Places of art, traces of fire. A contextual approach to anthropomorphic figurines in the Pavlovian Verpoorte, A.

(1)

Places of art, traces of fire. A contextual approach to anthropomorphic

figurines in the Pavlovian

Verpoorte, A.

Citation

Verpoorte, A. (2000, December 7). Places of art, traces of fire. A contextual approach to

anthropomorphic figurines in the Pavlovian. Archaeological Studies Leiden University. Retrieved

from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/13512

Version:

Corrected Publisher’s Version

License:

Licence agreement concerning inclusion of doctoral thesis in the Institutional

_{Repository of the University of Leiden}

Downloaded from:

https://hdl.handle.net/1887/13512

(2)

3.1 Introduction

The Venus of Dolní Vestonice is described as a female figu-rine, or more generally, as an anthropomorphic figurine. The basic aim of this chapter is to present and describe the anthropomorphic figurines of the Central European Pavlovian. The chapter provides a catalogue of objects that I classify as such. This catalogue forms the basis for further analyses. In addition to short formal descriptions of the objects, I discuss the contextual information of these finds. Interpretations of the archaeological finds and features are critically evaluated, particularly in the light of the impact of geological processes such as solifluction, landslides and other slope processes. The Aurignacian and Willendorf-Kostienkian figurines of Central Europe are added to provide a more or less complete overview of Early and Middle Upper Palaeolithic anthropo-morphic figurines. I shall first of all define what I consider to be an anthropomorphic figurine.

3.2 Definition: what is an anthropomorphic figurine? 3.2.1 CRITERIA

There is a large group of objects known in the literature as anthropomorphic figurines. Even a cursory look at publica-tions of anthropomorphic figurines (e.g. Delporte 1993a, Klíma 1989) suggests that this group is very diverse. It seems that almost anything can be identified as an anthropomorphic representation, especially elongated pieces with some incision or narrower part. In many cases, these identifications are highly questionable. Therefore, it is necessary to define what I consider as anthropomorphic. In other words, which criteria identify an object as an anthropomorphic object?

Ucko and Rosenfeld (1972) have been quite clear on this subject. They note that:

Our definition of “anthropomorph” of course relies on what we in our 20th century western culture see as anthropomor-phic; but in so far as we are basing our definition on criteria which are biologically diagnostic of species, there can be little argument about their validity. We are therefore adopt-ing a minimal definition of an anthropomorph; Palaeolithic artists presumably had many other ways of depicting and recognising an anthropomorphic representation.(Ucko and Rosenfeld 1972, 11-12)

In this study I follow this approach. An object is identified as anthropomorphic when it is similar to the form that is biologically diagnostic for human beings. These biological criteria concern the external human anatomy as we all know it approximately. An upright position and certain body proportions (relatively long legs and arms) are important. The hands and feet are quite distinctive. The head, neck and shoulders form a specific shape. The face is relatively flat with the eyes on the front. Identification is also helped by the presence of primary sexual characteristics (breasts, vulva and penis) and secondary characteristics (e.g. pubic hair, facial hair). In short, humans prove to be the measure for the identification of anthropomorphic figurines.

3.2.2 REMARKS

The reference to the human anatomy is by no means the only, if even the most common meaning of ‘anthropomorphic’. It is probably more widespread to consider ‘anthropomor-phic’ not as much in the morphological sense, but with respect to specific human qualities for example emotions. I shall give a few examples to illuminate my point. R. Ellen (1990) describes how Nuaulu sacred shields are treated as ‘thoroughgoing anthropomorph’, though ‘sculp-turally it is not in any way humanoid’. The terms to describe features of the shields are derived from the human body: it has a head and a foot, a proper orientation, a ‘back’ and a spine. It has ‘breath' and individuality. The shields receive ritual treatments that are homologous to human life-cycle ceremonies. In Ellens words, ‘it is a tangible anthropomor-phic representation (a created substitute) of clanhood, but at the same time an embodiment of the ancestors them-selves’ (1990, 22-23). Looking at the shield just as a form or shape, however, no or hardly any feature recalls the human body shape. According to the criteria derived from human biology, the Nuaulu shield does not qualify as an ‘anthropomorph’.

Another familiar instance of anthropomorphism is the ascrip-tion of human qualities to an animal species for example speech, emotions or social organization. In a study of Rock Cree human-animal relations, Brightman (1993) demon-strates the complexity of this anthropomorphism. On the one hand, Cree narratives tell of the humanlike attributes of the

(3)

ancestors of modern animals, implying the loss of these traits in a remote past. On the other hand, the non-human character of modern animals is frequently accompanied by images of the human-within-the-animal. In a formal definition, animal shapes of course are not described as anthropomorphic. From these examples it is clear that I shall use ‘anthropo-morph’ in a specific and restricted sense. A crucial distinc-tion must be made between anthropomorphic in the sense of the formal similarity to the human body shape and in the sense of the ascription of human qualities. The second mean-ing exemplified above would enable the archaeologist to either describe any object as anthropomorphic or none at all, and is not helpful in the archaeological setting.

Sometimes it seems that the application of the label ‘anthro-pomorphic figurine’ challenges our ability to find the simi-larity between the object and a human being. That is not what is aimed at usually. Therefore a second distinction is crucial: the separation of the issue of representation from the question of classification. The classification of objects is based on the human body shape as a measure. Objects

clas-sifiedas anthropomorphic objects are not automatically interpreted as representations of human beings. What and how something is represented and what this ‘being repre-sented’ means itself, is a subject discussed in a later chapter. Here I try to select a group of objects in terms of a large degree of formal similarity to the human body shape. This also entails that there is always going to be a group of objects that some will identify as anthropomorphic and others will not. It may also be necessary to define different classes of anthropomorphs in terms of the degree of formal similarity.

3.3 Description

The next part contains descriptions of the anthropomorphic figurines from the Pavlovian in Central Europe as well as the Aurignacian and Willendorf-Kostienkian. For the Pavlovian, anthropomorphic figurines have been described from three Moravian sites: Dolní Vestonice I and Pavlov I, both in the Pavlov Hills, and Predmostí. An Aurignacian figurine is known from Stratzing/Krems-Rehberg (Lower Austria). Willendorf-Kostienkian figurines are described for Willendorf II (Lower Austria), Brno II (Moravia), Petrkovice — Landek (Silesia, Czech Republic) and Moravany — Podkovica (Slova-kia).

Information is provided on different aspects: site, name, year of discovery, material, size, fragmentation, formal descrip-tion, sex attribution and find context. For every locadescrip-tion, doubtful identifications are discussed. Some of these are rejected, some are classified in other categories. Only accepted anthropomorphic figurines of the Pavlovian are numbered for reference in the text. All figures are scaled 1:1, unless stated otherwise in the figure caption.

