Alexander Bessudnov | Institute for the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences (original) (raw)
Papers by Alexander Bessudnov
Stratum plus, 2022
The problem of the natural processes impact on cultural remains of Palaeolithic sites has been un... more The problem of the natural processes impact on cultural remains of Palaeolithic sites has been under consideration of scientists for many years. A whole number of special articles devoted to various degrees of cultural layers preservation at Kostenki has been published up to date. At the same time, the study of various cultural layer deformations of Kostenki sites has always been in the background of the priority tasks for the study of dwellings, structure of settlements, stone and bone assemblages, etc. The importance of assessing the degree of cultural layers preservation and the homogeneity of assemblages
was often neglected, which directly influenced the conclusions about the appearance industries and their periodization and chronological status. The article attempts to generalize and classify all known natural deformations occurring in the Palaeolithic settlements at Kostenki. The accumulation of such facts and the study of the processes that caused them will contribute to the understanding of the taphonomy of sites and minimize mistakes in the interpretation of archaeological material.
Первобытная археология. Журнал междисциплинарных исследований, 2022
The paper presents the preliminary results of the study of osseous objects discovered in cultural... more The paper presents the preliminary results of the study of osseous objects
discovered in cultural layer II of Kostenki 17 (Spitsynskaya) in 2021. Though the finds are not numerous (5 items only), their description
and analysis add much to our understanding of how bone/antler/ivory
artifacts were manufactured and used by the site inhabitants. Of particular interest is a non-ornamented ivory «ring»-pendant, having as yet no direct analogies in assemblages dated to the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic.
Лада А.Р., Бессуднов А.А., Диннис Р., Синицын А.А. Технология получения микропластин в индустриях ранней поры верхнего палеолита Костенок // Рогачевские чтения: труды музея-заповедника «Костенки» / Под ред. Д.С. Толстых. Вып. 1. Воронеж: Полиграфический центр «Пресс-Бургер», 2021. С. 182–187.
Департамент культуры Воронежской области Государственное бюджетное учреждение культуры Воронежско... more Департамент культуры Воронежской области Государственное бюджетное учреждение культуры Воронежской области «Государственный археологический музей-заповедник «Костенки» Р о г а ч е в с к и е ч т е н и я : м у з е й , а Р х е о л о г и я , и с т о Р и я Материалы международной научно-практической конференции, приуроченной к 30-летию музея-заповедника «Костенки» (г. Воронеж; Воронежская область, с. Костенки, 26-27 августа 2021 г.
Human-elephant interactions: from past to present, 2021
Middle and Upper Palaeolithic sites, where mammoths dominate the faunal assemblages, are mainly f... more Middle and Upper Palaeolithic sites, where mammoths dominate the faunal assemblages, are mainly found in Central and Eastern Europe. At these sites concentrations of skulls, tusks and long bones, interpreted as deliberate constructions, often occur. Rare instances of weapon tip fragments embedded in mammoth bones provide direct archaeological evidence of human hunting. Indirect evidence, such as the accumulation of mammoth bones from multiple individuals with specific ontogenetic ages, occurs more frequently. Based on the eruption sequence and wear of deciduous premolars from mammoth calves, we examined whether a season of death could be deduced from the characteristics of the dentition. Our results suggest that the mammoth hunt was not restricted to the cold half of the year.
Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology, 2021
The Streletskian is central to understanding the onset of the Upper Palaeolithic on the East Euro... more The Streletskian is central to understanding the onset of the Upper Palaeolithic on the East European Plain. Early Streletskian assemblages are frequently seen as marking the Neanderthal-anatomically modern human (AMH) anthropological transition, as well as the Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic archaeological transition. The age of key Streletskian assemblages, however, remains unclear, and there are outstanding questions over how they relate to Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic facies. The three oldest Streletskian layers-Kostenki 1 Layer V, Kostenki 6 and Kostenki 12 Layer III-were excavated by A. N. Rogachev in the mid-20th century. Here, we reexamine these layers in light of problems noted during Rogachev's campaigns and later excavations. Layer V in the northern part of Kostenki 1 is the most likely assemblage to be unmixed. A new radiocarbon date of 35,100 ± 500 BP (OxA-X-2717-21) for this assemblage agrees with Rogachev's stratigraphic interpretation and contradicts later claims of a younger age. More ancient radiocarbon dates for Kostenki 1 Layer V are from areas lacking diagnostic Streletskian points. The Kostenki 6 assem-blage's stratigraphic context is extremely poor, but new radiocarbon dates are consistent with Rogachev's view that the archaeological material was deposited prior to the CI tephra (i.e. >34.3 ka BP). Multiple lines of evidence indicate that Kostenki 12 Layer III contains material of different ages. Despite some uncertainty over the precise relationship between the dated sample and diagnostic lithic material, Kostenki 1 Layer V (North) therefore currently provides the best age estimate for an early Streletskian context. This age is younger than fully Upper Palaeolithic assemblages elsewhere at Kostenki. Other "Streletskian" assemblages and Streletskian points from younger contexts at Kostenki are briefly reviewed, with possible explanations for their chrono-stratigraphic distribution considered. We caution that the cultural taxon Streletskian should not be applied to assemblages based simply on the presence of bifacially worked artefacts.
Archaeological layers at Kostënki 6 and Kostënki 17 have yielded some of the oldest Upper Palaeol... more Archaeological layers at Kostënki 6 and Kostënki 17 have yielded some of the oldest Upper Palaeolithic material on the East European Plain. Major excavations at both sites were undertaken in the early 1950s, and there are outstanding questions concerning their stratigraphies. Here we summarise recent excavation of both sites and present new radiocarbon dates for material from this work. 2017-2019 excavation of Kostënki 17 confirms its well-stratified sequence, although the upper section shows a greater complexity than was noted during earlier work. Our new 14C date for the stratigraphically higher Layer I helps to bracket its age in the range 34.3-29 ka BP. The heavily redeposited nature of Kostënki 6's archaeological layer is verified by a small-scale 2017 excavation. Our new 14C date is, however, consistent with the layer's recorded position underneath the CI tephra. This 14C date therefore supports an age of >34.3 ka BP for Kostënki 6's archaeological material.
by Alexander Bessudnov, Ekaterina Kashina, Ksenia Stepanova, Ivan Fedyunin, Arthur Chubur, Надежда И Платонова, Natalya Prilepskaya, Aleksei Sorokin, Александр Волокитин, Evgenia Tkach, Victor Karmanov, Andrei Skorobogatov, and Kerkko Nordqvist
Настоящее издание посвящено 60-летнему юбилею известного археолога, основателя и лидера липецкого... more Настоящее издание посвящено 60-летнему юбилею известного археолога, основателя и лидера липецкого археологического сообщества, кандидата исторических наук, доцента кафедры отечественной и всеобщей истории ЛГПУ имени П. П. Семенова-Тян-Шанского Александра Николаевича Бессуднова. В первом разделе сборника объединены публикации как мемуарного, так и научного характера, отражающие различные стороны жизни юбиляра. Проблематика других разделов охватывает круг основных научных интересов юбиляра: эпоха камня, история науки. Включение в издание отдельных статей иной тематической направленности обусловлено желанием их авторов таким образом поздравить юбиляра. Издание предназначено археологам, историкам, учителям истории. Оно может быть полезно и широкому кругу читателей, интересующихся археологией.
Археологические исследования в Центральном Черноземье 2018, 2019
L'Anthropologie, 2019
Le present travail consiste a` montrer les re´ sultats pre´liminaires des fouilles de sauvetage d... more Le present travail consiste a` montrer les re´ sultats pre´liminaires des fouilles de sauvetage de Kostenki 21 (Gme´ linskaia) re´ alise´es entre les anne´es 2013 et 2016 par le chantier arche´ ologique de Kostenki au sein de l’Institut d’Histoire de la Culture Mate´ rielle de l’Acade´mie des Sciences de Russie (Saint-Pe´tersbourg). A` la suite de l’examen visuel de la pente raide de la falaise dominant la rive, trois accumulations de mate´ riel arche´ ologique associe´ a` la couche culturelle principale (III) ont e´ te´ trouve´ es et e´tudie´ es. Chacune d’entre elles diffe` re par sa structure et sa composition, ce qui permet de les interpre´ ter comme des zones fonctionnellement diffe´ rentes : 1) vestiges d’un « ensemble d’habitat » (?) ; 2) zone de fabrication, de ravivage des burins, et d’obtention des chute de burin comme le support ; 3) partie pe´ riphe´ rique (interme´ diaire) du site. Les re´ sultats obtenus permettent de retourner a` la proble ´matique pose´e dans les anne´ es 1980 concernant la se´paration du mate´ riel arche´ ologique de la couche III du site de Kostenki 21 en deux groupes distincts. Malgre´ le fait que les zones en question varient a` la fois par la composition lithique et par l’assortiment de matie` res premie` res, les preuves disponibles restent insuffisantes pour de´ cider si la couche culturelle III doit eˆtre subdivise´e en deux complexes inde´pendants.
Camera Praehistorica, 2019
The paper presents results of zooarchaeological study of the bone assemblages of the large mammal... more The paper presents results of zooarchaeological study of the bone assemblages of the large mammals from the Late Upper Paleolithic site of Divnogor’ye 1 (Voronezh region, Russia). The analyses of the skeletal-parts frequencies, patterns of bones fragmentation, burned remains and cut marks reveals that the faunal assemblages at Divnogor’ye 1 resulted from human hunting activity focused mainly on large ungulates. Basically large and most valuable from the nutritional point of view parts of carcasses were brought to the site by people. Obviously later these supplies were transported to other destinations. Thus, Divnogor’ye 1 can be defined as a short-term, probably, seasonal camp-site. According to our preliminary data, the site was occupied during the summer (warm) period of year. The high degree of weathering and the presence of carnivore gnawing on bones indicate a long period of bone remains staying on the ancient ground surface before they were naturally buried.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 2019
Camera Praehistorica, 2019
The paper discusses the problems concerning cultural context of the Late Upper Paleolithic Zamyat... more The paper discusses the problems concerning cultural context of the Late Upper Paleolithic Zamyatnin archaeological culture that was distinguished on the materials from the sites of Kostenki 2, 3, 11 (layer Ia) and 19 in the 1960–70s. Poverty of the lithic assemblages and absence of specific tool types contribute to controversial assessment of this industry which various researchers associate with the Epigravettian specific local culture or with independent sites which share some common features. Based on the analysis of published materials,the author comes to the conclusion that the most characteristic feature of lithics from the Zamyatnin culture sites is almost complete absence of abrupt retouch and backed implements, which are among the main markers of the Eastern Epigravettian. On the contrary, the primary technology of bladelets production from multi-facetted burins, tabular flints and sometimes carinated endscrapers, as well as the morphology of the blanks have much in common with the Epi-Aurignacian sites of southern Eastern Europe. Based on radiocarbon dating data, the existence of the Zamyatnin industry is determined by an interval between 21.5 and 19 (18) kyr BP, that is much older comparing to the sites with “typical” Epigravettian tool-kits. Despite of large number of problems caused primarily by the state of the database, the sites discussed in the paper stand out from other cultural formations of the Russian Plain, both in chronology and in the specific look of the collections, which makes Zamyatnin archaeological culture a real cultural and chronological unit.
Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology, 2019
The site of Kostënki 21 (also known as Gmelin or Gmelinskaia) is located on the very edge of the ... more The site of Kostënki 21 (also known as Gmelin or Gmelinskaia) is located on the very edge of the Don River at Kostënki (Voronezh Oblast, Russia). The main archaeological horizon, layer III, is dated to c. 23,000-21,000 14 C BP (c. 27,500-24,500 cal BP) and contained six concentrations of archaeological material, mostly interpreted as the remains of dwelling structures. A substantial Gravettian lithic assemblage was found. The site has traditionally been seen as without parallels within the Gravettian chronocultural framework of Eastern Europe. It has long been noted that clear differences in the lithic typology and faunal assemblages of the six concentrations can be used to separate them into two groups, but this has previously been attributed to differences in the activities carried out in the two areas. In this paper, we argue that the two parts of the site were created at different times and that one part of the site can potentially be grouped with several other sites in Russia and Ukraine on lithic techno-typological grounds. The degree of patination of the flint artefacts found at the site provides support for our interpretation.
Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology, 2019
The site of Kostënki 21 (also known as Gmelin or Gmelinskaia) is located on the very edge of the ... more The site of Kostënki 21 (also known as Gmelin or Gmelinskaia) is located on the very edge of the Don River at Kostënki (Voronezh Oblast, Russia). The main archaeological horizon, layer III, is dated to c. 23,000–21,000 14C BP (c. 27,500–24,500 cal BP) and contained six concentrations of archaeological material, mostly interpreted as the
remains of dwelling structures. A substantial Gravettian lithic assemblage was found. The site has traditionally been seen as without parallels within the Gravettian chronocultural framework of Eastern Europe. It has long been noted that clear differences in the lithic typology and faunal assemblages of the six concentrations can be used to separate them into two groups, but this has previously been attributed to
differences in the activities carried out in the two areas. In this paper, we argue that the two parts of the site were created at different times and that one part of the site can potentially be grouped with several other sites in Russia and Ukraine on lithic technotypological grounds. The degree of patination of the flint artefacts found at the site provides support for our interpretation.
Zapiski IHMC, 2018
The work presents preliminary results of rescue excavations of Kostenki 21 (Gmelin site) carried ... more The work presents preliminary results of rescue excavations of Kostenki 21 (Gmelin site) carried out by the Kostenki Archaeological Expedition of IHMC RAS in 2013–2016. As a result of visual examination of the bank escarpment, three accumulations of archaeological material associated with the main (III) cultural layer were found and studied. Each of them differs in its structure and composition of inds, which makes it possible to interpret them as functionally different areas: 1) remains of a «dwelling complex» (?); 2) area devoted to the production and re-shaping of burins (including detachment of burin spalls); peripheral intermediate) part of the site. Despite the fact that the areas in question vary in both the composition of stone inventory and the assortment of raw materials, the available evidence remains insuficient to decide whether the III cultural layer should be subdivided into two independent complexes.
Journal of Human Evolution, 2019
Several questions remain regarding the timing and nature of the Neanderthal-anatomically modern h... more Several questions remain regarding the timing and nature of the Neanderthal-anatomically modern human (AMH) transition in Europe. The situation in Eastern Europe is generally less clear due to the relatively few sites and a dearth of reliable radiocarbon dates. Claims have been made for both notably early AMH and notably late Neanderthal presence, as well as for early AMH (Aurignacian) dispersal into the region from Central/Western Europe. The Kostenki-Borshchevo complex (European Russia) of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) sites offers high-quality data to address these questions. Here we revise the chronology and cultural status of the key sites of Kostenki 17 and Kostenki 14. The Kostenki 17/II lithic assemblage shares important features with Proto-Aurignacian material, strengthening an association with AMHs. New radiocarbon dates for Kostenki 17/II of ~41–40 ka cal BP agree with new dates for the recently excavated Kostenki 14/IVw, which shows some similarities to Kostenki 17/II. Dates of ≥41 ka cal BP from other Kostenki sites cannot be linked to diagnostic archaeological material, and therefore cannot be argued to date AMH occupation. Kostenki 14’s Layer in Volcanic Ash assemblage, on the other hand, compares to Early Aurignacian material. New radiocarbon dates targeting diagnostic lithics date to 39–37 ka cal BP. Overall, Kostenki’s early EUP is in good agreement with the archaeological record further west. Our results are therefore consistent with models predicting interregional penecontemporaneity of diagnostic EUP assemblages. Most importantly, our work highlights ongoing challenges for reliably radiocarbon dating the period. Dates for Kostenki 14 agreed with the samples’ chronostratigraphic positions, but standard pre-treatment methods consistently produced incorrect ages for Kostenki 17/II. Extraction of hydroxyproline from bone collagen using prep-HPLC, however, yielded results consistent with the samples’ chronostratigraphic position and with the layer’s archaeological contents. This suggests that for some sites compound-specific techniques are required to build reliable radiocarbon chronologies.
Diverse landscapes and ecosystems stretching across Europe led to diverse hunter-gatherer cultura... more Diverse landscapes and ecosystems stretching across Europe led to diverse hunter-gatherer cultural records during the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic. In response to abrupt climatic forcing, starting around the Late Glacial Maximum and followed by climatic events such as the BøllingeAllerød and the Younger Dryas in the Terminal Pleistocene, archaeological data pertaining to cultural and behavioral shifts of hunter-gatherers continue to be explored on a regional and pan-regional scale. Here we present an initial summary, which includes new and published data on faunal analyses from multiple open air sites that span the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene, dated between the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic (20,000e6000 uncal 14C BP) in the southern steppe of Eastern Europe. For this area, this is the first study to compile the cultural and faunal data with geo-referenced localization and radiometric dates of the archaeological sites. Taken together, faunal assemblages from the Epigravettian are characterized by low diversity and are often dominated by one species of large game, including bison and equids, whereas the Mesolithic diet is characterized by higher inter-site variability subsisting on large ungulate and greater emphasis on freshwater resources. This study contributes to the general knowledge concerning the last phases in the evolution of the Eurasian hunter-gatherers.
присутствие в инвентаре III культурного слоя Костёнки 11 треугольного наконечника с вогнутым осно... more присутствие в инвентаре III культурного слоя Костёнки 11 треугольного наконечника с вогнутым основанием всегда было основанием для поиска связей этой индустрии со значительно более древней стрелецкой культурой. Полученная в радиоуглеродной лаборатории Университета Оксфорда новая серия радиоуглеродных дат для третьего слоя, а также для геологически одновременного I слоя Костёнок 8, подтверждает относительно молодой возраст этих памятников. Основываясь на получен-ных датировках, данных стратиграфии и технико-типологических характеристиках коллекции, в работе обсуждаются вопросы отношения III культурного слоя Костёнок 11 к стрелецким памятникам и его возможной культурной связи с I слоем Костёнок 8.
Triangular, concave-base ‘Streletskian points’ are documented in several assemblages from the Kos... more Triangular, concave-base ‘Streletskian points’ are documented in several assemblages from the Kostёnki complex of Upper Palaeolithic sites in south-western Russia. Some of these assemblages have been argued to evidence very early modern human occupation of Eastern Europe. However, Streletskian points are also recorded from younger contexts, notably at Kostёnki 11, where examples are attributed both to Layer V and the stratigraphically higher Layer III. The apparent relatively young age of Layer III has led some to view it as the latest manifestation of the Streletskian, although its assemblage has also been compared to the non-Streletskian Layer I of Kostёnki 8, with the two described together as the Anosovka-Tel’manskaya Culture.
Radiocarbon dates of 24–23,000 BP (c. 28,500–27,000 cal BP) for a wolf burial associated with Layer III of Kostёnki 11 confirm the layer as younger than other Streletskian assemblages at Kostёnki. New radiocarbon dates for Kostёnki 8 Layer I show that the two layers are broadly contemporary, and that both are close in age to assemblages of Kostёnki’s (Late Gravettian) Kostёnki-Avdeevo Culture. In the light of these new radiocarbon dates the context of the Streletskian point from Kostёnki 11 Layer III is considered. Although firm conclusions are not possible, unresolved stratigraphic problems and the lack of technological context for this single artefact at the very least leave a question mark over its association with other material from the layer.
Stratum plus, 2022
The problem of the natural processes impact on cultural remains of Palaeolithic sites has been un... more The problem of the natural processes impact on cultural remains of Palaeolithic sites has been under consideration of scientists for many years. A whole number of special articles devoted to various degrees of cultural layers preservation at Kostenki has been published up to date. At the same time, the study of various cultural layer deformations of Kostenki sites has always been in the background of the priority tasks for the study of dwellings, structure of settlements, stone and bone assemblages, etc. The importance of assessing the degree of cultural layers preservation and the homogeneity of assemblages
was often neglected, which directly influenced the conclusions about the appearance industries and their periodization and chronological status. The article attempts to generalize and classify all known natural deformations occurring in the Palaeolithic settlements at Kostenki. The accumulation of such facts and the study of the processes that caused them will contribute to the understanding of the taphonomy of sites and minimize mistakes in the interpretation of archaeological material.
Первобытная археология. Журнал междисциплинарных исследований, 2022
The paper presents the preliminary results of the study of osseous objects discovered in cultural... more The paper presents the preliminary results of the study of osseous objects
discovered in cultural layer II of Kostenki 17 (Spitsynskaya) in 2021. Though the finds are not numerous (5 items only), their description
and analysis add much to our understanding of how bone/antler/ivory
artifacts were manufactured and used by the site inhabitants. Of particular interest is a non-ornamented ivory «ring»-pendant, having as yet no direct analogies in assemblages dated to the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic.
Лада А.Р., Бессуднов А.А., Диннис Р., Синицын А.А. Технология получения микропластин в индустриях ранней поры верхнего палеолита Костенок // Рогачевские чтения: труды музея-заповедника «Костенки» / Под ред. Д.С. Толстых. Вып. 1. Воронеж: Полиграфический центр «Пресс-Бургер», 2021. С. 182–187.
Департамент культуры Воронежской области Государственное бюджетное учреждение культуры Воронежско... more Департамент культуры Воронежской области Государственное бюджетное учреждение культуры Воронежской области «Государственный археологический музей-заповедник «Костенки» Р о г а ч е в с к и е ч т е н и я : м у з е й , а Р х е о л о г и я , и с т о Р и я Материалы международной научно-практической конференции, приуроченной к 30-летию музея-заповедника «Костенки» (г. Воронеж; Воронежская область, с. Костенки, 26-27 августа 2021 г.
Human-elephant interactions: from past to present, 2021
Middle and Upper Palaeolithic sites, where mammoths dominate the faunal assemblages, are mainly f... more Middle and Upper Palaeolithic sites, where mammoths dominate the faunal assemblages, are mainly found in Central and Eastern Europe. At these sites concentrations of skulls, tusks and long bones, interpreted as deliberate constructions, often occur. Rare instances of weapon tip fragments embedded in mammoth bones provide direct archaeological evidence of human hunting. Indirect evidence, such as the accumulation of mammoth bones from multiple individuals with specific ontogenetic ages, occurs more frequently. Based on the eruption sequence and wear of deciduous premolars from mammoth calves, we examined whether a season of death could be deduced from the characteristics of the dentition. Our results suggest that the mammoth hunt was not restricted to the cold half of the year.
Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology, 2021
The Streletskian is central to understanding the onset of the Upper Palaeolithic on the East Euro... more The Streletskian is central to understanding the onset of the Upper Palaeolithic on the East European Plain. Early Streletskian assemblages are frequently seen as marking the Neanderthal-anatomically modern human (AMH) anthropological transition, as well as the Middle-to-Upper Palaeolithic archaeological transition. The age of key Streletskian assemblages, however, remains unclear, and there are outstanding questions over how they relate to Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic facies. The three oldest Streletskian layers-Kostenki 1 Layer V, Kostenki 6 and Kostenki 12 Layer III-were excavated by A. N. Rogachev in the mid-20th century. Here, we reexamine these layers in light of problems noted during Rogachev's campaigns and later excavations. Layer V in the northern part of Kostenki 1 is the most likely assemblage to be unmixed. A new radiocarbon date of 35,100 ± 500 BP (OxA-X-2717-21) for this assemblage agrees with Rogachev's stratigraphic interpretation and contradicts later claims of a younger age. More ancient radiocarbon dates for Kostenki 1 Layer V are from areas lacking diagnostic Streletskian points. The Kostenki 6 assem-blage's stratigraphic context is extremely poor, but new radiocarbon dates are consistent with Rogachev's view that the archaeological material was deposited prior to the CI tephra (i.e. >34.3 ka BP). Multiple lines of evidence indicate that Kostenki 12 Layer III contains material of different ages. Despite some uncertainty over the precise relationship between the dated sample and diagnostic lithic material, Kostenki 1 Layer V (North) therefore currently provides the best age estimate for an early Streletskian context. This age is younger than fully Upper Palaeolithic assemblages elsewhere at Kostenki. Other "Streletskian" assemblages and Streletskian points from younger contexts at Kostenki are briefly reviewed, with possible explanations for their chrono-stratigraphic distribution considered. We caution that the cultural taxon Streletskian should not be applied to assemblages based simply on the presence of bifacially worked artefacts.
Archaeological layers at Kostënki 6 and Kostënki 17 have yielded some of the oldest Upper Palaeol... more Archaeological layers at Kostënki 6 and Kostënki 17 have yielded some of the oldest Upper Palaeolithic material on the East European Plain. Major excavations at both sites were undertaken in the early 1950s, and there are outstanding questions concerning their stratigraphies. Here we summarise recent excavation of both sites and present new radiocarbon dates for material from this work. 2017-2019 excavation of Kostënki 17 confirms its well-stratified sequence, although the upper section shows a greater complexity than was noted during earlier work. Our new 14C date for the stratigraphically higher Layer I helps to bracket its age in the range 34.3-29 ka BP. The heavily redeposited nature of Kostënki 6's archaeological layer is verified by a small-scale 2017 excavation. Our new 14C date is, however, consistent with the layer's recorded position underneath the CI tephra. This 14C date therefore supports an age of >34.3 ka BP for Kostënki 6's archaeological material.
by Alexander Bessudnov, Ekaterina Kashina, Ksenia Stepanova, Ivan Fedyunin, Arthur Chubur, Надежда И Платонова, Natalya Prilepskaya, Aleksei Sorokin, Александр Волокитин, Evgenia Tkach, Victor Karmanov, Andrei Skorobogatov, and Kerkko Nordqvist
Настоящее издание посвящено 60-летнему юбилею известного археолога, основателя и лидера липецкого... more Настоящее издание посвящено 60-летнему юбилею известного археолога, основателя и лидера липецкого археологического сообщества, кандидата исторических наук, доцента кафедры отечественной и всеобщей истории ЛГПУ имени П. П. Семенова-Тян-Шанского Александра Николаевича Бессуднова. В первом разделе сборника объединены публикации как мемуарного, так и научного характера, отражающие различные стороны жизни юбиляра. Проблематика других разделов охватывает круг основных научных интересов юбиляра: эпоха камня, история науки. Включение в издание отдельных статей иной тематической направленности обусловлено желанием их авторов таким образом поздравить юбиляра. Издание предназначено археологам, историкам, учителям истории. Оно может быть полезно и широкому кругу читателей, интересующихся археологией.
Археологические исследования в Центральном Черноземье 2018, 2019
L'Anthropologie, 2019
Le present travail consiste a` montrer les re´ sultats pre´liminaires des fouilles de sauvetage d... more Le present travail consiste a` montrer les re´ sultats pre´liminaires des fouilles de sauvetage de Kostenki 21 (Gme´ linskaia) re´ alise´es entre les anne´es 2013 et 2016 par le chantier arche´ ologique de Kostenki au sein de l’Institut d’Histoire de la Culture Mate´ rielle de l’Acade´mie des Sciences de Russie (Saint-Pe´tersbourg). A` la suite de l’examen visuel de la pente raide de la falaise dominant la rive, trois accumulations de mate´ riel arche´ ologique associe´ a` la couche culturelle principale (III) ont e´ te´ trouve´ es et e´tudie´ es. Chacune d’entre elles diffe` re par sa structure et sa composition, ce qui permet de les interpre´ ter comme des zones fonctionnellement diffe´ rentes : 1) vestiges d’un « ensemble d’habitat » (?) ; 2) zone de fabrication, de ravivage des burins, et d’obtention des chute de burin comme le support ; 3) partie pe´ riphe´ rique (interme´ diaire) du site. Les re´ sultats obtenus permettent de retourner a` la proble ´matique pose´e dans les anne´ es 1980 concernant la se´paration du mate´ riel arche´ ologique de la couche III du site de Kostenki 21 en deux groupes distincts. Malgre´ le fait que les zones en question varient a` la fois par la composition lithique et par l’assortiment de matie` res premie` res, les preuves disponibles restent insuffisantes pour de´ cider si la couche culturelle III doit eˆtre subdivise´e en deux complexes inde´pendants.
Camera Praehistorica, 2019
The paper presents results of zooarchaeological study of the bone assemblages of the large mammal... more The paper presents results of zooarchaeological study of the bone assemblages of the large mammals from the Late Upper Paleolithic site of Divnogor’ye 1 (Voronezh region, Russia). The analyses of the skeletal-parts frequencies, patterns of bones fragmentation, burned remains and cut marks reveals that the faunal assemblages at Divnogor’ye 1 resulted from human hunting activity focused mainly on large ungulates. Basically large and most valuable from the nutritional point of view parts of carcasses were brought to the site by people. Obviously later these supplies were transported to other destinations. Thus, Divnogor’ye 1 can be defined as a short-term, probably, seasonal camp-site. According to our preliminary data, the site was occupied during the summer (warm) period of year. The high degree of weathering and the presence of carnivore gnawing on bones indicate a long period of bone remains staying on the ancient ground surface before they were naturally buried.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 2019
Camera Praehistorica, 2019
The paper discusses the problems concerning cultural context of the Late Upper Paleolithic Zamyat... more The paper discusses the problems concerning cultural context of the Late Upper Paleolithic Zamyatnin archaeological culture that was distinguished on the materials from the sites of Kostenki 2, 3, 11 (layer Ia) and 19 in the 1960–70s. Poverty of the lithic assemblages and absence of specific tool types contribute to controversial assessment of this industry which various researchers associate with the Epigravettian specific local culture or with independent sites which share some common features. Based on the analysis of published materials,the author comes to the conclusion that the most characteristic feature of lithics from the Zamyatnin culture sites is almost complete absence of abrupt retouch and backed implements, which are among the main markers of the Eastern Epigravettian. On the contrary, the primary technology of bladelets production from multi-facetted burins, tabular flints and sometimes carinated endscrapers, as well as the morphology of the blanks have much in common with the Epi-Aurignacian sites of southern Eastern Europe. Based on radiocarbon dating data, the existence of the Zamyatnin industry is determined by an interval between 21.5 and 19 (18) kyr BP, that is much older comparing to the sites with “typical” Epigravettian tool-kits. Despite of large number of problems caused primarily by the state of the database, the sites discussed in the paper stand out from other cultural formations of the Russian Plain, both in chronology and in the specific look of the collections, which makes Zamyatnin archaeological culture a real cultural and chronological unit.
Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology, 2019
The site of Kostënki 21 (also known as Gmelin or Gmelinskaia) is located on the very edge of the ... more The site of Kostënki 21 (also known as Gmelin or Gmelinskaia) is located on the very edge of the Don River at Kostënki (Voronezh Oblast, Russia). The main archaeological horizon, layer III, is dated to c. 23,000-21,000 14 C BP (c. 27,500-24,500 cal BP) and contained six concentrations of archaeological material, mostly interpreted as the remains of dwelling structures. A substantial Gravettian lithic assemblage was found. The site has traditionally been seen as without parallels within the Gravettian chronocultural framework of Eastern Europe. It has long been noted that clear differences in the lithic typology and faunal assemblages of the six concentrations can be used to separate them into two groups, but this has previously been attributed to differences in the activities carried out in the two areas. In this paper, we argue that the two parts of the site were created at different times and that one part of the site can potentially be grouped with several other sites in Russia and Ukraine on lithic techno-typological grounds. The degree of patination of the flint artefacts found at the site provides support for our interpretation.
Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology, 2019
The site of Kostënki 21 (also known as Gmelin or Gmelinskaia) is located on the very edge of the ... more The site of Kostënki 21 (also known as Gmelin or Gmelinskaia) is located on the very edge of the Don River at Kostënki (Voronezh Oblast, Russia). The main archaeological horizon, layer III, is dated to c. 23,000–21,000 14C BP (c. 27,500–24,500 cal BP) and contained six concentrations of archaeological material, mostly interpreted as the
remains of dwelling structures. A substantial Gravettian lithic assemblage was found. The site has traditionally been seen as without parallels within the Gravettian chronocultural framework of Eastern Europe. It has long been noted that clear differences in the lithic typology and faunal assemblages of the six concentrations can be used to separate them into two groups, but this has previously been attributed to
differences in the activities carried out in the two areas. In this paper, we argue that the two parts of the site were created at different times and that one part of the site can potentially be grouped with several other sites in Russia and Ukraine on lithic technotypological grounds. The degree of patination of the flint artefacts found at the site provides support for our interpretation.
Zapiski IHMC, 2018
The work presents preliminary results of rescue excavations of Kostenki 21 (Gmelin site) carried ... more The work presents preliminary results of rescue excavations of Kostenki 21 (Gmelin site) carried out by the Kostenki Archaeological Expedition of IHMC RAS in 2013–2016. As a result of visual examination of the bank escarpment, three accumulations of archaeological material associated with the main (III) cultural layer were found and studied. Each of them differs in its structure and composition of inds, which makes it possible to interpret them as functionally different areas: 1) remains of a «dwelling complex» (?); 2) area devoted to the production and re-shaping of burins (including detachment of burin spalls); peripheral intermediate) part of the site. Despite the fact that the areas in question vary in both the composition of stone inventory and the assortment of raw materials, the available evidence remains insuficient to decide whether the III cultural layer should be subdivided into two independent complexes.
Journal of Human Evolution, 2019
Several questions remain regarding the timing and nature of the Neanderthal-anatomically modern h... more Several questions remain regarding the timing and nature of the Neanderthal-anatomically modern human (AMH) transition in Europe. The situation in Eastern Europe is generally less clear due to the relatively few sites and a dearth of reliable radiocarbon dates. Claims have been made for both notably early AMH and notably late Neanderthal presence, as well as for early AMH (Aurignacian) dispersal into the region from Central/Western Europe. The Kostenki-Borshchevo complex (European Russia) of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) sites offers high-quality data to address these questions. Here we revise the chronology and cultural status of the key sites of Kostenki 17 and Kostenki 14. The Kostenki 17/II lithic assemblage shares important features with Proto-Aurignacian material, strengthening an association with AMHs. New radiocarbon dates for Kostenki 17/II of ~41–40 ka cal BP agree with new dates for the recently excavated Kostenki 14/IVw, which shows some similarities to Kostenki 17/II. Dates of ≥41 ka cal BP from other Kostenki sites cannot be linked to diagnostic archaeological material, and therefore cannot be argued to date AMH occupation. Kostenki 14’s Layer in Volcanic Ash assemblage, on the other hand, compares to Early Aurignacian material. New radiocarbon dates targeting diagnostic lithics date to 39–37 ka cal BP. Overall, Kostenki’s early EUP is in good agreement with the archaeological record further west. Our results are therefore consistent with models predicting interregional penecontemporaneity of diagnostic EUP assemblages. Most importantly, our work highlights ongoing challenges for reliably radiocarbon dating the period. Dates for Kostenki 14 agreed with the samples’ chronostratigraphic positions, but standard pre-treatment methods consistently produced incorrect ages for Kostenki 17/II. Extraction of hydroxyproline from bone collagen using prep-HPLC, however, yielded results consistent with the samples’ chronostratigraphic position and with the layer’s archaeological contents. This suggests that for some sites compound-specific techniques are required to build reliable radiocarbon chronologies.
