The procedure of technological relationship defi nition (reconstruction of operational chains — c... more The procedure of technological relationship defi nition (reconstruction of operational chains — chaine operatoire) between various types of knapping products in different paleoindustries is one of the most traditional research methods in archeology. In the analysis of stone industries, this process is often associated or even identifi ed with the technological analysis as that. Usually researchers do not pay enough attention to very signifi cant distinction existing between the possibilities of reconstruction of productive activity based on splitting and the same possibilities in the analysis of other types of various other materials processing. For example, the form of a pot isn’t connected in any way with a form of a lump of clay, out of which the vessel is formed. Contrary to it, the form of the spall separated from a piece of any fragile material, always is in direct dependence from the form of the core. There is a natural cause and effect relationship between these forms. Thus, technological relationship (as specifi c “chaine operatoire” option), established during the analysis between various forms of knapping products, have a special nature, which is qualitatively distinguishing them from those products established between various forms of other products. Set of artifacts — products of knapping combined in the light of such relations of cause and effect, can be called “a technological context” of any specifi c industry. Thanks to the feature specifi ed above, technological contexts of various forms of knapping products can be always estimated from the point of view of their completeness. That is why in any set of splitting products a qualifi ed expert can defi ne not only existence, but also lack of some forms of artifacts and also make quite reasonable assumptions of sizes and features of missing morphological forms. Components of stone industries — different artifacts like chips, fl akes, cores and so long — usually are good preserved even in the most ancient cultural layers. Existence and/or lack of artifacts — knapping products of any forms in archaeological collections can be a result of various reasons, including bad safety or poor research of an occupation layer. For example, certain forms of knapping products can have various isolated distribution on the site area, but yet not been dug out of the cultural fi ll. For instance, blades can be situated at the center of the dwellings, cores — outside, in the yards. However, quite often an archeologist faces a situation when even after opening considerable areas of the cultural fi ll the excavation of new areas doesn’t lead to opening of new forms of knapping products. The number of artifacts grows, but no new categories are found, structure of a collection remains without any qualitative changing. This article represents an example of technological contexts of two industries. The fi rst is Zhokhova site (V.V. Pitulko’s excavation), the second site — Rakushechny Yar (excavations by T.D. Belanovskaya). Advantages of the technological analysis are shown on the examples of two different stone industries. In the both cases incompleteness of knapping products technological contexts is defi ned and assumptions about the character of absent artifact forms are made. It is obvious that the traditional typological approach wouldn’t allow full understanding of the phenomenon observed by us (that proved to be true long-term attempts to explain specifi cs of the stone industry at Rakushechny Yar site and diffi culties in search of its analogues).
V. Lozovski, O. Lozovskaya et I. Clemente Conte (ed.) Zamostje 2. Lake settlement of the Mesolithic and Neolithic Fisherman in upper Volga Region, Russian Academy of Science, St Petersbourg., 2013
"Fishing played a fundamental role in the subsistence economy
of the Mesolithic and Neolithic in... more "Fishing played a fundamental role in the subsistence economy
of the Mesolithic and Neolithic inhabitants of Zamostje 2, a site
located on the Russian plain (Sergiev Possad, Moscow). The
abundant ichtiofaunal remains and the tools found at the site
(harpoons, needle nets, fishhooks and scaling knives) corroborate
this importance. In this article, we focus on the consumption
of fishhooks through an analysis of the usewear observed on their
surfaces. We compare the usewear observed on the archaeological
fishhooks with that seen on experimental fishhooks used to capture
fish species. We show how some attributes (disposition, quantity
and hardness of the fish teeth) influence the nature of the usewear,
especially the striations, formed on the surfaces of the fishhooks."
Maigrot Y., Clemente Conte I., Gyria E., Lozovskaya O., Lozovski V. ... In: International Conference on Use-Wear Analysis Use-Wear 2012. Ed. J. Marreiros, N. Bicho and J. Gibaja Bao. Cambridge Scholars Publishing 521-530
Zamostje 2 is a river bank site located in the region of Serguei Possad (Russia). The Zamostje 2 ... more Zamostje 2 is a river bank site located in the region of Serguei Possad (Russia). The Zamostje 2 settlement has been excavated by Vladimir Lozovski and Olga Lozovskaya since 1989. This site is composed of occupations from the late Mesolithic to the middle Neolithic. Although no habitat structures were discovered, structures and many artefacts dealing with fishing practices have been found there. Our attention was drawn to a particular typological set of bone artefacts from Zamostje: narrow transverse-lateral bevel ended tools with sides invariably composing an angle of 45°. The functional study of around forty pieces had allowed a match with wood working (Лозовская 1997). However, the variability in the breaks and the distribution of use-wear patterns means that kinematics could not be apparently cleared. From these first results and with the help of target experiments, we carried out the use-wear analysis of all the collection that numbers more than one hundred “45° bevelled bone tools”. We expected to specify their function and their connections with structures dealing with fishing at Zamostje
A newly discovered Paleolithic site on the Yana River, Siberia, at 71°N, lies well
above the Arct... more A newly discovered Paleolithic site on the Yana River, Siberia, at 71°N, lies well above the Arctic circle and dates to 27,000 radiocarbon years before present, during glacial times. This age is twice that of other known human occupations in any Arctic region. Artifacts at the site include a rare rhinoceros foreshaft, other mammoth foreshafts, and a wide variety of tools and flakes. This site shows that people adapted to this harsh, high-latitude, Late Pleistocene environment much earlier than previously thought.
Use-wear analysis of wooden, ivory and antler artifacts from Zhokhov occupation site produced
evi... more Use-wear analysis of wooden, ivory and antler artifacts from Zhokhov occupation site produced evidences of its functioning during the cold and snowy seasons. These conclusions have been obtained from the results of the study of traces riding on snow on sled runners (lack of traces from riding over snowless tundra soil), as well as the nature of traces on tools related to snow digging and the nature of fractures on mammoth tusk artifacts.
