The Epipaleolithic and Protoneolithic of Stjerna and Obermaier Three-age system

small magdalenian carving representing horse.

sir john evans never changed mind, giving rise dichotomous view of mesolithic , multiplication of confusing terms. on continent, seemed settled: there distinct mesolithic own tools , both tools , customs transitional neolithic. in 1910, swedish archaeologist, knut stjerna, addressed problem of three-age system: although culture predominantly classified 1 period, might contain material same or of another. example gallery grave period of scandinavia. not uniformly neolithic, contained objects of bronze , more importantly him 3 different subcultures.

one of these civilisations (sub-cultures) located in north , east of scandinavia rather different, featuring few gallery graves, using instead stone-lined pit graves containing implements of bone, such harpoon , javelin heads. observed persisted during recent paleolithic period , during protoneolithic. here had used new term, protoneolithic , according him applied danish kitchen-middens.

stjerna said eastern culture attached paleolithic civilization (se trouve rattachée à la civilisation paléolithique). however, not intermediary , of intermediates said cannot discuss them here (nous ne pouvons pas examiner ici). attached , non-transitional culture chose call epipaleolithic, defining follows:

with epipaleolithic mean period during days followed age of reindeer, 1 retained paleolithic customs. period has 2 stages in scandinavia, of maglemose , of kunda. (par époque épipaléolithique j entends la période qui, pendant les premiers temps qui ont suivi l âge du renne, conserve les coutumes paléolithiques. cette période présente deux étapes en scandinavie, celle de maglemose et de kunda.)

tardenoisian mode 5 point—mesolithic or epipaleolithic?

there no mention of mesolithic, material described had been connected mesolithic. whether or not stjerna intended protoneolithic , epipaleolithic replacement mesolithic not clear, hugo obermaier, german archaeologist taught , worked many years in spain, whom concepts erroneously attributed, used them mount attack on entire concept of mesolithic. presented views in el hombre fósil, 1916, translated english in 1924. viewing epipaleolithic , protoneolithic transition , interim affirmed not sort of transformation:

but in opinion term not justified, if these phases presented natural evolutionary development – progressive transformation paleolithic neolithic. in reality, final phase of capsian, tardenoisian, azilian , northern maglemose industries posthumous descendants of palaeolithic ...

the ideas of stjerna , obermaier introduced ambiguity terminology, subsequent archaeologists found , find confusing. epipaleolithic , protoneolithic cover same cultures, more or less, mesolithic. publications on stone age after 1916 include sort of explanation of ambiguity, leaving room different views. strictly speaking epipaleolithic earlier part of mesolithic. identify mesolithic. others upper paleolithic transition mesolithic. exact use in context depends on archaeological tradition or judgement of individual archaeologists. issue continues.