Atti della Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Volume...

8/12/2019 Atti della Societ per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Volume XVII, 2008-2009. Trieste

1/200


2/200


3/200

ATTI DELLA SOCIET PER LA PREISTORIA E PROTOSTORIA

DELLA REGIONE FRIULI-VENEZIA GIULIA

XVII 2008-2009

Trieste2010

ISSN 0393-4675


4/200

ATTI DELLA SOCIET PER LA PREISTORIA E PROTOSTORIA

DELLA REGIONE FRIULI-VENEZIA GIULIA

XVII 2008-2009

c/o Museo Civico di Storia Naturale

Via dei Tominz 4 - 34139 Trieste (Italia)

COMITATO DI REDAZIONE

Lawrence H. Bar eld - Paolo Biagi - Giovanni Boschian - Mitja Gutin - Janusz K. Koz owskiRenato Nisbet - Alfredo Riedel - Barbara A. Voytek

REDATTORE

Paolo Biagi


5/200

- 5

Atti Soc. Preist. Protost. Friuli-V.G., Trieste, XVII, 2008-2009 (2010)

SOMMARIO

pag. 7

27

101

157

171

187

OLENKOVSKIY M. The Eastern Epigravettian in the north Azov region (Ukraine) ...................................

STANKO V.N. and K IOSAK D. The Late Mesolithic settlement of south-western Ukraine ......................

DOMBORCZKI L., K ACZANOWSKA M. and K ozowsKi J.K. The Neolithic settlement of Tiszaszls-Domahza-Puszta and the question of the northern spread of the Krs Culture .....................................

BOSCHIAN G. Soil micromorphological observations on the anthropogenous deposits of PeteraUngureasc (Cluj region, Romania) ..........................................................................................................

NISBET R. Copper Age wild and cultivated plants from Petera Ungureasc Cave (Transylvania,Romania) ....................................................................................................................................................

GIROD A. Land and freshwater snails from Petera Ungureasc (Cheile Turzii Gorge, Transylvania,Romania) ....................................................................................................................................................


6/200


7/200

- 7

______________________________________

**Cherson (UA)

Atti Soc. Preist. Protost. Friuli-V.G., Trieste, XVII, 2008-2009 (2010): 7-26

MIKOLA OLENKOVSKIY

THE EASTERN EPIGRAVETTIAN IN THE NORTH AZOV REGION(UKRAINE)

1. INTRODUCTION

The Epigravettian is well-represented in the Ukraine by both Classical and Eastern Epi -gravettian assemblages ( OLENKOVSKIY, 2001: 149-155; 2005; 2005a). The Eastern Epigravet -tian differs from the Classical one, as already reported by the present author ( OLENKOVS-KIY, 2000: 139-142; 2000a; 2000b: 368-377), who analysed the developmental trends of theEastern Epigravettian, and also defined of a few cultures, which he attributes to this complex(OLENKOVSKIY, 2002a: 44-65).

RIASSUNTO LEpigravettiano Orientale nella regione settentrionale del Mar dAzov (Ucraina) . Il presentelavoro riguarda uno degli aspetti dellEpigravettiano dellUcraina, quello della regione settentrionale del MardAzov. Lautore ritiene che lEpigravettiano dellEuropa Orientale si suddivida in Epigravettiano Classico, che

presenta unorigine comune a quello dellEuropa Centrale, e Epigravettiano Orientale, che invece presenta una sua propria identit storica. Una delle variet dellEpigravettiano Orientale riguarda gli elementi dellindustria di tipoKamennaja Balka. In Ucraina a questo aspetto dellEpigravettiano Orientale sono attribuibili tre diverse culture:1) quella del Mar dAzov settentrionale (che si distribuisce nella regione orientale del Dnieper meridionale e sullacosta del Mar dAzov), 2) quella di Siuren, in Crimea, e 3) quelle di Rogalyk e Peredelska nellUcraina orientale.Lautore fornisce lelenco delle stazioni del Cultura del Mar dAzov settentrionale e le caratteristiche tipologiche deicomplessi; analizza inoltre la cronologia e periodizzazione di questi aspetti culturali.

SUMMARY The Eastern Epigravettian in the north Azov region (Ukraine) . This paper considers the north AzovSea aspects of the Ukrainian Epigravettian. The author believes that the Epigravettian of Eastern Europe is to besubdivided into Classical, whose origin is the same as that of Central Europe, and Eastern, which has its ownhistorical identity. One of the varieties of the Eastern Epigravettian is characterized by the presence of KamennajaBalka types. In the Ukraine, three cultures are to be attributed to this complex: 1) the north Azov Sea, which isdistributed in the eastern region of the southern course of the Dnieper and along the Azov Sea coast, 2) Siuren, inthe Crimea, and 3) Rogalyk e Peredelska, in eastern Ukraine. In this paper the author provides a list of the sites of theAzov Sea Culture, the characteristics of the lithic assemblages, and. discusses the chronology and the periodisationof these cultural aspects.

Keywords: Ukraine, North Azov Sea, Eastern Epigravettian cultures, Upper Palaeolithic, flint tools.


8/200

8 -

The Eastern Epigravettian is supposed to have originated in Eastern Europe and theCaucasus. The sites are distributed in Eastern Ukraine and Russia. It is represented by theMizinska, Desnyanska and Mezhyritska Cultures ( OLENKOVSKIY, 2003: 23-16; 2003a). In theUkraine, the Eastern Epigravettian of Kamennaja Balka type is represented by several cul -tures, among which are Pivnichnopriazovska (North Azov), Verhnyosurenska (Upper Siu -ren), and Rogalyk-Peredelska ( OLENKOVSKIY, 2001a: 3-16; 2002).

2. THE CULTURES

2.1. The North Azov (Pivnichnopriazovka) CultureIt was defined by the present author in 1994 ( OLENKOVSKIY, 1995; 1998; 2001a; 2002)

from the assemblages from Fedorivka (both layers) (fig. 1, n. 8), Kapustjana balka (fig. 1,n. 10), Kashtaeva balka (fig. 1, n. 7), Somova balka (fig. 1, n. 2), Kajstrova balka VI (fig. 1,n. 11), Solone zr IX (lower layer) (fig. 1, n. 5), Solone zr IXa (lower layer) (fig. 1, n.4), Solone zr Ia (lower layer) (fig. 1, n. 6), Lysa gora (fig. 1, n. 9), and Kantcerka (fig.1, n. 14). The attribution of the sites of Velyvalska balka (fig.1, n. 3), Yamburg (one of thehorizons) (fig. 1, n. 15), Dubova balka (5 horizons) (fig. 1, n. 12), Vorona I (fig. 1, n. 13), andHatki (fig. 1, n. 1) to this aspect cannot be excluded. Kajstrova balka IV is also important,and, most probably, it is to be included in the same aspect.

The most important sites of the North Azov Culture are Fedorivka ( NEPRINA et al ., 1986:25-39), Kashtaeva balka ( MIHAYLOV, 1982; OLENKOVSKIY, 1991: 124-132), Solone zr IX(OLENKOVSKIY, 2000: 62-76), Kapustjana balka ( OLENKOVSKIY, 2008: 289-290), Somova bal -ka ( OLENKOVSKIY, 1991: 43-52), Kajstrova balka VI ( SMIRNOV, 1973: 82-88; NUZHNIY, 1999)that yielded rich, characteristic chipped stone assemblages (figs. 2-7).

In the authors opinion the North Azov Culture developed during a rather long period(OLENKOVSKIY, 2000b). The lower layers at Fedorivka, Kashtaeva balka, Kapustjana balkamost probably belong to its early stage, while the late stage is represented by the uppermosthorizon at Fedorivka, the lower layers of Solone zr IX and Solone zr Ia. Some sites,among which are Somova balka and Kajstrova balka VI, most probably belong to its mediumstage. The attribution of the other sites is difficult to assess because a few of them weresettled for a long time, and they might represent seasonal (re)occupations.

The assemblages are characterized by the prevalence of burins over end-scrapers, and anaverage percentage of end-scrapers and burins, in the earlier complexes, and a prevalence ofend-scrapers over burins in the more recent ones. The burins consist of both dihedral, on trun -cation, angle types, and a high percentage of double burins. The scrapers are often double.Federmesser type curved backed points are always present. There is a high percentage of

backed blades and bladelets with retouched ends (including those of Kamennobalkovsko-Imeretinsky type). Splintered pieces and chisels also occur.

The detachment techniques are indicated by a low number of prismatic cores with onestriking platform, a double percentage of prismatic cores with two opposed platforms, and avery low percentage of a specific type of prismatic cores whose main detachment surface ison their narrow sides (Tortsevy cores). Subconical and subpyramidal cores with two or more

platforms are uncommon. These characteristics are not typical for any Epigravettian and


9/200

- 9

Eastern Epigravettian aspect of the entire Ukraine. Furthermore cores on flakes (Vtorichnycores) are well represented, and characterize this aspect.

Other specific features of the North Azov Culture are 1) a high percentage of backed-retouched tools (some 23%), and 2) a low percentage of microretouched bladelets (


10/200

10 -

Fig. 2 - North Azov Culture. Flint implements from Kashtaeva balka.


11/200

- 11

Fig. 3 - North Azov Culture. Flint implements from Kajstrova balka VI (after NUZHNIY, 1999).

0 2


12/200

12 -

Fig. 4 - North Azov Culture. Flint implements from Kapustjana balka.


13/200

- 13

Fig. 5 - North Azov Culture. Flint implements from Somova balka.


14/200

14 -

Fig. 6 - North Azov Culture. Flint implements from Solone zr IX.


15/200

- 15

Fig. 7 - North Azov Culture. Flint implements from Fedorivka, level 1.


16/200

16 -

presence of nosed and lateral types. These features help differentiate the class of the end-scrapers of this culture from those of the other cultures of the Eastern Epigravettian. The

burins are represented by a very high percentage of double (combined) specimens, and alow number of types with three or four blows.

