The Use of Living Space in Prehistory: Papers from a session held at the European Association of Archaeologists Sixth Annual Meeting in Lisbon 2000 9781841715896, 9781407326368

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION THE USE OF LIVING SPACE IN PREHISTORY
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Podolian Levallois technocomplex of Western Ukraine
Raw Material Collecting in the European Middle Palaeolithic. Stones from distant areas and local raw material: Were there large and small territories? Was there an exchange of stones between Neanderthal groups?
Morphological peculiarities of cold steppe faunal specimens in Late Palaeolithic environments
The raw material procurement at the Upper Palaeolithic settlements of the Côa Valley (Portugal): new data concerning modes of resource exploitation in Iberia
Upper Palaeolithic of the Sivash Region
The Role of Ancient Landscape in Site Structure Planning
Mesolithic economy in the North Pontic steppes
The use of living space at Mesolithic sites in Central Russia
An attempt at living space delineation: the case for Early Mesolithic of Steppe Ukraine
Living with Death
Topography of the Frame-Belozerka culture settlements of Ukraine
The possible use of fire-cracked stones in ceramic production and recent research on the ‘Otzi’ grass cloak
Spatial distribution and the problem of cultural attribution of Steppe Ukraine burials in stone tombs
Structure of the small La Tène agricultural settlements in Middle Europe
The peculiarities of the geographical distribution of the archaeological sites in Lower Volga region (Scythian epoch)
Sarmatians on the West of the Eurasian Steppe belt (The beginning of the story)

Citation preview

BAR  S1224  2004   SMYNTYNA (Ed.)   THE USE OF LIVING SPACE IN PREHISTORY

The Use of Living Space in Prehistory Papers from a session held at the European Association of Archaeologists Sixth Annual Meeting in Lisbon 2000

Edited by

Olena V. Smyntyna

BAR International Series 1224 B A R

2004

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1224 The Use of Living Space in Prehistory © The editor and contributors severally and the Publisher 2004 The authors' moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841715896 paperback ISBN 9781407326368 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841715896 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2004. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

CONTENTS iii

Introduction

iv

List of contributors

1

Olexander Sytnyk: Podolian Levallois Technocomplex of Western Ukraine

13

Marie-Hélène Moncel: Raw Material Collecting in the European Middle Palaeolithic. Stones from distant areas and local raw material: Were there large and small territories? Was there an exchange of stones between Neanderthal groups?

25

Andriy Starkin: Morphological peculiarities of cold steppe faunal specimens in Late Palaeolithic environments

37

Aubry Th., Mangado J., Fullola J.M., Rosell L., Sampaio J.D.: Raw material procurement in the Upper Palaeolithic settlements of the Côa Valley (Portugal); new data concerning modes of resource exploitation in Iberia

51

Mykola Olenkovskiy: Upper Palaeolithic of the Sivash Region

61

Ekaterina Vinogradova: The role of ancient landscape in site structure planning

73

Volodymyr N. Stanko: Mesolithic Economy in the North Pontic Steppes

79

Mickle Zhilin: The use of living space at Mesolithic sites in Central Russia

89

Olena Smyntyna: An attempt at living space delineation: the case for Early Mesolithic of Steppe Ukraine

101

Malcolm Lillie: Living with Death

111

Volodymyr Romashko: Topography of the Frame-Belozerka culture settlements of Ukraine

119

Jacqui Wood: The possible use of fire-cracked stones in ceramic production and recent research on the Otzi grass cloak

123

Dmytro Teslenko: Spatial distribution and the problem of cultural attribution of Steppe Ukraine burials in stone tombs

129

Kobal Hennadiy: Structure of the small La Tène agricultural settlements in Middle Europe

135

Maria Otchir-Goriaeva: The peculiarities of the geographical distribution of the archaeological sites in lower Volga region (Scythian epoch)

147

Dzyhovsky Oleksandr: Sarmatians on the West of the Eurasian Steppe belt (The beginning of the story)

INTRODUCTION THE USE OF LIVING SPACE IN PREHISTORY theoretical study to elaborate adaptation models of population groups explored over large periods of time and spatial scale, and sometimes even without indication of territorial and chronological frameworks.

Prehistory is one of the most alluring and unequivocal pages of world history yet discovered by archaeological means. From its very beginning, inspiration and mystery, courage and persistence have accompanied its amateurs as they endeavoured to find reasonable explanations for phenomena that could scarcely be comprehended within the framework of the contemporary world.

The results are often paradoxical: the fact that the natural environment plays an important (often a determining) role in the life and subsistence of prehistoric populations is practically beyond doubt. Nevertheless for most researchers, the precise scale of such an environment, its boundaries and geographical essence, as well as the proper mechanisms of its interaction with human groups, remain unclear and often becomes the subject of heated discussions between archaeologists, anthropologists, biologists, ecologists, geographers, philosophers, and the representatives of other related sciences.

At the end of the 19th century, the obvious specificity of material remains from prehistoric populations, as well as particularities of investigative techniques, created the impetus for the foundation of prehistoric archaeology (especially, early prehistoric) as a branch of the natural sciences, in effect some sort of attempt to synthesize geology and palaeonthology. This explains why, from its earliest days, the new discipline regarded prehistoric populations as an integral part of its geographic environment, and why this environment is often used as a unique and crucial explanation for the specific features of prehistoric subsistence, household, social and ritual activities.

Since the end of the 19th century, many natural factors have been ascribed to the specific unit features of this mysterious territory that determined prehistoric culture; among them geographic (natural or climatic) zone, landscape, and ecological niche are often mentioned. But one should always bear in mind that all these notions have rather strictly defined senses, elaborated as a result of long-tem studies in the field of physical geography and ecology. In addition, the spatial variability of human culture does not necessarily coincide with land-surface differentiation according to geographic, biological or ecological criteria. So, the problem of space remains crucial for palaeoecological studies and calls for special attention within the framework of the deeper understanding of prehistoric societies. We may console ourselves in the hope that the concept of living space proposed here for your consideration may help in dealing with the problem under study.

At the beginning of the 21st century, complicated interdisciplinary studies of prehistoric culture, where contemporary methods of instrumental analysis are used, are often bringing us to similar conclusions. Thus it might be put forward that the investigation of the palaeoecological roots of prehistory remains one of the most powerful, logical, and fruitful areas of study, at any chronological and spatial scale, when approaching prehistory as integrated phenomena and when interpreting separate groups of prehistoric population culture. Today, European and world archaeology has at its disposal an impressive variety of approaches to try and understand how the early environment impacted on prehistoric life and culture. The basic common feature of most of these approaches is their hunger for a general theoretical conceptualisation of the influences of ecological and/or natural-geographic factors on the evolution of prehistoric societies. And it is just this hunger that simultaneously highlights the scientific strengths and weaknesses of these approaches. Such general notions as adaptation, stress, culture, subsistence, and other approaches used by palaeoecological adepts, might be easily applied to the investigation of any community; it is indicative of the highly cognitive potential of these concepts. At the same time, the universality of their major points and notions often obscures the unique essence of the society under study, testifying to the weaknesses of these approaches in revealing any particularity in adaptation systems and the ecological regulation on culture. The latter is also caused by a typical tendency for all kinds of palaeoecolocial

Living space may be defined as the territory where a certain group lived and foraged for all the time reflected in it’s social memory, and which is comprehended by this group as the territorial unit necessary for survival, regardless of its geographic, relief, or ecological boundaries. This is the ‘space’ that provided a sourcebase in which to live, and which was more or less strongly influenced by its explorers and thus reflected in some way in their spiritual life, ideology, and specific notions of identity. Taking into account the organizational peculiarities and activities of prehistoric populations, it becomes possible to distinguish territorial (dwelling, floor-area, settlement, foraging territory, living space), temporal (daily, seasonal, year-round, life-long, generation), and, most probably, the purposeful structuring of each separate group living space.

iii

THE USE OF LIVING SPACE IN PREHISTORY principle of the preferential utilisation of local raw material was followed in later as well as early prehistory.

* * * This current contribution may be regarded as a set of case studies which helps to conceptualise this notion as an important instrument for researchers engaged in the comprehensive investigation and interpretation of prehistoric societies. Although the issue is compiled according to chronological criteria and covers periods from the Late Mousterian to Early Sarmatian times, it is not difficult to distinguish several groups of problems which have become the subject of diachronic study.

J. Wood raises another question important in terms of the fullest possible understanding of prehistoric life – clothing: its fashion and mode of production. Based on experimental analysis of the celebrated “Otzi” man grass cloak, she concludes that the man had a complete weatherproof outfit that protected him from head to toe. The majority of contributions is devoted to the analysis of site groups distinguished within the framework of foraging territory. Trying to reveal seasonal and yearround circles of living space exploitation, the researchers pay attention to population densities and modes of life, frequency and character of cultural contacts, ethnic features, etc. Three main approaches to this set of questions are represented here.

One of these is devoted to the reconstruction of geographic conditions (faunal and floral resources, climate and humidity, relief, etc.) in which the daily life of the group under study took place. An excellent example of a non-traditional approach to this set of questions is represented by the contribution of Andrey V. Starkin (Odessa I.I. Mechnikov National University, Ukraine), where the peculiarities of post-cranial bones of reindeer, especially in relation to the extremities, are considered as an important source as regards the reconstruction of climatic conditions.

Adepts of one approach try to regard living space exploitation from the viewpoint of the spread of spatial and chronological cultural tradition which in early prehistory (i.e. in the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic) is reflected in the distribution of the morphological peculiarities of stone tools. So, Olexander S. Sytnyk (National Institute of Ukrainian Studies, Lviv, Ukraine) has taken as his starting point the data provided by Podolian (Western Ukraine) Levallois site assemblages that were investigated by him over the last two decades. This database has formed the background for his inferences about the most common features of those technologies used by the Middle Palaeolithic population of that region. By this basis, the roots of the spread of the Molodovo Mousterian culture have been reconstructed, and the possible means for the formation of various cultural traditions of the Middle Palaeolithic have been discussed. An analogous approach is used by Mykola P. Olenkovsky (Regional Inspection for Cultural Monuments Protection, Kherson, Ukraine) for analysis of Lower Dnieper Upper Palaeolithic sites.

Raw material procurement is another important issue of natural environment characterisation discussed here. The focus of attention for Marie-Helene Moncel (Institute of Human Palaeontology, Paris, France) is raw material collection in the European Middle Palaeolithic. The results of her recent studies of stone supply to and from the Middle Rhone Valley sites compared to Central European sites, give a chance to trace links between the different, often rather remote, territories, and, perhaps, groups. I would like to emphasise differences in percentages of exotic materials within individual tool kits, and in site assemblages, revealed by the author. This contribution lets us reconsider the problem of the sizing of Neanderthal group territory, and returns us once more to the social interpretation of Neanderthals. Another approach to raw material procurement is represented in the contribution devoted to the Upper Palaeolithic inhabitants of the Coa Valley. Researchers from the Coa Valley Park (Th. Aubry, J.D. Sampaio, Portugal) and the University of Barcelona (J. Mangado, J.M. Fullola, L. Rosell, Spain) have proposed an original model for flint-piece transportation and utilisation at the Coa Valley sites, dated to different stages of the Upper Palaeolithic. This model is based on the analysis of geological formations containing flint. As shown in the case of a Neanderthal population from the Rhone Valley, flint-source exploitation by Upper Palaeolithic Coa Valley groups is explained mainly within the framework of population mobility.