3.4 The Pavlovian 3.4.1 DOLNÍVESTONICEI 3.4.1.1 Research history

Dolní Vestonice I refers to a large field, a present-day vine-yard, where several thousand square metres have been exca-vated in the course of the twentieth century. The research history covers more than thirty field seasons of varying intensity from 1924 until 1993 and can be divided into four stages (cf. Klíma 1963a) (figure 3.1).

1. The majority of the area was excavated between 1924 and 1938, under the direction of Absolon. His excavations defined the outline of the area and form the background for all later research. Unfortunately, only some of his excavations have been published (Absolon 1938a, 1938b, 1945 and several short notes in newspapers and journals). 2. In the Second World War, in 1939, 1940 and 1942,

Bohmers excavated a part of the location and initiated attention to the geology and stratigraphy of the area (Bohmers 1941, Lais 1954). The Second World War ended in a tragedy with the burning of the Mikulov Castle, where several palaeolithic collections were stored (in particular human remains and stone tools).

3. The post-War research started with small-scale excava-tions, trenches and corings by Zebera, Böhm and others (Knor et al. 1953). The first major post-War excavations from 1947 until 1952 were directed by Klíma (Klíma 1963a), who worked adjacent to Absolon’s excavations of the 1920s. Klíma also excavated a large number of trenches (a.o. Klíma 1969 and many reports in the jour-nal Prehled vyzkumu). His work also led to the reinter-pretation of some of Absolon’s unpublished data (Klíma 1981).

4. The latest work at Dolní Vestonice I, by Svoboda in 1990 and 1993, consisted of a series of trenches across the entire site (Svoboda 1993). The main objective was the collection of samples for C14 dating.

All in all, this long history of research makes it difficult to get a complete overview of the locality. Differences in publi-cation standards, shifts in research methods, changes in the topography of the area, all contribute to this. It is even more difficult to reinterpret the old excavations in the light of new insights in palaeolithic archaeology and other disciplines such as geology. Nevertheless, such reinterpretations will be tentatively offered here.

3.4.1.2 Spatial subdivisions

(4)

(5)

largely unpublished. The major excavations have taken place in the middle and upper part. In the middle part, a lower zone has been distinguished on stratigraphic grounds. In the upper part Klíma (1963a) distinguished a first and a second ‘settlement object’, defined as a bounded space with struc-tures indicating the existence of a dwelling (Klíma 1995, 59). The second ‘settlement object’ is located eighty metres further upslope from the first ‘settlement object’. Later, Klíma (1983a) combined this second ‘settlement object’ with the neighbouring 1977-79 excavations to form a new unit, known as the uppermost part. Accordingly, I include in the uppermost part of Dolní Vestonice I: the second ‘settlement object’, the 1977-79 excavations as well as 1971-72 rescue excavations (Klíma 1972, 1973a) in this area.

3.4.1.3 Chronology

The chronology of Dolní Vestonice I is based on the strati-graphic relations between specific areas and C14 dating. The stratigraphic evidence suggests that the parts become younger as one moves upslope (Klíma 1963a). A chronologi-cal sequence from old to young would be: the lower part, lower zone of the middle part, the middle part, the upper part and the uppermost part. The results of C14 dating how-ever show that the situation is more complicated.

The oldest dates for Dolní Vestonice I derive from the lower part of the site. The dates however are not clearly associated with archaeological finds and can also be considered as dating the soil sediments correlated with the Dolní Vesto-nice-soil (PK I) (Svoboda 1993). The four dates are all on charcoal samples and range between 20 and 32 kyr BP: 20,270 ± 210 yrs BP (GrN-11004); 31,700 ± 1,000 yrs BP (GrN-11189); 29,300 +750/-690 yrs BP (GrN-18187); 27,250 + 590/-550 yrs BP (GrN-18188). The youngest date of 20 kyr BP can be dismissed, it is probably the result of contamination in a bulk sample. The dates for the soil sedi-ments range between 27 and 32 kyr BP. They date neither the beginning nor the end of the soil formation interval. Hence, the age of the archaeological finds from the lower part of Dolní Vestonice I must be considered as unknown. The geology of the middle part shows a very complicated sequence of landslides (Klíma 1981). Klíma distinguished six landslide phases and three occupational phases. Accord-ing to the reconstruction by Klíma (1981), the lower zone of the middle part (Absolon’s 1927-31 and 1936-38 excavations) belongs to the older two occupational phases. The middle part (Absolon’s 1933-35 excavations) belongs to the youngest occupational phase. An early Holocene slope fail-ure had a major impact on the middle part. A dislocation line could be followed over a distance of one hundred and eighty metres. According to Klíma (1981), part of the youngest occupational phase (Absolon’s 1933-35 excavations) was moved some thirty metres downslope along this dislocation

line. At this moment no C14 dates are available to check this relative chronology. Two dates for the 1975-77 excavations at Dolní Vestonice I — middle part are considered as too young: 22,250 ± 570 yrs BP (Ly-1303) and 19,640 ± 540 yrs BP (Ly-1999). Recently, a human femoral diaphysis was dated by AMS-technique to 22,840 ± 200 yrs BP (OxA-8292) (Trinkaus et al. 1999). Its provenance is not secured, but it might derive from (the lower zone of) the middle part (Absolon’s 1930 excavation). The age is considered too young as a result of twentieth century preservation contami-nation.

It is not clear from what exact location a series of five Groningen C14 dates was derived (GrN-6857 to GrN-6861, sample 1, 3, 4, 6 and 8, collected by Klíma). As their labora-tory measurement dates are October 1973 (Groningen data-base information), the samples are therefore at the latest from the summer 1973 excavations of the middle part. However, it seems unlikely that these dates derive from the middle part as they are not mentioned in the re-study of this part by Klíma (1981). The 1971-1972 rescue excavations in the uppermost part are a possible candidate, but almost any other part of the site is just as likely. Two dates derive from the underlying brownish soil sediments: 29,180 ± 460 yrs BP (GrN-6860) and 32,850 ± 660 yrs BP (GrN-6858). These dates are in accordance with the other dating evidence from these soil sediments. The ‘cultural layer’ is dated to 25,790 ± 320 yrs BP (GrN-6857) and an underlying find horizon is dated to 27,790 ± 370 yrs BP (GrN-6859). It suggests two occupational episodes separated by maybe two millenia. Finally, the loess just below the Holocene topsoil was dated to 10,100 ± 500 yrs BP (GrN-6861), but this date is very probably too young for the age of loess sedimentation, due to Holocene ‘contamination’.

One date is available for the upper part (25,820 ± 170 yrs BP [GrN-1286]), but it is unknown exactly where the sample comes from. According to Klíma (1963a, 246), it is a sample from the first excavations by Absolon (1924-26)1_{. Another}

date is from trench 10/90: 25,950 +630/-580 BP (GrN-18189). It probably indicates the approximate age of the uppermost part of the site. The feature in the 1977-79 exca-vations is dated to 26,430 ± 190 yrs BP (GrN-10524). In terms of C14 chronology, the middle, upper and upper-most parts of Dolní Vestonice I must be considered as falling into more or less the same time interval at about 26 kyr BP. In fact, in view of the many features and the complicated stratigraphies of the different parts, much of Dolní Vestonice I must be considered as only approximately dated.

