New Excavations (2002) at Bohunice: Tostevin & Škrdla (2006)

[Daryl Habel]

For those interested in the Initial Upper Paleolithic  Bohunician industry,

The site of Brno-Bohunice (Moravia, Czech Republic) is the type-site for the Bohunician industry.  While other Bohunician assemblages are available from in situ sites (e.g. Stranska-skala), the original assemblage from Brno-Bohunice was collected during building activities between 1962 and 1981 by Klima, who extracted the artifacts from bulldozer trenches according to stratigraphic location, but was unable to use any systematic collection protocols for size of artifacts and no sieving was done.  The rescue situation at the time also precluded much direct excavation once Karel Valoch, who published the first description (Valoch 1976), was called in to view the artifacts.  As a result, the context of the original Brno-Bohunice collection makes comparisons using this assemblage problematic (Tostevin & Skrdla 2006:34).

In order to test several competing hypotheses, a re-excavation of the Brno-Bohunice site was conducted by Petr Škrdla and Gilbert Tostevin in 2002.  The results are now published in:

Tostevin, G.B. &  Škrdla, P. (2006). New excavations at Bohunice and the question of the uniqueness of the type-site for the Bohunician industrial type.  Anthropologie XLIV/1, pp. 31-48.

ABSTRACT: Recent research has documented discontinuities in the technological behaviour of hominids during the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in the Middle Danube region. Attribute analysis studies (Tostevin 2000 a, b, c, 2003 a, b) have shown little to no antecedents for the flintknapping behaviours of the Bohunician in those of the Central European Micoquian. Further, these attribute analyses have shown close connections in the behaviours which produced the Bohunician in Moravia with the behaviours which produced the lower two levels of Boker Tachtit in the Levant. These analyses have been corroborated by detailed refitting studies (Škrdla 1996, 2003). While these discontinuities point to the Middle Danube's role within a larger, inter-regional diffusion event, the question of how many of the flintknapping behaviours characteristic of the Micoquian survived into the Early Upper Paleolithic in the form of the Szeletian, remains to be answered. To date, this question has been problematic given our lack of understanding of the relationship between the phenomena known as the Bohunician and Szeletian Industrial Types. All of these questions
rest upon an understanding of the apparent uniqueness of the type-site for the Bohunician, Brno-Bohunice. Until the 2002 re-excavation of Brno-Bohunice by the Institute of Archaeology, Brno (Škrdla), and the University of Minnesota (Tostevin), it has been difficult to address quantitatively the variability within the Bohunician Industrial Type due to the lack of proveniencing and collection protocols of the original type collection. With the new collection, however, we endeavour in this paper to evaluate the similarity/dissimilarity among the Bohunician assemblages of Stránská skála IIIa level 4, Stránská skála III, Stránská skála IIIc, and the Brno-Bohunice 2002 collection. The resulting comparisons demonstrate the close clustering of the Stránská skála assemblages in terms of technological similarities, with a Szeletian assemblage, Vedrovice V, falling significantly away from the Bohunician assemblages. The 2002 Bohunice collection is more distinct from any other Bohunician assemblage than they are to themselves, but not as distinct as the Vedrovice V collection. The ramifications of these data are explored through a discussion of the meaning of paleosol palimpsests, refits, and activity patterning on the Pleistocene landscape of Moravia.

KEY WORDS: Early Upper Paleolithic – Central Europe – Bohunician – Szeletian – Lithic technology

This paper (and several other related papers) is available free from Gilbert Tostevin's University of Minnesota webpage Selected publications HERE, or can be downloaded directly (Adobe Reader required):
CLICK HERE.

Inasmuch as I've only discovered the availabilty of this paper today, I'll reserve comment until after a thorough perusal,  except for referencing an earlier discussion on the Palanth Forum HERE.

Dar

[lagarvelho]

Dar:

Some of Tostevin's other papers look awfully interesting, too.
Anne G

[Daryl Habel]

Dar:

Some of Tostevin's other papers look awfully interesting, too.
Anne G

Hi Anne,

Quite so.  The University of Minnesota webpage for Tostevin's "selected publications" is a gold-mine of information.  You might remember a discussion on the old now-defunct Palanth-L  group in which Tostevin introduced himself, with the assertion that Aurignacian is not the earliest Upper Paleolithic in Europe  but rather the Bohunician is.   Eventually, the discussion involved Greg Laden, C. Loring Brace, our own Jacques, you and me and a few others.  In the earlier discussion on this Forum, which I hyperlinked above, Siog provided information that Tostevin's "selected publications" webpage included  the 2003a paper, "A Quest for Antecedants: a comparison of the terminal Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic of the Levant", at which time I caught up with this paper, but those from 2004-2006 are new ( to me),  so I'm catching up again. 

