Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-20T12:29:54.857Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Loess and Palaeolithic Chronology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

F. E. Zeuner
F. E. Zeuner
Affiliation:
Professor of Environmental Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology, University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the present paper it is intended to summarize the reasons why loess sections must be regarded as important for the chronology of the Palaeolithic, and to discuss an important problem to which loess sections have contributed in recent years, that of the chronological relations between the Mousterioid and the Upper Palaeolithic industries. This problem has received particular attention in the Geochronological Laboratory of the Institute since its formation by Sir Robert Mond in 1936. Several hundred analyses have been made, some of which will be published shortly in these Proceedings, from sites ranging from the Iberian Peninsula, Italy, Hungary and Poland through France and Germany to southern England, as well as from India, Africa and northern Arabia. During the later stages, the work was supported by the Central Research Fund of London University, whose help is recorded with gratitude.

Loess analysis comprises the study of grain size by mechanical analysis, determination of calcium carbonate and organic matter, the study of its porosity and texture and of the shape and quality of its grains. Two years were spent in the laboratory on the testing and improvement of various methods in use, and especially of mechanical analysis, so that the laboriousness of the work has been much reduced and results can be obtained more quickly.

The aeolian origin of loess is no longer disputed. Loess is essentially rock dust blown about and deposited from an air current. This necessitates a dry environment due either to aridity or to frost, and scarcity of vegetation. Loess dust is thus picked up on bare surfaces and deposited mainly in the steppe, where low and sparse vegetation acts like a comb, slowing down the air current and compelling it to deposit its load. Any dust that reaches the humid forest zone is incorporated in the soil that is forming there, and it thus disappears.

Type
Old Stone Age
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 21 , July 1956 , pp. 51 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bagnold, R. A., 1941. The Physics of Blown Sands and Desert Dunes, 265. pp. London.Google Scholar
Bayer, J., 1927. Der Mensch im Eiszeitalter, 81. pp. Wien.Google Scholar
Bordes, F., 1952. ‘Stratigraphie du loess et évolution des industries paléolithiques dans l'ouest du Bassin de Paris’, L'Anthropologie, Paris, 56 (1/2) pp. 1–39, and (5/6) pp. 405–52.Google Scholar
Bordes, F., 1954. ‘Les limons quaternaires du Bassin de la Seine. Stratigraphie et Archeologie paleolithique’, Arch. Inst. Paléont. Hum. Mem., 26, 472 pp.Google Scholar
Brandtner, F., 1950. ‘Über die relative Chronologie des jüngeren Pleistozäns Niederösterreichs’, Archaeol. Austriaca, Wien, 5, pp. 101–13.Google Scholar
Brandtner, F., 1954. ‘Jüngpleistozäner Löss und fossile Bòden in Niederösterreich’, Eiszeitalter u. Gegen-wart, Öhringen, 4/5, pp. 49–82.Google Scholar
Burchell, J. P. T., 1936. ‘A Final Note on the Ebbsfleet Channel Series’, Geol. Mag., 73, pp. 550–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childe, V. G., 1956. ‘Kostienki: “East Gravettian” or “Solutrean”?’, Rep. Lond. Univ. Inst. Archaeol., 1954–1955 (in the press).Google Scholar
Clark, J. G. D., 1955. Review of: Die Federmesser- Gruppen des Nordwesteuropäischen Flachlandes: Zur Ausbreitung des Spät-Magdalenien, in Man, London, 55, No. 152, p. 141.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, J. B., 1955. Study of Ferruginous Horizons in Archaeological Sections. Thesis, London Univ. Inst. Archaeol.Google Scholar
Kimball, D. and Zeuner, F. E., 1946. The Terraces of the Upper Rhine and the Age of the Magdalenian, Occ. Pap. Lond. Univ. Inst. Archaeol., 7, 32 pp.Google Scholar
Kölbl, L., 1931. ‘Über die Aufbereitung fluviatiler und äolischer Sedimente’, Min. Petr. Mitt., Leipzig, 41 (2), pp. 129–44.Google Scholar
Kubiena, W. L., 1953. The Soils of Europe, 317 pp. London.Google Scholar
Lais, R., 1951. ‘Über den jüngeren Löss in Niederösterreich, Mähren und Böhmen’, Ber. naturf. Ges., Freiburg i. Br., 41 (2), pp. 119–78.Google Scholar
Lais, R., ‘Über den Löss von Unterwisternitz (Mähren)’, Palaeohist., Groningen, 2, pp. 135–70.Google Scholar
London Univ. Inst. Archaeol., 1938. Annual Report of the Department of Geochronology, 1 (1937), pp. 29–46.Google Scholar
London Univ. Inst. Archaeol., 1953. Annual Report of the Department of Environmental Archaeology, 9 (1951–1952), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar
London Univ. Inst. Archaeol., 1948. Guide to the Exhibition of Stone Age and Pleistocene Geology from the Cape to Britain. Occ. Pap., 9, 63 pp.Google Scholar
Musil, R., 1955. ‘Osteologickŷ materiál z paleolitického sídlište v Pavlove. (Das osteplogische Material aus der paläolith. Siedlungsstätte in Pollau’), Práce Brnenské základ. Českoslov. Akad., 27(6), pp. 279–319.Google Scholar
Musil, R., and Valoch, K., 1955. ‘Über die Erforschung der Lösse in der Umgebung von Brünn (Brno) in Mähren’, Eiszeitalter u. Gegenwart, Öhringen, 6, pp. 148–51.Google Scholar
Musil, R., Valoch, K. and Nečesaný, V., 1955. ‘Pleistocénní sedimenty okolí Brna. (The Pleistocene sediments in the vicinity of Brno)’, Anthropozoikum, Prague, 4, pp. 107–68 (1954).Google Scholar
Nansen, F., 1921. Spitzbergen. Leipzig, pp. 111–12.Google Scholar
Prošek, F., 1954. ‘Szeletien na Slovensku. (Le Szeletien en Slovaquie)’, Slovenská Archeol. (1953) 1. pp. 133–94.Google Scholar
Prošek, F. and Ložek, V., 1954 (a). ‘Sprašový profil v Bance u Pieštan (Západní Slovensko). (The loess section at Banka near Pieštany (Western Slovakia)’, Anthropozoikum, Prague, 3, pp. 301–24. (1953).Google Scholar
Prošek, F. and Ložek, V., 1954 (b). ‘Stratigrafickè Otázky Československého Paleolitu. (Stratigraphische Fragen des Paläolithikums in der Tschechoslowakei)’, Pamáiky archeol., pp. 35–74.Google Scholar
Prošek, F. and Ložek, V., 1955. ‘Výzkum Sprašového Profilu v Zamarovcích u Trenčina. (Untersuchung des Lössprofiles von Zamarovce bei Trenčin)’, Anthropozoikum, Prague, 4, pp. 181–212. (1954).Google Scholar
Schmidtgen, O. and Wagner, W., 1929. ‘Eine altpalaolithische Jagdstelle bei Wallertheim in Rheinhessen’, Notizbl. Ver. Erdk. Hess. geol. Landesanstalt, Darmstadt (5), 11, pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
Schneider, J., 1952. Fossile Bodenbildungen im Löss. Thesis, Technisch. Hochschule, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Schönhals, E., 1950. ‘Über einige wichtige Lössprofile und begrabene Böden im Rheingau’, Notizb. Hess. Landesamt Bodenforsch., 6 (1), pp. 244–59.Google Scholar
