Origins of
the Upper Paleolithic in the Brno Basin,
Moravia, Czech Republic. American
School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 47,
BOLUS, M., 2003. The cultural context of the
Aurignacian of the Swabian Jura. In: Zilhão,
J. & d’Errico, D. (eds), The chronology
of the Aurignacian and of the transitional
technocomplexes: dating, stratigraphies,
cultural implications. Trabalhos de
Arqueologia 33, 153–163. Lisboa.
BOLUS, M. & CONARD, N. J., 2001. The
late Middle Paleolithic and earliest Upper
Paleolitic in Central Europe and their
relevance for the Out of Africa hypothesis.
Quaternary International 75, 29–40.
9 Á. Ringer (1983) proposed the relationship between the Bábonyan and the Szeletian in the Bükk Mountains.
DER PLICHT, H., 2006. Developments in
radiocarbon calibration for archaeology.
Antiquity Dec., 80, 310, 783–798.
P., 2003. Chronostratigraphy and Archeo-
logical Context of the Aurignacian Deposits
at Geißenklösterle. In: Zilhão, J. & d’Errico,
D. (eds), The chronology of the Aurignacian
and of the transitional technocomplexes:
dating, stratigraphies, cultural implications,
Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33, 165–176.
DERNDARSKY, M., 2001. Die Forschungen
in und zu der Gudenushöhle. In: Daim, F.
& Kühtreiber, Th. (eds), Sinn & Sein. Burg
& Mensch, Katalog der Niederösterrei-
chischen Landesausstellung 2001. 224–
226. Katalog des Niederösterreichischen
Landesmuseums, Neue Folge Nr. 434. St.
Pölten: Niederösterreichisches Landes-
BAZILE, F., 2003. Europe during the early
Upper Paleolithic (40 000–30 000 BP):
a synthesis. In: Zilhão, J. & d’Errico, D.
(eds), The chronology of the Aurignacian
and of the transitional technocomplexes:
dating, stratigraphies, cultural implications,
Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33, 29–47.
2005. The Multilayer Palaeolithic Site
of Dzierżław I (Upper Silesia), Poland.
Přehled výzkumů 46, 13–33.
The early Upper Paleolithic occupations
of Willendorf II (Lower Austria): a
contribution to the chronostratigraphic
and cultural context of the beginning of
the Upper Paleolithic in Central Europe.
In: Zilhão, J. & d’Errico, D. (eds), The
chronology of the Aurignacian and of
the transitional technocomplexes: dating,
stratigraphies, cultural implications.
Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33, 133–151.
M. & TRNKA G., 1996. Revised strati-
graphy and chronology of the Willendorf
II sequence, Lower Austria. Archaeologica
Austriaca 80, 25–42.
JAROŠOVÁ, L., 2002. Výzkumy Josefa
Skutila v severní části Moravského krasu.
In: Svoboda, J. (ed.), Prehistoric Caves.
Catalogues, Documents, Studies. The Dolní
Věstonice Studies 7, 255–287. Brno.
JELÍNKOVÁ, R., 2007. Paleolitické nálezy
z území bývalých soudních okresů Bílovec,
Fulnek a Klimkovice. Unpublished thesis.
SVOBODA, J. A., 2005. (eds) Pleistocene
Environments and Archaeology of the
Dzeravá skala Cave, Lesser Carpathians,
Slovakia. Kraków.
KUHN, S. L., 2003. In what sense is the Levantine
Initial Upper Paleolithic a “transitional”
industry? In: Zilhão, J. & d’Errico, D.
(eds), The chronology of the Aurignacian
and of the transitional technocomplexes:
dating, stratigraphies, cultural implications.
Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33, 61–69.
MARKS, A. E., 1983. Prehistory and Paleo-
environment in the Central Negev, Israel,
Vol. III. Dallas.
MAŠKA, K. J., 1884. Pravěké nálezy
ve Štramberka. Časopis muzejního
vlastivědného spolku v Olomouci I, 15–22,
64–69, 152–159.
MAŠKA, K. J., 1885. Čelist předpotopního
člověka nalezená v Šipce u Štramberka.
Časopis muzejního vlastivědného spolku v
Olomouci II, 27–35.
