Kamegg site

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Kamegg site is an excavated dwelling from the Paleolithic Age in the Kamegg cadastral community of Gars am Kamp in Lower Austria .

In addition to the medieval Kamegg ruins , which belonged as a castle to Rosenburg Castle in the Kamptal , several important prehistoric sites and related excavations are known.

The local history researcher Karl Docekal discovered a large part of the residential and settlement areas . His most important discoveries were probably a Upper Paleolithic dwelling and a circular moat of the painted ceramic culture , which he was able to locate before the onset of aerial archeology . There are only a few publications of him (find reports from Austria). The found materials are kept in the Höbarthmuseum of the city ​​of Horn .

Upper Paleolithic Station

Topography and geology

The Upper Palaeolithic site of Kamegg is located in the Lower Austrian Waldviertel , below a narrow valley on the eastern bank of the Kamp. At this point, a small side valley coming from the east meets the valley of the Kamp, which, after flowing for a short distance in a west-east direction, bends again in the north-south direction that defines its lower course. The stream with little water today, which flows from the east below the site and immediately flows into the Kamp, had brought gravel during the Pleistocene and therefore at least at times had a much stronger water flow. The site itself has been greatly changed by a brick factory; in addition, old arable terraces intervened in the area. Just a little above this Upper Paleolithic station there is also an important Mesolithic site on the eastern bank of the Kamp. The area around Kamegg was also populated again and again in other prehistoric periods (Neolithic, Early Bronze Age, Late Iron Age).

Research history

Even before the First World War, a country doctor from Gars a. Kamp made the first discoveries. But after Josef Höbarth , who was released from his post service to work at the Museum in Horn, became aware of these finds late , Josef Bayer also became aware of this site. On April 18, 1931, on a Saturday morning, he began an excavation, but it was stopped again on Sunday afternoon after about twelve hours. The exact reasons for this are unknown, Bayer turned to another site, although the work brought a rich find yield. J. Höbarth, who wanted to continue observing the site, was banned from excavation. Höbarth was only able to observe the site again after Bayer's death, which, however, had been largely destroyed in the meantime by the brickworks that had given rise to its discovery.

After initially only brief reports of finds had been published, Richard Pittioni gave a first brief description in 1934. In the 1950s, a short report by Alois Gulder first appeared, and a little later, after Höbarth's death, a monographic representation prepared by Friedrich Brandtner in 1952, for which the geological profile had also been re-included. After Pittioni and Gulder referred to the still-to-be-mentioned connections between the material and the Magdalenian or late Upper Palaeolithic sites, the work of Friedrich Brandtner was used to date the material into Gravettian . In 1984 Anta Montet-White carried out a test excavation, whereby the culture layer could be exposed on a small area and it was established by drilling that larger parts of the station are still, contrary to expectations. In 1991, Geostratigraphy was re-examined by Hazards . The results of these two recent studies have so far unpublished, but win with a new approach, which may be by the excavations of recent years in Grubgraben reveals important. Caused by some - albeit uncertain - 14C data , Montet-White now speaks of a so-called "epigravettia" and also cites Kamegg in this context. This would mean dating parallel to the Solutréen , i.e. at the time of the ice peak.

The area of ​​the site has meanwhile been placed under monument protection, so that further excavations before the intended development were at least legally secured.

stratigraphy

The Kamegg layer was a little more than a meter below the recent surface. After initially - also by Brandtner - a stratigraphic classification in the Würm III was carried out, after the geological survey of the area around the site in 1951 a dating was given in the Würm II. Above the site of the find, a soil formation was recorded in a terrace edge, which must have been present just above the find layer and which was eroded by erosion and the creation of arable terraces. However, these classifications seem rather uncertain; especially since the possibility of erosion discordance should be expected in a loess profile and the parallelization of the various soil formations has caused problems to this day. So far, only the impossibility of dating into the late glacial can be regarded as certain , since after inspecting the place about one meter of loess was blown and soil formation took place during a warmer period.

It is to be expected that the new investigations will lead to better results. The connection with a loess profile on the opposite slope, i.e. on the western bank of the Kamp, where a circular moat from the Middle Neolithic Lengyel culture has been investigated in recent years, also appears interesting . The digging disturbs a soil formation that corresponds to that which could be determined above the site. A C14 age of approx. 34,000 years could be obtained from the loess below the soil formation .

