Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 15e33

The Upper Paleolithic burial area at Předmostı́: ritual and taphonomy

Jiřı́ A. Svoboda
Institute of Archaeology at Brno, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic CZ-69129 Dolnı́ Věstonice 25, Czech Republic
Received 12 September 2006; accepted 1 May 2007

Abstract

Paleoanthropological materials from Předmostı́, recovered by J. Wankel in 1884, K.J. Maška in 1894, M. Křı́z in 1895, and K. Absolon in
1928 (and probably 1930), represent one of the largest collections of early modern human remains. Unfortunately, most of these fossils were
destroyed in 1945. The aim of this paper is to create a list of finds in accordance with the discovery dates, to place them into the spatial and
chronological context of the site, and to compare them with the evidence from recent excavation in 2006.
Two competing hypotheses are raised in the literature suggesting that the Předmostı́ individuals represent either a contemporary burial as
a consequence of one catastrophic event, or a gradual accumulation of human bodies at one place. Whereas the first hypothesis is supported
by the demographic structure of the buried group, including adults and children, the second interpretation is based on stratigraphic and tapho-
nomic analysis of the burial area itself.
Using the original documentation of Maška and other early researchers, and my own experience from recent excavation in the remaining part
of the site, I attempt to reconstruct the plan of the site, with a focus on spatial distribution of the human fossils, especially in the main burial area.
I suggest that the burial place was not the settlement center, but rather a peripheral and task-specific area. The determining factor for location
of the burial area was likely the remarkable Skalka rock, a cliff that rose directly above the site. A long-term tendency to place the dead ‘‘below
the rock’’ may have given rise to the accumulation of human remains at a single place, with a scatter of dispersed fragments in the vicinity. At
this location, the human bodies were partly protected by soil coverage, limestone debris, and mammoth scapulae, but were also affected by
postdepositional processes such as redeposition of sediments, predator activities, and later human activities, including the burial of additional
corpses.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Modern humans; Gravettian; Burials; Rituals; Taphonomy; Předmostı́

Introduction in western Eurasia. Three sites (Předmostı́ IeIII) were origi-

Few paleolithic sites in Europe have as long and complex
a research history as Předmostı́ in the Moravian region of
the Czech Republic (Table 1; Wankel, 1884, 1892; Maška,
1886, 1894a,b, 1895a,b; Křı́z, 1894, 1896a,b,c, 1903;
Absolon, 1918, 1929; Breuil, 1925; Knies, 1927; Zotz and
Freund, 1951; Klı́ma, 1973, 1990, 1991a; Absolon and Klı́ma,
1977; Svoboda et al., 1994, 1996; Oliva, 2001a,b; Svoboda,
2001a, 2005a; Zilhao and Trinkaus, 2002;). The area is impor-
tant for several reasons, including its key geographic location
E-mail address: svoboda@iabrno.cz
nally clustered around two limestone formations dominating
the southern entrance of the Moravian Gate, which is one of
the most important valley passages of Upper Pleistocene Eu-
rope for both humans and other animals (Fig. 1). Předmostı́
yielded not only immense amounts of mammoth and other
animal bones, artifacts, and decorative and symbolic items,
but also an important assemblage of Upper Paleolithic
(Gravettian) human fossils. Unfortunately, industrial exploita-
tion of loess and limestone in the past, and the insufficiently
documented excavations, have resulted in almost complete
destruction of this site. Two key monographs are essential
for the archaeology (Absolon and Klı́ma, 1977) and paleoan-
thropology (Matiegka, 1934, 1938) of the site, but both were

0047-2484/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2007.05.016
16 J. A. Svoboda / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 15e33

Table 1
Summary table of the main excavators at Předmostı́
Excavator Years
Jindřich Wankel 1880e1882, 1884, 1886
Karel J. Maška 1882e1884, 1889e1895
Jaroslav Klvaňa 1889
Martin Křı́z 1894e1897
Jan Knies especially 1923
Karel Absolon 1924e1935
Hermann Schwabedissen 1943
Karel Žebera et al. 1952e1954
Bohuslav Klı́ma 1971e1973, 1975e1976, 1982e1983
Jiřı́ Svoboda et al. 1989e1992, 2002, 2006

written after the major discoveries and, thus, in fact, are sec-
ondary sources, with all the biases and missunderstanding
that the delays in publication can produce.
The human remains were recovered by J. Wankel in 1884,
K.J. Maška in 1894, M. Křı́z in 1895, and K. Absolon in 1928
(and perhaps also 1930). All of these finds were concentrated
within the site designated Předmostı́ I, located west of the for-
merdnow exhausteddlimestone outcrop named Skalka
(Fig. 2). The largest accumulation of human skeletons was
that found by Maška in 1894, concentrated at one spot of
only 2.5 m by 4 m in size; the other finds are mostly fragments
dispersed in the cultural layer in the vicinity. The first inven-
tory of these finds (nos. 1e19) was drawn up by K.J. Maška
on pp. 70e71 of his diary. During processing of the material
for his planned monograph, Maška compiled lists of bones
for each individual. Later, other inventories were drawn up:
nos. 1e27 by J. Matiegka (1934) and 1e29 by E. Vlcek
(1971), which added the finds of Wankel, Křı́z and Absolon.
There is, however, certain disagreement amongst the catalogs
and original field data in numeration and description of the
remains.
Following Maška’s unpublished statistical tables, the indi-
viduals 1e10 and 15 are relatively complete skeletons, while
the others are fragmentary. The altogether 20 individuals later
Fig. 1. Surface reconstruction of the geomorphology of the southwestern edge
of the Moravian Gate, showing location of the sites Předmostı́ IeIII. The scale
along the bottom edge is in meters.
Fig. 2. Sketch of the Předmostı́ I site in 1882 (after Maška, 1882: 112e113). In
the south abandoned limestone quarry (former Skalka rock), in the north the
clay pit. Archive of the Institute of Archaeology, AS CR, Brno.
examined by Matiegka (1934, 1938) were mosty young. Only
the male numbered 14 (no. 15 in Maška’s numeration) could
be considered relatively old (40e50 years), and the male no.
3 was 35e40 years old. The remaining six adults (half of
which were females) were probably younger than 30 years,
two individuals (girls?) were aged between 10e12 and 15e
16 years, seven children were younger than 10 years, and three
were less than one year old. In 1945, this unique collection of
human fossils was burned, together with other important Pa-
leolithic finds from Moravia, in a catastrophic fire in the castle
of Mikulov. Only rare specimens, such as two fragmentary
human mandibles Předmostı́ 21 and 26, were recently redis-
covered in museum collections and records (Drozdová,
2001, 2002; Vlcek, 2005). An anthropological revision of
the entire assemblage, based on the preserved photographic
glass plates made by J. Matiegka and on casts, is in progress
(Katina et al., 2004; Velemı́nská et al., 2004).
The existing contextual data concerning these human
fossils are unfortunately insufficient. Of Wankel’s finds, only
a short description is available (Wankel, 1884). From
K.J. Maška we have the field diary with daily records, some
topographic sketches, and stratigraphic sections, the most
important being his diary volumes I (Maška, 1882) and VII
(Maška, 1894c). These records are now deposited at the Insti-
tute of Archaeology, Brno and Dolnı́ Věstonice. In addition,
there are fragments of Maška’s unpublished manuscripts and
preliminary statistical tables at the Masaryk University,
 J. A. Svoboda / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 15e33 17

Brno, and summary publications, unfortunately lacking any
plans or illustrations (Maška, 1895a,b, 1896). From M. Křı́z
there is an illustrated publication (Křı́z, 1896a,b,c, 1903),
with a general plan showing the location of his trenches rela-
tive to Maška’s. From K. Absolon there is a verbal description
(Absolon, 1929) and a plan (Absolon and Klı́ma, 1977, their
Fig. 36), but, again, there is no certainty as to the precise lo-
cation of the human fossil finds.
Since no general plan of the burial area was left by the ex-
cavators, later efforts to reconstruct it were presented based on
the sketches and verbal description. The first reconstruction of
the burial area was the idealized version of K. Absolon, that
was evidently based on Maška’s publications alone. It depicts
Maška’s term the ‘‘human heaps’’ and attempts to show the
delimitation of the grave with mammoth scapulae. A later re-
construction by B. Klı́ma (1990, 1991a) also returns to Maš-
ka’s sketches, slightly idealized, to which other objects and
the expected outlines of the unrecorded human bodies have
been added.
The aim of the present paper is not to repeat the wealth of
archaeological, anthropological, and paleoenvironmental data
on Předmostı́, as presented in the above-mentioned publica-
tions. Neither shall I comment on the physical anthropology
and demography of the human fossil assemblage (cf. Katina
et al., 2004; Velemı́nská et al., 2004). Instead, I shall follow
two lines of research. First, I shall focus in more detail on
the primary field documentation left by the previous excava-
tors, mainly by Maška, in order to reconstruct and explain
the context of the human fossil finds (Table 2, Fig. 3). Second,
I shall use the new data from a 2006 excavation in the still pre-
served portion of the site (Site Ib) to draw general conclusions
about spatial patterning and chronology of the site.
Maška’s original diaries, namely volume VIIdincluding
the critical excavation year of 1894dcontain schematic
maps, sections, sketches of (some) bone scatters and other
find situations, administrative notes, and the text, organized
by day (Maška, 1894c). This is a type of primary documenta-
tion intended for personal use, to refresh the memory during
further processing of the material and during the writing of
the definitive monograph that the author has planned. As
a text it makes for monotonous reading, which attains shape
only if the data recorded for particular dates are projected
into the site. Thus, by reconstructing the daily movements of
the excavator in the area, we shall order his records into their
spatial context. This approach concerns the 1894 excavation
area in general (Fig. 4) as well as the burial area in particular
(Figs. 5e9).
Contrary to Klı́ma, we shall limit ourselves to Maška’s
original sketches and verbal comments, which we attempt to
arrange into a certaindalbeit incompletedsystem, making al-
lowances also for the fact of overlapping of the bodies in the
central accumulation. In its rough outline, however, our overall
result (Fig. 8) is not basically different from Klı́ma’s (1990,
1991a).
The spatial structure and stratigraphy of Předmostı́
Of the several timely descriptions of the original appear-
ance of the site, the brief and best-fitting was given by J. Knies
(1927: 106; cf. Fig. 1): ‘‘The form of the elevation originally
comprised a crest-shaped and saddled outcrop of Devonian
limestone, from which high above rose two rocky formations,
of which the northern was called Hradisko and the southern
Skalka.’’
The limestone core of Hradisko was to a great extent cov-
ered by loess and is still preserved; it was recently excavated
as a predominantly Middle Paleolithic site (site Předmostı́ II;
Svoboda et al., 1994, 1996). Skalka was quarried out during
the 19th century, so that the archaeologists were aware of it
from recorded information rather than first-hand experience.
In fact, it must have been a rather imposing rock formation,
accessible from the north but steeply cut to the south, and
‘‘higher than the church tower in Předmostı́’’ (Maška,
1894a), the importance of which was reflected in the legend
of the footprint of St. Adalbert on its peak (Skutil, 1951).
The most important parts of the Gravettian settlements, now
destroyed and only partly excavated, extended north and
west of Skalka (the site of Předmostı́ Ia). The cultural layers