MAŠKA, K. J., 1886a. Pravěké nálezy
ze Štramberka. Časopis muzejního
vlastivědného spolku v Olomouci III, 57–
65, 119–123, 163–174.
MAŠKA, K. J., 1886b. Der diluviale Mensch
in Mähren. Ein Beitrag zur Urgeschichte
Mährens. Programm der mähr. Landes–
Oberrrealschule in Neutitschein.
MAŠKA, K. J., 1888. Nové výzkumy v
jeskyních štramberských. Časopis
muzejního vlastivědného spolku v
Olomouci V, 121–124.
Moravia during OIS 3: Cultural Relations
P., 2006. Colouring and Preservation State
of Faunal Remains from the Neanderthal
Levels of Kůlna Cave, Czech Republic.
Geoarchaeology 21/5, 479–501.
MOOK, W. G., 1988. Radiocarbon-Daten aus
der Kůlna-Höhle. In: Valoch, K. (ed.), Die
Erforschung der Kůlna-Höhle. Anthropos
24 (N. S. 16), 285–286. Brno.
NEJMAN, L. et al. in prep. The Middle to
Upper Palaeolithic Transition in the
Czech Republic and Slovakia: Preliminary
Optically Stimulated Luminescence
NERUDA, P., 2000. The Cultural Signi cance
of Bifacial Retouch. The Transition from
the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Age in
Moravia. In: Orschiedt, J. & Weniger, G. Ch.
(eds), Neanderthals and Modern Humans
– Discussing the Transition: Central and
Eastern Europe from 50.000–30.000 B.P.
151–158. Neanderthal Museum.
NERUDA, P., 2003. Střední paleolit v
moravských jeskyních. Middle Palaeolithic
in Moravian caves. Unpublished disser-
tation. Brno.
NERUDA, P., 2005. Technologie micoquienu
v jeskyni Kůlně. Micoquian Technology
from Kůlna Cave (Sloup, South Moravia).
Acta Musei Moraviae, Sci. soc. XC, 23–78.
NERUDA, P., 2006. Neandertálci na Kotouči u
Štramberka. Archeologické památky střední
Moravy. Svazek 12. Olomouc.
NERUDA, P. & NERUDOVÁ, Z., 2000. The
Upper palaeolithic levallois industry from
Hradsko (Dep. Mělník, Czech republic).
Anthropologie XXXVIII/3, 271–282.
NERUDA, P. & NERUDOVÁ, Z., 2005. The
development of the production of lithic
industry in the Early Upper Palaeolithic
of Moravia, Archeologické rozhledy LVII,
NERUDA, P. & NERUDOVÁ, Z., 2006.
Výzkumy strati kovaných paleolitických
stanic u Dolních Kounic a Pravlova v roce
2005. Acta Musei Moraviae, Sci. soc. XCI,
str. 51–64.
W. G., in prep. Moravský Krumlov IV –
new approach to the de nition of the Lower
Szeletian in Central Europe.
2004. Stratigra e paleolitických lokalit v
oblasti Krumlovského lesa (okr. Znojmo).
Acta Musei Moraviae, Sci. soc. 89, 3–58.
NERUDA, P. & VALOCH, K., 2007. Palaeolithic
People and Moravian Caves. Scripta Fac.
Sci. Nat. Univ. Masaryk. Brun 35 (2005),
Geology. 65–76. Brno.
NERUDOVÁ, Z., 1997. K využití cizích
surovin v szeletienu na Moravě. Acta Musei
Moraviae, sci.soc. LXXXII, 79–86.
NERUDOVÁ, Z., 2002. Čepelová technologie
na počátku mladého paleolitu. Přehled
výzkumů 43 (2001), 15–29. Brno.
NERUDOVÁ, Z., 2003. Variabilita levalloiské
metody na počátku mladého paleolitu na
Moravě. Unpublished dissertation. Faculty
of Arts, Masaryk University. Brno.
NEUGEBAUER-MARESCH, Ch., 2008. (ed.)
Krems-Hundssteig – Mammutjäger der
Eiszeit. Ein Nutzungsareal paläolithischer
Jäger- und Sammler(innen) vor 41.000–
27.000 Jahren. Mitteilungen der Prä-
historischen Kommission 67. Wien.