Diverse landscapes and ecosystems stretching across Europe led to diverse hunter-gatherer cultura... more Diverse landscapes and ecosystems stretching across Europe led to diverse hunter-gatherer cultural records during the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic. In response to abrupt climatic forcing, starting around the Late Glacial Maximum and followed by climatic events such as the BøllingeAllerød and the Younger Dryas in the Terminal Pleistocene, archaeological data pertaining to cultural and behavioral shifts of hunter-gatherers continue to be explored on a regional and pan-regional scale. Here we present an initial summary, which includes new and published data on faunal analyses from multiple open air sites that span the Late Pleistocene to the Holocene, dated between the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic (20,000e6000 uncal 14C BP) in the southern steppe of Eastern Europe. For this area, this is the first study to compile the cultural and faunal data with geo-referenced localization and radiometric dates of the archaeological sites. Taken together, faunal assemblages from the Epigravettian are characterized by low diversity and are often dominated by one species of large game, including bison and equids, whereas the Mesolithic diet is characterized by higher inter-site variability subsisting on large ungulate and greater emphasis on freshwater resources. This study contributes to the general knowledge concerning the last phases in the evolution of the Eurasian hunter-gatherers.
присутствие в инвентаре III культурного слоя Костёнки 11 треугольного наконечника с вогнутым осно... more присутствие в инвентаре III культурного слоя Костёнки 11 треугольного наконечника с вогнутым основанием всегда было основанием для поиска связей этой индустрии со значительно более древней стрелецкой культурой. Полученная в радиоуглеродной лаборатории Университета Оксфорда новая серия радиоуглеродных дат для третьего слоя, а также для геологически одновременного I слоя Костёнок 8, подтверждает относительно молодой возраст этих памятников. Основываясь на получен-ных датировках, данных стратиграфии и технико-типологических характеристиках коллекции, в работе обсуждаются вопросы отношения III культурного слоя Костёнок 11 к стрелецким памятникам и его возможной культурной связи с I слоем Костёнок 8.
Triangular, concave-base ‘Streletskian points’ are documented in several assemblages from the Kos... more Triangular, concave-base ‘Streletskian points’ are documented in several assemblages from the Kostёnki complex of Upper Palaeolithic sites in south-western Russia. Some of these assemblages have been argued to evidence very early modern human occupation of Eastern Europe. However, Streletskian points are also recorded from younger contexts, notably at Kostёnki 11, where examples are attributed both to Layer V and the stratigraphically higher Layer III. The apparent relatively young age of Layer III has led some to view it as the latest manifestation of the Streletskian, although its assemblage has also been compared to the non-Streletskian Layer I of Kostёnki 8, with the two described together as the Anosovka-Tel’manskaya Culture.
Radiocarbon dates of 24–23,000 BP (c. 28,500–27,000 cal BP) for a wolf burial associated with Layer III of Kostёnki 11 confirm the layer as younger than other Streletskian assemblages at Kostёnki. New radiocarbon dates for Kostёnki 8 Layer I show that the two layers are broadly contemporary, and that both are close in age to assemblages of Kostёnki’s (Late Gravettian) Kostёnki-Avdeevo Culture. In the light of these new radiocarbon dates the context of the Streletskian point from Kostёnki 11 Layer III is considered. Although firm conclusions are not possible, unresolved stratigraphic problems and the lack of technological context for this single artefact at the very least leave a question mark over its association with other material from the layer.
Древнейший палеолит Костёнок: Хронология, стратиграфия, культурное разнообразие (к 140-летию археологическихисследований в Костёнковско-Борщёвском районе). Мат-лы межрегиональной научно-практической конференции (с. Костёнки, Воронежская обл., 20-22 августа 2019). Воронеж: ВГУ. С. 40-48., 2019
Коллекция подвесок II слоя Костенок 17 из клыков и рез- цов песца, ростров белемнитов, ископаемых... more Коллекция подвесок II слоя Костенок 17 из клыков и рез-
цов песца, ростров белемнитов, ископаемых раковин, кораллов и минералов с просверленными отверстиями и без отверстий
получила известность еще с момента раскопок и публикации
материалов П. И. Борисковским. Вплоть
до настоящего времени эти предметы привлекают к себе внимание в силу их древности (возраст слоя определен как 41–
40 кал. тыс. л. н.) и оригинальности, что в первую очередь касается
подвесок из окаменелостей, в особенности – из белемнитов, которые не имеют близких аналогов среди украшений верхнего палеолита. Нерешенность некоторых вопросов о технике изготовления, способах крепления и дальнейшего использования украшений II слоя Костенок 17 позволяет нам вновь
вернуться к этой коллекции, тем более что в 2017–2018 гг. получены некоторые новые находки.