3.4.1.4 Catalogue

(6)

their description follows the subdivision mentioned above. A number of other objects from these parts have been pub-lished as anthropomorphic, but, as I consider their identifica-tion to be at least quesidentifica-tionable, they are not numbered, and discussed in a separate paragraph.

Middle part – lower zone.

Two ivory objects have been identified as anthropomorphic figurines.

Number: 1

Figure: 3.2

Site: Dolní Vestonice I

Part: Middle part – lower zone

Name: Venus V Year of discovery: 1931 Material: ivory Size (height in cm): 4 Fragmentation: complete? Reference: Absolon 1949

Collection: Moravské zemské muzeum, Brno

Fig. 3.2 Middle part – lower zone: anthropomorph.

Description:

This ivory figurine has a broad, but thin body. It has no head, but it is not clear whether the head was ever present or is broken off. A horizontal incision in the middle divides the figurine into an upper and lower part. The upper part, torso with shoulders, has a belly with a navel. Breasts are not indicated. Arms are not modelled either. On the back, a vertical incision runs in the middle. The left half of the back is covered by a series of nine horizontal, shallow incisions. The lower part consists of two tapering legs, slightly apart. The legs are shaped by three carves on the front. It is pro-bably made out of a lamella of mammoth ivory. Its execution can be described as a Reliëfplastik (cf. Klíma 1963b). Based on the outline of the middle body part (broad hips), the figurine can be described as female, though breasts are not indicated. Except for being found in 1931 in m2_66,

contex-tual information is not available.

Number: 2

Figure: 3.3

Name: Venus XV – Mona Lisa – Leonardo da Vinci

Year of discovery: 1936

Material: ivory

Size (height in cm): 5.5

Fragmentation: complete?

Reference: Absolon 1945, 1949

Fig. 3.3 Middle part – lower zone: anthropomorph.

Description:

This small ivory head has no neck and it has probably not been broken off a larger figure. While the backside is largely flat and rough, the face of this head is well-rounded. On top of the head is a flattened part. Eyes, nose and mouth, cheeks and chin are executed. A clear incision above the eyes demarcates the hairline. There is some disagreement about the sex of this ivory head. Absolon (1949) described it as a male head (though numbering it as Venus XV), while most others call it female. In my opinion, there are no criteria on which either identification can be based. The date of discov-ery is known (22nd August, 1936), but contextual informa-tion is not yet available.

Rejected and questionable objects.

Two other objects are referred to in publications as anthropo-morphic figurines. I shall briefly summarize them here.

Figure: 3.4

Name: Venus VII (eight parts)

(7)

Material: ivory

Description:

These eight pieces can be arranged into two symmetrical rows of four. From large to small two pieces are perforated, one is not and finally the smallest is also perforated. The pieces consist of two spherical shapes and a protuberance pointing in the opposite direction. The perforations are situated at the back of the conjunction in the centre. On one of the objects, the spherical shapes are marked with a number of incisions. They are interpreted as parts of a necklace. The exact find circumstances are not known, but on the same day (13th September, 1937), in other words possibly close by, a series of seven, decorated ivory ‘tube’ segments were found.

Figure: 3.5

Name: Venus XIV

Material: ivory

Description:

It consists of two spherical shapes on a stick. The stick is marked with a series of incisions. The two decorated spherical shapes look similar to the necklace parts mentioned above. No perforation is present. The find context is unknown. Fig. 3.4 Rejected object.

Fig. 3.5 Rejected object.

Comments

Traditionally these two, stylistically related objects are inter-preted as stylized or abstract representations of female breasts. Absolon (1945) even refers to them as ‘diluvial plastic pornography’. Kehoe (1991), on the other hand, interpreted the ‘Venus VII’ as representations of the male sexual organ. Sexual ambiguity is offered as a possible compromise (Svoboda, Lozek, Vlcek 1996, 159).

The first question however is whether these objects meet the criteria in order to be identified as anthropomorphic. In my opinion, their shape is not distinctly human. At least, in view of the whole collection, the objects stand out as unique and enigmatic. The objects can be said to form a rather distinc-tive class of their own. Remarkable is that all these objects, found in the lower zone, anthropomorphic or not, are made from mammoth ivory.

(8)

(the 1927 excavations). Another fragment was found on 9th September, 1936 in the southern part. There is no indica-tion for any direct associaindica-tion between the anthropomorphic figurines and any of these remains. Strikingly scarce in this lower zone are ‘ceramic’ fragments. Klíma (1963a) mentions several unidentifiable modelled fragments from his 1950-52 trenches. Klíma (1981, 55) also reports 59 pieces of burnt silt loam from another part of the lower zone (Bohmers’ 1942 excavation and Klíma’s 1975-A excavation), but these fragments bear no traces of intentional modelling.

Middle part.

A total of nine objects has been identified as anthropomorphic figurines. They are all ‘ceramic’ pieces.

Number: 3

Figure: 3.6

Part: Middle part

Name: Venus VI

Material: silt loam, ‘ceramics’

Size (height in cm): 2.5 + 3

Fragmentation: fragment (2 parts)

Reference: Klíma 1981

Fig. 3.6 Middle part: anthropomorph.

Description:

This ‘ceramic’ figurine consists of two parts: legs (2.5 cm) and torse (3 cm). The two parts were probably modelled separately and subsequently put together. The parts were separated by an incision around the hips, which probably

directed the breakage. The torso is well-preserved, but has neither head nor breasts. The head is probably broken off. Breasts are not modelled on the torso. The back is separated into two halves by a vertical incision at the spine. Two inci-sions separate the upper arms from the torso. Two other incisions on the left and right are placed just below the arms. The tapering legs are only separated by an incision. Primary sexual characteristics are not indicated. The absence of breasts is noteworthy in this respect. The figurine belongs to a cluster of ‘ceramics’, associated with a large patch of ashes, charcoal and burnt bone fragments.

Number: 4

Figure: 3.7

Part: Middle part

Name: Venus VII

Fragmentation: fragment

Description:

The body is damaged to a considerable extent. The upper part of the torso is damaged to such an extent that the pres-ence of breasts cannot be determined. The head is broken off. Only the beginning of the legs is present. The back of the torso displays two incisions on the left and right (cf. number 3 [Venus VI]). On one side, the remains of a hori-zontal incision are present. The damage to the figurine does not allow an attribution to sex. The figurine belongs to a cluster of ‘ceramics’, associated with a large patch of ashes, charcoal and burnt bone fragments.