Kostienki knives’ (also named ’CdK’ in the text) were identified at the beginning of the 20th cen... more Kostienki knives’ (also named ’CdK’ in the text) were identified at the beginning of the 20th century by Petr Efimenko (1915), a pioneer of Russian Palaeolithic archaeology. After a century of work and investigations about the description and features of these artefacts, they have now become a major indication to support and strengthen the con- sensus of a pan-European Gravettian civilization. Indeed, since their very first identification, these tools have allegedly been recognized through almost all the Old World. They have been identified from the Great Russian plain (Kostienki, Avdeevo, etc.) to the south of France (Corbiac, Grotte du Marronier, Abri du Blot), Germany (Mainz-Linsenberg) and Italy (Grotte Paglicci). In addition, they have also been very frequently mentioned on Gravettian sites in Central Europe (e.g. Willendorf, Pavlov, Dolní Věstonice, Moravany nad Váhom, Kraków Spadzista). Logically, these elements of comparison were added to the list of artefacts (such as the anthropomorphic female figurines) or practices (burials) that support a homogenous vision (although with nuances) of the Gravettian as a pan-European ’culture’. Such a vision is quite attractive but we think that Kostienki knives, as understood by most specialists, may not be as good analogical ele- ments as some may have first thought. Thanks to an encounter between Eastern and Western European Gravettian spe- cialists (the authors of this article) we have been able to distinguish major differences in our definition criteria of what we all called ’Kostienki knives’ or ’Kostienki technique retouched blades’. In this article, we are first going to sum up a long century of the controversial history of the definition and recognition of these artefacts. Afterwards, we will explain the origin of the major misunderstanding that has led many prehistorian specialists (including one of us) to propose erroneous identifications of this type of artefact in Western Europe (starting with the site of Corbiac in Dordogne). In order to review the situation and point out the mistakes remaining in scientific literature we propose to: 1) explain what exactly were the original artefacts identified in Russia (proposing a definition based on typological, functional and tech- nological analysis practiced on Zaraysk and Kostienki I sites); 2) show the major differences that exist between them and the other so-called ’Kostienki knives’ (or ’Kostienki technique retouched blades’) identified in Western Europe (reassessing the cases of Le Blot, Mainz-Linsenberg and Corbiac); 3) reassess the old identifications of ’Kostienki knives’ on various sites in Central Europe (work based on M. Polanská’s ongoing PhD). On the basis of our study, we can already say that in the case of Eastern Europe (site of Zaraysk), ’Kostienki knives’ are real tools as proposed by Semenov in the 1960s and ’70s. The huge variation seen in their morphology can be interpreted as the reflection of the different stages of implementation of a quite standardized cutting edge resharpening process. From a functional point of view, Kostienki knives (from Zaraysk or Kostienki I) seem to have been used to cut/plane (rarely carve) various materials (mostly meat, wood or hard organic materials and rarely minerals). On the contrary, in Western Europe (on the sites of Le Blot and Mainz-Linsenberg), the so-called ’Kostienki knives’ (or ’Kostienki technique retouched blades’) correspond to a marginal moment of the bladelet flaking process on prismatic burin cores. On the site of Corbiac, the reassessment of the material identified as ’Lames aménagées par technique de Kostienki’ by J. K. Kozłowski in the 1980s proves that the artefacts do not correspond to the ’Kostienki knives’ described in Russia. Finally the examination of different published artefacts or collections allows us to think that many identifications of so-called ’Kostienki knives’ in Central and Western Europe are questionable. Indeed it seems that a large part of these identifications have been based on a poor understanding of the Russian published literature and on a series of secondary misguided identifica- tions outside Russia. Very often, the so-called ’Kostienki-knives’ have been recognized through a mere morphological convergence based on the single presence of an inverse truncation/platform (sometimes, but not systematically) used to make some ’removals’ on the dorsal surface. After all, many published and drawn specimens reveal that “Kostienki knives” have often been confused with simple inverse truncations, broken artefacts, atypical burins or even splin- tered pieces. We want to stress that mere morphological convergences between tools should not be used to support the hypothesis of some sort of ’connection’ between groups distant by more than a thousand kilometres. Speaking of convergences, we also provide a rapid review of diverse chronological and geographical contexts where some artefacts more or less similar to ’Kostienki knives’ have been described (sometimes with similar names). However, on several western Gravettian sites, we have seen they were only simple morphological convergences, usually quite rare and with a different functional purpose. So far, we think that no convincing example of a true series of ’Kostienki knives’ has been properly published in Western Europe. Unfortunately in some cases (e.g. Paglicci Cave), the question is still unre- solved, mostly because the alleged presence of such artefacts is only briefly mentioned. Such cases will surely need to be reassessed carefully in the near future. Finally, our results close a 40 year-old misunderstanding about these tools and their alleged existence on the few Gravettian sites where they have supposedly been recognised in Western Europe. The re-examination of some collections in Central Europe has also proved that many old identifications in the area should be considered carefully and reassessed. True and reliable analogies may well exist between the Eastern and Western Gravettian, but the so-called ’Kostienki knives’ of Western Europe are not among them.
In: Zamostje 2. Lake Settlement of the Mesolithic and Neolithic Fisherman in Upper Volga Region. Ed. V. Lozovski, O. Lozovskaya, I. Clemente Conte. St. Petersbourg: IHMC RAS, 2013, p.110-119, Dec 2013
"Fishing played a fundamental role in the subsistence economy
of the Mesolithic and Neolithic in... more "Fishing played a fundamental role in the subsistence economy
of the Mesolithic and Neolithic inhabitants of Zamostje 2, a site
located on the Russian plain (Sergiev Possad, Moscow). The
abundant ichtiofaunal remains and the tools found at the site
(harpoons, needle nets, fishhooks and scaling knives) corroborate
this importance. In this article, we focus on the consumption
of fishhooks through an analysis of the usewear observed on their
surfaces. We compare the usewear observed on the archaeological
fishhooks with that seen on experimental fishhooks used to capture
fish species. We show how some attributes (disposition, quantity
and hardness of the fish teeth) influence the nature of the usewear,
especially the striations, formed on the surfaces of the fishhooks."
Лев С.Ю., Кларик Л., Гиря Е.Ю. 2011. Ножи костенковского типа и пластины с подработкой конца: феномен конвергентного развития или родство технологий? // Палеолит и мезолит Восточной Европы. Москва. Таус. С. 235-279 , 2011
CLEMENTE I., GYRIA E.Y., LOZOV(Z)SKA O.V., LOZOVSKI V.M. 2002 Análisis de instrumentos en costilla de alce, mandíbulas de castor y caparazón de tortuga de Zamostje 2 (Rusia) // Análisis Funcional. Su aplicación al estudio de sociedades prehistóricas. BAR International Serie 1073, pp.187-196, 2002
The Zamostje 2 site is situated on the left bank of Dubna River, one of the numerous sources of t... more The Zamostje 2 site is situated on the left bank of Dubna River, one of the numerous sources of the Volga River. The site
is located in wet boggy conditions, which are favourable for pit formation. This environment is also favourable for good
preservation of prehistoric bone, wooden and other organic remains. This fact explains the richness of the organic
material collections, and their good preservation. The site is situated 110 km to the north of Moscow and 50 km to the
north of Sergiev Possad.