NIGST, Ph. R., 2006. The rst modern humans
in the Middle Danube Area? New Evidence
from Willendorf II (Eastern Austria). In:
Conard, N. J. (ed.), When Neanderthals
and Modern Humans Met. 269–304. Kerns
Verlag, Tuebingen.
OLIVA, M., 1981. Die Bohunicien-Station bei
Podolí (Bez.: Brno - Land) und ihre Stellung
im beginnenden Jungpaläolithikum. Acta
Musei Moraviae, sci. soc. 66, 7–45.
OLIVA, M., 1987a. Vyvinutý micoquien z
návrší Horky u Bořitova – první výsledky.
Acta Musei Moraviae, sci. soc. 71, 21–44.
OLIVA, M., 1987b. Aurignacien na Moravě.
Studie muzea Kroměřížska. Kroměříž.
OLIVA, M., 1989. Výzkum mladopaleolitické
stanice u Milovic – výsledky tří uplynulých
sezón. Současný stav a perspektivy výzkumu
kvartéru. 102–114. Brno.
OLIVA, M., 1991a. The Micoquian Open-
air site of Ráječko I (distr. of Blansko).
The Land-use in the Moravian Middle
Paleolithic. Anthropologie 29, 29–38.
OLIVA, M., 1991b. The Szeletian in
Czechoslovakia. Antiquity 65/247, 318–
OLIVA, M., 1993a. Zahájení výzkumu
paleolitické lokality Vedrovice Ia (okr.
Znojmo). Acta Musei Moraviae, Sci. soc.
78, 11–22.
OLIVA, M., 1993b. Le contexte archéologique
des restes humains dans la grotte de Mladeč.
In: UISPP, XIIe Congres, Volume 2, 207–
216. Bratislava.
OLIVA, M., 1995. Le Szélétien de
Tchécoslovaquie: industrie lithique et
répartition géographique. In: Les industries
à pointes foliacées d‘Europe Centrale,
PALEO – Supplément N° 1, 83–90.
OLIVA, M., 2006a. Palaeolithic and Mesolithic
Moravia. Moravské zemské muzeum,
OLIVA, M., 2006b. The Upper Paleolithic
Finds from the Mladeč Cave. In: Teschler-
Nicola, M. (ed.), Early Modern Humans
at the Moravian Gate. The Mladeč Caves
and their Remains. 41–74. Springer, Wien
– NewYork.
OLIVA, M., 2008. Paleolitické osídlení litické
exploatační oblasti Krumlovský les. Acta
Musei Moraviae, sci. soc.
P. & VALOCH K., 2005. Les occupations
du Paléolithique moyen de la grotte de
Külna (Moravie, République Tcheque):
nouvelle approches, nouveaux résultats. In:
Tuffreau, A. (sous la dir. de), Peuplements
humains et variations environnementales au
Quaternaire. Colloque de Poitiers, 18–20
septembre 2000. 69–94. BAR International
Series 1352. John end Erica Hedges Ltd.
& RICHARDS, M. B., 2003. Palaeolithic
radiocarbon chronology: quantifying our
con dence beyond two half-lives. Journal
of Archaeological Science 30, 1685–1693.
PETTITT, P. B. & PIKE, A. W. G., 2001.
Blind in a cloud of data: problems with the
chronology of Neanderthal extintion and
anatomically modern human expansion.
Antiquity 75, 415–420.
J. & WAGNER, G. A., 2000. Thermo-
luminescence, Electron Spin Resonance
and 14C-dating of the Late Middle and Early
Upper Palaeolithic Site of Geißenklösterle
Cave in Southern Germany. Journal of
Archaeological Science 27, 71–79.
RINGER, Á., 1983. Bábonyien. Eine mittel-
paläolithische Blattwerkzeugindustrie in
Nordostungarn. Diss. Arch. Ser. II, 11.
RINGER, Á., 1995. Les industries à pièces
foliacées en Europe centrale: proposition
de synthèse. In: Les industries à pointes
foliacées d‘Europe Centrale, PALEO –
Supplément N° 1, 13–18.
K., SEITL, L. & STRINGER C. B., 1996.
ESR Dating of Micoquian Industry and
Neanderthal Remains at Kůlna Cave,
Czech Republic. Journal of Archaeological
Science 23, 889–901.
