ECONOMIC BEHAVIOUR AND MENTAL CAPACITY
OF NEANDERTHALS
Petr NERUDA
Moravia is one of the crucial regions of Middle Palaeolithic excavation in Central Europe. Analyses of caves
with Middle Palaeolithic occupation yielded new evidence for reconstruction of behaviour of Neanderthals and
their mental abilities. This article summaries preliminary results of the complex studies of Kůlna Cave (Czech
Republic).
Middle Palaeolithic stratigraphic sequence from Kůlna Cave is very important in the European context. It
is possible to reconstruct the Neanderthal economic system from OIS 5e to OIS 3. Comparing operation sequences and raw material distributions indicate more complex collecting strategy, comparable to Upper Palaeolithic behaviour.
Taubachian layer 11 is characterised by non-levallois discoid method of the blanks production with several
variants without a clear preference to the support production. Single side scrapers, notches, denticulates and archaic points are dominated, bifacial tools are sporadic. Raw material distribution indicates rather opportunistic
model as well as the animal hunting. Neanderthal used both open ecosystem of the „Drahany plateau“: rolling
hill and close forest one.
Micoquian layers 7c, 7a and 6a look differently. Neanderthal behaviour were more resident and some evidences indicate occasional using of a „logistic“ model of the collecting strategy. From the typological point of
view increase the number of tool types but technology stays more standardized – discoid method had less variants and appeared like-Upper Palaeolithic blade method of the core reduction. We can submit the same „specialisation“ of raw material distribution. Neanderthals preferred one kind of the stone and other variants were
additional. Unfortunately we can´t date exactly the youngest layer 6a and assign its relation to the early Upper
Palaeolithic occupation. From the typological and technological point of view we supposed direct development
of the Szeletian from the Micoquian. Recently we have no evidence for acculturation of this transition by the
Aurignacian produced by modern humans.
In my opinion, the mental capacity of Neanderthals was able to create new variants of behaviour and therefore it is difficult to decide, why modern humans were more successful.
Article is supported by grant projects MKČR DE07P04OMG011 and GAČR 404/07/0856.
1. Introduction
Problem of the Moravian Middle Palaeolithic is lack of stratified, well documented sites. The first key issue must
be the selection of an appropriate site or sites that would yield statistically significant data. These data would
provide the basis for the analysis of the selected problem. It is apparent that the limited number of stratified sites
set constraints for the analysis (fig. 1). Currently, we can use only 5 caves – Kůlna (Valoch 1988b), Švédův stůl
(Klíma 1962), Šipka and Čertova díra (both Maška 1884; 1885; 1886a,b; 1888; Valoch 1965), and 2 open-air
sites – Předmostí II – Hradisko (Svoboda et al. 1994; 1996; Moncel – Svoboda 1998) and Moravský Krumlov
IV [Neruda – Nerudová – Oliva 2004; Neruda – Nerudová 2005; Neruda – Nerudová (eds.) 2009]. However,
111
Fig. 1. Map of Moravian Middle Palaeolithic sites. Legend: 1 – Kůlna Cave; 2 – Přerov-Předmostí II; 3 – Šipka and Čertova díra Caves;
4 – Moravský Krumlov IV.
Kůlna
Kůlna
Kůlna
Kůlna
Kůlna
Švédův
stůl
Šipka
cave
Čertova
díra cave
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+
++
+
++
+++
+++
+++
+
Treated bones
+++
+++
+++
+++
-
Presence of imports >50 km
+++
Side scrapers
++
+++
+++
+++
+
+
++
Cores
+++
+++
++
++
+
+
+
Attributes of Settlement
Dimension of cave
Hearth
Spatial structure
layer 11 layer 7a layer 7c layer 6a layer 14
+
Fauna remains
+++
Quality of raw material
+++
Lithic waste
+++
Bifaces
Non-utilitarian artefacts
+
++
+
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
++
+
+++
+++
-
+
+++
+++
-
-
++
+++
+++
+
++
+++
+++
+++
+
+
++
++
+
-
-
+
+
+
-
+++
-
+++
+
Tab. 1. Comparison of settlement attributes for several Middle Palaeolithic sites in Moravia.
112
-
+
-
-
?
-
+
-
+++
-
-
-
++
-
-
+
+
-
Fig. 2. Southern entrance of Kůlna Cave (Photo by P. Neruda)
only some of these sites have yielded reasonable evidence that could be used for the reconstruction of Neanderthal behaviour in Central Europe. Given the fact that these sites are located in the regions with markedly different climatic and geomorphological conditions, accessibility of raw material etc., they had different function,
and have been assigned to different temporal and cultural frames (tab. 1). For the purpose of this article it has
been necessary to select a site that has the stratigraphic sequence for the entire period of interest preserved and
contains both archaeological and paleontological evidence with potential to yield statistically relevant results.
There is virtually only one Middle Palaeolithic site that fulfils almost all the requirements; Kůlna Cave
(fig. 2) located in the northern part of Moravian Karst in the Czech Republic (Valoch 1988b). Exceptionality of
this site is based on its specific position in landscape that predetermined it for use from the Middle Palaeolithic
till the Roman Period. The cave is located close to water source – Sloupský creek – where two important ecosystems meet; the Drahanská Highlands and deep valleys of the Moravian Karst. Also, there are sources of stone
material nearby and the large tunnel-shaped interior of the cave is also convenient for habitation.
The stratigraphy that includes, especially in the entrance to the cave, Middle Palaeolithic sequence from OIS
6 to OIS 3 is archaeologically valuable (fig. 3). New analysis involved Mousterian layer 14, Taubachian layers
11, and Micoquian layers 7c, 7a, 6a that come from the entrance part of the cave (Neruda 2001a,b; 2003; 2005).