Table 2
Summary table of the paleoanthropological finds from Předmostı́, site Ia (for spatial reconstruction see Fig. 3)
Find no. Finder Date of discovery Further data Characteristics Human manipulation
1. J. Wankel 1884 Chromecek’s clay pit Lower jaw
2. K.J. Maška May 18th, 1894 North Part of a lower jaw, humerus
3. K.J. Maška Aug.7theSept.10th, 1894 Burial site Skeletons 1e10, 15; others incomplete
4. K.J. Maška Aug.18th, 1894 Northwest, uncertain Ulna
5. K.J. Maška Aug.23rd, 1894 South Pelvis Perforation
6. K.J. Maška Aug. 24the28th, 1894 Southeast Lower jaw, skull fragment, ulna,
radius, humerus, ribs
7. K.J. Maška Aug. 24th, 1894 South Skull fragment, humerus
8. K.J. Maška Aug. 30th South Rib
9. K.J. Maška Aug. 4th/Sept. 10th, 1894 Northeast, during removal Phalanx, ulna, humerus
10. M. Křı́z June 25th, 1895, and later Chromecek: trench VIII Skull, lower jaw
11. M. Křı́z 1895 Chromecek: trench IV Lower jaw
12. M. Křı́z 1895 Chromecek: trench II Two femurs
13. M. Křı́z 1895 Dokoupil: trench VII Skull fragment, two humeri,
two ulnae, radius fragment
14. K. Absolon August, 1928, 1930 54 limb bones, two teeth, lower jaw Cutmarks
18 J. A. Svoboda / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 15e33
Fig. 3. General plan of Sites Ia and Ib, showing areas excavated by the indi-
vidual researchers and location of the paleoanthropological finds. Full point:
relatively certain location; empty point: generally estimated location; the circle
indicating the Skalka rock is a very approximate reconstruction.
are still partly preserved below the Předmostı́ cemetery (the
site of Předmostı́ Ib). From other areas around this rock, we
only have scarce records of huge accumulations of ‘‘giant
bones’’, dating as early as the 16th century. Předmostı́ III is
a smaller Gravettian site in lower elevation, south of Skalka.
Concerning the within-site spatial distribution and pat-
terning at the main site of Předmostı́ I, some later authors
suspect that ground plans of dwellings remained unrecog-
nized by the early excavators. Of course, such a possibility
is open to discussion, but regular circular features of bones
and stones would probably be noted if present. Whatever
the situation was, it appears that a difference may be
observed in density of artifacts and in regularity of pattern-
ing of the hearths and bone accumulations between the
northern and western sections of the site. In the north, the
first researchers recorded regular hearths (diameter: 1.5e
2 m; depth: 20e30 cm), surrounded by find scatters rich in
artifacts and bones; in addition, mammoth bones were
selected and arranged in certain groups after type of bone.
In the west, the bone deposits were still large but
irregular, with evidence of extensive burning, and associated
artifacts were less numerous in these contexts. Our 2006
excavation clarified, in fact, a situation of the second type.
Fig. 4. Sketch of the area excavated in 1894 (after Maška, 1894c: 25). The ar-
rows indicate the supposed directions of the excavation, the letters correspond
to the main sectors: northern zone (N), northeast (NE), northwest (NW), south-
east (SE), south (S), southwest (SW). The burial area is hatched.
Another question concerns stratigraphy at Předmostı́ I.
Both Maška and Křı́z described several (two or three) Upper
Paleolithic layers, but it was unclear whether this complex
stratigraphy reflects a real sequence of occupations through
time, or whether it resulted from redeposition of the same
layer along the slope. Stratigraphy and datings from the
2006 excavation support the first interpretation, that is a longer
interval of Gravettian occupations at this site, comprising both
the Pavlovian and Willendorf-Kostenkian stages (Table 3; cf.
Svoboda, 2003; Jöris and Weninger, 2004).
Jindřich Wankel (1884)
The northern and probably the most attractive part of the
Site I was investigated along the edge of the Chromecek
clay pit (over a length of ca. 100 m) by J. Wankel (1884).
There are no more precise data as to how large an area he ex-
cavated. However, Wankel found accumulations of mammoth
bones, partly sorted by element (e.g., 50 molars at one point,
a pile of tusks), along with numerous stone and bone artifacts.
Given the richness of the finds and sorting of the animal bones,
we may consider the northern part of Site I to be a more typ-
ical settlement zone. An isolated find of a human mandible
was an exception in this context. This item was described by
Wankel as follows:
‘‘I also found, beneath a massive mammoth thigh bone, the
right half of a human lower jaw, and lifted it myself from the
ash in which it had been deposited. This jaw shows two gap
 J. A. Svoboda / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 15e33
Fig. 5. Case of a relatively complete human skeleton (Maška, 1894c: 38e39). On August 10, 1894, Maška uncovers in the middle part of the area several human
skeletons in the upper level, of which he draws the male no. 3. Archive of the Institute of Archaeology, AS CR, Brno.
teeth and behind them the three rear molars, evidently from
a female person of medium size, a little older than 24 years
of age; and it is at just that place where it adjoined its second
half that the jaw was anciently broken; in terms of dimensions,
it does not differ from the lower jaws of modern man.’’
(Wankel, 1884: 96).
The jaw is described again by K.J. Maška (1886), to whom
it was lent for the purposes of his paper, by J. Havelka (1886);
Maška, by contrast, pointed out the differences between this
fossil and modern populations. The jaw was recorded as no.
21 in the monographs of J. Matiegka (1934, 1938), and Vlcek
(1971) incorrectly states that it is housed in the Moravian
Museum. Thus, most authors have automatically regarded it
as destroyed, as is the whole anthropological assemblage
from Předmostı́. In 2000, however, along with P. Procházková
we identified this specimen in the museum exhibition at Olo-
mouc and handed it over for a new description to E. Drozdová
(2001, 2002).
Karel Jaroslav Maška (1894)
Between 1882 and 1893, Maška (as did Wankel before him)
operated in the northern part of Site I, again uncovering sorted
animal bones, including 13 mammoth tusks and four mam-
moth skulls in the same place. The hearths were regular in
shape, and artifacts and decorative objects of stone and bone
were also numerous. However, in spring of 1894, as Maška en-
tered the western part of the site, the situation seems to have
19
changed slightly. The animal bones were numerous but no lon-
ger sorted, and the artifacts were less frequent so that even
finding single, standard types was worth mentioning in the
diary.
Unfortunately, Maška’s method of exavation did not yet
employ a regular grid (this was first done by M. Křı́z), and
his excavations instead expanded daily in concentric bands
(Fig. 4). This evidently suited Maška’s laborers, and Wankel
perhaps proceeded likewise. Such a system complicates even
the approximate localization of finds from the area to a specific
date. In several cases, and particularly with the anthropologi-
cal finds, data is recorded for the day and band and is comple-
mented by additional dimensions, such as the distance from
the edge of the quarry. Thus, in some cases it is possible to in-
fer a rough localization of the findspot.
The excavations in the summer of 1894 expanded to the
south the area already investigated in the spring. The approach
was fundamentally the same as in the spring; excavations
started at the northeastern corner (now covered by the wel-
come shade of an elm tree), and work progressed in concentric
bands to the southwest. However, the discovery of the human
burial area at the beginning of August altered the pattern of the
excavations. Some of the anthropological finds were left in
situ, and further excavation to the southeast and south then
started from this spot.
Following this model (Fig. 4), we have divided the investi-
gated area into sectors that roughly correspond to the chronol-
ogy of the investigations: a northern sector (the spring
20 J. A. Svoboda / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 15e33
Fig. 6. Later reconstruction of the male Předmostı́ 3 from the 1930s, by
K. Absolon for purposes of museum exhibition. Archive of the Institute of
Archaeology, AS CR, Brno.
excavations), the northeast sector (July excavations), the burial
area, the northwest, the southeast, a southern sector, and the
southwest (all excavated in August). This is, naturally, sche-
matic. A more precise outline of the whole area, as presented
in Fig. 3, was received by projecting Maška’s sketch into a gen-
eral site plan made the following year by M. Křı́z (1903: 50).
The northern zone (spring 1894)
In comparison with previous excavations, during which
hearths, accumulations of sorted mammoth bones (groups of
tusks, skulls), and, above all, numerous pieces of stone and
bone industry were found (Maška, 1894a,b), the northern sec-
tor is somewhat peripheral in nature. A description of the sit-
uation in the spring of 1894 attests to the stacks of mammoth
bones, which, however, did not form a contiguous cover, but
rather separate, spatially distinct accumulations. This would
also explain the larger number of bones from smaller preda-
tors, including complete wolf skeletons, and the lower
frequency of artifacts (as inferred by the fact that even isolated
occurrences were recorded). The limestone debris was angular
in the upper layers and rounded in the subsoil.
The first human remains were reported on May 18th: ‘‘at
two places, 9 and 11 m from the edge, human remains: the
lower part of a humerus and the back end of a lower jaw.
Unfortunately, both incomplete’’. This find is approximately
localizable, if the distances of 9 m and 11 m from the edge
of the loess wall are projected onto the band investigated on
May 18th in Maška (1894c: 16). However, the anatomical de-
scription of the finds does not agree with the later catalogue
(no. 20), which lists a humerus, a fibula, an ulna, and two
teeth, and omits the lower jaw (Matiegka, 1934, 1938).
In addition, Maška recorded finds of flakes, blades, and
bone tools, including six ‘‘cylinders’’ made of mammoth
ivory. Among the fauna, mainly mammoth, fox, and wolf
are noted, and sporadically reindeer, horse, moose, bear, and
lion. The mammoth remains are mainly tusks, molars, and ver-
tebrae, and sporadically skulls, scapulae, and ribs.
The northeast sector (July 24theAugust 6th, 1894)
During July, 1894, a sector was gradually uncovered in the
northeastern part of the new area. The cultural layer comprised
ash lenses lying in two or more horizons (Fig. on page 24 in
Maška, 1894c). During this period, Maška divided his records
into Layer I (the upper) and Layer II (the lower). Further, he
notes an area of rounded limestone debris, mainly at the
base of this stratigraphic sequence (‘‘seats’’, measuring up to
50 cm). We presume that this debris entered the area from
the east, from the former Skalka rock.
The northeastern sector yielded a larger assemblage of
flakes, blades, and ‘‘scrapers’’ (‘‘Schaber’’), with individual
mentions of a core, an awl, a leafpoint, a hammerstone, a whet-
stone, a polished marlstone disc (see ‘The burial area accom-
panying artefacts and finds’), a polished ‘‘chisel’’, and two
dentalia shells. Among the bone industry, two spatulas and
two mammoth ivory ‘‘cylinders’’ are mentioned. Predominant
among the fauna are mammoth, reindeer, horse, fox, wolf, and
bear, with isolated instances of wolverine, rhinoceros, and
birds. The mammoth bones are mostly tusks, molars, long
bones, vertebrae, and ribs, with a few crania, mandibles,
limb bones, a scapula, and an innominate. Some of the mate-
rial comes directly from the overlying layers of the burial area,
before Maška identified it as such.
On August 3rd, Maška turned south, thus encountering the
burial area. The overlying layers were in fact dug out on Au-
gust 3rde4th, ‘‘.so that any of the workers, the numerous
watchers and I myself could realize that at just shallow depths
below the stones something important lay’’ (Maška, 1895b:
163). On August 4th, he observes vertically-set mammoth
bones in the area, both scapulae and long bones ‘‘perhaps
also two mammoth lower jaws, lying on each other some
2 m east of the grave (Fig. on pages 32e33 in Maška,
 J. A. Svoboda / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 15e33
Fig. 7. Case of a heavily disturbed human skeleton (Maška, 1894c: 66e67). On September 10, 1894, Maška documents the last preserved skeletal associations,
probably from the lower levels of the burial area. Archive of the Institute of Archaeology, AS CR, Brno.
1894c), relate directly to the human grave’’. This was later
confirmed, since in his concluding remarks (Maška, 1894c:
72 and addendum on page 32) he adds that he discovered three
human bones (an adult phalanx, a child’s ulna and probably
a humerus) directly below and during removal of these mam-
moth bones. However, the central burial area was not regis-
tered before August 7th.
The burial area (August 7the13th and September 10th, 1894)
Maška did not draw up an overall plan of the ‘‘grave’’, but
stuck instead to partial sketches, probably due to the unclear
stratigraphic situation and the technical problem of expressing
the overlapping bones; in his own words, they lay ‘‘next to and
on top of each other’’ (Maška, 1895a,b) . Another problem
was the irregular excavation system.
The outline of the burial area is described narratively as an
elliptical shape, the axis running northeast, (Maška, 1895a,b),
measured, and sketched on page 40 in Maška (1894c). In re-
constructing the interior, we base our conclusions on daily
movement of the diggers within the area (Fig. 8, right).
From the general plan (Fig. 4), it follows that Maška ap-
proached the ‘‘grave’’ from the northeast but did not recognize
it before reaching its southern end, where the limestone debris
cover (previously regarded as substrate) ended: ‘‘many small
bones of arctic fox were scattered, somewhat deeper than
the other parts of the lower cultural layer, such as metatarsals
and a calf bone which I have discovered suddenly’’ (Maška,
1895b: 162). Therefore, we localized the point of
21
departuredthe first sketch from August 7th, at the southern
edge of the area (Maška, 1894c: 34 below in the diary); the up-
per sketch, some 1 m distant to the north and, thus, drawn in
the diary in the upwards direction (even across the text written
previously), indicates that on the same day Maška returned
back to the north, below the debris area. The rich finds from
August 8th are described only narratively, but are said to lay
‘‘to the side’’ and ‘‘in the direction south-north’’. On one of
the skulls lay a fragment of mammoth shoulder blade, the first
of three found, which has thus been localized to the northeast-
ern corner. The debris at this place was both over and below
the human finds.
The repeated burials at the same place (‘‘everything lay
separately in the yellow earth’’, Aug. 7th), perhaps linked to
lighting fires (‘‘beneath the skull was a layer of charcoal and
a clear ash layer’’, Aug. 7th; ‘‘a black, burned layer lay on
the person’’ Aug. 8th), illustrates the complexity of the
situation.
On August 9th and 10th, Maška reached the very center
(‘‘mittlere Grube’’, ‘‘Menschenhaufen’’), where he counted
a total of six skeletons; but on the 9th, he depicts only parts
of the lower limbs and a skull (Maška, 1894c: 37) and on
the 10th the most complete skeleton including vertebrae and
ribs and indicating the flexed lower limbs (Maška, 1894c:
38, male no. 3; Fig. 5, compare its later reconstruction,
Fig. 6). According to the publication, the other skeletons lay
‘‘west of here’’, and were temporarily left in place to be later
placed in crates en bloc. A second mammoth scapula is also
recorded at this point (worn at the crest and engraved with
22 J. A. Svoboda / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 15e33