According to the present author ( OLENKOVSKIY, 1995: 52), the North Azov Culture de -veloped from an early stage of the Kamennaja Balka Culture. Its chronology is supposedto span between 15,500 and 12,800 uncal . The available data for the definition of itschronology come from Solone zr IX (lower layer) and Solone zr Ia (lower layer). Thesequence of Solone Ozero IX excludes the possibility to attribute the lower layer of this siteto the Final Palaeolithic. The finds from the beach alluvium (lower layer) of Solone zrIX, indicate that it was settled during a humid phase, most probably during the Dryas III.It was radiocarbon-dated to 13,46080 uncal BP (K-5825), while Solone zr Ia (lowerlayer) to 12,70060 uncal BP (K-6357). This second site, which is more recent than the firstas demonstrated by the above absolute date, yielded both Final Palaeolithic tools and ele -ments of the North Azov Culture ( OLENKOVSKIY, 1999: 18-19). A radiocarbon date from thelower layer of Solone zr IX attributes it to 14,80080 uncal BP (K-6360) ( OLENKOVSKIY,2000c). The absolute chronology of this culture is reinforced by new dates from the lower(15,200110 uncal BP: K-10354) and the upper layer (14,600110 uncal BP: K-10355) ofFedorivka ( K ROTOVA, 2003).

2.2. The Upper Siuren CultureAnother aspect of the East Epigravettian is the Upper Siuren Culture in Crimea, which

shows evident Caucasian traits. The present author attributes the assemblages from the upperlayers of Siuren I cave (fig. 1, n. 16) ( VEKILOVA, 1957) to this culture, as well as the materi -als from the Upper Palaeolithic layer of Agy-Koba cave (figs. 1, n. 17; 8) ( TRUSOVA, 1940;K OLOSOV et al ., 1990).

The Upper Siuren Culture most probably can be attributed to a period between 16,000 and13,000 uncal ( OLENKOVSKIY, 2008: 301-311), although no radiocarbon date is so far avail -able from any site of this aspect. The origin of this culture from a local, Crimean, background isto be excluded. At present it is not possible to define the ways the Epigravettian hunters enteredthe territory of the peninsula, possibly by bearers of the Imeretinskaja Culture, from the south-east, or by hunters of the Kamennobalkovskaya Culture from the north-east.

2.3. The Rogalyk-Peredelska CultureAccording to the present author the East Epigravettian sites located close to Rogalyk

(fig. 1, n. 18) represent a distinct cultural aspect ( OLENKOVSKIY, 2008: 312-320), as alreadysuggested by A.F. GORELIK (1996), although, according to this author the chipped stoneassemblages of the sites of the Eastern Final Epigravettian do not include geometric micro-liths (GORELIK , 2000).

After Gorelik's final publication of the assemblages from all the sites of Rogalyk-Peredelsk ( GORELIK , 2001), the present analysed the assemblages from all the East Epigravet -tian site of the region. In my opinion Rogalyk VII is of unique importance because it repre -sents a separate case (fig. 9). On the basis of the analysis of this assemblage it is possible todefine a separate culture, called Rogalyk-Peredelska Eastern Epigravettian Culture. The sites


17/200

- 17

Fig. 8 - Upper Siuren Culture. Flint implements from Agy-Koba (Upper Palaeolithic level).


18/200

18 -

Fig. 9 - Rogalyk-Peredelska Culture. Flint implements from Rogalyk VII.


19/200

- 19

Rogalyk V, VI, IX might be attributed to this aspect, although their attribution is not certain.The site of Visla Balka (fig. 1, n. 19) is probably a workshop ( K OLESNIK and K OVAL, 1998).

3. DISCUSSION

The above three Eastern Epigravettian cultures of the Ukraine (North Azov, Verhnesuren -ska and Rogalyk-Peredelska) show both a few particular, and some common features, whichsuggest their origin from a common background. The main characteristic of the industries ofthese cultures, and also of the Kamennaja Balka Culture along the course of the lower Don, isthe very high percentage of backed blades and bladelets retouched at their end. Double-truncat -ed tools are very typical (rectangles, rhomboids and parallelograms - elongated rhomboids),while trapezes are absent. The types of microliths represented from all the above cultures arerepresented by backed blades with an oblique truncation on one end. They are in fact backed

points with an oblique base that often resemble triangles. Chisels, mainly on blades, are com -mon to all these cultures as well are double end-scrapers (tables 1-10).

These implements are typical for the North Azov, Upper Siuren, Rogalyk-Peredelska andKamennaja Balka Cultures as well as the Epigravettian cultures of Central and Eastern Eu -rope. These tools are also typical of the Imeretinskaja Culture. Considering that they are olderimplements in the Imeretinskaja Culture, and that they do not characterize any other UpperPalaeolithic culture outside the Caucasus, it is possible to suggest that the Imeretinskaja Cultureflourished around 17,000-16,000 uncal BP, and that the Kamennaja Balka Culture, the NorthAzov, Upper Siuren, and the Rogalyk-Peredelska Cultures originated from it.

Even though all the above aspects are supposed to have the same origin and background,they have been attributed to distinct cultures because of the presence of characteristic types ofchipped stone tools, which characterize only well-defined groups of sites.

Table 1- Core types.

S LONEZ R

SOMOVABALKA

K ASHTAEVABALKA

K YSTROVBALKA VI(NUZHNYI ,

1999)

S ITES

n. % n. % n. % n. %

Prismatic cores 4 19.0 8 23.5 9 24.3 1 16.7Prismatic cores with opposed

platforms9 42.9 7 20.6 8 21.6 2 33.3

Prismatic cores with several

platforms

2 9.5 - 1 2,7 -

Tortsevy cores 1 4.8 4 11.6 3 8.1 1 16.7Tortsevy cores with opposed

platforms- - - -

Subpyramidal and subconical cores 1 4.8 1 2.9 2 5.4 -Discoidal cores - - 3 8.1 -Amorphous cores 2 9.5 5 14.7 - -Cores on flakes 2 9.5 9 26.5 11 29.8 -Core fragments - - - 2 33.3Totals 21 100.0 34 100.0 37 100.0 6 100.0

Core types

SITES

Tool types

2.7


20/200

20 -

Table 3 - Backed tool types.

SITES S LONE

Z R

S OMOVA

BALKA

K ASHTAEVA

BALKA

K YSTROV

BALKA VI

(NUZHNYI , 1999)Tool types n. % n. % n. % n. %Backed points and micro-

points:6 19.4 10 41.7 17 24.3 1 11.1

straight 2 33.3 4 40.0 7 41.2 1 100.0curved 2 33.3 6 60.0 8 47.0 - -oblique 1 16.7 - - 2 11.8 - -

needle-like 1 16.7 - - - - - -Backed blades : 8 25.8 6 25.0 14 20.0 8 88.9 with straight truncation 1 12.5 2 33.6 10 71.4 1 12.5 Bilateral types - - 1 16.4 - - - - with oblique truncation 7 87.5 3 50.0 4 28.6 7 87.5Backed bladelets: 17 54.8 8 33.3 39 55.7 - - with a straight truncation 5 29.4 5 62.5 33 84.6 - - bilateral - - - - - - - - with an oblique truncation 12 70.6 3 37.5 6 15.4 - -Totals 31 100.0 24 100.0 70 100.0 9 100.0

n. % n. % n. % n. %

End-scrapers 53 28.6 63 19.0 31 17.6 27 38.0

Burins 21 11.6 47 14.2 28 15.6 23 32.4

Backed points, micropoints, blades and bladelets

31 16.8 24 7.2 71 40.3 9 12.7

Microretouched bladelets 10 5.4 4 1.2 3 1.8 - -

Trapezes - - - - 1 0.6 - -

Splintered pieces 3 1.6 77 23.2 ? - - -

Chisels 5 2.7 - ? - - -

Perforators 2 1.1 4 1.2 8 4.5 - -

Notched blades and flakes 7 3.8 5 1.5 1 0.6 - -Truncations 16 8.6 5 1.5 1 0.6 4 5.6

Composite tools 2 1.1 3 0.9 2 1.2 2 2.8

Side scrapers - - 2 0.6 1 0.6 - -

Denticulates - - 1 0.3 2 1.2 - -

Retouched blades 18 9.6 49 14.7 17 9.6 3 4.2

Retouched flakes 15 8.1 43 13.0 10 5.8 2 2.8

Other tools 1 0.5 - - - - 1 1.5

Totals 185 100.0 332 100.0 176 100.0 71 100.0

K ystrovbalKa vI

(NUZHNYI, 1999)

K ashtaeva BALKA

s omova BALKA

s lonezr

Table 2 - Tool types.

SITES

Tool types

SITES

Tool types


21/200

- 21

S LONE

Z R

S OMOVA

BALKA

K ASHTAEVA

BALKA

K YSTROV

BALKA VI

(NUZHNYI , 1999)

S ITES

Tool types n. % n. % n. % n. %

Dihedral burins 2 9.1 10 21.3 9 32.1 1 4.3

Table 5 - Burin types.

On truncation burins 8 36.4 13 27.7 10 35.8 9 39.2Angle burins 3 13.6 13 27.7 2 7.1 3 13.0Transverse burins 1 4.5 1 2.1 - - - -Double burins 7 31.9 8 17.0 7 25.0 8 34.8Triple burins - - 2 4.2 - - 2 8.7Fragments 1 4.5 - - - - - -Totals 22 100.0 47 100.0 28 100.0 23 100.0

Table 4 - End-scraper types.

S LONE

Z R

S OMOVA

BALKA

K ASHTAEVA

BALKA

K YSTROV

BALKA VI

(NUZHNYI , 1999)

S ITES

Tool types n. % n. % n. % n. %

End-end-scrapers on blades 18 34.0 19 30.2 12 38.7 16 59.2

(NUZHNYI, 1999)

End-scrapers on blades

End-end-scrapers on flakes 19 35.8 25 39.7 11 35.5 6 22.2End-end-scrapers on crested

blades4 7.5 4 6.3 1 3.2 - -

Double end-end-scrapers 8 15.1 5 7.9 2 6.5 4 14.8Circular end-scrapers 1 1.9 - - 2 6.5 - .