The find layer seems to be in its primary position. Although the layers in the recumbent layer show signs of solifluction and there is no clear observation of the findings, this can at least be considered probable based on an observation: In the main find layer, loess lentils were attracted to a stone located here. In a shifted horizon this seems impossible in this form. However, in my opinion, this is to be understood as an indication of a long period of education. The find material is considered to be uniform, as Bayer and Höbarth's observations are based on only one main find layer. The new excavations by Montet-White also only produced a single horizon. Two points put this view into perspective and put multiple visits to the station within the scope of the possible, even the probable:

  1. Höbarth had already observed that the find layer can be broken down into two to three strata in places . Bayer confirms this with the observation that, in addition to the stone setting, which has yet to be discussed, the find layer is divided into three layers of find, each around 15 millimeters thick, separated by loess deposits of 10 to 15 millimeters from each other. However, he did not attach any importance to this, since he viewed this as a process of a short time interval, at least within a few days.
  2. The follow-up examination by Brandtner during the 1950s, however, found the remains of a second layer of culture around 30 cm higher. However, since it turned out to be empty with the exception of burned bone fragments, it played no further role in the discussion.

In view of the circumstances of the observation of the site, however, a mix-up of the find material from differently dated visits cannot be ruled out; The found material does not provide any conclusive evidence of this, but the composition of the inventory and its dating do present some problems that will be discussed later.

Archaeological finds and findings

The finds from the old Kamegg excavation are now in the Höbarth Museum in Horn.

fauna and Flora

The determination of the partially burnt bones turned out to be extremely difficult due to the poor, very small-scale preservation and sintering. The following are documented in Kamegg: horse ( Equus germanicus ), reindeer ( Rangifer tarandus ), steppe bison ( Bison priscus ), rhinoceros ( Rhinocerus antiquitatis ), hare ( Lepus ) and ptarmigan ( Lagopus ). The finds of horses and reindeer are particularly important, the latter proving to be less important, for which climatic reasons or their further north-lying habitat are cited. However, the reindeer dominates the bone tools to be discussed.

Botanical remains were not observed. The intended charcoal investigation could not be carried out because the samples are missing.

Human remains or burial sites were also not found.

Stone tools

The Kamegg site has a relatively large inventory of artifacts. The typology of flint artifacts given by Brandtner is not to be reproduced here in detail. On the one hand, it appears antiquated today, as neither the possibility of reworking nor analysis of signs of use have been duly taken into account; on the other hand, it was controversial anyway. There is a strong blade industry with a high proportion of unretouched blades that offer a wide range of variations, e.g. T. also have points. It is possible that these, as well as the unretouched discounts, are semi-finished products. Drills, scrapers and scratches also occur. The scratches were sometimes referred to as aurignacoid, but clear keel scratches are missing in the inventory. The Châtelperron and Gravette tips in the material are controversial in their address. Due to their small size, the former could be more correctly described as the convex back tip. The latter can only be reliably assigned a single point, mostly they are back-retouched blades without a pronounced point, which Brandtner calls gravette blades. Various notch points continue to appear remarkable, but they could only partially be referred to as Kostenki notch points, as they also occur elsewhere in eastern Central Europe. Comparative examples can be found primarily in the Hamburg culture, but similar notch points in Gravettia are not completely unknown elsewhere, and could also be understood as waste from the production of back knives. Finally, there are the triangular points to which Brandtner could not name any comparisons. What is striking is the high proportion of small devices (35 percent), a phenomenon that, in addition to some of the forms mentioned, could also point to the late Paleolithic. The retouches are very fine and steep.

The raw materials identified in Kamegg come primarily from a catchment area with a radius of approx. 15 km, whereby no direction appears particularly preferred. The tertiary gravel on the high terrace near Krems, where quartz, quartzite, red, brown, gray radiolarites of alpine origin occur, may be important. In addition, some of the raw material comes from the Moravian region or from the Oder basin, as is the case at other Lower Austrian sites.

Bone and antler implements

The bone industry specializes in reindeer bones. Its antlers also play a special role. The dismantling was carried out using the cutting technique, which is particularly evident in the late Upper Palaeolithic. What is remarkable is the discovery of a sewing needle , which, if dated in the upper Gravettia , would have been one of the oldest. Otherwise, sewing needles from the upper Solutréen, but especially since the middle Magdalenian, have been identified. Furthermore, bone tools mainly have points, including those with a beveled base. Such peaks occur throughout the Upper Palaeolithic, so they do not provide any further chronological clues, but they have their main distribution during the Magdalenian.

Jewelry and art objects

In addition to the devices, there are some other finds that are probably to be understood as jewelry or art. Mention should be made here of a spindle-shaped pendant with a size of 11 × 6 cm and remnants of red painting; the previously existing perforation has broken off. The pendant is likely made of amphibolite that has been sanded off. There is also a thick piece of slate that is said to have parallel engravings, as well as a lump of fired clay. A symbolic meaning can also be ascribed to an amber, which has now disintegrated, and to the shells. The origin of the mussels can be found in the Balkans, more precisely in the Pannonian basin. Otherwise the dyes ocher, red chalk and graphite have been detected. Although a practical function can certainly also be granted to them in part, here too a symbolic meaning is within the scope of the possible.