We had to use a large experimental collection from the laboratory of use-wear analysis of the Institute of Material
Culture History (St.-Petersburg, director G.F. Korobkova) with the aim of correlating the traces, which had formed on
the surface of bone implements. So at our disposal we had experimental tools made from bone, which were linked with
processing different materials: skins (needles, awls, scrapers, planes/spatula), wood (planes, burins, chisels), plants
(sickles), pottery (planes and tools for decoration) and antlers (borers and perforators).
Besides this we completed the experimental collection with tools made from cow ribs, which were used for fish scale
processing and fish preparation. In this paper we describe the use-wear traces, found on the experimental tools and
also two types of tools made from elk ribs, which were defined in the archaeological material.
We analysed implements made from elk ribs found in the second Mesolithic layer (7400-7300 BP). Traditionally and
accordingly to ethnographic materials these tools were known as “knives for fish processing”. Our investigation aimed
to check on this functional statement made without any use-wear analysis.
Also we analysed tool made from turtle shell (Emys orbicularis), which had been found in lower Mesolithic layer (7900-
7800 BP), and a series of tools made from beaver mandible, which had been transformed in order to use the sharp
points as burins.
Discrimination between Prehistoric Artworks and Naturally Modified Faunal Remains in the Light of... more Discrimination between Prehistoric Artworks and Naturally Modified Faunal Remains in the Light of Traceological Studies Comparative traceological analysis makes it possible to discern between natural (pathological, invasive) and artificial modifications (sawing, cutting, drilling, abrasion) seen on the hard tissues of mammals and other organisms. The cuneiform defects not infrequently observed on the dentin and tooth enamel of cattle and produced by the action of rough particles contained in the plants eaten by animals, can look like traces of sawing. The traces left by parasites attaching themselves to the spines of sea hedgehogs also can be taken as a result of intentional working. The holes drilled by the Natica mollusks in some shells are almost indistinguishable from artificially made holes. Long-term studies of macro- and microtraces have made it possible to create a collection of reference specimens that can be used to differentiate between truly artificial and pseudo-artificial (natural) modifications.
The article presents a short overview of the initial stage of the experimental and traceological ... more The article presents a short overview of the initial stage of the experimental and traceological methods development in Russian archaeology. This stage relates to activity of the foundating fathers of the Russian Palaeolithic studies — P.P. Efi menko and S.A. Semenov. A large part of materials that were used for development of methods of experimentaltraceologycal analysis originates from the 1st cultural layer of Kostyonki 1 site. The site is still an object of traceological investigations. Innovative methods of stone tools use-wear analysis are improving basing on the Kostyonki materials. These studies are exemplifi ed in the article by the results of many-years investigations on well-known type of Upper Palaeolithic tools — so-called knifes of Kostynki type. Comparing of formal typolological and traceological methods shows both weak and strong aspect of their use. The morphographic approach to stone tools studies is criticized, and instead the morphological analysis of manufacturing and use-wear traces is suggested. The last one allows analyzing the traces of the prehistoric people activity at essential and interpretative level.
Лев С.Ю., Кларик Л., Гиря Е.Ю. 2011. Ножи костенковского типа и пластины с подработкой конца: феномен конвергентного развития или родство технологий? // Палеолит и мезолит Восточной Европы. Москва. Таус. С. 235-279
Kostenki knives technology, function and use wear analysis
in: Traceology today – Methodological issues in the Old World and America. Proceedings of the XVI World Congress UISPP (Florianópolis, 4-10 septembre 2011), Session XXXV. Vol.6. Ed. Maria Estela Mansur, Marcio Alonso Lima, Yolaine Maigrot. BAR International Series 2643. 2014. P.55-60, 2014
Maigrot Y., Clemente Conte I., Gyria E., Lozovskaya O., Lozovski V. 2014 Des hameçons en os aux techniques de pêche : le cas de Zamostje 2 //Arbogast R.-M. & Greffier-Richard A. Entre archéologie et écologie, une Préhistoire de tous les milieux. Mélanges offerts à Pierre Pétrequin, Besançon, 243-252, 2014
Fishing was a fundamental element of the subsistence economy of the Mesolithic and Neolithic inha... more Fishing was a fundamental element of the subsistence economy of the Mesolithic and Neolithic inhabitants of Zamostje 2, located on the Central Russian Plain (Sergiev Possad, Moscow). This is attested by the astronomical amounts of fish remains found at this site, along with fishing tools such as harpoons, netting needles, net weights, hooks and de-scaling knives. We focus here on the use of bone fish hooks, as revealed through studying the use wear observed on their surface. This use wear is compared with that seen on experimental hooks used to catch different fish species. It is shown how some attributes (and in particular the disposition, quantity and hardness of the fish teeth) influence the character of the use wear, and especially the striations that occurred on the surface of the hooks.
Технологические и трасологические исследования костяных и деревянных орудий стоянки Замостье 2 // Труды IV (XX) Всероссийского археологического съезда в Казани 2014 г. Т.IV. Казань 2014. С.157-159, Oct 2014
The procedure of technological relationship defi nition (reconstruction of operational chains — c... more The procedure of technological relationship defi nition (reconstruction of operational chains — chaine operatoire) between various types of knapping products in different paleoindustries is one of the most traditional research methods in archeology. In the analysis of stone industries, this process is often associated or even identifi ed with the technological analysis as that. Usually researchers do not pay enough attention to very signifi cant distinction existing between the possibilities of reconstruction of productive activity based on splitting and the same possibilities in the analysis of other types of various other materials processing. For example, the form of a pot isn’t connected in any way with a form of a lump of clay, out of which the vessel is formed. Contrary to it, the form of the spall separated from a piece of any fragile material, always is in direct dependence from the form of the core. There is a natural cause and effect relationship between these forms. Thus, technological relationship (as specifi c “chaine operatoire” option), established during the analysis between various forms of knapping products, have a special nature, which is qualitatively distinguishing them from those products established between various forms of other products. Set of artifacts — products of knapping combined in the light of such relations of cause and effect, can be called “a technological context” of any specifi c industry. Thanks to the feature specifi ed above, technological contexts of various forms of knapping products can be always estimated from the point of view of their completeness. That is why in any set of splitting products a qualifi ed expert can defi ne not only existence, but also lack of some forms of artifacts and also make quite reasonable assumptions of sizes and features of missing morphological forms. Components of stone industries — different artifacts like chips, fl akes, cores and so long — usually are good preserved even in the most ancient cultural layers. Existence and/or lack of artifacts — knapping products of any forms in archaeological collections can be a result of various reasons, including bad safety or poor research of an occupation layer. For example, certain forms of knapping products can have various isolated distribution on the site area, but yet not been dug out of the cultural fi ll. For instance, blades can be situated at the center of the dwellings, cores — outside, in the yards. However, quite often an archeologist faces a situation when even after opening considerable areas of the cultural fi ll the excavation of new areas doesn’t lead to opening of new forms of knapping products. The number of artifacts grows, but no new categories are found, structure of a collection remains without any qualitative changing. This article represents an example of technological contexts of two industries. The fi rst is Zhokhova site (V.V. Pitulko’s excavation), the second site — Rakushechny Yar (excavations by T.D. Belanovskaya). Advantages of the technological analysis are shown on the examples of two different stone industries. In the both cases incompleteness of knapping products technological contexts is defi ned and assumptions about the character of absent artifact forms are made. It is obvious that the traditional typological approach wouldn’t allow full understanding of the phenomenon observed by us (that proved to be true long-term attempts to explain specifi cs of the stone industry at Rakushechny Yar site and diffi culties in search of its analogues).
V. Lozovski, O. Lozovskaya et I. Clemente Conte (ed.) Zamostje 2. Lake settlement of the Mesolithic and Neolithic Fisherman in upper Volga Region, Russian Academy of Science, St Petersbourg., 2013
"Fishing played a fundamental role in the subsistence economy
of the Mesolithic and Neolithic in... more "Fishing played a fundamental role in the subsistence economy
of the Mesolithic and Neolithic inhabitants of Zamostje 2, a site
located on the Russian plain (Sergiev Possad, Moscow). The
abundant ichtiofaunal remains and the tools found at the site
(harpoons, needle nets, fishhooks and scaling knives) corroborate
this importance. In this article, we focus on the consumption
of fishhooks through an analysis of the usewear observed on their
surfaces. We compare the usewear observed on the archaeological
fishhooks with that seen on experimental fishhooks used to capture
fish species. We show how some attributes (disposition, quantity
and hardness of the fish teeth) influence the nature of the usewear,
especially the striations, formed on the surfaces of the fishhooks."
Maigrot Y., Clemente Conte I., Gyria E., Lozovskaya O., Lozovski V. ... In: International Conference on Use-Wear Analysis Use-Wear 2012. Ed. J. Marreiros, N. Bicho and J. Gibaja Bao. Cambridge Scholars Publishing 521-530
Zamostje 2 is a river bank site located in the region of Serguei Possad (Russia). The Zamostje 2 ... more Zamostje 2 is a river bank site located in the region of Serguei Possad (Russia). The Zamostje 2 settlement has been excavated by Vladimir Lozovski and Olga Lozovskaya since 1989. This site is composed of occupations from the late Mesolithic to the middle Neolithic. Although no habitat structures were discovered, structures and many artefacts dealing with fishing practices have been found there. Our attention was drawn to a particular typological set of bone artefacts from Zamostje: narrow transverse-lateral bevel ended tools with sides invariably composing an angle of 45°. The functional study of around forty pieces had allowed a match with wood working (Лозовская 1997). However, the variability in the breaks and the distribution of use-wear patterns means that kinematics could not be apparently cleared. From these first results and with the help of target experiments, we carried out the use-wear analysis of all the collection that numbers more than one hundred “45° bevelled bone tools”. We expected to specify their function and their connections with structures dealing with fishing at Zamostje
A newly discovered Paleolithic site on the Yana River, Siberia, at 71°N, lies well
above the Arct... more A newly discovered Paleolithic site on the Yana River, Siberia, at 71°N, lies well above the Arctic circle and dates to 27,000 radiocarbon years before present, during glacial times. This age is twice that of other known human occupations in any Arctic region. Artifacts at the site include a rare rhinoceros foreshaft, other mammoth foreshafts, and a wide variety of tools and flakes. This site shows that people adapted to this harsh, high-latitude, Late Pleistocene environment much earlier than previously thought.
Use-wear analysis of wooden, ivory and antler artifacts from Zhokhov occupation site produced
evi... more Use-wear analysis of wooden, ivory and antler artifacts from Zhokhov occupation site produced evidences of its functioning during the cold and snowy seasons. These conclusions have been obtained from the results of the study of traces riding on snow on sled runners (lack of traces from riding over snowless tundra soil), as well as the nature of traces on tools related to snow digging and the nature of fractures on mammoth tusk artifacts.
