prolom ii, a middle palaeolithic cave site in the eastern crimea with non-utilitarian bone...

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 59, 1993, pp. 17-37

Prolom II, a Middle Palaeolithic Cave Site in the Eastern Crimea with Non-Utilitarian Bone Artefacts

B y V A D I M N . STEPANCHUK 1

The cave site Prolom II situated in the eastern part of the Crimean peninsula has produced evidence of repeated inhabitation during the Middle Palaeolithic. The stone artefacts permit a sure cultural identification and comparison with analogous material belonging to the Ak-Kaya culture. In a broader sense the Ak-Kaya culture of the Crimea may be regarded as one of the variants of the East European Micoquian. Unfortunately we do not at present have the natural science data which would allow us to define exactly the chronological position of Prolom II. The comparative typological and technical data allow us to connect the Middle Palaeolithic layers of the cave with the pre-Brorup period of the Early Wiirm. This is partly supported by the faunal data. The discovery of a curved arc-like deposit consisting of bones of mammoth, horse, bison and other animals in the second layer of the site, as well as a considerable collection of bone artefacts, both add to the unique character of the site. Some of the bone artefacts cannot reasonably be explained as utilitarian and may constitute evidence of a spiritual culture of Neanderthal Man. In this connection it is possible to enumerate two fragments of diaphyses with parallel and fan-shaped engraved lines, one distal fragment of Saiga tatarica first phalange with fan-shaped engraved lines, and one horse canine with deep subparallel engravings.

The multilayered Middle Palaeolithic site in the cave Prolom II is located in the valley of the River Kuchuk-Karasu in the eastern foothills of the Crimean moun-tains in the central part of the peninsula (fig. 1,1). The site was discovered by Yu. G. Kolosov and was investi-gated by him in 1977, 1981, 1982, and 1985 with the financial support of the Kiev Institute of Archaeology of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Kolosov 1986; Kolosov & Stepanchuk 1989).

The cave is in a limestone cuesta on the left bank of the river, which in the area of the site forms a gorge-like section of the valley (fig. z). The flood-plain and the right slope of the river valley are covered with dense forest consisting of Quercus pubescens Willd., Acer campestre, Fraxinus excelsior, Cornus mas L., Corylus avellana, Clematis recta., Cotinus coggygria, Crataegus oxyacantha L., Ligustrum vulgare L., Cynosurus echinatus, Carpinus betulus L. and Ampelopsis

1 N P K 'Archeolog', Institute of Archaeology, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Vydubetskaya 40, 2520x4 Kiev, Ukraine

quinquefolia Reich. The steep left slope is covered with turf and deprived of trees right up to the rock cliffs. The slope in front of the site is at an angle of zo° (fig. 1,2). The height of the site above river level is 2z m. The site is at the place of a collapsed cave of which only the side walls have survived, forming a semicircular small and flat main inhabited area. It reaches 50 nr* and was roofed over in the past. The cave has an eastern orienta-tion. According to the geologist V. P. Dushevskij, there are four clearly defined terraces in the river valley. The site Prolom II is connected to a fragment of the second terrace on the left bank of the river 50 m further down the stream.

STRATIGRAPHY

During excavations the following stratigraphical sequence was observed (mainly according to Kolosov 1986) (fig. 3):

Horizon 1. Turf and soil including limestone gravel; in the upper part humified, in the lower more light-coloured, rather crumbly. Thickness up to 20 cm.

1 7

THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY

Fig. I Prolom II. i, Site location; z, cross-section of the left bank of the valley of the River Kuchuk-Karasu through the site; 3, plan of cave at the level of the main collapse: i, back wall of cave; z, drip line; 3, assumed border of overhang before collapse; 4, limestone blocks

Horizon 2. Loamy soil, light-brown with red hue; larger quantities of limestone gravel, especially in the lower part of the stratum. Thickness 30 cm.

Horizon 3. Fragments of destroyed cave roof; sepat-ate blocks up to 1.5 m in diameter. The matrix consists of small and medium fragments of limestone and lime-stone gravel mixed with light-brown loamy soil. Thick-ness 60 cm, mean value 40—45 cm.

Horizon 4. Light-brown loamy soil with a consider-able quantity of limestone gravel including small, medium and large fragments. Thickness up to 3 5 cm.

Horizon j. Light-brown loamy soil, sometimes with perceptible greenish hue; some slightly rolled limestone gravel. Average thickness 40 cm.

Horizon 6. Lens of loamy soil with a large quantity of limestone gravel; small and medium fragments of lime-stone were included. Thickness up to 2,0 cm.

Horizon 7. Light-grey loamy soil with a small quan-tity of limestone gravel. Thickness up to 18 cm.

Horizon 8. Bedrock of uneven appearance, divided into separate slabs.

1 8

z. V. N. Stepanchuk. A MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC SITE IN THE CRIMEA

Fig-3 Prolom II. Partial longitudinal cross-section of the cave deposits: I-IV, cultural layers; 1 - 8 , lithological horizons

The finds of cultural layers I, II, III and IV of the Middle Palaeolithic are connected respectively with horizons 2,4,5 and 7, which produced abundant faunal materials, significant series of stone artefacts, and other evidence of the activities of Neanderthal Man. A few finds of Meso-Neolithic chipped flints were connected with the first stratigraphic horizon. The presence of several cultural layers separated fne from another sometimes by lenses almost without finds indicates that the cave was inhabited at least four times during the Middle Palaeolithic period. The settlements of Nean-derthal Man were of unequal time span. Cultural layer II beneath the roof collapse is the thickest and richest in various kinds of archaeological remains. Some time later the cave suffered considerable changes. As a result

of the roof collapse almost four-fifths of it was destroyed and the cave became unsuitable for habita-tion. That is why the first (upper) cultural layer pro-duced so little material.