Fig. 8. Reconstruction of the burial area and its vicinity, based on original sketches inserted according to the individual excavation days. Only in case of the in-
dividual Předmostı́ 3 (center) are we sure about the catalog number. Missing bodies are hatched. Right: direction of excavation on the individual working days
(arrows and dates).

lines), evidently the one that Maška mentioned in his publica-
tion as being in the northwest.
By the end of August 10th, Maška had already managed to
establish the overall dimensions of the grave, which measured
four meters in length and three meters in breadth. A day later
the dimensions were rendered more precise by a drawn outline
(Maška, 1894c: 40), where the width was reduced to 2.5 m,
and this definitive dimension was then retained in all later pub-
lications (Maška, 1895a,b).
On August 11the13th, Maška (1894c) worked within the
area thus delimited, together with ‘‘the most skillful laborer’’,
but at the same time the excavations reached into the surround-
ing area, and into the hitherto uninvestigated southern vicinity.
On August 11th, he depicted an arm bone, strongly flexed at
the elbow, lying south of the grave (Maška, 1894c: 40). On
August 13th, he turned back (i.e., towards the central area) en-
countering a large group of limb bones, covered by a mammoth
scapula (Maška, 1894c: 42). Evidently, this is the third of the
‘‘marginal’’ scapulae, in later reconstructions localized to the
southwest edge.
Thus, although only two ‘‘boundary’’ mammoth scapulae are
mentioned by Maška in his publications (the southwestern and
northwestern, respectively), the diary mentionsdincluding
fragmentsdthree in turn, with one at the northeast as well.
(Klı́ma’s reconstruction, too, shows only two, but at the south-
west and northeast.) Because the use of mammoth scapulae as
protective coverage of human bodies was later confirmed
elsewhere in South Moravia (Trinkaus and Svoboda, 2006),
we maydin individual casesdapply the same interpretation
at Předmostı́. There was not, however, any sort of a continuous
coverage of the whole burial area.
In the period during and after discovery of the ‘‘grave’’,
Maška (1894c) records the discovery of just two bladelets, a ra-
cloir or scraper (‘‘Feuersteinschaber’’), and two hammer-
stones. No mention of dyes is made. In terms of fauna, he
repeatedly mentions mammoth and fox, and occasionally
 J. A. Svoboda / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 15e33 23

Fig. 9. Southeastern part of the 1894 area, sketch from August 28: 54e55. Maška’s commentary (1894c): ‘‘ash layers were as if laid on top of each other, mostly
irregular, but with horizontal charcoal bands... Large stones occured everywhere in the cultural layer.’’ Archive of the Institute of Archaeology, AS CR, Brno.

reindeer, horse, wolf, bear, wolverine, and hare. For the loose
canines of various carnivores, mentioned several times, there
is no mention of their being perforated, and these cannot,
therefore, be interpreted as pendants. The mammoth bones
were molars, long bones, scapulae, and isolated finds of skull,
tusk, and vertebra.
In general, Maška records accumulations of limestone
blocks from the northern and eastern sides, ‘‘not reaching
the southern part’’, and these have separated the anthropolog-
ical remains from the overlying cultural layers. Of course, this
debris continued outside the burial area as well, creating
a kind of circular alignment around the former Skalka rock.
In the foot zone it is logical to expect chaotic sedimentation
of slope material, redeposited loess, limestone scree, pebbles,
and other allochthonous material (Maška, 1894c: 54), which
evidently periodically intruded into the space set aside for
burials (‘‘here the layer shows clear bands’’, Aug. 10th; ‘‘an
ash-grey layer penetrates into the horizon of human bones’’,
Aug. 13th). This attests to repeated deposition of geologic,
not anthropogenic, origin.
The last skeletal parts were removed by Maška en bloc, and
drawn and photographed after the excavations had ended (i.e.,
on September 10th). The relevant sketches thus appear on
pages 65e68 in Maška, 1894c, with only the most essential
commentary (Fig. 7). It is logical to assume that the last sed-
iments excavated were the stratigraphically lowest. On our
final plan (Fig. 8), this superposition has been expressed
graphically through overlapping frames that are localized
west of the male skeleton no. 3.
The northwest (August 14the22nd, 1894)
A sketch on page 25 shows that, on August 14th and 16th,
the excavations returned to the northern part of the site, which
Maška had abandoned at the end of July before the discovery
of the burial area, and resurrected the original direction of the