Archaeological dating

When presenting the finds, reference was made several times to parallels from the late Upper Palaeolithic . These were the chipping technique, notch points, convex back points and the sewing needle, so finds that are also quite often represented in Magdalenian stations. This was then, in addition to the geochronological classification in the Würm III valid at that time, for Gulder to designate Kamegg as Magdalenian period. Pittioni had also made a similar classification, he spoke of a type of his own with connections to Hamburg culture .

The changed geochronological classification and the appearance of Châtelperron and Gravette peaks prompted Brandtner to classify it in the Gravettian . Several authors followed this, Kamegg was ascribed to a Moravian Gravettian group or a developed phase of Gravettian. The listed device forms cannot contradict this, as they all occur occasionally before the Magdalenian era, possibilities for comparison and similarities are certainly available in other Gravettian stations, reference is made to Willendorf II / 9, Moravany V / VII and Doln¡ Vestonice, which is why one Proximity to Pavlovien was postulated. However, there is no reliable basis for a classification in the Pavolvien: neither a corresponding art production nor the typical serrated back knives, nor the great importance of the mammoth can be ascertained. The classification into a late Gravettian was judged as "very shaky" - very unsteady. In 1959, due to the combination of old elements, such as the châtelperron points and the aurignacoid scratches with young elements, such as the bone industry and cutting technology, Prüfer considered that the term "amorphous Upper Palaeolithic blade industry" was only certain.

Reference should also be made here to the date around 34,000 from the loess below the soil formation on the opposite circular moat. However, this can only give a terminus post quem that has little meaning for the dating of the find layer, especially since a deeper soil formation could not be recorded at the circular ditch system and may also fail here. In any case, the sample seems to be older than the finds.

interpretation

Findings

In view of the short duration of the systematic investigation, it is not surprising that no proper findings were observed. There are no plans for the site. Structural observations only indicate a site rich in finds with large stone slabs. The situation was only documented with a photo; The found material can no longer be assigned today, but it is said that a flint tool, a bone needle and some perforated ornamental snails were located here. The interpretation of this place could amount to a hearth with base and seat stones. To the west of this the mentioned fanning of the find layer was observed in three strata.

The problem of typological / 'cultural' classification

The particular problem with the Kamegg site lies in the discrepancy between archaeological and geochronological dating. The dating of the find inventory, which actually points more towards the Magdalenian, is offset by soil formation and a mighty loess swell in the hanging wall. Brandtner's later dating into Gravettien is therefore only to be understood as a solution to the problem, which is certainly open to discussion due to the lack of sufficient characteristic pieces. With the new work on the Grubgraben station , a possible solution is now emerging : According to 14-C data, this location should correspond in time to the Western European Solutréen and thus be located between Gravettia and Magdalenian . Grubgraben would be one of the first sites in Central Europe to be classified in the time of the ice peak between 20,000 and 18,000 before today. This dating is to be taken with reservation, however, since the suspicion of contamination of the specimen by the deep-rooted vines grown at the site is obvious. In addition to 'old', almost 'aurignacoid' forms, the artefact material also includes 'young' material and thus in a certain way resembles Kamegg, which Montet-White is now using as a further station that may have to be dated accordingly. However, certain differences between Kamegg and Grubgraben can be identified both in the artefact inventory and in the geostratigraphic situation, which, however, cannot safely rule out parallelization. According to what has been known so far, the inventory of Grubgraben knows neither keel points nor sewing needles, on the other hand, although many small devices are known from Kamegg, there are no geometric 'microlithic' forms. Regarding the geostratigraphic situation, it remains to be stated that the Kamegg find layer lies within a loess formation, while in grave ditches it lies in, or at least immediately below, a soil formation. This probably contradicts a direct simultaneity, if one does not want to use an erosion discordance for explanation.

A corresponding dating of Kamegg to the time of the cold maximum between about 10,000 and 18,000 before today cannot be confirmed at present due to the lack of further sources of this time and due to a lack of 14C data.

The function of the reference

In terms of research history, Brandtner's attempt to develop new questions, which he himself did not take up again, appears to be of interest due to the lack of findings and a clearly classifiable range of types. At that time, the behavior of the von Kamegg hunter group came to the fore. About the origin of the raw materials, he drew conclusions about their area of ​​activity, which must therefore have included the space between the Vienna Basin and Moravia. Brandtner saw the possibility that a hunting station belonging to the main camp of Kamegg was recorded in the Spitz-Mießlingtal station. The comparison should not be discussed here, since the parallelization must remain uncertain. Brandtner gave the summer as the seasonal dating of Kamegg, but without giving a reason. However, the dominant horse hunting seems to be decisive. This gives the picture of a summer stay in the Moravia / Lower Austria area and a winter stay in the south-eastern Vienna basin. The area of ​​action would thus have an extension of almost 300 kilometers.

