Advertisement

Introduction to the Central European Magdalenian: Area, Corpus, and Major Questions

  • Andreas Maier
Part of the Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology book series (VERT)

Abstract

Is it possible to identify regional groups in the archaeological record of the Magdalenian in Central Europe? If yes, what is the nature of these groups and how do they interrelate? And what do the results imply for the current view of the recolonization of Central Europe after the Last Glacial Maximum? These and other questions—central to the study at hand—are posed in Chap.  1. The introduction explains the delimitation of the investigated area referred to as “Central Europe,” gives a first overview of the scope of this study and the sites integrated in its analyses, and briefly explains its outline and conduct.

Keywords

Archaeological Record Regional Group Cultural Transmission Archaeological Research Paris Basin 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ahlheim, K.-H., & Preuß, G. (Eds.). (1983). Meyers Großes Universallexikon (Vol. 9). Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
  2. Bahn, P. G. (1985). Pyrenean prehistory. A palaeoeconomic survey of the French sites. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.Google Scholar
  3. Barton, R. N. E., Jacobi, R. M., Stapert, D., & Street, M. J. (2003). The late-glacial reoccupation of the British Isles and the Creswellian. Journal of Quaternary Science, 18, 631–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentley, A., & Shennan, S. J. (2003). Cultural transmission and stochastic network growth. American Antiquity, 68(3), 459–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernbeck, R. (1997). Theorien in der Archäologie. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
  6. Binford, L. R. (1980). Willow smoke and dogs’ tails: Hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity, 45(1), 4–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Childe, V. G. (1951). Social evolution. New York: Schumann.Google Scholar
  8. Clarke, D. L. (Ed.). (1972b). Models in archaeology. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  9. Eerkens, J. W., & Lipo, C. P. (2005). Cultural transmission, copying errors, and the generation of variation in material culture and the archaeological record. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 24, 316–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erdmann, W. (1980). Zur archaeologischen Arbeitsweise in natürlichen Schichten. In K. Frerichs (Ed.), Archäologie in Lübeck: Erkenntnisse von Archäologie und Bauforschung zur Geschichte und Vorgeschichte der Hansestadt (pp. 138–140). Lübeck: Schmidt-Römhild.Google Scholar
  11. Eriksen, B. V. (1991). Change and continuety in a prehistoric hunter-gatherer society: A study of cultural adaptation in late glacial – early postglacial southwestern Germany. Tübingen: Archaeologica Venatoria.Google Scholar
  12. Feustel, R. (1974). Die Kniegrotte. Eine Magdalénien-Station in Thüringen. Weimar: Böhlau.Google Scholar
  13. Frey, W., & Lösch, R. (2010). Geobotanik: Pflanzen und Vegetation in Raum und Zeit. Heidelberg: Spektrum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fritz, J. M., & Plog, F. T. (1970). The nature of archaeological explanation. American Antiquity, 35(4), 405–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gadamer, H.-G. (2006). Truth and method. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  16. Gersbach, E. (1989). Ausgrabung heute: Methoden und Techniken der Fedlgrabung. Mit einem Beitrag von Joachim Hahn. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  17. Grimm, S., & Weber, M.-J. (2008). The chronological framework of the Hamburgian in the light of old and new 14C dates. Quartär, 55, 17–40.Google Scholar
  18. Hanitzsch, H. (1969). Zur Gliederung des mitteldeutschen Magdalénien. Jahresschrift für mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte, 53, 179–192.Google Scholar
  19. Harris, E. C. (1989). Principles of archaeological stratigraphy. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hodder, I. (1982b). Symbols in action: Ethnoarchaeological studies of material culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Holtorf, C. (2000). Making sense of the past beyond analogies. In A. Gramsch (Ed.), Vergleichen als archäologische Methode. Analogien in den Archäologien (BAR International Series, Vol. 825, pp. 165–175). Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