Kostienki knives’ (also named ’CdK’ in the text) were identified at the beginning of the 20th cen... more Kostienki knives’ (also named ’CdK’ in the text) were identified at the beginning of the 20th century by Petr Efimenko (1915), a pioneer of Russian Palaeolithic archaeology. After a century of work and investigations about the description and features of these artefacts, they have now become a major indication to support and strengthen the con- sensus of a pan-European Gravettian civilization. Indeed, since their very first identification, these tools have allegedly been recognized through almost all the Old World. They have been identified from the Great Russian plain (Kostienki, Avdeevo, etc.) to the south of France (Corbiac, Grotte du Marronier, Abri du Blot), Germany (Mainz-Linsenberg) and Italy (Grotte Paglicci). In addition, they have also been very frequently mentioned on Gravettian sites in Central Europe (e.g. Willendorf, Pavlov, Dolní Věstonice, Moravany nad Váhom, Kraków Spadzista). Logically, these elements of comparison were added to the list of artefacts (such as the anthropomorphic female figurines) or practices (burials) that support a homogenous vision (although with nuances) of the Gravettian as a pan-European ’culture’. Such a vision is quite attractive but we think that Kostienki knives, as understood by most specialists, may not be as good analogical ele- ments as some may have first thought. Thanks to an encounter between Eastern and Western European Gravettian spe- cialists (the authors of this article) we have been able to distinguish major differences in our definition criteria of what we all called ’Kostienki knives’ or ’Kostienki technique retouched blades’. In this article, we are first going to sum up a long century of the controversial history of the definition and recognition of these artefacts. Afterwards, we will explain the origin of the major misunderstanding that has led many prehistorian specialists (including one of us) to propose erroneous identifications of this type of artefact in Western Europe (starting with the site of Corbiac in Dordogne). In order to review the situation and point out the mistakes remaining in scientific literature we propose to: 1) explain what exactly were the original artefacts identified in Russia (proposing a definition based on typological, functional and tech- nological analysis practiced on Zaraysk and Kostienki I sites); 2) show the major differences that exist between them and the other so-called ’Kostienki knives’ (or ’Kostienki technique retouched blades’) identified in Western Europe (reassessing the cases of Le Blot, Mainz-Linsenberg and Corbiac); 3) reassess the old identifications of ’Kostienki knives’ on various sites in Central Europe (work based on M. Polanská’s ongoing PhD). On the basis of our study, we can already say that in the case of Eastern Europe (site of Zaraysk), ’Kostienki knives’ are real tools as proposed by Semenov in the 1960s and ’70s. The huge variation seen in their morphology can be interpreted as the reflection of the different stages of implementation of a quite standardized cutting edge resharpening process. From a functional point of view, Kostienki knives (from Zaraysk or Kostienki I) seem to have been used to cut/plane (rarely carve) various materials (mostly meat, wood or hard organic materials and rarely minerals). On the contrary, in Western Europe (on the sites of Le Blot and Mainz-Linsenberg), the so-called ’Kostienki knives’ (or ’Kostienki technique retouched blades’) correspond to a marginal moment of the bladelet flaking process on prismatic burin cores. On the site of Corbiac, the reassessment of the material identified as ’Lames aménagées par technique de Kostienki’ by J. K. Kozłowski in the 1980s proves that the artefacts do not correspond to the ’Kostienki knives’ described in Russia. Finally the examination of different published artefacts or collections allows us to think that many identifications of so-called ’Kostienki knives’ in Central and Western Europe are questionable. Indeed it seems that a large part of these identifications have been based on a poor understanding of the Russian published literature and on a series of secondary misguided identifica- tions outside Russia. Very often, the so-called ’Kostienki-knives’ have been recognized through a mere morphological convergence based on the single presence of an inverse truncation/platform (sometimes, but not systematically) used to make some ’removals’ on the dorsal surface. After all, many published and drawn specimens reveal that “Kostienki knives” have often been confused with simple inverse truncations, broken artefacts, atypical burins or even splin- tered pieces. We want to stress that mere morphological convergences between tools should not be used to support the hypothesis of some sort of ’connection’ between groups distant by more than a thousand kilometres. Speaking of convergences, we also provide a rapid review of diverse chronological and geographical contexts where some artefacts more or less similar to ’Kostienki knives’ have been described (sometimes with similar names). However, on several western Gravettian sites, we have seen they were only simple morphological convergences, usually quite rare and with a different functional purpose. So far, we think that no convincing example of a true series of ’Kostienki knives’ has been properly published in Western Europe. Unfortunately in some cases (e.g. Paglicci Cave), the question is still unre- solved, mostly because the alleged presence of such artefacts is only briefly mentioned. Such cases will surely need to be reassessed carefully in the near future. Finally, our results close a 40 year-old misunderstanding about these tools and their alleged existence on the few Gravettian sites where they have supposedly been recognised in Western Europe. The re-examination of some collections in Central Europe has also proved that many old identifications in the area should be considered carefully and reassessed. True and reliable analogies may well exist between the Eastern and Western Gravettian, but the so-called ’Kostienki knives’ of Western Europe are not among them.
In: Zamostje 2. Lake Settlement of the Mesolithic and Neolithic Fisherman in Upper Volga Region. Ed. V. Lozovski, O. Lozovskaya, I. Clemente Conte. St. Petersbourg: IHMC RAS, 2013, p.110-119, Dec 2013
"Fishing played a fundamental role in the subsistence economy
of the Mesolithic and Neolithic in... more "Fishing played a fundamental role in the subsistence economy
of the Mesolithic and Neolithic inhabitants of Zamostje 2, a site
located on the Russian plain (Sergiev Possad, Moscow). The
abundant ichtiofaunal remains and the tools found at the site
(harpoons, needle nets, fishhooks and scaling knives) corroborate
this importance. In this article, we focus on the consumption
of fishhooks through an analysis of the usewear observed on their
surfaces. We compare the usewear observed on the archaeological
fishhooks with that seen on experimental fishhooks used to capture
fish species. We show how some attributes (disposition, quantity
and hardness of the fish teeth) influence the nature of the usewear,
especially the striations, formed on the surfaces of the fishhooks."
Лев С.Ю., Кларик Л., Гиря Е.Ю. 2011. Ножи костенковского типа и пластины с подработкой конца: феномен конвергентного развития или родство технологий? // Палеолит и мезолит Восточной Европы. Москва. Таус. С. 235-279 , 2011
CLEMENTE I., GYRIA E.Y., LOZOV(Z)SKA O.V., LOZOVSKI V.M. 2002 Análisis de instrumentos en costilla de alce, mandíbulas de castor y caparazón de tortuga de Zamostje 2 (Rusia) // Análisis Funcional. Su aplicación al estudio de sociedades prehistóricas. BAR International Serie 1073, pp.187-196, 2002
The Zamostje 2 site is situated on the left bank of Dubna River, one of the numerous sources of t... more The Zamostje 2 site is situated on the left bank of Dubna River, one of the numerous sources of the Volga River. The site
is located in wet boggy conditions, which are favourable for pit formation. This environment is also favourable for good
preservation of prehistoric bone, wooden and other organic remains. This fact explains the richness of the organic
material collections, and their good preservation. The site is situated 110 km to the north of Moscow and 50 km to the
north of Sergiev Possad.
We had to use a large experimental collection from the laboratory of use-wear analysis of the Institute of Material
Culture History (St.-Petersburg, director G.F. Korobkova) with the aim of correlating the traces, which had formed on
the surface of bone implements. So at our disposal we had experimental tools made from bone, which were linked with
processing different materials: skins (needles, awls, scrapers, planes/spatula), wood (planes, burins, chisels), plants
(sickles), pottery (planes and tools for decoration) and antlers (borers and perforators).
Besides this we completed the experimental collection with tools made from cow ribs, which were used for fish scale
processing and fish preparation. In this paper we describe the use-wear traces, found on the experimental tools and
also two types of tools made from elk ribs, which were defined in the archaeological material.