From the methodological point of view, the advantage of this site lies in the fact that all the data come from clear
stratigraphic context of the same site and, consequently, time period. Therefore the interpretation of the observed similarities and differences between material from different layers is relatively robust.
2. Available Data for Analyses
First, it is necessary to describe the main attributes of the selected cultural horizons. Layer 14 contained ca. 100
stone artefacts (Valoch 1970). In addition to the simple prismatic (subprismatic) method (fig. 4:5), flakes were
obtained also from Levallois cores (fig. 4:1-3). Locally retouched blanks, side scrapers and archaic points (fig.
4:4) are presented. The industry can be assigned to Mousterian. Stone comes from local sources that are not far
from the cave. The farthest import so far comes from 21-30 km away. We have almost no evidence of spatial
patterning of material culture in the cave and hunting because only a small area was excavated and the artefacts
were not in situ (Valoch 1970; 1988b; Neruda 2003).
There is much more information about the Taubachian series of layers 11 (end of Eemian Interglacial and/or
beginning of Vistula Glacial). Archaeological excavations of this part have produced 13 000 stone artefacts
(Valoch 1988a,b). Blanks were extracted mostly from the discoid cores (fig. 4:6, 8). However, there were several sub-variants within the frame of this volume method that reflected the quality of stone material and enabled
extraction of the maximum number of supports (Moncel – Neruda 2000; Neruda 2001a,b; 2003). The second
most important method was the reduction of the sub-prismatic cores (fig. 4:7) through the parallel chipping of
the oblong supports (Neruda 2003). In both cases, the cores were extracted intensively, so some exhausted cores
are 2.5 cm in diameter, even in the case of quartz (fig. 4:8). Tools are represented mostly by single side scrapers (fig. 4:11), notches, denticulates and archaic points (Tayac, Quinson; fig. 4:9, 10). Very interesting is the presence of bifacial tools, rare but analogous to other Taubachian sites in Central Europe (Valoch 1988a; 1995;
Neruda 2003). The real sinicance of bifacial artefacts in Taubachian is still unclear. In my opinion they represent rather cores because of absence of the final retouch on edge that is typical for Micoquian bifacial tools. The
typical feature of this industry is the high diversity of source materials (Féblot-Augustins 1993; 1997; Neruda
2001a,b). Local and regional sources were used most intensively. However, it is important to note that there are
also a few imports that came from places 100 km away and in the case of the rock crystal and smoked rock crys113
Fig. 3. Middle Palaeolithic sequence of the cave entrance stratigraphy. Analysed layers are underlined.
tal it is evident Neanderthals visited uninhabited regions of Českomoravská Highlands with a different ecosystem.1 Artefacts from imported raw materials were used mostly for the production of more complex tools and they
are very rare among non-retouched blanks.
1
114
Nowadays an analysis of fine-grained limnosilicities is still in progress. Possible distribution from Hungary has been proposed (Oliva
2000) but new geological survey indicate the presence of a local raw material source about 5 km from Kůlna Cave (Neruda – Válek
2002, 311).
Fig. 4. Overview of lithics from main horizons. Legend: 1, 3 – levallois cores; 2 – levallois flake with local retouch; 4 – archaic point; 5 –
blade with lateral retouch; 6, 8 – discoid core; 7 – subprismatic core; 9 – Quinson point; 10 – Tayac point; 11 – side scraper on rock crystal; 12 – discoid core; 13 – prismatic core; 14,15 – blades; 16 – side scraper with thinned back; 17 – Micoquian hand-axe; 18 – transversal
side scraper with thinned ventral face (Quina type).
115
Fig. 5. Selected bones with traces of human manipulation from Taubachian layers. Legend: 1-3, 12 – soft-hammers; 3 – use-wear on bone
tips; 5-11 – bones with engraved (?) grooves (according to Valoch 1988b).
116
Fauna found in this cave is highly variable; paleontological analyses have identified more than 19 species
(Musil 2002). Investigation of animal dentin indicates that animals came from both woodland and open environment (Patou-Mathis et al. 2005). Thus, Neanderthals used opportunistically both ecosystems – deep sharp
valleys of the Moravian Karst and plains of the rolling hill along the Svitava River.
An interesting phenomenon is a high number of soft-hammers that have been identified among the faunal
bone fragments (Valoch 1988b). These are not tools with formal shape as we know from the Upper Palaeolithic
but I believe that we can talk about the incipient stage in the development of bone industry or, at least, attempts
to use organic material during the process of lithic production (fig. 5:1-3, 12). The arrangement of grooves on
the surface (fig. 5:5-11) of other bone fragments suggests possible non-utilitarian practices of Neanderthals
(Valoch 1996b). Some traces (mostly on tips) indicate unclear using of bones in any processes (fig. 5:4).
Only the entrance part of the cave up to the rock step was inhabited. Spatial structure was relatively simple (fig. 6). Two former hearths and accumulations of animal bones and artefacts were recognized. Refitings relate spaces of two hearths and therefore both structures could be contemporary (Neruda 2003).
Micoquian layer 7c is a result of a short-term occupation event. From the technological point of view, considerable changes can be identified. There is a decrease in the number sub-variants of the discoid method that
embodies one of the main means of obtaining blanks (Neruda 2003; 2005, 52). Perhaps we can consider this
phenomenon as a beginning of the standardization of the production process. The prismatic method is a very
distinct method that is comparable to the Upper Palaeolithic equivalents. Faconage, which produced bifacial supports of typical Micoquian tools such as backed knife, hand-axe, bifacial side scraper etc., is the second method
that was used. The Micoquian tools are characterized especially by asymmetrical cross-section that could be
shaped into various forms of functional edges (Boëda 1995). Although the diversity of raw material is still high,
it is obvious that Cretaceous chert, which is located 6-10 km away, was preferred. There are also imports from
far away – ca. 100 km – but only sources that are located approximately up to 40 km away were economically
significant (Neruda 2005). The faunal perspective indicates that the diversity of game species lightly decreases;
beasts are more frequent then in layer 11 (Zelinková 1998; Musil 2002). Unfortunately, there is a lack of taphonomic analyses that would provide more data for making more accurate conclusions. However, we see evidence
of bone fragments used as retouchers and systems of grooves on the surface of bones again (fig. 7:1-9). For all
the grooves that come from layer 7c show obvious organization (Valoch 1980a) there is the same problem as in
Taubachian cases. Spatial organization of the interior of the cave is very simple, which can correspond to the
intermittent use of the cave (Neruda 2003). Substantial changes come with the occupation of central part of the
cave because the sediments already covered the rock step (fig. 6). The cache deposit containing three mammoth
Fig. 6. Comparison of spatial structures in Kůlna Cave during Taubachian and Micoquian (layer 7c and 7a) occupations.
117
Fig. 7. Selected bones with traces of human manipulation from Micoquian layers (according to Valoch 1988b). Legend: 1-9 – layer 7c; 1019 – layer 7a. 1-4, 6, 18 – retouchers; 5, 17 – bones with retouched edges; 7-16 – groove paterns – human idea records (?); rib with modified extremities.
118
tusks that were placed in a narrow rock cavity in sector F is probably the most significant find. The same sector contained the meaningful number of bifacial tools and there is interesting correlation with bone retouchers
in this space (Neruda in prep.).
Layer 7a is the main Micoquian layer in Kůlna cave. This layer is well comparable to the Taubachian one
in terms of the site function and the length of occupation. If we compare some attributes that may define the nature of the occupation, we can see the similarity between both layers (tab. 1). Technological changes include
considerable standardization of the discoid method (fig. 4:12). We can identify discoid cores sensu stricto (Boëda
1993) and sub-discoid cores with hierarchical surfaces (Neruda 2005). Also, the prismatic method exhibits all
attributes of the Upper Palaeolithic method of reduction (fig. 4:13) and the blades are well comparable with, for
example, Aurignacian ones (fig. 4:14, 15). Faconage of the supports remains stable. From the typological point
of view, in addition to various side scrapers (fig. 4:16) and bifacial tools (fig. 4:17) that dominate, there are
also hybrid forms but that are impossible to classify by numbers in the traditional system developed by Bordes
(similar with the Charentian of Quina type). Some types fall within, for example, bifacial backed knives and side
scrapers with thinned back. The specialization in Cretaceous chert that forms 78 % of the stone inventory is even
more evident. Imports from far away are also present but their economic potential is minute. The spatial organization of the cave underwent a substantial change. Few functionally different zones were identify (fig. 6):
the structure in the right part of the entrance associated with production of lithics and manipulation with heavy
bones, the feature associated with a Neanderthal maxilla, the hearth containing Neanderthal parietal bones
(Jelínek 1988), the concentration of bifacial tools (sector E) and the oblong hearth located in the rock recession
in sector G2. At that time, the entire cave with exception of the sector J in the northern entrance was occupied.
Species diversity of fauna that was hunted decreases. This probably reflects changing of climate. Anyway, gregarious species dominate. It means that the main subsistence activities took place in the rolling hill environment,
probably above the Svitava River. The sources of Cretaceous chert, which was preferred, are located there as
well. The use of bone industry shows attributes that we have already defined.
Layer 6a is well comparable to layer 7c in terms of its nature and functional use of the site. The only difference is that the central part of the cave including sectors E, G, and H was occupied. This shift in occupation
may be associated with the cooling of climate and extension of cave sediment. The spatial structures are not as
complex as those in layer 7a. Technological and typological development continues in the trajectories initiated
in layers 7c and 7a. Cretaceous chert is preferred again and imports from far away are missing.
3. Synthesis
Before we synthesize available information, let’s focus on the function of Kůlna cave during the specific time
periods. Table 1 demonstrates the frequency of various important characteristics for the cultural layers of Kůlna
Cave in comparison with other Middle Palaeolithic caves (Švédův stůl, Šipka, Čertova Díra). The selected characteristics are cave size, presence of hearths, complexity of structures and so on. The comparison demonstrates
clearly the functional similarity of the layers 11 and 7a. Layers 7c, 6a show the same characteristics as layer 7a
but their frequency is smaller or less obvious. This can be the result of a different function or shorter habitation
period. According new 14C data the layer 7a from the Kůlna Cave and occupation of Šipka and Čertova Díra
Caves are penecontemporaneous but they differ from the functional point of view.
3.1. Raw Material Distribution
The presented data are interesting especially in terms of cultural and temporal comparison. Let’s try to infer the
evolutionary trends in the economic behaviour of Neanderthals. The analysis of the distribution of stone raw material yields the most complete information. We can compare especially the information from the layers 11 and
7a because the cave was used in the similar way (long-term base camp). Types of raw material are diverse in
both layers but the essential difference between these two layers stems from the different proportion of raw material types in each layer. While none of these types exceeds the frequency of 50 % in layer 11, the Micoquian
layer 7a is characterized by heavy use of Cretaceous chert whose frequency exceeds 75 %. In my opinion, we
can understand this as evidence of specialization.