Nosed end-end-scrapers - - 4 6.3 - - 1 3.8End-scrapers on cores - - - - - - -Arrow-shaped end-scrapers 1 1.9 1 1.6 - - - -

End-scrapers on flakesEnd-scrapers on crested

Double end-scrapers

Thumb-nail end-scrapers 2 3.8 3 4.8 3 9.6 - -Fragments of end-scrapers - - 2 3.2 - - - -

Totals 53 100.0 63 100.0 31 100.0 27 100.0

S ITES

Tool types

S ITES

Tool types


22/200

22 -

Table 7 - Tool types.

K APUSTIANA BALKA

(BODJANSKY ,1993)

(NUZHNYI ,1999)

F EDORIVKA

(layer 2)(NEPRINA et

al ., 1986)

F EDORIVKA


al ., 1986)

S ITES

Core typesn.

%n.

%n.

%n.

%Prismatic cores 9 31.1 - - -Prismatic cores with opposed

platforms17 58.7 - - 1 25.0 } 9 64.3

Prismatic cores with several platforms

- - - - - - - -

Tortsevy cores 1 3.4 - - - -Tortsevy coreswith opposed

platforms1 3.4 - - - - } 3 21.5

Subpyramidal and subconicalcores

- - - - - - 1 7.1

Discoidal cores - - - - - - - -

Primitive cores - - - - 2 50.0 1 7.1Secondary cores 1 3.4 - - 1 25.0 ? -

Table 6 - Core types.

Tool types

cores with opposed

K apustIana balKa

Totals 29 100.0 - - 4 100.0 14 100.0

K APUSTIANA BALKA

(BODJANSKY ,

1993)

(NUZHNYI ,

1999)

F EDORIVKA

(layer 2)

(NEPRINA et

al ., 1986)

F EDORIVKA

(layer 1)

(NEPRINA et

al ., 1986)

S ITES

Tool types n. % n. % n. % n. %End-scrapers 62 26.4 4 40.0 26 14.8 62 22.2

(BODJANSKY,1993)

(NUZHNYI,1999)

K apustIana balKa

Burins 47 14.2 3 30.0 35 19.9 34 12.2Backed points, micropoints,

blades and bladelets24 10.2 2 20.0 57 32.4 96 34.4

Microretouched bladelets - - - - 6 3.4 8 2.9

Trapezes 2 0.9 - - - . - -Splintered pieces 4 1.7 - - - . 1 0.3Chisels - - - - - . - -

Perforators 2 0.9 - - 2 1.1 4 1.4 Notched blades and flakes - . - - 10 5.7 8 2.9Truncations 9 3.8 - - 4 2.3 10 3.6

Composite tools 5 2.1 - - - - + -Side-scrapers - - - - - - - -Denticulates - - - - - - - -Retouched blades 8 3.4 - -Retouched flakes 19 8.1 - - }30 17.0 }53 19.0Retouched flakes - - - - 6 3.4 3 1.1Totals 235 100.0 10 100.0 176 100.0 279 100.0

}30 17.0 53 19.0

S ITES

Tool types

} 9

} 3

SITES

Tool types


23/200

- 23

Table 9 - End-scraper types.

Table 8 - Backed tool types.

S ITES K APUSTIANA BALKA

(BODJANSKY ,1993)

(NUZHNYI ,1999)

F EDORIVKA


al ., 1986)

F EDORIVKA


al ., 1986)

Tool types n. % n. % n. % n. %Backed points and micro-

points:7 29.2 - - 8 14.0 18 18.8

straight 3 42.9 - - + - + - curved 3 42.9 - - + - + - oblique - - - - - - + - needle-like 1 14.2 - - - - - -Backed blades : 17 70.8 2 100.0 49 86.0 78 81.2 with straight truncation 8 47.1 1 50.0 32 65.3 52 66.6 bilateral 2 11.7 - - - - - - with oblique truncation 7 41.2 1 50.0 17 34.7 26 33.4Totals 24 100.0 2 100.0 57 100.0 96 100.0

K apustIana

(BODJANSKY,1993)

(NUZHNYI,1999)

K apustIana balKa

K APUSTIANA BALKA

(BODJANSKY ,1993)

(NUZHNY ,1999)

F EDORIVKA


al ., 1986)

F EDORIVKA


al ., 1986)

S ITES

pes n.ool tyT n. % % n. % n. %End-scrapers on blades .018 29.0 1 25

(BODJANSKY,1993)

(NUZHNYI,1999)

End-scrapers on flakes 35.5 2 50.022End-scrapers on crested

blades

1 1.6 - - 1 3.8 2 3.2

Double end-scrapers 7 11.3 1 25.0 1 3.8 10 16.1Circular end-scrapers 3 4.8 - - - - - -

Nosed end-scrapers 2 3.3 - - - - - -End-scrapers on cores - - - - - - - -Arrow-shaped end-scrapers - - - - - - - -Thumb-nail end-scrapers 7.7 4 6.56 9.7 - - 2Other types and fragments of 1.6end-scrapers

3 4.8 - - - - 1

Totals 62 1 10 0 1 100.0 4 0. 26 00.0 62 00.0

K apustIana balKa

{22 84.7 45 72.6

SITES

Tool types

SITES

Tool types

} 22


24/200

24 -

APUSTIANA BALKA

K

(BODJANSKYI ,1993)

(NUZHNYI ,1999)

F EDORIVKA

(layer 2)(NEPRINA et al .,

1986)

F EDORIVKA


al ., 1986)

S ITES

Tool typesn.

%%n. n.

%n.

%

(BODJANSKY,1993)

(NUZHNYI,1999)

Table 10 - Burin types.

Dihedral burins 16.2 33.316 1 3 8.6 11 32.3

Burins on truncation 42.5 33.3 60.0 47.042 1 21 16Angle burins 14 14.1 - - 10 28.6 3 9.0Transverse burins 2 2.0 - - - - - -Double burins 23 23.2 1 33.3 1 2.8 4 11.7Triple burins 1 1.0 - - - - - -Totals 99 1 10 0 1 34 100.0 3 0. 35 0 0 0. 0 00.

S ITES

Tool types


25/200


26/200

26 -

OLENKOVSKIY, M.P. 2001 - Epigravettski ta shidnoepigravetski kulturi Ukraini. Vita Antiqua , 3-4: 149-155. Kiev(in Ukrainian).

OLENKOVSKIY, M.P. 2001a - Pivnichno-Priazovska piznyopaleolitichna kultura. Arheologiya , 3: 3-16 (in Ukrainian).

OLENKOVSKIY, M.P. 2002 - O proishozhdenii i razvitii severo-priazovskoy pozdnepaleoliticheskoy kulturi. Stratum Plus , 2001-2002 (1): 383-392 (in Russian).

OLENKOVSKIY, M. 2002a - Do vidilennya arheologichnih kultur shidnogo epigravettu na terenah Ukraini. Zapiski naukovogo tovaris tva imeni Shevchenka. Pratsi Arheologichnoi komisii , CCXLIV: 44-65. Lviv(in Ukrainian).

OLENKOVSKIY, M. 2003 - Piznyopaleolitichni kulturi Livoberezhnoi Ukraini. Arheologiya Ternopilschini : 23-32.Ternopil (in Ukrainian).

OLENKOVSKIY, M.P. 2003a - Desnyanska shidnoepigravettska kultura v ukrainskomu Podesenni. Kamyana dobaUkraini , 4: 256-261. Kiev-Poltava (in Ukrainian).

OLENKOVSKIY, M. 2004 - Upper Palaeolithic of the Sivash Region. In SMYNTYNA, O.V. (ed.) The Use of Living Spacein Prehistory . BAR International Series, 1224: 51-59. Archaeopress, Oxford.

OLENKOVSKIY, M. 2005 - Oselivska epigravettska kultura. Materiali i doslidzhennya z apheologii Prikarpattya IVolini , 9: 194-216. Lviv (in Ukrainian).

OLENKOVSKIY, M.P. 2005a - Nizhnedneprovskaya epigravettskaya kultura. Stratum Plus , 2003-2004 (1): 307-333(in Russian).

OLENKOVSKIY, M. 2008 - Epigravett Vostochnoy Evropi. Kulturno-istoricheskiy aspect . Cherson. 431 pp. (in Russian).

SMIRNOV, S.V. 1973 - Paleolit Dniprovskogo Nadporizhya . Kiev. 172 pp. (in Ukrainian).

TRUSOVA, S.A. 1940 - Raskopki v peschere Adzhi-Koba v 1933 g. Sovetskaya arheologiya , 5: 272-274 (in Russian).

VEKILOVA, E.A. 1957 - Stoyanka Suren i ee mesto sredi pozdnepaleoliticheskich mestonahozhdeniy Krima i blizhayzhih territoriy. Materiali i iss ledovaniya po arheologii SSSR , 59: 235-323 (in Russian).

Authors address:MIKOLA OLENKOVSKIY, uliza Kardisheva 28, kv. 143 UA-73039 CHERSONE-mail: [email protected]


27/200

- 27

Atti Soc. Preist. Protost. Friuli-V.G., Trieste, XVII, 2008-2009 (2010): 27-100

VLADIMIR N. STANKO

and DMYTRO KIOSAK

THE LATE MESOLITHIC SETTLEMENTOF SOUTH-WESTERN UKRAINE

RIASSUNTO Il Mesolitico recente dellUcraina sud-occidentale . Il presente lavoro costituisce una prima sintesidelle informazioni disponibili sugli insediamenti del Mesolitico recente dellUcraina sud-occidentale. Vengonodescritte le stazioni pi importanti rinvenute, e in parte scavate, nella regione e le caratteristiche salienti delleindustrie litiche. I siti sono stati suddivisi in tre gruppi: quelli attribuiti alla Cultura di Grebeniki, a quella di Anetivka(Kukrek) ed i siti sincretici, con caratteristiche di entrambe le precedenti entit culturali. Gli autori discutonolorigine, la distribuzione, la cronologia relative ed assoluta degli stanziamenti

SUMMARY The Late Mesolithic settlement of south-western Ukraine. This paper is a synthesis of the availableevidence for the Late Mesolithi of south-western Ukraine. It describes the most important sites of this perioddiscovered and partly excavated in the region, and the main characteristics of their chipped stone assemblages. Theyhave been subdivided into three groups: Grebenyky, Anetivka (Kukrek) Culture and syncretic sites, the latterwith elements of both Grebenyky and Anetivka Cultures. The authors discuss their origin, distribution, and relativeand absolute chronology.