literature

  • Josef Bayer : An ice age hunter's station in the Mießlingtal near Spitz ad Donau. In: Ice Age. 4, 1927, pp. 91-94.
  • Hermann Maurer : On latène research in the Lower Austrian Manhartsberg area. Mannus 41, 1975, p. 341ff.
  • Friedrich Berg : Late Hallstatt settlement finds from Kamegg in the Kamptal, Lower Austria. In: Festschrift for Richard Pittioni on his seventieth birthday. (= Archaeologica Austriaca. Beih. 13.) Deuticke, Vienna 1976, pp. 546-566.
  • Friedrich Berg, Alois Gulder: Preliminary report on a Lower Austrian mesolith station from Kamegg in the Kamptal. In: Archaeologica Austriaca. Deuticke, Vienna 1956, 19/20, pp. 49-62.
  • Friedrich Brandtner: About the relative chronology of the younger Pleistocene Lower Austria. In: Archaeologica Austriaca. Deuticke, Vienna 1950, 5, pp. 101–113.
  • Friedrich Brandtner: Kamegg, an outdoor station of the later Palaeolithic in Lower Austria. In: Mitt. Prehist. Komm. 1954/55, 7, pp. 3–93.
  • A. Broglio, G. Laplace: Etudes de typologie analytique des complexes leptolithiques de l'Europe centrale. I. The complexes aurignacoídes de la Basse Autriche. In: Riv. Sc. Praises. 21.1966, pp. 61-121.
  • Michael Doneus: The ceramics of the Middle Neolithic circular moat in Kamegg, Lower Austria. A contribution to the chronology of stage MOG I of the Lengyel culture. 1967- In: Communications from the Prehistoric Commission, Austrian Academy of Sciences. Philosophical-historical class. Academy of Sciences, Vienna 46, 2001, ISBN 3700130155 .
  • Fritz Felgenhauer: Mießlingtal near Spitz ad Donau, N.-Ö. In: Archaeologica Austriaca. 1950, 5, pp. 35-62.
  • Alois Gulder: The paleolithic station of Kamegg in the Kamptal, N.-Ö. In: Archaeologica Austriaca. 1952, 10, pp. 16-27.
  • Hermann Maurer: A painted ceramic idol fragment from Kamegg. pB horn. The Waldviertel 27, 38, 1978, pp. 97ff.
  • Hermann Maurer: Neolithic cult objects from the Lower Austrian Waldviertel. A contribution to the history of the Neolithic. Mannus Library 19, 1982.
  • Hermann Maurer, Martin Obenaus: A Middle Neolithic Idol Torso by Kamegg. VB Horn, Find reports from Austria 32, 1994, p. 439f.
  • Hermann Maurer: Archaeological evidence of religious ideas and practices of the early and middle Neolithic in Lower Austria. In: Friedrich Berg, Hermann Maurer: Idols of art and cult in the Waldviertel 7000 years ago. Höbarthmuseum Horn, 1998, p. 23ff.
  • B. Climate: On the problem of the Aurignacia and Gravettia in Central Europe. In: Archaeologica Austriaca. Deuticke, Vienna 1959, 26, pp. 35–51.
  • JK Kozlowski: The Gravettian in Central and Eastern Europe. In: Advances in World. Arch. 1986, 5, pp. 131-200.
  • A. Montet-White (Ed.): The Epigravettien site of Grubgraben, Lower Austria. The 1986 and 1987 excavations. In: ERAUL. Liege 40, 1990.
  • M. Otte: Le Gravettien en Europe centrale. Liège 1979.
  • Adolf Papp: The jewelry snails from Kamegg, N.-Ö. In: Archaeologica Austriaca. Deuticke, Vienna 1952, 10, pp. 28-33.
  • Richard Pittioni : Prehistory of the Austrian area. Vienna 1954.
  • O. Examiner: The Upper Palaeolithic Cultures of the Lower Austrian Loess. In: Quartaer. 10/11, 1958/59, pp. 79-114.
  • Josef Szombathy: The human lower jaw from the Mießlingtal near Spitz, N.-Ö. In: Archaeologica Austriaca. Deuticke, Vienna 1950, 5, pp. 1-5.
  • Gerhard Trnka: Studies on Middle Neolithic circular moats. In: Mitt. Prehist. Come on. Akad. Wiss. Vienna 26, 1991.
  • Gerhard Trnka: Preliminary excavation results from the district ditch of Kamegg, Lower Austria. In: Archaeologica Austriaca. Deuticke, Wien 1989, 70, pp. 87-103.

Coordinates: 48 ° 36 ′ 36.8 "  N , 15 ° 39 ′ 26.2"  E