The next series of contributions represents a more exhaustive picture of living space exploitation based on the interdisciplinary study of natural and social environments, subsistence systems, spatial and chronological distribution of settlement types, morphological and functional peculiarities of stone tools, etc. As a result, it becomes possible not only to discuss population movements, but also to reveal their mechanisms, to trace the boundaries of separate living spaces and to explain cultural changes within the framework of living conditions. Olena V. Smyntyna (Odessa National I.I. Mechnikov University, Ukraine) applies such an approach to the study of the Mesolithic population of the Ukraine Steppe. In one geographic zone, four regions characterised by different systems of living space exploitation have been distinguished and two Early Mesolithic stages of their occupation have been singled out. Maria Otchir-Goryaeva (Eurasien Abteilung, Berlin, Germany) looks at different types of

The contribution by Jacqui Wood (Cornwall Celtic Village, Truro, United Kingdom) closes the chronological series of raw material analysis by exploring an actual living space context. The subject of her interest is ceramic production and the possible use of local (firecracked) stone in this process. It should be noted that the iv

INTRODUCTION exploitation of ancient relief at the level of site structure planning. Based on the results of long-term field investigations at Kamennaya Balka 2 (Azov region), she argues that relief peculiarities have dictated the centres of tool manufacturing and other areas of activity. A similar approach is applied by Mickle G. Zhilin (Institute of Archaeology, Moscow, Russia) to the analysis of the series of sites from the Central Russian Mesolithic that specialised as hunting sites. As a result, he has managed to reveal not only areas of different activity, but also the seasonal differences in their organisation and utilisation. By so doing he has created an original model of the Volga and Oka River regions’ year-round exploitation, taking into account climatic conditions, peculiarities of relief and natural environment, as well as the subsistence systems of the local population.

archaeological sites dated by Scythian epoch spatial distribution in the Lower Volga region in connection with peculiarities of geographic condition. Olexander M. Dzihovsky (Odessa National I.I. Mechnikov University) explores an analogous method for reconstructing ways and mechanisms of the earliest Sarmatian penetration into the western part of the Black Sea steppe region. The third approach presented here to living space analysis taken at the highest territorial and chronological levels, is illustrated by series of articles devoted to the analysis of different types of burial distribution through time and space. Such a point of view, as well as those discussed earlier, helps us understand more deeply the everyday life of the prehistoric population. At the same time it gives a unique insight into the most mysterious side of human ritual activity – that connected with the afterlife as reflected in burial customs and funerary rites. The subject of the contribution by Malcolm C. Lillie (University of Hull, United Kingdom) is the series of Mesolithic-Early Copper Age cemeteries situated at the Dnieper Rapids region of the Ukraine. Based on the analysis of their potential links with settlements and the subsistence systems of their creators, the author reveals distinct differences between the fisher/hunter-gatherer perception of this living space and that typical of the early farmers of the region. He tries to explain it in terms of the general perception expressed by the notion of “dwelling, or being-in-the-world”. Dmitro L. Teslenko (Dniepropetrivsk State University, Ukraine) has chosen another standpoint for his research; he has undertaken an exhaustive analysis of the distribution of one type of burial (Eneolithic-Early Bronze Age stone tombs) for the whole Steppe Ukraine. He believes the cultural attribution of these burials could be an instrument for living space delineation, as well as offering an interpretation of its exploitation.

Vladimir N. Stanko (Odessa I.I. Mechnikov National University, Ukraine) continues this approach. He provides an exhaustive analysis of the structure of Mesolithic settlements revealed in the western quadrant of the Northern Pontic Steppes. The contributor proposes an original model for the origin of the productive economy of this region. A highly interesting, but often neglected, aspect is reconsidered by Vladimir A. Romashko (Dniepropetrivsk State University, Ukraine). The subject of his special attention is the topography of the Frame-Belozerka Culture settlements of the Ukraine, with regard to the concept of the living space of Late Prehistoric society. Hennadiy M. Kobal (Odessa I.I. Mechnikov National University) devotes himself to an analysis of dwelling and livelihood structures as revealed by the Celtic settlements of Eastern and Central Europe. These structures, regarded by the author in the context of settlement organisation in accordance with general trends of living space exploitation, help to elaborate a new interpretation of Celtic cultural phenomena in the region under study.

The next group of questions examined here is connected with different aspects of settlement pattern, with the spatial organisation of everyday life at separate settlements and at other types of archaeological sites. Over recent years, new methods of interpreting floor layouts and features have been formulated; microdebitage analysis has developed further, as have the possibilities of utilising ethnographic data. As a result, it has become possible to recognise places where tool making, butchering, food preparation and consumption, ritual and social practices, and various other prehistoric population activities would have taken place. The contribution by Ekaterina A. Vinogradova (Moscow State University, Russia) is devoted to understanding the

Concluding our survey of main problems discussed by the authors of this publication, it should be stressed that, of course, they do not pretend to have closed the debate on the exploitation of the concept of “living space”. Many other questions are waiting in the wings. Anyone fascinated by the topic can easily contact the research team of the Odessa National I.I. Mechnikov University (Dvoryanska str., 2, Odessa, Ukraine), where they will readily find fellow scientists only too eager help find appropriate solutions for these stimulating problems.

Dr Olena Smyntyna Head of the Department of Archaeology and Ethnology for the Ukraine, Odessa I.I. Mechnikov National University Odessa, Ukraine, November, 2001 v

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Mykola Olenkovsky Inspection of Cultural Heritage Protection Kherson Regional State Administration Str. of 49th Strelkovoy divisiyi, 5, app. 151 325039 Kherson Ukraine

Olexander Sytnyk National Institute of Ukrainian Sciences Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences Kozelnytska str., 4 Lviv-26, 290026, Lviv Ukraine

Ekaterina Vinogradova Department of Archaeology Moscow M.V. Lomonosov State University 1-st training building Vorobjovy Gory 119899, Moscow Russia

Marie-Helen Moncel CNRS, UMR 6569 National Museum of Natural History Institute of Human Palaeontology 1, rue Rene Panhard 75013, Paris France

Vladimir Stanko Faculty of History Odessa I.I. Mechnikov National University 12, Schepkina str. 65026, Odessa Ukraine

Andrey Starkin Laboratory of Archaeology and Ethnography of Steppe Ukraine Odessa National I.I. Mechnikov University 12, Schepkina str. 65026, Odessa Ukraine

Mickle Zhilin Stone Age department Institute of Archaeology RAS Dm. Ulyanov str., 19 117036, Moscow Russia

Thierry Aubry Parque Arqueológico do Vale do Côa, Avenida Gago Coutinho nº19 b, 5150 Vila Nova de Foz Côa Portugal

Olena Smyntyna Department of Archaeology and Ethnology of Ukraine Odessa I.I. Mechnikov National University 12, Schepkina str. 65026, Odessa Ukraine

Jorge David Sampaio Parque Arqueológico do Vale do Côa, Avenida Gago Coutinho nº19 b, 5150 Vila Nova de Foz Côa Portugal Javier Mangado Llach Seminari d'Estudis i Recerques Prehistòriques (SERP) (UB) Dept. Prehistoria, Història Antiga i Arqueologia Facultat Geografia i Història c/Baldiri Reixac s/n. 08028 Barcelona Spain

Malcolm Lillie Wetland Archaeology and Environment Research Center Department of Geography The University of Hull Hull HU6 7RX United Kingdom Vladimyr Romashko Faculty of History Dnieprepetrovsk National University Prospect Gagarina, 72, korpus 1 Dniepropetrovsk-10 320625, Dniepropetrovsk Ukraine

Jose Maria Fullola Pericot Seminari d'Estudis i Recerques Prehistòriques (SERP) (UB) Dept. Prehistoria, Història Antiga i Arqueologia Facultat Geografia i Història c/Baldiri Reixac s/n. 08028 Barcelona Spain

Jacqui Wood Cornwall Celtic Village Saveock Mill, Greenbottom, Truro TR 4 8QQ, Cornwall, United Kingdom

Laura Rosell Ortiz Dept. Geoquímica, Petrografia i Prospecció Geològica, Facultat De Geologia (UB) C/Marti Franqués s/n 08028 Barcelona Spain

viiii

INTRODUCTION Hennadyi Kobal Faculty of History Odessa I.I. Mechnikov National University 12, Schepkina str. 65026, Odessa Ukraine

Dmytro Teslenko Faculty of History Dnieprepetrovsk National University Prospect Gagarina, 72, korpus 1 Dniepropetrovsk-10 320625, Dniepropetrovsk Ukraine

Olexander Dzigovsky Department of Archaeology and Ethnology of Ukraine Odessa I.I. Mechnikov National University 12, Schepkina str. 65026, Odessa Ukraine

Maria Otchir-Goryaeva Eurasien Abteilung DAI Im Dol 2-6, Haus 2 14195 Berlin Germany

vii

viii

Podolian Levallois technocomplex of Western Ukraine OLEXANDER SYTNYK Studying of the Middle Palaeolithic sites in Western Ukraine during last two decades gives opportunity to compare Levallois traditions as well as to trace some common features among them. The analysis of archaeological materials from some sites shows very similar technologies that people used during Palaeolithic period. That is why a group of Palaeolithic sites of Podillya could be regarded as a spread of Molodovo Mousterian culture. Key-words: Podillya, Palaeolithic site, Mousterian, Levallois technology, cultural layer aspect of these sites. The same, chronologically and territorially conditioned Middle Paleolithic Levallois techno complex might be distinguished in frameworks of the discussed area. Podillya Levallois sites are tightly connected with such well-known Mousterian assemblages of Dniester area as Molodove I, Molodove V, Ketrosy and with certain Transcarpathian sites (Koroleve, layer III).

Introduction Current distribution is devoted to the definition of the circle of the sites, belonging to the same type (or culture), dated to the same chronological episode, and originated from the territorially limited area. Such works are very important for regional Paleolithic studies as far as they allow to conduct to full-scale comparisons and to analyze of different technical groups of inventory. This, in its turn, opens possibility to elaborate historical and ethniccultural surveys.

Stratigraphical position of sites Podillya plateau Quarternary deposits have been studied by geologist A. Bohucki (Lviv National University) in 1980 - 1990. According to his observations, Upper Pleistocene sequence at Mousterian sites is the following, from the top downward (Fig. 2): Layer I – modern soil (0,5 – 1,5 m). Layer II – upper horizon of Upper Pleistocene loesses (0,3 – 1,3 m). Dark brown tight carbonized loamy soil with crevices, includes limestone concretions less than 3,0 cm in diameter. Sometimes layer shows brightly expressed incomplete net structure of post-cryogen texture (the height of net is up to 10 cm; width constitutes from 2 to 3 cm). The same areas exhibit signs of intensive processes of saturation by clayey and ferrous particles. Layer III – Dubno soil - Paudorf (0,3 – 0,8 meters thick). Light brown (cocoa coloring) loamy soils, tight with sufficient macro-porosity, intensively penetrated with wormholes. Loamy soils are ferrous; sometimes include formations of Lizegang rings type; its diameter is about 1.0 cm. Partial loamy soils are intensively clayey and has blue-greyish hue.

FIGURE 1. Schematic map of localization of stratified Levallois sites of Podillya: 1-Bugliv V; 2-Igrovytsya I; 3Velyky Glybochok I; 4-Pronyatyn; 5-Iezupil. The territory of Podillya as direct East Carpathian wide range zone has a geomorphological, landscape and climatic peculiarities, which promoted the early inhabitation of this region by ancient groups and their further durable occupation. 40 Middle Paleolithic localities were discovered in the area during the last decades by the Paleolithic expedition headed by the author. Several newly discovered sites are stratified and they allow us to apply various geological and other natural science methods of study (Fig 1).

Layer IV – lower horizon of Upper Pleistocene loesses (0,5 – 1,5 m). Tight loamy soils, yellow-brown and slightly reddish, do not contain carbonate, with patches and lenses of loamy soils of A1 horizon of Gorokhiv complex (Eem). Layer V – over-Gorokhiv (post-Eem) solifluction (0,4-1,0 m). Very well expressed solifluction sediments, comprises loamy soils of layer IV and loamy soils of the lower horizon A1 of Gorokhiv complex. Gorokhiv loamy soils form numerous micro-layers, lenses, hair-like

Basically Levallois character of lithic knapping technology represents important cultural and historical 1

THE USE OF LIVING SPACE IN PREHISTORY formations (kosmy and grivy) which appear constantly at intervals 0.5-1.0 m. Loamy soils are tight, do not react with hydrochloric acid.

polygonal-vein ices of Final Pleistocene (Krasyliv) paleocryogen stage (structural paleo-cryogenic formation) are observed (Bohucki Andrea, Bohucki Alexander, Woloszyn 1994).

Layer VI – Gorokhiv paleo-soil (Eem) (0,7-1,7 m). Horizon A1 is 0,4-0,5 meter thick. It is formed by macroporous tightly damped brown-reddish loamy soils, somewhat disturbed by the processes of solifluction. Layer contains numerous wormholes filled with sediments from horizon B.

Layer VII - Middle Pleistocene loesses (0.8-2.5 meters). Yellow-grey of greenish tone loamy soils, partially with visible lamination, sometimes include malaco-fauna. Cultural layers of different sites are mainly associated with solifluctional horizon of over-Gorokhiv (post-Mezin after O. Velichko, Eemian) pack of loamy soils (Fig 2). These are such sites as Pronyatyn, Velyky Glybochok I (layer IIIa), Igrovytsya (layer II), Vanzhuliv I (layer III), Bugliv V (layer II), Ketrosy etc. Archaeological materials are gravitated mostly to the upper and middle parts of horizon, although they are known in the lower parts as well.

Horizon B is formed by gray with blue hue loamy soils including ferrous macro-porous areas with frequent ferrous-manganese smears. It must be noted, that the majority of profiles show the aggregated pack built by the 3rd and 4th layers; subdivision into distinct layers appears to be almost impossible. Sometimes the pseudomorphoses caused by

FIGURE 2. Correlation of stratigraphical sequences of the main sites of Podollya Middle Palaeolithic. I - Velyky Glybochok; II - Bugliv V; III - Iezpil; IV - Pronyatyn; V - Igrovitsya I; 1 - modern soil, horizon A1; 2 - modern and buried soils, horizon A1; 3 - buried soil, horizon A2; 4 - modern buried soil, horizon B; 5 - Middle Pleistocene loesses; 6 - Upper Pleistocene loesses; 7 - sands; 8 - Neogene limestone; 9 - solifluction; 10 - cryogen deformations; 11artifacts; 12 - numbers of the horizons.

2

OLEXANDER SYTNYK:

PODOLIAN LEVALLOIS TECHNOCOMPLEX OF WESTERN UKRAINE

TABLE I. TL-dates of Podillya Levallois Middle Paleolithic sites. #

Site

Sample

Stratigraphical horizon

1

Pronyatyn

#1

Post-Gorokhiv loess

85±7

#6 #7 #4 #9 #1

Post-Korshiv loess (Middle Pleistocene) Horizon A1 of “Korshiv” Middle Pleistocene loess Horizon B of “Korshiv” Upper Pleistocene loamy soils, upper part

77±6 175±13 140±10 210±12 40±4

#2

50±5

#3 #1 #7 #2

Upper Pleistocene loamy soils, above cultural layer II Upper Pleistocene loamy soils, cultural layer II Upper Pleistocene loess Horizon A2 of “Gorokhiv”, cultural layer III Upper Pleistocene loess

140±12 95±7 155±11 30±4

#5

Middle Pleistocene loess

156±11

2 Velyky Glybochok I, excavation 3

Bugliv V trial trench 5

4

Bugliv V excavation III

5 6 7

Igrovytsya I excavation Iezupil excavation Vanzhuliv I excavation

TL-date, Kyr BP

Yamada, 1997; Sytnik, Bogucki, Woloszyn, Madejska, 1998).

Iezupil (I layer III), Velyky Glybochok I (layer IIIb), Molodove I and Molodove V have another geological position. Their cultural horizons are included in geological layers of different age. So, Velyky Glybochok I (layer IIIb) associates with Middle Pleistocene (Upper Riss) loamy soils, Iezupil I (layer III) is included into horizon A2 of Gorokhiv (Eemian) pack of soils. Molodove Mousterian horizons are connected with buried soils of Upper Pleistocene (Early Wurmian) age destroyed by denudation (Ivanova 1977: 1982).

Absolute dating of the sites Absolute dates were obtained by the laboratory of the Department of Geology of Anthropogene, the Institute of Geological Sciences of the National Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (chief of Dept Professor Shelkoplyas V.N.). Numerous samples originating from many archaeological sites have been analyzed, but results were obtained only for several geological horizons. Many dates do not correlate with the commonly adopted chronostratigraphical scheme of Pleistocene sediments of the East European plain.

Thus, it becomes possible to distinguish the date of Levallois Middle Paleolithic sites which are characterized by different age stratigraphic position at West Ukrainian Podillya and Sub-Carpathian areas (Bogutskij, Sytnik,

TABLE II. Fauna remains reported for the Mousterian sites of Podillya (+ presence; - absence). Site Specie Mammuthus primigenius Blum. Equus equus Pidop. Coelodonta antiquitatis Blum. Rangifer tarandus L. Bos sp. Cervus elaphus Lutra lutra Alopec lagopus Vulpes corsak Marmota bobak

Pronyatyn

Velyky Glybochok I, layer IIIa

+

Iezupil, layer III

Igrovytsya I, layer II

Skorodyntsi

Ternopil I

Dolyna

Stary Vyshnevets

+

+?

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+?

-

-

-

+

-

+

-

-

-

-

+ + + + +

-

-

-

+? -

3

+ -

+ +

THE USE OF LIVING SPACE IN PREHISTORY Fauna The majority of stratified Levallois settlements rarely include fauna; it could be explained by localization of cultural horizons in oxide soil complexes. Only sandy soil solifluction sediments of Igrovytsya layer II provide comparatively numerous remains of different Pleistocene species. Herd animals, such as mammoth, bison, horse, rhinoceros, and deer, well adapted to cold steppe and forest-steppe conditions prevailed in local fauna assemblages. These species are regarded as typical Early Wurmian inhabitants of this region.

Turonian flint is unknown in the Middle Dniester region; that is why Mousterian inhabitants sometimes used alluvial Turonian flints, washed from the Upper Chalk sediments of the Upper Dniester area where they are common. They were transported by river flows to the Middle Dniester region (Polyanskyj 1935).

These mammals are revealed in most Mousterian sites of Western Ukraine, e.g. they are known at Molodove I (Chernysh 1982), Molodove V (Chernysh 1961; 1987), Korman’ IV (Chernysh 1977), Ketrosy (Anisyutkin 1981). So, the teriofauna of Levallois settlements is attributed to the so-called mammoth faunistic complex dominated in Western Ukraine at the end of Middle and beginning of the Upper Pleistocene (Tatarinov 1974; 1977).

The surfaces of the artifacts are covered with light grey, blue and whitish patina.

Most of Middle Dniester Levallois assemblages (Molodove I, V) were made of coarse-grained Senomanian flints. Fractures are mainly black, rough rock, dark grey, often with a bluish hue.

Sometimes quartzite was used to prepare amorphous flakes and core-like fragments.

crude

The state of preservation of archaeological materials Results of weathering, rolling and lustre were not traced on the artifacts under study. There are only mechanical fractures and not numerous damages on the flakes after detachment.

Raw materials High quality flints of local Turonian deposits were in use in the territory of Northern Podillya and the Upper Dniester area. Raw material outcrops are known in expositions of riverbanks; the average distance between them and the sites is about 500-1000 m. Slightly tight layers of flint look like concretions with thin calcite or thick carbonate cortex. Natural supports differ significantly in their morphology and metric parameters (from 3 up to 50 cm in perimeter). Based on the dimensions and morphological peculiarities of the majority of cores of initial stage of reduction, it could be concluded that an oval and rather flat concretion of ca. 10 x 7 x 4 cm in size was the most widespread blank for further reduction. The character of flake-blanks and flake-wastes also proves this hypothesis. Indeed, other forms of flint concretions were also utilized. The most common of them are “figurine” nodules, “finger-like” nodules, egg-, pear-, bullet-shaped pieces, etc.

All the artificially knapped flints are covered by a thin blue or light blue patina. A few artifacts have a barely visible blue patina (sometimes completely lacking); this fact testifies to a comparatively short period of covering by loess-like loamy soil accumulations. Some pieces of raw material could be regarded as examples of natural splintering taking place in a humid climate accompanied by temperature oscillations. Materials collected on surfaces of alluvial terraces are badly preserved and demonstrate frequent fragmentation, damage, pseudoworking denticulate, etc. The sites of Levallois tradition Pronyatyn The site is located in the Gora Krucha locality on the right bank of the Seret River, 800 m southeast of Pronyatyn village, and 15 km northwest of Ternopil city.

Thin cortexes of flint concretions often show inclusions, spots and washed bands of ferrous oxides and frostcaused holes and caverns. A certain number of nodules have rough boulder cortexes.

The site was investigated by the Palaeolithic expedition in 1977-1981, 1984, 1985 (Sytnyk 1978; 1985; 1994; 2000; Stepanchuk & Sytnyk, 1999). As a result, 500 square metres of the cultural layer were excavated and 6410 flint artifacts found.

Flint fractures are black, dark (or sometimes light) grey. Several artifacts are made of yellow-brown (“honey”) flint, which is not typical for Podillya.

The main categories of the industry are: Cores - 248 (3.8 %); Tools - 295 (4.6 %) - percentages are calculated for each level; Tools of Levallois flakes - 226 (76.7 %); Tools of Non-Levallois flakes - 69 (23.3 %); Levallois flake products - 434 (6.7 %); Levallois Flakes - 379 - 87.4 %; Levallois Blades - 55 - 12.6 %; Non-Levallois flake products - 3327 - 51.9 %; Non-Levallois Flakes - 2743 - 82.5 %;

Special raw material stocks are not found at the sites under study. Ten expressive tools - points, side-scrapers and knives were discovered at Iezupil. They are made of fine-grained greenish-brown “Carpathian sandstone”. Three hammerstones were prepared on oval pebbles originating from Dniester alluvium (coarse-grained Grey Devonian sandstone). 4

OLEXANDER SYTNYK:

PODOLIAN LEVALLOIS TECHNOCOMPLEX OF WESTERN UKRAINE correspond to the main Levallois principle, namely: all these products were obtained from specially prepared working core surfaces.

Non-Levallois Blades - 584 - 17.5 %; Micro-debitage (less than 2 cm) - 2106 - 32.8 %. Based on technical signs of knapping, 99 diagnostic cores were subdivided as 51 Levallois cores (51.5 %) and 48 non-Levallois cores (48.5 %). Among Levallois cores there are radial (21 - 41.1 %), parallel (8 - 15.7 %), convergent (2 - 3.9 %), eclectic (2 - 3.9 %) and undermined (16 - 31.3 %)

Almost half of all the flakes have finely facetted butts - 4 (49.1 %); among them “chapeau” butts constitute ca. 13 percent, large facetted - 83 %, plain butts - 15.7 %, and natural butts - less then 2 %. Therefore, the Pronyatyn Levallois industry seems to have been facetted (each second flake has retouched butt). All the material testifies to the existence of careful core preparation before the detachment of Levallois flakes. Dimensions of 61.8 % of the blanks vary between 4 and 7 cm; each fifth flake is larger than 7 cm (21.9 %). Average parameters of flake blanks are 7.0 x 4.5 x 1.2 cm. Standardized thickness of Levallois products (excluding defective flakes) is 1.0 - 1.2 cm. The main tool categories are as follows: Points: 20 - 6.6 %; side-scrapers: 19 - 6.4 %; knives: 179 - 60.6 %; cutters: 12 - 3.9 %; denticulates: 8 - 2.7 %; encoches: 14 - 4.7 %; cleavers: 3 - 1.0 %; pieces esquilles: 7 - 2.3 %; end-scrapers: 6 - 2.0 %; burins: 3 1.0 %; percoirs: 3 - 1.0 %; knives-cutters: 9 - 3.0 %; knives-encoches: 3 - 1.0 %; cutters-encoches: 3 - 1.0 %; hammerstones: 2 - 0.6 %; retouchers: 3 - 1.0 %.

FIGURE 3. Pronyatyn. Levallois flake products. The majority of Levallois cores is a product of recurrent (multi-cycle) reduction. It is proved by the correlation of Levallois cores and number of flaked products (51 and 660 correspondingly). The average dimensions of the majority of Levallois flakes vary between 6 and 9 cm, compared to Levallois core examples of 4-7 cm. Levallois flakes (Fig 3, 4). There are 660 pieces in the series of Levallois artifacts (including tools). It constitutes 10.2 % of the total number of flints assemblages and 16.2% of the total number of flakes. Typical or classical Levallois products represent about 40 % of these series. The rest of the Levallois products show certain deviations from the exact patterns as developed by adepts of a more rigorous approach to the definition of such products (Ranov 1972: 100-111). At the same time, they

FIGURE 4. Pronyatyn. Levallois flake products

5

THE USE OF LIVING SPACE IN PREHISTORY Upper Paleolithic types - 5.0; Denticulate and notched tools - 3.8; IF strict - 34.5; IF large - 64.3. Coefficient of elongation - 140; Coefficient of massiveness - 16.6. Velykyy Glybochok I The site was discovered by the author in 1979. It is situated on the high, right bank of the Seret River, 800 m north of Velyky Glybochok village in the Ternopil district, in a deep stone quarry. The height above river level is more than 80 m. Archaeological excavations were conducted by the Paleolithic expedition in 1979, 1981-1983, 1987, and 1991. As a result the following cultural horizons were revealed: layer I (Mesolithic) - horizon B of modern humus, the depth is 1.23-1.60 m; layer II (Late Paleolithic) - the lower part of Dubno (Paudorf) buried soil, the depth is 2.30-2.60 m; layer IIIa (Mousterian) - the upper part of Gorokhiv (Eem) buried soil complex, the depth is 2.40-2.40 m; layer IIIb (Levallois Mousterian) - Ternopil buried complex (the second half of Riss), the depth is 4.80-5.30 m; layer III (Late Acheulean) - Korshiv buried soil (Riss, Odintsovo, Kaidaki), the depth is 6.20-7.00 m (Sytnyk & Bohucki 1998; Sytnyk 2000). Such scholars as V. Chabai, V. Stepanchuk, V. Sitlivy, O. Yevtushenko, and M. Levchuk took part in excavation of 1991. Levallois assemblages CULTURAL LAYER IIIb. The archaeological assemblages are not numerous. Only 59 flint artifacts (among which are 3 cores, 6 indeterminable core-like fragments, 5 tools (?), 19 flakes, 4 blades and 22 microflakes) were recovered over an area of ca. 25 square metres. 2 small Levallois cores discarded at the final stage of utilization are worthy of attention.

FIGURE 5. Velyky Glybochok I, layer IIIa The main (profiling) types of tools: Knife on Levallois flake with two working edges made by light, strictly localized retouch (35 %); Backed knife (back is either natural or artificial) without retouch or with fine retouch on the edge (25 %); Knife-cutter with working edge on the corner between longitudinal and transversal edges (10 %); Convex (straight) side-scraper on Levallois blank with uni-row subparallel retouch on dorsal surface (6 %); Arrow-like triangle point on Levallois blank, morphologically gravitated to convergent knife (6 %); Encoches of preponderantly ventral design (4 %); End-scraper on flake, flat, wide, terminally convex (4 %). Other tools types are individual and typologically inexpressive (10 %). The main indices of the industry are following: Levallois technical (strict) - 16.2; Levallois typological - 76.6; Blades total - 9.9; Blades from flake products - 16.7; Points - 4.0; Knives and side-scrapers - 70.4;

Several flakes were used, probably, as knife-like tools, as well as large Levallois flakes (Fig 4:1, 3, 4) without additional secondary reprocessing, but with expressive traces of utilization. Thus, cultural horizon IIIb represents developed Levallois industry based on discoidal knapping. CULTURAL LAYER IIIa. Lithic artifacts of this cultural horizon are mixed with materials of the main Late Paleolithic layer II. Both cultural layers are included in the lower part of Dubno (Paudorf) buried soil and, partially, in the upper part of post-Gorokhiv (post-Mezin) solifluction pack. The following main represented: Cores - 9 (5.23 %); 6

categories

of

artifacts

are

OLEXANDER SYTNYK:

PODOLIAN LEVALLOIS TECHNOCOMPLEX OF WESTERN UKRAINE The locality was discovered by the author in 1981. In 1988 the Palaeolithic expedition undertook archaeological excavations here. As a result, two cultural horizons of different age, divided by sterile layer of loamy soils, were revealed (Sytnik 1989: 88). 27 square metres were investigated; an additional six square metres were studied in 1996 (Sytnyk & Levchuk 1988: 403-24). CULTURAL LAYER II The flint assemblage is subdivided into the following main categories of flint artifacts: cores - 2 (0.2 %); core-like fragments - 3 (0.3 %); tools - 18 (1.9%); blades - 81 (8.7 %); flakes - 256 (27.4 %); natural debris, micro-debitage, chips - 574 (61.3 %); total artifacts - 934. More than 80 % of the finds came from wastes of flint knapping, or possibly associated with random products of splintering. This fact indicated that the primary processing of raw materials was conducted on the spot; the state of the artifacts’ preservation should also be mentioned..

FIGURE 6. Bugliv V, layer III. Refitting schemes of knapping.

3 side-scrapers, 6 side-scrapers-knives, 1 encoche, 2 denticulate-notched pieces, 3 end-scraper-like artifacts, and 2 burins represent the categories with secondary reprocessing (i.e. tools).

Blades - 13 (7.6 %); Flakes - 107 (62.2 %); Tools - 25 (14.5 %); Different fragments and debris - 18 (10.5 %); Total artifacts -172.

Several side-scrapers, end-scrapers and knives, all reminiscent of “tools”, have no clear morphological appearance and this fact adds more difficulties to the typological procedure.

Recovered Mousterian assemblage includes such tool forms as hand-axe-like artifact of cleaver type, 3 Levallois points, 2 sides-crapers, 5 knife-like tools, 6 denticulate pieces, 5 encoches, 2 burin-like objects, and 1 end-scraper; total 25 artifacts.

In general, the cultural layer II of Igrovytsya I belongs to the circle of Final Mousterian industries with numerous blades, medium levels of facetting and massiveness.

The industry of complex IIIa is also Levallois but has “more evolved” character (Fig 5). Facetage and trimming indices rise. To a certain extent this assemblage reminds one of Moldovian territorial and technological variant of Buteshty-Trinka type. Side-scrapers with invasive retouch, scaly treatment and basal or terminal thinning of ventral surface are also revealed there. Individual partially bifacial forms are known as well. Generally, this industry might be defined as Levallois, with medium percentage of blades, frequent facetting, and very rare Charentian elements. The closest analogy is represented by a re-deposited alluvial assemblage from Ternopil I.

Bugliv V The site is localized in the upper flow of the Buglivka River, on its high, right bank, near the northeast outskirts of Bugliv village (named Kaminna Gora). The site was discovered by the Paleolithic expedition in 1989. Field works were conducted at the site in 1989, 1990, and 1992-1995. The excavation areas (I-III) uncovered 350 square metres of the site area. CULTURAL LAYER II. The following inventory categories are represented here: cores - 7 (0.8 %); Core-like fragments - 3 (0.3 %); tools - 16 (1.8 %); blades - 121 (13.7 %); flakes - 225 (25.5 %); micro-debris, chips, micro-flakes - 408 (46.2 %); small natural fragments - 102 (11.5 %); total artifacts - 882.

Igrovytsya I The site is located on the top of a steep slope on the left bank of the small Igra River, a left tributary of the Seret River (Fig 1). This is on the southern outskirts of Igrovytsya village (Ternopil district); approximately 20 km north of Ternopil (named Dyblyanka).

7

THE USE OF LIVING SPACE IN PREHISTORY from the northern outskirts of Iezupil (Tysmenets district, Ivano-Frankivsk region (Fig 1)).

Considering the technology, the discussed assemblage looks rather developed and oriented towards the production of blades (Fig 6, 7) Levallois industry with a low range of facetting. Unfortunately, the assemblage belongs to a number of incomplete, lacunary collections. The assorted character of the lithic series is explained in this case by anthropogeneous reasons (the flint processing area is near the hearth).

The site was discovered in 1990 and excavated by the Palaeolithic expedition in 1991, 1997, 1998 and 1999. Three cultural horizons were recognized: Lower layer III (Mousterian) (Sytnyk, Bohucki & Kulakivska 1996; Sytnik, Bohucki, Woloszyn & Madejska 1998; Sytnik, Bohucki & Madejska 1998), Middle layer II (Mousterian), and Upper layer I (Late Palaeolithic).

Such early laminar assemblages are known in Western Europe, in particular at the stratified site Rocourt (Otte, Boeda, Haeserts 1990: 3-13). Contrary to the existing Middle Palaeolithic techniques, such as “uni-bipolar Levallois” Biache method and “bipolar semi-volumetric Levallois” Rocourt method, the model of parallel knapping of the layer II of Bugliv V might be defined as “uni-face one-platformed parallel-flat Levallois” (Boeda 1988; Chabai 1994; Boeda 1990; Chabai & Sitlivy 1993; Chabai 1994). This latter technique shows no signs of lateral treatment (“versant”) by means of a system of ridges, as well as no signs of traditions of “convergent ridge” for detachment of Levallois points (Bar-Yosef & Meignen 1992: 163-82; Demidenko & Usik 1993: 33-48).