NOTABLE FEATURES

Deposits were exposed over an area of c. 45 m% so the uninvestigated area amounts to c. 5—10 m1 of the main inhabited area. The cultural remains in all layers present a picture which is usual for the majority of Crimean cave sites, i.e. one characterised by an intensive concen-tration of anthropogenic remains. The details of habita-tion structures can hardly be distinguished and microstratigraphic details which might be indicative of

1 9


separate occupation periods are difficult to make out. To the number of undoubted features can be attributed a hearth with elements of stone facing in the upper horizon of the second layer. The facing consists of medium-sized fragments of limestone (fig. 4). The lower horizon of the same layer produced similar but less certain remains. Analogous to these findings are several hearths surrounded with rock fragments discovered by A. A. Formozov in Kabazi I (Formozov 1959). Also in the second layer, in the back part of the cave imme-diately by the stone wall and partly beneath a shallow niche, is a 'bone concentration' consisting mainly of large bones (tibiae) and also jaws, teeth, mammoth tusk

fragments, bison, cave bear, giant deer and other animals. This 'bone concentration' has the shape of an arc in accordance with the line of the back wall of the cave (figs 4 and 5). Its length is about 8 m, its width about 1 m. Several horizons were traced. At this level in adjoining areas were found numerous separate teeth of different mammals. There is a marked difference in the degree of preservation of the bone material from the 'bone concentration' and from the normal cultural deposits. As a rule, the fauna in the latter was highly utilised and bones were splintered into small pieces. Certain differences in the composition of species were noted by the zoologist G. F. Baryshnikov (1987) too. In

Fig-4 Prolom II. Plan of the main finds of the second layer: 1, rock walls; 2, back wall of cave in hollow niche; 3, assumed drip line at the time of occupation; 4, main border of the back wall; 5, limestone pieces of hearth facing; 6, contour

of the hearth; 7, large fragments of bone; 8, lumps of ochre; 9, flint and chert tools

2 0

2. V. N. Stepanchuk. A MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC SITE IN THE CRIMEA

Fig-5 Prolom II. 'Bone concentration' in the second

cultural layer

particular the 'bone concentration' produced much lower quantities of Saiga tatarica, which were abundant in the other parts of the occupied area. The purpose of the 'bone concentration' has not been unequivocally determined, but most probable is a ritual character. In any case a simple utilitarian explanation cannot be found.

ANTHROPOLOGICAL FINDS

In the northern part of the cave a phalange of the hand of Neanderthal Man in the normal deposits of the first layer was discovered (preliminary definition by the anthropologist and zoologist E. I. Danilova).

FAUNA

Faunal determinations for Prolom II according to appropriate layers have been carried out by E.I.

Danilova (materials from excavations of 1981) and G. F. Baryshnikov (materials of 1982 and 1985), part in the field and part in the laboratory. The lists for each of the four Middle Palaeolithic layers are presented in table 1. Data on the 'bone concentration' are presented separately in the table. According to G. F. Baryshnikov (1986; 1987) more than 30 species of mammals were determined for the cultural layers. Among the big game species Saiga tatarica is predominant (53%), as well as horse (11%), bison (3%), cave hyena (6%) and cave bear (2.4%). The most typical species are: Marmota bobac, Allactaga jaculus, Ellobius cf. talpinus, Lagurus lagurus, Eolagurus luteus, Cricetus cricetus, Microtus cf. gregalis, Microtus cf. agrestis, Microtus arvalis, Vulpes corsac, Putorius eversmanni, Crocuta spelaea, Panthera spelaea, Mammutus primigenius, Coelodonta antiquitatis, Equus cf. latipes, Equus cf. hidruntinus, Rangifer tarandus, Cervus elaphus, Megaloceros giganteus, Bison priscus and Saiga tatarica. The compo-sition of the fauna suggests the predominance of open steppe-like landscapes with patches of woodland in the river valleys (Baryshnikov 1987).

STONE INDUSTRY

Throughout the time of the occupation of the site its inhabitants used raw materials of two main types for the purposes of tool manufacture. The first type is the so called 'local raw material', i.e. brown chert which occurs in large quantities within the Palaeocene lime-stones in the vicinity of the site. The second type, 'imported raw material', consists of higher quality grey flint of Turonian deposits. This raw material, as far as we know, comes from sources at a distance of 10 to 15 km from the site. Certain difficulties in the obtaining of the high-quality raw material are reflected among other things in the extremely worked-out appearance of the cores made from it, the relatively smaller sizes of the tools, and the high level of reutilisation of these tools. The metrical disbalance of the artefacts made from the two main types of raw material is very clear (fig. 6). This shows quite well that at least one of the causes for the appearance of Middle Palaeolithic micro-industries is the lack of high-quality raw materials. It must be emphasised that raw material variability at the site is not confined to chert and Turonian flint. Other kinds of rocks differing in colour and provenance were used. For example, we might mention the discovery of a tool prepared from greenish jasper in the first layer

2 1


TABLE I: PROLOM II. THE FAUNA OF THE MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC LAYERS ACCORDING Tp E. I. DANILOVA (EXCAVATIONS OF 1 9 8 1 ) AND G. F. BARYSHNIKOV (EXCAVATIONS OF 1 9 8 2 , 1 9 8 5 AND BONE CONCENTRATION) 1

Layer IV Layer III Layer II Layer I

1982 1982 1982 'Bone 1982 1981 1985 1981 198s 1981 1985 concen-

tration' 1981 198s

Mammutus primigenius 7/1 _ 15/1 _ 11/1 28/11 14I6 _ 51/19 Bison priscus - 1/1 1/1 7/2 2/1 72/7 13/4 3/2 77/4 Ovis/Capra - - - - - 1 - - -

Saiga tatarica 10/2 8/1 45/7 23/3 62/7 1730/42 44̂ 5 220/25 1185/33 Megaceros giganteus L. - - - - - 6/2 1212 - 2/1 Cervus elaphus - - - i/i - 17/5 - 5/i 9/2 Sus scrofa ferus L. - - - 2/1 - 1/1 - 7/2 Rhinoceros antiquitatis - - - 3/i - 23/7 17/4 - 42/3 Equus cf. latipes - 3/1 4/1 20/3 12/4 214/13 89/12 32/8 371/15 Equus cf. hidmntinus - - - 25/3 1/1 72/12 7/1 17/20 50/10 Canis lupus - - - - - 73/10 5/2 1/1 40/5 Vulpes vulpes - - - - - 82/6 - - 72/3 Vulpes corsac - - - - - 322/18 3/1 - 210/8 Vulpes lagopus - - 2/1 - 10/2 - - 13/5 16/2 Crocuta spelaea - 1/1 - 9/2 - 139/16 34/9 2/1 206/9 Panthera spelaea — - — — — 1/1 — — 1/1 Vulpes corsac/V. lagopus - 2/1 - 7/i - 18/2 24/5 - 31/3 Ursus spelaeus Ros. 11/3 2/1 5/3 3/2 20/6 79/12 9/4 16/7 5i/5 Vrsus sp. — — - - — — — — 1/1 Lepus sp. - — - - - 1/1 - 3/2 1/1

1 Data from Kolosov (1986) and Baryshnikov (unpublished). In entries the numerator is the number of defined bones, denominator is the number of individuals

(fig. 13,1). In general, the stone inventory is not abund-ant but at the same time each layer has produced sufficient material for statistical analysis. The main technical and typological indices are presented in table 2. Secondary working generally was carried out by retouch, more rarely by the use of the technique of burin spalls, whereas artefacts with traces of intentional fragmentation are rarer still. The retouch is mostly on the dorsal surface, as a rule being semi-abrupt or at a slight angle. Tools with deep scaled retouch were wide-spread but artefacts with fine edge retouch were also quite common. Sometimes the method of core-like thinning on the ventral surface of flake tools was also used. Tools with alternate retouch are quite frequent; bifacially retouched tools are more rare. The bifacial tools generally have a plano-convex cross-section and the retouch is mainly on the convex surface.

Below is given a short description of the stone arte-facts from Prolom II, based mainly on the author's calculations. The explanation of differences between my indices and the indices published by Kolosov (1986, 75-109) is in our different typological approaches. The

materials used for typological analysis are in the Insti-tute of Archaeology, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Kiev.

The fourth layer

There are three pre-cores and eight cores, which include two Levallois tortoise cores, two discoidal pieces with one working surface, three protoprismatic cores with parallel removals and one non-systematic core. The flakes produce indices the main of which are repre-sented in table 2.

Secondarily worked artefacts combine both bifacial (7—5.9% of all tools) and unifacial pieces or tools on

•- flakes (111 pieces) (fig. 7). To these must be added 161 flakes with irregular retouch mostly the result of use.

A distinction was made between symmetrical points, i.e. those where the long axis coincides with the striking axis (13 tools), and canted points where this does not hold true (5 pieces). Two symmetrical points have retouched edges that meet at the base. Typologically the points are of different kinds. Several variations were

2 2

2. V. N. Stepanchuk. a m i d d l e p a l a e o l i t h i c s i t e i n t h e C r i m e a

TABLE 2: PROLOM II. THE STONE INDUSTRY OF THE MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC LAYERS: THE MAIN TECHNICAL AND TYPOLOGICAL INDICES


Radial cores (discs) 2.5.0 36.4 20.9 55.6 Unsystematic cores 12.5 9.1 16.8 11.1 Protoprismatic cores 37-5 54-5 62.5 33-3 Levallois cores 25.0 - - -

IF large* 40.2 40.6 40.4 44-4 IF strict* 25.0 26.0 29.0 21.7 Punctiform striking platform 14-7 15-7 18.1 18.0 I lam* 4.8 7.0 4-3 14.8 IL* 0.0 i-5 i-4

Flake tools, 94.1 86.6 82.7 76.7 including

Points 16.8 13-9 24.0 19.0 Side-scrapers 36.5 49.1 38.9 47.6 Knives 7-5 5.6 12.0 9-5 Denticulates/Notched tools 37-4 29.6 20.4 19.0 End-scrapers - - 2.7 -

Awls 0.9 0.9 - -

Burins — 0.9 4-7 Truncated blades 0.9 — —

Biterminally thinned blade 0.9 - -

Battered piece - - 0.9 -

Bifacial tools, 5-9 13-4 17-3 23.3 including

Spearheads - 6.7 - -

Points - 20.0 30.8 42.8 Side scrapers 40.0 13.3 23.1 -

Backed knives 60.0 60.0 46.2 57.2

Total points 16.1 15-5 24.8 25.0 Total side scrapers 36.6 44-7 37.2 35-7 Total knives 9.8 12.2 15-7 21.4 Denticulates/Notched tools 35-7 26.0 18.2 14-3 Upper Palaeolithic tools 1.8 1.6 4-i 3.6

Convergent edges, total 28.6 33-3 38.0 42.9 Simple edges, total 54-3 53-9 51.1 47.8 Thinned tools, total 0.9 - i-9 -

* Indices published by Y u . G. Kolosov (1986)

recognised according to the shape of the retouched edges and their combinations. The majority have asymmetrical forms with one straight and another con-» vex edge. Only one tool had ventral thinning of the point. There are unifacial side scrapers on flakes (39). They include tools with one (17) and two (5) worked edges, convergent side scrapers (3), canted tools (xo) and transverse forms (4). There are 8 knives on flakes. To this class of tools belong forms typologically similar to side scrapers but with natural or artificially prepared

backs. Several variants were distinguished according to the number of edges and their arrangement. Denticulate and notched tools are numerous, amounting to 40. Among them, denticulates are three times more abun-dant than notched tools. Upper Palaeolithic types are represented by one atypical awl and one truncated blade. Another four tools on flakes were damaged in the past and are not now suitable for typological definition.

Bifacially worked tools are represented by two side scrapers, three knives and two fragments of tools. Both

23

t h e p r e h i s t o r i c s o c i e t y

Fig. 6

Prolom II, second layer. Metrical distribution of flake tools prepared by 'local' (i) and 'imported' (z)

raw materials

side scrapers have one retouched edge. Two of the three backed knives are typologically close to Bockstein knives and one is similar to a Klausennische knife (Bosinski 1969, 21—70).

The third layer

This layer produced four Mousterian discs, one with two working surfaces, plus six protoprismatic cores and one non-systematic one. The flakes are characterised by the indices shown in table 2.

The flake tools are represented by 142 artefacts. There are relatively higher quantities of bifacially worked tools — 22 (figs 8 and 9). Flakes with traces of intensive use are numerous — 151 pieces.

As in the fourth layer the flake-tool structure is characterised by the predominance of side scrapers, the subordinate position of points and knives, and the relatively high quantity of denticulate and notched tools. Ten of fifteen points are symmetrical. Asymmetri-cal forms are predominant among both canted and 'normal' points. Side scrapers on flakes amount to 5 y , with simple (20) and double (7) being predominant among them. Transverse (10), convergent (4) and canted (12) forms are also present, with eight of the last being double canted tools with three retouched edges. Knives on flakes amount to 6. The total index of denticulate and notched tools reaches 29.6. Upper Palaeolithic types are represented by one atypical awl

and one blade thinned on the ventral surface at both ends. The list is completed by 34 broken flake tools, nine constituting fragments of sharp tips of pointed tools.

Among the bifacial tools one quarter constitute frag-ments which are difficult to classify typologically. Among the unbroken forms can be distinguished one spearhead (?), a carefully manufactured leaf-shaped artefact with thin biconvex cross-section but asymme-trical in plan; three points, two of which have segment-like shapes; two side scrapers which according to the position of the retouched edges probably belong to the convergent forms; and nine backed knives similar to Bockstein and Klausennische knives of Central Euro-pean type.

The second layer

Core-like artefacts are represented by 7 pre-cores in the initial stage of processing and 24 typologically clear cores. Protoprismatic cores with parallel removals are predominant (15). There are also radial unifacial cores or discs (5) and non-systematic cores (4). Technical indices of unworked flakes are represented in table 2.

The tool kit includes 130 flake tools and 25 bifacially worked artefacts (figs 10 and 11). Only 51 flakes have irregular retouch that can be explained as a result of use. Some changes can be noted in the flake tool composi-tion: the appearance of Levallois points, a proportional increase in the numbers of points (although the domi-nant role of side scrkpers was still maintained), an increase in the number of knives, a decrease in the numbers of denticulate and notched tools, and a some-what increased number of Upper Palaeolithic types.

Among the points, both symmetrical (16) and canted (10) forms occur. There is a clear tendency toward the preparation of artefacts symmetrical in shape and sub-triangular in plan. Three points with basal thinning on the ventral surface were noted. There are 42 side scrap-ers on flakes. Simple and double side scrapers are frequent, as in the lower layers: there are 16 tools with one working edge and 5 with two, plus transverse (7), convergent (4) and canted (9) forms. There is one limace. There are 13 backed knives on flakes. Denticu-late and notched tools are represented by 22 artefacts. Among Upper Palaeolithic types are one burin, three atypical end scrapers and one atypical battered piece. There are also 22 fragments of flake tools.

Bifacially worked tools consist of 4 points of segment-like shape, 3 side scrapers two of which are

24


probably reutilised points, 6 backed knives typolo-gically similar to Bockstein and Klausennische knives, and 12 broken tools.

The first layer

There are 9 cores. Discs with one (3) and two (2) working surfaces are predominant. There are 3 proto-prismatic cores and 1 unsystematic piece. Technical indices produced by unworked flakes are represented in table 2.

The collection includes 23 flake tools and 7 bifacial artefacts, as well as 9 flakes with irregular retouch (figs

12 and 13). The unifacial tools include 4 symmetrical points, one of which has some ventral thinning at the base, 10 side scrapers (2 simple, 1 double, 3 transverse and 4 canted), 2 knives on flakes, 4 denticulate and notched tools, 1 atypical burin and 2 fragments of retouched pieces.

Bifacially worked tools are represented by three points and four knives closely resembling Central Euro-pean types. As can be seen, the industry of the upper layer (although quantitatively low) gives no grounds to think that there were significant differences from the lower layers. Moreover, this tool kit confirms and

0 i cm

Fig. 9

Prolom II. Third layer. Bifacially worked tools

2-7


0 lcm 1 i Fig. 10

Prolom II. Second layer. Flake tools and pebble-retoucher

28


0 1 cm

Fig. i i

Prolom II. Second layer. Bifacially worked tools

reflects the tendencies that were already found in layers IV-II at Prolom II. This can be seen in the particularities of the bifacial and flake tools, in the tendency for bifacial tools to increase in number, and in a series of technical trends.

Discussion

In general, the industry of the four layers of Prolom II can be described as being based on discoidal and paral-lel flaking. Average indices are: IF large, about 40; IF strict, 25. The blade index is not high, up to 7, but in the case of the upper layer it increases almost to 15. In the sphere of technology, a specific tendency for the Levallois technique to fall out of use is observed. A certain increase in the numbers of atypical Levallois blanks (table 2) can probably be explained by an increase in the numbers of protoprismatic cores. Knapping of this kind produced in part flakes that are similar morphologically to Levallois blanks. Bifacially

worked tools are frequent and represent about 1 5 % of the whole tool kit. At the same time this index is one of the most dynamic: in the lowest, fourth, layer it is only 5.9 whereas in the upper layer it reaches 2,3.3. All layers were characterised by a tool kit of similar structure. Thus points account for about 1 5 - 2 0 % of all flake tools and about 30% of all bifacially worked tools. Side scrapers account respectively for 40 and 20%. On the other hand, the index of bifacial backed knives is exceptionally high — about 60% in the group of bifacial tools. The index of denticulate and notched tools is very high also (average 25%) although it falls successively from lower to upper layers. It is significant that the index of Upper Palaeolithic types was also dynamic, with an increase from 1.5 to 4 % .

The specific traits of the Prolom II industry can be perceived in the large proportion of symmetrical points; only 30% are canted forms. Thinning on the ventral side is poorly represented. Among the side scrapers, which predominate over other classes of flake tools, the first place is occupied by tools retouched on one long side. There is a relatively high number of canted side scrapers, whereas convergent artefacts are rare. Among the bifacial tools the index of backed knives that are similar to Central European types is high; bifacially worked side scrapers and points occupy a secondary position. Note should be taken of the obvious tendency to produce symmetrical pointed forms among the flake tools and symmetrical segment-like shapes among the bifacial tools, especially points. The specificity of the Prolom II industry can also be seen in the high quantity of flakes with retouch of utilisation and irregular retouch.

Knapping and retouching tools Description of the stone artefacts would be incomplete without mention of tools for knapping and retouching prepared on river pebbles. They are hammer stones, retouchers and anvils. While analogies for the first two kinds are well known both archaeologically and experi-mentally and their traces of wear may be interpreted unambiguously, the definition of the anvils' function (as a support in the processes of stone, bone and wood working) is more hypothetical. The raw material for the main part of these tools consists of tufa or tufaceous sandstone. A large series of similar tools on pebbles is present at Prolom I, a site some 300 m away, with two Middle Palaeolithic layers having an industry of upper Kiik-Koba type. These materials allow us to determine an undoubted trend in the supply of river pebbles for

2 29


dimensions, shape and weight (Stepanchuk 1990). The finds of Prolom II do not contradict these observations. The fourth layer of Prolom II produced 1 retoucher and 1 hammer stone; the third layer, 4 hammer stones, two of which are more reliable; the second layer, 5 hammer stones, 1 anvil and 3 retouchers (fig. 10); the first layer, 1 hammer stone, 2 retouchers and 1 pebble with traces of utilisation both as retoucher and as anvil. The retou-chers, in general, are characterised by a combination of

two kinds of utilisation traces. First is a group of long (up to 25 mm) parallel scratches; second are incisions in dentations partially covering the same area as the scratches and occurring as a result of tool retouching. Strictly speaking, the combinations of these kinds of damage traces may be various, but for the most part the incisions overlie the scratches. It is not clear what is the cause of the first group of damage traces. In many cases they may be explained as the result of pebble use in the

Fig. 12.

Prolom II. First layer. Flake tools


removal of irregular edges appearing in the course of tool retouching or in the delicate preparing of core platforms. It can be suggested that the special method of preparation of bone retouchers was transferred to another raw material, i.e. the removal of periosteum and the upper part of the compact bone stratum in the place that was destined for subsequent utilisation. According to G. Bosinski (pers. comm. 1990) these damage traces can be explained as a result of the retoucher 'jumping' or 'skipping' in the course of the retouching process. None the less, none of these assumptions so far gives a satisfactory explanation for the appearance of such traces on the stone artefacts.

B O N E I N D U S T R Y

All layers of the site, especially the first and second, are fairly closely packed with bone. For example, the second layer produced on average 360 fragments of splintered bone per m\ The bones have been very much fragmented as a result of human activity. A certain number of bones have traces of damage caused by

mechanical factors or by plants or parasites. Some individual small splinters, judging by the unusual state of preservation of the surfaces, have been subjected to changes induced by gastric juices of carnivores (hyena, probably) (observation by G. F. Baryshnikov).

The bone material also has well-defined traces of several stages of utilisation by hunters of their prey: from primary butchering (various scratches, cuts and notches) through the use of edible parts (scratches, incisions, traces of scraping and crushing of bones, and the removal of epiphyses) and ending with the exploita-tion both of accidental fragments and of specially pre-pared tools formed by retouching, rough hewing, probably scraping and polishing (table 3, fig. 14).

The bone tools can be divided into two large groups on the basis of the nature of their use: tools for pro-cessing hard materials (i.e. stone, bone) — retouchers and anvils; and tools intended for treatment of hides and similar soft substances — awls, borers, bone scrap-ers and so on. A special place is occupied by abundant first and second phalanges of Saiga tatarica with pre-sumably artificial holes. The origin and purpose of these

Fig. 13

Prolom II. First layer. Bifacially worked tools

3 i


holes are not clear; hence it is difficult to know how to regard these objects — either as examples of hunted prey utilisation or as original artefacts which performed a certain function in the working activities of Neander-thal Man.

The retouchers from Prolom II were made on frag-ments of diaphyses and cannot be distinguished from similar tools from many other Middle Palaeolithic sites

including those in the Crimea (fig. 14). The sections with characteristic damage to the upper compact layer of the bone, sometimes with the traces of preliminary working in the form of scratching or scraping, have an average diameter of up to 20 mm. The depth of the incisions/depressions is up to 1 mm and their length up to 10 mm. Such short and quite deep depressions were produced when Mousterian-like tools with massive and

32


TABLE 3: PROLOM II. THE MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC LAYERS. BONES WITH TRACES OF UTILISATION AND PROCESSING


Bones with cuts 1 2 2 Bones with incisions/scratches 5 8 9 6 Bones with traces of scraping - 1 Bones with traces of polishing - 1 1 -

Bones with traces of cutting - - 2 1 Bones with traces of smashing — — — 3 Retouched bones 2 1 2 1 Bones with broken holes 1 3 6 3 Phalanges with holes 7 2-4 39 41

Retouchers 8 2 Anvils 1 2 3 I Borers — — 2 I Awls - - 1 -

Engraved bones — 2 1 I

sinuous edges were retouched, as noted by Gvozdover and Formozov (i960). The bone anvils also have analo-gies in certain Middle Palaeolithic sites (Semenov 1953). Some of them have what are probably traces of core processing, numerous depressions differing in shape and depth, whereas others may have been used in the final stages of tool preparation or resharpening with elongated depressions and notches similar in shape and depth.

In general borers and awls are tools of the same type but they differ from each other in terms of size, thick-ness and sharpness of the working end. Traces of use are present in the form of polishing, often very intensive, and sometimes in the form of linear traces of wear. It cannot, however, be excluded that at least some of these objects have damage to their surface caused by natural factors. The fourth cultural layer produced two mor-phologically similar trapeziform fragments of long bone. In both cases the long edge was worked by slightly denticulate retouch. Perhaps these artefacts had been used as a kind of scraper for the primary treatment of skin. One bone that came from the third layer was probably connected with hide working. This bone was broken in the past, unfortunately, but on the surface it has numerous very thin and deep incisions, and it is possible that this artefact was used as a support during the cutting of leather. Similar bone artefacts with linear cutting traces (so-called 'cutting boards') are well known in Upper Palaeolithic sites although in those cases they are larger.

It is impossible not to notice abundant Saiga tatarica phalanges with holes (fig. 15). For example, there are 41 such phalanges (55.4% of the total) in the second layer (excavations of 1981 and 1982). In most cases crudely pierced holes are connected with the dorsal surface near the distal epiphysis of the first and second phalange, but are also often located on the articular surface. In many cases the phalanges have two or even three holes, mainly tending to the distal or proximal ends. It is rare that a hole is situated in the medial section. Average dimensions of holes are 3-4 mm; whereas larger ones, sometimes up to 10 mm in size, are much rarer. The origin and purpose of these holes is not quite clear. The study of phalanges with holes has already been going on for more than 150 years, and various explanations have been proposed: the obtaining of marrow; use as whistles; and the result of biting through by a carnivore while the animal was alive. Other hypotheses seem to be fantastic, for example, that they were vessels for poison. It is possible that some of the phalanges with holes were really used as whistles. R. Wetzel wrote that phalanges with roughly pierced holes from Bocksteinschmiede H which he had recognised as 'hunters' pipes' were shown by experiment to utter quite strong shrill sounds (Wet-zel 1969,126—28). One cannot completely exclude the hypothesis about marrow procuring, although in many ways it does not withstand criticism. New evidence about natural causes has recently been adduced (Chase 1990). In any case, the abundance of phalanges with holes at Prolom II cannot be comprehensively explained

33


Fig. 15

Prolom II. Saiga tatarica phalanges with holes, from different cultural layers

by any one of the causes mentioned above. Maybe in future investigations of these artefacts at Crimean sites (apart from Prolom II they are known in many layers of Zaskalnaya V, VI, IX, as well as at Prolom I, and elsewhere) will make clear their enigmatic origins.

slightly convex. The convex side is turned to the right (figs 16 and 17). On one side (the left in the illustration) the fragment has a relatively fresh break. The line of breakage coincides with the line of one more engraving, the right side of which can be dearly seen. This third engraved line also started near the beginning of the other two. The angle between the third partly preserved line and the first well-preserved line reaches 210. The dimensions of the broken engraved line are: length, 18 mm; depth, up to 0.5 mm. The right side of the bone fragment was broken more anciently and its surface does not evince evidence of k fourth engraved line. Nevertheless, the direction of breakage gives some grounds for supposing that it did exist in the past.

Horse canine (definition by E.I. Danilova) from the second layer

The maximum dimensions of the canine are 47 X 16 mm (figs 16 and 18). The colour is pale yellow. The surface is slightly smoothed with some places polished more intensively. Five deep subparallel engraved lines can be seen on the surface of the tooth, the longest c. 28 mm, the rest 19, 17, 19 and 21 mm. Three of them do not reach the end of the canine which has probably been artificially enlarged. Along the fur-rows of the two other lines can be seen cracks due to the desiccation of the tooth; but it is not difficult to restore the primary dimensions of these engravings. The aver-age width of the lines is 1 mm, and the depth is also about 1 mm.

SPECIMENS OF NON-UTILITARIAN BONE ARTEFACTS

The bone artefacts described above are common enough for Middle Palaeolithic sites, but their relatively large number is not common. Moreover, the site con-tains several fragments of bone with engraved lines which are impossible to explain in terms of purely utilitarian purposes. They are briefly described below.

Fragment of long bone diaphysis of a small animal from the first cultural layer

It has a subtriangular shape. Its dimensions are 38 X 15 mm. The colour of the bone is pale yellow, the^ surface slightly smoothed. On the external side of the compact bone are two almost undamaged engraved lines. They are at an angle of 290 to one another. The engraved lines' dimensions are: length, 10 and 1 x mm; width, 1 mm; depth, up to 0.5 mm. So far as the state of preservation permits us to judge, these lines began at practically the same point. They are not straight but

Fig. 16

Prolom II. Non-utilitarian bone artefacts from the first, second and third layers

34


Fig. 17

Prolom II. Bone splinters with engraved lines from the first and second cultural layers

Fig. 18 Prolom II. Horse canine with deep subparallel

engravings from the second cultural layer

Fragment of large bone diaphysis from the third layer, 37 X 14 mm

On the compact surface there are two deep cut lines (figs 16 and 17). They are parallel but not next to each other and as if moved apart. The width of the engravings reaches 15 mm and the depth i m m . One of the engraved lines is completely preserved, its length being 28 mm. The second is broken, the remaining lengths being 10 mm.

Fragment of first phalange of Saiga tatarica from the third layer

The part with the distal epiphysis was preserved (figs 16 and 19). The width of the fragment is 9.5 mm, the maximum length 2.6 mm. One of the projections of the

distal articulate surfaces on the ventral side was removed with a blow (?) and, as a result, a hole of 4 mm maximum diameter can be observed. Several incisions about 0.3 mm in breadth were made on the lateral surface of the phalange body with the help of a very thin and sharp stone tool. Seven variously damaged lines are preserved. Their lengths are: 5 . 5 , 4 , 1 , 6 . 5 , 8 and 3 mm. Unfortunately, the composition was disturbed by rela-tively modern breakages. All the incised lines are dis-posed at an angle to each other, such that the angle between them reaches about 6o°. The lower parts of the incisions were unfortunately broken, but the logic of their localisation in relating to each other Suggests that they had their origins from one (or several closely joined) points.

Fig. 19

Prolom II. Saiga tatarica phalange with fan-like engravings from the third cultural layer

Discussion

The artefacts described above are sufficiently unique for the Middle Palaeolithic period. There are no analogies in the Crimea except for the borer made on a horse slate bone that was discovered in the post-Brorup layer Ilia of Zaskalnaya YI in the eastern Crimea (Kolosov 1986, 67). A group of eleven thin deep incisions similar to those on the Prolom II Saiga phalange were detected near the thick end of the tool. The incisions on the borer are arranged perpendicularly to the long axis of the tool and are parallel to each other. Likewise, the list of similar Middle Palaeolithic bone finds in other territo-ries is not extensive. The main ones are as follows. A fragment of bone with parallel incisions is known from the Dzhuruchula cave in the Caucasus (Formozov 1969). Also well known are engraved bones with com-plex patterns from the Molodova and Pronyatin Middle Palaeolithic sites in the western Ukraine (Chernysh 1982; Sytnik 1983). Elsewhere, fragments of animal

35


bones with parallel engravings have been discovered at La Ferrassie, Le Moustier and L'Ermitage (Peyrony 1934), the last also with doubled and angled incisions (Pradel & Pradel 1954) and the cross-like compositions from Turske Mastale in Czechoslovakia and Vilen near Lorrach in Germany (Okladnikov 1967; Bourdier 1967). Thus several artefacts from Prolom II closely resemble well-known objects of the Middle Palaeolithic in the motif of parallel incisions. The cave also pro-duced two artefacts with evidence of the symbolic art of Neanderthal Man that were, as far as we are aware, up to now unknown. We have in mind here the bones with fan-like disposed engravings starting from approxi-mately the same point. Unfortunately, neither the tri-angular fragment of long bone from the first layer nor the fragment of Saiga phalange from the third layer was completely preserved, so it is difficult to be sure about the original appearance of the engravings.

The horse canine with five deep engraved lines finds parallels in several ornaments of Middle Palaeolithic age. It is especially similar to the object that was dis-covered in the late Middle Palaeolithic layers of La Quina (Bourdier 1967). The perforated fox canine from La Quina and the engraved horse canine from Prolom II have elements of working (perforations and engravings) that (this time in combination) were widely applied in the post-Middle Palaeolithic epoch on personal orna-ments made from animal teeth.

The use-wear analyst A. K. Fillipov, a specialist on problems of bone working in the Palaeolithic, has confirmed the artificial character of the engravings on all the artefacts described above, and also admits as probable a technological explanation of the cuts which can be seen on the canine, i.e. its splitting into pieces (pers. comm. 1991).

C O N C L U S I O N S

The industry of Prolom II has undoubted analogies in the materials of the Ak-Kaya culture of the eastern Crimea, and in this I must agree with Kolosov (1986), who first suggested and argued this idea. The term 'culture' needs some explanation. A Middle Palaeolithic culture in the Eastern European sense implies a territor-ially and chronologically limited localised group of sites with stone industries which are similar in their main typological and technical manifestations. Signs of simi-larity going beyond the industrial are regarded as essen-tial. Such a group is understood as the remains of life

activities of one or several kindred communities (Gladilin 1976; Lyubin 1977).

There are now nearly 100 Middle Palaeolithic sites and locations and the following cultures were distin-guished at different times: Ak-Kaya and Kiik-Koba in the eastern Crimea; Kabazi and Staroselye in the south-western Crimea (Kolosov 1971; 1979; 1986; Gladilin 1976; Stepanchuk 1991; Kolosov et al. in press).

According to Yu. G. Kolosov, technological and typological trends within the layers IV-I of Prolom II indicate the earlier position of Prolom II within the framework of the Ak-Kaya culture. Unfortunately, the absence of data on the absolute age of the site at the moment makes this thesis tentative. At the same time the logic of the development of the industry towards the intensification of bifacial working, the reduction in numbers of the originally abundant denticulate and notched tools, and certain other technical and typolo-gical trends, also find their confirmation in the materials of the Kiik-Koba culture and are probably the common specificity of all Crimean Middle Palaeolithic industries with bifacially worked tools. The typologically based early position of Prolom II would put it in the pre-Brorup period. The palaeobotanically and geologically confirmed sequence at Zaskalnaya V and VI (layers VI—I), partly supported by two minimum I 4 C dates, can serve as a reference point in this case. The composition of the Prolom II fauna also indicates a relatively cold period, with indications of more temperate conditions in the fourth and first cultural layers.

Outside the Crimea the materials from Prolom II find broad analogies in Central and Eastern European Micoquian sites (Allsworth-Jones 1986). Parallels can be established according to a number of typological indices and the general technological orientation towards bifacially prepared blanks. At the same time, an appreciably high level of differences, together with a general synchronism in the sites, do not give grounds for seeing in these parallels evidence of close genetic links. It is permissible to define the Ak-Kaya culture as a local variant of the Eastern European Micoquian which emerged side by side with others (on the territory of the Crimea there are the Kiik-Koba and Staroselye variants) as a result of parallel development from a genetically close Acheulean base. The technical and typological propinquity of Micoquian and 'para-Micoquian' industries probably conceals a closeness of cultural traditions that is actually rooted in a far more remote genetic relationship. So, the term 'East European Micoquian' describes an entity which really existed

3 6


because of genetic kinship, but at the same time was not really realised in social practice.

The large number of bone artefacts in Prolom II makes the site unusual not only in the Crimea but also over a wider area. But if the assortment and quantity of utilitarian objects do have certain analogies (compare, for example, the finding of more than one hundred retouchers at Staroselye) one must say that the large number of non-utilitarian artefacts is surprising. The presence of the 'bone concentration' in the second cultural layer is probably not accidentally connected with the numerous engraved bones and creates the impression of a certain specific complex. M a y b e in this coincidence lies the hidden key to the solution of certain important aspects of the spiritual life of Neanderthal M a n .

Acknowledgements. The author is grateful to Dr Yu. G. Kolosov for his permission to use the materials from his excavations at Prolom II in this publication. He is also much obliged to Dr P. Allsworth-Jones for his help in correcting the translation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allsworth-Jones, P. 1986. The Szeletian and the Transition from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic in Central Europe. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Baryshnikov, G. F. 1986. La faune des mammiferes de la station mousterienne Prolome 2, la Crimee montagneuse. V-e Confer. Inter. Archeozool. Resum. Communicat. Bordeaux, 4.

Baryshnikov, G. F. 19 87. Pesherny medved v paleolite Kryma. Proceedings of the Zoological Institute, Leningrad 168, 38-65.

Bosinski, G. 1969. Die Bocksteinschmiede im Lonetal (Mark-ung Ramingen, Kreis Vim). Stuttgart: Muller & Graff.

Bourdier, F. 1967. Prehistorie de France. Paris. Chase, P. G. 1990. Sifflets du Paleolithique moyen(P). Les

implications d'un coprolithe de coyote actuel. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Franqaise 87 (6), 165-67.

Chernysh, A. P. 1982. Mnogoslojnaya paleoliticheskaya stoyanka Molodova I. In G.J. Gorecky & I. K. Ivanova (eds), Molodova I. Unique Mousterian Settlement on the Middle Dniester Region. Moskwa: Nauka, 6—102.

Formozov, A. A. 1959. Musterskaya stoyanka Kabazi v Krymu. Sovetskaya Archeologiya 29-30,143-58.

Formozov, A. A. 1969. Ocherkipo Pervobytnomu Iskusstvu. Moskwa: Nauka.

Gladilin, V. N. 1976. Problemy Paleolita Vostochnoj Evropy. Kiev: Naukova Dumka.

Gvozdover, M. D. & Formozov, A. A. i960. Ispolzovaniye kosti na musterskoj stoyanke Staroselye v Krymu. Archaeo-logicke Rozhledy 12(3), 390-403.

Kolosov, Yu. G. 1971. Bagatosharova musterska stoyanka Zaskelne V(v Krymu). Archeologiya 3, 50-58.

Kolosov, Yu. G. 1979. Ak-kajskiye musterskiye stoyanki i nekotoryye itogi ih issledovaniya. In Yu. G. Kolosov (ed.), Issledovaniye Paleolita v Krymu. Kiev: Naukova Dumka, i 5 7 - 7 i -

Kolosov, Yu. G. 1986. Akkajskaya Musterskaya Kultura. Kiev: Naukova Dumka.

Kolosov, Yu. G. 1988. Les debuts du Paleolithique en Crimee. L'Anthropologic 92 (3), 809—38.

Kolosov, Yu. G. & Stepanchuk, V. N. 1989. Novaya mus-terskaya stoyanka v grote Prolom II. In S. N. Bibikov (ed.), Kamenny vek. Pamyatniki, Metodika, Problemy. Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 61—72.

Kolosov, Yu. G., Stepanchuk, V. N. & Chabay, V. P. 1993. Rannij i Srednij Paleolit Kryma. Kiev: Naukova Dumka.

Lyubin, V. P. 1977. Musterskiye Kultury Kavkaza. Lenin-grad: Nauka.

Marschak, A. 1976. Some implications of the Paleolithic symbolic evidence for the origin of language. Current Anthropology 17(2), 274—82.

Okladnikov, A. P. 1967. Utro Iskusstva. Leningrad: Nauka. Peyrony, D. 1934. La Ferrassie. Prehistoire 3, 1-92. Pradel, L. & Pradel, J. H. 1954. Le Mousterien evolue de

l'Ermitage. L'Anthropologic 58 (5-6), 433-43. Semenov, S. A. 1953. Kostyanyje orudiya iz drevnepaleoliti-

cheskih stoyanok Kiik-Koba i Kosh-Koba. Kratkie Soobsheniya Instituta Istorii Materialnoj Kultury 49, 143-47-

Stepanchuk, V. N. 1990. Kriterii podbora instrumentov raschepleniya i retushirovaniya v mustje Kryma. In V.I. Neprina (ed.), Kamenny vek na Territorii Ukrainy. Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 112—17.

Stepanchuk, V. N. 1991. Kiik-Kobinskaya Musterskaya Kul-tura. Avtoreferat dissertatii, Leningrad, 1 - 1 7 .

Sytnik, A. S. 1983. Gravirovany risunok na kosti s musterskoj stoyanki pod Ternopolem. In R. S. Vasiljevskij (ed.), Pla-stika i Risunki Drevnih Kultur. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 39-46.

Wetzel, R. 1969. Kulturknochen und Knochenkultur. In G. Bosinski (ed.), Die Bocksteinschmiede im Lonetal (Mark-ung Ramingen, Kreis Ulm). Stuttgart: Muller & Graff, 75-132.

37

prolom ii, a middle palaeolithic cave site in the eastern crimea with non-utilitarian bone...

Documents