Keywords: Ukraine, Late Mesolithic, Grebenyky and Anetivka Cultures, chipped stones, microliths.

1. INTRODUCTION

The scope of this paper, which follows a contribution already published on the EarlyMesolithic of the same region ( STANKO and K IOSAK , 2008), is to summarize the availableevidence for the Late Mesolithic of south-western Ukraine, and propose its systematic

and chronological assessment mainly on the basis of the typology of the chipped stoneassemblages. Although very few Early Mesolithic sites are so far known in the area, at least60 Late Mesolithic settlements have been discovered in the same territory.

The flint assemblages of the Late Mesolithic of the north-western coast of the Black Seasteppe zone are characterized by parallel-sided bladelets, composite tools and a few reapingknives, which are supposed to indicate gathering activities ( K OROBKOVA, 1989; STANKO,1996). The chipped stone assemblages, which vary from a few dozens to many hundreds,

______________________________________

Department of History, P. Mohyla Humanitarian State University, Mykolayiv (UA)

Archaeological Museum, Odessa (UA)


28/200

28 -

include also many geometric microliths. Large settlements are rare, while most of the sitesconsist of small stations.

The earlier Kukrek and Tsarynka, Early Mesolithic aspects continue to develop, althoughthey greatly changed during the recent phase of the same period. In the Dniester-southernBuh interfluve, the Grebenyky Culture developed from that of Tsarynka. From this region itgradually spread over a wide territory comprised between the Carpathians, in the west, andthe River Dnieper, in the east. The Kukrek assemblages made their appearance during thesame period, and spread over the same territory. At present only sites of the initial stages ofthe Grebenyky Culture are known, while, around the end of the Mesolithic, mixed Grebenykyand Kukrek settlements make their appearance, although both cultures co-existed in the sameterritories ( STANKO, 1971; 1976;1977; 1997).

The method by V.N. STANKO (1967; 1982; STANKO et al ., 1999), which has been utilised inthis study, developed for the analysis of the Mesolithic chipped stone assemblages, was laterapplied also to the Palaeolithic industries. It is based on a subdivision between dbitage (primarytreatment: decortication, core preparation, detachment of blades and flakes, maintenance) and

faonnage (secondary treatment: retouch, trimming or burin blow). The chipped stone artefacsare described according to their operational chain. First, the raw material pieces are countedwithout distinction between complete pebbles and fragments with a few detachments.

The cores are subdivided into pre-cores and exhausted. The pre-cores have prepared platformsand knapping surfaces. The exhausted cores have been classified as blade, flake, and blade andflake cores, according to their morphology, number and position of the removals, striking platformsand other parameters. According to their shape, they have been further subdivided into prismatic,sub-prismatic, sub-conical, polyhedral, flat, and bullet cores. Prismatic and sub-prismatic coresdiffer according to their regularity. The prismatic ones are more regular. The flat types, which havea single, wide and thin platform, are characteristic of the Grebenyky Culture, the bullet cores ofthe Kukrek. The unidentifiable core fragments have been counted separately.

Both rejuvenation flakes and crested flakes are separated from the other technological pieces.The debitage has been subdivided into flakes and laminar pieces the latter into

microblades (3.0 cm wide). The complete specimens are few; this is why a metricclassification based on their length has not been possible. Most of the laminar pieces consistof bladelets, according to G.E.E.M. (1969: 356).

The Late Mesolithic blades and bladelets greatly differ from the laminar pieces of theEarly Mesolithic. The latter have irregular sides and dorsal surfaces. The former have parallelsides and parallel negatives on the dorsal surface.

The tools are subdivided into main classes of specific types.The end-scrapers can be circular, semicircular, oval, simple, double, on a side of a flake/

blade, atypical on flake, on cores and core fragments, microscrapers (less than 1 cm long).The simple end scrapers are on a flake, blade and shortened blade.

The burins can be dihedral, simple, and on truncation. The type of blank (flake, blade ormicroblade) is important for their classification.

The retouched blades and bladelets show several treatments. The position and type ofretouch are often accidental. The retouched blades are represented by specimens with 1) one

partially retouched side, 2) one totally retouched side, 3) two retouched sides and, among


29/200

- 29

these types, with 1) direct, 2) inverse, 3) alternate or mixed retouch. Further subdivisions ofthe retouched flakes are not reported in the type-list.

The geometric microliths are represented by trapezes, triangles, rhomboids and lunates.Among the points the Abuzova Balka types play an important role. They are on bladelets,

obtained by the intersection of a backed lateral retouch and an oblique truncation at one end.The Kukrek inserts are blade fragments with ventral trimming and a direct simple retouch.The type list also includes categories of borers, drills, adzes, combined and diverse tools.This method is considered by most authors ideal for the analysis of the Mesolithic

assemblages of south-west Ukraine.

2. THE GREBENYKY CULTURE SITES

According to many authors the Grebenyky Culture originated from that of Tsarynka (STANKO, 1986: 13-26). Along the north-western coast of the Black Sea, this aspect is knownfrom a few small sites distributed on the terraces of the South Buh, Dniester and Prut Rivers,and in the steppe zone between the Rivers Ingul and Prut (fig. 1). Later its distribution spreadas far as the Don ( K RIZHEVSKAJA, 1991: 118; MANKO, 2005: 8; TELIZHENKO, 2007: 6-7).

Fig. 1 - Distribution map of the Grebenyky Culture sites. 1) Grebenyky, 2) Ghyrzheve, 3) Dobrozhany, 4) Pryjmove,5) Olovka, 6) Dovzhanka, 7) Poznanka, 8) Olenivka, 9) Vasylivka (on Chychikleja), 10) Slobodka, 11) Pelagejivka,12) Balaha, 13) Kazanka, 14) Tsarychanka, 15) Dyvizia, 16) Borysivka, 17) Tatarbunary I, 18) Myrne 3, 19) Myrne,20) Zaliznychne, 21) Sarateni, 22) Zaim I, 23) Karpove, 24) Vasylivka (Kytaj-ozero).

a b


30/200

30 -

2.1.t he sItes of the lower D nIester basIn anD Its aDjacent terrItory 2.1.1. Grebenyky

Grebenyky is located on the terrace of a small stream that flows into the Bursuk, awestern tributary of the Kuchurgan, an eastern tributary of the Dniester (fig. 2). Chippedstone tools and bone fragments were collected from its surface. In 1954 P.I. Boriskovskyopened five test-trenches, which did not lead to the recovery of any archaeological layer in

situ (BORISKOVSKY, 1957: 5-7; K OROBKOVA, 1957: 59-62; GRIGOR EVA, 1961: 226-230).

According to the petrographic analyses, the raw material employed for making toolsconsists of Dniester River pebbles mainly of a light, variegated grey flint with a whitish

patina. There are also slightly patinated or unpatinated flints of a dark or light ochre colour(PETRUN, unpublished).

The cores are subdivided into sub-prismatic (20), flat (17), prismatic (single and double platform: 17), bullet (9) and sub-conical (7) (fig. 3, nn. 33-35). Two varieties of flat cores are present. The first has parallel-sided blade detachments on one face and cortex on the opposite;the second, blade scars on one side and flake scars on the opposite. All the bullet cores areworn and have a circular cross-section. They are 4.5-6.0 cm long and 1.2-2.0 cm wide. TheGrebenyky industry is lamellar. Prismatic bladelets are represented only by fragments 0.4-1.4cm wide and 0.8-2.8 cm long. Rectangular and trapezoidal fragments usually have macrotracesof use on the edge. Most of the microblades are 0.4-0.6 cm wide (tables 1 and 2).

Fig. 2 - Grebenyky: site location on the terrace to the left ( photo graph by D. Kiosak ).


31/200

- 31

c ategorIes n umber %Raw material pieces 42 1.51Cores 70 2.52

Rejuvenation flakes and blades 40 1.44Rejuvenation flakes 7 0.25Fragments of cores 3 0.11Blanks 1541 55.57 flakes 694 25.03 blades 764 27.55 microblades 83 2.99Tools 264 9.52 on flakes 161 5.81 on blades 103 3.71Debris (chips and chunks) 806 29.07Total 2773 100.00

Table 1 - Grebenyky: number and percentage of the main technological groups.

t ool types n umber %End-scrapers 155 58.71

semicircular on flakes 75 28.41

circular 33 12.50microscrapers 19 7.20end scrapers on blades 12 4.55oval 11 4.17on rejuvenations flakes 5 1.89

Geometric microliths 41 15.53Retouched blades 30 11.36Retouched flakes 15 5.68Backed bladelets 12 4.55

Notched flakes 4 1.52 Notched blades 2 0.76Truncated blades 2 0.76Burins 2 0.76

Blade fragments with an alternate retouch( Prorezyvatel )*

1 0.38

Total 264 100.00Table 2 - Grebenyky: tool types. *According to V.N. DANILENKO (1969).


32/200

32 -

The end-scrapers are the best-represented class. They vary from large, semicircular on aflake, to tiny, nail-like. There are also end-scrapers whose dorsal face is covered with retouch(fig. 3, nn. 21-31). The tiny end-scrapers are obtained by a fine semi-abrupt retouch on thesmall flakes 1.0-1.5 cm in diameter.

The retouched blades show both a ventral and a dorsal marginal retouch (fig. 2, nn. 13-19).The geometric microliths (39) are represented by isosceles and scalene trapezes. They are 0.6-1.7 cm long and 1.0-2.0 cm wide. The trapezes 1.0-1.2 cm wide predominate (fig. 3, nn. 1-12).Many show utilization traces along one side. The backed bladelets are obtained by an abruptretouch. They have regular, dorsal scars and are 0.5-1.0 cm wide and 0.8-1.8 cm long.

There are only two burins. The first is a multi-faceted burin on an elongated flake(fig. 3, n. 32), the second is a simple specimen on a chunk. The assemblage includes also 1rectangular fragment of a blade with an alternate retouch (fig. 3, n. 13).

The only faunal remnant discovered is a wild horse tooth fragment. It was collected byG. Grigoreva from the eroded grey loam layer. It was identified by N.K. Vereschagina and

published by G. GRIGOR EVA (1961: 228). It is not clear whether it belongs to the Mesolithicassemblage.

2.1.2. GyrzheveGyrzheve is located on a small hill (100x100 m), on the right bank of the Kuchurgan

River, a left tributary of the Dniester, 300 m south of Gyrzheve, in the Velyko-Mihailovskydistrict of Odessa province (fig. 4). Like all the Lower Dniester Valley Late Mesolithic sites, itlies on the high slope of a riverbank (41 m above the water table). The site surface was probablyeroded by the rains. However a level of limestone slabs forming a horizontal platform lies

below the cultural layer. They have covered the sediments and saved the cultural layer from being removed by rain ( STANKO, 1966: 96-104; 1967: 155-168; PETRUN, 1967: 168-173).

The stratigraphy of the site, along the western profile of the 1963 trench, is as follows:a) topsoil, containing Mesolithic tools, down to 20 cm, b) grey loam (20-30 cm), c) greenishcolluvial clay with small limestone inclusions, containing a Late Mesolithic flint assemblage(30-80 cm), d) limestone (fig. 5).

The chipped stone assemblages have been subdivided into two complexes: the lower, inthe greenish clay colluvium between 30 and 80 cm of depth, and the upper.

The Late Mesolithic assemblage comes from layer c), the uppermost part of which has been ploughed. This led to the disturbance of both Late Mesolithic and Neolithic materials.

Four samples have been radiocarbon-dated from Gyrzheve. The bone specimens (respectivelydated to Ki-11240: 7390100, and Le-1703: 705060 uncal BP) and organic inclusions of Bug-Dniester Culture potsherds (respectively dated to Ki-11241: 7280170, and Ki-11743: 7200220uncal BP) yielded homogeneous results ( MANKO, 2005). Probably they all are to be referred to theEarly Neolithic occupation, while the Late Mesolithic one is still undated.

The cores are mainly prismatic or sub-prismatic. 28.5% are flat, one-sided, exhausted,sometimes with a facetted striking platform, with parallel, narrow, regular bladelet detachmentson one surface and cortex on the other (fig. 6, n. 30); 26.6% are one-sided, thickened, with

prismatic blade removals on one face and flake scars on the other. The striking platforms areflat, obtained by one single stroke. Their length varies from 2.0 to 5.6 cm, width from 1.8 to4.0 cm, and thickness from 1.0 to 3.5 cm.


33/200

- 33

Fig. 3 - Grebenyky: chipped stone tools: 1-12) trapezes, 13-19) retouched blades, 20-31) end scrapers, 32) burin,33-35) cores.


34/200

34 -

Fig. 5 - Gyrzheve: profile of the site.

Fig. 4 - Gyrzheve: the site is located on the top off the hillock ( photograph by P. Biagi ).

a. soil sediments (humus) to 0.20 m

b. grey loam (intermediate layer) to 0.30 m

c. colluvium of greenish clay with small limestone inclusionsto 0.80 m

d. limestone to 1.00-1.05 m

e. limestone marl below 1.05 m


35/200

- 35

There are also three sub-conical specimens (fig. 6, n. 29), one of which with an obliquestriking platform, and three bullet cores (fig. 6, n. 28). Their average dimension is 3.6x1.7cm (tables 3 and 4).

c ategorIes n umber %Raw material pieces 10 0.09

Cores 169 1.50

Rejuvenation flakes 20 0.18

Core-like fragments 15 0.13

Blanks 6717 59.73

flakes 2148 19.10

blades 4569 40.63

Tools 1017 9.04

on flakes 520 4.62

on blades 497 4.42

Debris (chips and chunks) 3298 29.33

Total 11,246 100.00

Table 3 - Gyrzheve: number and percentage of the main technological groups.

The trapezes are isosceles or scalene, obtained with an abrupt retouch (fig. 6, nn. 1-13),from bladelets with parallel sides. Their width ranges from 0.6 to 1.2 cm. One has a notchon its long side.

There are many bladelet fragments with rectangular (800) and trapezoidal (100) section.Their width varies from 1.0 to 1.2, and their length from 1.0 to 2.2 cm. There is no differencein the shape and dimension between the trapezoidal bladelet fragments and the retouchedtrapezes. This type of bladelet fragments is widely distributed in all the Late Mesolithic sitesof the northwest Black Sea coast. There are 163 (16.0%) retouched blades and bladeletsobtained by a simple, direct, marginal retouch. Some retouches are partial (fig. 6, nn. 15, 16,21 and 22). 40 blade fragments have an inverse retouch, 10 an alternate, simple retouch. The

backed bladelets are regular with a triangular or trapezoidal section. Their length varies from0.8 to 2.0 cm, their width from 0.4 to 0.6 cm (fig. 6, n. 14).

The notched blades are all broken. They are obtained by a deep, abrupt retouch.Only 1 complete blade has three notches made by a simple, slightly invasive, directretouch (fig. 6, n. 20). The others are blade fragments with one notch. Two tools havenotches made by an inverse retouch. There are 2 pieces with edge notches. Three notchedflakes differ from the others. They are thick, with an irregular shape and the notchesare obtained by a deep abrupt retouch. Other notched flakes have more shallow notchesmade by simple retouch.


36/200

36 -

The site yielded only fragments of borers (fig. 6, n. 18). There are 119 oblique truncations.(fig. 6, n. 17), and three types of burins two of which are dihedral: one on a small chunk andthe other at the edge of a broken blade. Almost half of the tools are end-scrapers (460), mainly

of a circular and semicircular shape 1.0 to 4.0 cm long. They are on flakes, which are thickerthan the unretouched flakes. Many have totally retouched fronts (fig. 7, nn. 21, 24, 34, 35 and37). Sometimes they show an invasive retouch on the whole dorsal surface of the scraper (fig.7, nn. 8-10, 13, 25, 38 and 39). The end-scrapers on shortened blades and blade-like flakesare only 49 (fig. 7, nn. 2, 4, 6, 7 and 32). Among these, many show a bilateral retouch (fig. 7,nn. 28, 31 and 33). Three specimens have their fronts made by a ventral, semi-abrupt retouch(fig. 7, n. 33) . There is also a group of end-scrapers with an acute working edge obtained byan abrupt retouch (fig. 7, nn. 14-20 ).

102 specimens consists of marginally retouched flakes. Their sides usually are retouchedonly partially by simple retouch. Many flakes show use wear traces.


semi-circular 202 19.86

circular 130 12.78

microscrapers 51 5.01

end-scrapers 49 4.82

oval 19 1.87

on rejuvenation flakes 9 0.88

Trapezes 210 20.65

Retouched blades 163 16.03

Retouched flakes 102 10.03

Notched blades 20 1.97

Obliquely truncated blades 119 11.70

Tools on cores 17 1.67

Backed bladelets 11 1.08

Borers 5 0.49

Burins 5 0.49

Notched flakes 4 0.39

Total 1017 100.00

Table 4 - Gyrzheve: tool types.


37/200

- 37

Fig. 6 - Gyrzheve: chipped stone tools: 1-13) trapezes, 14-27) retouched blades, 28-30) cores.


38/200

38 -

Fig. 7 - Gyrzheve: end-scraper types.


39/200

- 39

The fauna is represented by the following species (table 5):The occurrence of a large quantity of finely-crushed bones is related to the obtainment

of the highest possible amount of nutritious substances from the bones. According toBIBIKOVA (1978: 24-26) this shows that the hunting possibilities were limited. This fact

probably explains the distribution of the Mesolithic sites along the small tributaries of theLower Dniester. The Lower Dniester inhabitants moved along the river valleys, searchingfor their prey, and did not stop for long at one site. At the same time they were constantlyconnected with the Dniester Valley, from which they obtained the raw materials to producetheir weapons. All the assemblages from the Late Palaeolithic and Late Mesolithic sites ofthe Lower Dniester basin are made from Dniester pebbles. No raw material sources are so farknown it in the surrounding small river valleys (PETRUN, 1967: 168-173).

A burial with three young individuals was found in the central part of the 1963 excavation,at the depth of 78 cm, in the transition layer between the bedrock and greenish clay deposit.This layer included many small fragments of soft limestone.

The burial pit (fig. 8) was not noticed during the excavation of the greenish loam layer,although it had already been noticed in the level of crashed limestone. It had an almostrectangular shape, 188 cm long, 65 wide, and 36 deep. Along its eastern part, behind theskulls, there was a small depression filled with a greenish loam mixed with small limestone

particles. The bottom of the grave is cut by holes made by burrowing animals.The bones were in a bad state of preservation, oriented in a northeast-southwest direction.

The southern and central skeletons were crouched on their right side towards the northwest. Theskull of the northern skeleton was facing southwest; no other bones were discovered. It is difficultto define the position of the arms of the other two skeletons, given that the remaining fragmentsof shoulder bones had been scattered by burrowing animals all around the burial pit. No gravegoods were recovered except for three bladelets collected during the cleaning of the skeletons.The cultural attribution of the burial was difficult to define because of the above reasons.

D epth (cm) 30-50 50-80Species Num. % MNI % Num. % MNI %

Bos primigenius 2 1.38 1 25.00 10 23.81 1 50.00

Equus caballus 31 21.38 2 50.00 17 40.48 1 50.00

Equus (Asinus)hydruntinus

2 1.38 1 25.00 - - - -

Large ungulates 110 75.86 - - 15 35.71 - -

Total 145 100.00 4 100.00 42 100.00 2 -identified 35 - - - 27 - - -

unidentified 110 - - - 15 - - -

Fragmentationindex 75.86 - - - 35.71 - - -

Table 5 - Gyrzheve: faunal species (from BIBIKOVA, 1978).


40/200

40 -

Fig. 8 - Gyrzheve: plan of the triple burial.

2.1.2.1. Neolithic findsAs mentioned above, the upper part of the settlement had been destroyed by ploughing.

Nevertheless, the material from this layer is typologically easy to define. It is represented by seven wall ceramic fragments of a grey paste with an admixture of finely-crushed shellsand chaff (fig. 9, nn. 1-7). Three are decorated with oblique lines of small impressions, orwith oval or triangular stamp impressions. According to V.N. DANILENKO (pers. comm., 1964)the pottery belongs to the Samchyntsi phase of the Bug-Dniester Culture. The same layeryielded wide trapezes attributable to the same complex. Some trapezes are made by an abruptretouch, and others by invasive, flat and/or simple, deep, direct retouch. A group of trapezesis very distinctive. They are obtained by so-called strumenysta retouch (flat, fine, coveringretouch with parallel elongated facets). Their width varies from 1.5 to 1.8 cm. There are twotrapezes with their dorsal surfaces covered by the above-mentioned retouch, considerably


41/200

- 41

Fig. 9 - Gyrzheve: ceramic potsherds.


42/200

42 -

thinned. It is possible that also a small number of the end-scrapers on irregular flakes belongto this assemblage. All these tools are attributable to the Neolithic complex except for aKukrek type retouched blade with ventral trimming and a small amount of flakes, which aredifficult to distinguish from the Late Mesolithic ones.

2.1.2.2. Trypillian Culture findsTwenty Copper Age Trypillian potsherds came from the uppermost horizon. They are

mainly small wall fragments of kitchen pots of a grey paste with finely-crushed shells andmica fillers visible on the outer surface (fig. 9, nn. 8-11). One is the upper part of a vesselwith an almost straight neck, and an everted rim. Finger impressions are present at the bottomof the neck, which is covered with a comb, stab and drag, vertical decoration. The samedecorative pattern, but in a horizontal direction, is visible on the body vessel. Also the innersurface of the vessel shows comb decorations. A second is a neck sherd with vertical andoblique comb impressions around the base. A third sherd is a wall part of a vessel made ofgrey pottery decorated with burnished stripes.

This typical Trypillian kitchen ware belongs to the II-I periods according toT.S. PASSEK s (1949) periodisation 1. A triangular tip of a dart head, obtained by flat, bifacial,

bilateral retouch belongs to the same complex.This layer also yielded 78 fragments of bones of ungulates. Six belong to Bos primigenius ,

seven to wild horse, while the others could not be identified.

2.1.3. Dobrozhany The settlement was discovered by V.I. Kraskovsky in 1961 near Shyroka Dolyna, on

the right bank of the ravine, which flows into the Baraboj River from the right (K RASKOVSKY,1965: 8-16). The finds come from the terrace surface, 21 m above the river bottom, close tothe riverbank slope (fig. 10). The stratigraphy of the deposit of test trench 2, opened at theedge between the terrace and the slope, is as follows: 1) 0-0.21 m: dark grey chernozem ; 2)0.21-0.80 m: grey transitional level; 3) below 0.80 m: layer of large limestone slabs.

On the terrace slope, where trench 1 was opened at the limit of the distribution of thesurface finds, the sequence is different: 1) 0-0.22 m: dark-grey chernozem ; 2) 0.22-0.54 m:grey transitional level; 3) below 0.54 m: loess-like loam with inclusions of white clay.

There are no yellow fine loam deposits at the site. Since they are present on the terraceslope, as the data from trench 1 show, V.I. K RASKOVSKY (1965: 9-10) supposed that they had

been destroyed by erosion. Consequently the cultural layer in situ no longer exists at the site.Artefacts recur both in the dark-grey chernozem and colluvial loam (grey transitional layer).

The Dobrozhany assemblage is composed of 530 flint artefacts obtained from DniesterRiver pebbles. Some have a milk-blue patina, while others are unpatinated. Seventy moreartefacts, gathered by V. Kraskovsky recently, were not analysed by the authors.

They include six cores, one clat de cintrage , fragments of one-sided cores, 138 (26%) blades, bladelets and their fragments (tools included), 78 (15%) flakes (tools included), andwaste (chunks and flakes


43/200

- 43

Fig. 10 - Dobrozhany: the site is in the centre of the image ( photograph by D. Kiosak ).

The cores are represented by four flat, prismatic specimens, one is sub-prismatic. Theoccurrence of bullet cores is indicated by a specific type of rejuvenation flake (fig. 11, nn.1-7).

The bladelets have parallel sides and parallel negatives of previous detachments on theirdorsal surfaces. They are mainly fragmented, only 11 are complete. The intact specimens are0.6-1.6 cm wide and 1.9-3.0 cm long. Two rectangular fragments have their sides with a directmicro-retouch, the two others show an inverse micro-retouch. The medium and small flakeswere mainly used for the production of end-scrapers. The sides of four unretouched flakesshow impact macro-traces. 13.2% (70 items) of the assemblage is represented by tools.

Twenty-seven out of 29 end-scrapers are on flakes, two on short, thickened blades. Theend-scrapers on flakes have been subdivided into oval, semicircular and microscrapers. Theirlength varies from 1.3 to 3.4 cm (fig. 11, nn. 10-38).

The geometric microliths are represented only by isosceles and scalene trapezes, onthin, regular bladelets, obtained by abrupt retouch. One edge of the rectangular trapeze has

been worked with a direct, flat, slightly invasive retouch (fig. 11, nn. 42-50).The notched tools consist of short fragments of thin regular blades and bladelets and

small flakes that have one or several small notches obtained by fine simple retouch.The borers are represented by only two specimens on short blades. The only drill is on

a short blade, obtained by simple, alternate retouch (table 6).


44/200

44 -

Fig. 11 - Dobrozhany: chipped stone tools (after K RASKOVSKY, 1965): 1-7) cores, 8-9) technical flakes, 10-38) end-scrapers, 39-41) burins, 42-50) trapezes.


45/200

- 45

A regular, micro-retouched blade fragment has a saw-like working edge.Following V.I. K RASKOVSKY (1965: 24-25) we are inclined to attribute this site to the

Late Mesolithic Grebenyky Culture.

2.1.4. PryjmoveThe site is located on the right bank of the Kuchurgan River, 300-400 m west of the

homonymous village. The riverbank slopes gently form a platform some 30-40 m above theriverbed. Most of the material was collected from the site surface ( GRIGOR EVA, 1964: 20-24).

Two trenches were opened and one profile cleaned in order to discover the archaeologicalhorizon. The excavations, which showed no evidence of any cultural layer, yielded thefollowing sequence: 1) topsoil ( chernozem ): 0-0.25 m; 2) dark-grey loam (transition layer):0.25-0.70 m; 3) whitish loam with many pieces of sandstone: below 0.70 m.

A few artefacts from both the trench and the profile were collected from the grey loamat a depth of 0.25 m at the contact between the topsoil and the loam.

Dniester River pebbles were employed for the production of tools. Amongst the flaked pebbles, three have a smooth cortex and the other three are covered with a porous primarycortex and are slightly water-worn. Their diameter lies between 1.9 and 3.9 cm. There aretraces of two or three detachments on all the pebbles, or they are broken into two (table 7).

Bladelets and flakes are of microlithic dimension. The blades and bladelets and theirfragments have a regular shape and their sides are parallel or sub-parallel. Among them thereare 12 rectangular and trapezoidal fragments of blades and bladelets (fig. 12).

The cores are flat with detachments of thin, regular bladelets on one face, and cortex onthe opposite. They have traces of preparation (detachments of small flakes at flanks) on the

back of the cores. They are 3.4-4.2 cm long, 3.4-3.6 cm wide and 1.6-1.9 cm thick.


Trapezes 10 14.3

Blades with marginal retouch 9 12.9




Burins 3 4.3

Borer 2 2.9

Drill 1 1.4

Total 70 100.0

Table 6 - Dobrozhany: tool types.


46/200

46 -

Fig. 12 - Pryjmove: chipped stone tools: 1-12) blades and their fragments, 13-15) retouched blades, 16) blade witha burin blow scar, 17-21) end-scrapers, 22 and 23) cores.


47/200

- 47

The tools represent 13% of the assemblage.There are two types of end-scrapers: oval (5) and simple (4). The oval end-scrapers

are on flakes, obtained by a semi-abrupt retouch. The simple end-scrapers are on blade-likeflakes or blade fragments. One is obtained from a corticated, primary flake (table 8).

c ategorIes n umber %Flaked pebbles 6 4.6

Cores 2 1.6


Flakes 19 14.6

Blades, bladelets and their fragments 53 40.8

Tools:

on flakes 8 6.1

on blades and bladelets 9 7.0

Debris 30 23.0

Total 130 100.0

Table 7 - Pryjmove: number and percentage of the main technological groups.

Table 8 - Pryjmove: tool types.

t ool types n umber

End-scrapers 9

Retouched blades and bladelets 4

Burins 2

Blade fragments with alternate retouch 1

Trimmed blade 1

Total 17

Among the retouched laminar products we have to distinguish a small trapezoidalfragment of a bladelet, whose both sides show a direct, marginal, fine retouch.

There are two types of burins: on angle of a broken blade and on truncation, made on aelongated flake. A blade fragment has both ventral trimming and direct retouch. A fragmentof a wide, thick blade with ventral trimming is also remarkable. One side of it is retouched.

The chipped stone assemblage from this site is represented by a high percentage ofvery regular blades and bladelets, oval end-scrapers on flakes, a burin made on an angleof a broken blade and flat one-sided cores. Although geometric tools are absent, the above


48/200

48 -

data and the presence of a typical prorezyvatel allow us to attribute it to the end of theMesolithic, opposite the suggestion by G.V. GRIGOR EVA (1964).

2.1.5. DovzhankaIn front of the villages of Dovzhanka and Artyrovka, the left bank of the Yagorlyk River

is cut by two gullies that form a wide, flat promontory with steep slopes, some 30-40 m abovethe river itself ( BORISKOVSKY, 1964: 12-17).

More than 600 flint artefacts were collected on the surface of the terrace and along itsslopes in 1962 and 1964. A trench 1x1.5 m failed to discover any archaeological layer. Itsstratigraphy is the following: a) dark grey soil: 0-0.9 m; b) greenish sandy deposit: below0.9 m.

A few artefacts were collected from the depth of 0.6 m. Another trench opened down tothe depth of 1.1 m revealed the same sequence. It did not yield any archaeological finds.