CULTURAL LAYER III. In total, the excavated area constitutes more than 110 square metres (Fig 1, 19) and 403 lithic artifacts were recovered. The main inventory categories from layer III are the following: cores - 15 (5.7 %); tools - 63 (15.6 %); Levallois products (19 flakes and 13 blades) - 32 (7.9 %); flakes - 113 (28.0 %); blades - 65 (16.1 %); indefinable fragments - 6 (1.5 %); micro-debris and chips - 109 (27.0 %).

As for the techno-typological aspect, the considered assemblage, undoubtedly, belongs to the group of Levallois “recurrente centripete” laminar industries (Boeda, Geneste, Meignen 1990: 43-80).

Several schemes of raw materials’ utilization might be traced in the materials of layer III. Each of these schemes (models) was oriented to the detachment of more than one blank through a single cycle of knapping (recurrent). There is also evidence of applying knapping schemes oriented to obtain preferential or single blanks through each given cycle of knapping (Fig. 8; 9). There are the following categories of tools: points - 15 (23.8 %); side-scrapers - 5 (7.9 %); knives - 29 (46 %); encoches - 1 (1.6 %); indefinable pieces with blunted face fracture surface - 5 (7.9 %). The main indices of the III-d layer of Iezupil I are: Levallois technical - 23.6; Levallois typological - 74.0; blade technical (quota among all flake products) - 34.0; blade total - 25.0; IF strict - 52.3; IF large - 70.0; parallel technique - 60.0; radial technique - 20.0; convergent technique - 20.0. Thus, the industry might be referred to as macro, unifacial, Levallois, laminar, facetted, with preponderance of knives and points: side-scrapers are less frequent; other types are inexpressive. A group of Middle Paleolithic sites with developed laminar industries were recently examined in France and Belgium (Kulakovska 1998: 679-83). Some of these are early- and middle-Eemian age. This implicates a quite early rise of Middle Paleolithic laminar industries. Layer III of the site of Iezupil demonstrates the extensive territorial tendencies of this phenomenon in the Upper Dniester area.

FIGURE 7. Bugliv V, layer III. Levalois flake products. Iezupil I The site is located approximately 10 km southeast of the town of Galich, on a small promontory of the second terrace on the right bank of the Dniester River, 1 to 2 km

8

OLEXANDER SYTNYK:

PODOLIAN LEVALLOIS TECHNOCOMPLEX OF WESTERN UKRAINE knives. The Podillya type, save for the Iezupil layer III, differs in the presence undeveloped, short, practically non-retouched points, the absence of Mousterian points, and typical side-scrapers with modifying retouches.

Analogies and comparisons The closest and most meaningful analogies to the abovementioned Levallois sites are traced in the SubCarpathian, among the materials of Mousterian horizons of Molodovo I (layers I-IV) and Molodovo V (layers 12 and 11). The Molodovo industries and Levallois sites of Podillya have common features in almost all technical and typological indices. The differences between them are expressed in the quantitative correlation of the same types of tools and in the character of primary and secondary reprocessing. The main difference is that in the Molodovo assemblages the appearance of the Levallois knapping technique is more progressive (laminar) and the forms of Mousterian tools (points and side-scrapers) are more expressive. This might be caused more by economic than cultural inadequacy.

According to the geological conclusions (the stratigraphical position of cultural layers), the sites mentioned are dated to the first half of Wurm (interstadial Amersfort = post-Gorokhiv solifluction), while the Molodovo assemblages refer, approximately, to the interstadial Brorup (Ivanova 1982: 223). These observations suggest that the Podillya Levallois industries chronologically predate the Molodovo. It is obvious that these industries are genetically related and have common backgrounds traceable to the local Middle Paleolithic traditions.

For instance, more than half of the cores from Molodovo I layer IV are represented by parallel (one-, two-platform, sub-prismatic, pyramidal forms, according to O. Chernysh 1982: 35) and, in general, flat items at the final stage of utilization. Prismatic nuclei dominate (Chernysh 1982: 40) among the two-platform cores (270).

The assemblages show the same analogies as in the other Mousterian sites with primary Levallois knapping. As well as the Podillya assemblages, the following geologically dated West Ukrainian sites might be considered in the same context, for example: Korolevo I layer III in Transcarpathia, Ketrosy in the Dniester region, and Zhorniv in Volyn.

Blades of the 4th horizon of Molodovo I are characterized both by archaic and progressive Late Paleolithic features. “On the blades which are Late Paleolithic in appearance the preparation of striking areas is absent, bulbs are small, blades are thin, and they are characterized by regular cross-sections and parallel dorsal patterns... These products were widely used by the Mousterian population for the manufacture of tools by means of retouching” (Chernysh 1982: 42). The materials coming from the 1976-1979 excavations were analyzed by O. Chernysh and the following technical indices established: IF large 43, IF strict 21, I lam 27 (Chernysh 1982: 42). According to the calculations of Yu. Kolosov, layer 4 of Molodovo I provides IL technical 55 and IL typological 72 (Kolosov 1972: 132). It seems that IL technical is overestimated, as far as it is rather difficult to imagine that each second flake product found at the site with permanent flint knapping was Levallois.

Korolevo I layer III was recovered in the upper part of the buried soil IV (Riss-Wurm). The Lithic series have 2,757 artifacts. Among them - cores (2 %) are dominated by Levallois (35 %), which are “distinguished by regular shapes, notable stable in size (in average 6.8 x 7.0 x 2.7 cm)... the working surface is thoroughly prepared, keeping the negative of regular shape, covering practically all the surface of the knapping” (Kulakovskaya 1985: 25). Levallois tools constitute 13 % of the total number of flake products. Attention should be drawn to the classical round-oval tortoise flakes (Kulakovska 1989: 25). Levallois blades are also known. Of the blades (9.9 %), “There are many massive specimens among them, with the cortex on dorsal surfaces. Practically all of them are fragmented” (Kulakovskaya 1989: 25). IF strict is 8 %, IF large 29%. Side-scrapers predominate in the list of types (45 %), but they are not well shaped and standardized.

The artifact assemblage from the 12th layer of the site of Molodovo V (2281) includes 112 cores, 1113 flakes, 444 blades, 60 tools and 552 wastes of knapping (Chernysh 1987: 15). S. Smirnov calculates the following indices for the 12th layer: Levallois 36.9; blades 13.9; IF strict 32.9; IF large 49.4 (Smirnov 1973: 60).

Thus, the industry of Korolevo I layer III is characterized as Levallois, non-blade, non-facetted, with numerous side-scrapers. The Levallois of this cultural horizon is peculiar for the small quantity of standard tortoise flakes typical for the early stages of Levallois technology.

Thus, in the sphere of primary knapping technique, the Molodovo industry overtook the Podillya Levallois region in nearly all respects (prismatic cores, blades of Late Palaeolithic appearance, utilization of blades for tool manufacture, general refinement of flake products etc).

The main cultural layer of the Ketrosy site is associated with dark brown loamy soils dated to Amersfort-Brorup (Ivanova, Bolikhovskkaya & Rentgarten 1981: 157; Ivanova 1981: 230). More than four thousand lithics were found during excavations. Among them cores - 2 %, tools - 3%. Radial reductions dominate. Levallois cores are also known. IL is 21, IF large 43, IF strict 31, I lam 12. “In general, the typical Levallois flakes constitute about 10 %, indicating the wide use of this technique and

In the sphere of tool typology, the Molodovo assemblages demonstrate classical Mousterian points, elongated triangular Levallois points, typical sidescrapers (not frequent) and a wide assortment of various 9

THE USE OF LIVING SPACE IN PREHISTORY giving opportunity to classify this site as Levallois” (Anisyutkin 1981: 24). The flint assemblage indicates many blades with parallel dorsal patterns, among which the Levallois blades are numerous. Side-scrapers of Mousterian type and various denticulate tools are most common among the tools at Ketrosy. Thus, the primary reduction of this industry exhibits developed features of Levallois “blade” technology. There are no typical tortoise flakes, which are documented for Korolevo I layer III. The Lithic industry of Ketrosy resembles undeveloped Levallois. The Levallois components of the Zhorniv assemblage (Rivne district) also provide certain analogies (Pyasetski 1992: 113-26). V. Pyasetski argued for a Paudorf dating for Zhornive and he refers several Mousterian sites in Eastern Europe (Molodove I, Molodove V, Pronyatyn), and France (Arcy-sur-Cure, Cottes) to the same date. This point of view is hard to accept. Such a significant underestimation of the age of Mousterian layers of Pronyatyn and Molodovo I and V has no grounds. Recent work by the geologists A. Bohucki (Lviv) and P. Haeserts (Belgium), based on the stratigraphical position of Mousterian layers 12 and 11 at Molodovo V, support I. Ivanova’s conclusion about the early Wurmian age of these sites. FIGURE 9. Iezupil, layer III. Levalois flake products. Highly similar to the Podillya Levallois assemblages are the sorted surface collection of Skubova Balka and certain flakes and cores from Nenasytets in the Dnieper region (Smirnov 1973: 49-62). It might be suggested that the Levallois traditions in Dnieper region have a certain common basis with the Dniester and West Podillya assemblages. The recently discovered and partly studied Levallois site of Alyoshyn Grot in the Eastern Crimea (Kolosov 1994; Kolosov & Stepanchuk 1998) is worthy of note. Save for certain differences in the technology of production of blanks and the typology of tools, the assemblage of Alyoshyn Grot is closely similar to the Levallois industries of Podillya. This fact refutes the idea of a cultural uniformity in the Crimean Middle Paleolithic. The rich lithic assemblage of Shaitan-Koba provides a specific example of the eclectic industries that exhibit alongside the developed Levallois technology of primary knapping (cores and flakes) - the application of bifacial technology (Kolosov 1972; Kolosov, Stepanchuk & Chabai 1993). The same situation might also be recognized at the Khotylevo site, (Zavernyaev 1978: 3647).

FIGURE 8. Iezupil, layer III. Refitting schemes of knapping

Conclusion The western Ukraine provided a new area into which the Levallois tradition of the Middle Paleolithic could spread. 10

OLEXANDER SYTNYK:

PODOLIAN LEVALLOIS TECHNOCOMPLEX OF WESTERN UKRAINE The Podillya Levallois sites must be regarded as distinct variants of Molodovo culture. As already noted, they possessed close traditions of raw material reduction and secondary working, as well as similar tool preferences. Geologically, the cultural horizons of the Podillya sites were associated with sediments of Eemian age and postGorokhiv solifluction (the end of Riss - beginning of Wurm I), as demonstrated by their earlier date in comparison to Molodovo Mousterian (Brorup). The Laminar assemblages of Iezupil (layer III) and Bugliv V (layer II) might point to a widespread regional tendency of the very early emergence and diffusion of Levallois blade industries in Europe.

New data now completes the known Molodovo Levallois assemblages in the Dniester region, and allows us to pose the question of the local genetic roots of the Molodovo culture. It is obvious that the Molodovo Mousterian was not shifted in its finished form from remote territories, such as the Near East, but was the result of the long development of the local Podillya and Subcarpathia industries of Levallois tradition. The rise of advanced Molodovo sites was preceded by a complex process of migrations and radiation of Mousterian communities, different by composition but generically related.