  22. Jacobi, R. M., & Higham, T. (2009). The early lateglacial re-colonization of Britain: New radiocarbon evidences from Gough’s Cave, southwest England. Quaternary Science Reviews, 28, 1895–1913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jochim, M., Herhahn, C., & Starr, H. (1999). The Magdalenian colonization of Southern Germany. American Anthropologist, 101(1), 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Küßner, M. (2009). Die späte Altsteinzeit im Einzugsgebiet der Saale. Untersuchungen an ausgewählten Fundstellen. Weimar: Beier and Beran.Google Scholar
  25. O’Sullivan, D., & Unwin, D. J. (2003). Geographic information analysis. New Jersey: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Otte, M. (1992). Processus de diffusion à long terme au Magdalénien. In J.-P. Rigaud (Ed.), Le peuplement magdalénien. Actes du colloque de Chancelade 1988 (pp. 399–416). Paris: Eds. du CTHS.Google Scholar
  27. Otte, M., & Keeley, L. H. (1990). The impact of regionalism on Palaeolithic studies. Current Anthropology, 31(5), 577–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Połtowicz, M. (2006). The Magdalenian period in Poland and neighbouring areas. Archaeologia Baltica, 7(2), 21–28.Google Scholar
  29. Rensink, E. (1993). Moving into the north: Magdalenian occupation and exploitation of the loess landscapes of northwestern Europe, Leiden, s.n.Google Scholar
  30. Rozoy, D. J.-G. (1988b). Le Magdalénien en Europe: démographie, groups régionaux. Bulletin Société Préhistorique du Luxembourg, 10, 139–158.Google Scholar
  31. Seiffert, H. (1991). Einführung in die Wissenschaftstheorie 2. Phänomenologie, Hermeneutik und historische Methode, Dialektik. München: Beck.Google Scholar
  32. Shanks, M., & Tilley, C. (1987). Re-constructing archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Sisk, M. L. (2011). Settlement and site location in the middle and upper Paleolithic of the Vézère valley, France. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
  34. Sollas, W. J. (1924). Ancient hunters and their modern representatives. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Stiles, D., Ammerman, A. J., Benzécri, J.-P., Bhattacharya, D. K., Bordes, F., Bricker, H. M., et al. (1979). Paleolithic culture and culture change: Experiment in theory and method [and comments and reply]. Current Anthropology, 20(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tilley, C. (1996). An ethnography of the Neolithic. Early prehistoric societies in southern Scandinavia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Ucko, P. J. (Ed.). (1995). Theory in archaeology. A world perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Valoch, K. (1960). Magdalénien na Moravě. Das Magdalénien in Mähren. Brno: Krajské Nakladatelství.Google Scholar
  39. Valoch, K. (2009). Magdalénien na Moravě – Po padesáti letech. Acta Musei Moraviae, Scientiae Sociale, 94, 3–37.Google Scholar
  40. Virchow, R. (1874). Einleitendes Vorwort. In J. Lubbock (Ed.), Die vorgeschichtliche Zeit erläutert durch die Ueberreste des Alterthums und die Sitten und Gebräuche der jetzigen Wilden (pp. V–VIII). Jena: Herman Gostenoble.Google Scholar
  41. Weniger, G.-C. (1982). Wildbeuter und ihre Umwelt. Ein Beitrag zum Magdalénien Südwestdeutschlands aus ökologischer und ethno-archäologischer Sicht. Tübingen: Archaeologica Venatoria.Google Scholar
  42. White, R. (1985). Upper Paleolithic land use in the Périgord. A topographic approach to subsistence and settlement (BAR International Series, Vol. 253). Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
  43. Wobst, H. M. (1978). The archaeo-ethnology of hunter-gatherers or the tyranny of the ethnographic record in archaeology. American Antiquity, 43(2), 303–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wylie, A. (1985). The reaction against analogy. In M. B. Schiffer (Ed.), Advances in archaeological method and theorie (pp. 63–111). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Maier
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Prehistoric ArchaeologyFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-NürnbergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations