- Email: [email protected]
Identifying the hunter-gatherer systems behind associated mammoth bone beds and mammoth bone dwellings
Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 47e57
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint
Identifying the hunter-gatherer systems behind associated mammoth bone beds and mammoth bone dwellings François Djindjian* University of Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & UMR 7041 ArScAn CNRS
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Available online 14 August 2014
Mammoth bone beds associated with Palaeolithic settlements were reported in the Pavlovian, the Eastern Gravettian, and the Mezinian. Several points of method are posed: - How to identify and differentiate without ambiguity the remains of mammoth bone beds from the remains of dwelling structures built in part from the bones of these bone beds? - How to study the processes that are at the origin of the bone bed deposits and the processes of human exploitation of these deposits? - How to identify the origin of these accumulations, unique, multiple or continuous, either due to geological changes, deaths of natural origin (famine, storm) or human activity (hunting, trapping)? This paper is particularly involved in the study of cases, more systematic than exceptional, of accumulations that are associated with a settlement. It provides a quantitative method to distinguish the mammoth bone beds from the dwelling structures, and to identify and characterize the various processes behind the systems of bone beds and artefacts discovered by the archaeologists. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA.
Keywords: Upper Palaeolithic Gravettian Pavlovian Mezinian Hunter-gatherer
1. Introduction The close association in the same site of a mammoth bone bed and a mammoth bone dwelling settlement has been noted at several locations. The best, relevant cases are (Djindjian et al., 1999): - For the Pavlovian (Early Gravettian of central Europe), in DolniVestonice and Milovice, - For the Eastern Gravettian (Late Gravettian of central and eastern Europe) in Krakow-Spadzista, - For the Mezinian (Epigravettian in Eastern Europe) in Gontsy. Two questions have been posed (Iakovleva et al., 2012): - Is there a determined or a random association between the two spatial structures? - Is such an association systematic or occasional? Differently speaking, if the association is systematic, there is always a mammoth bone bed near a mammoth bone dwelling settlement. However, in many cases, the excavations have only found the dwellings (for example Mejiriche, Dobranichivka, Ioudinovo,
* University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, Institute of Archaeology, 3 Rue Michelet, 75006 Paris, France. E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.07.006 1040-6182/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA.
Pavlov, Avdeevo, Kostienki). In other cases, the excavations have only found a mammoth bone bed, poor in industry, interpreted as a disturbed layer, and the excavations have been interrupted after a short campaign and only described in the excavation reports stored in the archives. Are the spatial structures discovered by archaeologists or paleontologists unambiguously mammoth bone beds or mammoth bone dwellings? Examples of controversy are numerous. For sites excavated before 1950, the archaeologists, at that time, were not able to identify a mammoth bone dwelling and to distinguish between the two kinds of structures. Despite the revisiting of the data, it has often not been possible to differentiate between a dwelling, a mammoth bone bed, or a mix of the two structures (Elisseevichi, Timonovka, Kiev-Kirilovskaia, Radomyshl). In some other cases, even with good modern excavations, it has not been easy to make the distinction (Krakow-Spadzista, Milovice), and different conclusions have been proposed. For example, in Krakow-Spadzista, “the site was interpreted as a butchering site with mammoth bone dwellings (Kozlowski, 1974; Kubiak, 1988), as a killing and butchering site with meat caches (Kozlowski and Montet-White, 2001), as a natural death site (Lipecki and Wojtal, 1996; Soffer et al., 2001), a natural death and killing site (Sobczyk, 1995) and a butchering and scavenging site (West, 1996, 2001)” (cited in Kalicki et al., 2007, p.6).
48
F. Djindjian / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 47e57
Archaeologists and zoologists have discovered several mammoth bone beds. However, excavations and zooarcheological studies have not been made with the same methods and do not allow easy comparisons. Asking the question, “Are mammoth bone beds all similar?” involves investigating all the processes which may be at the origins of the variability of the bone deposit: Are they the result of the same origin (natural or hunting) process? Are they the result of a unique, multiple or repeated process? Are they the result of the same conservation process (taphonomy)? Are they the result of the same process of human exploitation? It would be naïve to consider all the mammoth bone beds are the results of a unique and similar process, so it seems necessary to multiply the studies of bone beds without any a priori hypothesis, integrating zooarcheological, geomorphological and archaeological studies. The mammoth bone beds have been exploited by Palaeolithic human groups, but the importance of the exploitation seems to be variable. Unfortunately, the partial or unreliable ancient excavations of mammoth bone beds have disturbed the archaeological record, and have obscured the processes behind the data. Among the very numerous mammoth bones, various artefacts may be found: Flint artefacts, especially tools or blanks used for cutting and butchering carcasses, Bone and ivory tools, most manufactured on mammoth ivory or mammoth bones (ribs, pelvis), sometimes difficult to distinguish from other mammoth bones, but also on reindeer antler and carnivore or marmot metapodials. Hearths of various sizes, Mammoth bone and tusk selection, used for tool, weapon and ornament manufacturing; fuel for hearths; and building material for dwellings and pit cover Few bones from other mammals, butchered elsewhere and thrown in the mammoth bone bed, used as a garbage repository.
2. Mammoth bone beds 2.1. Different types of mammoth bone beds It is possible, as an initial hypothesis, to distinguish three types of mammoth bone beds, according to their degree of human exploitation: Non-exploited bone beds have not been discovered by human groups and have been definitively protected by a loess cover. This seems to be the case for the bone beds of Jouravka, a summer specialized site of marmot hunting where a mammoth bone bed has been found (Boriskovski, 1953), and Vilchanka near Gontsy, unfortunately destroyed by civil works, located in the Poltava region, Ukraine. However, they have not been really studied. Surely, others have certainly been discovered by archaeologists in the past but, without artefacts, the excavations have been stopped, and only a small report has been written and archived. An example of a non-exploited bone bed could have been present in Predmost, where during the XIX century excavations it has been related that a bone bed was overlying the culture layer, and then was subsequent to the human occupation (Musil in Svoboda, 1994).
Weakly exploited bone beds show the results of limited human activity: presence of rare tools and some removal of bones. The carcasses are preserved with substantial presence of bones (more than 75%). A good example is the site of Sevsk (Maschenko et al., 2006) where young individuals have been reconstructed. The number of mammoths is a minimum of 33 individuals, representing a mammoth herd. The bone bed has been exploited by a human group, who abandoned 16 flint artefacts, but there are no hearths or cut marks on the bones. Intensively exploited bone beds show the results of substantial human activity: numerous hearths, presence of flint and bone tools, and major and selective removal of mammoth bones up to 80% of the carcasses. The best example of this kind of bone beds is Gontsy (Ukraine). In that case, there is an associated settlement near the bone bed. In Dolni-Vestonice II western slope (Svoboda, 1991, Fig. 27), a mammoth bone bed has been described, showing an overrepresentation of ribs, vertebra, and leg bones. In Milovice (Oliva, 2009), several bone concentrations of the excavation may be discussed in terms of mammoth bone beds. Svoboda (2001) has briefly cited possible other mammoth bone beds in Moravia. This could apply to Berelekh in Yakoutia (Eastern Siberia) where a bone bed associated with a settlement of the Dyuktai culture have been found (Vereshagin, 1977, 1979; Mochanov et al., 1996). The large periglacial effects and the excavation method (pumping) do not allow a more detailed knowledge about the human exploitation. Several bones of reindeer, bison and horses and artefacts have nevertheless been found in the mammoth bone bed. It is then necessary to discuss the reasons for such differences: It is trivial to say that if the bone beds have not been exploited, it is because they have not been discovered. The bone beds which have been weakly exploited, mainly for bone and ivory raw material for tool manufacturing, have been discovered late but before the colluvium had recovered the carcasses. Then, only bones were preserved. For the bone beds which have been intensively exploited, we may suppose they have been exploited for bones and ivory tusks for building material, fuel for hearths, and tool manufacturing. The question if they have been exploited also for frozen meat is linked to the hunting or natural deposit origin of the mammoths. The dwellings of the settlement nearby have been built with the largest bones of the bone bed.
2.2. An overexploited mammoth bone bed: The dwelling site of Gontsy (Ukraine) The bone bed is located in a paleoravine, stratified by sandy and silty laminations from colluvium at time of snowmelt. The bone bed lies on the same single thin sandy layer (Iakovleva et al., 2001, 2005a, 2005b, 2010). The paleoravine shows five stratigraphic units (about 4 m from top to bottom): 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)
Holocene black soil (Humus) Brown washed soil (Horizon B) Homogeneous loess silt Loess silty laminations (about 1.5 m depth) Sandy and silty laminations.
F. Djindjian / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 47e57
The upper archaeological level is located at the bottom of unit 4. The lower archaeological level (bone bed) is located within unit 5. There is about 75 cm between the upper and the lower archaeological level. The units above the upper level, between the upper and the lower levels, and under the lower level, are sterile. The laminations of layer 4 extend longer than 5 m, following the main slope of the valley from south to north (between 5 and 12 ). There is also a secondary slope from the promontory to the bottom of the ravine, up to 20 . When the paleoravine was filling up, the slope of the laminations, sediment grain size, and the thickness of the laminations were decreasing. The laminations show fine grain size variations. The transition between the different facies is progressive. The sediments are modified by a network of frost cracks and a lamellar micro-pattern (ice segregation). The sedimentation of the paleoravine corresponds to an accumulation of sheetwash loess silts. The sedimentation has been progressive, the laminations showing the evolution and the geometry of the infilling of the ravine, and rapid around 14 500 BP. Over a period less than 500 years (the error interval of the 14C dates), the difference of altitude between the two archaeological layers is about 75 cm in the ravine and 10e20 cm on the promontory. There was erosion of the silty slope by running seasonal water contributions from melting of the snow cover and the active layer of the permafrost in the spring, and rainfalls or thunderstorms. Between these episodes, the bottom of the ravine was dry, during the winter with the snow and the frost, and during the dry summer. The stream sedimentation ends in the upper part of the sequence which is formed of loess silts, the same as in the promontory. Movement due to sheetwash has a reduced capacity of transportation, limited to the thinnest particles. The transportation capacity has been reduced during the sedimentation of the paleoravine because of the decrease of the slope. The hearths of the mammoth bone bed have been concerned by water flow, which moved the ashes and the smallest bone fragments vertically (1e2 cm) and horizontally. Solifluction has not been observed. All bones are concentrated in a relatively thin layer of thickness 2e23 cm. Bones, though not in anatomical position in assemblages, form anatomical groups. The bones are not fragmented by human exploitation, with an exception (a skull broken in hundred small fragments of cranial bones probably with a chopper tool made with a mammoth pelvis found nearside). The individuals represent a family group, with adult females of various ages, sub-adults, juvenile, and a fetus. A large male adult mammoth has been found in the bone bed, represented by large parts of the skull, the jaw, the two tusks, numerous fragments of molars, a pelvis, a scapula, several long bones, and foot bones. It was initially supposed to be part of the mammoth bone bed. However, after a fine stratigraphic analysis, it has been shown that the male adult carcass is 5 cm above the bone bed layer. The bone bed is continuously present under the large bones of the male adult. The male adult died naturally at the same place as the others, but a few years after the settlement was abandoned by the human group. Inside the hangar 2, on a surface of (8 10 m), there are a total of 284 bones (Table 1). There was major and selective removal of mammoth bones (70e80% of bones). The small number of skulls, tusks, long bones, pelvis, and scapulae confirm their collection for dwellings. Bones have been also removed for fuel. There is no gnawing by carnivores or weathering, confirming sedimentation was a fast process.
49
Table 1 Percentages of anatomic parts of mammoth bones in the part of the bone bed protected under the hangar n 2. Gontsy Bone bed Hangar 2 Mammoth bones
Skulls
%
1,4
Lower jaw
Tusks
Vertebras
Ribs
1,4
2,1
16,9
40,1
Sternum
2,1
Gontsy Bone bed Hangar 2 Mammoth bones (following)
Scapulae
Pelvis
Femur Humerus Tibia Radius Ulna Fibula
Carpals Tarsals Metapodials phalanges
Sesamoids
%
1,4
1,4
2,2
26,4
4,6
2.3. Determination of a “mammoth economy” in the upper Palaeolithic settlements During the European upper Palaeolithic, a considerable number of mammoth bones has been discovered in the settlements of the Pavlovian (Early Gravettian of central Europe), the Eastern Gravettian (Late Gravettian of central and Eastern Europe) and the Mezinian (Epigravettian of Eastern Europe), defining a “mammoth economy”. In all these settlements, the general statistics of the mammal taphocoenosis are similar: Mammoths (þ90%) Furred animals (carnivores, marmot, hare) (60e80% excluding mammoths) Reindeer and horses present (about ten individuals), Bison, red deer, rhinoceros, muskox are rare (few individuals) The long time occupation of the settlements during the annual cycle cannot support a food economy based only on reindeer, horse, bison, and red deer, even if those bones could be considered as underestimated due to their use as fuel (see for example West, 2001b). More generally, the food economy system in the upper Palaeolithic of central and eastern Europe was much more varied due to the climate change, the latitude of the zoocenose and the altitude (Djindjian et al., 1999): Mammoth economy : Pavlovian, Eastern Gravettian, Mezinian, Reindeer and horse food economy : Don basin (EUP), Dniester and Prut basin (all UP), Pannonia basin (maximum ice age), Bison and horse and saiga food economy (steppe area of the northern Black Sea coast throughout the UP) In the Eastern European plains, those taphocoenosis seem to correspond to zoocenoses in each area: - Northern steppe with mammoth, rhinoceros, reindeer, horse, muskox - Southern steppe with bison, horse, saiga - Carpathian mountain northern valleys (Dniester, Prut) with dominantly horse and reindeer In all the taphocoenosis recorded in the different UP settlements, the presence of bones is the result of hunting. Is this also the case for the mammoths? Soviet archaeology has considered that mammoths were hunted, and they have proposed various techniques since 1930. Several American scholars in the 1970s, following the paradigm of
50
F. Djindjian / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 47e57
scavenging proposed by L. Binford for the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic, have revisited the hunting model and changed it to a scavenging model (e.g. Soffer, 1985). Globally, zoologists considered that is not possible to hunt and kill a complete mammoth herd with the supposed hunting techniques of hunter-gatherers. Then, during the 1990e2000 period, the paradigm considered that the mammoths were not hunted. However, this was not the opinion of the American archaeologists specialized in the Clovis culture who had found piles of mammoth bones with Clovis points and bone tools for butchering, indicating the hunting of a mammoth with Clovis points, which died after having lost all its blood (Frison and Todd, 1986). A conference at Lawrence University (Kansas) has shown the different arguments (West, 2001a). Concerning the site of Gontsy, after having eliminated the models in contradiction with the geological, geomorphological, archeological and zoological data, it was possible to reduce the field of possible deductions. The mammoth bones found inside the settlement come from three different sources: - Hunted individuals. The mammoths have been butchered at the place they are dead in the landscape. Meat and associated bones have been carried back to the settlement. - Collected bones. Large bones have been found in the vicinity of the settlement and carried back in the settlement to be used as building material for the dwellings. They show characteristic marks of weathering and/or carnivore gnawing. - Mammoth bone bed associated with the settlement. The location of the settlement is the consequence of the existence of a bone bed in a nearby paleoravine, at the end of winter. Two hypotheses are always considered (Iakovleva et al., 2012): - The herd has been totally killed in situ by a human group. - The herd died naturally during the winter as the result of a snow storm and famine, and was immediately covered by the snow and frozen. The herd was discovered by humans at the end of the winter, at the time of snow melt. For exploitation of the natural store of frozen meat and raw material, the group decided to install its settlement nearby. As a consequence of the progressive exhaustion of the bone bed store, the settlement is occupied for only one year until the end of the next winter, when the same process starts again. The question of frozen mammoth food needs further development. It implies firstly that the mammoth herd had been frozen rapidly and covered by the snow and secondly that the mammoth herd had been discovered very rapidly when the snow melted at the end of the winter. The experience of frozen mammoths discovered in Siberia, with meat eaten by dogs, shows that the case is possible, even if it cannot be considered as a systematic occurrence.
3. Methods to distinguish a mammoth bone bed from a mammoth bone dwelling 3.1. Introduction There are numerous cases where it is difficult to distinguish between a mammoth bone bed and a mammoth bone dwelling: - Ancient excavations having delivered ambiguous data (for example, Suponevo); - Post-depositional processes in periglacial areas having deeply disturbed the archaeological layers. An example is Timonovka (Velichko et al., 1977) and Elisseevichi (Velichko et al., 1997) in the Russian upper part of the Desna river;
- Architecture of dwellings using few large mammoth bones with an ambiguous signature (for example, the tipis of Early Gravettian (Djindjian, 2012a)); and - Successive excavations by different archaeologists over a long time not allowing a good overview of the whole settlement (for example, Mezin). Thus, it is necessary to have methods to help the archaeologist to distinguish better between the two structures. The methods described here are based on the argument that most of the large mammoth bones have been collected from the bone bed to build the dwellings. There is an overrepresentation of large bones in the dwellings and an underrepresentation of the same bones in the bone bed. 3.2. Diagrams of MNE ratios (Minimum Number of Elements) A first method is to draw a diagram visualizing the following ratios: - Ratio of non-collected bones (on the vertical axis) : (rib þ vertebra þ sternum þ metapodials þ tarsals þ carpals þ phalanxes þ sesamoids þ patella þ hyoid þ long bone epiphysis/total bones) - Ratio of collected bones (on the horizontal axis) : (scapula þ pelvis þ skull þ tusk þ jaw þ long bones/total bones) The ratios are estimators of the human exploitation of the carcasses of the mammoth bone beds. The line on Fig. 1 indicates the ratio of a complete skeleton. The points are located on a line of value 1 as the sum of the two ratios. The points located to the left of the line indicate the overrepresentation of the first ratio while the points located to the right of the line indicate the overrepresentation of the second ratio. Fig. 1 shows the different dwellings and different areas of the bone bed from the Mezinian site of Gontsy (Ukraine) where the distinction is trivial. Fig. 2 shows the case of Milovice (Pavlovian of Moravia). The distinction is less evident. Milovice K and R are a bone bed, while Milovice G shows a pattern of a dwelling. The area Milovice A þ B is a large area with very probably a mix of a bone bed and a dwelling, giving it an intermediate position on the curve. Two other processes may affect the data. The first one is a differential conservation of bones. The second one is the type of architecture of the Pavlovian dwellings with large bones closing the base of the tent of the tipi, which less over-represents the large bones than a Mezinian dwelling, which has a high number of skulls (Svoboda re, 2009; Oliva, 2009). et al., 2005; Bruge Fig. 3 shows the case of Radomyshl, an undated site of the upper Palaeolithic of Ukraine (perhaps to be compared to Langmannersdorf in Austria) where spatial structures of mammoth bones have been recorded, in layers unfortunately located near the surface implying poor and differential conservation of bones. In that case, either the structures are corresponding to dwellings or the differentiate conservation, recording and archiving of bones have underrepresented the small and fragile bones, particularly for structures n 1 and 2 an, 2005). (Chovkoplass, 1964; Kononenko and Pe Fig. 4 shows the case of Krakow-Spadzista B þ B1, confirming the layer is a bone bed (Kalicki et al.., 2007; Kozlowski, 2007; Wojtal, 2007). This bed differs from the bone bed of Gontsy in having a higher presence of large bones, which have not been totally collected. The bone bed of Sevsk has an apparently different position. The reason is an unexpected underrepresentation in the table of MNE counting (Maschenko et al., 2006) of ribs and bone legs, according to the 33 individuals. The case of the Berelekh bone
F. Djindjian / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 47e57
51
Fig. 1. The Mezinian site of Gontsy (Ukraine) : bone bed areas and dwellings.
bed is very similar, but the explanation could be due to the pumping excavation methods, recording, or differential preservation of bones. Those different examples reveal that other processes are occurring which may disturb the interpretation of the diagrams. - the more or less exhaustive recording of small bones and the differential conservation of bones which sometimes seem to be underrepresented in the bone assemblages, particularly hyoids, carpal, tarsal, phalanges, sesamoids, ribs, small vertebras and fetus bones. The assemblage in that case shows an anomalous position nearer to the dwellings. It is then necessary to compute a ratio of differential conservation in order to compare only bone assemblages with similar ratios. In that case, sites which have poor conservation of bones (like Radomyshl, with a layer very near to the surface) or old excavations with bones not totally recorded and insufficiently well archived may present an anomaly. - The various architectures of the dwellings which require collection of more or less large bones, for examples skulls which are systematically collected for Mezinian dwellings but not for Gravettian dwellings. In such cases, the collected bones are less numerous and the bone bed assemblage may show a profile less characteristic of an exploited bone bed. The use of these diagrams indicates several other difficulties of counting: - The over-representation of the MNE of the bones (rib, vertebra, metapodials, tarsal, carpal, phalanxes, sesamoid, patella, hyoid) which account for about 90% of all bones. - The method to count fragmented bones to estimate the MNE: B Rib fragments and rib head epiphysis,
B Vertebra fragments (spinal process, neural arch, epiphysis), B Skull fragments (large part of skull, identified parts of skull, small fragments), B Molar fragments (molar blades, teeth fragments), B Long bone epiphysis. - The elimination of mammoth tools (pick on tusks, chopper on pelvis, cutter on rib, etc.)
