The Epigravettian of Central Russian Plain

Abstract

The article is devoted to the problems of definition, classification and genesis of the Epigravettian in the Central regions of the East European plain. It is concluded that Epigravettian sites could be characterized as industrially variable and multicultural. Epigravettian should be considered as a polygenetic phenomenon characterized by a cultural mosaic peculiar to specific geographical regions. In relation to the territory of the Desna and the Middle Dnieper Basin, we can assume a direct continuity between the local Gravettian and Epigravettian traditions, despite changes in technology and typology of stone and bone tools, as well as the style in the design of portable art objects.

Introduction

Late Upper Paleolithic sites, located on the territory of the Desna and the Middle Dnieper Basin (Fig. 1), are traditionally considered in Soviet and modern Russian publications as part of some regional phenomenon. However, the definition of its cultural specificity, both in general view and in relation to separate sites, is still a subject of debate. The importance of this discussion is currently related to the definition of the Upper Paleolithic specifics of the Central Russian/East-European Plain in a pan-European context.

I.G. Shovkoplyas considered the Upper Paleolithic of Desna and Middle Dnieper Basin as an independent unit of analysis by defining the Mezinian archaeological culture (Shovkoplyas, 1965). According to him, Mezinian was in fact a term used to describe the ethnic and cultural specificity of rather large region. M.D. Gvozdover and A.N. Rogachev disputed the need to use it in such manner. The concept of “archaeological culture” had a different meaning for these researchers. In their opinion, archaeological culture was the result of activities of specific small ethnic societies. Gvozdover and Rogachev believed that belonging of the sites to the same archaeological culture should be confirmed by a closer, ideally – to complete identity, technical and typological similarity of its material culture, referring primarily to the lithic industry (Gvozdover, Rogachev, 1969). Finally, the “archaeological culture” identified in this sense was used in 1970s and 1980s by Soviet archaeologists as the main taxon for describing the Upper Paleolithic of the Russian Plain. In particular, the attention of such researchers as L.V. Grekhova, M.I. Gladkikh, and N.A. Khaikunova was focused on local and even individual features of the sites located on that territory (Grekhova, 1969, 1971; Velichko et al., 1977; Gladkikh, 1968, 1971a, 1971b, 1977; Khaikunova, 1985). As a result, the sites of this region were divided into several groups that differ culturally. At the same time its general regional specificity within the Late Upper Paleolithic was implied. But it was not defined terminologically within the broader context of the European continent.

This approach began to change in the 1990s. Soviet archaeologists had previously realized the need for a broader regional characterization of the Upper Paleolithic of the Central Russian Plain. The situation when typological characteristic of an archaeological culture was often based on a single site looked abnormal. After all, a significant number of Upper Paleolithic settlements on the Russian Plain did not find complete analogies among other Paleolithic sites in Eastern and Central Europe. This situation began to change not least due to the intensification of communication with Western colleagues that took place in the 1980s. (Soffer, 1985; Abramova et al., 1988; Masson and Praslov, 1989). As a result, a critical review of the concept of archaeological cultures was started at the end of 1980s (Grigoriev, 1989; Grigor'ev, 1993; Grigoriev, 2008a, 2008b; Anikovich, 1992; Anikovich, 1998; Lisitsyn, 1999; Abramova, 1995; Abramova et al., 1997; Abramova et al., 1997; Gavrilov, 1994a; Gavrilov, 2003). Symptomatic is the fact that G.P. Grigoriev who developed this concept with great enthusiasm in the 1960s and 1970s (Grigoriev, 1966, 1968, 1970) was one of the first in this process (Grigor'ev, 1993). M.V. Anikovich proposed a solution to this problem, using the concept of “Technocomplex” to combine the sites into groups that have common technical and typological characteristics of stone industries at high taxonomic levels, namely: the type of blanks, retouching, categories of tools. Russian researchers in the late 1990s also accepted other terms - “Eastern Gravettian”, “Epigravettian”, and “Postgravettian”. They tried to carry out cultural attribution of the sites, avoiding the extremes of a simplified understanding of both the stadial concept of 1930–1950s and the concept of archaeological cultures (Anikovich, 1998; Lisitsyn, 1999).

In fact, the studies of the 1990s and 2000s again raised the question of taking into account the factors of continuity and variability in the development of the Upper Paleolithic on the Russian Plain. The possibility of using the term “Eastern Epigravettian” to characterize the specifics of material culture during Late Upper Paleolithic in Eastern Europe was one of the consequences of this situation.

The term “Epigravettian” was first used by J. Laplace to characterize the Late Gravettian/Tardigravettien sites of Italy and the Franco-Cantabrian region (Laplace, 1964, 1966). That is, in contrast to the “Mezinian”, “Epigravettian” was originally used for a broader geographical context. Then J. Kozlowski made it even broader, defining the concept of “Eastern Epigravettian”. This concept was introduced by him to refer the sites with backed blades in its inventory, dating after LGM on the territory of Central and Eastern Europe and to distinguish its from Magdalenian ones (Kozlowski, 1986; Debrosse, Kozlowski, 1988). The use of the term “Epigravettian”, by Kozlowski, did not imply automatic recognition of the existence of genetic links between the Gravettian and Epigravettian traditions.