Number: 5

Figure: 3.8

(9)

Name: Venus VIII

Description:

This body shows profound deformation by fire. The upper part of the legs is present. The head is broken off. A large part of the back is damaged. The frontal part is deformed beyond recognition: as if the shape gave way while still wet. The damage and deformation do not allow an attribution to sex. The figurine belongs to a cluster of ‘ceramics’, associ-ated with a large patch of ashes, charcoal and burnt bone fragments.

Number: 6

Figure: 3.9

Part: Middle part

Name: Venus IX

Size (height in cm): 3

Description:

The figurine has several special features. The two legs are present. They are modelled as two short cones. The head is broken off. The back is damaged: the left half and side are broken off. A vertical incision indicates the spine. One arm is indicated by an incision on the back. The arm is marked with small incisions on the side. Another incision runs around the middle. The front part of this figurine is decorated with several incisions. On the pronounced belly, an ellipse of vertical incisions surrounds the navel. A string of vertical incisions connects the shoulders. Breasts are not modelled. No primary sexual characteristics are indicated. The figurine belongs to a cluster of ‘ceramics’, associated with a large patch of ashes, charcoal and burnt bone frag-ments.

Number: 7

Figure: 3.10

Part: Middle part

Name: Venus X

Description:

(10)

plastic shape was thrown on the ground and subsequently consolidated. Primary sexual characteristics are not present, but it is not entirely clear whether this is due to the inten-tional design or due to deformation. The figurine belongs to a cluster of ‘ceramics’, associated with a large patch of ashes, charcoal and burnt bone fragments.

Number: 8

Figure: 3.11

Part: Middle part

Name: Venus

Description:

The figurine is heavily damaged: the head and legs are broken off. The back is flat as if the figurine was thrown on the ground and subsequently consolidated. There are several incisions on the sides: a horizontal one possibly on the middle, two vertical ones maybe indicating the right arm, and another vertical one maybe for the left arm. Sexual characteristics are absent, possibly due to deformation of the object. The figurine belongs to a cluster of ‘ceramics’, asso-ciated with a large patch of ashes, charcoal and burnt bone fragments.

Number: 9

Figure: 3.12

Part: Middle part

Name: —

Description:

The figurine is heavily damaged: the legs are broken; the upper part above the belly is broken off. The middle is rather slender. The figurine is clearly of the masculine sex as indicated by a disproportionately large penis. The figurine belongs to a cluster of ‘ceramics’, associated with a large patch of ashes, charcoal and burnt bone fragments.

Number: 10

Figure: 3.13

Part: Middle part

Name: —

Description:

(11)

Number: 11

Figure: 3.14

Part: Middle part

Name: Venus XVI

Description:

This fragment consists of a pair of breasts. It must have been part of a fairly large female figurine. The exact findspot of this figurine is not known, but it was found in the fifth row of m2_{excavated in 1930. It is therefore unlikely that this}

fragment belongs to the same cluster as the previously described objects.

Several other objects are mentioned as ‘anthropomorphic’ in the literature on the middle part: a fork-shaped object and a group of ‘ceramic’ fragments.

Figure: 3.15

Part: Middle part

Name: Venus XIII

Material: ivory

Reference: Absolon 1949, Klíma 1981

Description:

This perforated ivory object can be described as fork-shaped. It has two pointed legs.

Comment

Any object with two legs can be said to resemble a human body shape. In my opinion, this is not enough to be identi-fied as anthropomorphic in this case. Like the questionable objects in the lower zone of the middle part, this ‘fork-Fig. 3.14 Middle part: anthropomorph.

shape’ is entirely unique in the whole collection. As such it forms a distinctive class of its own, whether it is included in an anthropomorphic category or not.

Figure: 3.16

Part: Middle part

Name: ‘The smiling old man’

Material: silt loam, ‘ceramic’

Reference: Absolon 1949, Klíma 1981

Description:

The ‘ceramic’ fragment bears some traces of possible model-ling, but is heavily damaged.

Figure: 3.17

(12)

Name: —

Description:

The spheric shape has two small holes on top.

Figure: 3.18

Part: Middle part

Name: —

Description:

The modelled fragment was clearly part of some larger, though unidentifiable object.

Figure: 3.19

Part: Middle part

Name: —

Description:

The broken ‘ceramic’ objects is marked with a series of about seven parallel incisions.

Figure: 3.20

Part: Middle part

Name: —

Description:

This object is a modelled ‘ceramic’ fragment.

Comment

In my opinion, all these pieces are unidentifiable fragments. The possibility that they belong to an anthropomorphic figurine cannot be ruled out beforehand, but at the moment there is no positive evidence that they do. The most convinc-ing candidate would be the spherical shape with two holes: it recalls the ‘head’ of the Venus of Dolní Vestonice with its arrangement of four holes, to be presented below.

Contextual information on the middle part.

(13)

(14)

own. A number of concentrations with ‘ceramics’ can be distinguished in the area, numbered I to V (figure 3.21). All the anthropomorphic figurines (except the last men-tioned: number 11) were found in Absolon’s 1934 excava-tion, here concentration I, adjacent to a large concentration of charcoal, ash and burned bone (figure 3.22).

Klíma attributes this area to a younger occupational phase than that of the lower zone of the middle part. The area is located in the front zone of a landslide block. It is divided in two parts by pushed-up sediments with a lot of limestone blocks. The concentration of limestone blocks marks the downslope end of a landslide lobe, recalling a ‘block banked

terrace’ (French 1976, 141). It divides the ‘ceramics’ into a north-western and a south-eastern cluster. The latter cluster contains the anthropomorphic figurines. Some animal figu-rines accompanied these anthropomorphs: three lion heads and the body of a horse. The other cluster is exclusively composed of animal shapes of various species: four horses, three owls, two lions, a mammoth, a bear, a wolverine, a rhinoceros and a marten. For a number of identified frag-ments, the exact location is not known. They include three bears, a horse, a lion, an owl, a wolf and a fox. In addition, many unidentifiable ‘ceramic’ fragments are known from the area, amounting to a total of at least two hundred.

(15)

Klíma (1981, 1984) reconstructed a settlement area with a large hearth and a number of separate dwellings, amongst which the two concentrations of ‘ceramics’. The entire set-tlement area was divided in two parts by an early Holocene landslide, which moved the large hearth and the two concen-trations of ‘ceramics’ some thirty metres downslope. The reconstruction is based on a large number of sections in the middle part. Unfortunately, Absolon did not attend much attention to the complicated sequences of layers and his map with the ‘ceramic’ figurines compiles all information in one undivided unit (cf. Klíma 1981, 8 and 10).