DEMIDENKO, Yu. E. & V.I. USIK. 1993. On the lame a crete technique in the Palaeolithic, Prehistoire Europeenne 4: 33-48. IVANOVA, I.K. 1981. Geologiia i geomorfologiia okresnostey Ketrosy, in Ketrosy. Must’ierskaia stoianka na Srednem Dnestre: 59-80. Moscow: Nauka. 1982. Geologiia i paleogeografiia myst’ierskogo poseleniia Molodova I, in Molodova I. Unikal’noie must’ierskoie poseleniie na Srednem Dnestre: 188-236. Moscow: Nauka. IVANOVA, I.K., N.S. BOLIKHOVSKAYA & V.N. RENGARTEN. 1981. Geologicheskiy vozrast i prirodnaia obstanovka must’ierskoy stoianki Ketrosy, in Ketrosy. Must’ierskaia stoianka na Srednem Dnestre: 152-62. Moscow: Nauka. KOLOSOV, Yu. G. 1972. Shaitan-Koba, Moust’ierska stoianka Krymu. Kyiv. 1994. Alioshyn Grot – novaia must’ierskaia stoianka v Krymu (predvaritel’noie soobshcheniie), Arkheologicheskiy Al’manakh 4 : 75-81. KOLOSOV, Yu. G. & N.V. STEPANCHUK. 1998. Novyy typ seredn’opaleolitychnoyi indusriyi u Skhidnomu Krymu, in ZNTSh. Pratsi arkheologichnoyi komisiyi. CCXXXV: 38-62. Lviv. KOLOSOV, Yu. G., V.N. STEPANCHUK & V.P. CHABAI. 1993. Ranniy paleolit Kryma. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka. KULAKOVSKAYA, L.V. 1989. Must’ierskiie kul’tury Karpatskogo basseyna. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka. KULAKOVSKAIA, L. 1998. Review of the book: Riencourtles-Bapaume (Pas-de-Calais). Un gisement du Paleolithique moyen. Sous la direction d’Alain Tufreau.-DAF.1993.37, in ZNTSh. Pratsi arkheologichnoyi komisiyi CCXXXV: 679-83. Lviv. OTTE, M., E. BOEDA & P. HAESAERTS. 1990. Rocourt: Industrie laminare archaique, Helinium XXIX: 3-13. POLANSKYJ, G. 1935. Rekonstruktion der geographischen Verhaltnisse des Jungpaleolithikums der podolisch besarabischen Provinz, in Pratsi geografichnej komissii NTS Vol. 1. Lviv. PIASETSKIY, V.K. 1992. Must’ierskiy kul’turnyy sloy paleoliticheskogo mestonakhozhdeniia Zhornov i nekotoryie voprosy ctratigrafii, Rossiyskaia Arkheologiia 3: 113-26. SYTNIK, A.S. 1978. Must’ierskaia stoianka pod Ternopoliem, AO. Moscow: Nauka. 1985. Must’ierska stoianka Proniatyn poblyzu Ternopolia, in Arkheolohiia 50: 36-44. Kyiv. 1996. Shliakh rozvytku levalluaz’kykh industriy v Ukrayini, Arkheologicheskiy Al’manakh 5: 75-84. Donetsk. 2000. Seredniy paleolit Podillia. Lviv.

References ANISYUTKIN, N.K. 1981. Arkheologicheskoie izucheniie mustyerskoi stoianki Ketrosy, in Ketrosy. Mustyerskaia stoianka na Srednem Dnestre. Moscow: Nauka. BAR-YOSEF, O. & L. MEIGNEN. 1992. Insights into Levantine Middle Paleolithic Cultural Variabilily, in The Middle Paleolithic Adaptation, Behavior and Variability: 163-82. Philadelphia: The University Museum. BOEDA, E. 1988. Analyse technologique du debitage du niveau 2a, in Le gisement palaeolithique moen de BiacheSaint-Vaast (Pas de Calais): 180-214. 1990. De la surfase au volume: analyse des couceptions des debitages Levallois et laminaire, in Paleolithique moyen recent et paleoithique superieur ancien en Europe MMPF: 63-8 BOEDA, E., J-M. GENESTE & L. MEIGNEN. 1990. Identiftcation de chaine operatoires lithiques de Paleolithique Ancien et Moyen, Paleo, l2: 43-80 BOGUTSKI, Andrej, Aleksander BOGUTSKI & P. WOLOSZYN. 1994. Reperowy profil Bojanice i niektore problemy badawcze lessowo-glebowych serii peryglacjalnych plejstocenu, in Ogo1nopolski Zjazd Polskiego Tovarzytwa Geologicznego, Przewodnik Wycieczkowym: 246-9. Lublin. BOGUTSKIJ, A.B., A.S. SYTNIK & M. YAMADA. 1997. Nouvelles perspectives de recherches sur le Paleolithique ancient et moyen dans la Plaine Russe Occidentale, Prehistoire Europeenne 11: 69-84 CHABAY, V. P. 1994. Odin iz putei stanovleniia pozdnepaleoliticheskogo poriadka operatsiy pervichnogo rasshchepleniia, Arkheologigeskiy Al’manakh 3: 135-40. Donetsk. CHABAY, V. & V. SITLIVY. 1993. The periodization of Core Reduction Strategies of the Ancient, Lower and Middle Paleolithic , Prehistoire Europeenne 5: 9-98. Liege. CHERNYSH, O.P. 1961. Paleolitychna stoianka Molodove V. Kyiv. 1977. Mnogosloynaia paleoliticheskaia stoyanka Korman’ IV. I ieio mesto v paleolite, in Mnogosloynaia paleoliticheskaia stoianka Korman’ IV na Srednem Dnestre: 7-77. Moscow: Nauka. 1982. Mnogosloynaya paleoliticheskaya stoyanka Molodova I, in Molodova I. Unikal’noye must’ierskoye poseleniye na Srednem Dnestre: 6-102 Moscow: Nauka. 1987. Etalonnaia mnogosloynaia stoianka Molodova V, in Mnogosloynaia paleoliticheskaia stoianka Molodova V. Liudi kamennogo vieka i okruzhaiushchaia sreda: 7-93. Moscow: Nauka.

11

THE USE OF LIVING SPACE IN PREHISTORY SYTNYK, O.S., A.B. BOHUCKI & L.V. KULAKOVSKA. 1996. Stratified Paleolithic sites nearby Galich, Arkheologiya 3: 86-97. SYTNYK, O. & A. BOHUCKI. 1998. Paleolit Podillia: Velykyy Hlybocok I. Lviv.] SYTNIK, A., A. BOGUCKI, P. WOLOSHYN & T. MADEJSKA. 1998. Wstepne wyniki badan srodkowopaleolitycznych stanowisk lessowych Podola, Studia Geologica Polonica 113: 121-36. Krakow. SYTNYK, O. & M. LEVCHUK. 1998. Vyrobnychyy kompleks pizn’opaleolitychnoho sharu stoianky Ihrovytsia I, in ZNTSh. Pratsi arkheolohichnoyi komisiyi CCXXXV: 403-23. Lviv.

SMIRNOV, S.V. 1973. Paleolit Dniprovs’koho Nadporizhzhia. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka. TATARINOV, K.A. 1974. Fauna pozvonochnykh antropogenovykh otlozheniy Podolii i Prikarpat’ia i ieio stratigraficheskoie znacheniie, in Materialy po chetvertichnomu periodu Ukrainy: 55-63. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka. 1977. Fauna pozvonochnykh stoianki Korman’ IV, in Mnogosloynaia paleoliticheskaia stoianka Korman’ IV na srednem Dnestre: Moscow: Nauka. ZAVERNYAEV, F.M. 1978. Khotylievskoie aleoliticheskoie mestonakhozhdeniie. Leningrad: Nauka.

12

Raw Material Collecting in the European Middle Palaeolithic. Stones from distant areas and local raw material: Were there large and small territories? Was there an exchange of stones between Neanderthal groups? MARIE-HÉLÈNE MONCEL Most of the site analysis shows that Middle Palaeolithic humans collected their raw material, above all, in local areas. They also exploited the fauna of the surrounding areas. Therefore, large assemblages of stones from remote territories do not often occur. Recent studies of some sites of the Middle Rhône Valley and Central Europe raise a discussion on the significance of these rare stones and on territory size during the Neanderthal period. Key words: raw material, retouched cores, flakes, pebble tools

which was considered difficult for processing but efficient for producing flakes with sharp cutting edges. In this case, a specific knapping system had to be chosen. Sometimes different kinds of stones were collected together, and the use of the complementary ability of these stones is probable.

Introduction During the Upper Palaeolithic people seemed to search, above all, for good quality stones (in connection with blade technology development), taking them, if necessary, from distant areas. In contrast, Low and Middle Palaeolithic people commonly collected raw material locally, usually within a 20-kilometre distance. Nevertheless, in some assemblages, there are also artefacts (mostly flakes – retouched and non-retouched) made of stones from remote territories. The source of these specific stones (frequently this is high quality flint or thin grained stones) can be found within a radius of 100 km for Western Europe and 200-300 km for Central Europe. Focusing on geographical contexts, many researchers believe that exploitation of such raw material sources involved human movements inside this territory (see, e.g., Binford, 1979; Flébot-Augustins, 1993, 1999). Some flakes could belong to a small tool kit that people permanently kept with them. It could not be excluded also that some of the rare stones were considered as precious ones.

Most of the settlements under study seem to be short stops, or temporary encampments, of several individuals, where specialised hunting for one species, typical for the region, was carried out. This process of settlement could explain the pattern raw material deposition, but we do not have enough data to verify our hypothesis for the context of durable settlements. Recent archaeological studies and contemporary huntergatherers observations show that some objects could move among human groups. For example, during the final stage of the Neolithic the good quality flint from Grand Pressigny in south-eastern France moved around the country a lot. Researchers use the hypothesis of exchange among human groups or individuals to explain the distribution of these raw materials within such large area. Contemporary hunters and gatherers move in accordance with environmental conditions and seasons and more or less independently from the territory size, and we know that some either symbolic or everyday objects are exchanged among such groups. Consequently, why could we not use such an hypothesis for the Neanderthals?

It has been discerned that Middle Palaeolithic humans practised technical behaviour based on regular rules, such as Levallois or discoid methods. Lithic assemblages show that Neanderthal men carefully chose the kind of raw material they used, as well as its morphology, in order to realise their technical traditions according to their current requirements. In Europe this kind of behaviour is referred as the isotopic stages 3-8 (Epi-Acheulean and all variants of Mousterian groups).

My analysis of some examples from recent studies raises a discussion on rare stone significance. How can we explain their scarcity or total absence? Is it connected with specific districts, sites and human groups or could it be the chance to discover precious artefacts, which were rarely abandoned? Sometimes such artefacts made of actually very good flint do not appear to be very useful, unlike the raw material which was collected during a oneday trip around the site and which was usually utilised at these same sites.

Middle Palaeolithic assemblages show that mainly local raw materials and, in particular, the best outcrops around the site were used. The choice of a particular habitation site was based upon two central factors upon which life hinges; the presence of food (animals) and water. It is not obvious, that the raw material was the main criterion. There is a lot of evidence that men could carry entire blocks for 20 km if it was necessary. If good quality stones were absent, men could also use stones like quartz, 13

THE USE OF LIVING SPACE IN PREHISTORY the artefacts are made of local raw material (quartzite and flint) located at the radius of 10 km. Men also collected fragments of quartz and chert in the cave. The debitage gives large backed flakes; little differences in each stone treatment are explained by raw material peculiarities. The debitage, which took place in the cave, is always in the “pebble volume”. In the assemblage there are also several flakes made of flint, radiolarit and black limestone originated from the territory situated in 50-100 km to the north. Their knapping (Levallois system) differs from that used for local stones. It seems that two technical processes took pace here: first one (with local raw material) inside cave and the second (with non-local stones) outside. On the contrary, in the Vaufrey cave, the debitage of local and non-local raw material (in all cases it is flint) is technically similar.

Today numerous questions have no answer. Could the raw material itself be able to give clear evidences of the territory size, which might differ in accordance with climatic conditions and traditions? These stones from remote territories belong to the small tool kit of Neanderthal man; was it simply collected in nature or selected from the results of flint processing? Could it be obtained through exchange? Was such exchange, which may explain the presence of these stones without human movement within large spaces, possible at all? The examination of environmental as well as archaeological patterns reveals that in each case the significance of distant raw material probably was different. It is not obvious that Neanderthal men and their ancestors had always occupied large territories. The territory size could be related with resource availability or with climatic conditions, which had been considerably changing during the period of isotopic stages 8-3. There are also apparent differences in geographical context between, for example, the great Northern Plain and the smaller basins, valleys and plateaux of Southern and Central Europe. Social conditions (number of individuals, subsistence system) can also be used to explain human mobility, kind of behaviour, which we will never know. Therefore, the hypothesis of exchange, which had to exist, at least, for survival of the species could not be totally discarded. Western Europe Some examples of sites with stones from remote territories The Vaufrey cave (level VIII, dated by isotopic stage 6), southern-west France, yields some stones originated from remote territories (Rigaud et al., 1988). The cave is located along a river. Main faunal species found at the level VIII belongs to the Cervidae family. Less than 2% of raw material comes from area situated as far as 30- 120 km from the site. It is always flint and it arrives as flakes, rough or retouched. To obtain them Levallois (unipolar) knapping system typical for local flint processing was used. The technical studies enable us to find out that scrapers are made of stones from distant territories and are characterised by higher mobility than notches, denticulates or the whole “chaîne opératoire” which are always made of local stones. It is possible to conclude that some tools or flakes were carried for a long distance, articulating an idea about minimal and maximal size of human territory. Choice of such knapping system could be caused by need for long cutting edges as well as for some retouched flakes to fulfil particular tasks. It could explain the utilisation of stone from distant territory for making flakes, adapted to the needs of the occupation.

FIGURE 1. Sites of the Middle Rhône Valley, SouthernEast France We know today that Middle Palaeolithic human groups used several knapping systems and chose the appropriate one in accordance with their needs (cf. Riencourt-lesBapaume; Tuffreau et al., 1993). Consequently, the toolmakers of Sclayn could produce Levallois flakes in another location and then keep them. But the probability of exchange or a gathering in nature also should not be discarded. We also have to be careful with our idea of raw material quality. Actually, we do not know what was important for men; so, quality and ability of raw material should not be confused. In some cases, the hardness of the stone could be more important than its quality. That is why, in Sclayn, local quartzite and flint utilisation could be explained by needs for hard tool as well as in thin cutting edges. Therefore, all observations of technical needs and choices in relation with settlement type give no evidence to prove that it was just the cave inhabitants who made flakes from rare stone.

Level 5 of the Sclayn cave, Belgium, is dated by isotopic stage 5. Its faunal assemblage consisted mainly of chamois, and the debitage system used there seems to be related to the treatment of these animals living on the slopes around the cave (Moncel et al., 1998). The level 5 could be, consequently, a short-lived settlement. Most of 14

MARIE-HÉLÈNE MONCEL:

RAW MATERIAL COLLECTING IN THE EUROPEAN MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC

In La Combette (level D), Vaucluse district, southern-east France, about 35% of stones originated from an area situated more than 20 km away (Texier et al., 1998). Why were these stones carried? Some researchers suggest that the local environment could not provide such good quality stones. Nevertheless, other stones from surrounding areas were used at the settlement. Microwear analysis demonstrates that flakes were utilised for horse butchering, as at many other sites (for example, Mauran and Coudoulous; Geneste et Jaubert, 1999). Is this kind of stone collecting related to an original relationship between raw material, activity, territory and some individuals? Is it a short-stay site for some individuals who used their own tool kits rather than local pebbles at the borders of the territory? Regardless of the conclusions, this site seems to indicate that men could effectively bring with them a large part of the tool kit, if necessary, but perhaps not from a distance of 100 km.

Raw material collecting at all of them is local and the distances do not seem to exceed 10-20 km. Some settlements show strictly local collecting from the surrounding river beds or on the plateaux, where flint and, rarely, quartz (Pêcheurs) were obtained. Some of them (like Payre or Soyons) implicate a larger area of searching for particular flint or for other specific stones; even in these cases the collecting zone is never more than 10 or 20 km.

The Middle Rhône Valley case: could we refer this area with group of micro-territories? Most of the sites known today from the Rhône corridor (between Lyon and the first large Languedoc and Vaucluse plains, Southern France) are located along the Rhône and its tributaries. Most of them are situated, moreover, on the right riverbank of the Rhône. All of them are caves or shelters, dated by isotopic stage 9 (Orgnac 3), stages 7-5 (Payre) and stages 4-3 (Soyons, Les Pêcheurs, Maras, Ranc Pointu, Oullins, Saint-Marcel, Le Figuier, Mandrin).

Only 5 % of Levallois flakes are retouched. The last level (because of the collapsed ceiling it is an open-air location) could be interpreted as the remains of workshops. However, the low frequency of nonretouched flakes should not be necessarily connected with remains of debitage spots. Microwear traces show the common use of fresh cutting edges. Men came back between 350,000 and 300,000 B.P. (by ESR and U/Th), even when the cave was no longer visible. The site is on a dry plateau, 5-10 km from the river.

In each of Orgnac 3` ten levels, flint in plates from numerous sources situated not far (less than 2 km) from the cave was used. More than 95% of the artefacts are made of flint (Moncel et Combier, 1992; Moncel, 1999). At the bottom of the sequence the debitage is based mainly on centripetal cores. Then, at the top (levels 3-1), Levallois (mainly centripetal) knapping of flint plate and fragments of flint flakes is dominant..

TABLE 1. Payre. Different kinds of treatment to stones according to their abilities and needs, archaeological levels G and F. Technical treatment according to the raw material in Payre, dated by the isotopic stages 7 to 5 (Middle Rhône Valley).

Basalte (5 to 10%)

Knapping or Morphology of shaping raw material found at the site Less than 10 km to the Entire fragments or Knapping with only one south (Rochemaure-Meysse removal location) Pebble beaches Entire pebbles Knapping (Rhône valley, less than 1 km) From the river near the Entire pebbles Choppers site Entire pebbles

Quartz (less than 2%) Quartzite (few)

From the river near the Entire pebbles or Knapping site flakes Rhône valley less than Tools on pebbles Shaping 1 km

Limestone (few)

Local rivers

Raw material Flint fragments (about 80%) Flint pebbles

Origin

Entire pebbles or Knapping flakes shaping?

15

Location

Utilisation

In the cave

Different flakes

kinds

of

In the cave

Different flakes

kinds

of

In the cave

Heavy tools and heavy tools with a cutting edge In and outside Thick flakes, used without retouches the cave Outside the Heavy tools or tools with a long and sharp living spot cutting edge and In and outside Flakes and pebbles the cave

THE USE OF LIVING SPACE IN PREHISTORY

FIGURE 2: The raw material collection in Orgnac 3, dated from the isotopic stage 9 (Middle Rhône Valley, south east France) was, above all, very local and radial, both on the plateau and rivers, and it just shows that men travelled both along the Rhône Valley and the adjacent plateaux. Rivers could be used as means of communication and the site might be regarded as a customary stop at a territory, which in such a case should be more extensive. But the site gives us evidence of only prevailing exploitation of the surrounding environment.

The different levels yield a high frequency of Cervus elaphus and Equus Caballus, species, which could live on the plateau near the site. We could not interpret the choice of this location only by the proximity of flint sources. It is sure that the stone abundance near the cave could be only one among many other criteria. If men were searching for such cave, they had to come to this area. Shelters in neighbouring outcrops of tertiary limestone with flint are absent. Nevertheless, we do not know open-air locations on the plateau as well, and men could also live directly next to the flint sources. Men also needed other kinds of stones. They brought with them basalt, limestone and quartz pebbles, which could come from two rivers, situated 5-10 km to the north and to the south from the plateau. These stones arrived as pebbles or as large flakes. Some intact flint pebbles have been collected at the Rhône beds, 15 km away. They could have been collected from open-air locations in the Rhône valley or on the way to the plateau. In sum, the collecting

In Payre, the flint which comes from an area located 10 km to the south is also the main raw material (Moncel, 1996). Probably, men used the local flint located at the limestone cliffs around the cave, but they preferred the good quality flint from the south. They also collected basalt pebbles at the foot of the site for the pebble tools and the hammers and quartz pebbles for basic debitage (thick and large flakes). Some quartzite tools and large flakes (pebble tools with uni-bifacial shaping, hand-axes or tools on large flakes) have been carried from the 16

MARIE-HÉLÈNE MONCEL:

RAW MATERIAL COLLECTING IN THE EUROPEAN MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC give information about flint sources and main debitage activity sometimes accompanied with diversified technical activities, which could not be understood because of lack of fauna.

Rhône Valley, the nearest area where this stone was present. During the isotopic stage 6 (fresh climate) and the isotopic stage 5 (temperate climate) (by ESR, U/Th and palaeoenvironmental studies) the main activity at the seasonal settlements was based on flint. The most frequent species are Equus caballus, Bison, Cervus elaphus, animals living around the cave. Several knapping systems are employed. The most frequent is discoid one for thick and wide backed flakes. Just 5 10% of the flakes carry marginal or, at the oldest level, Quina retouch (scrapers and points, small tool kit). Regarding the raw material, the territory seems to be very small, with the same size for all the Orgnac 3 occupations. The main stone collecting distance is, however, less for Orgnac 3 than for Payre. These two sites indicate that men knew very well the potential of their environment and used each stone according to its ability. In contrast, in Abri des Pêcheurs at seasonal and short-stay settlements for bouquetins, men decided to choose local quartz abundant at the foot of the shelter. Moreover, flint is presented not far from the cave but more rarely than chert. It was a secondary choice. At the younger sites of the same district, dated by isotopic stages 4-3, mainly local flint was used (Moncel, 1996, 1998). It was collected rather at riverbanks than on the plateaux. The Rhône Valley was a flint source, too. There are traces of various technical treatments: Levallois, discoid, laminar or basic, for flakes and sometimes blades. The kind of the debitage system and the frequency of retouched artefacts seem to be related to the kinds of activities and with durability of the settlement. The diversity of the technical treatments could indicate tradition differentiation through time as well as functional speciality of one family occupation system. At Mandrin cave, the only site in the southern part of Middle Rhône Valley left side, local collecting is still observed as well as at the sites located to the south, at the Gard district (Ioton, Brugas) (Meignen, 1976, 1981). Some flints from the opposite Rhône bank would indicate a passage through the river or the river fords, but not for a long distance (Giraud et al., 1998).

Consequently, must we see this part of France as a group of different micro-territories, or just consider that we see the local exploitation of each site’s surroundings, and high mobility of the humans regardless of the territory size (inter-related territories)? The preferential use of local raw material in this territory is similar to the situation at Northern France, which is a part of the Northern European plain. In this district all sites are open-air ones and flint is so abundant that men lived directly on sources regardless of the environmental patterns. They used flint uneconomically and abandoned it after utilisation. There are not many indications that some products moved far from the settlement (only tools movements inside the location from debitage spots to the activity area are documented; cf. Bettencourt, Beauvais; Locht et al., 1996; Swinnen et Locht, 1996). Territory size and kind of topography, which might influence some subsistence choices of inhabitants of this region, could not be discussed as well. A large part of diverse technical traditions is based on the existence of bifacial tools (Micoquian family) involving some transitive assemblages such as the Szeletian and the Bohunician. Some researchers set them apart as microlithic traditions. Central and Eastern Europe Central Europe, especially south of the Great Northern Plain, yields sites with microlithic industry named Taubachien. They are dated mostly by the isotopic stage 5 or by the beginning of the stage 4 (Schwarcz et al., 1982; Rink et al., 1996). Numerous other kinds of microlithic assemblages also exist in Eastern Europe, and anywhere this technical tradition does not seem to be referred with raw material. Their variability is connected, in particular, with the types of tools and retouches (unifacial, bifacial, proportion of points). The sites of Külna, Predmosti II in Czeck Republic and Tata in Hungary allow us to see that the raw material collecting was, above all, local; small pebbles of quartz, quartzite, flint, radiolarit were collected at river beds (Vertès, 1964; Valoch, 1984, 1988). The main activity is the debitage of very small flakes, (less than 2-3 cm in diameter) with back or large platform. The secondary shaping could be traced at small pebbles, which have the same size as some flakes. Men used the flat faces of pebbles to obtain flakes. Cores are in the pebble volume. The debitage is, therefore, not opportunistic and well adapted to the various pebble shapes. Flake surfaces also have been used for the debitage. All these settlements seem to belong to the same technical field (Moncel, 1997-98; Moncel et Svoboda, 1998; Moncel et Neruda, in press).

In all assemblages of this district there are no traces of stones from too remote areas; it could be explained by abundance of local flint. Therefore, stone sources here are as abundant as in the south-west of France, sites of which yield some stones from distant territories (Rigaud et al., 1988; Turq, 1992). The environmental conditions were permanently changing, and connection with open landscapes or with closed could not explain a lower level of human mobility observed at this district. In some cases one can face difficulties identifying stones. All settlements of this district were connected with one or more species, which probably lived around the sites; it implies hunting and short stops in this location. Few studies of open-air sites

17

THE USE OF LIVING SPACE IN PREHISTORY through their attribution to a small tool kit kept by humans. Exchange or perhaps even strange artefacts gathering in nature also should not be excluded. In most similar cases, the most widely accepted hypothesis is site population movement inside large territories. Nevertheless, all patterns of sites with microlithic assemblages give no clue to the general subsistence behaviour of their inhabitants. It is obvious that territory around these sites was explored, but not totally. During the isotopic stage 5 Central Europe had been afforested rather intensively. At each site we see animals which could be brought only if men exploited all subsistence resources of a small territory. Consequently, large movements do not seem to be obligatory to live in these basins during this period, unless the animals were practising long-distant migrations about which we know nothing. Mainly large (open-air) faunal species, such as horses, rhinoceros, bison and elephants, are associated with the assemblages; without doubts, these species were attracted by water and vegetation. The question of an original activity is always asked but the terms like “original technical behaviour” and the voluntary “microlithic” lead us to imagine settlements of specific human groups near water at the points where animals came to drink or to die, leaving their carcasses available for scavenging. Small stone artefacts could be useful for wooden tool making.

FIGURE 3. Raw material collecting in the Saint-Marcel cave, dated from a temperate period during the last glacial period (Middle Rhône Valley, south east France): A: local collecting of the main raw material; B: pebble collecting in the Rhône river; C: flint plate collecting on the plateau sources; D: flint block collecting on the sources; E: flint collecting in the most distant sources (Rochemaure-Meysse).

The upper levels of Kulna yield different assemblages connected with the Micoquian family. Large flint pebbles originated from the local rivers and were mainly used (Valoch, 1998). In the cold conditions of the beginning of the isotopic stage 4 the assemblages yield an image of a smaller territory. The most widespread animal was the horse. We do not know how these animals moved in accordance with seasons and climatic conditions (for example, from the plain to the higher borders of the basins). We have no idea about the big herbivores’ (human prey) mode of life, and their contemporary behaviour could not be extrapolated onto specific conditions of the time under study (Bocherens et Mariotti, 1992). Must we deduce, however, different territory size or different movements of Micoquian groups, when the landscape was opened and long trips were possible? Is it clear that Taubachian’s relationship with the raw material was different from that one of Micoquian? Taubachian humans preferred various stones and small pebbles. In contrast, the Micoquians collected mainly flint. Raw material by itself cannot be used to conclude that the subsistence behaviour and the space organisation were really different. Both Taubachian and Micoquian humans used, at least, the same locations and chose the same herbivores (Patou-Mathis, 1993).

Raw materials of Predmosti II and Tata came from surrounding water springs (travertin deposits). Some rare artefacts (rock crystal, porcelanit) of Külna (level 11) was collected in remote areas, situated to the North and to the West from the cave, not far from the borders of the Morave Basin near the Moravian Gates (western part of Bohemian Plain between Sudetes and Carpathian mountains) (Neruda, in press). The distance would be between 50 and 200 km. This gate is often considered as a possible corridor used for movements from the foothills of the Carpathians to the southern border of the Polish plain. These stones from remote territories are only tools, especially bifacial ones; it should be mentioned that this kind of retouch is very rare in the assemblage and such artefacts really differ from the others (for example by colour or transparency). It is impossible to know whether this bifacial retouch is rare because it is not necessary for this particular settlement in Külna, or it is not a part of its common tradition. In this case, the presence of such artefacts characterised by untypical kind of used stone and technique of its processing implies various hypothesises. One of them could be, of course, interpretation of such artefacts as territory size indicators

At the site of Erd in Hungary, dated probably by the isotopic stage 4, the raw material is also local (GaboriCsank, 1968). But the assemblages of this open-air location of hunters for bears and big herbivores yield a small quantity of strange raw materials. Man collected 18

MARIE-HÉLÈNE MONCEL:

RAW MATERIAL COLLECTING IN THE EUROPEAN MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC

FIGURE 4. Raw material collecting in the Figuier cave (Quina assemblage), dated from the last glacial period (Middle Rhône Valley, Southern-East France): flint pebbles from the Rhône river, flint plates and blocks from the southern plateau and pebbles from the Ardèche river below the cave. indicate that it was a short-termed settlement which took place during spring and summer. Is this fossil wood a raw material stock or a “symbolic” artefact collection? Why were these remains carried while not far from the location other raw material used by men was abundant? Is it just a gathering for a strange purpose? Why did they return to the site after their departure? Could these objects come from an unknown local source? Why are they collected without being used? All these questions imply careful conclusions on the significance of stones from distant territories and, in particular, of strange stones.

mainly large pebbles and, also, quartz pebbles, secondary flint and thin-grained stones. The knapping system has common points with Tata, but the microlithic trend is absent here. The debitage of numerous pebble slices is another original aspect. Almost all the stones were collected at a distance of less than 1 km from the site. But some remains of fossil wood could not come from the surroundings. The last hypothesis would go to a distant source, which is not exactly identified. Some of these fossil wood examples have cutting edges, but most of them have no traces of utilisation. Faunal remains

TABLE 2: The raw material used in Külna level 11, Predmosti II and Tata, three microlithic assemblages of Central Europe, dated by the isotopic stage 5 Külna c11 (R.Tchèque)

Predmosti II c.8-9 (R.Tchèque)

Tata (Hongrie)

K.Valoch 1961-1976

J.Svoboda 1984-1989

L.Vertés 1958-59

Silicites-radiolarites >50% Quartz 33% Quartzite 15% Others Local collecting 5 km Some stones from distant territories as tools (porcelanit, rock crystal)

Silicites-radiolarites 35% Quartz 50% Quartzite 15%

Silicites-radiolarites 88% Quartzite 11% Others

Local collecting

Local collecting

19

THE USE OF LIVING SPACE IN PREHISTORY Middle Palaeolithic assemblages of the Carpathian mountains, Southern-West Romania, indicate the local collecting of various stones. We are faced here with a really different geographical context. The caves are located at the borders of the mountains. The Cioarei Cave assemblage is dated to the middle of the last glacial period. Men came to the shelter during some temperate phases (Cârciumaru et al., 2000). All collected outside flakes are selected by quality of stone and by length of cutting edge. Several ochre pots associated with the artefacts as well as bones of deer and horses, animals from the surroundings, were discovered. For short-stay settlements the hypothesis of ochre utilisation for animal skin treatment could be adopted. Regarding the information obtained from the stones, men never arrived inside the mountain valleys. Were these sites just short stops in a marginal area during favourable temperate periods or were they remains of a large settlement, the kind of subsistence behaviour of which was realised in such specific topography and remains practically unknown?

About the territory size of the Neanderthal men First, because all contemporary hunter-gatherer groups live in different ecological situations and have cultural contacts with farmers, it is impossible to compare them with Neanderthal groups. Nevertheless, some observations could be made about mobility, exchange and sharing in marginal climatic areas such as wet tropical forest, northern areas and southern deserts. For example, the Aka pygmy group camps gather and fall apart seasonally. Distant camps are visited regularly and artefacts, especially precious objects, move among them (Bahuchet, 1979; Bahuchet et Philippart, 1981). Three (not numerous) kinds of tools are commonly used. More than 80% of the tool kit is represented by vegetal shortlived tools; they are followed by long-lived and precious, especially iron, tools. Most of them are used for everything and are available for everyone and everywhere around the camp. Each tool is adapted to the local raw material.

FIGURE.5: Some studied sites in Central Europe: 1: Külna cave; 2: Predmosti II in Czech Republic; 3: Tata; 4: Erd in Hungary; 5: Cioarei in Romania.

20

MARIE-HÉLÈNE MONCEL:

RAW MATERIAL COLLECTING IN THE EUROPEAN MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC

TABLE 3: Useful artefacts and raw material explored by the Külna, Predmosti II and Tata toolmakers (microlithic assemblages)

Pebble tools

Debitage products 20-30 mm

Tools on flake

Retouched cores

Külna (11)

Predmosti II (8-9)

Tata

n=35/10 000 quartz, quartzite uni-bifac. Basic 15-240 mm (15-60mm) short, wide rectang.,triang. thick or thin 30% dos wide and thick platform 6% scrapers, points, denticulates, notches thin retouch few bifacial retouch (porcelanit), or flat

scrapers, points thin retouch few bifacial retouch

100/20 000 silicites, quartzite tool=core 20-50 mm