Table 3
14
Přerov - Předmostı́, summary table of C datings (calibration after Danzeglocke et al., 2007)
Sample Site-context date BP date cal BC
GrN-6801 Předmostı́ Ib, excavation 1975, Pavlovian 26,870  250 29,670  240
GrN-6852 Předmostı́ Ib, excavation 1975, Pavlovian 26,320  240 29,192  374
GrA-32583 Předmostı́ Ib, excavation 2006, lower layer e Pavlovian 26,780  140 29,655  184
GrA-32641 Předmostı́ Ib, excavation 2006, upper layer e Willendorf-Kostenkian 24,340  120 27,145  436
OxA-5971 Předmostı́ II, 1992, layer 4, Pavlovian 25,040  320 27,997  365
GrA-29085 Předmostı́ III, excavation 1984 e contaminated? 16,800  90 uncalibrated
24 J. A. Svoboda / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 15e33
excavations from hence, northeast to southwest (Maška,
1894c). The terrain slopes slightly to the south (Maška,
1894c: 47). Maška draws attention to the stratification of the
layers into bands (solifluction?), and notes an extended ashy
area.
In the days that followed (August 17the22nd), the excava-
tions reached the western boundary, where they should have
abutted the neighboring plot. Maška repeatedly notes the dou-
bling of the cultural layers and the appearance of ashy areas.
On August 18th, an isolated human ulna is recorded that
cannot, however, be more precisely localized within the frame-
work of the northwestern sector. Moreover, its geochronolog-
ical age is uncertain, given that there was an Iron Age pit
uncovered at the same time.
In this part of the site there were sporadic occurrences of
flakes, a blade, a leafpoint (in the upper layer), a shark’s tooth,
and a shell. In the bone assemblage there are six ‘‘cylinders’’
of mammoth ivory and above all a ‘‘fork-shaped’’ implement.
Dominant species among the fauna are mammoth and wolf,
while reindeer, lion, and wolverine are also quite frequent;
horse, fox, and hare appear sporadically. There are repeated
records of mammoth skulls, tusks, and molars.
Southern edge of the burial area (August 23rde24th, 1894)
On August 23rd, Maška (1894c) returned to the southern
edge of the burial, recording an interesting find: ‘‘also a human
pelvic bonedyoung, perforated, 1 cm aperture, entirely
round’’. On the basis of surviving photographs this find was
later published by Klı́ma (1991b, his Fig. 4), albeit that the
documented aperture is considerably larger than the one noted
by Maška.
On August 24th, when otherwise the work was going on in
the southeastern sector, Maška localized certain finds in the
southern section: ‘‘southwards from the grave a single human
humerus, in the middle of the cultural layer. A meter to the
east from there the skull of a young person (for washing),
above which two mammoth shoulderblades (if this is not
part of the grave?)’’. This, then, is another case of human finds
being covered by mammoth scapulae.
The southeast (August 24the28th, 1894)
On these dates the excavations gradually advanced to the
southeastern tip of the area. In the narrow band between the
burial area and the edge of the quarry Maška records the dou-
bling or even a greater complexity of cultural layers, in places
quite thick and deposited chaotically (‘‘huge black layers, as if
disarranged between themselves. Much loess.in the debris,
large blocks of granite’’: Maška, 1894c, Aug. 27th, 1894).
These are evidently slope sediments along the foot of the for-
mer Skalka rock (Fig. 9), but mentioning granite is probably
an error. Here, the mammoth bones appeared in the upper
layer. Human bones were found in this context, reaching
here from the central burial area (Maška, 1894c: 55).
August 24th: ‘‘Ca. 3 m eastwards lay a human lower jaw
with teeth facing downwards, so that at first we thought it
an upper jaw and skull. The jaw lay 10 cm above a thick char-
coal layer (the lower cultural layer), immediately on the
human jaw and next to it were mammoth bones.’’
August 27th: ‘‘Close to the lower jaw from Aug. 24th
a fragment of skull vault, the forehead and nape, 5 m distant
from the edge. Above this a shoulderblade. Beneath this
10 cm of loess, then a large hearth. Two meters from the
edge at the most distant tip a human ulna, radius. This is in
conjunction with the skull from Saturday. As deep as the sub-
strate are older layers, in the same location are ribs as well.
At the same place a mammoth skull and numerous skull
fragments’’.
August 28th: ‘‘Where the human bones lay there was no
skeleton; instead, to the earlier finds of radius, ulna, and ribs
we may add one more humerus. This specimen laid in the up-
per layer, oriented towards the east. The others lay to the left.
The upper epiphysis of the humerus was missing. Milk canine
of a bear, perforated’’.
Of importance here is the mention of human skull covered
by a scapula on August 27th, although it is unclear whether the
scapula was from a human or mammoth.
The stone assemblage is not mentioned from this sector,
while the bone assemlage yielded a spatula and two ‘‘cylin-
ders’’ of mammoth ivory. The single bear canine (August
28th) is, in this case, perforated. Dominant among the fauna
are mammoth, reindeer, and hare, while fox also appears re-
peatedly, and there are isolated instances of bear, lion, and
wolverine. For mammoth, there are repeated mentions of
skulls, tusks, and molars; jaws, long bones, and a scapula ap-
pear in isolated instances.
The southern band (August 29theSeptember 1st, 1894)
In late August, it remained to excavate the southern band,
where Maška advanced from east to west. Further south it
was bounded by another field that stretched to the former
cemetery wall, and within which the owner, Chromecek, was
unwilling to allow further excavation. The cultural layer
was again structured, as Maška (1894c: 56) documents by
a sketch.
On August 30th, he records the find of a human rib, but the
language relating to the statement ‘‘15 m from the edge of the
borders’’ (Maška, 1894c) is problematic; the word ‘‘border’’ is
usually used by Maška for the neighboring plots, but if despite
this he meant the edge of the quarry (as was his habit), then the
location would roughly match (Fig. 3).
South of the burial area and beyond, in the southern band,
there are repeated mentions of the discovery of flakes and
blades, and moreover four dentalia shells and an isolated ‘‘cyl-
inder’’ of mammoth ivory. Among the fauna, mammoth, rein-
deer, wolf, and hare predominate; there are repeated cases of
fox, lion, and wolverine, and sporadic finds of horse and rhi-
noceros. In this case, mammoth is represented mainly by
skulls and molars, less so by scapulae, long bones, and a tusk.
 J. A. Svoboda / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 15e33
The southwest (September 3rde6th, 1894)
Finally, a square of 10  10 m at the southwestern edge of
the plot remained to be investigated. From here, Maška men-
tions an even more extensive area of ash, but otherwise the
cultural layer disappears. The doubling of layers was still vis-
ible in places, as he assigns the find of a leafpoint to the upper
layer. This relates also to the leafpoint found on August 22nd
of the same year in the ‘‘northwest’’ areadboth, thus, come
from the western part of the area and from the upper layer,
as Maška explicitly notes. In addition, he recalls several other
finds such as the 8e9 cm long leafpoints found in 1893, al-
ways in the upper layer (Maška, 1894b: 5), but he neglects
a single find of a leafpoint from the lower layer, found on
July 25th, 1894.
By the end, Maška (1894c: 64) sketched in his diary an
arched, unexcavated half of this sector, only noting that it
comprises altogether 50 m2. This relict of the original sedi-
ments was not touched by Křı́z in 1895, who on his map
(1903: 50) marks it with a white triangle dalthough other-
wise, as Maška (1896) complains, Křı́z worked on the areas
cleaned and prepared by Maška. It is, therefore, possible that
Absolon, as late as 1928, reached undisturbed sediments at
this location, and it was most likely from here that he obtained
his human skeletal fragments.
Concerning artifacts, there are repeated mentions only of
lithics (including the above-mentioned leafpoint) and a ‘‘cylin-
der’’ of mammoth ivory. Of the fauna, only mammoth appears
repeatedly, with rather sporadic reindeer, horse, aurochs, fox,
wolf, lion, wolverine, and rhinoceros. Mammoth is repre-
sented mainly by molars and vertebrae and a single scapula.
Martin Křı́z (1895)
Křı́z excavated both in the western and northern parts of the
site. Maška’s excavations of 1894 essentially formed a spatial
linkage between these two parts, so that Křı́z’s general plan
can also be used to correct the outlines of Maška’s sketches.
While the arrival of Křı́z at the site posed an ethical problem
of its own (Maška, 1895a, 1896; Křı́z, 1896a,b,c), it must be
recognized that these excavations utilized a better (i.e., rectan-
gular) system (Křı́z, 1903). Fortunately, in the case of all
human skeletal remains Křı́z gives its provenience according
to his ‘‘pits’’, or ‘‘Gruben’’. In the western part of the site,
Křı́z mentions a skull (trench VIII), lower jaw 1 (trench IV),
lower jaw 2 (trench VIII, unclear whether this belongs to the
skull from the same trench), and left and right femur (trench
II). In the northern part of the site, there were 18 cranial
fragments (trench VII), right and left humeri (trench VII),
two ulnae (trench VII), and fragment of a right radius (trench
VII). These finds were later ascribed the nos. 22e26 by Mat-
iegka, although the description does not match precisely and
no. 26 is clearly a later addition.
With the human fossil finds, Křı́z’s record on provenience
ends. Following his reports (Křı́z, 1894, 1896a,b, 1903), the
excavated settlement zone was clearly structured, with central
hearths located in shallow pits and concentrations of
25
fragmented animal bones around them. However, we do not
know whether this patterning refers to the western or (rather)
northern part of the site, or both. In addition, Křı́z’s excava-
tions yielded the most famous art objects, such as the engrav-
ing of a woman and the sculpture of a mammoth, but these
went unrecognized by their discoverer (it was Maška who later
oriented them correctly and recognized their meaning), and
their localization at the site was never given.
Karel Absolon (1928)
During the early 20th century, the area of Site I was en-
croached upon by industrial loess exploitation of the expand-
ing brickworks belonging to F. Přikryl from the west.
Following episodic activities of J. Liška, J. Knies, and other
investigators, the quarrying was monitored more systemati-
cally by K. Absolon and colleagues from 1924 onwards. In
1928, Absolon undertook a series of trenches in the western-
most part of the site, along the edge of the plot, and adjacent
to the areas investigated by Maška and Křı́z (Absolon and
Klı́ma, 1977, their Figs. 36e37). Between the older excava-
tions he found a roughly 10 m long, irregular, intact zone;
judging from a drawing made by J. Mrázek on September
15th, 1928, it possible that this area included the unfinished
‘‘southwest’’ sector of Maška from September, 1894.
An incomplete human skeleton was found (Absolon, 1929;
no. 27 according to Matiegka), but the skull was either missing
or disintegrated when removed by its finder, L. Novák. Abso-
lon lists 54 bones from both upper and lower limbs, including
several phalanges, as well as two teeth. An important observa-
tion is that a fragment of left femur is incised by 26 oblique
cutmarks, evidently by a sharp object, which Absolon (1929)
explains as an effect of cannibalism, while Oliva (2001b:
19) feels it was from recent damage during the excavation.
However, the pattern is very similar to numerous cutmarks
identified on mammal bones during our recent excavations at
this site (Svoboda et al., in press).
In 1930, L. Novák found another lower jaw at the same
place, but it is not known whether it comes from the same in-
dividual. It is possible that it was the specimen designated no.
26 and is still curated in the Moravian Museum (Skutil, 1940;
Vlcek, 2005).
Evidence from the recent excavation (2006)
Between 1943e1992, excavations in the remaining parts
of the site by Schwabedissen, Žebera, Klı́ma, and Svoboda
(Table 1) clarified the overall picture of spatial extension
and stratigraphy of Předmostı́, but no more human fossils
were discovered.
Since the beginning of the 21st century, a project to build
a museum pavilion that would cover and protect the last re-
mains of the cultural layer, bones of mammoths, and other
large animals at the Site Ib (about 8 m  3e4.5 m), has been
proposed by the City of Přerov. The preparation had several
stages. In 2002, we made test trenches in order to check the
real extension and depth of the cultural layer. In spring
26 J. A. Svoboda / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 15e33

2006, we followed with two archaeological trenches in places

of future sidewalls of the pavilion. Finally, in summer 2006,
after roughly finishing the building, it was possible to conduct
the archaeological recovery which conserved in place the
Gravettian cultural layers and opened them to the public.
Besides archaeologists and students from the Czech Republic,
the excavation was joined by a team from the University of
Cambridge, UK, who focused on plant remains and other
microfossils in order to reconstruct environment and seasonal-
ity of the site. This part of the project is still in progress, but
preliminary results relevant to spatial structure, stratigraphy,
and chronology of the site can already be summarized
(Svoboda et al., in press).
In terms of stratigraphy, Holocene deposits are underlain by
yellow-brownish loess with inclusions of niveoeolian sedi-
ments, forming the main thickness of the section (1.80e
2 m). The loess is horizontally penetrated by thin, darkish Fig. 11. Předmostı́ I, 2006 excavations. Photo of southern sector, showing
and rusty horizons, and vertically by lime-filled fissures and deposition of large and complete bones, predominately of mammoth.
a typical ice-wedge cast of epigenetic type. Following J. De-
mek (in Svoboda et al., in press), such structures are typical
of permafrost and mean annual air temperature (MAAT) The lower case of the excavation (only in the side trenches)
around 5  C, during OIS 2. At the base of the loess is brown formed the reddish paleosol of OIS 5, as recorded elsewhere in
to brown-grayish clay with an undulated margin and evidence the Předmostı́ area (with OIS 4 not being represented in the
of cryotectonics, indicating a moister, but generally still cold deposits of this area).
environment. In the upper Gravettian layer, the malacofauna indicates
The Gravettian cultural complex is located in the subsoil, cold-adapted loess species Succinella oblonga Drap, or sub-
with total thickness of 0.6e0.8 m, formed during the later species S. o. elongata SNDB (Kovanda in Svoboda et al., in
part of OIS 3. Bones, artifacts, and other recorded objects press). Among the vertebrates, the most numerous bones are
follow a shallow slope, in minimally two layers (Fig. 10). mammoth (77%) and horse (15 %), followed by wolf (5%)
Whereas the upper layer was represented by individual bones and reindeer (3%), each from minimally one individual. The
and artifacts, the lower layer was a continuous coverage of faunal composition becomes more versatile in the lower layer,
objects, mainly the large and heavy bones. Therefore, the dominated by mammoth (50%), unidentified middle-sized
lower layer was excavated, preserved, and conserved in place. mammal (23%), horse (8 %), wolf (7%), unidentified mam-
The first uncalibrated 14C dating on bones from both layers mals of various size (3%), reindeer (2%), hare (2%), fox
provided results of 24,340  120 BP for the upper layer and (1%), lion, aurochs, and birds (0.1%). Based on the seasons
26,780  140 BP for the lower layer, the lower of which of deaths of a young wolf and of a horse fetus and on the anal-
corresponds with dates previously obtained from the same ysis of dental thin sections from the same context, there was
site (Table 3). Large mammoth bones were accumulated in
the lower layer, especially in the southern sector (Fig. 11),
accompanied by skeletons and partial skeletons of middle-
sized and small-sized animals, and small bone fragments,
partly burnt (Fig. 12). At several places, longitudinal zones
filled with small bone fragments, also partly burnt and mixed
with fragments of red ochre, may be interpreted as fillings of
shallow erosional canals following the slope.