When we compare these two layers from the perspective of raw material utilization in relationship to distance from the source of material, we see that the local sources of raw material located within 5 km from the
119
site served as the main supply during Taubachian (Neruda 2001a,b; 2003). The second feature is the presence
of distant imports that, however, appear rarely but were utilized very efficiently. During Micoquian, raw material located within 6-10 km from the site was used, which reflects the specialization on Cretaceous chert that it
has been already mentioned (Neruda 2003; 2005). Raw material from distant sources is used infrequently. The
layers that were produced by a short-term occupation by Micoquian hunters – layers 7c and 6a – emphasize this
trend even more.
Taubachian economic model seems very opportunistic (probably except rock crystal distribution) while the
Micoquian model indicates the signs of logistic material procurement much more used during the Upper Palaeolithic (Neruda 2005).
3.2. Technology
Technological analysis correlates with these results as well. Taubachian technology is strictly opportunistic
(tab. 2). Various kinds of cores of discoid concept that reflect the need of the maximum exploitation of material are used (Neruda 2001a,b; 2003). Typological analysis shows the high degree of variability (Moncel –
Neruda 2000; Neruda 2003). This is the result – in addition to other things – of the low degree of support standardization. Functional edges of tools are often modified by simple retouch, therefore the modification of supports is minimal.
OIS
5d-3b
cca 5e
6/5e
Layer
Culture
Technology
Typology
Raw Material Treatment
7c-6a
Micoquian
2 variants of discoid cores
variability of tool types
various raw materials
complex bifacial method
(offen with side scrapers)
11
14
Taubachian
Mousterian
sub-prismatic cores
6 variants of discoid cores
sub-prismatic cores
simple bifacial method
Levallois cores
subprismatic cores
many combinations
single tool types
single tool types
logistical (?) model
various raw materials
imports >100 km
oportunistic model
local raw materials
oportunistic model
Tab. 2. Comparison of technology, typology and raw material distribution in Kůlna Cave archaeological horizons.
The Micoquian record shows a very different pattern (tab. 2). The gradual reduction of the variants of the
discoid cores that aims at two main methods is apparent – discoid method sensu stricto and subdiscoid cores
with hierarchic surfaces. Another method – the prismatic method of the Upper Palaeolithic-like blade support
production - correlates with this as well and was quite significant during Micoquian period in Kůlna Cave.
Thus, we can consider the standardization of exploitation focused on one or two main methods and the utilization of supports with predetermined shape (blades) that are comparable to Aurignacian ones as a progressive evolutionary feature2. Nevertheless, the difference from the Upper Palaeolithic method is that these supports are not
used to produce the Upper Palaeolithic types (scrapers, borers, and burins) but the edges usually bear signs of
the local retouch or the use-wear. From the typological point of view, we can consider the production of tools
with multiple differentiated working edges as a progressive feature. The typical example is various combinations of side-scrapers in one piece of stone or the combined edges of bifacial tools. This topic needs further
traseological research.
2
120
The presence of blades in the Kůlna Cave Micoquian could not be result of acculturation by the Aurignacian people regarding to the
dating of layers 7c and 7a and the oldest presentation of anatomically modern humans in Central Europe.
Interesting results were obtained for the comparison of both Micoquian and Szeletian bifacial technology.
New excavation in open-air site of Moravský Krumlov IV yielded refitings of leaf points that enable to reconstruct the process of shaping around 42 kyr BP (calibrated; Davis – Nerudová 2009; Neruda – Nerudová 2009).
Refitings from layer 0 helped us to determine specific way of leaf point production (Neruda – Nerudová 2005).
Usually massive flakes were used as support because natural form of local chert is the pebble. The dimension
(it means length and width) was relatively small to use the standard „zig-zag“ method and therefore it was necessary to reduced only the thickness but not the other dimension. Massive flake – usually used as a support –
was reduced from the suitable edge and perpendicularly the back was prepared as striking platform (fig. 8A).
Most of leaf point thickness was thinned from the back and in the case of technical errors these one were
repaired from the opposite edge (fig. 8C). By this way it was possible to obtain the relatively symmetrical
cross-section (fig. 8D) that appears morphologically as a bifacial backed knife, similar to a Micoquian forms
(fig. 8B).
3.3. Mobility
We can try to reconstruct mobility and economic behaviour of the Neanderthal population from results
mentioned above. Taubachian hunters preferred to move the entire settlement when they depleted all the resources of raw material. They exploited predominantly local sources around each settlement. It is not entirely
clear how they managed to obtain distant sources that sometimes come from the places 100 km away. The technological analyses indicate that these items might have been part of the stable equipment that a group carried
or they might have been obtained through the inter-group interaction. A goal-oriented expedition for the distant
raw material is rare in this model. One example is rock-crystal and smoked-rock crystal samples from
Kůlna cave that came from the beds in Českomoravská Highlands that are located 50 km away when a direct
distance is considered. These sources are outside the Middle Palaeolithic occupation region in Moravian
(Valoch 2004).
Contrary to the Taubachian strategy, Micoquian yields evidence of the trend characterized by the preference
of quality of raw material regardless of its accessibility. The high quality raw material was obtained from at
least 6-10 km away, which is not so far but given the fact that these sources provide ¾ of the entire inventory,
it had to require more advanced model of logistic material procurement. It seems that the move of a settlement
was not the only possibility in the case of the local resource depletion and other progressive features of economic
behaviour are comparable to, for example, Aurignacian in Moravia. The mobility of Micoquian Neanderthals
during the end of the Middle Palaeolithic looks rather sedentary or fixed on the limited area about 50 km
in diametrically (Neruda – Nerudová 2009). It is interesting to stress raw material exploitation during
the lower phase of Szeletian (Nerudová 1997) is similar to the Micoquian one (fig. 9) and any „progressive“
features (using of long imports) appeared later (Szeletian assemblages probably younger than 35 kyr uncal
BP).