Schönhals, E., 1951. ‘Über fossile Boden im nichtvereisten Gebiet’, Eiszeitalter u. Gegenwart, Öhringen, 1, pp. 152–65.Google Scholar
Schwabedissen, H., 1954. Die Federmesser-Gruppen des nordwesteuropäischen Flachlandes: Zur Ausbreitung des Spät-Magdalenien. Vor- u. Frügeschichtl. Untersuch. a.d. Schleswig-Holstein. Landesmus. Schleswig u. d. Inst. Ur- u. Frühgesch. Univ. Kiel, (n.s.), 9, 104 pp.Google Scholar
Schumacher, E., 1911. ‘Bemerkungen über die Fauna des Loess von Achenheim, im besonderen über die Lager von Ziesel und Murmeltier’, Mittlg. Geol. Landesanstalt, Strasbourg, pp. 323–44.Google Scholar
Soergel, W., 1919. Lösse, Eiszeiten und paldolithische Kulturen. 177 pp., 1 pl. Jena.Google Scholar
Soergel, W., 1926 (a) ‘Excursion ins Travertingebiet von Ehringsdorf’, Palaeont. Zs., Berlin, 8, pp. 7–33.Google Scholar
Soergel, W., 1926 (b). ‘Das Alter der paläolithischen Fundstätten von Taubach-Ehringsdorf-Weimar’, Mannus, Leipzig 18, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Udden, J. A., 1898. ‘The mechanical composition of wind deposits’, Augustana Library Publ. Ref.: N. Jahrb. Min., Stuttgart, 1900.Google Scholar
Vértes, L., 1955. ‘Paläolithische Kulturen des Würm I/II–Interstadials in Ungarn’, Act. Archaeol. Acad. Sci. Hungar., Budapest, 5 (3/4), pp. 261–77.Google Scholar
Waechter, J. D'A., 1951. ‘Excavations at Gorham's Cave, Gibraltar’, Proc. Prehist. Soc., 17 (1), pp. 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiler, W., 1937. Die altsteinzeitlichen Funde von Pfeddersheim bei Worms, Notizbl. Hess. geol. Landesanst. Darmstadt, (5) 18, pp. 86–161.Google Scholar
Wenz, W., 1919. ‘Über einen abnormen Löss von Achenheim bei Strassburg und seine Fauna’, Jber. oberrhein. geol. Ver. (n.s.), 8, pp. 13–27.Google Scholar
Wernert, P., 1929. ‘La characterisation faunistique du Loess ancien’, C.R. 14th Congr. géol. intern. 1926, Madrid, pp. 1975–87.Google Scholar
Zaruba-Pfeffermann, Q., 1943. ‘Periglaciálni zjevy v okolí Prahy. (Periglaziale Erscheinungen in der Umgebung)’, Rozpravy II. Trídy České Akad., 53 (15), pp. 1–33, 3 pls.Google Scholar
Zeuner, F. E., 1945. The Pleistocene Period: Its climate, chronology and faunal successions, 322 pp. London (Ray Society).Google Scholar
Zeuner, F. E., 1946. Dating the Past. 1st edition, 444 pp. London.Google Scholar
Zeuner, F. E., 1949. ‘Frost soils on Mount Kenya, and the relation of frost soils to aeolian deposits’, J. Soil Sci., 1, pp. 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeuner, F. E., 1951. ‘A Postglacial Period of Dry Summers expressed in Soils, and its Archaeological Date’, Rep. Univ. Lond. Inst. Archaeol. (1949–1950), 7, pp. 46–53.Google Scholar
Zeuner, F. E., 1952. Dating the Past. 3rd edit., 495 pp., 24 pls. London.Google Scholar
Zeuner, F. E., 1953(a) ‘The Chronology of the Mousterian at Gorham's Cave, Gibraltar’, Proc. Prehist. Soc., 19 (2), no. 8, pp. 180–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeuner, F. E., 1953 (b). ‘Loess Balls from the Lower Mousterian of Achenheim (Alsace)’, J. R. anthrop. Inst., London, 83 (1), pp. 65–70.Google Scholar
Zeuner, F. E., 1953 (c). ‘Notes on the Stratigraphy of the Magdalenian’, Rep. Univ. Inst. Archaeol. (1951/1952), 9, pp. 10–28.Google Scholar
Zeuner, F. E., 1954. ‘Riss or Würm ?’ Eiszeitalter u. Gegenwart, Öhringen 4/5, pp. 98–105.Google Scholar