2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaa.2008.07.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Possible evidence of mammoth hunting during the Epigravettian at Yudinovo, Russian Plain

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
33
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 59 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
0
33
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, human interaction with these animals (including potential hunting of them) does not produce such bone accumulations and in certain cases may be recognized for a single excavated skeleton (see, e.g., Overstreet & Kolb, ; Holen, ; Haynes et al., ). For mammoth bone accumulations definite evidence of mammoth kills by humans remain surprisingly scarce and the hunting strategies that may have been used remain unclear (Lister & Bahn, ) while claims on mammoth hunting made by scholars for different sites are normally based on indirect evidence and/or simple logic and experiments (see, e.g., Frison & Todd, ; Germonpré et al., ; Brugère et al., ; Svoboda et al., ; Bosch, ). At the same time, in Siberia, the Yana RHS site provides well‐founded evidence for constant mammoth hunting (Nikolskiy & Pitulko, ), which resulted in an anthropogenic contribution to the formation of the mass accumulation of mammoth bones that constitutes part of the spatial structure of the site (Basilyan et al., ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, human interaction with these animals (including potential hunting of them) does not produce such bone accumulations and in certain cases may be recognized for a single excavated skeleton (see, e.g., Overstreet & Kolb, ; Holen, ; Haynes et al., ). For mammoth bone accumulations definite evidence of mammoth kills by humans remain surprisingly scarce and the hunting strategies that may have been used remain unclear (Lister & Bahn, ) while claims on mammoth hunting made by scholars for different sites are normally based on indirect evidence and/or simple logic and experiments (see, e.g., Frison & Todd, ; Germonpré et al., ; Brugère et al., ; Svoboda et al., ; Bosch, ). At the same time, in Siberia, the Yana RHS site provides well‐founded evidence for constant mammoth hunting (Nikolskiy & Pitulko, ), which resulted in an anthropogenic contribution to the formation of the mass accumulation of mammoth bones that constitutes part of the spatial structure of the site (Basilyan et al., ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The body mass estimates for all European Palaeolithic dogs range from 32 kg to 41 kg with a mean of 35 kg. It is interesting to note that the Epigravettian dogs (Sablin and Khlopachev, 2002;Germonpré et al, 2008;Germonpré et al, 2009) and the Gravettian P redmostí dogs were all discovered in open air sites characterized by huge amounts of mammoth bones, with evidence of mammoth hunting (Oliva, 1997;Pidoplichko, 1998;Svoboda et al, 2005;Germonpré et al, 2008). In the ethnographic record, evidence can be found of the use of large dogs in the northern societies.…”
Section: Measurementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…8.3). After all, an active hunting of mammoths has been proved by several indirect evidences (among the other Baryshnikov et al, 1999;Germonpré et al, 2008;Kufel-Diakowska et al, 2016), and indeed lithic armatures were used to kill those animals. (Nuzhny et al, 2014), Lugovskoe (Zenin et al, 2006), Yana (Nikolskiy & Pitulko, 2013).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%