Gravettien

The Late Gravettian of Central Europe still remains in the shadow of the spectacular discoveries of the Pavlovian (around 28/27.5 – 25.5 ky BP). In particular, the understanding of more recent inventories (from 25.5/24.5 – 22.0 ky BP) is based on recognition and identification of lithic fossiles directeurs such as shouldered points and Kostienki knives. The inventory of hard organic material is described partially but it remains almost unknown. New methods for studying lithic assemblages are built on the technological analysis of the whole lithic production process and demonstrate the heterogeneity of collections. Accordingly, this calls into question the current perception of chronology of the Gravettian in Central Europe, represented by the Pavlovian and Willendorf‐Kostienkien. The objective of this paper is to present a state of the art of the post‐Pavlovian phase through some observations of recently reviewed Slovak and Moravian collections: Moravany – Lopata II, Moravany – Noviny, Moravany – Žakovská, Trenčianske Bohuslavice– Pod Tureckom (river Váh valley, Slovakia), Milovice I (sectors G and H) and Petřkovice I (Moravia, Czech Republic).

Se presentan los materiales líticos procedentes del yacimiento de la colina Agirremendi sita en el municipio de Berango, Uribe Kosta. La colección, reunida por prospectores locales entre 1979 y 1984, presenta características tecno-tipológicas que nos permiten adscribir este conjunto a tecnocomplejos del Paleolítico Superior Inicial, con- cretamente al Auriñaciense Evolucionado o al Gravetiense Antiguo. Asimismo, la relativa abundancia de elemen- tos de sílex exógeno, la composición tecno-tipológica del conjunto y su posición desplazada de los afloramientos de sílex del Flysch nos sitúa, probablemente, en un contexto de ocupación relacionado con la explotación de recursos no restringidos al sílex. Es por ello que el estudio de los materiales de Agirremendi complementa y enriquece el conocimiento de los asentamientos al aire libre del Paleolítico Superior Inicial conocidos en Uribe Kosta

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.

Le site paléolithique de Poiana Cires , ului est situé au nord-est de la Roumanie (ville de Piatra Neamt ,), en rive droite de la vallée de Bistrit , a et à proximité du confluent de la rivière Doamna. Suite aux fouilles archéologiques récemment entreprises, quatre niveaux culturels y ont été identifiés : un niveau épigravettien et trois autres gravettiens. Le premier niveau gravettien, contemporain du dernier Maximum Glaciaire et daté entre 19 459 AE 96 et 20 154 AE 97 BP, a livré la plus riche occupation du site. Dans le couche Gravettien I, ont été découverts plusieurs objets de parure et d'art dont la valeur symbolique s'est révélée d'une importance particulière pour comprendre le comportement des communautés paléolithiques de la Roumanie. Parmi les www.em-consulte.com

Durante 2005, el yacimiento arqueológico de Ametzagaina fue descubierto casualmente. A lo largo de 2006 se efectuaron diversas recogidas de material en este depósito al aire libre, situado en el entorno urbano de Donostia y en 2007, fueron practicados varios sondeos. Todo apunta hacia un establecimiento gravetiense, con una muy deficiente conservación de los materiales orgánicos y de la secuencia estratigráfica, sólo respetada en un mínimo relicto debido a excepcionales circunstancias.