Anikovich postulated that the Eastern Epigravettian on the territory of the Russian Plain should be understood as the sites of the Dnieper-Don historical and cultural Region, dating back to the time after the LGM and belonging to the Gravettoid Technocomplex. According to his opinion, “Eastern Epigravettian”, like “Eastern Gravettian”, are conditional definitions, terms that are the result of empirical generalizations. Anikovich believed that it is impossible to determine the cultural specificity of concrete sites using these terms (Anikovich, 1998, 2005; Anikovich et al., 2008; Anikovich et al., 2011; Anikovich et al., 2019). S.N. Lisitsyn stated the opinion that “the term “Epigravettian” as a cultural phenomenon is apparently untenable” (Lisitsyn, 1999: 119). Nevertheless, according to Lisitsyn, the material culture of mammoth hunters of the Russian Plain had “points of contact of gravettoid and later complexes”, which indicates a certain continuity between Gravettian and Epigravettian (Ibid.). However, “this continuity, paradoxically, is fixed only on separate disparate features of clearly multicultural sites, as if the Gravettian “inheritance” is divided among numerous successors.” And then: “we can talk about chronological continuity, but not the continuation of the tradition ….The Late Valdai period on the Russian Plain was characterized by the disappearance of gravettian traditions, primarily in the flint industry and only in the second degree — in art” (Ibid.). But having continuity and keeping the tradition intact is not the same thing. Continuity allows for development and, in my opinion, Lisitsyn in his 1999 paper convincingly proved both of it, despite the fact that he has not fundamentally changed his position until now (Lisitsyn, Dudin, 2019). For this reason refusal from the term “Epigravettian” would be much more logical in the publications of Anikovich, because the Epigravettian and Gravettian sites for him were part of the same technocomplex. But he does not do this, because the term “Eastern Epigravettian” allows us to describe the specifics of these settlements, which is revealed in comparing first of all with earlier Eastern Gravettian and in second time – with synchronous sites in Central and Eastern Europe. In fact, the well-known “Mezinian”, “Mezhiritch-Dobranychivka”, “Timonovka-Yudinovo” and other similar “cultures” even now could be used to describe local cultural specificity of the Late Upper Paleolithic sites. The “Eastern Epigravettian” and local variants of culture have a distinct hierarchical subordination and can be used to describe the internal structure of Upper Paleolithic of the Eastern European Plain after the LGM. In this case, it does not matter which taxonomical terms could be used to name these groups — archaeological cultures, types of industries, or otherwise.

Now the majority of researchers of the former USSR use the term “Epigravettian”. However, other views were expressed also. Z.A. Abramova and G.V. Grigorieva in Russia, and Yu.E. Demidenko in Ukraine argue that it is necessary to use the term “Magdalenian” to describe the pan-European specificity of Upper Paleolithic sites after LGM (Abramova et al., 1997; Grigorieva, 2008; Demidenko, 2018). Despite the external similarity, the positions of these authors differ significantly. Abramova and Grigorieva used the term « Magdalenian » actually to denote the stadial position of the Late Upper Paleolithic sites by implying their cultural and chronological cpecificity. Critical characteristics of this Magdalenian according to these authors were followings: a variety of bone tools and complex ornamental compositions on art objects. From a methodological point of view, this approach was actually a return to stadial concept of the 1930s-1960s according to P.P. Efimenko. Methodical approach of Demidenko is significantly different. In his opinion, there are real typological analogies between lithic industries of European Magdalenian sites and the Late Upper Paleolithic sites of Middle Dnieper and Desna Basin (Demidenko, 2018). Indeed, there are such analogies. If it were possible to operate only with it, then the Eastern European sites dated after LGM could also be attributed as East-European variant of Magdalenian. However, we cannot limit ourselves to just this. Eastern European Late Upper Paleolithic sites differ from Western European ones in very significant ways. First of all, stylistic differences in art are very significant. First of all, there is no Magdalenian graphics in Eastern Europe. Mezinian plastic, despite that its canon is similar to the Magdalenian, stylistically is unique. Ornaments are also very specific and have no analogies in Western Europe. Bone inventory does not contain such categories as harpoons and spear throwers. There are practically no specific Magdalenian types of spearheads, except for one case, which will be mentioned later. Finally, the Magdalenian technology of long blade production is a direct continuation of the Gravettian tradition. As Demidenko rightly writes, we have more reason to attribute the Magdalenian sites as Epigravettian according to this feature when compared with Eastern European ones. In any case, the differences between Eastern European and Western European, and partly with some Moravian (Vencl, 1995) and Polish (Pyżewicz et al., 2014), sites seem to me more significant than the similarities. Therefore, I think it is productive to use the term “Epigravettian” to fix these differences in the pan-European context.