RZEHAK, A., 1906. Der Unterkiefer von
Ochos. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis des
altdiluvialen Menschen. Verhandlungen
des naturforschenden Vereins Brünn 44,
RZEHAK, A., 1909. Das Alter des Unterkiefers
von Ochos. Zeitschrift des Mährischen
Landesmuseums Brünn 9, 277–313.
SINITSYN, A. A., 2003. The most ancient sites
of Kostenki in the context of the Initial Upper
Paleolithic of northern Eurasia. In: Zilhão,
J. & d’Errico, D. (eds), The chronology
of the Aurignacian and of the transitional
technocomplexes: dating, stratigraphies,
cultural implications. Trabalhos de
Arqueologia 33, 89–107. Lisboa.
SVOBODA, J., 1980. Kremencová industrie z
Ondratic. Praha: Academia.
SVOBODA, J., 1987a. Stránská skála.
Bohunický typ v brněnské kotlině. Studie
ČSAV Brno 14/1. Praha, Academia.
Moravia during OIS 3: Cultural Relations
SVOBODA, J., 1987b. Výzkum aurignacké
stanice Stránská skála II. Archeologické
rozhledy 39, 1987, 376–383.
SVOBODA, J., 2000. The depositional context
of the Early Upper Paleolithic human fossils
from Koněprusy and Mladeč Caves, Czech
Republic. Journal of Human Evolution 38,
SVOBODA, J., 2001. Mladeč and other caves
in the Middle Danube region: Early modern
humans, late Neanderthals, and projectiles.
In: Zilhão J. – Aubry T. – Carvalho A. F.
(eds), Les premiers hommes modernes de la
Péninsule ibérique, Actes du Colloque de la
Commission VIII de l‘UISPP. Trabalhos de
Arqueologia 17, 45–60. Lisboa.
SVOBODA, J., 2003a. The Bohunician and the
Aurignacian. In: Zilhão, J. & d’Errico, D.
(eds), The chronology of the Aurignacian
and of the transitional technocomplexes:
dating, stratigraphies, cultural implications,
Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33, 123–131.
SVOBODA, J. A., 2003b. Chronostratigraphic
Background, Environment, and Formation
of the Archaeological Layers. In: Svoboda,
J. A. & Bar-Yosef, O. (eds), Stránská skála.
Origins of the Upper Paleolithic in the Brno
Basin, Moravia, Czech Republic. American
School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 47,
SVOBODA, J. A., 2004. Neandertálci versus
anatomicky moderní lidé. K aktuálnímu
stavu výzkumu ve středním Podunají.
Přehled výzkumů 45, 13–21.
SVOBODA, J. A., 2006. The structure of the
cave, stratigraphy, and depositional context.
In: Teschler-Nicola, M. (ed.), Early Modern
Humans at the Moravian Gate: The Mladeč
caves and their remains. 27–40. Springer,
Wien – New York.
SVOBODA, J. A. & BAR-YOSEF, O., 2003.
(eds) Stránská skála. Origins of the Upper
Paleolithic in the Brno Basin, Moravia,
Czech Republic. American School of
Prehistoric Research Bulletin 47. Dolní
Věstonice Studies Vol. 10. Harvard
SVOBODA, J., 1991. Stránská skála. Výsledky
výzkumu v letech 1985–1987. Památky
archeologické 82, 5–47.
& VLČEK, E., 2002. Paleolit Moravy a
Slezska. Dolnověstonické studie 8. Brno
(2., aktualizované vyd.).
SVOBODA, J. & ŠKRDLA, P., 1995. The
Bohunician Technology. In: Dibble, H. L.
& Bar-Yosef, O. (eds), The De nition and
Interpretation of Levallois Technology.
429–438. Prehistory Press, Madison.
KUŽELKA, V., 2002. Upper Palaeolithic
and Mesolithic human fossils from Moravia
and Bohemia (Czech Republic): some
new 14C dates. Antiquity 76, 957–962.
VLČEK, E. & KUŽELKA, V., 2004. New
Radiocarbon Datings of Human Fossils from
Caves and Rockshelters in Bohemia (Czech
Republic). Anthropologie 42/2,161–166.