Fig. 10. Předmostı́ Ib, 2006 excavations. Vertical distribution of bones and Fig. 12. Předmostı́ I, 2006 excavations. Photo of the northern sector, show-
artifacts showing separation in the two Gravettian horizons and indicating their ingdbesides the complete bonesdlongitudinal zones composed of small,
radiocarbon dating. burnt bone fragments.
 J. A. Svoboda / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 15e33
likely a year-round occupation of this part of the site (Nývl-
tová Fišáková in Svoboda et al., in press).
Whereas the upper Gravettian layer yielded only six blades
and flakes of flint, the majority of the archaeological material
was recorded in the lower layer, which represents an Evolved
Pavlovian assemblage. Compared to the previously published
artifacts from Předmostı́, the character of the newly recovered
industry is more microlithic, probably as a result of systematic
floating of the sediments. A portion of the microblades
are backed and some are marginally retouched, or both,
and typical crescent-shaped microliths occured as well. The
‘‘normal-sized’’ industry is represented by burins and blades.
Two small, subrectangular rib fragments, measuring
16  10  2 mm3 and 11  10  2 mm3 in size, are decorated
by finely engraved ridge patterns, imitating perphaps the plain-
weave structures as recorded from other Moravian sites.
The 2006 evidence is useful as a base for comparison with
the results obtained previously by Wankel, Maška, and Křı́z.
We confirmed the division of the cultural stratigraphic com-
plex in two or more sublayers, and the relative richness of
the lower layer compared to upper layer (both in bones and ar-
tifacts). The stratigraphy (Fig. 10) and the 14C dating currently
available (Table 3) support our earlier attribution of the upper
layer to the Willendorf-Kostenkian and the lower layer to
the Evolved Pavlovian stages of the Gravettian complex
(Svoboda, 2001a, 2003). All this indicates a long-term Gravet-
tian occupation at Předmostı́.
The general character of the lower layer, the unsorted accu-
mulations of large bones, evidence of their intensive burning
and fragmentation, and rather sporadic occurence of lithic
artifacts correspond with the adjacent, earlier excavated areas
west of Skalka (including the burial area excavated in 1894).
This is in contrast to areas previously excavated further to
the north of Skalka, with typical hearths associated with rich
and variable artifact and bone concentrations (i.e., settlement
units), and by mammoth bones sorted by type.
The burial area: accompanying artifacts and finds
The accompanying finds are characterized only in summary
fashion in the original publications, and only selected pieces
received special mention. Wankel’s and Absolon’s reports
lack any kind of localization, and we can only speculate as
to the space in which the researchers moved, whereas for
Maška’s excavations it is possible to get at least a rough local-
ization for many finds from the diary records. The first prob-
lem with Maška is his excavation strategy, as discussed
above, and the second is the subjective selection of objects
for recording, influenced not only by the real value of the
items as such, but also by how rich their finds context was
on a particular day. The excavations conducted by Křı́z were
divided into regular, numbered trenches, but the provenience
data that exist for the paleoanthropological finds (Křı́z,
1903) are missing for the artifacts.
In terms of the accompanying fauna, Maška (1894c) esti-
mates the total number of molars found at ‘‘more than
2,000; tusks, while, cut and split, several hundred; other bones,
27
thousands’’. To this it can be added that preservation of mam-
moth bones was generally poor at sites of this kind, which was
undoubtedly reflected in the documentation and equally in the
quantification of their occurrence. Another problem is the
character of Maška’s records. Whenever a bone type is given
without mentioning the species, it usually refers to mammoth;
however, in certain contexts he may have had human bones in
mind. Musil (1994, 2004) has provided a supplementary and
overall assessment of the faunal representation at Předmostı́
that underscores the great preponderance of mammoth, and
which essentially defies quantification. Of the other species,
the most numerous are wolf (ca. 43%) and fox (24%), fol-
lowed by hare (10%), reindeer (9%), and wolverine (6%).
Horse, aurochs or bison, moose, bear, lion, and rhinoceros
appear rather sporadically; the presence of birds is not quanti-
fied. All of this is consistent with the results of the 2006
excavations.
Maška estimates the total number of artifacts at 20,000, Ab-
solon at 30,000, and, under his influence, Breuil (1925) at
40,000. However, this is still a low number given the quantities
of artifacts at the South Moravian settlements, where the find
layers were for the most part subject to screening. It is inter-
esting (again, in contrast to South Moravia) that, according
to Maška’s records, the stone industry often occured in spa-
tially defined scatters, and was scarce or absent elsewhere.
Several terminological differences arise from differences in
common usage at the time of discovery. In terms of the
chipped stone industry, ‘‘knife’’ (Messer) and ‘‘small knife’’
(Messerchen) may be interpreted as blade and bladelet, respec-
tively, whereas ‘‘pieces or fragments’’ are clearly what we
would presently refer to as flakes; the ‘‘Solutrean type’’ is
evidently the leafpoint. In terms of Gravettian chronology
(Svoboda, 2003), fine leafpoints, together with shouldered
points, are indicative of the Upper Gravettian (Willendorf-
Kostenkian). This corresponds with Maška’s observations of
their occurence in the upper layer. None of them, however,
was related to the human fossils.
‘‘Diggers’’ or ‘‘trowels’’ are interpreted as spatulas, which
in the first case is supported by a diary sketch as well. The
common term ‘‘cylinder’’ or ‘‘small cylinder’’ of mammoth
ivory can evidently have a variety of meanings. The large
pieces may be either grinders made of tusks (Valoch, 1982)
or retouchers (Steguweit, 2005), while smaller pieces may
be segments of the typical Gravettian points (projectiles), dec-
orative items, and, in several cases, as was the case for Wan-
kel’s find of a tusk with an eye and blow marks in the middle
section, ‘‘weights’’ (Svoboda, 2001b).
Publication of important artifacts from the earlier excava-
tions at Předmostı́ was undertaken by Absolon and Klı́ma
(1977) and K. Valoch (1960, 1975, 1981, 1982). Nevertheless,
only two of the artifacts from 1894 that are explicitly de-
scribed by Maška are identifiable in the current collections
of the Moravian Museum: a marlstone disc, now restored
(Maška, 1894c, August 3rd; Figs. 13 and 14) and a mammoth
ivory fork (Maška, 1894c, August 20th); it is also from here
that one of polished sandstone pebbles published by Valoch
comes (‘‘polished slate chisel’’; Maška, 1894c, August 1st).
28 J. A. Svoboda / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 15e33
Fig. 13. Sketch documenting Maška’s find of the marlstone disc in the vicinity of the burial. Archive of the Institute of Archaeology, AS CR, Brno.
Otherwise, the 1894 excavations are remarkably poor in spe-
cial, decorated, or artistic items, and almost no decorated arti-
facts from Valoch’s (1975) list can be localized here with any
degree of certainty.
The generally lower density of archaeological finds indi-
cates that the northern part of the site, where the excavation
was initiated by Wankel, was richer in artifacts and better
structured in terms of hearths and the sorting of mammoth
bones by type, whereas the western part, including the 1894
area, looks rather peripheral or task-specific. Undoubtedly fires
were burned there, mammoth bones were stacked in distinct
Fig. 14. Pavlov I. Marlstone disc, comparable to the find made by Maška in the
vicinity of the burial (cf. Fig. 13). Photo by Martin Frouz.
accumulations, and even artifacts were deposited. A contigu-
ous mammoth midden did not appear, however, as at Dolnı́
Věstonice or Milovice, for example. Clearly, the burial area
is the most important feature in the western part of the site.
The absence of pigments or pigmented materials around the
burial area is striking; Maška would certainly have recorded
them. Pigments or dyes are a common indicator of Upper Pa-
leolithic graves in general, and since the 19th century scholars
have paid special attention to them. At the South Moravian
settlements there is not only a red ochre coverage over the
skulls and other parts of the buried bodies, but also grinding
palettes and pebbles covered in pigment (Svoboda, 1997) .
Some of these were even found near the burials (e.g., Dolnı́
Věstonice 16). Dyes were recorded elsewhere at Předmostı́, in-
cluding the area of our 2006 excavations.
The absence of grave gifts is another striking feature of the
burial area and its vicinity. Of course, even for apparently
richer Paleolithic burials found at settlements, the question
arises as to what extent the artifacts and animal bones found
in the vicinity of bodies can be interpreted as deliberately
selected and deposited burial items. In Southern Moravia,
the most common type of artifact in burial contexts are drilled
carnivore teeth (fox, wolf), mollusk shales from Tertiary de-
posits, and simple shaped pendants carved of ivory (Trinkaus
and Svoboda, 2006). Specifically, the first and preliminary
zooarchaeological analysis of the faunal remains in the vicin-
ity of Dolnı́ Věstonice 16 suggests that complete animal bodies
were laid next to the buried man, and perhaps intentionally
(Nývltová Fišáková, pers. comm.). Across Europe, however,
 J. A. Svoboda / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 15e33
it is the case that the richest Gravettian burials are also the
youngest (e.g., the ‘prince’ from Arene Candide and other Ital-
ian sites, the two burials from Sungir in Russia, and the male
burial of of Brno 2 in Moravia; Pettitt et al., 2003). In terms of
chronology, these ‘‘rich’’ cases (all dated to 23e24 ky BP) all
belong to the later Gravettian stage compared to Předmostı́,
Dolnı́ Věstonice, or Pavlov. This suggests, therefore, that the
richness of the Gravettia burials may also be the result of tem-
poral variation in mortuary ritual.
A possible exception is the remarkable polished and perfo-
rated disc of marlstone, 18e19 cm in diameter, found in the
vicinity of the Předmostı́ burial area (Fig. 13; on this and sim-
ilar discs cf. Valoch, 1960; Svoboda, ed., 2005b: 151e165).
Several Gravettian sites in Moravia provided these typical ar-
tifacts (Fig. 14) and, in two cases (Předmostı́ and Brno 2), they
were associated with human burials. They do not appear to be
related to a utilitarian function. In the Siberian ethnological re-
cord, shamans are equiped with similar discs, made of metal in
this case, and symbolize the ascent to the underground world
(Anisimov, 1958). In early China, from the Chou period on-
wards, discs of the same shape and size, but made of jade,
were called ‘‘pi’’ and symbolized the circular sky, while the
central hole represented the ‘‘lie-chhiu’’ through which the
lightning flashes (Christie, 1968: 56). If these objects symbol-
ized ‘‘gates’’ to the other worlds during the Upper Paleolithic
as well as in later times, then the association with Paleolithic
burials such as Předmostı́ was certainly of significance.
Taphonomic issues
From the moment of discovery of the burial area at
Předmostı́, two competing hypotheses were raised: a contem-
porary burial as a consequence of a catastrophic eventd
proposed already by Maška (1895a,b) and lastly by Zilhao
and Trinkaus (2002)dversus gradual accumulation of human
bodies at one place (lastly Svoboda, 2005a). Whereas the first
hypothesis is supported by the demographic structure of the
buried group, including adults and children, the second inter-
pretation results from contextual and taphonomic analysis of
the burial area itself.
One of the basic archaeological assumptions is that a skele-
ton preserved in a completely or partially anatomical position
was deposited in that way deliberately. Thus, the burial results
from a ritual and symbolic act, underscored by some theory of
life and death. Nevertheless, even such an apparently straight-
forward thesis has in the recent past been subject to criticism
and revision from a taphonomic perspective (Gargett, 1989;
Riel-Salvatore and Clark, 2001).
The disturbance of human bodies has sometimes been ex-
plained as an effect of deliberate, symbolic, or ritual behavior,
as richly illustrated by ethnology: cannibalism, secondary
burial, deliberate exposure of human remains to natural forces
(for Předmostı́, cf. Absolon, 1929; Ullrich, 1982, 1986, 1996;
Oliva, 2001a,b). However, this interpretation should be pre-
ceded by a taphonomic analysis of a variety of postdeposi-
tional processes that might have operated at a particular site.
29
Often a far simpler and, on closer examination, a more likely
solution is brought to light.
Based on Maška’s preliminary counts of bones ordered ac-
cording to the individuals, the skeletons were originally more
complete than is usually quoted in later literature. The most
complete skeleton, preserved in more or less anatomical posi-
tion, was the male no. 3, as sketched by the excavator on his
original Fig. 5. In the later description and analysis by Mat-
iegka (1934, 1938) are missing the ribs that were depicted
on the original Maška’s sketch. Some of the other smaller
bones probably got lost. Thus, the reconstruction presented
later by Absolon for museological purposes was probably
completed artificially, perhaps adding skeletal elements of var-
ious origins (Fig. 6). In another case, the female skeleton no. 4
was also later reconstructed by Absolon into a complete body.
Some of the later excavated skeletons, although relatively
complete as well, were found in highly disturbed positions
(Fig. 7).
In some studies concerning Předmostı́ (Absolon, 1929; Ull-
rich, 1982, 1986, 1996), cannibalism became an alternative ex-
planation for the incomplete or disturbed skeletons regardless
of whether this incompleteness resulted from natural postde-
positional processes or from deliberate human manipulation.
Cannibalism is undeniably part of human behavior, generally
nonstandard, and generally widespread in only a few cultures
(Ullrich, 1982, 1986). The most common meaning of this term
lies, however, in consumption of human meat, and this is not
convincingly demonstrated by either fragmentation patterns or
deliberate manipulation, if these are demonstrable on human
bones.
If we consider the mean annual air temperatures and the ev-
idence of permafrost in glacial conditions, burials into frozen
ground are difficult. In high latitudes, burials on elevated
grounds are a widely used custom (Alekseev, 1980). Another
type of behavior is represented by ritual secondary burials,
whereby bones are carefully selected, sorted or complemented
into a particular pattern, with symbolic meaning according to
a tradition. If the second model is to be applied at Předmostı́,
as done by H. Ullrich (1996) and especially by M. Oliva
(2001a,b), statistically convincing evidence of the deliberate
selection of certain (‘‘representative’’) bones should be pro-
vided first. This, however, is not the case (Svoboda, 2001c).
Particular human interventions are apparent on some human
bones only, always found isolated and outside the burial
area: the perforation of a pelvis bone found south of the grave,
and the oblique cutmarks on the humerus found by Absolon
(1929); surprisingly, the authenticity of these cutmarks has
been rejected by Oliva himself (2001b).
Characteristic Upper Paleolithic graves, set in and protected
by relatively deep grave pits covered by bones, have been de-
scribed from Russia (Kostenki on the Don river; Sinitsyn,
2004), in a region where deeper pits in general (storage, settle-
ment pits) were a common phenomenon. In contrast, at the
Moravian sites pits of any kind are rare and shallow, and
graves themselves were laid virtually on the surface or in
only shallow depressions, but most of them are preserved in-
tact and in anatomical position (Trinkaus and Svoboda,
30 J. A. Svoboda / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 15e33
2006). At Dolnı́ Věstonice, it is even possible to see the root
marks on human bones. The most likely explanation of such
shallow depositions in Moravia is offered by the generally
greater extent of permafrost in Central Europe. Under such
conditions, an effective protection was usually provided by
mammoth shoulderblades, as shown by the burials of Dolnı́
Věstonice 3 and 4 (?), and Pavlov 1, and possibly in certain
marginal cases at Předmostı́. Whenever the mammoth scapu-
lae are missing, as in case of the well-preserved triple burial
Dolnı́ Věstonice 13e15 and the burial Dolnı́ Věstonice 16,
some sort of wooden structure over the bodies is indicated.
Such a reconstruction is in the first case attested by the numer-
ous pieces of charred roundwood around the triple burial, and
in the second by the plan of a circular settlement unit in the
area, interpreted as a dwelling.
The influence of geological processes on Pleistocene burial
situations must be evaluated separately for each sitednot just
from the geographic and geomorphological context, but also
from the associated planigraphy and stratigraphy, with respect
to the patterns of deformation observed on other regular ar-
chaeological features such as hearths and pits. As an example,
the sites in the Dolnı́ Věstonice-Pavlov area, located on the
slopes of Pavlov Hills in much steeper position than at Pře-
dmostı́, provide evidence of shifting whole sediment blocks,
layers, artifact groups, and separate artifacts. In addition, it
is possible to observe the effects of frost phenomena such as
solifluction, cryoturbation, frost wedges, and the subsequent
deformation of the originally regular pits and hearths (or their
subsequent covering by a fine microlayer of loess down slope).
Nevertheless, the anatomical position of the majority of the
buried human bodies at the Dolnı́ Věstonice-Pavlov sites
shows little disturbance. With the exception of the Pavlov 1
burial, the deformation is not fundamental, and shifts were
on the level of centimeters to tens of centimeters along the
slope (compare, for example, the slope movement of the lower
part of the legs of DV 14 at the knees). At Pavlov, after a later
erosion of this part of the site, the male skeleton occured on
a slight slope, and the parts of the body protected by a large
mammoth scapula moved more or less as a whole. Unpro-
tected parts, such as the skull, moved independently of the
covered remains. However, scatters of individual fragments
of human bones and teeth, found through the cultural layer,
are common both at Dolnı́ Věstonice and Předmostı́ (Trinkaus
et al., 2000).
The burial area at Předmostı́ was located only a few meters
from a large limestone rock, Skalka. Maška’s records reveal an
increased thickness of the find horizon between the burial and
Skalka, comprising loess, humic, and ashy zones, and layers of
limestone debris (Fig. 9). This situation probably resulted from
slope movements and sediment accumulation that can logi-
cally be expected at the foot of a large rock formation. Conse-
quently, the influx of slope sediments into the burial area has
the effect of protecting the bodies under the mass of debris,
and, at the same time, causing some redeposition and distur-
bance of these same remains. These movements may also
have caused the vertical positioning of certain mammoth
bones in the vicinity of the burial area, such as the scapulae,
a tibia, and a femur, and perhaps two mammoth mandibles fur-
ther to the east mentioned by Maška.
Pressure from the overlying sediments may also have influ-
enced the positioning and preservation of remains. At Dolnı́
Věstonice and Pavlov, the weight of the loess deposited rapidly
after abandonment of the site evidently compressed the skele-
tons into extreme positions (Dolnı́ Věstonice 3), and caused
some skull fracturesdwhich were then somewhat romanti-
cally explained as fatal wounds by heavy objects (Dolnı́ Věs-
tonice 14). At Předmostı́, the influx of slope sediments could
have had similar effects. The fact that ‘‘no skull was found
whole, all had fallen apart (along the sutures)’’, as noted by
Maška (1895a,b) can be explained by the pressure of the over-
lying sediments.
Wherever the bodies were still accessible to predators and
rodents, their activity should be presumed. Gravettian sites
in Moravia provided evidence of fox (common and arctic),
wolf, hyena, wolverine, lion, and bear. Foxes are capable of
digging up, breaking open, and discarding bones, but have dif-
ficulty breaking the bones of medium-sized animals, including
larger human bones. Wolves may dig carrion out of the snow,
but there is little evidence to suggest that they would dig bod-
ies out of the ground; they are, however, capable of breaking
human bones into spiral fractures, and damaging epiphyses.
Hyenas could dig out, gnaw on, damage, and discard bones,
and it has been demonstrated that they disturb shallow human
graves; they break long bones and split them with even more
ease than wolves. Bears dig up carrion, gnaw it, and eat it, and
can also break human bones. Equally, wolverines gnaw and
break up bones (Binford, 1981; Haynes, 1983; Haglund
et al., 1988; Horowitz and Smith, 1988; Mondini, 1995; Trin-
kaus et al., 2000).
On the bones themselves, howeverdaccording to the pho-
tographic documentationdno demonstrable traces of gnawing
are to be found, despite Maška’s claims, in particular with re-
gard to bones found outside the burial area. From his notes it
follows that it was rather the fragmentation (e.g., the breakage
of epiphyses) of the remains that he interpreted as evidence of
carnivore activity, rather than the typical gnawing marks that
we would identify today. However, predators could of course
have dragged skeletons in such a way as not to leave visible
traces on the bones.
In 1996, together with a team of the Autonomous Univer-
sity of Barcelona, I had the opportunity to follow the actions
of foxes on a forested hillside in Tierra del Fuego, where
a herd of guanacos had died over the past winter. The foxes
denned adjacent to each corpse (or group of corpses), consum-
ing them over a period of the one month that we observed
them, so that the position of the bodies changed slightly
each day. This kind of a den would roughly match the accumu-
lation of fox bones that Maška identified on August 7th at the
southern edge of the area, and elsewhere at Předmostı́.
Finally, one should consider the effect of postdepositional
human activity. The bodies, buried in shallow graves, may
have been exposed to all kinds of human activities, especially
in the case that the burial place had been forgotten or lost its
significance. If the burial area was memorized and reused
 J. A. Svoboda / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 15e33
during a longer timespan, then the deposition of additional
bodies would disturb the position of the earlier ones (cf.
Pequart and Pequart, 1954). For Předmostı́, such a model is
supported by the fact that the most complete skeletons (male
no. 3, female no. 4) were found on the first excavation days,
evidently in the upper layers, whereas the most disturbed skel-
etons were documented a month later at the base (cf. Figs. 5
and 7).
Reading Předmostı́: a contextual approach
In recent years, the rapid development of settlement of ar-
chaeology and the spatial approach to sites and landscapes
(e.g., Vasiĺev et al., 2003) has influenced how we interpret
the location of settlements and associated human burials.
From this perspective, a burial may be explained as a kind
of declaration of rights to a territory that has been confirmed
by deposition of the remains of ancestors at important loca-
tions. Theoretically, such significance may be applied to cer-
tain Gravettian burials deposited at strategically important
points of passage, such as at Grimaldi, Krems, Dolnı́ Věsto-
nice-Pavlov, and, last but not least, Předmostı́ (Fig. 1).
Focusing on the within-site structure of the large Gravettian
settlements, the problem of center and periphery, and of the
task-specific structuring of the sites are crucial topics (e.g.,
Svoboda, 2005b). From this perspective, and contrary to
claims in earlier works on Předmostı́ (e.g., Matiegka, 1934:
9), the burial area west of the Skalka cliff does not correspond
to ‘‘the center of the settlement of prehistoric man’’. A rather
peripheral or task-specific role of this area is reflected in the
relative dearth of chipped industry, both within and around
the burial area. The records left by both Wankel and Maška
suggest that the real settlement center was localized more to
the north of Skalka.
In terms of stratigraphy and chronology of the Gravettian,
the position of the burial area corresponds predominantly to
the lower archaeological layer (Evolved Pavlovian, with unca-
libated dates between 25e27 ky BP; Svoboda, 2003; Jöris and
Weninger, 2004), described also as the ‘‘main’’ layer by
Maška (‘‘human bones. are also found within the cultural
layer, which appear to show the temporal identity of man
with the cultural layer, and not perhaps that he lived here be-
fore the formation of this cultural layer’’; Maška, 1894c, Aug.
11th), but there are mentions of human bones found above and
below it. This relates to the northern and eastern parts of the
burial area where the layer with anthropological finds was sep-
arated from the above stratigraphy by limestone scree. The
first explanation suggested by Maška would assume deliberate
(i.e., anthropogenic) burial of human bones from above, later
partially filled by redeposited loess and ultimately covered
by the limestone scree. Another explanation, considered by
Maška in his later publication (1985b: 163), is that the mate-
rial deposited in the subsoil corresponds chronologically to
the time of sedimentation, and is, therefore, earlier (‘‘even ear-
lier than the cultural layer itself began to be deposited at the
place, that is, perhaps at the beginning of the settlement of
the campsite at Předmostı́’’). The contradiction to his note of
31
August 11th, (Maška, 1894c), as cited above, is explicable
through the stratigraphic complexity that Maška was faced
with during his fieldwork, making a single and straightforward
answer more difficult.
Following the findings of Maška, the bodies buried at Pře-
dmostı́ were generally oriented to the north, (i.e., parallel to
the rock wall). In this there is a difference from Dolnı́ Věsto-
nice, where heads were usually oriented against the slope. Al-
though the human remains found in the burial area and vicinity
are disturbed, or are treated as such by Matiegka (1934, 1938)
and all derived literature, the Maška’s original tables show that
a number of them (Předmostı́ 1e10, 15) were relatively com-
plete at the time of discovery, and some of them in near ana-
tomical position (Předmostı́ 3). No demonstrable evidence of
selection of particular bones that would indicate secondary
burials or other type of ritual is apparent. Rather, a complex
of taphonomic issues seems to be responsible for the postdepo-
sitional disturbance of a part of the bodies. These processes in-
clude geological processes, predator activity, and subsequent
human activity at the site.
At a site located in the direct vicinity of the large limestone
rock of Skalka, one should expect formation of footslope de-
posits such as limestone debris and redeposited soil. This ex-
pectation is confirmed by the original observations of Maška.
The complex stratigraphy he described within the burial area
continued towards the Skalka hillside, and became even
more complex and thicker in this direction. These movements
would cause redeposition and disturbance of some of the bod-
ies, as well as reburial and better protection of others.
Predator activities, to which attention has been drawn by all
researchers starting with Maška, and continuing with Matiegka
and Klı́ma, are indicated by the large number of fox and wolf
remains (including almost complete skeletons) within and
around the burial area. The influence of predators (and ro-
dents) as a natural part of the Pleistocene biocenosis and land-
scape must, therefore, be acknowledged, even if it is not
directly demonstrable by evidence of tooth marks on the
bones.
Besides redeposition of the sediments and predator activi-
ties, humans were also potentionally responsible for distur-
bance of the burial area. If we reject the hypothesis of
contemporary burial and postulate a gradual accumulation of
bodies, then each newly added body will deform the situation
of those deposited earlier. As an example, the best preserved
skeleton, Předmostı́ 3, probably lay in an upper layer in the
central part of the burial area, while the skeletons located be-
low it and, thus, excavated later are evidently more disturbed.
The burial area is minimally laden with artifacts, and the
otherwise usual pigment coverage is also absent. The data re-
peated in popular and secondary literature mentioning items of
decoration in the context of a child skeleton are supplementary
and erroneous. However, the oft-cited association of a fox
skull that lay across a human skeleton is authentic (i.e., Maš-
ka’s) but given the frequency of fox remains over the whole
area it loses any kind of exceptionality. The only conspicuous
artifact found in close proximity to the burial area is part of
a marlstone disc (the other half of which was found some
32 J. A. Svoboda / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 15e33
distance away, Fig. 13); this might have had substantial sym-
bolic significance, stemming from the funerary context of this
location, and supported by more recent North Asian analogies.
Mammoth scapulae (one of which had irregular engraving)
evidently covered three or more skeletons at the margins of the
burial area, but provided no contiguous cover of the whole
space. In addition, two mammoth scapulae probably covered
individual human remains south of the burial area, and perhaps
in one instance southeast of the burial area. Deposition of the
limestone debris is a natural phenomenon at the foot of a rock,
although of course stones were available at the location and
could have been used deliberately as coverage of the bodies.
In contrast to Dolnı́ Věstonice-Pavlov in South Moravia and
the other, better preserved and more complex Gravettian
burials of Eurasia, the Předmostı́ burial situation results from
combination of both ritual and natural processes. However, ex-
posure of the dead to natural processes may be a kind of ritual
behavior of its own, based on concepts about life and death of
that time. A hypothesis may be set forth that the determining
factor for the selection of the burial area at Předmostı́ was the
remarkable Skalka rock itself, a cliff that rose directly above
it. None of the archaeologists saw the rock firsthand, so one
cannot speculate whether location of the burial area reflected
any particular rock formation. However a long-term tendency
to take the dead outside the actual settlement center, (i.e., ‘‘be-
low the rock’’) may have given rise to the accumulation of hu-
man remains at a single place, with a scatter of dispersed
fragments in the vicinity. At this place, bodies were more or
less deliberately left to the action of redeposition, predators
and additional human activities, including deposition of addi-
tional bodies.
Acknowledgements
This paper was prepared as a part of Czech Grant Agency
project 206/04/1498 on Předmostı́, which is conducted in col-
laboration with the Department of Anthropology, Charles Uni-
versity, Prague. The last fieldwork at Předmostı́ in 2006 was
part of a Czech-British project on Gravettian environment
and seasonality, conducted jointly with the University of Cam-
bridge; I thank Martin Jones and all British and Czech col-
leagues for their collaboration. Last but not least, I thank the
reviewers and Susan Antón for their comments on this paper
and for editorial help.
References
Absolon, K., 1918. Předmost: eine Mammutjäger-station in Mähren. In:
Klaatsch-Heilborn, H. (Ed.), Der Werdegang der Menschheit und die
Entstehung der Kultur. Bong, Berlin, pp. 357e373.
Absolon, K., 1929. New finds of fossil human skeletons in Moravia. Anthro-
pologie 7, 79e89.
Absolon, K., Klı́ma, B., 1977. Předmostı́: ein Mammutjägerplatz in Mähren.
Academia, Praha.
Alekseev, N.A., 1980. Rannije formy religiji tjurkojazycnych narodov Sibiri.
Nauka, Novosibirsk.
Anisimov, A.F., 1958. Religija Evenkov v istoriko-geneticeskom izuceniji i
problemy prischozdenija pervotnych verovanij. Izdateĺstvo AN SSSR,
Moskva-Leningrad.
Binford, L.R., 1981. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic
Press, New York.
Breuil, H., 1925. Notes de voyage paléolithique en Europe Centrale. Anthro-
pologie 34, 515e552.
Christie, A., 1968. Chinese mythology. Paul Hamlyn, Feltham.
Danzeglocke, U., Jöris, O., Weninger, B., 2007. CalPal-2007online, http://
www.calpal-online.de.
Drozdová, E., 2001. Zhodnocenı́ znovuobjeveného fragmentu lidské dolnı́
celisti c. 21 z Předmostı́ u Přerova. Archeologické rozhledy 53, 452e460.
Drozdová, E., 2002. A rediscovered fragment of a human mandible from
Předmostı́ u Přerova (Czech Republic): Předmostı́ 21. Bull. Mém. Soc.
Anthropol. Paris 14, 149e165.
Gargett, R.H., 1989. Grave shortcomings: the evidence for Neandertal burial.
Curr. Anthropol. 30, 157e190.
Haglund, W.D., Reay, D.T., Swindler, D.R., 1988. Tooth mark artifacts and
survival of bones in animal scavenged human skeletons. J. Forens. Sci.
33, 985e997.
Havelka, J., 1886. Letter to K.J. Maška, June 17th, 1886, Deposited at the
Institute of Archaeology, AS CR, Brno and Dolnı́ Věstonice.
Haynes, G., 1983. A guide for differentiating mammalian carnivore taxa
responsible for gnaw damage to herbivore limb bones. Paleobiology 9,
164e172.
Horowitz, L.K., Smith, P., 1988. The effects of striped hyena activity on
human remains. J. Archaeol. Sci. 15, 471e481.
Jöris, O., Weninger, B., 2004. Coping with the cold: On the climatic context of
the Moravian Mid Upper Palaeolithic. In: Svoboda, J., Sedlácková, L.
(Eds.), The Gravettian along the Danube. The Dolnı́ Věstonice Studies
11. Institute of Archaeology, Brno, pp. 57e70.
Katina, S., Šefcáková, A., Velemı́nská, J., Brůzek, J., Velemı́nský, P., 2004. A
geometric approach to cranial sexual dimorphism in fossil skulls from Pře-