How the described trends correlate with other aspects of Neanderthal behaviour? Unfortunately, we are in
the sphere of discussion based on less reliable data. Hunting is economically important aspect of human behaviour. Its reconstruction is, however, complicated due to the insufficient taphonomic analyses. Anyway, we
can notice that the diversity of hunted fauna was high including various ecosystems in the vicinity of the cave
during Taubachian. During Micoquian, we see apparent focus on fewer species that are typical especially for
open ecosystems (probably areas in the vicinity of the Svitava River). This required more advanced logistic
model of procurement. This phenomenon corresponds well with the exploitation of Cretaceous chert because
its sources are located in the primary hunting area.
3.4. Spatial Structure of Kůlna Cave
The next topic that we can analyze using the data from Kůlna Cave is the spatial division of the cave and the
inner structure (fig. 6). It is clear that in addition to the shift towards the central part of the cave (in Micoquian),
the spatial structure is more complicated. In layer 7a one can discern a production place in the entrance part of
the cave and also next to the left wall in the central part of the cave. There are also hearths (sector C, G, and E)
and less obvious features in the vicinity of the Neanderthal skeletal remains.
121
Fig. 8. Moravský Krumlov IV. Reconstruction of a Szeletian leaf point production. Decortification and preparing of back part (A). After
striking of several removals the piece looks like a bifacial backed knife (B). The thickness of artefact is reduced mainly from backed part
(C). Finished piece has the biconvex cross-section (C).
122
Fig. 9. Raw material composition of Micoquian (A) and Szeletian (B–C). A – Kůlna Cave, layer 7a (ca. 49 kyr cal BP); B – Vedrovice V
open-air site (ca. 43 kyr cal BP); C – Drysice I surface site (undated, Upper phase of Szeletian is supposed).
123
Fig. 10. Relation of EUP cultures in the region of Moravia and Austria.
3.5. Using of Organic Material
Up to this point we have seen that the younger Micoquian occupation yields evidence of some progressive features in comparison to Taubachian. This trend has not been identified among faunal osteological material yet.
Virtually all layers – 11, 7c, 7a, and 6a – yield a large amount of bones with the modified shape and/or surface.
Some of them are randomly split, others were intentionally shaped. Some of them, the bone retouchers, were
even used during the production of stone industry. In addition to these utilitarian items, there are also pieces that
show probable evidence of non-utilitarian activity (e.g. fig. 7:8). There are systems of grooves that form de124
Fig. 11. Development of Palaeolithic cultures during EUP time range in Moravia and Austria. A: late Middle Palaeolithic is represented by
sites in Moravian Karst and Bořitov Regions. Neanderthals probably used the region of the Krumlovský les (1). Bohunician was situated
in Brno Area, second unit on eastern slopes of Drahany Highlands is not dated yet (2). The chronological position of the Micoquien from
Gudenushöhle is not established. B: in the time range between 39-36 kyr uncal. BP Szeletian unit is defined in the region of Krumlovský
les. Using of the Moravian Karst by Szeletians is not dated (3). Brno Region was occupied by Bohunician. Aurignacian appeared in Austrian Danube valley. The beginning of Aurignacian expansion to Moravia is unclear (4). C: Aurignacian occupied Szeletian unit in
Krumlovský Les and Bohunician unit in Brno area since about 34 kyr uncal. BP. Szeletian probably persisted to the region of the eastern
slopes of Drahany Highlands (5) and communicated with Aurignacian in Morava River valley and Brno or Moravian Karst region.
pictions. We investigate this issue in a special grant project that is focus on the discrimination of intentional
grooves from cut marks or other forms of damage (GAČR 404/07/0856). Studies are not still finished but first
results indicate rather important problems. Nowadays it is clear we have not noted specific lithic artefacts suitable for organic artefact production and/or making the non-utilitarian traces – grooves. Concerning grooves we
have not found ones with repeated marks in the same line. Their profile is rather V-shaped and it means that Neanderthals, if they really mark any idea on the bone surface, used the same kind of tools for butchering as well
as for non-utilitarian practices. Then it is practically impossible to distinguish cut-marks and “special” grooves
as record of human thinking (Neruda – Galetová – Dreslerová – in preparation).
125
3.6. Cultural implication
How are the cultural implications of the observed phenomena? The relationship with the genesis of the Upper
Palaeolithic cultures is much more complicated. There are three cultures in the Early Upper Palaeolithic Moravia:
Bohunician, Szeletian and Aurignacian. Given all evidence the progressive features of the Middle Palaeolithic
cultures are the result of their own evolution. In conform to new 14C data and techno-typological analysis of
Moravský Krumlov IV open-air site we can propose following model of development during the OIS 3 in
Moravia (fig. 10). Similarities between both the Szeletian and the Micoquian archaeological cultures suggest the
close relationship. This relationship has been stressed in recent articles (e.g. Allsworth-Jones 1986; Ringer 1995;
Valoch 1990; 1996a; Svoboda 2004; Oliva 1991b; 2005). In our opinion we can define such a relation more precisely and understand the Szeletian as the Upper phase of the Micoquian, continuously and independently developed in Central Europe.
In the lower phase of the EUP, we can note that the EUP cultures kept their territorial exclusiveness
(fig. 11). Upper Micoquian and lower Szeletian settlement of Southern Moravia seem to respect the Bohunician
enclave in the Brno region. On the other hand, the old Aurignacian is not documented here; it probably used the
vacated land in the Danube area that was not used by the Neanderthals. There is an interesting relation between
the Szeletian and the Micoquian occupation in Austria where only several isolated leaf points are documented
(Trnka 1990) and there is also one significant Micoquian assemblage in Gudenushöhle (Derndarsky 2001).
Such a relation probably means that the region of Lower Austria could be relatively unhabited and thus opened
for early Aurignacian colonisation (cf. 14C data for Austria and Moravia). A similar relation is also described in
the Brno region where the Szeletian sites respect the Aurignacian and Bohunician territory. Around 35 thousands
uncalibrated BP, the Aurignacian spread from the Austrian Danube territory to Moravia where it inhabited
ecosystems with no evidence of the Middle Palaeolithic or Szeletian settlement (“Napajedla Gate” on Morava
River for example). Gradually there is a contact between the anatomically modern people and Neanderthals
who survived in refugia (for example Krumlovský Les or Northern Moravia). Older population was probably
driven out of their territories and it resulted in predominance of the Aurignacian. Unfortunately just few sites
with absolute dating support this theory.
Within this concept, the Szeletian should be understood as autochthonous independent evolution of the Micoquian during the Early Upper Palaeolithic whose bearers had to be the Neanderthals. We can suppose some contacts with anatomically modern humans during the EUP complex, mainly in the Upper phase of Szeletian (Oliva
1991b). This phase is not dated by any method. We know nothing about the end of this culture. Only on the basis
of typology and raw material distribution we suppose that Szeletian sites in the Drahany Highlands (VyškovProstějov City) are later then Vedrovice V and Moravský Krumlov IV Sites. It is interesting to note some proofs
of Szeletian-Aurignacian contacts (using of the Troubky-Zdislavice Chert and Aurignacian tool-types in Szelet-
Fig. 12. Comparison of behaviour both Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans in Moravia.
126
ian assemblages). It means that Neanderthals could be acculturated by anatomically modern human (Aurignacians) but till 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 first part of EUP complex.
4. Conclusion
Comparison of both Neanderthals and anatomically modern human behaviour shows interesting similarities
during the EUP time range (especially in the lower phase). There are not important differences that can explain
the evolutionary success of anatomically modern humans (fig. 12). Maybe only bone tool production (including the shaping of art) differs significantly.
We can state that the Neanderthal culture evolves and shows progressive behavioural features during the Vistula interpleniglacial (OIS 3) and these features are further developed during the Upper Palaeolithic. In other
words, the Neanderthal culture was not static and incapable of innovation.
SOUHRN
Morava je jedním z klíčových středoevropských regionů pro výzkum středního paleolitu. Analýza jeskyní s prokázaným středopaleolitickým osídlením přinesla nové podklady pro rekonstrukci chování a mentálních schopností neandertálců. Tento článek shrnuje předběžné výsledky komplexního výzkumu jeskyně Kůlna (Česká republika).
Středopaleolitická stratigrafická sekvence z jeskyně Kůlna má v evropském kontextu zásadní význam, neboť je možné zde provést rekonstrukci ekonomického systému neandertálců od OIS 5e po OIS 3. Srovnání operačních sekvencí a distribuce surovin ukazují na komplexnější kompletační strategii, srovnatelnou se strategií mladopaleolitickou.
Taubachienská vrstva 11 je charakterizována nelevalloiskou produkcí úštěpů a technikou diskovitých jader v několika variantách bez
jasné preference podpůrné produkce. Dominují jednostranná drasadla, vruby, zoubkované a archaické hroty, bifaciální nástroje se vyskytují sporadicky. Způsob distribuce suroviny ukazuje spíše na oportunistický model, stejně tomu je i v případě lovu zvěře. Neandertálci využívali zvlněný otevřený ekosystém Drahanské vrchoviny i přilehlý ekosystém lesní.
Micoquienské vrstvy 7c, 7a a 6a jsou odlišné. Neandertálci volili v této době usedlejší způsob života a některé nálezy vypovídají
o příležitostném použití „logistického“ modelu sběračské strategie. Z typologického hlediska roste variabilita nástrojů, ale technologie zůstává víceméně standardizovaná – technika diskovitých jader zde má méně variant a projevuje se jako mladopaleolitická technika čepelové
redukce jádra. Stejným pravidlům se podřizuje i distribuce suroviny. Neandertálci preferovali jeden druh kamene, další byly pouze doplňkové. Bohužel není možné přesně datovat nejmladší vrstvu 6a, a prokázat tak její souvislost s mladopaleolitickým osídlením. Z typologického a technologického úhlu pohledu předpokládáme přímý vývoj szeletienu z micoquienu. V současné době nedisponujeme důkazy,
které by prokázaly akulturaci aurignacienem.
Z mého pohledu disponovali neandertálci mentální kapacitou, která jim umožňovala vytvářet nové vzorce chování, a je tedy složité
posoudit, proč byl moderní člověk úspěšnější.
Překlad Kamila Remišová Věšínová
References
Allsworth-Jones, P. 1986: The Szeletian and the Transition from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic in Central Europe. Oxford.
Boëda, E. 1993: Le débitage discoïde et le débitage levallois récurrent centripète, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 90, nº6, 392404.
Boëda, E. 1995: Caractéristiques techniques des chaînes operatoires lithiques des niveaux micoquiens de Külna (Tchecoslovaquie). In: Les
industries à pointes foliacées d´Europe Centrale. PALEO – Supplément, Nº 1. Actes du Colloque de MISKOLC – Juin, 57-72.
Davies, W. – Nerudová, Z. 2009: Moravský Krumlov IV – Its chronological place in a wider arena. In: Neruda, P. – Nerudová, Z. (eds.):
Moravský Krumlov IV. Vícevrstevná lokalita ze středního a počátku mladého palelitu na Moravě (Moravský Krumlov IV. Multilayer
Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic Site in Moravia). Anthropos Vol. 29. N. S. 21. Brno, 84-90.
Derndarsky, M. 2001: Die Forschungen in und zu der Gudenushöhle. In: Daim, F. – Kühtreiber, T. (eds.): Sinn and Sein. Burg and Mensch.
Katalog des Niederösterreichischen Landesmuseums. Neue Folge Nr. 434. St. Pölten, 224-226.
Féblot-Augustins, J. 1993: Mobility strategies in the late Middle Palaeolithic of central Europe and Western Europe: elements of stability
and variability, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 12, 211-265.
Féblot-Augustins, J. 1997: La circulation des matières premières au Paléolithique. Synthèse des données perspectives comportementales.
ERAUL nº 75, Liège.
GAČR 404/07/0856: „Neanderthals and modification of bones – interdisciplinary analyses and cultural implications”.
http://www.mzm.cz/~pneruda/Granty_soubory/Kulna/KulnaEn.html.
127
Jelínek, J. 1988: Anthropologische Funde aus der Kůlna-Höhle. In: Valoch, K.: Die Erforschung der Kůlna-Höhle 1961-1976. Anthropos
24. N.S. 16. Brno, 261-283.
Klíma, B. 1962: Die Erforschung der Höhle Švédův stůl 1953-1955, Anthropos 13 (N.S. 5), Brno.
Maška, K. J. 1884: Pravěké nálezy ve Štramberka, ČVMSO I, 15-22, 64-69, 152-159.
Maška, K. J. 1885: Čelist předpotopního člověka nalezená v Šipce u Štramberka, ČVMSO II, 27-35.
Maška, K. J. 1886a: Pravěké nálezy ve Štramberka, ČVMSO III, 57-65, 119-123, 163-174.
Maška, K. J. 1886b: Der diluviale Mensch in Mähren. Ein Beitrag zur Urgeschichte Mährens. Programm der mähr. Landes-Oberrrealschule
in Neutitschein. Neutitschein.
Maška, K. J. 1888: Nové výzkumy v jeskyních štramberských, ČVMSO V, 121-124.
Moncel, M.-H. 2004: Tata (Hungary), Kůlna (Czech Republic, Taubach and Weimar (Germany): a uniform Early Upper Pleistocene microlithic world (OIS 5)? In: Fülöp, É – Cseh, J. (eds.): Die aktuellen Fragen des Mittelpaläolithikums in Mitteleuropa. Topical issues
of the research of Middle Palaeolithic period in Central Europe. Tudományos Füzetek 12. Tata, 91-134.
Moncel, M.-H. – Neruda, P. 2000: The Kůlna Level 11: some observations on the debitage rules and aims. The originality of a Middle
Palaeolithic Microlithic Assemblage (Kůlna cave, Czech Republic), Anthropologie XXXVIII/3, 219-248.
Moncel, M.-H. – Svoboda, J. 1998: L´industrie lithique des niveaux Eemiens de Předmosti II (Brno, République Tchèque). Fouilles de
1989-1992, Préhistoire Européenne 12, 11-48.
Musil, R. 2002: Fauna moravských jeskyní s paleolitickými nálezy. In: Svoboda J. (ed.): Prehistorické jeskyně. Katalogy, dokumenty, studie.
Dolnověstonické studie 7. Brno, 53-101.
Neruda, P. 2000: The cultural significance of bifacial retouch. The Transition from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Age in Moravia. In:
Orschiedt, J. – Weniger, G.-Ch.: Neanderthals and Modern Humans – Discussing the Transition: Central and Eastern Europe from
50.000 – 30.000 B.P. Wissenschaftliche Schriften des Neanderthal Museums 2. Neanderthal Museum, 151-158.
Neruda, P. 2001a: Využití surovin v taubachienu z jeskyně Kůlny (vrstva 11), AMM, Sci. soc. LXXXVI, 3-25.
Neruda, P. 2001b: La distribution des matieres premieres au Taubachien a la grotte Kůlna. In: Préhistoire et approche expérimentale, Préhistoires 5. Montagnac, 349-362.
Neruda, P. 2003: Střední paleolit v moravských jeskyních. Nepubl. disert. Masarykova Universita Brno.
Neruda, P. 2005: Technologie micoquienu v jeskyni Kůlně. Micoquian Technology from Kůlna Cave (Sloup, South Moravia), AMM, Sci.
soc. XC, 23-78.
Neruda, P. v tisku: Reconstruction of Kůlna Cave Spatial Structure on the Base of Bifacial Tools and Bone Retouchers.
Neruda, P. – Galetová, M. – Dreslerová, G. v tisku: Neanderthals and modification of bones – interdisciplinary analyses and cultural implications.
Neruda, P. – Nerudová, Z. 2005: The development of the production of lithic industry in the Early Upper Palaeolithic of Moravia, AR LVII,
263-292.
Neruda, P. – Nerudová, Z. 2006: Stratifikované výzkumy paleolitických stanic u Dolních Kounic a Pravlova v roce 2005, AMM, Sci.soc.
91, 51-64.
Neruda, P. – Nerudová, Z. 2009: Postavení lokality Moravský Krumlov IV v kontextu střední Evropy (Moravský Krumlov IV Open-Air
Site in the Context of Central Europe). In: Neruda, P. – Nerudová, Z. (eds.): Moravský Krumlov IV. Vícevrstevná lokalita ze středního a počátku mladého paleolitu na Moravě (Moravský Krumlov IV. Moravský Krumlov IV. Multilayer Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic Site in Moravia. Anthropos 29. N. S. 21. Brno, 178-213.
Neruda, P. – Nerudová, Z. (eds.) 2009: Moravský Krumlov IV. Vícevrstevná lokalita ze středního a počátku mladého paleolitu na Moravě
(Moravský Krumlov IV. Moravský Krumlov IV. Multilayer Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic Site in Moravia). Anthropos 29.
N. S. 21. Brno.
Neruda, P. – Nerudová, Z. – Oliva, M. 2004: Stratigrafie paleolitických lokalit v oblasti Krumlovského lesa (okr. Znojmo), AMM, Sci. soc.
LXXXIX, 3-58.
Neruda, P. – Válek, P. 2002: Němčice I. In: Svoboda, J. (ed.): Prehistorické jeskyně. Katalogy, dokumenty, studie. Dolnověstonické studie
7. Brno, 306-312.
Nerudová, Z. 1997: K využití cizích surovin v szeletienu na Moravě, AMM, Sci.soc. LXXXII, 79-86.
Nerudová, Z. 2009: Archeologie szeletienské vrstvy 0 z Moravského Krumlova IV (Archaeology of Szeletian Layer 0 from Moravský
Krumlov IV). In: Neruda, P. – Nerudová, Z. (eds.): Moravský Krumlov IV. Vícevrstevná lokalita ze středního a počátku mladého
palelitu na Moravě (Moravský Krumlov IV. Multilayer Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic Site in Moravia). Anthropos 29. N. S. 21.
Brno, 99-144.
Oliva, M. 1991: The Szeletian in Czechoslovakia, Antiquity 65, 318-325.
Oliva, M. 2000: Le Paléolithique moyen en Moravie: les industries lithiques et leurs matières premières. In: Ronen, A. (ed.): WeinsteinEvron: Toward Modern Humans: Yabrudian and Micoquian, 400-50 kyears ago. BAR S850, 61-75.
Oliva, M. 2005: Civilizace moravského paleolitu a mezolitu. Moravské zemské muzeum. Brno.
Patou-Mathis, M. – Auguste, P. – Bocherens, H. – Condemi, S. – Michel, V. – Moncel, M.-H. – Neruda, P. – Valoch, K. 2005: Les occupations du Paléolithique moyen de la grotte de Külna (Moravie, République Tchèque): 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. BAR International Series 1352. Ed. John end Erica Hedges Ltd. Oxford, 69-94.
Ringer, Á. 1995: Les industries à pièces foliacées en Europe centrale: proposition de synthèse. In: Les industries à pointes foliacées d´Europe Centrale. Actes de Colloque de Miskolc 1991. PALEO – Suppl. 1, 15-18.
Svoboda, J. 2004: Neandertálci versus anatomicky moderní lidé. K aktuálnímu stavu výzkumu ve středním Podunají, Přehled výzkumů 45,
13-21.
Svoboda, J. – Ložek, V. – Svobodová, H. – Škrdla, P. 1994: Předmostí after 110 years, Journal of Field Archaeology 21, 457-472.
Svoboda, J. – Škrdla, P. – Ložek, V. – Svobodová, H. – Frechen, M. 1996: Předmostí II, excavations 1989-1992. In: Svoboda, J. (ed.): Palaeolithic in the Middle Danube Region. Spisy Archeologického ústavu AVČR 5. Archeologický ústav AV ČR. Brno, 147-171.
128
Trnka, G. 1990: Ein neuer paläolithischer Blattspitzenfund aus Schletz in Niederösterreich, Archäologie Österreichs 1/1-2, 20-24.
Valoch, K. 1965: Jeskyně Šipka a Čertova díra u Štramberku, Anthropos 17, (N.S. 9), Brno.
Valoch, K. 1970: Early Middle Palaeolithic (Stratum 14) in the Kůlna Cave near Sloup in the Moravian Karst (Czechoslovakia), World Archaeology 2, N°1, June, 28-38.
Valoch, K. 1980a: Knochenartefakte aus dem Micoquien (Schicht 7c) in der Kůlna-Höhle im Mährischen Karst, AMM, Sci. soc. LXV, 718.
Valoch, K. 1988a: Le Taubachien et le Micoquien de la grotte Kůlna en Moravie (Tchécoslovaquie). In: L´Homme de Néanderthal 4. La
Technique. ERAUL 31. Liège, 205-207.
Valoch, K. 1988b: Die Erforschung der Kůlna-Höhle 1961-1976. Anthropos 24. N.S. 16. Brno.
Valoch, K. 1990: Mittelpaläolithische Fundstellen in der Umgebung von Dolní Kounice in Südmähren, AMM, Sci. soc. 75, 4-16.
Valoch, K. 1995: La variabilité typologique de Paléolithique moyen de la grotte de Kůlna en Moravie. In: Les industries à pointes foliacées
d´Europe Centrale. Actes de Colloque de Miskolc 1991. PALEO – Suppl. 1, 73-77.
Valoch, K. 1996a: Le Paléolithique en Tchéquie et en Slovaquie. Collection l´Homme des origines. Série „Préhistoire d´Europe“ n° 3. Grenoble.
Valoch, K. 1996b: Anfänge ästhetischer Empfindungen im Paläolithikum Mährens und Böhmens. In: Svoboda, J. (ed.): Palaeolithic in the
Middle Danube Region. Spisy Archeologického ústavu AVČR v Brně 5. Brno, 273-278.
Valoch, K. 2004: Křišťály jako surovina štípané industrie, AMM, sci. soc., 89, 129-166.
Zelinková, M. 1998: Osteologický materiál z vnitřních prostor jeskyně Kůlny, AMM, Sci. geol. LXXXIII, 147-157.
129