ŠKRDLA, P., 2003. Comparison of Boker
Tachtit and Stránská skála MP/UP
Transitional Industries. Journal of the
Israel Prehistoric Society 33, 33–69
ŠKRDLA, P., 2005. The Upper Paleolithic on
the Middle Course of the Morava River.
The Dolní Věstonice Studies 13. Brno
ŠKRDLA, P., 2007. Analýza povrchové části
kolekce bohunicienu z lokality Tvarožná-
Za školou. Analysis of the Surface Part of
the Bohunician Colection from the site Of
Tvarožná-Za školou. Přehled výzkumů 48,
45–54. Brno.
ŠKRDLA, P. & TOSTEVIN G., 2003. Brno
(k. ú. Bohunice, okr. Brno-město). Přehled
výzkumů 44, 188–192
ŠKRDLA, P. & TOSTEVIN G., 2005. Brno-
Bohunice, analýza materiálu z výzkumu v
roce 2002. Přehled výzkumů 46, 35–61.
TESCHLER-NICOLA, M., 2006. (ed.) Early
Modern Humans at the Moravian Gate. The
Mladeč Caves and their Remains. Springer,
Wien – NewYork
TOSTEVIN, G. B., 2000. Behavioral Change
and Regional Variation across the Middle
to Upper Paleolitihic Transition in
Central Europe, Eastern Europe, and the
Levant. Dissertation. Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
TOSTEVIN, G. B. & ŠKRDLA, P., 2006. New
Excavation at Bohunice and the Question
of the uniqueness of the Type-Site for the
Bohunician Industrial Type. Anthropologie
XLV/1, 31–48.
MIRCEA, G. & MOLDOVAN, O., 2003.
Early modern human cranial remains from
the Peştera cu Oase, Romania. Journal of
Human Evolution 45, 245–253.
2003b. An Early Modern Human from the
Peştera cu Oase, Romania. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 100, 11231–6.
TRNKA, G., 1990. Ein neuer paläolithischer
Blattspitzenfund aus Schletz in Nieder-
österreich. Archäologie Österreichs 1(1–2),
UTHMEIER, T., 1996. Ein Bemerkenswert
frühes Inventar des Aurignacien von der
Freilandfundstelle “Keilberg-Kirche” bei
Regensburg. Archäologisches Korres-
pondenz blatt 26/3, 233–248. Mainz.
UTHMEIER, T., 2001. Vom Sammelfund zum
Werkzeugsatz – Rohmaterialeinheiten im
Aurignacien der Freilandfundstelle Keilberg-
Kirche, Stadt Regensburg (Bayern). In:
Gehlen, B., Heinen, M. & A. Tillmann
(Hrsg.), Zeit – Räume. Gedenkschrift für
Wolfgang Taute. Archäologische Berichte
14, 77–101. Bonn.
VALOCH, K., 1960. K otázce před-
magdalénského osídlení jeskyní Adlerovy
a Křížovy na Říčkách u Brna. Acta Musei
Moraviae, Sci. soc. 45, 5–20.
VALOCH, K., 1965a. Die altsteinzeitlichen
Begehungen der Höhle Pod hradem. In: Die
Erforschung der Höhle Pod hradem 1956–
1958, Anthropos 18, N.S. 10, 93–106.
VALOCH, K., 1965b. Jeskyně Šipka a Čertova
díra u Štramberku. Anthropos č. 17 (N.S. 9).
VALOCH, K., 1976. Die altsteizeitliche
Fundstelle von Brno-Bohunice. Studie
Archeologického ústavu ČSAV 4/1 v Brně,
VALOCH, K., 1977. Neue frühjungpaläo-
lithische Fundstellen in der Umgebung von
Brno. Acta Musei Moraviae, sci. soc. 62,
VALOCH, K., 1978. Die paläolithische Fund-
stelle Bořitov I in Mähren. Acta Musei
Moraviae, Sci.soc. 63, 7–24.
VALOCH, K., 1982. Neue paläolithische Funde
von Brno-Bohunice. Acta Musei Moraviae,
sci. soc. 67, 31–48.
VALOCH, K., 1988. Die Erforschung der
Kůlna-Höhle 1961–1976. Anthropos 24,
N.S. 16, Brno.
