Hunting High and Low: Gravettian Hunting Weapons from Southern Italy to the Russian Plain

Abstract

Abstract:The current paper aims at describing and analysing the backed tools found in two Early Gravettian sites separated geographically from each other: Grotta Paglicci (layer 23-22) in Italy, and Kostenki 8 (layer II) in Russia. A similarity between the lithic assemblages of the two sites, and other cultural aspects, has been reported by authors over many decades. The analysis of the backed tools has created the opportunity to apply the same methodological approach to verify the resemblance and potential causes for the similarity, and also to address broader considerations on Gravettian hunting strategies and the modalities and timing of the spread of new techniques, whether related to physical movement of people or assimilation of ideas. The perception is that, during the Gravettian period, shared symbolic behaviours and subsistence strategies linked people living in completely different environments with completely different resources, from the temperate regions of southern Italy, to the very cold Russian plains. This point of view cannot be questioned, but it tends to flatten an articulated palimpsest of human generations and to underestimate the very low demographic density of Prehistoric Europe.

Population mobility and lithic tool diversity in the Late Gravettian – The case study of Lubná VI (Bohemian Massif)

“…Use of burin spalls as blanks for microgravette production, although not so numerous (8%) as that at Lubná VI (27%), is also observed at layer 2 of the Kostenki 8 site (Reynolds 2014;Borgia 2017). However, this strategy has never previously been observed in Central European Gravettian sites, even at Pavlovian localities where the dominant raw materials were transported similarly from large distances, comparable to the Lubná VI case (Novak 2016;Svoboda 1997;Verpoorte 2005).…”

“…The whole lithic inventory indicates a short stay of hunter-gatherers with hunting and processing of game (butchering and cutting soft animal material) as the predominant activities, reflected in use-wear analysis, as well as moderate scale reconstruction of hunting weapons (incising, boring, scraping of bone and antler). The scarcity of diagnostic impact traces in apical portions of armatures and a high number of fragmented backed pieces could have been caused by the specific hafting mode used in Gravettian hunting weapon (Borgia 2017). Armatures functioned as barbs more often than tips of a hunting weapon, as well as knives for butchering game.…”

“…Moreover, several items of backed bladelets and microgravettes bear no polish, but have edge scars that suggest longitudinal motion during utilisation. The scarcity of diagnostic impact traces on armatures of Lubná VI, compared to other Gravettian sites (Kufel-Diakowska et al, 2016), showed that the hunting weapons were more complex (Borgia et al, 2011;Borgia, 2017). Most probably, at least some of the backed elements were inserted in a lateral rather than apical position on the shaft.…”

Why did hunting weapon design change at Abri Pataud? Lithic use-wear data on armature use and hafting around 24,000–22,000 BP

“…Neither is 'tangential impact' proof of serial hafting of backed elements. Lateral hafting has likewise been proposed for backed tools from the Italian early Gravettian [143,144] but this claim relies on morphological observations and fragmentation patterns and detailed use-wear data are not provided. The study also suffers from methodological setbacks linked to fracture identification and description [see 8].…”

Gravettian backed points from Unit K11 of Dolní Věstonice II (South Moravia, Czech Republic)

“…Only four fractures are bending/cone fractures (Fig. 4: 9-6 and 5: 8-7), but none of them was a diagnostic impact scar (for types of fractures, see 2008;Fischer et al,1984;O'Farrell, 1996 and2004;Perpère, 2000). This scenario is the result of a post-depositional or debitage fragmentation.…”