East Gravettian Khotylevo 2 site: Stratigraphy, archeozoology, and spatial organization of the cultural layer at the newly explored area of the site

Гаврилов, К.Н.; Voskresenskaya, Ekaterina; Maschenko, E. N.; Douka, Katerina

doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2014.08.020

Cited by 22 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The high density of mammoth populations during the relatively long cold stage GS-5 is not surprising. During the climatically variable end of MIS 3 (two short warmings, GI-4 and GI-3, interrupted by GS-4), the large number of mammoth remains was maintained as confirmed by data from European Gravettian sites such as Khotylevo (Gavrilov et al, 2015) and Kraków Spadzista (Wojtal and Sobczyk, 2005; Wilczyński et al, 2012). Gravettian hunter-gatherers specialized in hunting mammoths and accumulated hundreds of bones of Mammuthus close to occupation areas (Wojtal and Wilczyński, 2015a).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of climate and humans on the range dynamics of the woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) in Europe during MIS 2

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) was widespread in almost all of Europe during the late Pleistocene. However, its distribution changed because of population fluctuations and range expansions and reductions. During Marine Oxygen Isotope Stage 2 (MIS 2), these processes were highly dynamic. Our analyses of 318 radiocarbon dates from 162 localities, obtained directly from mammoth material, confirmed important changes in mammoth range between ~28.6 and ~14.1 ka. The Greenland stadial 3 interval (27.5–23.3 ka) was the time of maximum expansion of the mammoth in Europe during MIS 2. The continuous range was soon fragmented and reduced, resulting in the disappearance of Mammuthus during the last glacial maximum from ~21.4 to ~19.2 ka in all parts of the North European Plain. It is not clear whether mammoths survived in the East European Plain. The mammoth returned to Europe soon after ~19.0 ka, and for the next 3–4 millennia played an important role in the lifeways of Epigravettian societies in eastern Europe. Mammoths became extinct in most of Europe by ~14.0 ka, except for core areas such as the far northeast of Europe, where they survived until the beginning of the Holocene. No significant correlation was found between the distribution of the mammoth in Europe and human activity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

“…2). Confirmed finds (n=13) are restricted to East European Plain sites in Kostenki 1, Khotylevo 2 (Gavrilov et al, 2015), Pogon (Barns et al, 2007), and Berdyzh (Arslanov et al, 1972). The dated premolar from Helsinki (Töölö) (Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 82%

Impact of climate and humans on the range dynamics of the woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) in Europe during MIS 2

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This site is dated to ca. 23,000 14 C BP (Gavrilov et al 2015), and, like Gagarino, its relationship to the Kostënki-Avdeevo Culture sites has been the subject of debate. Female figures were found at the site (Abramova 1995;Gavrilov et al 2015) but the artefacts previously identified as shouldered points are in fact better described as variants of Gravette points (Reynolds 2014).…”

Section: A Brief Case Study: Mid Upper Paleolithic Russiamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…23,000 14 C BP (Gavrilov et al 2015), and, like Gagarino, its relationship to the Kostënki-Avdeevo Culture sites has been the subject of debate. Female figures were found at the site (Abramova 1995;Gavrilov et al 2015) but the artefacts previously identified as shouldered points are in fact better described as variants of Gravette points (Reynolds 2014). Here, we can use the female figures and some lithic types (Kostënki knives, backed bladelets) to link the site with Kostënki 1/I etc; the question of whether the site should be described as belonging to the Kostënki-Avdeevo Culture or not can be left aside under the approach followed here.…”

Section: A Brief Case Study: Mid Upper Paleolithic Russiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Threading the Weft, Testing the Warp: Population Concepts and the European Upper Paleolithic Chronocultural Framework