VALOCH, K., 1990. Le Szélétien en Moravie.
In: Feuilles de pière. Les industries
à pointes folliacées du Paléolithique
Supérieur européen. Études et Recherches
archéologiques de l’Université de Liège,
n°42, 213–221.
VALOCH, K., 1996. Le Paléolithique en
Tchéquie et en Slovaquie. Collection
l´Homme des origines, Série „Préhistoire
d´Europe“, n° 3, Jérôme Millon, Grenoble.
VALOCH, K., 2008. Brno-Bohunice,
Eponymous Bohunician Site: New Data,
New Ideas. In: Sulgostowska, Z. &
Tomaszewski, A. J. (eds), Man – Millennia
– Environment. 225–236. Warsaw.
VALOCH, K. et al., 1976. Die altsteinzeitliche
Fundstelle in Brno-Bohunice. Studie
Archeologického ústavu ČSAV Brno, 4/1.
VALOCH, K. et al., 1993. Vedrovice V, eine
Siedlung des Szeletien in Südmähren.
Quartär 43–44, 7–93.
SMOLÍKOVÁ, L., 1985. Das Früh-
aurignacien von Vedrovice II
Moravia during OIS 3: Cultural Relations
und Kupařovice I in Süd mähren.
Anthropozoikum 16, 107–203. Praha.
P., 2000. Stránská skála III – Ateliers des
Bohunicien. Památky archeologické 91,
VENCL, S., 1977. Aurignacké osídlení
v Hradsku, o. Mělník. Archeologické
rozhledy 29, 3–44.
VLČEK, E., 1969. Neandertaler der Tschecho-
slowakei. Praha.
DANZEGLOCKE, U., 2007. CalPal-
2007. Cologne Radio carbon Calibration
& Palaeoclimate Research Package. http://
ZILHÃO, J. & D’ERRICO, F., 1999. The
Chronology and Taphonomy of the Earliest
Aurignacian, and Its Implications for the
Understanding of Neandertal Extinction,
Journal of World Prehistory 13/1, 1–68.
Full-text available
The Middle-Upper Palaeolithic transition is one of the mostsignificant periods in European prehistory and the site of Stránská Skála in Moravia is one of the most important Earl y Upper Palaeolithic sites in Europe. A materialist approach is used to analyse the Aurignacian and Bohunician a ssemblages from Stránská Skála. Although the chronos- tratigraphic separation and the technological difference s between the Aurignacian and Bohunician industries at Strá n- ská Skála have been well documented, the new results and inte rpretations of lithic patterns suggest that at Stránská Skála there are very few differences between the lithic econ omies of the Bohunician and the Aurignacian.
Full-text available
As a part of a long-term project of radiocarbon dating of human fossils of later Pleistocene/early Holocene age from the Czech Republic, this paper presents dates of human fossil fragments from the St Prokop's Cave (5-5.7 ky BP and 1.8 ky BP uncalibrated), a series of additional dates from the Prošek's Dome of the Koněprusy Cave (dated previously to 12.9 ky BP), and a new date from the Abri Pod Pradědem rockshelter (5.8 ky BP). In general, the newly obtained datings show that several modern human finds, previously listed as Early Upper Paleolithic in the literature, are to be redated as later (Koněprusy, Velika Pećina, Svitávka). On the other hand, these datings help to define more precisely a group of Holocene human burials in caves and rockshelters of this region.
It is now three decades since Waterbolk introduced evaluation criteria to 14C chronology. Despite this, and other subsequent attempts to introduce quality control in the use of 14C data, no systematic procedure has been adopted by the archaeological community. As a result, our databases may be significantly weakened by questionable dates and/or questionable associations between dated samples and the archaeological phenomena they are intended to represent. As the use of chronometric data in general becomes more ambitious, we must pause and assess how reliable these data are. Here, we forward a set of evaluation criteria which take into account archaeological (e.g. associational, stratigraphic) and chronometric (e.g. pre-treatment and measurement) criteria. We intend to use such criteria to evaluate a large 14C dataset we have assembled to investigate Late Glacial settlement in Europe, the Near East and North Africa, supported by the Leverhulme Trust. We suggest that the procedure presented here may at least form the basis of the development of more rigorous, scientific use of 14C dates.