We analysed implements made from elk ribs found in the second Mesolithic layer (7400-7300 BP). Traditionally and
accordingly to ethnographic materials these tools were known as “knives for fish processing”. Our investigation aimed
to check on this functional statement made without any use-wear analysis.
Also we analysed tool made from turtle shell (Emys orbicularis), which had been found in lower Mesolithic layer (7900-
7800 BP), and a series of tools made from beaver mandible, which had been transformed in order to use the sharp
points as burins.
Discrimination between Prehistoric Artworks and Naturally Modified Faunal Remains in the Light of... more Discrimination between Prehistoric Artworks and Naturally Modified Faunal Remains in the Light of Traceological Studies Comparative traceological analysis makes it possible to discern between natural (pathological, invasive) and artificial modifications (sawing, cutting, drilling, abrasion) seen on the hard tissues of mammals and other organisms. The cuneiform defects not infrequently observed on the dentin and tooth enamel of cattle and produced by the action of rough particles contained in the plants eaten by animals, can look like traces of sawing. The traces left by parasites attaching themselves to the spines of sea hedgehogs also can be taken as a result of intentional working. The holes drilled by the Natica mollusks in some shells are almost indistinguishable from artificially made holes. Long-term studies of macro- and microtraces have made it possible to create a collection of reference specimens that can be used to differentiate between truly artificial and pseudo-artificial (natural) modifications.
The article presents a short overview of the initial stage of the experimental and traceological ... more The article presents a short overview of the initial stage of the experimental and traceological methods development in Russian archaeology. This stage relates to activity of the foundating fathers of the Russian Palaeolithic studies — P.P. Efi menko and S.A. Semenov. A large part of materials that were used for development of methods of experimentaltraceologycal analysis originates from the 1st cultural layer of Kostyonki 1 site. The site is still an object of traceological investigations. Innovative methods of stone tools use-wear analysis are improving basing on the Kostyonki materials. These studies are exemplifi ed in the article by the results of many-years investigations on well-known type of Upper Palaeolithic tools — so-called knifes of Kostynki type. Comparing of formal typolological and traceological methods shows both weak and strong aspect of their use. The morphographic approach to stone tools studies is criticized, and instead the morphological analysis of manufacturing and use-wear traces is suggested. The last one allows analyzing the traces of the prehistoric people activity at essential and interpretative level.
Лев С.Ю., Кларик Л., Гиря Е.Ю. 2011. Ножи костенковского типа и пластины с подработкой конца: феномен конвергентного развития или родство технологий? // Палеолит и мезолит Восточной Европы. Москва. Таус. С. 235-279
Kostenki knives technology, function and use wear analysis
in: Traceology today – Methodological issues in the Old World and America. Proceedings of the XVI World Congress UISPP (Florianópolis, 4-10 septembre 2011), Session XXXV. Vol.6. Ed. Maria Estela Mansur, Marcio Alonso Lima, Yolaine Maigrot. BAR International Series 2643. 2014. P.55-60, 2014
Maigrot Y., Clemente Conte I., Gyria E., Lozovskaya O., Lozovski V. 2014 Des hameçons en os aux techniques de pêche : le cas de Zamostje 2 //Arbogast R.-M. & Greffier-Richard A. Entre archéologie et écologie, une Préhistoire de tous les milieux. Mélanges offerts à Pierre Pétrequin, Besançon, 243-252, 2014
Fishing was a fundamental element of the subsistence economy of the Mesolithic and Neolithic inha... more Fishing was a fundamental element of the subsistence economy of the Mesolithic and Neolithic inhabitants of Zamostje 2, located on the Central Russian Plain (Sergiev Possad, Moscow). This is attested by the astronomical amounts of fish remains found at this site, along with fishing tools such as harpoons, netting needles, net weights, hooks and de-scaling knives. We focus here on the use of bone fish hooks, as revealed through studying the use wear observed on their surface. This use wear is compared with that seen on experimental hooks used to catch different fish species. It is shown how some attributes (and in particular the disposition, quantity and hardness of the fish teeth) influence the character of the use wear, and especially the striations that occurred on the surface of the hooks.
Технологические и трасологические исследования костяных и деревянных орудий стоянки Замостье 2 // Труды IV (XX) Всероссийского археологического съезда в Казани 2014 г. Т.IV. Казань 2014. С.157-159, Oct 2014
Uploads
Papers by Evgeny Girya
between various types of knapping products in different paleoindustries is one of the most traditional research methods
in archeology. In the analysis of stone industries, this process is often associated or even identifi ed with the technological
analysis as that. Usually researchers do not pay enough attention to very signifi cant distinction existing
between the possibilities of reconstruction of productive activity based on splitting and the same possibilities in the
analysis of other types of various other materials processing.
For example, the form of a pot isn’t connected in any way with a form of a lump of clay, out of which the vessel
is formed. Contrary to it, the form of the spall separated from a piece of any fragile material, always is in direct
dependence from the form of the core. There is a natural cause and effect relationship between these forms. Thus,
technological relationship (as specifi c “chaine operatoire” option), established during the analysis between various
forms of knapping products, have a special nature, which is qualitatively distinguishing them from those products
established between various forms of other products. Set of artifacts — products of knapping combined in the light
of such relations of cause and effect, can be called “a technological context” of any specifi c industry.
Thanks to the feature specifi ed above, technological contexts of various forms of knapping products can be always
estimated from the point of view of their completeness. That is why in any set of splitting products a qualifi ed expert
can defi ne not only existence, but also lack of some forms of artifacts and also make quite reasonable assumptions
of sizes and features of missing morphological forms. Components of stone industries — different artifacts like chips,
fl akes, cores and so long — usually are good preserved even in the most ancient cultural layers. Existence and/or
lack of artifacts — knapping products of any forms in archaeological collections can be a result of various reasons,
including bad safety or poor research of an occupation layer. For example, certain forms of knapping products can
have various isolated distribution on the site area, but yet not been dug out of the cultural fi ll. For instance, blades
can be situated at the center of the dwellings, cores — outside, in the yards.
However, quite often an archeologist faces a situation when even after opening considerable areas of the cultural
fi ll the excavation of new areas doesn’t lead to opening of new forms of knapping products. The number of artifacts
grows, but no new categories are found, structure of a collection remains without any qualitative changing.