Reynolds

2020

Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interpretations of the European Upper Paleolithic archaeological record have long relied on concepts of past populations. In particular, cultural taxonomic units-which are used as a framework for describing the archaeological record-are commonly equated with past populations. However, our cultural taxonomy is highly historically contingent, and does not necessarily accurately reflect variation in the archaeological record. Furthermore, we lack a secure theoretical basis for the inference of populations from taxonomic units. In order to move past these problems and satisfactorily address questions of Upper Paleolithic 2 populations, we need to entirely revise our approach to chronocultural framework building. Here, I outline a specific way of describing the archaeological record that deliberately avoids the use of cultural taxonomic units and instead concentrates on individual features of material culture. This approach may provide a more appropriate basis for the archaeological study of Upper Paleolithic populations and for comparison with genetic data.

show abstract

“…Ïóíêò Â ïîêà èññëåäîâàí íà ïëîùàäè 65 êâ. ì [Gavrilov et al, 2015]. Íà ýòîì ó÷àñòêå çàôèêñèðîâàíî äâà êîìïëåêñà àðõåîëîãè÷åñêèõ îáúåêòîâ.…”

Section: результатыunclassified

Typology, iconography and archaeological context of female statuettes of the Eastern Gravettian of the Russian Plain

Гаврилов¹

2019

MUAB

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

íàñûùåííîñòü àíòðîïîìîðôíîé ìåëêîé ïëàñòèêè âåðõíåãî ïàëåîëèòà äåëàåò ýòîò âèä àðõåîëîãè÷åñêîãî èñòî÷íèêà îñîáî öåííûì äëÿ ðåøåíèÿ êàê òðàäèöèîííûõ äëÿ àðõåîëîãèè èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèõ çàäà÷, òàê è äëÿ ïàëåîèñòîðè÷åñêèõ ðåêîíñòðóêöèé. Ìàòåðèàëû è ìåòîäû. Îòïðàâíîé òî÷êîé â èçó÷åíèè ãðàâåòòñêèõ aeåíñêèõ ñòàòóýòîê ýòîãî ðåãèîíà ïîñëóaeèëà êëàññèôèêàöèÿ, ðàçðàáîòàííàÿ Ì.Ä. Ãâîçäîâåð. Áîëüøèíñòâî aeåíñêèõ ñòàòóýòîê ýòîãî âðåìåíè ìîãóò áûòü îòíåñåíû ê äâóì òèïàì: êîñò¸íêîâñêî-àâäååâñêîìó (êîñò¸íêîâñêîìó) è ãàãàðèíñêî-õîòûë¸âñêîìó, ðåàëüíîñòü êîòîðûõ ïîäòâåðaeäåíà ðåçóëüòàòàìè òåõ-íîëîãè÷åñêèõ àíàëèçîâ. Îäíàêî ýòè òèïû íå âêëþ÷àþò â ñåáÿ âåñü èêîíîãðàôè÷åñêèé ðÿä aeåíñêîé ñêóëüïòóðû ãðàâåòòà Ðóññêîé ðàâíèíû. Â ñòàòüå ðàññìàòðèâàþòñÿ ðåçóëüòàòû ñðàâíèòåëüíîãî àíàëèçà âñåõ âàðèàíòîâ aeåíñêèõ ñòàòóýòîê âîñòî÷íî-åâðîïåéñêîãî ãðàâåòòà, à òàêaeå èõ àðõåîëîãè÷åñêîãî êîíòåêñòà. Ðåçóëüòàòû è îáñóaeäåíèå. Èçâåñòíûé ðàíåå èêîíîãðàôè÷åñêèé ðÿä aeåíñêèõ ñòàòóýòîê äîïîëíÿåòñÿ ôèãóðêàìè, êîòîðûå ïîêàçûâàþò aeåíùèí, êàê íå ðîaeàâøèõ, òàê è âûøåäøèõ èç äåòîðîäíîãî âîçðàñòà. Èçîáðàaeåíèÿ aeåíùèí íåïîñðåäñòâåííî ïåðåä ðîäàìè, à òàêaeå ïîñëå íèõ èëè ïåðåä çà÷àòèåì íåîáõîäèìî ðàññìàòðèâàòü â êà÷åñòâå ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíûõ èêîíîãðàôè÷åñêèõ òèïîâ. Càìîñòîÿòåëüíûé èêîíîãðàôè÷åñêèé òèï ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé è «ñèäÿùàÿ» aeåíñêàÿ ñòàòóýòêà èç Õîòûë¸âî 2, êîòîðàÿ ìîaeåò áûòü âûäåëåíà èç ãàãàðèíñêî-õîòûë¸âñêîé ãðóïïû è îáúåäèíåíà ñ ôèãóðêîé èç Ïàâëîâà I â îäèí, ïàâëîâñêèé, òèï. Â Ãàãàðèíî è Õîòûë¸âî 2 çàôèêñèðîâàíî íàõîaeäåíèå â îäíîì è òîì aeå àðõåîëîãè÷åñêîì êîìïëåêñå ñòàòóýòîê, îòíîñÿùèõñÿ êàê ê êîñ-ò¸íêîâñêîìó, òàê è ê ãàãàðèíñêî-õîòûë¸âñêîìó òèïó. Â «íîâîì» îáúåêòå Àâäååâî è âî âòîðîì êîìïëåêñå Êîñò¸íîê I, ñë. 1, òàêaeå çàôèêñèðîâàíû ñòàòóýòêè, îòíîñÿùèåñÿ ê ðàçíûì èêîíîãðà-ôè÷åñêèì òèïàì. Ýòî ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò î åäèíîì ñåìàíòè÷åñêîì ïðîñòðàíñòâå ôèãóðàòèâíîãî àíòðîïîìîðôíîãî èñêóññòâà ïîçäíåãî âîñòî÷íî-åâðîïåéñêîãî ãðàâåòòà. Îäíàêî êîíêðåòíîå ñî÷åòàíèå èêîíîãðàôè÷åñêèõ òèïîâ, ðàâíî êàê è àðõåîëîãè÷åñêèé êîíòåêñò ñòàòóýòîê ÿâëÿþòñÿ ñïåöèôè÷åñêèìè êàê äëÿ ïàìÿòíèêîâ êîñò¸íêîâñêî-àâäååâñêîé êóëüòóðû, òàê è äëÿ Ãàãàðèíî è Õîòûë¸âî 2 ñîîòâåòñòâåííî. Çàêëþ÷åíèå. Ñòàòóýòêè èçîáðàaeàþò aeåíùèí ðàçíîãî âîçðàñòà, à òàêaeå â ðàçëè÷íûõ ñòàäèÿõ áåðåìåííîñòè. Ïîâòîðÿåìîñòü ïîç ôèãóðîê, çàêîíîìåðíîñòè â ðàçìåùåíèè ðàçëè÷íûõ òèïîâ íà ñòîÿíêàõ âîñòî÷íî-åâðîïåéñêîãî ãðàâåòòà äàþò îñíîâàíèÿ ðàññìàòðèâàòü ýòè ïàìÿòíèêè ïåðâîáûòíîãî èñêóññòâà â êà÷åñòâå ñâèäåòåëüñòâ ðèòóàëüíûõ äåéñòâèé íîñèòåëåé ãðàâåòòñêèõ êóëüòóðíûõ òðàäèöèé.

show abstract

East Gravettian Khotylevo 2 site: Stratigraphy, archeozoology, and spatial organization of the cultural layer at the newly explored area of the site

Cited by 22 publications

References 3 publications

Impact of climate and humans on the range dynamics of the woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) in Europe during MIS 2

Impact of climate and humans on the range dynamics of the woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) in Europe during MIS 2

Threading the Weft, Testing the Warp: Population Concepts and the European Upper Paleolithic Chronocultural Framework

Typology, iconography and archaeological context of female statuettes of the Eastern Gravettian of the Russian Plain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About