Antaeus - Communicationes ex Instituto Archaeologico Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 19-20/1990-1991 [antikvár]

K. Simán SOME FEATURES OF POPULATIONAL FLUCTUATIONS IN EUROPE BETWEEN 50 TO 15 THOUSAND BP In studying the movennent of a population or populational group during the Palaeolithic, the first step nnust be an examination of the natural surroundings. Man's ability to adapt might have been high, but, in any case, adaptation was still a must. It is this factor which defined not only the dispersion area but which also had a great impact on the behaviour of groups and consequently the material manifestations detectable by archaeology The reconstruction of the palaeohistory has always been a favourite topic in palaeolithic research. Nevertheless, the accumulation of finds has rendered the picture more complex and the elegant, continuous chain of development set up at the beginning of the century fell to branches and sub-branches. The separation of the groups evokes, at the same time, the following problem: how close must be the similarity to link find assemblages? This question is especially important considering that sites with various functions (permanent settlement, temporary hunters' camp, butchering site, workshop etc.) may contain finds highly divergent in nature. In many cases even habitation circumstances may vary As it has been recently shown by Belgian specialists^ adaptational features and preconceptions were present in a rather developed form, as early as the beginning of the Middle Palaeolithic. There are several more examples attesting to the conscious exploitation of the surroundings form the Middle Palaeolithic.^ It appears that some features which were earlier considered signposts of cultural stages are not only insufficient chronologically but often cannot even be considered criteria for cultural attribution. Another problematic point is the nomenclature of cultures. The question of parallel evolution is generally known. The question is whether two industrial circles derived from various backgrounds should have the same name even if the form of their appearance might be similar (e.g. Gravettian, Aurignacian etc.). This problem is further complicated when during expansion, the industrial circles happen to meet. Another side of the problem should also be mentioned. Should the denotion 'culture' even be used to connote what was more a techno-typological trend widespread over the whole of Europe? The other side of the coin is that these trends are often manifested in specific forms in which only traces of the original feature of the supposed 'original' industry or group are preserved. If, in any case, even these traces should be lost in the process of development (or just absent from the relevant site) does it reflect a new culture? The situation is the same when two industries influence each other. For this latter, an outstanding example is provided by the various views on the Bohuni-cian industry in Moravia. Here, the Aurignacian, the Micoquian and the Szeletian are alternatively referred to depending on the author.^ The data at hand is not sufficient to explain the reason for the manner of as well as the rythms of changes Antaeus 19-20 (1990-1991) Budapest