This article represents an example of technological contexts of two industries. The fi rst is Zhokhova site
(V.V. Pitulko’s excavation), the second site — Rakushechny Yar (excavations by T.D. Belanovskaya). Advantages of the technological analysis are shown on the examples of two different stone industries. In the both
cases incompleteness of knapping products technological contexts is defi ned and assumptions about the character
of absent artifact forms are made. It is obvious that the traditional typological approach wouldn’t allow full
understanding of the phenomenon observed by us (that proved to be true long-term attempts to explain specifi cs of
the stone industry at Rakushechny Yar site and diffi culties in search of its analogues).
of the Mesolithic and Neolithic inhabitants of Zamostje 2, a site
located on the Russian plain (Sergiev Possad, Moscow). The
abundant ichtiofaunal remains and the tools found at the site
(harpoons, needle nets, fishhooks and scaling knives) corroborate
this importance. In this article, we focus on the consumption
of fishhooks through an analysis of the usewear observed on their
surfaces. We compare the usewear observed on the archaeological
fishhooks with that seen on experimental fishhooks used to capture
fish species. We show how some attributes (disposition, quantity
and hardness of the fish teeth) influence the nature of the usewear,
especially the striations, formed on the surfaces of the fishhooks."
above the Arctic circle and dates to 27,000 radiocarbon years before present,
during glacial times. This age is twice that of other known human occupations
in any Arctic region. Artifacts at the site include a rare rhinoceros foreshaft,
other mammoth foreshafts, and a wide variety of tools and flakes. This site
shows that people adapted to this harsh, high-latitude, Late Pleistocene environment
much earlier than previously thought.
evidences of its functioning during the cold and snowy seasons. These conclusions have been obtained from the
results of the study of traces riding on snow on sled runners (lack of traces from riding over snowless tundra
soil), as well as the nature of traces on tools related to snow digging and the nature of fractures on mammoth
tusk artifacts.
of the Mesolithic and Neolithic inhabitants of Zamostje 2, a site
located on the Russian plain (Sergiev Possad, Moscow). The
abundant ichtiofaunal remains and the tools found at the site
(harpoons, needle nets, fishhooks and scaling knives) corroborate
this importance. In this article, we focus on the consumption
of fishhooks through an analysis of the usewear observed on their
surfaces. We compare the usewear observed on the archaeological
fishhooks with that seen on experimental fishhooks used to capture
fish species. We show how some attributes (disposition, quantity
and hardness of the fish teeth) influence the nature of the usewear,
especially the striations, formed on the surfaces of the fishhooks."
is located in wet boggy conditions, which are favourable for pit formation. This environment is also favourable for good
preservation of prehistoric bone, wooden and other organic remains. This fact explains the richness of the organic
material collections, and their good preservation. The site is situated 110 km to the north of Moscow and 50 km to the
north of Sergiev Possad.
We had to use a large experimental collection from the laboratory of use-wear analysis of the Institute of Material
Culture History (St.-Petersburg, director G.F. Korobkova) with the aim of correlating the traces, which had formed on
the surface of bone implements. So at our disposal we had experimental tools made from bone, which were linked with
processing different materials: skins (needles, awls, scrapers, planes/spatula), wood (planes, burins, chisels), plants
(sickles), pottery (planes and tools for decoration) and antlers (borers and perforators).
Besides this we completed the experimental collection with tools made from cow ribs, which were used for fish scale
processing and fish preparation. In this paper we describe the use-wear traces, found on the experimental tools and
also two types of tools made from elk ribs, which were defined in the archaeological material.
We analysed implements made from elk ribs found in the second Mesolithic layer (7400-7300 BP). Traditionally and
accordingly to ethnographic materials these tools were known as “knives for fish processing”. Our investigation aimed
to check on this functional statement made without any use-wear analysis.
Also we analysed tool made from turtle shell (Emys orbicularis), which had been found in lower Mesolithic layer (7900-
7800 BP), and a series of tools made from beaver mandible, which had been transformed in order to use the sharp
points as burins.
Traceological Studies
Comparative traceological analysis makes it possible to discern between natural (pathological, invasive) and artificial
modifications (sawing, cutting, drilling, abrasion) seen on the hard tissues of mammals and other organisms. The cuneiform
defects not infrequently observed on the dentin and tooth enamel of cattle and produced by the action of rough particles
contained in the plants eaten by animals, can look like traces of sawing. The traces left by parasites attaching themselves
to the spines of sea hedgehogs also can be taken as a result of intentional working. The holes drilled by the Natica mollusks
in some shells are almost indistinguishable from artificially made holes. Long-term studies of macro- and microtraces have
made it possible to create a collection of reference specimens that can be used to differentiate between truly artificial and
pseudo-artificial (natural) modifications.
in Russian archaeology. This stage relates to activity of the foundating fathers of the Russian Palaeolithic studies —
P.P. Efi menko and S.A. Semenov. A large part of materials that were used for development of methods of experimentaltraceologycal
analysis originates from the 1st cultural layer of Kostyonki 1 site. The site is still an object of traceological
investigations. Innovative methods of stone tools use-wear analysis are improving basing on the Kostyonki materials.
These studies are exemplifi ed in the article by the results of many-years investigations on well-known type of Upper
Palaeolithic tools — so-called knifes of Kostynki type. Comparing of formal typolological and traceological methods
shows both weak and strong aspect of their use. The morphographic approach to stone tools studies is criticized,
and instead the morphological analysis of manufacturing and use-wear traces is suggested. The last one allows
analyzing the traces of the prehistoric people activity at essential and interpretative level.
between various types of knapping products in different paleoindustries is one of the most traditional research methods
in archeology. In the analysis of stone industries, this process is often associated or even identifi ed with the technological
analysis as that. Usually researchers do not pay enough attention to very signifi cant distinction existing
between the possibilities of reconstruction of productive activity based on splitting and the same possibilities in the
analysis of other types of various other materials processing.
For example, the form of a pot isn’t connected in any way with a form of a lump of clay, out of which the vessel
is formed. Contrary to it, the form of the spall separated from a piece of any fragile material, always is in direct
dependence from the form of the core. There is a natural cause and effect relationship between these forms. Thus,
technological relationship (as specifi c “chaine operatoire” option), established during the analysis between various
forms of knapping products, have a special nature, which is qualitatively distinguishing them from those products
established between various forms of other products. Set of artifacts — products of knapping combined in the light
of such relations of cause and effect, can be called “a technological context” of any specifi c industry.