I see there's another paper new to me that looks particularly interesting:

G. Tostevin. 2006. "Social Intimacy, Artefact Visibility, and Acculturation Models of Neanderthal-Modern Human Interaction. " In, C. Stringer & P. Mellars (eds.) Rethinking the Human Revolution: New Behavioral and Biological Perspectives on the Origins and Dispersal of Modern Humans.  MacDonald Institute Research Monograph series, University of Cambridge . Expected July, 2006).

Whew!   There's a subject.  I've gathered this one in, also, have it all printed out and in order with my previous notes on this Bohunician origins issue, but still haven't found the time to read them.  Tostevin can get pretty technical, and (having no formal schooling on the subject) I'm not familiar at all with his chosen method of attribute analysis.   That's not being critical, I like the method, what I can understand of it.   

But I'll probably comment more on the new 2002 Bohunice excavation after I've read through the new (to me) papers.

Cheers,
Dar

[Robert Henvell]

His contension that the Bohunice lithic tradition has its origins in the Levant circa 47Ka appears to be solely based on the similarity of knapping techniques,which might be a tad limited inscope??

[Daryl Habel]

His contension that the Bohunice lithic tradition has its origins in the Levant circa 47Ka appears to be solely based on the similarity of knapping techniques,which might be a tad limited inscope??

Hi Bob,
Meaning the contention that Bohunician tradition has  origins in the Levant, is limited  in scope , being based only on the similarity in knapping techniques (?), if I may rephrase it in good Yankee English.  To which I might add a comment (...or four). 

First, I'll just note that terms like "tradition" are artifacts of modern classification schemes, so not everyone agrees on what a tradition is.  The Bohunician, strictly defined is a taxon name for a lithic industry, with Brno-Bohunice being the type site.  The dating of Brno-Bohunice (and Stranska Skala III) given in Svoboda et al. 1996 "Hunters Between East and West: The Paleolithic of Moravia" (NY: Plenum Press) was 38-42 kyr 14C, and in the Tostevin & Skrdla (2006) paper I read of new AMS dating of Stranska Skala III and Brno-Bohunice that supports the notion that in Moravia, after the Micoquian (with Neanderthal fossil association present at Kulna Cave c. 50 ka), "...The next industry found chronologically in the Middle Danube is the Bohunician, an industry with Levallois-like core technology with a significant blade component and Upper Paleolithic tool types (Oliva 1984).  Although Valoch (1976) originally labled the industry from the type-site of Brno-Bohunice the Szeletian de facies levallois, the Bohunician is currently acknowledged as a distinct entity from the Szeletian (Svoboda 1983, 1984, 1987a), the latter appearing only after 39 kya (Valoch 1984, 1993), but possibly lasting until at least 26 kya (Adams, Ringer 2004).  The Bohunician is present in the region between 41 and at least 33 kya (Svoboda, Bar-Yosef 2003), being found both in the Lower Pleniglacial soil and the superimposed Lower Soil of the Last Interpleniglacial soil complex of Moravia (Damblon et al. 1996).  This results in contemporaniety with the Szeletian for at least 6 ky...." (Tostevin & Skrdla 2006:32).

Both Bohunician and Szeletian are present in the Middle Danube before the earliest presence of the Aurignacian, which for undisputed excavated sites dates between about 32-29 kya  Even if a wider geographical scope would include the Upper Danube and the German Swabian Jura sites like Geissenklosterle, the Aurignacian I is later than the earliest Bohunician.

Tostevin & Skrdla (2006:32) also references earlier studies by numerous scholars, which concluded that the lithic industries of Brno-Bohunice and the "transitional" industry of Boker Tatchit Level I share a typological  and technological similarity.

The contention that the Bohunician, as a lithic Industric, has origins in the Levant is based on the relative chronology.  I'm in general agreement with all of the above, insofar as the typo-technological similarity of Brno-Bohunice and Boker Tatchit, as opposed to the  Micoquian and Szeletian, which mostly are non-Levallois industries.

Finally, Tostevin & Skrdla conclude the paper (2006:32) with: "...The "Bohunician Behavioral Package" had no precedant in any of these three regions and represents an intrusive diffusion of ideas and/or people..."

Carefully skirting the issue of whether diffusion is associated specifically with a migration of peoples.  But it seems clear that Tostevin and his colleagues are leaning towards the idea that the first "modern humans" in Western Europe were equipped with a Bohunician industry, carried by them out of the Levant, where it was invented by the first "Upper Paleolithic modern humans" in the Levant , and later carried by these "modern" people into the third region (Eastern Europe at Korolevo). 

My problem with the "limited scope" of this, is my perception that the typo-technological similarity between the Initial Upper Paleolithic of the Levant at Boker Tatchit and the Bohunician of the Middle Danube seems to have a wider geographical distribution than this proposed "diffusion" from Levant-to-Danube-to-trans-Carpathian Eastern Europe,  specifically referring to Central Asian industries at Obi Rakhmat grotto, Kara-Bom, and others present between ca. 50-40 kya.  In other words, I don't have any problem with lumping  the Bohunician (of Brno-Bohunice) and the Emiran (of Boker Tatchit) together as a single lithic industrial "behavioral package" (leaving aside the problem of calling it a "tradition"), but it's more difficult to restrict  the "scope" of this to identification of a specific origin location (based on excavation bias and chronological sample size) for the Initial Upper Paleolithic  with a corresponding implication that  the people carrying this "behavioral package" are the "first modern humans" (without fossil evidence in any region).

I just think sample size is too small and fossil associations so rare, that conclusions about  the  dispersal of  Eurasian IUP industries in terms of a definite association with anatomically modern humans are premature.   

Dar 


 

[lagarvelho]

Dar and Robert:

All I can say to this is, I'm looking forward to seeing that book!  I still haven't gotten around to reading one of the Tostevin papers I downloaded(I've been pretty much "out" the last few days for a variety of reasons), but I think I'll make it my priority tonight or tomorrow some time.  I want to learn some of Tostevin's reasons for thinking that the Bohunician(sp?) is earlier than Aurignacian, its origins, etc.
Anne G

[Robert Henvell]

The AMS age determinations for the Bohunician sites Stranka Skala level IIIc and the lower palaeosol layer at Brno Bohinice are 41060 BCE +/-1100a and 38410 BCE +/- 730a
[cal,05,calpal].The average age for the older type radio carbon estimates at the Szetetian site,Vedrovice V, is about 41060 BCE  +/-1800a [cal '05].There are two broadly coeval,different lithic industries in the Middle Danube region,which exhibit variable indigenous and external [?] components.This suggests [?] two different cultures.
Any clarification of this anomaly would be appreciated,[population densites were probably low during that era].

[Daryl Habel]

The AMS age determinations for the Bohunician sites Stranka Skala level IIIc and the lower palaeosol layer at Brno Bohinice are 41060 BCE +/-1100a and 38410 BCE +/- 730a
[cal,05,calpal].The average age for the older type radio carbon estimates at the Szetetian site,Vedrovice V, is about 41060 BCE  +/-1800a [cal '05].There are two broadly coeval,different lithic industries in the Middle Danube region,which exhibit variable indigenous and external [?] components.This suggests [?] two different cultures.
Any clarification of this anomaly would be appreciated,[population densites were probably low during that era].

For starters, it seems unwise to compare new AMS results (the AA dates from the lab in Arizona, and ANU dates from Australian National University) with old conventional 14C results (from Groningen lab, with the GrN dates ) for comparative dating purposes.  AMS dates do not  necessarily equate to conventional 14C dates.   The samples originate from different collections,  and are pretreated with different techniques, which can differ in individual laboratories.  I  think most of the Vedrovice V and Stranska skala samples are wood charcoal, but caution must be observed when sample composition differs (wood versus bone charcoal, for instance).  But different labs, using different sample compositions, using differing sample sizes and techniques, can and will produce differing results.  Not to mention +/-  error bars stretching into the hundreds, even thousands, of years.  As Jacques likes to say, "not all dates are created equal".

Aside from these considerations, the interpretation for most of these sites you mention is that they are palimsests, and that they are located near lithic raw material outcrops, and were utilized repeatedly over a long period of time, hundreds perhaps thousands of years.  The stratigraphic co-occurrence of both Bohunician and Szeletian in the same Lower Soil of the Last Interpleniglacial Complex seems to me a more reliable indicator for showing the two industries are broadly coeval.  As for the radiocarbon dates, they do overlap for something like 6 kyr.  Taken together, yes, the two industries time-share the Middle Danube for thousands of years.   However, it's important to recognize the difference between "industry" and "culture", then recognize the risk in going forward to propose "two cultures" shared the Middle Danube.  Possibly so, but then you get into issues that recall the old Binford-Bordes arguments about whether the industries represent different cultural groups (as Bordes argued) or different functional uses (as Binford argued). 

Clearly, Tostevin favors two cultural groups, and while he skirts the issue of population identity in these recent papers, from old Palanth-L quotes I've retained I'm fairly sure he advocates a hypothesis of modern human dispersal from the Levant as being responsible for the Bohunician.   This shouldn't come as any great surprise, since he's a former student of Ofer Bar-Yosef.

The hypothesis of  two cultural groups is reasonable (as a hypothetical possibility), but I'm not so willing to bet the farm on the anatomical/biological identity of the associated population groups (given fossil human associations are nil).

Dar   

 

[Robert Henvell]

Thanks,Dar.The two lithic industries could reflect the presence of two groups of Neanderthals,who originated from different regions or an early Homo sapiens presence among the resident Neanderthals.Since no hominid remains have been found to date,the identity of the tool makers is unknown.There is not enough definative data to provide a solution.

[lagarvelho]

Robert and Dar:

As you are probably both aware, the problem with the "earliest Aurignacian-type industries" is precisely that.  *No* hominid remains of any sort have been found with these tool types.
Anne G