Human Remains from the Moravian Gravettian: Morphology and Taphonomy of Isolated Elements from the Dolní V stonice II Site

The excavation and palaeoanthropological analysis of the early Upper Palaeolithic site of Dolní V stonice II has yielded a series of incomplete and isolated human remains, comprising cranial vaults, teeth (including a series from an infant), ribs, arm bones, hand phalanges, leg bones, tarsals, metatarsals and pedal phalanges. Morphologically and morphometrically the elements are similar to those from buried individuals at Dolní V stonice I and II and Pavlov I, as well as to other European early Upper Palaeolithic human remains. They differ principally in the high percentage of cortical areas of the distal humerus and femur. The Dolní V stonice 36 infant's teeth may well derive from an undisturbed burial with in situ bone destruction. Geological processes are unlikely to have produced the taphonomic patterns observed, and the preservation and damage patterns of the elements (other than Dolní V stonice 36) suggest that the original bodies were processed by some combination of scavenging agents. Moreover, the original number of burials at Dolní V stonice II may have been greater than the four currently known.     

Burning wood or burning bone? A reconsideration of flotation evidence from Upper Palaeolithic (Gravettian) sites in the Moravian Corridor

This paper compares archaeobotanical and other data from new excavations at two Upper Palaeolithic sites — Dolní V?stonice II and P?edmostí I — in the Moravian Corridor, Czech Republic. Both contain the traces of broadly contemporary ‘Gravettian’ occupations during the warmer episodes of the Pleistocene which preceded the last glacial maximum. Yet their archaeobotanical remains show striking differences — those from Dolní V?stonice II being dominated by large quantities of conifer wood charcoal, while those from P?edmostí I are much more scanty and dominated by vitrified plant remains, in association with large quantities of burnt bone. We argue that these differences between these two datasets arise from different uses of fuel at either site: bone at P?edmostí I and wood at Dolní V?stonice II. Subsequently, we explore the possible reasons for this difference and argue that once likely taphonomic distinctions are accounted for, these data on fuel use offer fresh insights into the functions and durations of these Upper Palaeolithic occupations of the Moravian corridor and some possible implications for how archaeobotanical data from such sites should be interpreted.