Thanks to the feature specifi ed above, technological contexts of various forms of knapping products can be always
estimated from the point of view of their completeness. That is why in any set of splitting products a qualifi ed expert
can defi ne not only existence, but also lack of some forms of artifacts and also make quite reasonable assumptions
of sizes and features of missing morphological forms. Components of stone industries — different artifacts like chips,
fl akes, cores and so long — usually are good preserved even in the most ancient cultural layers. Existence and/or
lack of artifacts — knapping products of any forms in archaeological collections can be a result of various reasons,
including bad safety or poor research of an occupation layer. For example, certain forms of knapping products can
have various isolated distribution on the site area, but yet not been dug out of the cultural fi ll. For instance, blades
can be situated at the center of the dwellings, cores — outside, in the yards.
However, quite often an archeologist faces a situation when even after opening considerable areas of the cultural
fi ll the excavation of new areas doesn’t lead to opening of new forms of knapping products. The number of artifacts
grows, but no new categories are found, structure of a collection remains without any qualitative changing.
This article represents an example of technological contexts of two industries. The fi rst is Zhokhova site
(V.V. Pitulko’s excavation), the second site — Rakushechny Yar (excavations by T.D. Belanovskaya). Advantages of the technological analysis are shown on the examples of two different stone industries. In the both
cases incompleteness of knapping products technological contexts is defi ned and assumptions about the character
of absent artifact forms are made. It is obvious that the traditional typological approach wouldn’t allow full
understanding of the phenomenon observed by us (that proved to be true long-term attempts to explain specifi cs of
the stone industry at Rakushechny Yar site and diffi culties in search of its analogues).
of the Mesolithic and Neolithic inhabitants of Zamostje 2, a site
located on the Russian plain (Sergiev Possad, Moscow). The
abundant ichtiofaunal remains and the tools found at the site
(harpoons, needle nets, fishhooks and scaling knives) corroborate
this importance. In this article, we focus on the consumption
of fishhooks through an analysis of the usewear observed on their
surfaces. We compare the usewear observed on the archaeological
fishhooks with that seen on experimental fishhooks used to capture
fish species. We show how some attributes (disposition, quantity
and hardness of the fish teeth) influence the nature of the usewear,
especially the striations, formed on the surfaces of the fishhooks."
above the Arctic circle and dates to 27,000 radiocarbon years before present,
during glacial times. This age is twice that of other known human occupations
in any Arctic region. Artifacts at the site include a rare rhinoceros foreshaft,
other mammoth foreshafts, and a wide variety of tools and flakes. This site
shows that people adapted to this harsh, high-latitude, Late Pleistocene environment
much earlier than previously thought.
evidences of its functioning during the cold and snowy seasons. These conclusions have been obtained from the
results of the study of traces riding on snow on sled runners (lack of traces from riding over snowless tundra
soil), as well as the nature of traces on tools related to snow digging and the nature of fractures on mammoth
tusk artifacts.
of the Mesolithic and Neolithic inhabitants of Zamostje 2, a site
located on the Russian plain (Sergiev Possad, Moscow). The
abundant ichtiofaunal remains and the tools found at the site
(harpoons, needle nets, fishhooks and scaling knives) corroborate
this importance. In this article, we focus on the consumption
of fishhooks through an analysis of the usewear observed on their
surfaces. We compare the usewear observed on the archaeological
fishhooks with that seen on experimental fishhooks used to capture
fish species. We show how some attributes (disposition, quantity
and hardness of the fish teeth) influence the nature of the usewear,
especially the striations, formed on the surfaces of the fishhooks."
is located in wet boggy conditions, which are favourable for pit formation. This environment is also favourable for good
preservation of prehistoric bone, wooden and other organic remains. This fact explains the richness of the organic
material collections, and their good preservation. The site is situated 110 km to the north of Moscow and 50 km to the
north of Sergiev Possad.
We had to use a large experimental collection from the laboratory of use-wear analysis of the Institute of Material
Culture History (St.-Petersburg, director G.F. Korobkova) with the aim of correlating the traces, which had formed on
the surface of bone implements. So at our disposal we had experimental tools made from bone, which were linked with
processing different materials: skins (needles, awls, scrapers, planes/spatula), wood (planes, burins, chisels), plants
(sickles), pottery (planes and tools for decoration) and antlers (borers and perforators).
Besides this we completed the experimental collection with tools made from cow ribs, which were used for fish scale
processing and fish preparation. In this paper we describe the use-wear traces, found on the experimental tools and
also two types of tools made from elk ribs, which were defined in the archaeological material.
We analysed implements made from elk ribs found in the second Mesolithic layer (7400-7300 BP). Traditionally and
accordingly to ethnographic materials these tools were known as “knives for fish processing”. Our investigation aimed
to check on this functional statement made without any use-wear analysis.
Also we analysed tool made from turtle shell (Emys orbicularis), which had been found in lower Mesolithic layer (7900-
7800 BP), and a series of tools made from beaver mandible, which had been transformed in order to use the sharp
points as burins.
Traceological Studies
Comparative traceological analysis makes it possible to discern between natural (pathological, invasive) and artificial
modifications (sawing, cutting, drilling, abrasion) seen on the hard tissues of mammals and other organisms. The cuneiform
defects not infrequently observed on the dentin and tooth enamel of cattle and produced by the action of rough particles
contained in the plants eaten by animals, can look like traces of sawing. The traces left by parasites attaching themselves
to the spines of sea hedgehogs also can be taken as a result of intentional working. The holes drilled by the Natica mollusks
in some shells are almost indistinguishable from artificially made holes. Long-term studies of macro- and microtraces have
made it possible to create a collection of reference specimens that can be used to differentiate between truly artificial and
pseudo-artificial (natural) modifications.
in Russian archaeology. This stage relates to activity of the foundating fathers of the Russian Palaeolithic studies —
P.P. Efi menko and S.A. Semenov. A large part of materials that were used for development of methods of experimentaltraceologycal
analysis originates from the 1st cultural layer of Kostyonki 1 site. The site is still an object of traceological
investigations. Innovative methods of stone tools use-wear analysis are improving basing on the Kostyonki materials.
These studies are exemplifi ed in the article by the results of many-years investigations on well-known type of Upper
Palaeolithic tools — so-called knifes of Kostynki type. Comparing of formal typolological and traceological methods
shows both weak and strong aspect of their use. The morphographic approach to stone tools studies is criticized,
and instead the morphological analysis of manufacturing and use-wear traces is suggested. The last one allows
analyzing the traces of the prehistoric people activity at essential and interpretative level.