The effects of the landslide processes, in particular in the front zone, may be underestimated in this reconstuction, the more because it is also accompanied by slopewash and solifluction (an example of a section is provided in figure 3.23). Klíma (1981) noted the very complicated sequence of overlapping ashy layers and dislocations, but judged the effects rather in terms of horizontal movement of more or less solid blocks. Though it is always difficult to reinterpret a geological situation based on section drawings only, I think the published sections point to considerable deformation, particularly in the frontal zone of the landslides. It is, in my opinion, unlikely that the archaeological patterning would not be heavily disturbed. Moreover, the relevant archaeologi-cal pattern, that is the two concentrations of ‘ceramics’, is based on research which did not take the complicated geo-logical situation into consideration. The existence of two clusters is here interpreted as the result of post-depositional processes and not as the reflection of an original pattern of two distinct concentrations. It is not a matter of course to interpret the differential content of these clusters in terms of for example relations between anthropomorphic and animal figurines.

‘Ceramics’ also came to light in other parts. The so-called ‘Venus XVI’ (number 11) is here attributed to concentration II. Other unidentifiable ‘ceramic’ fragments are documented in this area (Absolon’s 1930 excavation and Bohmers’ 1939 excavation). Concentration III is located in the part outside the Holocene dislocation. Several zoomorphic shapes are present, but it is difficult to assign them to a species. An engraved mammoth bone was found in this area as well. The lines have been interpreted as the schematic back-lines of four mammoths (see further note 13, figure 3.71). Concentration IV is located inside the zone of Holocene dislocation. Klíma (1981, 55) reports 28 modelled ‘ceramic’ fragments from this area. Concentration V is located on the dislocation line in a more upslope position. Twelve modelled fragments are docu-mented among which two leg-like pieces (Klíma 1981, 84). Human remains are almost completely absent in the middle part. Two human teeth were uncovered in trench 1974-D (DV VIII, Klíma 1990). A pierced human tooth, mentioned by Absolon (1945, 17), has been found in the large ash-and-charcoal patch, near the south-eastern cluster of anthropo-morphic figurines (see figure 3.22).

Upper part.

Two objects have been identified as anthropomorphic figurines.

Number: 12

Figure: 3.24

Part: Upper part

Name: Venus of Dolní Vestonice – Venus I

(16)

Fragmentation: almost complete (two parts)

Reference: Absolon 1938b, 1949

Description:

The ‘ceramic’ figurine was found in two parts, resulting from ancient breakage. Only the extremes of the legs are missing. An incision just below the broad hips divides the figurine in two halves. The upper part has a navel and breasts at the front side. Several incisions are placed on the back of the figurine: two demarcating the arms and two pairs of oblique incisions. A groove marks the spinal chord. The shoulders are quite pronounced. The head has no clear neck. The face consists of only two oblique incisions. The top of the head is marked by four holes in a rectangular order. The legs taper together and are only separated by an incision. The figurine is evidently of the female sex, based on the presence of breasts and the pronounced hips. The history of its discovery formed the introduction to this study. The object was found in a large concentration of charcoal and ashes, accompanied by several animal figurines (an owl, a reindeer head, a bear) and several unidentifiable fragments. Fig. 3.24 Upper part: anthropomorph.

Number: 13

Figure: 3.25

Part: Upper part

Name: —

Material: ivory

Fragmentation: complete

Reference: Klíma 1963a

Fig. 3.25 Upper part: anthropomorph.

Description:

This thin, slightly convex piece of ivory is the careful execu-tion of a face. Several incisions mark the eyes, nose and mouth. The chin is slightly rounded. The ivory face was found in square 4 of the 1948 excavation, at the edge of the ‘first settlement object’ (Klíma 1963a, 192). A child’s tooth was located in the same square (Klíma 1990, 7).

Contextual information on the upper part.

(17)

(18)

(19)

Klíma (1963a, 206-207) has provided a reconstruction of the upper part of Dolní Vestonice I. In his view, all the remains are more or less contemporaneous, both the settlement remains and the mammoth bone accumulations. His attempt at reconstruction shows an area with four dwelling structures, a large central hearth and mammoth bone accumulations, probably surrounded by a fence. A burial of a female is located within the limits of a ‘dwelling structure’ with five hearths, Klíma’s ‘first settlement object’. The burial was covered by two mammoth scapulae.

I lack the detailed information to criticize this reconstruc-tion. However, in the light of recent investigations, I see no ground for an a priori assumption of contemporaneity of the various features (cf. Svoboda 1991a). Moreover, the documentation by Absolon is insufficient to judge the strati-graphic relations within the upper part of Dolní Vestonice I. It is also impossible to evaluate the impact of post-deposi-tional processes on the basis of his publications. A consider-able impact of post-depositional processes on the patterning can be expected for several reasons: the entire area is part of a landslide lobe; fluvial activity has been demonstrated on the edge of the area; solifluction deformations have been observed. The effects of a variety of processes will not have been uniform across the upper part. It is, in my opinion, appropriate to simplify and limit Klíma’s reconstruction to noting the presence of several hearths and large patches of ash and charcoal and several accumulations of mammoth bones. The ‘cultural layer’ has a certain distribution and is

partly ‘washed’ into the channel filling. Whether the limits of the ‘cultural layer’ indicate the presence of a fence is a question that I leave open for the moment. For the same reasons, a new proposal for reconstruction in terms of dwelling structures and settlement layout will not be pursued any further.

Finds of ‘ceramics’ are known from several places. Several fragments were found in and near the large concentration of ashes, charcoal and fire-hardened loess in which the Venus of Dolní Vestonice was discovered. Among these fragments, a bear, a reindeer and an owl-like form were recognized. Klíma (1963a) reports thirty-nine modelled pieces of ‘cera-mics’ from his ‘first settlement object’. Among these, a wolf and a fox were identified. A bear head, the first ‘ceramic’ fragment found during excavations in Dolní Vestonice (Absolon 1938a), was found near a patch of charcoal and ashes. Absolon mentions several other fragments from the same spot. He also noted a moulded silt loam mass — it is not clear whether it is fire-hardened — from a place, where no ash or charcoal are mentioned.

Uppermost part.

Two ‘ceramic’ anthropomorphic figurines have been identi-fied and published.

Number: 14

Figure: 3.28

(20)

Part: Uppermost part

Name: —

Reference: Klíma 1983b

Collection: Institute of Archeology, Brno

Description:

Though the body is heavily damaged and deformed, several characteristics are still discernable. The figurine had two breasts and broad hips. The head is broken off. The begin-nings of two tapering legs are still present, but the rest is broken. The figurine can be attributed to the female sex. The figurine was recognized among a large concentration of ‘ceramic’ fragments associated with a feature, that Klíma (1984) described as a kiln-like structure.

Number: 15

Figure: 3.29

Name: —

Fig. 3.29 Uppermost part: anthropomorph.

Description:

On top of this head-like shape, four holes were made in a similar arrangement as the ones on the Venus I of Dolní Vestonice (number 12). Facial characteristics are, however, absent. It was found in the same cluster of ‘ceramics’ as the previous object. Rejected and questionable objects.

I included Klíma’s so-called ‘second settlement object’ in the uppermost part of the site. Among the finds, Klíma (1963a) mentions three objects as more or less anthropomorphic.

Figure: 3.30

Name: —

Material: ivory

Description:

The object concerned is a thin ivory piece with a protuber-ance. Traces of working are possibly present on several places.

Comment

This small ivory object was significantly termed a female symbol (Klíma 1963a). The use of this terminology already indicates that the human shape is not entirely self-evident. In my opinion, there are no positive indications that justify the identification as ‘anthropomorphic’. It looks to me like the by-product of ivory working.

Figure: 3.31

Name: —

Description:

The object has a spherical shape Fig. 3.30 Rejected object.

Figure: 3.32

(21)

Description:

The object is a small, modelled, ‘ceramic’ fragment.

Comment

Both objects were identified among a concentration of ‘ceramic’ fragments. Neither is clearly similar to a human body shape. They are more parsimoniously considered as just modelled ‘ceramic’ fragments.

Contextual information on the uppermost part.

The two anthropomorphic figurines were found in a layer of ashes, surrounding a remarkable hearth, located on a slope (Klíma 1984) (figure 3.33). A kettle-shaped feature, filled with layers of ashes and burnt bone, was surrounded and partly covered by a clayey sediment with limestone debris. In front of this feature, ashes filled several small depressions and two narrow gullies. The area contained a large amount of fragments of ‘ceramic’ figurines, but unfortunately none of them — except for the two anthropomorphic figurines — have been published.

This feature is interpreted as a partly-covered hearth with two channels for the flow of air. It is interpreted as a special ‘kiln-like’ structure where high temperatures could be reached for the production of ‘ceramics’ (Klíma 1984). Another feature of a similar nature is the oven-like hearth located in the ‘second settlement object’, supposedly con-temporary with the upper part of Dolní Vestonice I (Klíma 1963a) (figure 3.34). It is located on a gentle slope on the east bank of a channel of two metres wide that continues towards the upper part, i.e. on the same bank as the major mammoth-bone accumulation. It consists of two ‘walls’ of limestone debris, silt loam and clay. One hearth was located in the middle. The concentration of charcoal and ashes was partly covered by a mixture of limestone debris, silt loam and clay. On the other side, several mammoth bones were concentrated in a shallow depression between the wall and the hearth. The layout of ‘walls’ and an ‘oven’ is interpreted as a dwelling structure. It contained more than two thousand Fig. 3.32 Rejected object.

pieces of ‘ceramics’, among which about one hundred and seventy five with traces of modelling. Heads of bear, wolf and fox are mentioned in addition to a number of legs and other unspecified body parts.

(22)

layer covering part of a concentration of ashes, burnt bone and charcoal is translated in a clay-and-limestone wall structure partly covering a hearth. Unfortunately, this straightforward translation does not seem to be supported by the geological situation in general. Despite the lack of first-hand knowledge of the profiles, the already mentioned difficulties of reinterpretation and the danger of unnecessary scepticism, I do think that several post-depositional

processes could be responsible for the kinds of features observed in the uppermost part of Dolní Vestonice I. My reservations concerning Klíma’s interpretations are primarily based on the position of these features on a slope of about 10°, where landslides, slopewash, solifluction and step-like breaks can cause considerable disturbance of the primary patterns. All of these processes have been docu-mented in all parts of Dolní Vestonice I and have also affected the uppermost part to varying degrees.

Hypotheti-cally, landslide and solifluction could explain the deforma-tion of a clay-with-limestone slope deposit in a kind of lobe, whereas slopewash could result in the creation of shallow gullies and the redeposition of ashes and burned bone in depressions. Therefore I prefer to be rather careful in the matter of these kiln-like structures. Alternatively, I would stress the underestimated effects of post-depositional processes in explaining the observed features. However I do not doubt the presence of some kind of hearth with which the ‘ceramics’ are associated.

Rescue excavations in the uppermost part (Klíma 1972, 1973a), covering a dozen square metres, exposed two other hearths with ashes. They were located some forty five metres west of the ‘second settlement object’. One of these hearths contained the foot of a small ‘ceramic’ animal figurine. The hearths were heavily disturbed, due to their position in the front of a landslide lobe.

Fig. 3.34 Distribution map of the ‘second settlement unit’ (after Klíma 1963a).

(23)

Other rejects.

Two other objects have created some controversy in the past. Today they can be rejected without much comment. These include the so-called ‘Venus II’, a weathered tusk fragment found on the surface, which caused considerable and politi-cally charged conflict in the 1930s (Delporte 1993a, 143). This historically interesting ‘aide mémoire’ is now probably housed in the collections of the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum in Mainz (Valoch 1996, 143). The other object is a male head, that turned up in Australia in the 1980s and was presumed to be from Dolní Vestonice. Though the face made it to the cover of National

Geographicin October 1988, all signs indicate that it is in fact a fake (Klíma 1991, Valoch 1996, 143).

3.4.2 PAVLOVI 3.4.2.1 Research history

Pavlov I, only about five hundred metres east of Dolní Vestonice I, was excavated between 1952 and 1972

(figure 3.35). Unlike Dolní Vestonice I, all excavations were directed by B. Klíma. The excavated area covers approxi-mately 2,100 m2_.

3.4.2.2 Subdivisions and chronology

(24)

the subdivision of the site. It is divided in three parts: the south-eastern and supposedly younger part (the 1952-56 excavations), the north-western and presumably older part (the 1956ABC-58 excavations) and the problematic, middle part (the 1960-65 excavations), where both layers are found in superposition, but where the layers are sometimes not so easy to distinguish. Unlike major parts of Dolní Vestonice I, the occupation of Pavlov I was located on a very gentle slope (between 0 and maximum 5°). The occupational phases are not differentiated alongside the slope. The tripartite division also forms the heuristic structure for the ongoing investigation and publication of the huge amounts of finds and features (Svoboda 1994a and in prep. for the south-east, Svoboda 1997 for the north-west).

The heuristic function of this subdivision must be stressed, because some other observations complicate the situation. In the 1952-53 excavations, an upper find horizon was dis-tinguished above the main ‘cultural layer’ (Svoboda 1994a). Two superimposed hearths, separated by loessic sediments, were discovered in the 1956 excavation (Klíma, unpublished excavation diary). These observations seem to point to more than just one occupational phase in the south-eastern part. Klíma (1997a) also describes two superimposed find hori-zons in the 1957 excavation. In the 1962 excavations, on the margin of the north-western part, two superposed occupa-tional phases were also recognized (Klíma 1963c). It is not clear yet how these distinctions relate to the main division observed in the 1961 excavations.

Table 3.1 Radiocarbon datings of Pavlov I.