dmostı́ (Upper Paleolithic, Czech Republic). Casopis Národnı́ho muzea,
řada přı́r 173, 133e144.
Klı́ma, B., 1973. Archeologický výzkum paleolitické stanice v Předmostı́ u
Přerova v roce 1971. Památky archeologické 64, 1e23.
Klı́ma, B., 1990. Lovci mamutů z Předmostı́. Academia, Praha.
Klı́ma, B., 1991a. Der paläolithische Massengrab von Předmostı́, Versuch
einer Rekonstruktion. Quartär 41/42, 187e194.
Klı́ma, B., 1991b. Zur Frage von gelochten Knochen im mährischen Paläoli-
thikum. Anthropologie 29, 73e78.
Knies, J., 1927. Přehled moravského paleolitu. Obzor prehistorický 4, 89e116.
Křı́z, M., 1894. Die Lösslager in Předmostı́ bei Prerau. Mitteilungen der
Anthropologischen Gesellschaft Wien 24, 40e50.
Křı́z, M., 1896a. Mé výzkumné práce v Předmostı́ a jich hlavnı́ výsledky.

Casopis Vlastivědného spolku musejnı́ho Olomouc 13, 1e9, 51e61.
Křı́z, M., 1896b. O dokoncenı́ výzkumných pracı́ v Předmostı́ se strucným pře-

hledem literatury o tom nálezišti. Casopis Vlastivědného spolku musejnı́ho
Olomouc 13, 87e102.