The flint artefacts were obtained from small Dniester pebbles. The pebbles diametersvary from 2.5 to 4.0 cm. Two are broken in half along their long axis (table 9).

The site did not yield any cores. Rejuvenation flakes and clats de cintrage give us a possibility to reconstruct the shape of cores. They were prismatic, flat core/cores.

All blades and bladelets are broken. Among of them are 13 microblade fragments ,130 fragments of proximal and distal ends of bladelets and 45 rectangular and trapezoidalfragments.

The tools represent 7.8% of the total assemblage.Most of the end-scrapers are oval or semicircular, on a flake. Three tiny oval end-

scrapers show a flat, invasive, direct retouch on their dorsal surface. One has a sharp front.Simple end-scrapers on blade fragments have a rounded working edge. One has its sideretouched (table 10).

c ategorIes n umber %Pieces of raw material 6 1.0


Blanks:

flakes 92 15.0

blades, bladelets and their fragments 210 34.3

Tools:

on flakes 30 4.9

on blades 18 2.9

Debris 252 41.2

Total 612 100.0

Table 9 - Dovzhanka: number and percentage of the main technological categories.


49/200

- 49

The small, isosceles trapezes are on bladelets, obtained by a fine abrupt retouch. Theirlength is 1.1-1.3 cm. The rhomboid has been obtained with the same technique. There is alsoa fragment of a wide trapeze, whose side is obtained with a flat, invasive retouch. The edgesof all the microliths are considerably worn (polishes and macro-scars). A rectangular bladefragment has a proximal truncation obtained by abrupt retouch (fig. 13).

Both burins are on truncations. One is on an elongated flake, the second on a short, thickone.

A blade fragment resembling a Kukrek insert has one side covered with a flat, invasive,direct retouch on its dorsal surface, and a trimming on the ventral one, and the second sidewith a fine mixed retouch.

Although Late Mesolithic characteristics predominate (a high percentage of regular blades, the occurrence of small, oval and sharp end-scrapers, abrupt retouch trapezes and thegeneral microlithic character of the assemblage), more recent specimens are also present (onetrapeze obtained by a flat retouch, an above-mentioned blade fragment resembling a Kukrekinsert, trimming flakes). According to the above data, and the absence of potsherds, we can

preliminarily attribute the site to the end of the Late Mesolithic.

2.1.6. OrlovkaThe site is located in the Yagorlyk River valley, 4 km downstream from Dovzhanka.

Between the villages of Rozovka and Orlovka, a small peninsula elongates into the valley,linked with the right bank by a narrow isthmus. This peninsula, some 30 m above the courseof the Yagorlyk River, is locally called mohyla (mound) (GRIGOR EVA, 1964).

On a small part of the peninsula the topsoil is eroded away, exposing a deposit of. yellow-grey sand mixed with gravel. Here, in an area of 15030 m, 340 chipped stone artefacts werecollected (table 11).

Table 10 - Dovzhanka: tool types.



Trapezes 9 18.8

Blades with marginal retouch 4 8.3

Burins 2 4.2

Flakes with trimming 2 4.2

Rhomboid 1 2.1

Cutter 1 2.1


Total 48 100.0


50/200

50 -

Fig. 13 - Dovzhanka: chipped stone tools: 1-15) blades, 16-22) trapezes, 23-28) retouched blades, 29-34, 37-41)end-scrapers, 35 and 36) burins, 42 and 43) cores.

24 25

26

27

28


51/200

- 51

The raw material exploited for making artefacts consists of Dniester River flint pebbles.The site yielded several flaked pebbles covered with cortex. Their length is comprised between2.5 and 4.0 cm. One flaked pebble has many star-shaped scars due to hard-hammering. Itsdimensions are 7.14.23.0 cm (table 12).

The site yielded also two flat cores and one tablet of a bullet core, whose diameter is2.3 cm.

The flakes are of a small size. A few show pebble or primary cortex on their dorsalsurface. Among the bladelets 38 are rectangular and trapezoidal fragments 0.9-1.2 cm wide,19 are microblades 0.4-0.8 cm wide. Three prismatic blade fragments have a retouched notch.

C ATEGORIES N UMBER %

Flaked pebbles 19 5.6

Cores 2 0.6

Rejuvenation flake 1 0.3

Blanks:

flakes 43 12.6

blades and their fragments 169 49.7

Tools:

on flakes 18 5.3

on blades 16 4.7

Debris 77 22.6

Total 340 100.0

Table 11 - Orlovka: number and percentage of the main technological groups.

Table 12 - Orlovka: tool types.

T OOL TYPES N UMBER %

End-scrapers 12 41.4

Trapezes 8 27.6

Blades with a marginal retouch 4 13.8


Truncated blades 1 3.4

Prorezyvatel 1 3.4

Trimmed flakes 1 3.4

Total 29 100.0


52/200

52 -

They have a patina of white or blue-whitish colour. Ten cores are burnt; 8.5% of the artefactsare retouched (fig. 14).

The end-scrapers are of two types: semicircular on a flake, and simple on a thick,shortened blade or elongated flake. The specimens on a flake predominate (10).

All the trapezes are on regular bladelets obtained by an abrupt retouch. Two isoscelestrapezes have burin detachments along their long side. The trapezes with a notch on theshort side and the truncated bladelets with a (adjacent) notch are characteristic of the LateMesolithic of south-western Ukraine.

According to the general characteristics, the manufacturing technique, the typology andthe correlation between the main tool classes, it is possible to compare this assemblage withthose from the settlements of Grebenyky and Gyrzheve.

2.2. T HE SITES IN THE BASINS OF THE S OUTHERN B UH RIGHT TRIBUTARIES

2.2.1. PoznankaThis site was discovered by S.K. Rahubenko, a teacher of Yasynivka secondary school,

in 1961. In 1962 the Odessa Palaeolithic group of the USSR Academy of Science made anadditional collection of surface material and carried out small-scale excavations under thesupervision of P.I. BORISKOVSKY (1966; SMOLJANINOVA , 2002: 108-121).

The settlement is located on the high right bank of the Kodyma River at the southernoutskirts of the village of Poznanka II (Lubashivka district, Odessa province), west of thecemetery, where it is cut by a short, rather wide gully at the bottom of which is a spring.The Kodyma River flows from west to east in the northern part of the Odessa and Nikolaev

provinces and joins the Southern Buh north of Pervomaysk. At present Kodyma is a shallowriver the banks of which are covered with reeds.

20-25 m above the present-day course of the Kodyma River there are two hills, some200 m apart, along both sides of the gully (reported below as the north-western and south-eastern), from the surface of which chipped stone artefacts have been collected. The north-western hill is elongated and sandy; it resembles a dune and it is currently cultivated . On itssurface flints have been found over an area of some 150x30 m. In this area two test-trenches,1x2 m wide, were opened. The sequence recorded from trench 1 is as follows: 1) chernozem :0-0.25 m, 2) dark grey fine loam: 0.25-0.90 m, and 3) fine white sand: below 0.90 m.

Test trench 1 was excavated down to the depth of 1.80 m. It yielded one fragment of aregular parallel-sided bladelet and one small scraper on a flake; one parallel-sided bladeletand bladelet fragments were found in test trench 2. Single flints have been found in the loam

both in the first and in the second test trench.The south-eastern hill is rounded. At present it is not cultivated, and covered with grass .

Flints have been collected from an area of 150x30 m. No finds were collected from both thetwo cleaned sections and a test trench.

Dniester River pebbles were employed to manufacture the chipped stone tools (table 13).A characteristic of the site consists of a rather small amount of pebble fragments. Only

core-like pieces were found, mostly without cortex. The raw material seems to have beencarefully selected given that there are no sources of flint in its proximity (80 km away, at theDniester).


53/200

- 53

Fig. 14 - Orlovka: chipped stone tools: 1-15) blades, 16-21) trapezes, 22-30) retouched blades, 31-38) end-scrapers,39) core.


54/200

54 -

According to their shape the cores have been subdivided into the following main types(table 14):

One of the irregular prismatic cores has two platforms. The flat cores show traces of parallel-sided bladelet detachments on one side, and traces of cortex or irregular flaking on the other. Someof the cores have been turned into thin slabs by exhaustion. The bullet cores, unlike the typicalcores of this type from other Mesolithic sites, have an oval section and are rather flat.


Cores 20 2.9

Technical flakes 5 0.7

Core-like pieces 14 2.0

Flakes 166 24.3

Blades, bladelets and their fragments 276 40.4

Tools:

on flakes 30 4.4

on blades and bladelets 27 3.9

Debris 146 21.3

Total 684 100.0

Table 13 - Poznanka: number and percentage of the main technological groups.

Table 14 - Poznanka: core types.

C ORE TYPES Number %

Sub-prismatic 8 40.0

Flat 8 40.0

Bullet 2 10.0

Sub-conical 2 10.0

Total 20 100.0

The sub-conical cores resemble those from Grebenyky and Gyrzheve, although they arethickened and one-sided with narrowed lower edge. Parallel-sided blades have been detachedfrom one side, while the other side is irregularly flaked (fig. 15, nn. 23, 25 and 27).

There are three flank rejuvenation flakes and two platform rejuvenation flakes from prismatic cores.

Unlike many other Late Mesolithic sites, Poznanka yielded a few complete parallel-sided bladelets. They are 6-8 cm long and 1.2-1.4 cm wide. There are 24 fragments of microblades and 38 rectangular and trapezoidal bladelet fragments.


55/200

- 55

The retouched tools are 8.5% (table 15).The end-scrapers constitute the most numerous group of tools. According to their shape

they can be subdivided into the main types listed in table 16.

T OOL TYPES N UMBER %End-scrapers 33 57.9

Geometric microliths 12 21.1

Blades and bladelets with marginal retouch 5 8.8


Borer 1 1.8

Prorezyvatel 1 1.8

Notched flake 1 1.8Total 57 100.0

Table 15 - Poznanka: tool types.

E ND - SCRAPER TYPES N UMBER % of end-scrapers % of tools

Semicircular 14 42.4 24.6

Simple end-scrapers 7 21.2 12.3

Circular 6 18.2 10.5

Microscrapers 5 15.2 8.8

Oval 1 3.0 1.8

Total 33 100.0 57.9

Table 16 - Poznanka: end-scraper types.

