Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:30:39.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prolom II, a Middle Palaeolithic Cave Site in the Eastern Crimea with Non-Utilitarian Bone Artefacts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

Vadim N. Stepanchuk
Vadim N. Stepanchuk*
Affiliation:
NPK ‘Archeolog’, Institute of Archaeology, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Vydubetskaya 40, 252014 Kiev, Ukraine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The cave site Prolom II situated in the eastern part of the Crimean peninsula has produced evidence of repeated inhabitation during the Middle Palaeolithic. The stone artefacts permit a sure cultural identification and comparison with analogous material belonging to the Ak-Kaya culture. In a broader sense the Ak-Kaya culture of the Crimea may be regarded as one of the variants of the East European Micoquian. Unfortunately we do not at present have the natural science data which would allow us to define exactly the chronological position of Prolom II. The comparative typological and technical data allow us to connect the Middle Palaeolithic layers of the cave with the pre-Brörup period of the Early Würm. This is partly supported by the faunal data. The discovery of a curved arc-like deposit consisting of bones of mammoth, horse, bison and other animals in the second layer of the site, as well as a considerable collection of bone artefacts, both add to the unique character of the site. Some of the bone artefacts cannot reasonably be explained as utilitarian and may constitute evidence of a spiritual culture of Neanderthal Man. In this connection it is possible to enumerate two fragments of diaphyses with parallel and fan-shaped engraved lines, one distal fragment of Saiga tatarica first phalange with fan-shaped engraved lines, and one horse canine with deep subparallel engravings.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , 1993 , pp. 17 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allsworth-Jones, P. 1986. The Szeletian and the Transition from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic in Central Europe. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Baryshnikov, G. F. 1986. La faune des mammifères de la station moustèrienne Prolome 2, la Crimée montagneuse. V-e Confér. Inter. Archeozool. Résum. Communicat. Bordeaux, 4.Google Scholar
Baryshnikov, G. F. 1987. Pesherny medved v paleolite Kryma. Proceedings of the Zoological Institute, Leningrad 168, 38–65.Google Scholar
Bosinski, G. 1969. Die Bocksteinschmiede im Lonetal (Markung Ramingen, Kreis Ulm). Stuttgart: Müller & Gräff.Google Scholar
Bourdier, F. 1967. Préhistorie de France. Paris.Google Scholar
Chase, P. G. 1990. Sifflets du Paléolithique moyen(?). Les implications d'un coprolithe de coyote actuel. Bulletin de la Sociéte Préhistorique Française 87 (6), 165–67.Google Scholar
Chernysh, A. P. 1982. Mnogoslojnaya paleoliticheskaya stoyanka Molodova I. In Gorecky, G.J. & Ivanova, I. K. (eds), Molodova I. Unique Mousterian Settlement on the Middle Dniester Region. Moskwa: Nauka, 6–102.Google Scholar
Formozov, A. A. 1959. Musterskaya stoyanka Kabazi v Krymu. Sovetskaya Archeologiya 29–30, 143–58.Google Scholar
Formozov, A. A. 1969. Ocherkipo Pervobytnomu Iskusstvu. Moskwa: Nauka.Google Scholar
Gladilin, V. N. 1976. Problemy Paleolita Vostochnoj Evropy. Kiev: Naukova Dumka.Google Scholar
Gvozdover, M. D. & Formozov, A. A. 1960. Ispolzovaniye kosti na musterskoj stoyanke Staroselye v Krymu. Archaeologicke Rozhledy 12(3), 390–403.Google Scholar
Kolosov, Yu. G. 1971. Bagatosharova musterska stoyanka Zaskelne V(v Krymu). Archeologiya 3, 50–58.Google Scholar
Kolosov, Yu. G. 1979. Ak-kajskiye musterskiye stoyanki i nekotoryye itogi ih issledovaniya. In Kolosov, Yu. G. (ed.), Issledovaniye Paleolita v Krymu. Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 157–71.Google Scholar
Kolosov, Yu. G. 1986. Akkajskaya Musterskaya Kultura. Kiev: Naukova Dumka.Google Scholar
Kolosov, Yu. G. 1988. Les débuts du Paléolithique en Crimée. L'Anthropologie 92 (3), 809–38.Google Scholar
Kolosov, Yu. G. & Stepanchuk, V. N. 1989. Novaya musterskaya stoyanka v grote Prolom II. In Bibikov, S. N. (ed.), Kamenny vek. Pamyatniki, Metodika, Problemy. Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 61–72.Google Scholar
Kolosov, Yu. G., Stepanchuk, V. N. & Chabay, V. P. 1993. Rannij i Srednij Paleolit Kryma. Kiev: Naukova Dumka.Google Scholar
Lyubin, V. P. 1977. Musterskiye Kultury Kavkaza. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Marschak, A. 1976. Some implications of the Paleolithic symbolic evidence for the origin of language. Current Anthropology 17(2), 274–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okladnikov, A. P. 1967. Utro Iskusstva. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Peyrony, D. 1934. La Férrassie. Préhistoire 3, 1–92.Google Scholar
Pradel, L. & Pradel, J. H. 1954. Le Moustérien évolué de l'Ermitage. L'Anthropologie 58 (5–6), 433–43.Google Scholar
Semenov, S. A. 1953. Kostyanyje orudiya iz drevnepaleoliticheskih stoyanok Kiik-Koba i Kosh-Koba. Kratkie Soobsheniya lnstituta Istorii Materialnoj Kultury 49, 143–47.Google Scholar
Stepanchuk, V. N. 1990. Kriterii podbora instrumentov raschepleniya i retushirovaniya v mustje Kryma. In Neprina, V.I. (ed.), Kamenny vek na Territorii Ukrainy. Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 112–17.Google Scholar
Stepanchuk, V. N. 1991. Kiik-Kobinskaya Musterskaya Kultura. Avtoreferat dissertacii, Leningrad, 1–17.Google Scholar
Sytnik, A. S. 1983. Gravirovany risunok na kosti s musterskoj stoyanki pod Ternopolem. In Vasiljevskij, R. S. (ed.), Plastika i Risunki Drevnih Kultur. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 39–46.Google Scholar
Wetzel, R. 1969. Kulturknochen und Knochenkultur. In Bosinski, G. (ed.), Die Bocksteinschmiede im Lonetal (Markung Ramingen, Kreis Ulm). Stuttgart: Müller & Gräff, 75–132.Google Scholar