Křı́z, M., 1896c. Odpověď na odvetu ředitele K.J. Mašky. Casopis Vlastivěd-
ného spolku musejnı́ho Olomouc 13, 159e164.
Křı́z, M., 1903. Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Quartärzeit in Mähren. Selbstver-
lag, Steinitz.
Maška, K., 1882: Manuscript diary, volume I. Deposited at Institute of Archae-
ology, AS CR, Brno and Dolnı́ Věstonice.

Maška, K., 1886. Lidská celisť předmostecká. Casopis Vlastivědného spolku
musejnı́ho Olomouc 3, 94.
Maška, K., 1894a. Výzkumy na tábořišti lovců mamutı́ch v Předmostı́ r. 1893.

Rozpravy Ceské akademie 3 (II), 1e7.
Maška, K., 1894b. Nové výzkumy v Předmostı́. Casopis Vlastivědného spolku
musejnı́ho Olomouc 11, 89e91.
Maška, K., 1894c. Manuscript diary, volume VII. Deposited at Institute of Ar-
chaeology, AS CR, Brno and Dolnı́ Věstonice.
Maška, K., 1895a. Diluvialnı́ clověk v Předmostı́. Casopis  Vlastivědného
spolku musejnı́ho Olomouc 12, 4e7.
Maška, K., 1895b. Nález diluviálnı́ho clověka v Předmostı́. Ceský  lid 4,
161e164.
 J. A. Svoboda / Journal of Human Evolution 54 (2008) 15e33
Maška, K., 1896. Postup výzkumných pracı́ v Předmostı́. Odveta p. dr. M. Křı́-

zovi. Casopis Vlastivědného spolku musejnı́ho Olomouc 13, 77e80.
Matiegka, J., 1934. Homo předmostensis, fosilnı́ clověk z Předmostı́ na

Moravě 1. Ceská akademie věd a uměnı́, Praha.
Mateigka, J., 1938. Homo předmostensis, fosilnı́ clověk z Předmostı́ na

Moravě 2. Ceská akademie věd a uměnı́, Praha.
Mondini, N.M., 1995. Artiodactyl prey transport by foxes in Puna rockshelter.
Curr. Anthropol. 36, 520e524.
Musil, R., 1994. Hunting game of the culture layer of Pavlov. In: Svoboda, J.
(Ed.), Pavlov I e Excavations 1952e53. The Dolnı́ Věstonice Studies 2.
Université de Liege, Liege, pp. 181e209.
Musil, R., 2004. The Middle and Upper Palaeolithic game suite in Central and
Southeastern Europe. In: Van Andel, T.H., Davies, W. (Eds.), Neanderthals
and modern humans in the European landscape during the last glaciation.
McDonald, Oxford, pp. 167e190.
Oliva, M., 2001a. Les pratiques funéraires dans le pavlovien morave: révision
critique. Préhist. Eur. 16e17, 191e214.
Oliva, M., 2001b. Mýtus masového hrobu z Předmostı́ u Přerova. K pohřebnı́m
zvyklostem moravského gravettienu. Archeologické rozhledy 53, 3e29.
Pequart, M., Pequart, S.-J., 1954. Hoëdic, deuxieme station-nécropole du Més-
olithique armoricain. De Sikkel, Anvers.
Pettitt, P.B., Richards, M., Maggi, R., Formicola, V., 2003. The Gravettian
burial known as the Prince (‘‘Il Principe’’): new evidence for his age
and diet. Antiquity 77, 15e19.
Riel-Salvatore, J., Clark, G.A., 2001. Grave markers. Middle and Early Upper
Paleolithic burials and the use of chronotypology in contemporary Paleo-
lithic research. Curr. Anthropol. 42, 449e479.
Sinitsyn, A.A., 2004. Les sépultures de Kostenki: chronologie, attribution
culturelle, rite funéraire. In: Otte, M. (Ed.), La spiritualité. Université de
Liege, Liege, pp. 237e244.

Skutil, J., 1940. Paleolitikum v bývalém Ceskoslovensku. Obzor prehistorický
12, 5e99.
Skutil, J., 1951. Prvnı́ historické zprávy o diluviálnı́ch nálezech v Předmostı́.
Vlastivědný věstnı́k moravský 6, 1e12. 33e46, 65e89.
Steguweit, L., 2005. Gebrauchsmuster an ’’Elfenbein-Zylindern‘‘ aus jungpa-
läolithischen Fundstellen in Niederösterreich und Mähren. Mitt. Komm.
Quartärforsch. Österr. Akad. Wiss. 14, 177e193.
Svoboda, J. (Ed.), 1997. Pavlov I e Northwest. The Upper Paleolithic burial
and its settlement context. The Dolnı́ Věstonice Studies 4. Institute of Ar-
chaeology, Brno.
Svoboda, J., 2001a. K analýze velkých loveckých sı́dlišť: Výzkum v Předmostı́
v roce 1992. Archeologické rozhledy 53, 431e443.
Svoboda, J., 2001b. Závazı́ z mamutoviny v Předmostı́ a Pavlově. In: Hašek, V.,
Nekuda, R., Unger, J. (Eds.), Ve sluzbách archeologie. Muzejnı́ a vlasti-
vědná spolecnost, Brno, pp. 184e189.
Svoboda, J., 2001c. K mýtu o masovém hrobu z Předmostı́. Archeologické
rozhledy 53, 793e798.
Svoboda, J., 2003. Gravettian and Epigravettian chronologies in the Middle
Danube area. In: Widemann, F., Taborin, Y. (Eds.), Chronologies géophy-
siques et archéologiques du paléolithique supérieur. Edipuglia, Bari, pp.
273e282.
Svoboda, J., 2005a. Předmostı́. Kontext paleoantropologických nálezů. Přehled
výzkumů 46, 63e82.
33
Svoboda, J.A. (Ed.), 2005b. Pavlov I e Southeast. A window into the Gravettian
lifestyles. The Dolnı́ Věstonice Studies 14. Institute of Archaeology, Brno.
Svoboda, J., Lozek, V., Svobodová, H., Škrdla, P., 1994. Předmostı́ after 110
years. J. Field Archaeol. 21, 457e472.
Svoboda, J., Škrdla, P., Lozek, V., Svobodová, H., Frechen, M., 1996. Pře-
dmostı́ II, excavations 1989e1992. In: Svoboda, J. (Ed.), Paleolithic in
the Middle Danube region. Institute of Archaeology, Brno, pp. 147e171.
Svoboda, J., Nývltová Fišáková, M., Novák, M., Demek, J., Kovanda, J., Pře-
rov-Předmostı́. Přehled výzkumů 48, in press
Ullrich, H., 1982. Artificial injuries on fossil human bones and the problem of
cannibalism, skull-cult, and burial rites. In: Jelı́nek, J. (Ed.), Man and his
origins. Moravské muzeum, Brno, pp. 253e262.
Ullrich, H., 1986. Manipulations on human corpses, mortuary practice and burial
rites in Paleolithic times. In: Novotný, V.V., Mizerová, A. (Eds.), Fossil man,
New facts e new ideas. Moravské muzeum, Brno, pp. 227e236.
Ullrich, H., 1996. Předmostı́ e an alternative model interpreting burial rites.
Anthropologie 34, 299e306.
Trinkaus, E., Svoboda, J.A. (Eds.), 2006. Early modern humans in central
Europe: The Pavlovian people of southern Moravia. The Dolnı́ Věstonice
Studies 12. Oxford University Press, Oxford-New York.
Trinkaus, E., Svoboda, J., West, D.L., Sládek, V., Hillson, S.W., Drozdová, E.,
Fišáková, M., 2000. Human remains from the Moravian Gravettian: Mor-
phology and taphonomy of isolated elements from the Dolnı́ Věstonice II
site. J. Archaeol. Sci. 27, 1115e1132.
Valoch, K., 1960. Bemerkenswerte jungpaläolithische Steingeräte aus

Předmostı́ in Mähren. Casopis Moravského muzea 45, 21e26.
Valoch, K., 1975. Ornamentale Gravierungen und Ziergegenstände von
Předmostı́ bei Přerov in Mähren. Anthropologie 13, 81e91.
Valoch, K., 1981. Beitrag zur Kenntnis des Pavloviens. Archeologické
rozhledy 33, 279e298.
Valoch, K., 1982. Die Beingeräte von Předmostı́ in Mähren. Anthropologie 20,
57e69.
Vasiĺev, S.A., Soffer, O., Kozlowski, J.K. (Eds.), 2003. Perceived landscapes
and built environments. The cultural geography of Late Paleolithic Eura-
sia. BAR International Series 1122. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Velemı́nská, J., Brůzek, J., Velemı́nský, P., Šefcáková, A., Katina, S., 2004.
The use of recently re-discovered glass plate photodocumentation of those
human fossil finds from Předmostı́ u Přerova destroyed during World War

II. Casopis Národnı́ho muzea, řada přı́r. 173, 129e132.
Vlcek, E., 1971. Czechoslovakia. In: Oakley, K.P., Campbell, B.G.,
Molleson, T.I. (Eds.), Catalogue of fossil hominids, Part II, Europe. British
Museum, Natural History, London, pp. 47e64.
Vlcek, E., 2005. Antropologický nález Předmostı́ XXVI. Přehled výzkumů 46,
90e91.

Wankel, J., 1884. Prvnı́ stopy lidské na Moravě. Casopis Vlastivědného musej-
nı́ho spolku Olomouc 1, 2e7, 41e49, 89e100, 137e147.
Wankel, J., 1892. Die prähistorische Jagd in Mähren. Kramář und Procházka,
Olmütz.
Zilhao, J., Trinkaus, E. (Eds.), 2002. Portrait of the artist as a child. The
Gravettian human skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho and its archae-
ological context. Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia, Lisboa.
Zotz, L., Freund, G., 1951. Die paläolithische und mesolithische Kulturent-
wicklung in Böhmen und Mähren. Quartär 5, 7e40.