3.3. Diagrams of weighted MNE (Minimal Number of Elements) To improve the usefulness of the diagrams, a second method is proposed, by computing in place of the MNE, the weighted anatomic parts using the number of anatomic parts in the skeleton, as estimated in the following list:
Each long bone
2 (Total 12)
Pelvis Scapulae Skull Jaw Tusk Rib Metapodial Carpal bones Tarsal bones Phalanxes Cervical vertebra Thoracic vertebra Lumbar vertebra
2 2 1 1 2 40 20 16 14 56 7 20 3
52
F. Djindjian / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 47e57
Fig. 2. The Pavlovian site of Milovice (Moravia) and the determination of the areas K, R, A þ B and G.
The line indicating the complete skeleton divides the diagram in two equal parts, and the points are better distributed. Fig. 5 shows the diagram for the site of Gontsy, confirming the suitability of this type of diagram. Fig. 6 shows the complex site of Milovice and confirms the existence of both bone beds and dwellings (see Fig. 7). The same phenomena occur with the Pavlovian site of DolniVestonice (Kliıma, 2001; Svoboda et al.., 2005). The large bone bed excavated by Klima is based on his list of 1969 and shows an evident underrepresentation of small bones. The bone bed excavated by Svoboda in Dolni-Vestonice II, western slope, shows the same pattern. However, the concentration 5e8 in Dolni-Vestonice studied by Kliıma (2001) reveals a dwelling structure and not a garbage area as supposed initially. Fig. 8 shows the weighted diagram of Krakow-Spadzista and Sevsk and confirms the diagnosis of a bone bed.
Overrepresentation Jaw Pelvis Scapula Femur Ulna Humerus Fibula Tibia
Underrepresentation 100% 100 77.6 69 67.2 63.8 57 51.7
Hyoid Phalanxes Sesamoid Patella Metacarpal Metatarsal Carpal Rib
9.2 11.4 12.2 27.6 26.8 30 30 31.9
Such data may be processed by a multidimensional analysis (correspondence analysis) on the table (bone bed assemblages percentages of MNI for each anatomic part). The analysis will cluster the different types of bone spatial structures: bone beds at different scale of human exploitation, bone dwellings of different architecture, or other spatial structures (pits, walls, etc.). Unfortunately, the available data published in the literature are not sufficiently homogeneous to allow such a statistical analysis.
3.4. Multidimensional analysis on MNI diagrams (Minimum Number of Individuals)
3.5. Multidimensional analysis on a refitted bone table
A third method is to compute the MNI for each anatomic part and to list the % PO (percentage of observed anatomic parts: MNI of each anatomic part/MNI global). The higher values indicate the anatomic parts which have not been collected and the lower values the anatomic parts which have been preferably collected. An example is given by the following data (% PO) of the area re, 2009, p.105, tabl.44) with the A þ B of Milovice (from Bruge list of underrepresented and overrepresented anatomic parts of the skeleton:
Whatever the computations of ratios, they may only help to discover the process of selection made by the human group on a mammoth bone bed. A more efficient way is to make a more precise determination by age and sex of mammoth individuals, to fit the bones of a same skeleton, to draw the spatial connections of the different bones of a same skeleton, and then to identify the carcasses of the herd. It is then possible to identify and count, carcass by carcass, the selection operating on the bones of a particular carcass. Counting at an individual scale is more relevant than global counting over all the bones.
F. Djindjian / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 47e57
53
Fig. 3. The site of Radomyshl (Ukraine) : dwellings or differential conservation of bones?.
In that way, a good powerful method which may be applied is a multidimensional intra-site spatial analysis on a matrix counting the links between the anatomic parts of the same individual by square meter, called “Analyse spatiale des remontages” (Djindjian, 1999). The method has been applied successfully to refitting data of flint artefacts in the Magdalenian dwelling of Pincevent, and has identified the working areas around the hearths, the garbage management, and the garbage areas. 4. Discussion 4.1. Ignored mammoth bone beds? In the literature, mammoth bone beds which were found located in the bottom of a paleoravine have been often interpreted as not in situ settlements. The archaeologists have generally considered that the bone beds, without any evident spatial structure (concentrations), are not in situ layers, because the archaeological layer would have slipped by solifluction inside the ravine. In Ukraine, the sites of Pushkari II (at the top of a ravine near Pushkari I and Bougorok), Kurovo, Novo-Bobovichi are bone beds (see Soffer, 1985; for English text translated from Russian archives). They have been excavated in one short campaign due to the poorness of archaeological features and tools. Unfortunately, it is not easy, often many years after the excavations, to revise the interpretations, due to the low level of information about such sites. There are also sites where the dwellings and the mammoth bone beds have not been distinguished during excavations for various reasons. This is the case (Soffer, 1985) for Kiev-Kirilovskaia excavated by Kvoikha between 1893 and 1902 and in Suponevo, excavated by Efimienko and Zhukov between 1925 and 1927 by trenches without the technique of open air excavations, successfully applied later in Kostienki 1 following the works of
Scherbakivski in Gontsy and Zamiatnine in Gagarino. This is also the case for Timonovka and Elisseevichi located at the highest altitude on the Desna river, an attribute of the Dnepr River, with significant perturbations due to periglacial effects (Velichko et al., 1977, 1997). In contrast, settlements are known apparently without mammoth bone beds. In the Mezinian settlements (Pidoplichko, 1969) of Mejiriche (Mezhirich), Mezine (Chovkopliass, 1965), Dobranichivka, and Ioudinovo, several mammoth bone huts have been excavated. No mammoth bone beds have been described. The first reason is the priority given by the archaeologists (Pidoplichko, Chovkoplass, Abramova) after 1945 to the excavations of the dwellings, more spectacular than the bone beds. In Mejiriche (Mezhirich), the systematic sampling made by Pidoplichko to find the dwellings allowed him to discover the bone bed, but his death did not allow excavation of the fourth dwelling and the bone bed (Pidoplichko, 1976). Dobranichivka was a rescue excavation (Chovkoplass, 1955). For the Ioudinovo site, very near the Desna River, the bone bed is probably under water (Abramova et al.., 1995, 1997a, 1997b). For the Gravettian sites of Kostienki 1 (Efimienko, 1958) and Avdeevo (Gvosdover, 1995), with the well-known long dwellings, we have no information about the presence of a bone bed near the dwellings. For the site of Pouchkari which has delivered spatial structures (Boriskovski, 1953), the site of Pushkari II, which may be interpreted as a bone bed, is very near. For the Pavlovian site of Pavlov and its dwelling structures (Svoboda, 1994), no bone bed has been found. There are bone beds in the Pavlovian hills, in Dolni-Vestonice, Dolni-Vestonice II, and Milovice (Svoboda, 2001; Oliva, 2009). The geomorphology of the sites indicates the existence of ravines on the slope of the valley or on the slope of a hill, where bone beds are generally found. It is in those places that it is necessary to survey in order to find the bone beds.
54
F. Djindjian / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 47e57
Fig. 4. The bone bed of the Eastern Gravettian site of Krakow-Spadzista B þ B1 in Poland and the bone bed of Sevsk in Russia.
4.2. The role of the dwelling architecture The need for many large mammoth bones depends on the architecture of the dwellings. In the Early Gravettian, the dwellings are tipis with large bones for ballasting the skins (Djindjian, 2012a, 2012b). There was no need to use skulls or tusks. The favorite bones are scapula, pelvis, and long bones, and even stones were used in Pavlovian. In that sense, the number of bones collected for a dwelling is limited and the signal is weaker in the ratio computations. In the Eastern Gravettian, the dwelling is organized around a dozen of lined hearths rounded by pits, with large pits for living, smaller pits for storing and for garbage. The hypothesis of pits for living has been discussed. The need to dig pits in the permafrost, even using ice wedges to facilitate the operation, is not so clear. Another hypothesis is to get sediment in the pits to build loess walls for the protection against the wind and perhaps for a cover. In that case, the living area would be inside the oval of pits, near the hearths. The large bones then would be used to reinforce and arm the walls and to cover the storing pits. The number of large bones, although higher than in the previous case, is not large. In the Mezinian, the dwelling is organized on an oval foundation of skulls and high walls made of skulls, scapula, pelvis, jaws, and long bones. Many tusks are used in a way which has not been totally understood. Use for the roof of the dwelling is always discussed. The numerous skulls (more than thirty), tusks, scapulae, and pelvis confirm the important process of selecting and collecting bones for the building. It would be interesting in the future to model the types and number of bones of the different dwellings in order to test the importance of the selection. 4.2.1. Origins and conservation of mammoth bone beds Numerous hypotheses have been proposed concerning the origin of mammoth bone beds. The first point was to determine if
the mammoth bone bed was always in situ or removed by various geological effects. - The presence of the mammoth bone bed in a ravine has been interpreted as the result of the solifluction of an archaeological layer. - Paleontologists consider often a bone bed as the result of a river deposit. A river in a periglacial environment erodes the banks, transports the bones, and deposits them in a low energy site where the clustering occurs. Here the sediment is alluvium. The hypothesis implies the mix with bones of other species; the carcasses have been dismantled, and there are no anatomic connections. The process of accumulation may have requires a long time and then the layer is thick with superposition of bones and river alluvium. There is an underrepresentation of fragile bones. - The bone bed is found located near an old pond, where the mammoths came often to drink water and eat sediment rich in mineral salts. They die more frequently at that place. Such a case should imply an overrepresentation of old and young individuals, with males. This seems to be the case for the Lugovskoe site in western Siberia (Maschenko et al., 2003) but the presence of humans, not only scavenging but also hunting, is confirmed by 200 flint tools and a point found perforating a mammoth vertebra. The supposed ancient pond was located in a ravine. - The herd died in situ in a dry ravine (winter famine or snow storm) and the bone bed has been covered by colluvium, at the time of snowmelt. In such a case, the death of the herd is a unique event, rapidly covered by the seasonal colluvium, and the carcasses may be identified with bones in quasi-anatomical position. - Old individuals died alone on the landscape. Very rapidly, the carcass is dismantled and the fragile bones are destroyed. The low rate of sedimentation allows weathering of the bones lying on the soil and the presence of carnivore gnawing.
F. Djindjian / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 47e57
55
Fig. 5. Weighted MNE Diagram for the Mezinian site of Gontsy.
Fig. 6. Weighted MNE Diagram for the Pavlovian site of Milovice.
The second point is the determination of a natural (famine, storm, illness) or human (hunting) process for the origin of the mammoth accumulation. Many archaeologists, considering accumulations the result of specialized hunting, have proposed
three techniques supposed to be able to kill a whole herd in situ: - The mammoths were trapped in hidden large holes,
56
F. Djindjian / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 47e57
Fig. 7. Weighted MNE Diagram for the Pavlovian site of Dolni Vestonice.
Fig. 8. Weighted MNE Diagram for the bone bed of the Eastern Gravettian site of Krakow-Spadzista B þ B1 in Poland and the bone bed of Sevsk in Russia.
- The mammoths were blocked in the upper part of the ravine and killed, - The mammoths were suffocated by a steppe fire.
At the beginning, archaeologists considered bone beds as archeological layers (bones and artefacts) resulting from intensive hunting (for example, Wankel in Predmost). Others thought the
F. Djindjian / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 47e57
bone bed was the garbage area (Absolon in Dolni-Vestonice) of a large kill and butchering site. More recently, the bone bed of Krakow-Spadzista B þ B1 is considered as the result of a kill and re (2009) butchering site of mammoths (Kalicki et al.., 2007). Bruge has proposed the same conclusion for Milovice. In Gontsy, the two hypotheses of a kill and butchering site (for which no evidence has been found for the hunting technique) and a natural collapse (famine and snow storm during the winter) are under discussion. In both sites, the use wear analysis has been realized on the artefacts found in the bone bed, G. Sapozhnikova in Gontsy (Iakovleva et al., 2005a) and by Stefanski (2007) in KrakowSpadzista. The two results are similar, focusing on the role of knives on tools and blanks for butchering. This it is a major argument for confirming the carcasses are not only bones but also meat, either fresh meat if hunting or frozen meat of natural origin. Nevertheless, zooarchaeologists have refuted the idea of hunting mammoth herds, insisting with good arguments of the difficulties for a human group to hunt and kill a complete herd of mammoths (Haynes, 1991). The idea of a natural origin has developed. However, the suggestion of scavenging was popular only during the 1990s and is now more and more rejected because the scavenged food is considered as unsuitable for human consumption. However, the hypothesis of eating naturally dead frozen mammoth is not scavenging stricto sensu, when the process of freezing/defrosting has been normally controlled. 5. Conclusions Four methods are proposed to study the mammoth bone beds: MNE diagrams, weighted MNE diagrams, multidimensional data analysis on % MNI anatomic parts, and spatial multidimensional analysis on refitted anatomic parts of carcasses. It is possible to separate bone beds from dwellings, and it is also possible to identify more complex structures than more or less exploited bone beds and various bone dwellings. To progress in that way, it is necessary to develop a standard grid of description for mammoth bone studies. Today it is rather difficult to record in the scientific literature the reliable data necessary for sophisticated statistical analysis. This has to be the main goal of zooarchaeological studies in the following years. References Abramova, Z.A., 1995. The Upper Palaeolithic Site of Ioudinovo, vol. 1. SaintPetersburg (in Russian). Abramova, Z.A., Grigorieva, G.V., Christensen, M., 1997. The Upper Palaeolithic Site of Ioudinovo, vol. 2. Saint-Petersburg (in Russian). Abramova, Z.A., Grigorieva, G.V., 1997. The Upper Palaeolithic Site of Ioudinovo, vol. 3. Saint-Petersburg (in Russian). re, A., 2009. L'exploitation du mammouth a Milovice et dans le Gravettien de Bruge publique tche que). The se. Universite Paris 1 Panthe on-Sorbonne. Moravie (Re Boriskovski, P.I., 1953. Palaeolithic of Ukraine. Nauka, Leningrad (in Russian). Chovkoplass, I.G., 1955. Dobranicevskaja Paleoliticeskaja Stojanka. Kratkielitic Soloscenija, vol. 53. Instituta Istorii Materialnoij Kultury, pp. 32e45 (in Russian). Chovkoplass, I.G., 1964. RadomyshleRemnant of the Early Phase of the Upper Paleolithic. Stratigrafia i periodzatsia Paleolitavostochnoy i Tsentralnoy Evropy, Moscow (in Russian). Chovkopliass, I.G., 1965. The Mezin Site. Kiev. (in Russian). Djindjian, F., 2012a. Les structures d'habitat du Gravettien en Europe. In: Otte, M. (Ed.), Les Gravettiens. Errance, Paris, pp. 149e175. olithique supe rieur en Europe. Djindjian, F., 2012b. Les structures d'habitat du Pale ologie, Paris, 1e3 Octobre In: Actes du 3 Colloque franco-ukrainien d'Arche ologie de l’Acade mie nationale des Sci2009. Publications de l’Institut d'Arche ences d’Ukraine/Korvin e presse, Kiev, pp. 42e74. tat de l'art. Archeologia e Djindjian, F., 1999. L'analyse spatiale de l'habitat: un e calcolatori 10, 17e32. Efimienko, P.P., 1958. Kostienki 1. Moscow (In Russian). Frison, G.C., Todd, L.C., 1986. The Colby Mammoth Site; Taphonomy and Archaeology of a Clovis Kill in Northern Wyoming. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
57
Gvosdover, M.D., 1995. Art of the Mammoth Hunters. The Finds from Avdeevo. Oxbow Monograph 49, Oxford. Haynes, G., 1991. Mammoths, Mastodonts and Elephants. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Iakovleva, L., Djindjian, F., 2001. The new excavations of the Gontsy Site (Ukraine), in the context of the Epigravettian Camp-Sites of the Dnepr Basin. In: West, D. (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Mammoth Site Studies, 22. University of Kansas publications in Anthropology, Lawrence, pp. 85e94. olithique de Gontsy (Ukraine) et les Iakovleva, L., Djindjian, F., 2005a. Le site pale olithique supe rieur re cent d’Europe Cabanes en os de Mammouths du pale ration et Orientale. Les Campagnes de Fouilles 1993-2005. Service de coope d'action Culturelle de l’ambassade de France en Ukraine, Kiev. Iakovleva, L., Djindjian, F., 2005b. New data on mammoth bone dwellings of eastern Europe in the light of new excavations of the Ginsy site (Ukraine). Quaternary International 126e128, 195e207. Iakovleva, L., Djindjian, F., Maschenko, E., Konik, S., 2010. The mammoth bone bed of the mammoth bone hut Late Upper Palaeolithic camp-site of Gontsy (Ukraine): recent results of the 2004-2006 excavations. In: Lazarev, P., Boeskorov, G., Maschenko, E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the IV International Mammoth Conference, Irkutsk, pp.150e158. Iakovleva, L., Djindjian, F., Maschenko, E.N., Konik, S., Moigne, A.M., 2012. The late upper Palaeolithic site of Gontsy (Ukraine): a reference for the reconstitution of the hunter-gatherer system based on a mammoth economy. Quaternary International 255, 86e93. Kalicki, T., Kozłowski, J.K., Krzeminska, A., Sobczyk, K., Wojtal, P., 2007. The forw-Spadmation of mammoth bone accumulation at the Geavettian site Krako zista BþB1. Folia Quaternaria 77, 5e30. Kliıma, B., 2001. Die kjokkenmoddinge Nr. 5e8 von Dolni Vestonice. In: Ginter, B., Drobniewicz, B., Kazior, B., Nowak, M., Poltowicz, M. (Eds.), Problems of the Stone Age in the Old World. Jagellonian University, Krakow, pp. 173e193. an, S., 2005. Kiev: Schlakh. The Archaeological Characteristics of Kononenko, O., Pe the Faunal Complex from the Upper Palaeolithic Site of Radomysh'l. Kam'ina Doba Ukraini, vol. 7, pp. 78e86 (in Ukrainian). Kozlowski, J.K., 1974. Upper Paleolithic site with dwelling of mammoth bones. Krakow, Spadzista Street B. Folia Quaternaria 44, 1e110. Kozlowski, J.K., 2007. Mammoth interactions: bone beds and late Gravettian occupations at Krakow-Spadzista. Folia Quaternaria 77, 1e116. Maschenko, E.N., Pavlov, A.F., Zenin, V.N., Leshchinskiy, S.V., Orlova, L.A., 2003. The Lugovskoe site: relations between the mammoth assemblage and Late Palaeolithic humans. In: 3rd International Mammoth Conference. Program and Abstracts. Occasional Papers in Earth Sciences, vol. 5. Dawson City Museum, Whitehorse, pp. 77e80. Maschenko, E.S., Gablina, S.S., Tesakov, A.S., Simakova, A.N., 2006. The Sevsk woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) site in Russia: taphonomic, biological and behavioral interpretations. Quaternary International 142e143, 147e165. Mochanov, Y.A., Fedoseeva, S.A., 1996. Berelekh, Allakhovsk region. In: West, F.H. (Ed.), American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Palaeoecology of Beringia. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Oliva, M., 2009. Milovice; Site of the Mammoth People Below the Pavlov hills. Anthropos, Studies in Anthropology, Palaeoethnology, Palaeontology and Quaternary Geology, vol. 27. Moravske Zemske Muzeum, Brno. Pidoplichko, I.G., 1969. Habitats of the Upper Palaeolithic Mammoth Bone Sites in Ukraine. Kiev (in Russian). Pidoplichko, I.G., 1976. Habitats of the Upper Palaeolithic Mammoth Bone Site of Mejiriche. Kiev (in Russian). Soffer, O., 1985. The Upper Paleolithic of the Central Russian Plain. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. Stefanski, D., 2007. Functional analysis of burins. Folia Quaternaria 77, 97e116. ge. Svoboda, J., 1991. Dolni Vestonice II. Western Slope, vol. 54. ERAUL, Lie ge. Svoboda, J., 1994. Pavlov I. Excavations 1952e53, vol. 66. ERAUL, Lie Svoboda, J., 2001. Gravettian mammoth bone deposits in Moravia. In: Cavarretta, G., Gioa, P., Mussi, M., Palombo, M.R. (Eds.), The World of Elephants. Consoglio Nazionale Richerche, Rome. Svoboda, J., Pean, S., Wojtal, P., 2005. Mammoth bone deposits and subsistence practices during Mid-Upper Palaeolithic in Central Europe: three cases from Moravia and Poland. Quaternary International 126e128, 209e221. Velichko, A.A., Grekhova, L.V., Gubonina, Z.P., 1977. The Environment of Prehistoric Human Site Timonovka. Moscow (in Russian). Velichko, A.A., Grekhova, L.V., Gribchenko, Y.N., Kurenkova, E.I., 1997. Early Man in the Extreme Environmental Conditions. Eliseevichi site. IG RAN-SHM, p. 192 (in Russian). Vereshchagin, N.K., 1977. Berelekhskoe ‘‘Kladbishche’’ Mamontov (The Berelekh Mammoth ‘‘Cemetery’’), vol. 72. Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta, pp. 5e50 (in Russian). Vereshagin, N.K., 1979. Pochemu Vymerli Mamonty. Nauka, Leningrad. West, D., 2001a. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Mammoth Site Studies, 22. University of Kansas publications in Anthropology. West, D., 2001b. Mammoth hunting or scavenging during the upper Paleolithic. In: West, D. (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Mammoth Site Studies, 22. University of Kansas publications in Anthropology, pp. 57e67. Wojtal, P., 2007. Zooarchaeological Studies of the Late Pleistocene Sites in Poland. Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Animals. Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint
Identifying the hunter-gatherer systems behind associated mammoth bone beds and mammoth bone dwellings François Djindjian* University of Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & UMR 7041 ArScAn CNRS
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Available online 14 August 2014
Mammoth bone beds associated with Palaeolithic settlements were reported in the Pavlovian, the Eastern Gravettian, and the Mezinian. Several points of method are posed: - How to identify and differentiate without ambiguity the remains of mammoth bone beds from the remains of dwelling structures built in part from the bones of these bone beds? - How to study the processes that are at the origin of the bone bed deposits and the processes of human exploitation of these deposits? - How to identify the origin of these accumulations, unique, multiple or continuous, either due to geological changes, deaths of natural origin (famine, storm) or human activity (hunting, trapping)? This paper is particularly involved in the study of cases, more systematic than exceptional, of accumulations that are associated with a settlement. It provides a quantitative method to distinguish the mammoth bone beds from the dwelling structures, and to identify and characterize the various processes behind the systems of bone beds and artefacts discovered by the archaeologists. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA.
Keywords: Upper Palaeolithic Gravettian Pavlovian Mezinian Hunter-gatherer
1. Introduction The close association in the same site of a mammoth bone bed and a mammoth bone dwelling settlement has been noted at several locations. The best, relevant cases are (Djindjian et al., 1999): - For the Pavlovian (Early Gravettian of central Europe), in DolniVestonice and Milovice, - For the Eastern Gravettian (Late Gravettian of central and eastern Europe) in Krakow-Spadzista, - For the Mezinian (Epigravettian in Eastern Europe) in Gontsy. Two questions have been posed (Iakovleva et al., 2012): - Is there a determined or a random association between the two spatial structures? - Is such an association systematic or occasional? Differently speaking, if the association is systematic, there is always a mammoth bone bed near a mammoth bone dwelling settlement. However, in many cases, the excavations have only found the dwellings (for example Mejiriche, Dobranichivka, Ioudinovo,
* University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, Institute of Archaeology, 3 Rue Michelet, 75006 Paris, France. E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.07.006 1040-6182/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA.
Pavlov, Avdeevo, Kostienki). In other cases, the excavations have only found a mammoth bone bed, poor in industry, interpreted as a disturbed layer, and the excavations have been interrupted after a short campaign and only described in the excavation reports stored in the archives. Are the spatial structures discovered by archaeologists or paleontologists unambiguously mammoth bone beds or mammoth bone dwellings? Examples of controversy are numerous. For sites excavated before 1950, the archaeologists, at that time, were not able to identify a mammoth bone dwelling and to distinguish between the two kinds of structures. Despite the revisiting of the data, it has often not been possible to differentiate between a dwelling, a mammoth bone bed, or a mix of the two structures (Elisseevichi, Timonovka, Kiev-Kirilovskaia, Radomyshl). In some other cases, even with good modern excavations, it has not been easy to make the distinction (Krakow-Spadzista, Milovice), and different conclusions have been proposed. For example, in Krakow-Spadzista, “the site was interpreted as a butchering site with mammoth bone dwellings (Kozlowski, 1974; Kubiak, 1988), as a killing and butchering site with meat caches (Kozlowski and Montet-White, 2001), as a natural death site (Lipecki and Wojtal, 1996; Soffer et al., 2001), a natural death and killing site (Sobczyk, 1995) and a butchering and scavenging site (West, 1996, 2001)” (cited in Kalicki et al., 2007, p.6).
48
F. Djindjian / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 47e57
Archaeologists and zoologists have discovered several mammoth bone beds. However, excavations and zooarcheological studies have not been made with the same methods and do not allow easy comparisons. Asking the question, “Are mammoth bone beds all similar?” involves investigating all the processes which may be at the origins of the variability of the bone deposit: Are they the result of the same origin (natural or hunting) process? Are they the result of a unique, multiple or repeated process? Are they the result of the same conservation process (taphonomy)? Are they the result of the same process of human exploitation? It would be naïve to consider all the mammoth bone beds are the results of a unique and similar process, so it seems necessary to multiply the studies of bone beds without any a priori hypothesis, integrating zooarcheological, geomorphological and archaeological studies. The mammoth bone beds have been exploited by Palaeolithic human groups, but the importance of the exploitation seems to be variable. Unfortunately, the partial or unreliable ancient excavations of mammoth bone beds have disturbed the archaeological record, and have obscured the processes behind the data. Among the very numerous mammoth bones, various artefacts may be found: Flint artefacts, especially tools or blanks used for cutting and butchering carcasses, Bone and ivory tools, most manufactured on mammoth ivory or mammoth bones (ribs, pelvis), sometimes difficult to distinguish from other mammoth bones, but also on reindeer antler and carnivore or marmot metapodials. Hearths of various sizes, Mammoth bone and tusk selection, used for tool, weapon and ornament manufacturing; fuel for hearths; and building material for dwellings and pit cover Few bones from other mammals, butchered elsewhere and thrown in the mammoth bone bed, used as a garbage repository.
2. Mammoth bone beds 2.1. Different types of mammoth bone beds It is possible, as an initial hypothesis, to distinguish three types of mammoth bone beds, according to their degree of human exploitation: Non-exploited bone beds have not been discovered by human groups and have been definitively protected by a loess cover. This seems to be the case for the bone beds of Jouravka, a summer specialized site of marmot hunting where a mammoth bone bed has been found (Boriskovski, 1953), and Vilchanka near Gontsy, unfortunately destroyed by civil works, located in the Poltava region, Ukraine. However, they have not been really studied. Surely, others have certainly been discovered by archaeologists in the past but, without artefacts, the excavations have been stopped, and only a small report has been written and archived. An example of a non-exploited bone bed could have been present in Predmost, where during the XIX century excavations it has been related that a bone bed was overlying the culture layer, and then was subsequent to the human occupation (Musil in Svoboda, 1994).
Weakly exploited bone beds show the results of limited human activity: presence of rare tools and some removal of bones. The carcasses are preserved with substantial presence of bones (more than 75%). A good example is the site of Sevsk (Maschenko et al., 2006) where young individuals have been reconstructed. The number of mammoths is a minimum of 33 individuals, representing a mammoth herd. The bone bed has been exploited by a human group, who abandoned 16 flint artefacts, but there are no hearths or cut marks on the bones. Intensively exploited bone beds show the results of substantial human activity: numerous hearths, presence of flint and bone tools, and major and selective removal of mammoth bones up to 80% of the carcasses. The best example of this kind of bone beds is Gontsy (Ukraine). In that case, there is an associated settlement near the bone bed. In Dolni-Vestonice II western slope (Svoboda, 1991, Fig. 27), a mammoth bone bed has been described, showing an overrepresentation of ribs, vertebra, and leg bones. In Milovice (Oliva, 2009), several bone concentrations of the excavation may be discussed in terms of mammoth bone beds. Svoboda (2001) has briefly cited possible other mammoth bone beds in Moravia. This could apply to Berelekh in Yakoutia (Eastern Siberia) where a bone bed associated with a settlement of the Dyuktai culture have been found (Vereshagin, 1977, 1979; Mochanov et al., 1996). The large periglacial effects and the excavation method (pumping) do not allow a more detailed knowledge about the human exploitation. Several bones of reindeer, bison and horses and artefacts have nevertheless been found in the mammoth bone bed. It is then necessary to discuss the reasons for such differences: It is trivial to say that if the bone beds have not been exploited, it is because they have not been discovered. The bone beds which have been weakly exploited, mainly for bone and ivory raw material for tool manufacturing, have been discovered late but before the colluvium had recovered the carcasses. Then, only bones were preserved. For the bone beds which have been intensively exploited, we may suppose they have been exploited for bones and ivory tusks for building material, fuel for hearths, and tool manufacturing. The question if they have been exploited also for frozen meat is linked to the hunting or natural deposit origin of the mammoths. The dwellings of the settlement nearby have been built with the largest bones of the bone bed.
2.2. An overexploited mammoth bone bed: The dwelling site of Gontsy (Ukraine) The bone bed is located in a paleoravine, stratified by sandy and silty laminations from colluvium at time of snowmelt. The bone bed lies on the same single thin sandy layer (Iakovleva et al., 2001, 2005a, 2005b, 2010). The paleoravine shows five stratigraphic units (about 4 m from top to bottom): 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)
Holocene black soil (Humus) Brown washed soil (Horizon B) Homogeneous loess silt Loess silty laminations (about 1.5 m depth) Sandy and silty laminations.
F. Djindjian / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 47e57
The upper archaeological level is located at the bottom of unit 4. The lower archaeological level (bone bed) is located within unit 5. There is about 75 cm between the upper and the lower archaeological level. The units above the upper level, between the upper and the lower levels, and under the lower level, are sterile. The laminations of layer 4 extend longer than 5 m, following the main slope of the valley from south to north (between 5 and 12 ). There is also a secondary slope from the promontory to the bottom of the ravine, up to 20 . When the paleoravine was filling up, the slope of the laminations, sediment grain size, and the thickness of the laminations were decreasing. The laminations show fine grain size variations. The transition between the different facies is progressive. The sediments are modified by a network of frost cracks and a lamellar micro-pattern (ice segregation). The sedimentation of the paleoravine corresponds to an accumulation of sheetwash loess silts. The sedimentation has been progressive, the laminations showing the evolution and the geometry of the infilling of the ravine, and rapid around 14 500 BP. Over a period less than 500 years (the error interval of the 14C dates), the difference of altitude between the two archaeological layers is about 75 cm in the ravine and 10e20 cm on the promontory. There was erosion of the silty slope by running seasonal water contributions from melting of the snow cover and the active layer of the permafrost in the spring, and rainfalls or thunderstorms. Between these episodes, the bottom of the ravine was dry, during the winter with the snow and the frost, and during the dry summer. The stream sedimentation ends in the upper part of the sequence which is formed of loess silts, the same as in the promontory. Movement due to sheetwash has a reduced capacity of transportation, limited to the thinnest particles. The transportation capacity has been reduced during the sedimentation of the paleoravine because of the decrease of the slope. The hearths of the mammoth bone bed have been concerned by water flow, which moved the ashes and the smallest bone fragments vertically (1e2 cm) and horizontally. Solifluction has not been observed. All bones are concentrated in a relatively thin layer of thickness 2e23 cm. Bones, though not in anatomical position in assemblages, form anatomical groups. The bones are not fragmented by human exploitation, with an exception (a skull broken in hundred small fragments of cranial bones probably with a chopper tool made with a mammoth pelvis found nearside). The individuals represent a family group, with adult females of various ages, sub-adults, juvenile, and a fetus. A large male adult mammoth has been found in the bone bed, represented by large parts of the skull, the jaw, the two tusks, numerous fragments of molars, a pelvis, a scapula, several long bones, and foot bones. It was initially supposed to be part of the mammoth bone bed. However, after a fine stratigraphic analysis, it has been shown that the male adult carcass is 5 cm above the bone bed layer. The bone bed is continuously present under the large bones of the male adult. The male adult died naturally at the same place as the others, but a few years after the settlement was abandoned by the human group. Inside the hangar 2, on a surface of (8 10 m), there are a total of 284 bones (Table 1). There was major and selective removal of mammoth bones (70e80% of bones). The small number of skulls, tusks, long bones, pelvis, and scapulae confirm their collection for dwellings. Bones have been also removed for fuel. There is no gnawing by carnivores or weathering, confirming sedimentation was a fast process.
49
Table 1 Percentages of anatomic parts of mammoth bones in the part of the bone bed protected under the hangar n 2. Gontsy Bone bed Hangar 2 Mammoth bones
Skulls
%
1,4
Lower jaw
Tusks
Vertebras
Ribs
1,4
2,1
16,9
40,1
Sternum
2,1
Gontsy Bone bed Hangar 2 Mammoth bones (following)
Scapulae
Pelvis
Femur Humerus Tibia Radius Ulna Fibula
Carpals Tarsals Metapodials phalanges
Sesamoids
%
1,4
1,4
2,2
26,4
4,6
2.3. Determination of a “mammoth economy” in the upper Palaeolithic settlements During the European upper Palaeolithic, a considerable number of mammoth bones has been discovered in the settlements of the Pavlovian (Early Gravettian of central Europe), the Eastern Gravettian (Late Gravettian of central and Eastern Europe) and the Mezinian (Epigravettian of Eastern Europe), defining a “mammoth economy”. In all these settlements, the general statistics of the mammal taphocoenosis are similar: Mammoths (þ90%) Furred animals (carnivores, marmot, hare) (60e80% excluding mammoths) Reindeer and horses present (about ten individuals), Bison, red deer, rhinoceros, muskox are rare (few individuals) The long time occupation of the settlements during the annual cycle cannot support a food economy based only on reindeer, horse, bison, and red deer, even if those bones could be considered as underestimated due to their use as fuel (see for example West, 2001b). More generally, the food economy system in the upper Palaeolithic of central and eastern Europe was much more varied due to the climate change, the latitude of the zoocenose and the altitude (Djindjian et al., 1999): Mammoth economy : Pavlovian, Eastern Gravettian, Mezinian, Reindeer and horse food economy : Don basin (EUP), Dniester and Prut basin (all UP), Pannonia basin (maximum ice age), Bison and horse and saiga food economy (steppe area of the northern Black Sea coast throughout the UP) In the Eastern European plains, those taphocoenosis seem to correspond to zoocenoses in each area: - Northern steppe with mammoth, rhinoceros, reindeer, horse, muskox - Southern steppe with bison, horse, saiga - Carpathian mountain northern valleys (Dniester, Prut) with dominantly horse and reindeer In all the taphocoenosis recorded in the different UP settlements, the presence of bones is the result of hunting. Is this also the case for the mammoths? Soviet archaeology has considered that mammoths were hunted, and they have proposed various techniques since 1930. Several American scholars in the 1970s, following the paradigm of
50
F. Djindjian / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 47e57
scavenging proposed by L. Binford for the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic, have revisited the hunting model and changed it to a scavenging model (e.g. Soffer, 1985). Globally, zoologists considered that is not possible to hunt and kill a complete mammoth herd with the supposed hunting techniques of hunter-gatherers. Then, during the 1990e2000 period, the paradigm considered that the mammoths were not hunted. However, this was not the opinion of the American archaeologists specialized in the Clovis culture who had found piles of mammoth bones with Clovis points and bone tools for butchering, indicating the hunting of a mammoth with Clovis points, which died after having lost all its blood (Frison and Todd, 1986). A conference at Lawrence University (Kansas) has shown the different arguments (West, 2001a). Concerning the site of Gontsy, after having eliminated the models in contradiction with the geological, geomorphological, archeological and zoological data, it was possible to reduce the field of possible deductions. The mammoth bones found inside the settlement come from three different sources: - Hunted individuals. The mammoths have been butchered at the place they are dead in the landscape. Meat and associated bones have been carried back to the settlement. - Collected bones. Large bones have been found in the vicinity of the settlement and carried back in the settlement to be used as building material for the dwellings. They show characteristic marks of weathering and/or carnivore gnawing. - Mammoth bone bed associated with the settlement. The location of the settlement is the consequence of the existence of a bone bed in a nearby paleoravine, at the end of winter. Two hypotheses are always considered (Iakovleva et al., 2012): - The herd has been totally killed in situ by a human group. - The herd died naturally during the winter as the result of a snow storm and famine, and was immediately covered by the snow and frozen. The herd was discovered by humans at the end of the winter, at the time of snow melt. For exploitation of the natural store of frozen meat and raw material, the group decided to install its settlement nearby. As a consequence of the progressive exhaustion of the bone bed store, the settlement is occupied for only one year until the end of the next winter, when the same process starts again. The question of frozen mammoth food needs further development. It implies firstly that the mammoth herd had been frozen rapidly and covered by the snow and secondly that the mammoth herd had been discovered very rapidly when the snow melted at the end of the winter. The experience of frozen mammoths discovered in Siberia, with meat eaten by dogs, shows that the case is possible, even if it cannot be considered as a systematic occurrence.
3. Methods to distinguish a mammoth bone bed from a mammoth bone dwelling 3.1. Introduction There are numerous cases where it is difficult to distinguish between a mammoth bone bed and a mammoth bone dwelling: - Ancient excavations having delivered ambiguous data (for example, Suponevo); - Post-depositional processes in periglacial areas having deeply disturbed the archaeological layers. An example is Timonovka (Velichko et al., 1977) and Elisseevichi (Velichko et al., 1997) in the Russian upper part of the Desna river;
- Architecture of dwellings using few large mammoth bones with an ambiguous signature (for example, the tipis of Early Gravettian (Djindjian, 2012a)); and - Successive excavations by different archaeologists over a long time not allowing a good overview of the whole settlement (for example, Mezin). Thus, it is necessary to have methods to help the archaeologist to distinguish better between the two structures. The methods described here are based on the argument that most of the large mammoth bones have been collected from the bone bed to build the dwellings. There is an overrepresentation of large bones in the dwellings and an underrepresentation of the same bones in the bone bed. 3.2. Diagrams of MNE ratios (Minimum Number of Elements) A first method is to draw a diagram visualizing the following ratios: - Ratio of non-collected bones (on the vertical axis) : (rib þ vertebra þ sternum þ metapodials þ tarsals þ carpals þ phalanxes þ sesamoids þ patella þ hyoid þ long bone epiphysis/total bones) - Ratio of collected bones (on the horizontal axis) : (scapula þ pelvis þ skull þ tusk þ jaw þ long bones/total bones) The ratios are estimators of the human exploitation of the carcasses of the mammoth bone beds. The line on Fig. 1 indicates the ratio of a complete skeleton. The points are located on a line of value 1 as the sum of the two ratios. The points located to the left of the line indicate the overrepresentation of the first ratio while the points located to the right of the line indicate the overrepresentation of the second ratio. Fig. 1 shows the different dwellings and different areas of the bone bed from the Mezinian site of Gontsy (Ukraine) where the distinction is trivial. Fig. 2 shows the case of Milovice (Pavlovian of Moravia). The distinction is less evident. Milovice K and R are a bone bed, while Milovice G shows a pattern of a dwelling. The area Milovice A þ B is a large area with very probably a mix of a bone bed and a dwelling, giving it an intermediate position on the curve. Two other processes may affect the data. The first one is a differential conservation of bones. The second one is the type of architecture of the Pavlovian dwellings with large bones closing the base of the tent of the tipi, which less over-represents the large bones than a Mezinian dwelling, which has a high number of skulls (Svoboda re, 2009; Oliva, 2009). et al., 2005; Bruge Fig. 3 shows the case of Radomyshl, an undated site of the upper Palaeolithic of Ukraine (perhaps to be compared to Langmannersdorf in Austria) where spatial structures of mammoth bones have been recorded, in layers unfortunately located near the surface implying poor and differential conservation of bones. In that case, either the structures are corresponding to dwellings or the differentiate conservation, recording and archiving of bones have underrepresented the small and fragile bones, particularly for structures n 1 and 2 an, 2005). (Chovkoplass, 1964; Kononenko and Pe Fig. 4 shows the case of Krakow-Spadzista B þ B1, confirming the layer is a bone bed (Kalicki et al.., 2007; Kozlowski, 2007; Wojtal, 2007). This bed differs from the bone bed of Gontsy in having a higher presence of large bones, which have not been totally collected. The bone bed of Sevsk has an apparently different position. The reason is an unexpected underrepresentation in the table of MNE counting (Maschenko et al., 2006) of ribs and bone legs, according to the 33 individuals. The case of the Berelekh bone
F. Djindjian / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 47e57
51
Fig. 1. The Mezinian site of Gontsy (Ukraine) : bone bed areas and dwellings.
bed is very similar, but the explanation could be due to the pumping excavation methods, recording, or differential preservation of bones. Those different examples reveal that other processes are occurring which may disturb the interpretation of the diagrams. - the more or less exhaustive recording of small bones and the differential conservation of bones which sometimes seem to be underrepresented in the bone assemblages, particularly hyoids, carpal, tarsal, phalanges, sesamoids, ribs, small vertebras and fetus bones. The assemblage in that case shows an anomalous position nearer to the dwellings. It is then necessary to compute a ratio of differential conservation in order to compare only bone assemblages with similar ratios. In that case, sites which have poor conservation of bones (like Radomyshl, with a layer very near to the surface) or old excavations with bones not totally recorded and insufficiently well archived may present an anomaly. - The various architectures of the dwellings which require collection of more or less large bones, for examples skulls which are systematically collected for Mezinian dwellings but not for Gravettian dwellings. In such cases, the collected bones are less numerous and the bone bed assemblage may show a profile less characteristic of an exploited bone bed. The use of these diagrams indicates several other difficulties of counting: - The over-representation of the MNE of the bones (rib, vertebra, metapodials, tarsal, carpal, phalanxes, sesamoid, patella, hyoid) which account for about 90% of all bones. - The method to count fragmented bones to estimate the MNE: B Rib fragments and rib head epiphysis,
B Vertebra fragments (spinal process, neural arch, epiphysis), B Skull fragments (large part of skull, identified parts of skull, small fragments), B Molar fragments (molar blades, teeth fragments), B Long bone epiphysis. - The elimination of mammoth tools (pick on tusks, chopper on pelvis, cutter on rib, etc.)
3.3. Diagrams of weighted MNE (Minimal Number of Elements) To improve the usefulness of the diagrams, a second method is proposed, by computing in place of the MNE, the weighted anatomic parts using the number of anatomic parts in the skeleton, as estimated in the following list:
Each long bone
2 (Total 12)
Pelvis Scapulae Skull Jaw Tusk Rib Metapodial Carpal bones Tarsal bones Phalanxes Cervical vertebra Thoracic vertebra Lumbar vertebra
2 2 1 1 2 40 20 16 14 56 7 20 3
52
F. Djindjian / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 47e57
Fig. 2. The Pavlovian site of Milovice (Moravia) and the determination of the areas K, R, A þ B and G.
The line indicating the complete skeleton divides the diagram in two equal parts, and the points are better distributed. Fig. 5 shows the diagram for the site of Gontsy, confirming the suitability of this type of diagram. Fig. 6 shows the complex site of Milovice and confirms the existence of both bone beds and dwellings (see Fig. 7). The same phenomena occur with the Pavlovian site of DolniVestonice (Kliıma, 2001; Svoboda et al.., 2005). The large bone bed excavated by Klima is based on his list of 1969 and shows an evident underrepresentation of small bones. The bone bed excavated by Svoboda in Dolni-Vestonice II, western slope, shows the same pattern. However, the concentration 5e8 in Dolni-Vestonice studied by Kliıma (2001) reveals a dwelling structure and not a garbage area as supposed initially. Fig. 8 shows the weighted diagram of Krakow-Spadzista and Sevsk and confirms the diagnosis of a bone bed.
Overrepresentation Jaw Pelvis Scapula Femur Ulna Humerus Fibula Tibia
Underrepresentation 100% 100 77.6 69 67.2 63.8 57 51.7
Hyoid Phalanxes Sesamoid Patella Metacarpal Metatarsal Carpal Rib
9.2 11.4 12.2 27.6 26.8 30 30 31.9
Such data may be processed by a multidimensional analysis (correspondence analysis) on the table (bone bed assemblages percentages of MNI for each anatomic part). The analysis will cluster the different types of bone spatial structures: bone beds at different scale of human exploitation, bone dwellings of different architecture, or other spatial structures (pits, walls, etc.). Unfortunately, the available data published in the literature are not sufficiently homogeneous to allow such a statistical analysis.
3.4. Multidimensional analysis on MNI diagrams (Minimum Number of Individuals)
3.5. Multidimensional analysis on a refitted bone table
A third method is to compute the MNI for each anatomic part and to list the % PO (percentage of observed anatomic parts: MNI of each anatomic part/MNI global). The higher values indicate the anatomic parts which have not been collected and the lower values the anatomic parts which have been preferably collected. An example is given by the following data (% PO) of the area re, 2009, p.105, tabl.44) with the A þ B of Milovice (from Bruge list of underrepresented and overrepresented anatomic parts of the skeleton:
Whatever the computations of ratios, they may only help to discover the process of selection made by the human group on a mammoth bone bed. A more efficient way is to make a more precise determination by age and sex of mammoth individuals, to fit the bones of a same skeleton, to draw the spatial connections of the different bones of a same skeleton, and then to identify the carcasses of the herd. It is then possible to identify and count, carcass by carcass, the selection operating on the bones of a particular carcass. Counting at an individual scale is more relevant than global counting over all the bones.
F. Djindjian / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 47e57
53
Fig. 3. The site of Radomyshl (Ukraine) : dwellings or differential conservation of bones?.
In that way, a good powerful method which may be applied is a multidimensional intra-site spatial analysis on a matrix counting the links between the anatomic parts of the same individual by square meter, called “Analyse spatiale des remontages” (Djindjian, 1999). The method has been applied successfully to refitting data of flint artefacts in the Magdalenian dwelling of Pincevent, and has identified the working areas around the hearths, the garbage management, and the garbage areas. 4. Discussion 4.1. Ignored mammoth bone beds? In the literature, mammoth bone beds which were found located in the bottom of a paleoravine have been often interpreted as not in situ settlements. The archaeologists have generally considered that the bone beds, without any evident spatial structure (concentrations), are not in situ layers, because the archaeological layer would have slipped by solifluction inside the ravine. In Ukraine, the sites of Pushkari II (at the top of a ravine near Pushkari I and Bougorok), Kurovo, Novo-Bobovichi are bone beds (see Soffer, 1985; for English text translated from Russian archives). They have been excavated in one short campaign due to the poorness of archaeological features and tools. Unfortunately, it is not easy, often many years after the excavations, to revise the interpretations, due to the low level of information about such sites. There are also sites where the dwellings and the mammoth bone beds have not been distinguished during excavations for various reasons. This is the case (Soffer, 1985) for Kiev-Kirilovskaia excavated by Kvoikha between 1893 and 1902 and in Suponevo, excavated by Efimienko and Zhukov between 1925 and 1927 by trenches without the technique of open air excavations, successfully applied later in Kostienki 1 following the works of
Scherbakivski in Gontsy and Zamiatnine in Gagarino. This is also the case for Timonovka and Elisseevichi located at the highest altitude on the Desna river, an attribute of the Dnepr River, with significant perturbations due to periglacial effects (Velichko et al., 1977, 1997). In contrast, settlements are known apparently without mammoth bone beds. In the Mezinian settlements (Pidoplichko, 1969) of Mejiriche (Mezhirich), Mezine (Chovkopliass, 1965), Dobranichivka, and Ioudinovo, several mammoth bone huts have been excavated. No mammoth bone beds have been described. The first reason is the priority given by the archaeologists (Pidoplichko, Chovkoplass, Abramova) after 1945 to the excavations of the dwellings, more spectacular than the bone beds. In Mejiriche (Mezhirich), the systematic sampling made by Pidoplichko to find the dwellings allowed him to discover the bone bed, but his death did not allow excavation of the fourth dwelling and the bone bed (Pidoplichko, 1976). Dobranichivka was a rescue excavation (Chovkoplass, 1955). For the Ioudinovo site, very near the Desna River, the bone bed is probably under water (Abramova et al.., 1995, 1997a, 1997b). For the Gravettian sites of Kostienki 1 (Efimienko, 1958) and Avdeevo (Gvosdover, 1995), with the well-known long dwellings, we have no information about the presence of a bone bed near the dwellings. For the site of Pouchkari which has delivered spatial structures (Boriskovski, 1953), the site of Pushkari II, which may be interpreted as a bone bed, is very near. For the Pavlovian site of Pavlov and its dwelling structures (Svoboda, 1994), no bone bed has been found. There are bone beds in the Pavlovian hills, in Dolni-Vestonice, Dolni-Vestonice II, and Milovice (Svoboda, 2001; Oliva, 2009). The geomorphology of the sites indicates the existence of ravines on the slope of the valley or on the slope of a hill, where bone beds are generally found. It is in those places that it is necessary to survey in order to find the bone beds.
54
F. Djindjian / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 47e57
Fig. 4. The bone bed of the Eastern Gravettian site of Krakow-Spadzista B þ B1 in Poland and the bone bed of Sevsk in Russia.
4.2. The role of the dwelling architecture The need for many large mammoth bones depends on the architecture of the dwellings. In the Early Gravettian, the dwellings are tipis with large bones for ballasting the skins (Djindjian, 2012a, 2012b). There was no need to use skulls or tusks. The favorite bones are scapula, pelvis, and long bones, and even stones were used in Pavlovian. In that sense, the number of bones collected for a dwelling is limited and the signal is weaker in the ratio computations. In the Eastern Gravettian, the dwelling is organized around a dozen of lined hearths rounded by pits, with large pits for living, smaller pits for storing and for garbage. The hypothesis of pits for living has been discussed. The need to dig pits in the permafrost, even using ice wedges to facilitate the operation, is not so clear. Another hypothesis is to get sediment in the pits to build loess walls for the protection against the wind and perhaps for a cover. In that case, the living area would be inside the oval of pits, near the hearths. The large bones then would be used to reinforce and arm the walls and to cover the storing pits. The number of large bones, although higher than in the previous case, is not large. In the Mezinian, the dwelling is organized on an oval foundation of skulls and high walls made of skulls, scapula, pelvis, jaws, and long bones. Many tusks are used in a way which has not been totally understood. Use for the roof of the dwelling is always discussed. The numerous skulls (more than thirty), tusks, scapulae, and pelvis confirm the important process of selecting and collecting bones for the building. It would be interesting in the future to model the types and number of bones of the different dwellings in order to test the importance of the selection. 4.2.1. Origins and conservation of mammoth bone beds Numerous hypotheses have been proposed concerning the origin of mammoth bone beds. The first point was to determine if
the mammoth bone bed was always in situ or removed by various geological effects. - The presence of the mammoth bone bed in a ravine has been interpreted as the result of the solifluction of an archaeological layer. - Paleontologists consider often a bone bed as the result of a river deposit. A river in a periglacial environment erodes the banks, transports the bones, and deposits them in a low energy site where the clustering occurs. Here the sediment is alluvium. The hypothesis implies the mix with bones of other species; the carcasses have been dismantled, and there are no anatomic connections. The process of accumulation may have requires a long time and then the layer is thick with superposition of bones and river alluvium. There is an underrepresentation of fragile bones. - The bone bed is found located near an old pond, where the mammoths came often to drink water and eat sediment rich in mineral salts. They die more frequently at that place. Such a case should imply an overrepresentation of old and young individuals, with males. This seems to be the case for the Lugovskoe site in western Siberia (Maschenko et al., 2003) but the presence of humans, not only scavenging but also hunting, is confirmed by 200 flint tools and a point found perforating a mammoth vertebra. The supposed ancient pond was located in a ravine. - The herd died in situ in a dry ravine (winter famine or snow storm) and the bone bed has been covered by colluvium, at the time of snowmelt. In such a case, the death of the herd is a unique event, rapidly covered by the seasonal colluvium, and the carcasses may be identified with bones in quasi-anatomical position. - Old individuals died alone on the landscape. Very rapidly, the carcass is dismantled and the fragile bones are destroyed. The low rate of sedimentation allows weathering of the bones lying on the soil and the presence of carnivore gnawing.
F. Djindjian / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 47e57
55
Fig. 5. Weighted MNE Diagram for the Mezinian site of Gontsy.
Fig. 6. Weighted MNE Diagram for the Pavlovian site of Milovice.
The second point is the determination of a natural (famine, storm, illness) or human (hunting) process for the origin of the mammoth accumulation. Many archaeologists, considering accumulations the result of specialized hunting, have proposed
three techniques supposed to be able to kill a whole herd in situ: - The mammoths were trapped in hidden large holes,
56
F. Djindjian / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 47e57
Fig. 7. Weighted MNE Diagram for the Pavlovian site of Dolni Vestonice.
Fig. 8. Weighted MNE Diagram for the bone bed of the Eastern Gravettian site of Krakow-Spadzista B þ B1 in Poland and the bone bed of Sevsk in Russia.
- The mammoths were blocked in the upper part of the ravine and killed, - The mammoths were suffocated by a steppe fire.
At the beginning, archaeologists considered bone beds as archeological layers (bones and artefacts) resulting from intensive hunting (for example, Wankel in Predmost). Others thought the
F. Djindjian / Quaternary International 359-360 (2015) 47e57
bone bed was the garbage area (Absolon in Dolni-Vestonice) of a large kill and butchering site. More recently, the bone bed of Krakow-Spadzista B þ B1 is considered as the result of a kill and re (2009) butchering site of mammoths (Kalicki et al.., 2007). Bruge has proposed the same conclusion for Milovice. In Gontsy, the two hypotheses of a kill and butchering site (for which no evidence has been found for the hunting technique) and a natural collapse (famine and snow storm during the winter) are under discussion. In both sites, the use wear analysis has been realized on the artefacts found in the bone bed, G. Sapozhnikova in Gontsy (Iakovleva et al., 2005a) and by Stefanski (2007) in KrakowSpadzista. The two results are similar, focusing on the role of knives on tools and blanks for butchering. This it is a major argument for confirming the carcasses are not only bones but also meat, either fresh meat if hunting or frozen meat of natural origin. Nevertheless, zooarchaeologists have refuted the idea of hunting mammoth herds, insisting with good arguments of the difficulties for a human group to hunt and kill a complete herd of mammoths (Haynes, 1991). The idea of a natural origin has developed. However, the suggestion of scavenging was popular only during the 1990s and is now more and more rejected because the scavenged food is considered as unsuitable for human consumption. However, the hypothesis of eating naturally dead frozen mammoth is not scavenging stricto sensu, when the process of freezing/defrosting has been normally controlled. 5. Conclusions Four methods are proposed to study the mammoth bone beds: MNE diagrams, weighted MNE diagrams, multidimensional data analysis on % MNI anatomic parts, and spatial multidimensional analysis on refitted anatomic parts of carcasses. It is possible to separate bone beds from dwellings, and it is also possible to identify more complex structures than more or less exploited bone beds and various bone dwellings. To progress in that way, it is necessary to develop a standard grid of description for mammoth bone studies. Today it is rather difficult to record in the scientific literature the reliable data necessary for sophisticated statistical analysis. This has to be the main goal of zooarchaeological studies in the following years. References Abramova, Z.A., 1995. The Upper Palaeolithic Site of Ioudinovo, vol. 1. SaintPetersburg (in Russian). Abramova, Z.A., Grigorieva, G.V., Christensen, M., 1997. The Upper Palaeolithic Site of Ioudinovo, vol. 2. Saint-Petersburg (in Russian). Abramova, Z.A., Grigorieva, G.V., 1997. The Upper Palaeolithic Site of Ioudinovo, vol. 3. Saint-Petersburg (in Russian). re, A., 2009. L'exploitation du mammouth a Milovice et dans le Gravettien de Bruge publique tche que). The se. Universite Paris 1 Panthe on-Sorbonne. Moravie (Re Boriskovski, P.I., 1953. Palaeolithic of Ukraine. Nauka, Leningrad (in Russian). Chovkoplass, I.G., 1955. Dobranicevskaja Paleoliticeskaja Stojanka. Kratkielitic Soloscenija, vol. 53. Instituta Istorii Materialnoij Kultury, pp. 32e45 (in Russian). Chovkoplass, I.G., 1964. RadomyshleRemnant of the Early Phase of the Upper Paleolithic. Stratigrafia i periodzatsia Paleolitavostochnoy i Tsentralnoy Evropy, Moscow (in Russian). Chovkopliass, I.G., 1965. The Mezin Site. Kiev. (in Russian). Djindjian, F., 2012a. Les structures d'habitat du Gravettien en Europe. In: Otte, M. (Ed.), Les Gravettiens. Errance, Paris, pp. 149e175. olithique supe rieur en Europe. Djindjian, F., 2012b. Les structures d'habitat du Pale ologie, Paris, 1e3 Octobre In: Actes du 3 Colloque franco-ukrainien d'Arche ologie de l’Acade mie nationale des Sci2009. Publications de l’Institut d'Arche ences d’Ukraine/Korvin e presse, Kiev, pp. 42e74. tat de l'art. Archeologia e Djindjian, F., 1999. L'analyse spatiale de l'habitat: un e calcolatori 10, 17e32. Efimienko, P.P., 1958. Kostienki 1. Moscow (In Russian). Frison, G.C., Todd, L.C., 1986. The Colby Mammoth Site; Taphonomy and Archaeology of a Clovis Kill in Northern Wyoming. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
57
Gvosdover, M.D., 1995. Art of the Mammoth Hunters. The Finds from Avdeevo. Oxbow Monograph 49, Oxford. Haynes, G., 1991. Mammoths, Mastodonts and Elephants. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Iakovleva, L., Djindjian, F., 2001. The new excavations of the Gontsy Site (Ukraine), in the context of the Epigravettian Camp-Sites of the Dnepr Basin. In: West, D. (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Mammoth Site Studies, 22. University of Kansas publications in Anthropology, Lawrence, pp. 85e94. olithique de Gontsy (Ukraine) et les Iakovleva, L., Djindjian, F., 2005a. Le site pale olithique supe rieur re cent d’Europe Cabanes en os de Mammouths du pale ration et Orientale. Les Campagnes de Fouilles 1993-2005. Service de coope d'action Culturelle de l’ambassade de France en Ukraine, Kiev. Iakovleva, L., Djindjian, F., 2005b. New data on mammoth bone dwellings of eastern Europe in the light of new excavations of the Ginsy site (Ukraine). Quaternary International 126e128, 195e207. Iakovleva, L., Djindjian, F., Maschenko, E., Konik, S., 2010. The mammoth bone bed of the mammoth bone hut Late Upper Palaeolithic camp-site of Gontsy (Ukraine): recent results of the 2004-2006 excavations. In: Lazarev, P., Boeskorov, G., Maschenko, E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the IV International Mammoth Conference, Irkutsk, pp.150e158. Iakovleva, L., Djindjian, F., Maschenko, E.N., Konik, S., Moigne, A.M., 2012. The late upper Palaeolithic site of Gontsy (Ukraine): a reference for the reconstitution of the hunter-gatherer system based on a mammoth economy. Quaternary International 255, 86e93. Kalicki, T., Kozłowski, J.K., Krzeminska, A., Sobczyk, K., Wojtal, P., 2007. The forw-Spadmation of mammoth bone accumulation at the Geavettian site Krako zista BþB1. Folia Quaternaria 77, 5e30. Kliıma, B., 2001. Die kjokkenmoddinge Nr. 5e8 von Dolni Vestonice. In: Ginter, B., Drobniewicz, B., Kazior, B., Nowak, M., Poltowicz, M. (Eds.), Problems of the Stone Age in the Old World. Jagellonian University, Krakow, pp. 173e193. an, S., 2005. Kiev: Schlakh. The Archaeological Characteristics of Kononenko, O., Pe the Faunal Complex from the Upper Palaeolithic Site of Radomysh'l. Kam'ina Doba Ukraini, vol. 7, pp. 78e86 (in Ukrainian). Kozlowski, J.K., 1974. Upper Paleolithic site with dwelling of mammoth bones. Krakow, Spadzista Street B. Folia Quaternaria 44, 1e110. Kozlowski, J.K., 2007. Mammoth interactions: bone beds and late Gravettian occupations at Krakow-Spadzista. Folia Quaternaria 77, 1e116. Maschenko, E.N., Pavlov, A.F., Zenin, V.N., Leshchinskiy, S.V., Orlova, L.A., 2003. The Lugovskoe site: relations between the mammoth assemblage and Late Palaeolithic humans. In: 3rd International Mammoth Conference. Program and Abstracts. Occasional Papers in Earth Sciences, vol. 5. Dawson City Museum, Whitehorse, pp. 77e80. Maschenko, E.S., Gablina, S.S., Tesakov, A.S., Simakova, A.N., 2006. The Sevsk woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) site in Russia: taphonomic, biological and behavioral interpretations. Quaternary International 142e143, 147e165. Mochanov, Y.A., Fedoseeva, S.A., 1996. Berelekh, Allakhovsk region. In: West, F.H. (Ed.), American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Palaeoecology of Beringia. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Oliva, M., 2009. Milovice; Site of the Mammoth People Below the Pavlov hills. Anthropos, Studies in Anthropology, Palaeoethnology, Palaeontology and Quaternary Geology, vol. 27. Moravske Zemske Muzeum, Brno. Pidoplichko, I.G., 1969. Habitats of the Upper Palaeolithic Mammoth Bone Sites in Ukraine. Kiev (in Russian). Pidoplichko, I.G., 1976. Habitats of the Upper Palaeolithic Mammoth Bone Site of Mejiriche. Kiev (in Russian). Soffer, O., 1985. The Upper Paleolithic of the Central Russian Plain. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. Stefanski, D., 2007. Functional analysis of burins. Folia Quaternaria 77, 97e116. ge. Svoboda, J., 1991. Dolni Vestonice II. Western Slope, vol. 54. ERAUL, Lie ge. Svoboda, J., 1994. Pavlov I. Excavations 1952e53, vol. 66. ERAUL, Lie Svoboda, J., 2001. Gravettian mammoth bone deposits in Moravia. In: Cavarretta, G., Gioa, P., Mussi, M., Palombo, M.R. (Eds.), The World of Elephants. Consoglio Nazionale Richerche, Rome. Svoboda, J., Pean, S., Wojtal, P., 2005. Mammoth bone deposits and subsistence practices during Mid-Upper Palaeolithic in Central Europe: three cases from Moravia and Poland. Quaternary International 126e128, 209e221. Velichko, A.A., Grekhova, L.V., Gubonina, Z.P., 1977. The Environment of Prehistoric Human Site Timonovka. Moscow (in Russian). Velichko, A.A., Grekhova, L.V., Gribchenko, Y.N., Kurenkova, E.I., 1997. Early Man in the Extreme Environmental Conditions. Eliseevichi site. IG RAN-SHM, p. 192 (in Russian). Vereshchagin, N.K., 1977. Berelekhskoe ‘‘Kladbishche’’ Mamontov (The Berelekh Mammoth ‘‘Cemetery’’), vol. 72. Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta, pp. 5e50 (in Russian). Vereshagin, N.K., 1979. Pochemu Vymerli Mamonty. Nauka, Leningrad. West, D., 2001a. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Mammoth Site Studies, 22. University of Kansas publications in Anthropology. West, D., 2001b. Mammoth hunting or scavenging during the upper Paleolithic. In: West, D. (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Mammoth Site Studies, 22. University of Kansas publications in Anthropology, pp. 57e67. Wojtal, P., 2007. Zooarchaeological Studies of the Late Pleistocene Sites in Poland. Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Animals. Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow.