Перейти до контенту

VITA ANTIQIA, №3-4. 2001

1-3Збірник присвячено 60-річчю професора, доктора історичних наук, завідуючого кафедрою археології та музеєзнавства Київського національного університету імені Тараса Шевченка, палеолітознавця Гладких Махайла Івановича. До збірника включено статті провідних фахівців у галузі палеоліту і первісного суспільства України.



Завантажити повну версію:vita-antiqua_2001_3_4

01.Кепін Д.В. М.І.Гладких в історіографії палеоліту України, 9-14.

This work examines the professor Mihail. I. Gladkich contribution to the historiography of Paleolithic studies.

02.Гладких М.И. Кремневый инвентарь межиричского позднепалеолитического поселения, 15-21.

The article examines flint collection of four economic-household complexes of Upper Paleolithic age settlement Mezirichy from excavations up to 1984 inclusively.

03.Сапожников I.В., Сапожникова Г.В. Співвідношенні природно-господарських областей та господарсько- культурних типів (на прикладі пізнього палеоліту степової зони), 22-30.

The work investigates the problem of interrelation between the Upper Paleolithic economic-cultural types and natural zones of Ukrainian steppe areas.

04.Сминтина О.В. Проблеми взаємодії природи та суспільства в інтерпретаційній археології, 31-40.

Current paper is devoted to the analysis of different approaches to the problem of nature and culture interaction during the second half of XXth century. Special attention is given to several trends in contemporary archaeology, such as environmental archaeology, landscape history, «new archaeology», life history and cultural biography of objects, behavioural archaeology, geoarchaeology and others.
Several interdisciplinary theories and concepts were also examined, among them theory of cultural and economic types, concept of cultural adaptation, stresses and adjustment theories etc. The most researchers recognise the significant impute of natural environment on early prehistoric culture development. Nevertheless, the scale of such environment and its natural boundaries and degree of influences still remain acute problems which need further investigations.

05.Карпеченков А.Г. (Одесса) Основные подходы к изучению памятника в англо-американской археологии, 41-46.

The work examines basic approaches of the representatives British-American archaeology of last decades to the analysis of structure of the palaeolithic site. The rich heritage of domestic archaeology enables us to make comparisons and to select the most perspective researches of the foreign colleagues.

06.Иванченко Ю.В. (Одесский национальный университет) Проблема исторической интерпретации памятников раннепервобытного монументального изобразительного искусства на территории современной Украины, 47-50.

The article is’devoted to the problems of historical interpretation of Early Prehistory Monumental Art on the territory of Ukraine. It analyses the images revealed in two monuments with Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic paintings – Kamennaya Mohyla in Azov region and Balamutovka cave in Dniester region. As a result, there were outlined some important questions of their interpretation, such as: problems of their documentation, chronological, cultural and social attribution and others. Special attention was paid to the subjects, plots and scenery of these paintings and to their study in contemporary literature. It was discovered the possibility to interpret Early Prehistoric images within general concept of living space exploitation which implicates not only passive adaptation to natural environment but attempts of active influence on it as well

07.Залізняк Л.Л. Культурно-історичні зв’язки Полісся у первісну добу, 51-58.

The archaeology materials gives opportunity to tell about three largest ancient culture-historical provinces of Ukraine- North-West, South-West and South-East. We can say about beginning of formation this provinces at the end of Upper Palaeolithic age. Everyone of them had their own directions of cultural links. The article devotes to the history of cultural and ethnic links of North Ukraine and first of all Polissya lowland with Baltic region. There were about 15 migration waves from the west to Polissya from the late Palaeolithic up to the Middle Age times.

08.Рижов С.М. Культурна адаптація ранніх палеоантропів до природного середовища Центральної Європи, 59-76.

The article examines the basic characteristic features of the cultural adaptation of early paleoan- thropoids in middle zone of Central Europe from the last interglacial age of the pleistocen.

09.Коен В.Ю., Степанчук В.М. Переход от среднего к верхнему палеолиту в Восточной Европе: проблемы таксономии и хроностратиграфии, 78-107.

The debates of arrangement and understanding of Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Eastern Europe are on the spot now. Nevertheless, not many attention is paid to the elaboration of taxonomy as a key tool of data analysis. The paper proposes Taxonomical approach which challenges the ternary schema, which consists of such interrelated taxons as «technocomplex», «industry», and «type of industry».

Wide sample of archaeological data has been analyzed in terms of various comparative strategies. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic age transition in Eastern Europe is understood as a nonlinear multidimensional process. Its archaeological interface points to notion of two «lines of development» termed as transitional and early Upper Paleolithic industries, in which the technological and typological variability is reported.
Group of transitional industries appears within two technocomplexes: the Epimicoquian and the Leval- lois-Mousterian of Tabun D tradition. The first one comprises several industries with distinctive combination of Micoquian and Upper Paleolithic traits and rooted in the Middle Paleolithic Micoquian. The second one is distinctive by a particular technology providing Levallois recurrent bipolar reduction and volumetric reduction evidence. The industries which belong to this technocomplex are geographically diverse: these are Kremenician (Western Volhynia), Bohunician (Central Europe), Temnata cave, l. VI (Balkans), Levallois-Mousterian of Tabun D tradition and Emiran (Near East). Currently proposed consideration assumes tentative bearers of this tradition, presumably referred to anatomically modern humans, were inhabited the part of Europe.

Three technocomplexes have been described within the Early Upper Paleolithic line of development, namely: Aurignacian, Archaic Gravettian, and Epimicoquian. Each of them is represented by several industries outspread through different territorial groups.

10.Мацкевий Л.Г. Палеоліт і мезоліт території сучасного Львова, 108-124.

Paper represents review of all to-date known Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites, reported for the modern area of the town of Lviv. Available records are summarized and interpreted; special attention is paid to sites currently investigated by the author.

11.Пясецкий В.К. Среднеашельское местонахождение Меджибож, 125-134.

The site was discovered by author in late of 50-th of XX century. The site was located in upper part of the Southern Bug river basin near Medzhibozh village of Letichiv district of Khmelnitck region (fig. 1 and 2). During 1996-97 and in 2000 approximately 30 m2 of the lower part of sands were excavated on this site. Flint and sandstone artefacts as well as the abundant fauna remains of Pre-Dnieprovskyi age were discovered. The findings were lying in alluvial foot of terrace. The chipped flints are not rounded and have even no patina and lustrage. The latter is direct indication that site was partially or totally washed away and was synchronous with this alluvial deposits. According to the definition of different specialists the formation of alluvial deposits of terrace near Medzhibozh site was connected with Zavadovskyi (or Lihvinskyi according to other chronological system) times. However, some correction of this date (only for upper part of alluvium) is possible according to the palinological data. The alluvial deposits of terrace are dated by hermo- luminescent analysis to 390±30 thousands years AD.
The flint artefacts are represented by amorphous core, chips and one retouched tools. There is the sandstone blade with one blunted side (knife). Some data also indicated that raw material was transported to the site from the Dniester river basin. The site is dated to Middle Acheulian.
The cultural layer with granitic anvil and flakes of Upper Paleolithic morphology was discovered in fossil soil of Schtilfried B time.
The Medzhibozh site is very interesting not only in archaeological but also paleontological context. More further excavations of the site are very desirable.

12.Рековец Л.И Териофауна и материальная культура местонахождения Меджибож, 135-137.

The work represents paleonthological and paleolithical materials of new site Medzhibozh of Khmelnitskiy area of Ukraine.

13.Пучков П.В. «Мамонтовое собирательство» вместо или после «мамонтовых побоищ», 138-148.

According to ‘mammoth collecting hypothesis’ Late Paleolithic people have never hunted the mammoths or hunted them only on rare occasions. It is believed that mammoth tusks and bones were brought to human sites from natural mammoth ‘cemeteries’. Mammoths perished during spring floods or fell through the ice while crossing the rivers in winter. Then water or ice carried the carcasses to quiet places like branches or bends of the river, issues of ravines, etc. In such way ‘mammoth cemeteries’ of fluvial type are thought to appear. People settled near these ‘cemeteries’ primarily for the collecting of mammoth tusks and bones. These objects were used as:

1) building materials for the construction of dwellings, ritual heaps or a kind of temples, etc.;

2) raw materials for the manufacture of weapon, tools, other objects;

3) source of fuel. Meat and fat of frozen mammoth carcasses were also eaten in winter. ‘Collecting hypothesis’ is supported, among other considerations, by the facts proving that at least part of mammoth tusks and bones were indeed used for the construction of dwellings few years after the death of animals. The evidence, however, could be interpreted otherwise too.
Tusks and bones might indeed be collected on fluvial ‘mammoth cemeteries’ but why people could not contribute to these ‘cemeteries’ formation? If mammoth tusks and bones were so useful, people might kill giants for the storage of these firm parts far in excess of the mere food purposes. The absence of special ‘elephant spears’ on many sites does not prove the absence of active hunt on mammoths as demonstrate many recent tribes killing pachyderms efficiently with ‘usual’ spears. From the other side the presence of special ‘elephant spears’ on many other sites proves that specialised hunt on mammoths indeed took place in Palaeolithic age. The data on recent pachyderm-hunting spearmen clearly demonstrate that such hunt could never be ‘episodic’. It should be only frequent and regular – otherwise the necessary skill and courage would be inevitably lost. Probably Late Palaeolithic hunters of North Eurasian plains deliberately killed the mammoths up-stream in the hope that during the high-flood some or all the carcasses would be carried to the ‘cemetery’ situated near the settlement of the tribe. Then tusks and bones could be collected and used by the tribe either soon after the decomposition of soft parts or many years later. The possibility of drives of the groups of mammoths or even those of the whole herds could not be excluded as well. In winter hunters might direct the stampede to places with strong current or whirlpools covered by the ice not firm enough for mammoths. Usually stronger individuals escaped the death, whereas the weaker ones were trampled down and sunk in the ‘melee’. Different methods could be used to frighten animals. For example they could set the fire on dry reeds and/or bushes or the sound effects (sudden attack with the roll of the drums, etc.). These suppositions are also based on the analogies with some hunting methods used by certain African and Asian tribes in recent times. It is elephant who dreads a skillful spearmen — not otherwise!
I argue that ‘mammoth collecting’ is the reverse of ‘mammoth hunting’. Hunt supplied the large part of the material for the further collecting while collecting was the strong stimulus for the human perseverance in the mammoth-hunting activity. Idea that during few last millenniums of Pleistocene mammoth populations were under environmental stress all over their Eurasian and American range contradicts to the bulk of existing evidence. Hence, it seems rather improbable that ‘mammoth scavenging’ and not active ‘mammoth hunting’ were the prevalent human activity at those days.

14.Оленковський М.П. Епіграветські та східно-епіграветські культури України, 149-155.

Epigravettian age of Ukraine is subdivided into the Epigravettian culture of Central-European origin and East-Epigravettian cultures of Eastern-European and Caucasian origin.
Epigravettian cultures of Central-European origin contain within the limits of the Right-bank Ukraine with the exception of Nizhnedniprovska (Lower-Dnieperian) Epigravettian culture. A few Epigravettian cultures were discowered in the East of the Ukrainian Carpathians. Anetivska, Akarzhanska, Pruto-Nizh- njodnistrovska, Nizhnjodniprovska cultures are attributed to Epigravettian in the Southern Ukraine.
Desnjanska culture refers to «East-Epigravettian» of Eastern-European origin. It was developed on the territory of the Northern-Eastern Ukraine and Russia.
Pivnichno-priazovska and Piznjosyurenska cultures, also group sites near the village of Rogalik on the Siverskiy Donets River, is attributed to East-Epigravettian of Caucasian origin.
Mezhiritska culture in the Middle Dnieperian area has more composite origin. It is attributed to East- Epigravettian. There are analogies in both Pivnichno-Priazovska and Desnjanska cultures.
All Epigravettian and East-Epigravettian cultures of Ukraine are aged within the limits of 19000-13000 years BC.

15.Горелик А.Ф. Охота на лошадь в жизнеобеспечении финальнопалеолитического населения Юго-Восточной Украины, 156-166.

This article examines the problem of subsistence of the Final Palaeolithic population of the South- Eastern Ukraine. It was engaged with the horse hunting. The main sources of this analysis are the faunal complexes of the Final Paleolithic sites of Rogaliksko – Peredelskoye region. Their origin was related, first of all, with wild horse hunting which had place, probably, in warm seasons of the year. From our point of view, the general way of hunting activity in Rogaliksko – Peredelskoye region was expressed in stalking and an individual hunting of separate families of horses during their movement across highlands, plateau to the floodplains in conditions of broken ground country.
It’s possible, that the bison was an additional hunting object and probably the bison acquisition in time had preceded the Rogalik’s sites occupation. Most probably the last assumption concerns the reindeer hunting.
Faunal remains of wild horses probably may be explained as a result of permanent actions of hunters links with initial, second butchering and consuming.
It’s possible to assume, that the typical pattern of hunting bag, which consisted of the wild horse, bison and to less extent reindeer was the specific trait of the final paleolithic Dnieper-Don steppes area population hunting activity.

16.Усик В.И. К вопросу о «гигантолитах», топотах и формах мустьерских нуклеусов в позднепалеолитических комплексах. (По материалам ремонтажа коллекций комплекса 2 Королево 2 и стоянки Радомышль), 167-179.

Specific data of the refitting and the analysis of the primary reduction technology of stone of complex 2 Korolevo-2 and Radomyshl sites gives us the new arguments of premeditated forming of wedge- shaped cores exclusively for the blade production. Bifacial, semi-bifacial and unifacial shaping of wedge- shaped cores and semi-wedge-shaped cores was used for the creation of the optimal conditions for the blade removal from the narrow surface.
The principle of the preparation and reduction of the first crested blade from the pre-cores provided the easiest way of the creation of initial working surface.
«Gigantoliths» from Novgorod-Seversk are not the exclusion by shape, preparation and consistency of the utilization of the wedge-shaped cores in the number of similar ones.
The analysis of chopping-like tools proves that there is no connection between those tools and wedge- shaped cores and there is no logic in ((subconscious» unification of the shape and function of the axes and wedge-shaped cores.
Secondary functional usage of the wedge-shaped cores does not change the main point of their primary purpose. The investigation of the system of the preparation and the reduction of the cores in the Upper Paleolithic allows us to agree with the opinion of Y. Demidenko about the wrong classification of the part of the cores from Radomyshl site as the Mousterian discs.
The waste products of the preparation and the reduction of Upper Paleolithic cores were used as the blanks for the archaic tools at this site. Complete domination of the Upper Paleolithic technique and technology of the primary flaking, domination of Upper Paleolithic tools and the absence of Early Paleolithic reduction methods give us the arguments to consider that there is no connection between pseudo-mous- terian tools of Radomyshl site and any Early Paleolithic traditions.

17.Гавриленко І.М. Житлово-господарські комплекси мезолітичної стоянки В’язівок 4а: спроба реконструкції, 180-188.

Excavations in Vyaziuok-4A, a site of Zimivniky culture has revealed the remains of several dwellings and household pits. The detailed analysis of the structures backed by planigraphy, ethnographic analogues and some reflections of general order (such as the level of house-building, technical equipment) gives every reason for carrying out the reconstruction of dwelling and household complexes of the settlement.
The dwelling of this site were round in the plan, a little deepened into the ground, probably covered with skins and from below made habitable in winter by sod. They were frame cone-shaped structures which had the appearance of tents of skins. Size difference of the dwellings accounts for the number of inhabitants. Such peculiarities in the functional planning of these quarters as placing the hearths in the middle of them and locating the production sites for tool making, skin dressing and satisfying other household needs round the hearths, while the space between the hearths and the exits, facing the river, was used for cooking food, and the outlying parts of the dwellings were exploited for keeping bone raw material and evacuating food refuses are notable.

Open hearths were designed for heating, lighting up and thermal treatment of food products. Pits for making fish sour were placed near the exits of the dwellings and formed integral complexes with the latter.

18.Петрунь В.Ф. Жадеітит, серпентиніт та ультрамілоніт у шліфованих виробах Трипілля, 189-193.

The paper deals with analysis of rare stone raw materials used for manufacture of several Tripolian polished tools recovered on the territory of Ukraine. As a result, the fact of intentional use of both «imported» Carpathian jadeite and serpentinite and «local» tectonites, varying by their composition, texture and structure can be considered as reliably established.

19.Сніжко І.А. Методи дослідження слідів утилізації мисливської здобичі на фауністичних рештках епохи пізнього палеоліту, 194-200.

Among the late Palaeolithic sites there is a separate group of objects which directly connected with ancient mens hunting. They are bone-beds where the killing and butchering of hunting bags took place.
The article considers the methods of investigation of faunal remains from the bone-beds in field conditions and in laboratories.