The end-scrapers are mainly on small flakes, obtained by semi-abrupt retouch. Tinycircle end-scrapers have all the dorsal surface of the flake covered with invasive directretouch. A tiny end-scraper with a sharp working edge is made on a blade-like flake with

primary cortex. The length of the end-scrapers on flakes is 1.1-3.5 cm. Long end-scrapers areon bladelets with arched or oblique working edges. One has a complementary retouch along

both sides. Besides finished end-scrapers a few flakes show a part of their edge retouched.Some others have a saw-like retouch (fig. 15, nn. 19-22).The geometric microliths are represented by isosceles trapezes and one rhomboid point

(fig. 15, nn. 1-6). While the former are typical of the Mesolithic period of the north-westerncoast of the Black Sea, the latter is a unique specimen. The rhomboid and one truncated

blade with an opposed rounded base, so far do not find any parallel in any other Mesolithicassemblage of the study region.


56/200

56 -

Fig. 16 - Chipped stone tools from Balaha (1-14), Olenivka (15-19, 28, 31, 33 and 34), Slobodka (20-22, 25 and 35),Vasylivka (on Chychikleja) (23, 26, and 32) and Balaha (24, 27, 29 and 30).Fig. 15 - Poznanka: chipped stone tools: 1-6) trapezes, 7-12) retouched blades, 13-22, 24 and 25) end-scrapers,23, 26 and 27) cores.


57/200

- 57

Unlike other Late Mesolithic sites of the north-western coast of the Black Sea, thereare irregular blades with a semi-abrupt retouch along their entire perimeter, one of whichresembles a double perforator; while the second is obtained by an alternate retouch.

There are only 2 retouched bladelets and a few more blades. One has a fine retouchalong the left side (fig. 15, n. 11),

One unfinished, concave truncation is on a fragment of a bladelet.The straight perforator (fig. 15, n. 10) on a short fragment of a wide blade, is obtained

by alternate retouch. Two opposite notches are on a similar blank (fig. 15, n. 9).According to the tools typology, the topographical location of the site, and the flaking

technology, the chipped stone assemblage from Poznanka resembles other Late Mesolithicindustries among which are those of Grebenyky, Gyrzheve, Dovzhanka, etc. Typologically,and especially statistically, the inventory of Poznanka does not differ very much from that ofthe other above-mentioned sites.

However, the presence of some specific elements makes this site different. There are afew single tools at Poznanka that so far are not recorded from any other Mesolithic site ofthe north-western coast of the Black Sea. They include truncated blades with an opposedrounded base, long blades with a deep, semi-abrupt retouch along the entire perimeter, aunique rhomboid point, and long end-scrapers on bladelets and blades. It is important to pointout that the percentage of the long end-scrapers in Poznanka is much higher than that of anyother Mesolithic site of south-western Ukraine.

The analysis of the chipped stone inventory shows that the site can be attributed to theLate Mesolithic, although with possible intrusive materials of other periods.

2.2.2. OlenivkaAnother Late Mesolithic assemblage comes from Olenivka ( SMOLJANINOVA and STANKO ,

1976: 123, 124; SMOLJANINOVA ,1990: 69-70). The site was discovered by the research groupof I. Mechnikov Odessa State University under the supervision of V.N. Stanko.

The site is located on a promontory located on the left bank of the Kodyma River,1 km east of Olenivka village (Balta district, Odessa province).

The promontory is formed by the left bank of the above river and the left bank ofPetrivska gully that flows into the river from the north. Four test trenches opened on the topof the terrace failed to recover a cultural deposit in situ . Only a few flint tools were foundin the topsoil.

No cores were found. Among the debitage there is a prevalence of small flakes and parallel-sided bladelets with straight and curved profiles. The amount of both bladelets andflakes is similar. Most bladelets are fragmented (table 17).

There are 10 (12.8%) tools: 4 end-scrapers (fig. 16, nn. 28, 31, 33 and 34), 4 trapezes(fig. 16, nn. 15-17 and 19), 1 probable lunate (fig. 16, n. 18), and 1 retouched blade. Amongthe end-scrapers 1 is on a shortened blade; 2 are circular end-scrapers on a flake, 1 of whichresembles a nosed scraper (fig. 16, nn. 28, 31, 33 and 34).

The trapezes are isosceles and elongated, obtained with a fine, abrupt retouch. Thelunate has an inverse, abrupt retouch.

Although the assemblage from the site is poor, typologically it resembles those of theGrebenyky sites.


58/200

58 -

2.2.3. SlobodkaSlobodka is located on the terrace formed by the confluence of Chychikleja with

Stolbova river, 800 m from the present-day village of Slobodka. The surface of the terrace isflat or gently sloping, divided in two by a short gully.

190 flints were collected from its surface, 50 flints from the test-trenches. The latter lay both in the transitional layer beneath the chernozem , and in the upper part of a yellow loam,at the depth of 0.25-0.40 m.

Most of the finds consist of fragments of regular bladelets and flakelets, whosedimensions are less than 5 cm. All the artefacts are covered with a white or blue patina. Theyare represented by 1 prismatic core (fig. 16, n. 35), 3 fragmented trapezes (fig. 16, nn. 20-22),and 8 small end-scrapers on flakes (fig. 16, n. 25).

2.2.4. Vasylivka (on the Chychikleja River)The site is located on the long narrow terrace along the right bank of the Chychikleja, 20

km west of Slobodka ( BORISKOVSKY , 1966: 42-44).Here 76 flints were collected on the surface. One was found in the test-trench at the depth of

70 cm in the yellow loam layer. The chipped stones are tiny, not reaching 4.5 cm in dimension.They all are patinated. The tools are represented by one fragmented truncation (fig. 16, n. 23),one circular end-scraper (fig. 16, n. 32), and end-scrapers on flakes (fig. 16, n. 26).

Both these two latter sites belong to the Grebenyky Culture because of the presence oftrapezes and circular end-scrapers, a high percentage of parallel-sided bladelets.

2.2.5. Lenino IIThe site was discovered by I.V. Smirnov in 1966 and it was later investigated by V.N. Stanko in

the same year ( SMOLJANINOVA , 1989: 126). The promontory gently slopes towards the GromoklejaRiver. It is 20-22 m higher than water level. Fifty chipped stone artefacts were collected from thissite. The test-trench did not reveal the presence of any cultural layer in situ .

The raw material employed for chipping tools consists of pebbles of a bad quality greyflint. The artefacts are covered with a white or blue patina.


Chunks 3 3.8


Flakes 33 42.3

Blades and bladelets 29 37.2

Microblades 4 5.2

Chips 6 7.7

Total 78 100.0

Table 17 - Olenivka: number and percentage of the main technological groups.


59/200

- 59

Fig. 16 - Chipped stone tools from Balaha (1-14), Olenivka (15-19, 28, 31, 33 and 34), Slobodka (20-22, 25 and 35),Vasylivka (on Chychikleja) (23, 26, and 32) and Balaha (24, 27, 29 and 30).


60/200

60 -

They consist of 3 cores, 7 end-scrapers, 2 trapezes, 3 retouched flakes, 1 bladelet with a partial, marginal retouch, 1 burin on a chunk, 5 blade fragments, 37 flakes, chips and chunks,and 1 flaked pebble.

There are 1 prismatic and 2 sub-prismatic cores. They were discarded soon afterremoving the first bladelets because of the presence of inclusions in the texture.

The raw material bad quality is evidenced also by the small amount of blades. The end-scrapers are semicircular (4) and long (2). One circular end-scraper is oval. Three elongatedflakes have partly retouched sides. The small trapeze was obtained by abrupt retouch on athick blade. The longer side shows the presence of a micro-retouch. A fragment of a bladelethas an oblique truncation (trapeze fragment?). One blade has a small, retouched marginalnotch. The dihedral burin was made on a chunk.

2.2.6. Lenino IIIThe site is located 1.5 km north-east of the above site, along the low left shore of the

Gromokleja River. Here I.A. Smirnov and V.N. Stanko collected 19 chipped stone tools. Theyare represented by 1 symmetrical trapeze, 1 end-scraper on a short, thick blade, 1 notchedflake and 2 retouched flakes. A test-trench opened at the site did not reveal any culturallayer.

These are the only two sites so far known in the steppe region between the GrebenykyCulture concentration known in the Lower Dnieper territory and the Southern Buh Valley.The most important of the latter is Kazanka.

2.3. S ITES IN THE I NGUL AND I NGULETS BASINS

2.3.1. KazankaKazanka was discovered by P.I. Boriskovsky and G.V. Grigoreva in 1966. The

petrographic and geomorphologic studies were made by V.F. Petrun. In 1968-1969 the sitewas again investigated by P.I. BORISKOVSKY (1966; 1975).

Kazanka is located on the right bank of the Visun River, a right tributary of theIngulets. It is distributed along a high gentle slope adjacent to the plateau on which is akurgan, 15-20 m higher than the water table. The site covers an area of 180x180 m. Morethan 2000 artefacts come from its surface. The five test-trenches, and the nearby exposed

profile, revealed that the disturbed chernozem is underlaid by a loam deposit severalmetres thick. The cultural layer has not been discovered because it had been most probablydestroyed by agricultural activities. Several Late Bronze Age potsherds were found on thesite surface.

V.F. Petrun stressed that the raw material utilized by its inhabitants can be subdividedinto several groups due to differences in their macro- and microscopic features ( BORISKOVSKY , 1975). Most of them originated from secondary deposits of alluvial origin. V.F. Petrunsupposed that most of the flint pebbles were brought to site from the north or (less probably)the west. Many flints are covered with a white and blue patina. Some are burnt.

A very high microlithic index is a peculiar characteristic of Kazanka assemblage. Onlyone flake reaches 6 cm in length. Flakes 3-5 cm long are rare. 5% of the flints have a maximumdimension of 2-3 cm, and 95% (tools, blades, flakes and chunks) are

8/12/2019 Atti della Societ p

Atti della Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Volume...

Documents

Transcript of Atti della Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Volume...