Lab.No. Age yrs BP Part Year

GrN-4812 (note 1) 26,730 ± 250 SE 1956 GrN-1325 25,020 ± 150 SE 1956 GrN-19539 26,650 ± 230 SE 1953 GrA-192 (note 2) 25,530 ± 110 SE 1953 GrN-22303 26,400 ± 310 SE 1954 GrN-22304 25,160 ± 170 SE 1954 GrN-22305 25,840 ± 290 SE 1954 KN-1286 (note 3) 26,580 ± 460 SE 1954

GIN-104 (note 4) 26,000 ± 350 middle part?

GrN-20391 26,170 ± 450 NW 1957

Note 1: There is another date: 26,620 ± 230 BP (1272). GrN-4812 is measured on the same sample as GrN-1272, but after additional treatment to remove contaminating carbon. GrN-4812 is considered as a more reliable date for the sample than GrN-1272. Note 2: GrA-192 is an AMS-date of the same sample as GrN-19539 (Van der Plicht 1997).

Note 3: Reported by Klíma (1995, 54) as date in years BC. Note 4: The sample was submitted by A.N. Rogacev (Cherdyntsev et al. 1968, 426). He took part in the 1961 excavations in Pavlov I (Klíma 1962a). It is possible that this sample is from these excavations, i.e. the middle part of Pavlov I.

Most C14 dates derive from the south-eastern part of the site (table 3.1). One date is possibly from the middle part of the site. The only date for the north-western part falls within the range of dates for the south-east. In other words, the ‘absolute’ dating evidence does not confirm the age differ-ence between the two parts of Pavlov I. The soil sediment underlying the ‘cultural layer’ is dated to 30,010 ± 460 yrs BP (KN-286)2_{, in accordance with other dates for the Dolní}

Vestonice soil (PK I). 3.4.2.3 Catalogue

In the catalogue of anthropomorphic figurines I maintain the tripartite division of Pavlov I. The complications with the stratigraphic and ‘absolute’ dating evidence exclude a more specific chronological subdivision. Moreover, none of the anthropomorphic figurines of Pavlov I is attributed to a particular find horizon. A total of nine anthropomorphic figurines are identified by my definition.

South-eastern part.

Three anthropomorphic figurines have been identified.

Number: 16

Figure: 3.36

Site: Pavlov I

Part: SE

Name: Venus of Pavlov

Material: ivory

Fragmentation: complete?

Description:

Two horizontal incisions divide the figurine in three parts. The upper part has no head and the breasts are

unpronounced. The middle part is slightly broader and thicker. At the back, an incision runs upwards along the

(25)

spine. The two legs are separated by an incision at the front. The figurine is attributed to the female sex on the presence of breasts. Its findspot is not entirely certain, but probably it is square I/4. Several larger bones (mammoth?) are concen-trated in this area (Svoboda 1994a, 16)3_.

Number: 17 Figure: 3.37 Site: Pavlov I Part: SE Name: — Year of discovery: 1956

Fig. 3.37 Southeast: anthropomorph.

Description:

This fragment is interpreted as a breast. A nipple is indicated. It may have been part of a female figurine. The context of this object is not clear. It was found about one or two metres from a hearth. Several other unidentifiable ‘ceramic’ frag-ments were found in the vicinity.

Number: 18

Figure: 3.38

Site: Pavlov I

Part: SE

Name: —

Fig. 3.38 Southeast: anthropomorph (scale 2:1).

Reference: Svoboda 1995

Description:

The fragment is heavily damaged. Only the upper part of the legs is preserved. A penis is indicated. The upper part of the object is damaged: the head and torso are missing. Based on the presence of a penis, this small figurine can be attributed to the male sex. It is similar to the male figurine from Dolní Vestonice I – middle part (number 9). It was probably found within one or two metres from a hearth. In the vicinity, several other ‘ceramic’ fragments were found.

Four more anthropomorphic figurines are known from the literature. Site: Pavlov I Figure: 3.39 Part: SE Name: — Year of discovery: 1953

Material: calcareous slate?

Description:

Stone object with a wider part.

(26)

Fig. 3.40 Rejected object. Site: Pavlov I Figure: 3.40 Part: SE Name: — Year of discovery: 1953

Material: calcareous slate?

Description:

The stone object has one wider terminal part, whereas the other end is wedge-shaped.

Comment

These two stone objects have been referred to as anthropo-morphic, more precisely as female statuettes (Klíma 1994, 122). However, their overall shape is not conclusively similar to a human body shape and therefore does not allow an identification as anthropomorphic. They are vaguely reminis-cent of the ‘Magdalenian-type’ female engravings and figurines known from for example Gönnersdorf (Bosinski and Fischer 1974). To my knowledge, no similar objects have been found at any Gravettian site in (Central) Europe.

Site: Pavlov I

Figure: 3.41

Part: SE

Name: —

Material: ivory

Description:

This small, convex, ivory fragment with a number of incisions around a small cross is interpreted as a breast from a larger female statuette (Klíma 1994, 115). In my opinion, there are no compelling reasons to attribute this fragment to an anthro-pomorphic figurine, rather than any other kind of object.

Site: Pavlov I

Figure: 3.42

Part: SE

Name: —

Year of discovery: 1956?

Description:

This tiny object consists of a rounded part, separated from a flattened part by a slight narrowing. The ‘ceramic’ miniature figure was excavated most likely in 1956. Klíma (1958, 13-14) describes it as follows: ‘It represents a standing person, but shows the legs only sketchily and the arms not at all. In fact, it can only be analysed by recognising the round head, clearly separated from the flattened trunk.’ Because it is in fact only a slight narrowing in the profile, I do not classify it as an anthropomorphic figurine. This is however one of the objects on which opinions are bound to differ.

(27)

(28)

Fig. 3.44 Distribution of anthropomorphic figurines in Pavlov I (grey: approximate area where the anthropomorphic figurine has been found).

Contextual information on the south-eastern part.

The south-eastern part of Pavlov I consists of a constellation of tens of hearths, concentrations of bones and stone arte-facts (figure 3.43). Some hearths are small and superficial, others are deepened and have stone settings. As mentioned above, two superimposed hearths have been observed. In several places, the hearths are clustered, partly overlapping and surrounded by lenses of ash, charcoal and burnt bone, sometimes accumulated in kettle-shaped holes. The highest artefact densities were reached in the 1956 and 1954B exca-vations (Verpoorte, in press). In these excaexca-vations, stone artefacts reached densities of more than four hundred pieces per m2_{. The ‘cultural layer’ reached a thickness of more than}

sixty cm in some places.

Klíma (1959a) defined about ten dwelling structures (usually termed ‘settlement objects’) in the entire area. Their

identifi-cation and outline is based on a number of features: the thickness of the ‘cultural layer’, the outline of depressions, the distribution of small, usually kettle-shaped holes, pattern-ing in large bones, mammoth tusks and larger limestone debris. Usually at least one central hearth is present. Though Klíma is not explicit on the subject, it seems to me that these dwelling structures are supposed to be more or less contem-porary, forming a ‘village’ similar to the one reconstructed for the upper part of Dolní Vestonice I.

(29)

Fig. 3.45 Generalized distribution of ‘ceramics’ in Pavlov I.

Also frequent re-use of the area can have disturbed previous patterning. I do not deny the past existence of dwelling structures, but I do not think that the archaeological patterns in Pavlov I are indicating their location or contain information about their shape and construction. Therefore in the following section I will not consider the relation between anthropomor-phic figurines and the supposed ‘dwelling structures’. Large amounts of ‘ceramic’ fragments have been excavated in Pavlov I. The distribution of the anthropomorphic figu-rines, including the ivory ‘Venus’ (number 16), is shown in figure 3.44. An impression of the distribution of ‘ceramics’ can be gained from the few fragments documented in the

(30)

Fig. 3.47 Northwest: anthropomorph. Fig. 3.46 Northwest: anthropomorph.

hearth’. The two ‘ceramic’ anthropomorphic figurines were probably found in two more concentrations in the 1956 area. In addition to the ivory ‘Venus of Pavlov’, ivory forms the raw material for two animal figurines as well: a 21.4 cm long cat, possibly a lioness (1954B excavations, Klíma 1963b) and a 6.8 cm long mammoth (1954B excavations, Klíma 1958a, 11). Both these figurines can be described as

Reliëfplastik, silhouettes making use of the slightly convex surface of the ivory lamellae. Finally, Klíma (1990) noted a concentration of human teeth in the 1956 excavation of Pavlov I.

North-western part.

Two anthropomorphic figurines have been identified.

Number: 19 Figure: 3.46 Site: Pavlov I Part: NW Name: — Year of discovery: 1957

Reference: Klíma 1997b, Soffer and Vandiver 1997

Description:

Though the figurine is heavily damaged, a number of fea-tures can still be observed on this remarkable object. It is a figure in a seated position with a pronounced belly. The one preserved arm is supporting the belly. At the beginning of the legs, the part of a band of oblique incisions can be observed on one leg. The remainder of the body is damaged: head and upper body are broken, one side and the back are heavily damaged and the rest of the legs is missing. Part of the breasts is perhaps preserved just above the belly4_.

The figurine can be attributed to the female sex. It was found in a large concentration of ‘ceramics’ in this part of Pavlov I (Jarosova 1997). It consists of both worked and unworked pieces (Soffer and Vandiver 1997). Among the

pieces, a horse and bear were recognized as well as a head-like object (see below) and a fragment of a breast (see below, number 20). Number: 20 Figure: 3.47 Site: Pavlov I Part: NW Name: — Year of discovery: 1957

Description:

This fragment is interpreted as a breast. Remarkable is the indication of a nipple. The fragment can be attributed to a female figurine. It was found in the same ‘ceramics’ concen-tration as the seated female figurine above, but does not belong to this figurine.

I question five ‘ceramic’ fragments identified as anthropo-morphic figurines in the literature.

Site: Pavlov I

Figure: 3.48

Part: NW

Name: —

(31)

Fig. 3.52 Rejected object. Fig. 3.51 Rejected object. Fig. 3.50 Rejected object.

Fig. 3.49 Rejected object. Fig. 3.48 Rejected object.

Description:

The fragment has a pointed conical shape. Klíma (1997b, 247) interpreted it as a breast of a larger female figurine. I consider this fragment to be unidentifiable.

Site: Pavlov I

Figure: 3.49

Part: NW

Name: —

Reference: Klíma 1989, 1997b

Reference: Soffer and Vandiver 1997

Description: A leg-shaped fragment. Site: Pavlov I Figure: 3.51 Part: NW Name: — Year of discovery: 1957

Description:

Tiny object with two protuberances.

Site: Pavlov I

Figure: 3.52

Part: NW

Name: —

Description:

The convex fragment is decorated with a band marked by two half circular lines and filled with five small incisions. Klíma (1997b, 247) describes this object, found in the 1957 excavation, as an engraved fragment, but in an earlier publica-tion (Klíma 1989, 86: fig. 4-i) he describes it as (part of) an anthropomorphic figurine. The object recalls an ivory frag-ment found in the south-east, frag-mentioned above. It also recalls the decorated body of one of the Dolní Vestonice I figurines (number 6, middle part). However, this is insufficient to class-ify this fragment as part of an anthropomorphic figurine.

Site: Pavlov I

Figure: 3.50

Part: NW

Name: —

(32)

(33)

Description:

A leg-shaped fragment.

Comments

In my opinion, none of these fragments can be classified as anthropomorphic. Reviewing the ‘ceramics’ of the north-western part, Soffer and Vandiver (1997, 396-397) describe four anthropomorphic figurines. With the exception of the seated female figurine (number 19), I consider these to be questionable classifications.

Contextual information on the north-western part. The geological situation in the north-west of Pavlov I is dominated by the presence of an erosion channel about three metres wide, probably active during the occupation of the site and afterwards (figure 3.53). Lenses and tongues of the ‘cultural layer’ are included in the channel fill. Even blocks of sediment, containing the ‘cultural layer’, were transported and redeposited (Klíma 1997a, 23). The ‘cultural layer’ is not a continuous layer, but is in places broken through by erosive events. In many places, a doubling of the cultural layer was observed. In addition, solifluction and cryoturba-tion structures affected the sediments including the ‘cultural layers’.

Despite the considerable disturbance of the sediments, refit-ting evidence from this part of Pavlov I strongly suggests that the extent of the disturbance is not as dramatic as could be expected on the basis of the description above. The radio-larite artefacts that abound here show no traces of fluvial transport and are in mint condition. The refitting lines sug-gest that artefacts are displaced over distances of five, six metres at most, not tens of metres (Skrdla 1997). Though Klíma (1997a, 30-32) is well aware of the problems, he defines two dwellings in the area. In my opinion, however, the extent of disturbance is enough to be cautious with the identification of ‘dwelling structures’.

The distribution of ‘ceramic’ fragments is also affected by the geological situation. The fragments are concentrated in

square 9 (more than 80% of all worked pieces, Soffer and Vandiver 1997, 398), associated with three possible hearths. Several fragments were also found in the adjacent squares. The entire cluster of ‘ceramic’ fragments covers some thirty m2

and is associated with about five possible hearths. Even some fragments found in the adjacent 1960 excavation may relate to this cluster.

One of the most important finds of the north-western part of Pavlov I was the discovery of the disturbed burial of a male, adult individual (Klíma 1958b, 1959b, Vlcek 1997, see figure 3.53). The preserved skeleton consists primarily of the longer bones and the skull. In the vicinity of this individual, other skull fragments came to light, belonging to possibly three other individuals5_{. The burial is disturbed by}

solifluc-tion as well as erosion. Middle part.

Three anthropomorphic figurines have been identified.

Number: 21

Figure: 3.54

Site: Pavlov I

Part: Middle part

Name: —

Reference: Klíma 1963c, 1989

Description: