Content uploaded by Denys Vietrov
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Denys Vietrov on Feb 25, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx
Please cite this article as: Vadim N. Stepanchuk, Denys O. Vietrov, Quaternary International, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2021.02.020
Available online 17 February 2021
1040-6182/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
Paglicci 24A1 and Mira II/2: Episode at the transition between the Early
and Middle UP
Vadim N. Stepanchuk
a
,
*
, Denys O. Vietrov
a
a
Institute of Archaeology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 12, Geroiv Stalingrada ave., 04210, Kyiv, Ukraine
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Southern and eastern europe
Aurignacian
Gravettian
Migrations
Paglicci
Mira
ABSTRACT
The aim of this paper is to present the evidence for, and to discuss the aspects of the striking similarities that have
been identied between backed bladelets recovered in two geographically distant assemblages, one found in
Southern Italy (Paglicci, layer 24 horizon A1) and the other in Eastern Europe (Mira, layer II horizon 2). Both
assemblages are dated to around 29–28,000 BP and are taxonomically dened as Early Upper Palaeolithic.
Detailed comparison of technical and morphological data is impossible because the Eastern European site does
not contain an assemblage that lends itself to statistical analysis.
The backed bladelets of type PA24A1, found in Paglicci, layer 24 horizon A1-0, and Mira, layer II horizon 2,
have no direct analogies in chronologically close Aurignacian and Gravettian sites, in either Southern or Eastern
Europe. Taking into account the similar chronological position of the sites, separated by a distance of ca. 2,500
km, it is concluded that the signicant similarity of the backed bladelets is most likely explained not by the
convergence of development or by trade, but by the direct migration of a group of modern humans who man-
ufactured such specic microliths.
The Paglicci (24A 1) and Mira (II/2) industries generally belong to the Early Upper Palaeolithic, being placed
chronologically at the transition between the EUP and MUP, being located morphologically and technologically
between the Aurignacian and Gravettian. Despite the scarcity of data, the distinctiveness of the backed imple-
ments indicates that the sites belong to the same episode of sociocultural development. The issue of the cultural
afliation of the industry with PA24A1 type bladelets remains unanswered, and the search for analogies, either
in Eastern or Southern Europe, needs to be continued.
1. Introduction
At the end of the early phase of the Upper Palaeolithic (UP), a
qualitatively new cultural phenomenon emerged, the Gravettian cul-
tural tradition, the sites of which are distributed across Europe, from the
Atlantic coast to the basin of the Middle Don. This culture developed
throughout the middle period of the Upper Palaeolithic (30,000–19,000
BP). In the Late Upper Palaeolithic, the tradition continues in a modied
form as the ‘so-called’ Epigravettian (19,000–12,000 BP) (Djindjian
et al., 1999).
The materials of Paglicci Layer 24 and Mira Layer II/2, at rst sight,
are not directly related to the Gravettian in either southern or eastern
Europe as their industries do not include typical Gravettian backed
implements. These assemblages, individually, are claimed to have no
direct analogies in the regional archaeological records of the Upper
Palaeolithic (Palma di Cesnola, 2000; Stepanchuk et al., 2004). At the
same time, they show striking similarities, particularly with respect to
the very distinctive bladelets with blunted backs that are found at both
locations (Stepanchuk, 2005, 2013a). To date, the marginal backed
PA24A1 type bladelets represent a distinct feature of the Italian UP, and
are only identied at Paglicci cave. Beyond Italy analogies to the Italian
evidence has recently been identied in Ukraine, in Eastern Europe. A.
Palma di Cesnola has previously suggested that layer Paglicci 24A,
which contains the specic Paglicci 24A1 backed bladelets discussed
above, and which was basically dened by him as Aurignacian, dem-
onstrates the evolutionary tendency toward the Gravettian in Southern
Europe (Palma di Cesnola, 1996: 231). Therefore, a new look at as-
semblages with Paglicci 24A1 backed bladelets in the context of the
Gravettian still makes sense. In addition, the chronostratigraphic posi-
tion of Paglicci (layer 24A), as well as Mira (layer II/2), is directly coeval
to the time of the emergence of the early Gravettian sites, and the spread
of Gravettian industries across Europe (Djindjian et al., 1999; Hoffecker,
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: VadimStepanchuk@gmail.com (V.N. Stepanchuk).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Quaternary International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2021.02.020
Received 28 April 2020; Received in revised form 3 February 2021; Accepted 12 February 2021
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx
2
2011; Moreau, 2012; Otte, 2013; Kozlowsky, 2015). It has recently been
suggested that the Kostenki 8 (Telmanskaya) layer II materials contain
products similar to those of the Paglicci (layer 24A) backed bladelets
(Borgia, 2017). These data are of additional interest in terms of the
involvement of Mira II/2 and Paglicci 24A in discussions of the
Gravettian, since Kostenki 8 (Telmanskaya) layer II is among the few
known early Gravettian sites in the East European sphere (Anikovich
et al., 2008).
The fact that targeted research has failed to produce regional anal-
ogies for Paglicci (layer 24A), both within Southern and West-Central
Europe is well known (Borgia et al., 2011; Palma di Cesnola, 2005;
2006; Wierer, 2013). To answer the question of probable analogies for
Paglicci (layer 24A) in Eastern Europe, the current article discusses the
available data in relation to the Gravettian, and the simultaneous Gor-
odtsovian sites, of this region. In particular, data on the early Gravettian
sites of the Eastern European area, especially Kostenki 8/II (Telman-
skaya), which probably contains some analogies to the PA24A1 blade-
lets, is also considered.
We intend to compare the essential aspects of Paglicci (layer 24A)
and Mira (layer II/2), as assemblages containing Paglicci (layer 24A1)
backed bladelets. The aspects being considered are, specically, the
geomorphological setting, geochronological issues, the interrelationship
of chronological position, the main features of technology, and the
morphology of the backed implements. The rationale behind the
consideration of these aspects is to estimate the level of similarity vs.
difference between Mira (layer II/2) and Paglicci (layer 24). Another
reason is to evaluate the level of probability of any techno-
morphological relationships and developmental links to the underly-
ing or overlying UP industries in the same sequence. A consideration of
the data from UP sites in Eastern Europe will enable an assessment of the
measure of uniqueness vs. ordinariness for the assemblages containing
PA24A1 backed bladelets for the given time and area.
2. Materials and methods
The nds from Paglicci and Mira are used as reference materials for
the evaluation of any technological, typological, and chronometric re-
lationships between these two locations and their material culture
inventories.
2.1. Grotta Paglicci
Grotta Paglicci is a multilayered Palaeolithic cave site in Southern
Italy, located on the west coast of the Adriatic Sea (Fig. 1). The early
phase of UP occupations includes the Aurignacian layer 24 and the early
Gravettian layers 23 and 22 (Palma di Cesnola, 2005, 2006). Our work
focuses on the upper horizons of layer 24 and, to a lesser extent, layer 23.
They are not separated by a sterile layer and do not show a sedimentary
gap, which may suggest their chronological proximity.
2.1.1. Paglicci Aurignacian layer 24
This layer is about 1 m thick, is a sequence of horizons BII, BI, A4, A3,
A2, A1, and A, combined in three successive phases (Palma di Cesnola,
2004, 2005, 2006). Radiocarbon dates are available for the earliest and
latest phases (BII–I and A1-0, respectively) and these span the period 34,
000 +900-800 BP to 29,300 ±600 BP (Palma di Cesnola, 2004, 2005,
2006; lab. Numbers not provided in original publication). Horizon A1
contains a hearth. The associated fauna includes the dominant Equus
(Asinus) hydruntinus as well as Bos primigenius, Equus caballus, and the
rare Capra ibex (Boscato, 2005, 2007). A mild dry climate is recon-
structed based on the environmental evidence. Flint material is rela-
tively limited, comprising ca. 50, up to 70, and about 150 tools across
the ancient, middle, and late phases, respectively. A. Palma di Cesnola
denes the industry of layer 24 as Aurignacien `
a dos marginal (Palma di
Cesnola, 2000, 2003, 2006: 366). There are no analogies to these mar-
ginal backed bladelets in the Aurignacian of Italy and a broader context
(Palma di Cesnola, 1996).
2.1.2. Paglicci Gravettian layer 23
This layer is about 70 cm thick and includes three horizons (from top
to bottom): A, B, and C. The latter is divided into two levels: CI and CII
(Palma di Cesnola, 1998, 2005). The upper level, 23A, is radiocarbon
dated to 28,100 ±400 BP (32,614 ±429 cal BP according to Weninger
et al. (2007)). There is no precise date available for level 23C, which
directly overlays level 24A. Volcanic lenses were found at the base of the
layer 23C, and a hearth was found in its upper part (Palma di Cesnola,
2003, 2006). The lower and middle parts of layer 23 are dominated by
Caprinae (especially Capra ibex), accompanied by numerous Bos pri-
migenius, Equidae, and the rare Cervus elaphus and Sus scrofa. At the top of
layer 23, the numbers of Caprinae and Equidae decreases in favour of Bos
primigenius. A cold and arid climate is assumed for layer 23, with shift to
Fig. 1. Paglicci 24A1 and Mira II/2 (red lozenges)
against the main Early Gravettian (black) and
Gorodtsovian (blue) sites, mentioned in the text
(after Moreau, 2012, modied). 1. Abri Pataud. 2.
La Ferrassie. 3. Le Sire. 4. Maisieres-Canal. 5.
Hohle Fels. 6. Geiβenklosterle. 7. Brillenh¨
ohle. 8.
Weinberghohlen. 9. Willendorf II. 10. Dolni Ves-
tonice. 11. Pavlov. 12. Grotta Paglicci. I3. Halych І.
14. Mezhigirtsi І. 15. Molodova V, Molodova I,
Korman IV, Oselivka I, Babin I, Voronovitsya I. 16.
Mitoc-Malu Galben. 17. Ripiceni-Izvor. 18. Poiana
Cires¸ ului. 19. Vladimirivka. 20. Troyanove 4A,
Troyanove 4B, Ozerove. 21. Mira. 22. Buran-Kaya
3. 23. Gorodtsovian: Kostenki 14/2, Kostenki 15,
Kostenki 16. 24. Kostenki 8/II. . (For interpretation
of the references to colour in this gure legend, the
reader is referred to the Web version of this
article.)
V.N. Stepanchuk and D.O. Vietrov
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx
3
a warmer climate at the top (Boscato, 2005, 2007). The int assemblage
of layer 23, for levels A, B, and C, has a total of 568 tools (Palma di
Cesnola, 1998, 2000). The industry of layer 23 is dened as early
Gravettian (Palma di Cesnola, 2003, 2006: 367), though it has no direct
analogies in known early Gravettian sites of Italy and France.
2.2. Mira
Mira is a two-layered open-air Palaeolithic site in central Ukraine, in
the valley of Dnieper River (Fig. 1). Two UP occupations and an inter-
mediate layer containing remains of natural re were recovered in the
lower part of 13 m thick prole comprising late Pleistocene and Holo-
cene sediments, accumulated through the last 40 thousands years. Layer
I contains an assemblage combining the technological and morpholog-
ical features of the local Middle and Upper Palaeolithic (Stepanchuk,
2019). The closest East European UP analogies are seen in the Gor-
odtsovian assemblages, which are known for their archaic components
(Stepanchuk et al., 1998; Anikovich et al., 2007, 2008; Sinitsyn, 2010).
The lowermost assemblage of the 2d horizon of layer II, which is
completely UP in its technological and morphological characteristics,
has no regional analogies (Stepanchuk et al., 2004; Stepanchuk, 2005,
2013a). Layer II horizon 1, which occupies an intermediate position,
contains only a few small fragments of bones and int artefacts that may
have migrated down from layer I via bioturbation. The time intervals
that separate episodes I, II/1, and II/2 are minimal, and range from just a
few decades to several hundred years (Gerasimenko and Haesaerts,
2013). The total thickness of the sediments containing the remains of
layers I, II/1, II/2, and archaeologically sterile horizons between them,
does not exceed 40 cm.
2.2.1. Mira Layer I
Layer I has a maximum thicness of 10 cm. The radiocarbon age of the
layer is placed between 28,000 and 27,000 BP (Stepanchuk, 2013a,
2019; Hoffecker et al., 2014; Haesaerts et al., 2014) (Fig. 2; Table 1). The
Fig. 2. A. The estimated position of Paglicci 24A (P24A), Paglicci 23 (P23), and Mira II/2 (MII/2) against the palaeoenvironmental events based on the Greenland ice
core records and GICC05 ice core chronology. After Blockley et al., 2012, modied. Stratigraphic sections of Paglicci (B) and Mira (C) stratigraphic successions. After
Giaccio et al., 2008 and Haesaerts et al. (2014), modied.
V.N. Stepanchuk and D.O. Vietrov
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx
4
remains of a surface dwelling structure were discovered in this layer.
This was dened as an autumn-winter seasonal occupation.
The faunal assemblage at Mira is dominated by Equus latipes, and
there is a limited evidence for Bison priscus, Cervus elaphus, Megaloceros
giganteus, and Rangifer tarandus (Stepanchuk et al., 2004; Hoffecker
et al., 2014; Zhuravlev, 2015). A moderate climate is reconstructed
based on the available environmental evidence (Gerasimenko and
Haesaerts, 2013; Haesaerts et al., 2014).
The int assemblage includes >54,000 lithics, of which almost 97%
are tiny micro-akes. The industry of layer I does not have full regional
analogies, and although the nearest parallels are found in the materials
of the local East European Gorodtsovian industry, it also contains bifa-
cial foliates (Stepanchuk, 2013a, 2019).
2.2.2. Mira Layer II/2
The layer has a maximum thickness of 3 cm. Radiocarbon dates place
this layer between 29,000 and 28,000 BP (Fig. 2; Table 1). Among the
faunal remains, Equus latipes and Bison priscus, have been identied
(Stepanchuk et al., 2004; Zhuravlev, 2015). The environmental in-
dicators are similar to those established for layer I. A moderately warm
climate and a steppe landscape is reconstructed (Gerasimenko and
Haesaerts, 2013; Haesaerts et al., 2014). The int assemblage consists of
163 pieces, of which 148 (90.8%) are micro-akes.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Mira II/2 and paglicci 24A: the most important features of
assemblages and the context
3.1.1. Chronology
For Paglicci 24A1, there is a single radiocarbon date of 29,300 ±600
BP (Palma di Cesnola, 2005, 2006; Laboratory number not published).
The Aurignacian sequence of layer 24 contained, from the bottom up,
horizons BII, BI, A4, A3, A2, A1, and A, followed by the Gravettian
sequence of Layer 23, comprising horizons 23C, 23B, and 23A. The
chronological position of horizon 24A1 is supported by absolute dates
for the underlying and overlying horizons (Fig. 2). Aurignacian layer
24BII-I provides an age of 34,000 +900-800 BP, while Gravettian layer
23A is dated to 28,100 ±400 BP. As noted previously, lenses of volcanic
materials were recovered at the base of layer 23C (Palma di Cesnola,
2006). These are considered to represent the Codola Plinian eruption,
dated to around 33,000 cal BP, and they correlate to the C-10 marine
tephra of the central Mediterranean (Giaccio et al., 2006, 2008). This
evidence completely contradicts the idea of the Protoaurignacian nature
of the Paglicci layer, mainly due to the notion of the Campanian
Ignimbrite (Y5 tephra) provenance of the Paglicci tephra (J¨
oris et al.,
2011).
For Mira II/2, there are several radiocarbon dates obtained in
different laboratories that are in principal agreement (Table 1). They
determine the age of 28–27,000 BP. The radiocarbon age of the layer II/
2 is in good agreement with the dates available for the overlying layers
II/1 and I (Table 1). The radiocarbon dating also ts well with the
geostratigraphic, paleopedological, and palynological data (Ger-
asimenko and Haesaerts, 2013; Matviyishyna, 2013; Hoffecker et al.,
2014; Haesaerts et al., 2014), in indicating close climatochronologic
positions of all Mira occupations. In general, layers II/2, II/1, and I refer
to the period 28–27,000 BP.
Thus, based on the available dating, Mira II/2 and Paglicci 24A1
belong to the same rather narrow chronological period between 29,000
and 27,000 BP, i.e. between 33,000 and 29,000 cal BP. Gravettian layer
Paglicci 23A also falls into this period. In terms of the GISP2 records, this
position coordinates with Greenland Stadial 5. However, we should bear
in mind that the tephra that overlies layer 24A1 is considered, probably,
to be equivalent to the Greenland Interstadial 5 (Giaccio et al., 2008),
whose age is estimated at 33,000 cal BP (Andersen et al., 2006).
3.1.2. Geographic setting, environment, raw material availability
The sites under discussion are remote from each other, at a consid-
erable distance of about 1,600 km in a straight line, but this separation
increases to 2,500 km if we take impassable hydrological and topo-
graphical barriers into account.
The open-air site of Mira is located on the Eastern European Plain, in
the valley of the large continental river Dnieper. Environmentally,
during its functioning at the end of MIS 3, the site was located on a low
and vast, and often ooded, river terrace (Gerasimenko and Haesaerts,
2013; Matviyishyna, 2013; Hoffecker et al., 2014; Haesaerts et al.,
2014). The surrounding area was rich in various kinds of plant re-
sources, as is typical for the shallow edge zones of large continental
rivers in the temperate belt, and was highly attractive for ungulates
during droughts and winters (Baskin, 1976).
The geomorphological position of Paglicci is quite different. The site
is located in a karst cave on the western slope of the Gargano promon-
tory at about 143 m above sea level (Borgia et al., 2017). The site is
positioned close to the lowlands between the Gargano mountain area
and the main range of the Southern Apennines. The site’s location
allowed for the observing of animal migrations in the valley, and also the
utilization of animal resources from different ecological niches.
In terms of the raw materials for the produce of lithic tools, Mira is
located in an area where local int outcrops are entirely unknown
(Bondarchuk, 1960; Rudenko, 2007). The nearest raw material outcrops
Table 1
Calibration of all radiometric dates from Mira (Stepanchuk et al., 2004; Hof-
fecker et al., 2014) with OxCal v4.4.2 (Bronk Ramsey, 2009); r:5 IntCal20 at-
mospheric curve (Reimer et al., 2020).
Layer Lab No. 14C age, yrs
BP
Calibrated Age calBP1 1 95.4% probability
(OxCal 4.4.2 Bronk Ramsey (2009) r.5
IntCal20 atmospheric curve (Reimer et al.,
2020).
I Ki-8152 27,600 ±
370
30,904–29,120
I Ki-8153a 27,200 ±
380
30,124–28,497
I Ki-8154 27,300 ±
390
30,816–28,807
I Ki-8158 27,050 ±
350
29,828–28,480
I Ki-10283 26,610 ±
400
29,438–28,107
I Ki-10284 27,080 ±
400
29,970–28,412
I Ki-8381 28,450 ±
1100
33,475–28,883
I GrA-
20019
26,590 ±
490/460
29,638–28,059
I CURL-
15810
26,290 ±
220
29,051–28,168
I CURL-
15800
27,540 ±
260
30,030–29,166
II/1 Ki-8155 26,800 ±
390
29,673–28,256
II/1 Ki-10346 27,160 ±
390
30,044–28,489
II/1 GrA-
20020
27,830 ±
580/540
31,638–29,112
II/1 URL-
15808
13,815 ±50 15,031–14,622
II/2 Ki-8156 27,200 ±
360
30,094–28,551
II/2 Ki-8201 27,510 ±
400
30,906–29,055
II/2 GrA-
20033
27,750 ±
590/550
31,631–29,052
II/2 CURL-
15795
27,400 ±
260
29,884–29,131
II/2 CURL-
15789
23,050 ±
180
25,771–25,151
V.N. Stepanchuk and D.O. Vietrov
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx
5
are located up to 150 km from Mira. It should be emphasized that the
territory of Eastern Europe north of the Black Sea is lacking in terms of
outcrops/sources of int raw materials of good quality. This pattern is
explained by the fact that, on a large area of the East European Plain,
practically ubiquitous marine sediments of the Cretaceous and Jurassic
periods that contain high-quality ints are overlaid with a thick cover of
the Quaternary loess-soil sediments. Exposed Cretaceous and Jurassic
sediments that contain rich sediments of high-quality int are observed
only in uplands with areas of deep cut relief, as well as in places where
large rivers and their tributaries cut through int-containing rocks
(Bondarchuk, 1960; Rudenko, 2007). Due to the lack of secure access to
knappable raw materials in the immediate area of the site, the residents
were forced to look for ways to overcome this shortage. V.F. Petrougne
(Petrougne, 2002–2003; Stepanchuk and Petrougne, 2005) suggests that
the origin of the layer II/2 ints is localized somewhere in Volhynia,
Western Ukraine, about 300–350 km northwest of the site.
The situation with raw materials in Paglicci is as follows. The nearest
outcrops of high-quality knappable cherts are located up to 20–30 km
away in the massif of Gargano (Wierer, 2013). A rather intense circu-
lation and transfer of distant and local stone materials are noted for the
Early Upper Palaeolithic sites of Italy (Holt et al., 2018; Bertola et al.,
2018). However, in the southern part of the peninsula, this circulation
seems to be more local (Mussi et al., 2006). Thus, the raw materials were
not available at Paglicci in the immediate vicinity of the site, but the
outcrops were localized within acceptable distance limits, assuring a
stable and predictable supply of raw materials (F´
eblot-Augustins, 2009).
3.1.3. Lithic assemblages
Although Mira layer II/2 was excavated on a relatively large area of
ca. 60 sq. m., the layer appeared to be limited in terms of archaeological
nds. It contained several utilitarian pits, several dozens of splintered
bison and wild horse bones, and only slightly more than 150 knapped
ints, concentrated in a few areas. No nds were made in the areas
excavated after 2000. It is possibe, that the excavations only touched
upon the peripheral zone of the layer II/2 settlement. It is also possible
that the occupation identied at Mira II/2 represents a temporary camp
or resting place. It is safe to assume that the second theory is more likely,
as the distribution of artefacts resembling the backed bladelets of
Paglicci 24A1 type at this location appear to indicate that repairs were
being carried out to hunting weapons. In any case, they were all found
next to each other in a discrete area of the site (Fig. 3).
The assemblage from Mira layer II/2 contains a few akes, ake
tools, and a considerable amount of micro-waste from the rejuvenation
and reshaping of ake tools. There are ve complete and fragmented
backed blades, one ordinary thin angle end-scraper, two fragments of
ake tools, and two micro-akes with retouch of utilization.
Backed implements (Fig. 4) are prepared on narrow (8–9 mm), thin
(2–3 mm), slightly prole-curved bladelets obtained from compara-
tively small single-platform cores with a rather narrow aking surface.
Backed bladelets are relatively small, about 4 cm in length, and elegant
quasi-triangular products. A slightly concave or straight right edge,
shaped by a unidirectional, blunting retouch, is connected at an acute
angle to a short left edge, prepared at the blank’s proximal end. The type
of retouch depends on the thickness of the processed area. The assem-
blage contains artefacts that feature signs of the soft hammer knapping
technique (Stepanchuk, 2005).
Layer 24A, studied in the central zone of Paglicci cave, is relatively
poor in terms of evidence for human activity. The lithic assemblage of
horizon 24A1 contains 454 pieces (Borgia et al., 2011). Like other
Paglicci Aurignacian assemblages, the 24A assemblage was focused on
the production of blades and bladelets mainly using a unidirectional soft
hammer knapping technique (Palma di Cesnola, 2000, 2005, 2006).
Separate pieces of raw material, as well as akes, were used as cores.
Burins also partially served as cores for lamellar blanks, producing
mainly twisted forms. There are 159 tools. Among these micro-tools
(76), burins (10), endscrapers (13), points on blades (2), sidescrapers
(22), chisels (2), and denticulated tools (18) are identied (Fig. 5)
(Palma di Cesnola, 2000, 2005, 2006). As has been emphasized several
times, the points and different scrapers exhibit no evidence for Auri-
gnacian retouch (Palma di Cesnola, 2005, 2006). Micro-tools include
two complete points and 19 bladelets, as well as 53 fragments of points
and bladelets. There are a few, somewhat atypical, Dufour bladelets, but
the dominant lithic form is represented by a specic variation dened as
the type PA24A1 backed bladelet (Palma di Cesnola, 2000). These im-
plements have no direct analogies beyond Paglicci, and were considered
by A. Palma di Cesnola (2004; 2006) to be the result of the relative
isolation of some Aurignacian groups, penetrating to Southern Italy
somewhere between the Hengelo and Arcy interstadials. The industry of
layer 24A1 was dened as a particular Aurignacian variation described
as, “the nal phase with marginal backed bladelets” (Palma di Cesnola,
1993, 2005, 2006: 366), which does not have any analogies in Italy and
Western and Central Europe to this day.
Backed bladelets of type PA24A1 are described as a 30–40 mm long
curved bladelet with a right concave or straight edge and convex left
edge that forms an open angle with its basal, oblique part (Palma di
Cesnola, 2006: 361). Retouching is generally bilateral, straight, steep,
marginal, and in places — low marginal or even deep steep. The oblique
base, depending on the inclination and shape of the edge, may look like a
truncation or a notch. The distal extremity, usually very thin, generally
has no retouch and is often obtuse and broken. The microliths of PA24A1
type differ from the Gravettian types identied in layer 23 of the same
site, both in terms of their morphology and production technology
(Palma di Cesnola, 2000; 2005; 2006; Borgia, 2006; Borgia et al., 2011;
Wierer, 2013). At the same time, they also exhibit typical armature
use-wear (Borgia and Ranaldo, 2009; Borgia et al., 2011). As has been
emphasized, there is no evolutionary relationship between the chrono-
logically close Aurignacian layer 24A1 and Gravettian layer 23, and
their stratigraphic superposition can be regarded as evidence of rapid
change in the concept of projectile manufacture and accompanying
lithic technology (Palma di Cesnola, 2005; Borgia et al., 2011; Wierer,
2013).
It is not possible to compare the technological and typological pa-
rameters of the Paglicci 24A and Mira II/2 industries in detail because of
the limited material inventory of the latter assemblage, which does not
lend itself to statistical analysis. More data is available regarding the
technological and typological indications for backed implements. In
Fig. 3. Mira II/2, unit 26–27
Г
. Position of backed bladelets and isolated bones
near area of weak concentration of ash.
V.N. Stepanchuk and D.O. Vietrov
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx
7
each case, the blanks are small bladelets up to 40 mm long, relatively
narrow, and slightly curved in prole. It is most likely that they
appeared in the course of reduction of a core with a narrow working
surface. The type of retouch used to prepare the back depended on the
shape and thickness of the produced edge. That is, retouching did not
transform the original outline of the blank but followed it. This is exactly
the technological nuance that is often emphasized when revealing the
difference between Aurignacian and Gravettian assemblages (Djindjian
et al., 1999; Borgia et al., 2011; Wrier, 2013).
The morphology of the end product is identical at both Paglicci 24A
and Mira II/2. In both cases, the aim was to produce a backed piece with
a longitudinal straight or a slightly concave retouched edge, which, at an
acute angle, directly connected with the obliquely truncated proximal
part of a bladelet. Thus, it is possible to conclude that the technological
and morphological coincidences for the backed implements at Mira II/2
and Paglicci 24A1 are almost perfect. It would not be an exaggeration to
say that some products look almost as if they came out of the same
maker’s hands. They are stylistically uniform.
However, there are also differences. The Paglicci blanks for the
micro-inventory look more thin, and their shape is narrower. Also, there
are several forms where the angle of convergence between the conjoined
obliquely and longitudinally disposed retouched edges is very sharp,
while the oblique retouched edge at the proximal part of blank is often
concave. Perhaps, these variations can be attributed to a larger number
of products recovered in Paglicci and therefore their greater morpho-
logical variability, as well as to the characteristics of the raw materials
being used. In a morphological sense, the backed bladelets of PA24A1
type are somewhat Gravettian in character, but technologically, they are
Aurignacian. This means that the blunting retouch follows the contours
of the blank alike as it is usual in the Aurignacian and does not alike in
the Gravettian. It is also reported that there is a signicant difference
between the xing and using of the PA24A1 products and Gravettian
backed inserts (Fig. 6) (Borgia et al., 2011). This observation also re-
inforces the arguments in favour of the non-Gravettian nature of the
Paglicci 24A1 type backed pieces. Borgia et al. (2011) have inferred that
the PA24A1 backed bladelets were hafted in a lateral position, assuming
a lacerating function for the weapon being used, while Gravettian points
had both apical and lateral positions on the shaft, assuring that lacer-
ating occurs together with a piercing function (Borgia et al., 2011: 171).
The issue of the bladelets similar to PA24A1 type being present in
Kostenki 8/II remains unclear. These are probably the variations
mentioned above, with a very sharp angle of convergence between
obliquely and longitudinally disposed dorsal retouched edges. Accord-
ing to the published material, similar forms are sporadically found at
some other sites (Bazile, 2007, Fig. 6; Doronicheva, 2015, Fig. 4).
However, the most characteristic form of the PA24A1 bladelets, with a
base presenting a kind of oblique truncation, seems to be missing from
Kostenki 8/II. On the other hand, some similar forms are occasionally
identied in Gravettian assemblages, including the materials in Paglicci
(layer 23) (Wierer, 2013, Fig. 28: 7; Fullola et al., 2007, Fig. 2), although
these are only morphological similarities.
3.2. Searching for analogies in synchronous UP of Eastern Europe
Since they date to around 29–28000 BP, Mira II/2 and Paglicci 24A
formally belong to the beginning of the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic
phase. This phase in Central-Western Europe is associated with the
expansion of the Gravettian (Djindjian et al., 1999; Svoboda, 2007,
2015; Hoffecker, 2011; Moreau, 2012; Otte, 2013; Kozłowski, 2015). It
is also believed that this phase, in Eastern Europe, is characterized by the
co-existing of two UP cultural entities, namely the early Gravettian and
Gorodtsovian (Sinitsyn, 2013, 2015a, 2015b). In terms of the material
from Paglicci (layer 24A), it is agreed that the assemblage has no
Gravettian analogies or links to West-Central European Gravettian
contexts (Borgia et al., 2011; Palma di Cesnola, 2005; 2006; Wierer,
2013).
In Eastern Europe, there are several areas where early Gravettian
sites appear: e.g. the Prut and Dniester basins, the Southern Bug basin,
and, possibly, Crimea (Fig. 1). Most of the early sites gravitate to the
western edge of the plain; the most distant to the east is the Telmanskaya
site on the Don, currently dated between 28,000 and 27,000 uncal BP
(Reynolds et al., 2015; Dudin et al., 2016; Lisitsyn, 2019). Gravettian
reference sites in the Prut-Dniester area are usually open-air and
multilayered, with well-grounded geostratigraphy, but not all sequences
are supported by radiocarbon dates (Ivanova, 1977, 1987; Borziac,
2008; Borziac and Chirica, 2010; Damblon et al., 1997; Haesaerts et al.,
2003, 2004; Otte and Noiret, 2004; Sytnyk et al., 2005).
Among the most important sites are Molodova V, Molodova I, Kor-
man IV, Oselivka I, Babin I, Voronovitsya I (Ivanova, 1977, 1987, 1987;
Chernysh, 1961, 1973, 1977, 1982, 1987), Mezhigirtsi I (Haesaetrs
et al., 2004; Kоulakovska and Otte, 1998), and Halych I (Sytnyk et al.,
2005). The oldest Gravettian sites in Eastern Europe include Layers 10
and 9 of Molodova V (Haesaerts et al., 2003, 2004; Noiret, 2007; Ste-
panchuk et al., 2009), and possibly Buran Kaya 3 (Prat, 2014; Prat et al.,
2011; Yanevich, 2014). Sites with later chronological positions, which
are between 28,000 and 25,000 BP, have been identied at Mezhigirtsi I,
layers 8 and 7 of Molodova V, Oselivka layers 3 and 2, lower Voronovitsa
I layer, and the lower Gravettian layer I of Mitoс-Malu Galben, Poiana
Ciresului, Ripiceni-Izvor, Bistricioara-Lut˘
arie, etc. (Chirica, 1989;
Damblon et al., 1996; Haesaerts, 1993; Haesaerts et al., 2003, 2007,
2010; Noiret, 2009; Nuzhnyi, 2009, 2015; Anghelinu et al., 2018). The
micro-inventory of layer I of Mitoс-Malu Galben includes Gravette
points, convex points (pointe `
a gibbosit´
e), and microgravette points
(Otte et al., 2006). The inventory of layer 10 of Molodova 5 includes four
microgravette points and their fragments, as well as four Pavlov type
points (Fig. 7). Layer 9 of this site is also characterized by Gravettian
microlites or their fragments and also contains ve Pavlov type points
(Nuzhnyi, 2009).
Further to the east, in the Southern Bug valley, several sites can be
attributed to the early phase of Gravettian, such as Troyanove 4A,
Troyanove 4B, Ozerove (Vietrov, 2010, 2015; Zaliznyak et al., 2007,
2011, 2013), and also layers 8 and 7 of Vladimirovka (Chernysh, 1953;
Vietrov, 2010, 2015; Zaliznyak et al., 2013). No absolute dates are
Fig. 6. Reconstruction of hafting of Aurignacian bladelets (1) and Gravettian
points (2) from Paglicci layers 24A and 23 after Borgia et al. (2011):172, Fig. 9.
V.N. Stepanchuk and D.O. Vietrov
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx
8
available, but geostratigraphic data indicates the sites are positioned
toward the lower limit of the MIS 2 phase (Gerasimenko, 2004), which is
ca. 29,000 BP.
In Crimea, layers 6-1 and 6-2 of the Buran-Kaya 3 cave site were
initially attributed to the late Gravettian or Epigravettian, with an
assumed date of 20–12000 BP (Yanevich, 1999, 2000), although an
older age has also been suggested (Stepanchuk et al., 2009). On the basis
of more recent radiocarbon dating, which place layer 6-1 at 31,900 ±
240/220 BP (GrA-37938) and 31,320 ±820 BP (GifA-10021/-
SacA-19018), it is clear that this horizon is attributed to the early
Gravettian (Prat et al., 2011, 2014; Yanevich, 2014). Although, as noted
by A. Sinitsyn (2013), the early Gravettian attribution of the contained
lithic assemblage is not totally unambiguous. Furthermore, this attri-
bution is also criticized in terms of probable Gravettian population
diffusion scenarios (Bicho et al., 2017). At the very least, such an early
age offers a perspective for the study of the possibility of the not sensu
stricto Gravettian afliation of the assemblage.
Summarizing, we should state that the search for analogies of the
PA24A1 type marginal backed bladelets in the pivotal sites of the
Eastern European Gravettian does not lead to positive results. To date
the only exception is the suggestion of Borgia (2017) who has identied
the presence of similar products in the assemblage at Kostenki 8
(Telmanskaya) layer II (Fig. 8). This suggestion is of special interest as
Kostenki 8/II is among the few known early Gravettian sites in the East
European region.
Kostenki 8 (Telmanskaya site) is a multilayered open-air Palaeolithic
site in the Don River valley, Southern Russia. Four Palaeolithic layers
belong to the Upper Palaeolithic, and two of these are dened as
Gravettian (Anikovich et al., 2008). The Early Gravettian Layer II has
been studied in an area of up to 600 sq. m. (Rogachev, 1957: 47–56;
Praslov and Rogachev, 1982: 92–108; Dudin et al., 2016). Several ac-
cumulations of nds are localized in the layer, and they are interpreted
as the remains of light surface dwellings (Praslov and Rogachev, 1982:
101; Sergin, 1988). The most reliable radiocarbon chronology is
currently bracketed between 28,000 and 27,000 BP (Reynolds et al.,
2015; Dudin et al., 2016; Lisitsyn, 2019). Among the faunal remains,
mammoth, horse, rhinoceros, etc., are identied. The stone inventory
includes more than 23,000 items (Sinitsyn, 2013), of which more than
2000 exhibit secondary working. With bi-points prevailing, trapezes and
segments add to the originality of the assemblage (Sinitsyn, 2013;
Gavrilov, 2016; Lisitsyn, 2019).
There are no direct analogies to the Kostenki 8/II assemblage within
Eastern Europe, yet broad analogies can be seen in the Early Gravettian
of Central and Eastern Europe (Moreau, 2010, 2012; Sinitsyn, 2013;
Fig. 7. Lithic industry of Molodova 5 layer 10 after Chernysh (1961).
V.N. Stepanchuk and D.O. Vietrov
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx
9
Gavrilov, 2016), in particular at Molodova V in Ukraine. The distinctive
character of the Kostenki 8/II material served as the basis for dis-
tinguishing the Telmanskaya cultural unity (Litovchenko, 1969; Roga-
chev and Anikovich, 1984). Analogies of Kostenki 8/II are seen in the
Early Mediterranean Gravettian (Emenko, 1953, 1958, 1960), in
particular in layer 23A of Paglicci (Sinitsin, 1997, 2013). However, a
survey of the available literature e.g. Anikovich et al. (2008), Lisitsyn
(2019), fails to identify any mention of the presence of Paglicci 24A1
backed bladelets in the Kostenki 8/II materials. The only exception is the
Borgia (2017) suggestion. However, it is worth waiting for a more
detailed debate around this topic, as the existing publication (Borgia,
2017) is very preliminary.
The Early Gravettian of Eastern Europe exists simultaneously and in
parallel with Gorodtsovian, which is treated as a separate East European
industry with a non-Aurignacian and non–Gravettian character (Sinit-
syn, 2013, 2015a). Gorodtsovian sites include Kostenki 14/2, 15, 16,
and some others (Anikovich et al., 2008; Sinitsyn, 2015a). Attention is
focused on the abundance of the bone industry at these sites, and in
particular some specic bone items, like so called “spatulas” (Anikovich
et al., 2008; Sinitsyn, 2015a). The Gorodtsovian stone industry is usually
described as containing numerous archaic forms with close analogies to
Middle Palaeolithic types (Sinitsyn, 2000). It is reported that the
industry is based on ake-oriented technology, that it does not contain
backed micro-implements, and has nothing in common with either
Gravettian or Aurignacian industries (Sinitsyn, 2015a). The assemblages
do appear to be ake-dominated, but it seems likely this is the result of
the intensive recycling of artefacts. There is evidence to suggest that the
producers of the Gorodtsovian assemblages were quite familiar with the
blade knapping technology (Stepanchuk, 2011), and therefore their
technical archaism is overestimated.
Outside the Don basin (Fig. 1), there are only a few Gorodtsovian
sites. In particular, the assemblage of Mira, layer I, also highlights a
resemblance to the Gorodtsovian (Sinitsyn, 2015a). The typology and
morphology of the ake tools at Mira I indicate clear similarities with
typical Gorodtsovian assemblages (Fig. 9), e.g., Kostenki 14 layer 2
(Sinitsyn, 2000). The industry of Mira I also looks ake-dominated.
However, initially, the industry was denitely as being blade-oriented,
and then its appearance was essentially distorted by intense utilization
and recycling (Stepanchuk, 2013b). Mira I also has some Aurignacian
aspects, and in particular the assemblage includes several Dufour bla-
delets and a few micro-points on bladelets (Stepanchuk, 2005; 2013a;
2019; see also Hoffecker et al., 2017). An assessment of the assemblage
at Mira I, for possible analogies to the industry containing PA24A1 type
marginal backed bladelets, is particularly interesting since Mira layers I
Fig. 8. Lithic industry of Kostenki 8/2 after Sinitsyn (2013).
V.N. Stepanchuk and D.O. Vietrov
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx
10
and II/2 have a very close chronology and a close stratigraphic position
in the same prole. At this time, however, there are no such parallels.
Thus, currently, neither the Gravettian nor Gorodtsovian sites of
Eastern Europe provide any analogies for A24A1 type marginal backed
bladelets. Perhaps, a reconsideration of the Gorodtsovian assemblages
from the perspective of a more realistic estimation of its archaism will
open some perspectives in this direction.
3.3. Mira and Paglicci: probable reasons for the similarities identied
The essence of this discussion is the fact that two UP sites have
revealed specic artefacts with a blunted back, and while the sites have
a close chronological position, they occupy different ecological niches.
The products have a marked morphological originality and are identical
in terms of both the technology of manufacturing, technical parameters
of the initial blanks and the metric standard. They are stylistically uni-
form and have no analogies in chronologically close Aurignacian,
Gravettian, and Gorodtsovian sites. So we nd that the case is not
limited to the similarity of a particular category of lithic products.
The observations outlined here are not unusual in a Palaeolithic
context, and, where there is close proximity in terms of territorial
location, such similarities can plausibly be attributed to the stylistic
features of a certain group of people, and this will not look like a
particular challenge. The difculty with the materials of Mira and
Paglicci is that the sites are located at a very signicant distance of more
than 1500 km from each other “as the crow ies”.
How do we explain the close similarity of artefacts from two different
sites in two remote regions?
In theory there are a number of options available in order to explain
the similarities:
A) Totally random coincidence and independent emergence,
wherein circumstances of innovations and subjects-
manufacturers are not linked in any way,
B) Convergence, not accidental, but independent emergence, the
result of adaptation of socially unrelated subjects in similar
natural conditions and at a technologically close stage of devel-
opment, and
C) Related emergence, in that the manufacturers of these products
were somehow socially connected.
Detailed verication of the different options has obvious theoretical
and practical value, but it is beyond the scope of this article. We cannot
pay more attention to these issues because we are signicantly limited in
our analysis by the numerically limited size of the series of artefacts from
Mira (layer II/2). The full analysis of the explanatory versions (which
are basically variations of either convergence or migration) for the likely
multi-aspect similarity between Paglicci (layer 24A1) and Mira (layer II/
2) denitely need more archaeological data (e.g. Clark 1994; Anikovich,
1999; Klejn, 1999).
While each of the theoretical options outlined above has some po-
tential interpretative value, the explanatory potential of each hypothesis
variable. For instance, the idea of random emergence in a close chro-
nological period of stylistically and technologically identical objects of
such a vivid category as equipment of hunting armament is the least
probable. In the case of an adaptation, it is essential that the environ-
mental conditions are similar, but the conditions of the Mira (plain area)
and Paglicci (mountain area) are quite different. As such, the difference
between natural conditions and hunting objects may provide an argu-
ment against the possibility of similar innovations. Nevertheless, one
can speak of an independent technological innovation, which can be
described as an insert made on an Aurignacian bladelet. However, no
obvious technical reasons for the specic quasi-triangular shape of these
inserts are forthcoming from the reconstructions proposed by Borgia
et al. (2011) in relation to the proposed xing technique for the PA24A1
backed bladelets.
If we accept that the morphology of the objects is not dictated by
technical requirements, then we are talking about a stylistic distinc-
tiveness, which, in our case, does not appear to have anything to do with
the conditions of the natural environment or functional needs, but has a
social nature and lives in the minds of the manufacturers.
In an ideal case, the claim that we are dealing with migration also
Fig. 9. Lithic industry of Mira, layer I (A) and Kostenki 14, layer II (B) after Stepanchuk (2013):77, Fig. 51.
V.N. Stepanchuk and D.O. Vietrov
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx
11
needs more verication (than we originally had, and can propose at
present). In particular, we are not currently in a position to compare the
stone inventories of the two sites in detail, for the reasons mentioned
above. There are no indications of the presence of similar assemblages in
the intermediate zone between Paglicci and Mira, and, among other
things, this situation does not allow us to track the likely path of the
migration that is being proposed.
Nevertheless, we have a chronological sequence of sites within a
narrow time period that have no analogies in their regions and are
characterized by specic, stylistically distinctive hunting armaments.
We believe that the evidence allows for the suggestion of migration as a
preliminary explanation for these objects.
A combination of geographical and chronological circumstances, i.e.,
remoteness and chronological synchronicity of sites, as well as the
technical and morphological identity of Mira II/2 and Paglicci 24A1
backed bladelets, do not allow for the suggestion that the occurrence of
these artefacts represents the result of accidental convergence.
It is unrealistic to explain these nds by a transfer of nished prod-
ucts or technological ideas. Fundamentally, and despite the limitations
discussed above, in relation to the limitations of the available evidence,
the most likely and plausible explanation is the migration of a group of
people. Our reasoning for the situation with the assemblages under
discussion is compatible with Reynolds’ (2019) ideas on similar issues.
The question of the vector of migration whether directed to the east, or
vice versa, to the west remains open to debate. This concern warrants
attention to the theory that — if we consider the age of overlying Codola
tephra — Paglicci 24A1 itself may appear to be somewhat older than
Mira II/2. If we assume that the entire sequence of Aurignacian layers of
Paglicci represents a single line of development, then there is reason to
argue that the innovation in the form of backed bladelets PA24A1
originated rst in Southern Italy and then was transferred to Eastern
Europe. This version is supported by the early chronology of the initial
phases of the Aurignacian occupation at Paglicci, dated to ca. 34,000 BP.
That is, if level 24A is evolutionarily related to the earlier levels of
Aurignacian layer 24, and there are certain reasons to consider its local
origin. The issue of some distinctive features of Paglicci Aurignacian
materials is of interest in this regard.
As the author of the excavations at Paglicci concluded, layer 24A1
possesses very few typological and typometric characteristics that are
truly Aurignacian (Palma di Cesnola, 1996: 232). The idea that the
Paglicci Aurignacian assemblages lack typical Aurignacian carinated
forms and retouching has been repeatedly emphasized (Palma di Ces-
nola, 2000, 2005, 2006). Typical Aurignacian bone products like
split-based points (Tartar and White, 2013; Tejero, 2016) are also absent
from this location (Palma di Cesnola, 2005, 2006). Meanwhile, both of
these characteristic traits are well represented at other Aurignacian sites
in Italy (Broglio et al., 2005; Falcucci et al., 2017; Tartar and White,
2013) and elsewhere.
In our opinion, the likelihood of an innovative introduction of
morphologically distinct marginal backed blades at Paglicci seems more
easily explained if we accept the possibility that it could have originated
in the context of a quite specic Aurignacian facie. This facie is char-
acterized by a lack of many of the most typical Aurignacian features; e.g.
carinated forms and split-based bone points. Interestingly, the early
Gravettian assemblage of Paglicci (layer 23) is also suggested as original
and, together with Klissoura layer III’ and several other sites in the
Apennine-Balkan area, is interpreted as Gravettian indiff´
erenci´
e (Kacza-
nowska et al., 2010). It is noteworthy that a supposed remote migration
of the early Gravettian people with a portable set of perforated shells of
Mediterranean origin to the Bistrit¸a basin in Romania at ca. 31–30000
cal BP (Nit¸u et al., 2019) is linked to this circle of sites. Thus, given these
assumptions, the west-to-east migration of the carriers of the type
PA24A1 backed bladelets manufacturing tradition seems more likely.
(Doronicheva and Shackley, 2014) (Koulakovska and Otte, 1998) (Ser-
gin, 1998).
Paradoxically, the Gravettian layer 23 of Paglicci is also associated
with Eastern Europe and population movement. It is accepted that the
earliest Gravettian occupation in Eastern Europe, which is Kostenki 8
layer II, represents an analogy of Paglicci (layer 23) (Emenko, 1960;
Praslov and Rogachov, 1982; Sinitsyn, 2013). Traditionally (Sinitsyn,
1997, 2013), the vector of the Gravettian dispersal is suggested as being
from west to east, although pulses from east to west have been suggested
as well (Gambassini, 2007). Techno-morphologically close, yet territo-
rially distant, analogies with different East European sites for two suc-
cessive UP layers of the same Italian site seem coincidental, though
rather unusual. This distinctiveness is further increased if we take into
consideration the supposed analogies, not only between Kostenki 8
(layer II) and Paglicci (layer 23), but also between Kostenki 8 (layer II)
and Paglicci (layer 24) (as stressed by Borgia, 2017). At the same time,
the absence of similarities between Paglicci (layer 23) and Paglicci
(layer 24) is suggested (Palma di Cesnola, 2005; 2006; Borgia et al.,
2011). This situation is denitely ambiguous, and it is clear that there is
not currently enough data to evaluate it comprehensively.
Of particular interest is the cultural afliation of assemblages con-
taining PA24A1 backed bladelets. Our review has demonstrated a
complete absence of any analogues for Mira (layer II/2) in the Gravet-
tian and Gorodtsovian industries of Eastern Europe. Analogies to
Paglicci (layer 24A) are unknown in the Gravettian of Southern and
West-Central Europe (Borgia et al., 2011; Palma di Cesnola, 2005; 2006;
Wierer, 2013). In our opinion, the vivid originality of the hunting ar-
maments of PA24A1 type allows us to consider a peculiar episode of
cultural development at the transition between the Early and Middle UP.
Data from recent genetic research is also of some interest in relation
to the current discussion. Posth et al. (2016) reveal that the analysis of a
human tooth, Paglicci 133, found in the early Gravettian layer 23C-2,
demonstrates the relatedness of the Paglicci humans to the occupants
of some Western and Central Europe Gravettian sites. There is also a
similarity to the Eastern European individual from burial 14 at Kostenki,
whose cultural attribution is not reliably known (Sinitsyn, 2015b). It is
also claimed (Bennett et al., 2016) that Paglicci, like many other
Gravettian sites in Western and Central Europe, is associated with the
population that inhabited Buran-Kaya 3 in Crimea. Furthermore, it is
also reported that Buran-Kaya 3 is related to the producers of the Gor-
odtsovian at Kostenki 12/1 (Bennett et al., 2016: 16). However, other
studies (Fu et al., 2016; Sikora et al., 2017), in contrast, suggest dis-
tinctions between the Gravettian and Gorodtsovian population.
4. Conclusions
The variability of European UP sites in the nal phase of the EUP and
the beginning of the MUP is relatively uniform, although it is composed
of multiple local patterns. Irrespective, the chronological interval of
several millennia, around 30–27,000 BP, is mainly characterized by the
spread of relatively coherent Aurignacian and Gravettian sites. Against
this background, the assemblages of Paglicci (layer 24 horizon A1) in
Southern Italy, and Mira (layer II/2) in Ukraine, look isolated and nd
no regional analogies.
Unfortunately, these assemblages cannot be fully compared tech-
nologically and morphologically due to the low number of artefacts at
Mira. However, the data on the most original implements, namely the
marginal backed PA24A1 type bladelets, is sufcient for reliable esti-
mations. It can be stated that we are indeed dealing with a case of sig-
nicant morphological and technological similarity between two
geographically distant assemblages.
Paglicci (layer 24 horizon A1) is located in a karst cave on the Gar-
gano promontory, and Mira (II/2) is located on a minor elevation in the
Dnieper oodplain, they are separated by a distance of some 1600 km
“as the crow ies”. As the
14
C chronology indicates, Mira II/2 and
Paglicci 24A1 belong to the same narrow chronological period between
29,000 and 27,000 uncal BP or within the period 33,000 and 29,000 cal
BP. The minimal upper age of Paglicci (layer 24 horizon A1) is placed at
33,000 cal BP according to the tephra stratigraphy.
V.N. Stepanchuk and D.O. Vietrov
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx
12
The geographical and chronological circumstances of these loca-
tions, i.e., their remoteness and chronological synchronicity, as well as
the technical and morphological identity of the Mira II/2 and Paglicci
24A1 backed bladelets, allows for the suggestion that they represent the
migration of a group of people. Potentially, innovation in the form of the
backed bladelets, PA24A1, could have emerged in Southern Europe, and
this was subsequently transferred to Eastern Europe. Despite the limited
evidence, the distinct characteristics of these sites indicate their afli-
ation with the same unique pattern of sociocultural development at the
transition between the EUP and MUP.
The pivotal East European Gravettian sites contain no analogies to
the PA24A1 type marginal backed bladelets. As for the supposed pres-
ence of such products in Kostenki 8/II, it is worth waiting for a more
detailed debate in support of this suggestion. It is important to note that
the Gorodtsovian sites of Eastern Europe also contain no analogies to the
bladelets of PA24A1 type. Perhaps, rethinking the Gorodtsovian in terms
of a more realistic assessment of their archaism will open some new
perspectives in this direction.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests that might
have inuenced the work described in this manuscript.
Acknowledgments
We warmly thank the organizers of the 3rd Conference World of
Gravettian Hunters for inviting us to present a paper at the meeting in
Krakow, and to contribute to this special issue. We thank to anonymous
reviewers for their helpful observations and suggestions. We are also
deeply grateful to Professor Malcolm Lillie for improving the English
version of the article. The study presented in this paper was partially
funded by the research project of the Ukrainian Ministry of Education
and Science M/72–2019.
References
Andersen, K.K., Svensson, A., Johnsen, S.J., Rasmussen, S.O., Bigler, M.,
R¨
othlisberger, R., Ruth, U., Siggaard-Andersen, M.-L., Steffensen, Dahl-Jensen, D.,
Vinther, B.M., Clausen, H.B., 2006. The Greenland Ice Core Chronology 2005, 15–42
ka. Part 1: constructing the time scale. Quat. Sci. Rev. 25 (23–24), 3246–3257.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.08.002.
Anghelinu, M., Nit
¸ˆ
a, L., Murˆ
atoreanu, G., 2018. Le Gravettien et l’
´
Epigravettien de l’Est
de la Roumanie : une r´
e´
evaluation. L’Anthropologie 122 (2), 183–219. https://doi
:10.1016/j.anthro.2018.03.002.
Anikovich, M.V., 1999. About the migrations in Palaeolithic. Stratum plus (1), 79–82 (in
Russian).
Anikovich, M.V., Anisyutkin, N.K., Vishnyatsky, L.B., 2007. Key problems of Middle-
Upper Paleolithic transition in Eurasia. In: Proceedings of Kostenki-Borschevo
Archaeological Expedition, vol. 5. Nestor–Historia, Saint-Petersburg (in Russian).
Anikovich, M.V., Popov, V.V., Platonova, N.I., 2008. Paleolit Kostionkovsko-
Borschjovskogo Rajona V Kontekste Verhnego Paleolita Evropy (Paleolithic of
Kostenki-Borschevo Region in the Context of Upper Paleolithic of Europe).
Nestor–Historia, Saint-Petersburg (in Russian).
Baskin, L.M., 1976. The Behavior of Ungulate Animals. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian).
Bazile, F., 2007. Le Gravettien de la France m´
editerran´
eenne. Pal´
eo 19, 89–103.
Bennett, E.A., Prat, S., P´
ean, S., Yanevich, A., Puaud, S., Grange, T., Geigl, E.-M., 2016.
The origin of the Gravettians: genomic evidence from a 36,000-year-old Eastern
European. BioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/685404.
Bertola, S., Fontana, F., Visentin, D., 2018. Lithic raw material circulation and settlement
dynamics in the Upper Palaeolithic of the Venetian Prealps (NE Italy). A key-role for
palaeoclimatic and landscape changes across the LGM? In: Borgia, V., Cristiani, E.
(Eds.), Palaeolithic Italy. Advanced Studies on Early Human Adaptations in the
Apennine Peninsula. Sidestone Press, Leiden, pp. 219–246.
Bicho, N., Cascalheira, J., Gonçalves, C., 2017. Early Upper Paleolithic colonization
across Europe: time and mode of the Gravettian diffusion. PloS One 12 (5),
e0178506. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178506.
Blockley, S.P.E., Lane, C.S., Hardiman, M., Rasmussen, S.O., Seierstad, I.K., Steffensen, J.
P., Svensson, A., Lotter, A.F., Turney, C.S.M., Bronk Ramsey, C., 2012.
Synchronisation of palaeoenvironmental records over the last 60,000 years, and an
extended INTIMATE event stratigrapy to 48,000 b2k. Quat. Sci. Rev. 36, 2–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2011.09.017.
Bondarchuk, V.G. (Ed.), 1960. Atlas of Paleo-Geographical Maps of the Ukrainian and
Moldavian SSR with Elements of Lithofacies. Scale 1: 2500000. Kyiv: Instytut
Heolohii an URSR.(In Ukrainian).
Borgia, V., 2006. L’analisi funzionale degli elementi a dorso come strumento conoscitivo
per ricostruire le strategie di sfruttamento delle risorse territoriali nel Gravettiano
antico di Grotta Paglicci (strati 23 e 22). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche LVI, 1–29.
Borgia, V., 2017. Hunting high and low: Gravettian hunting weapons from southern Italy
to the Russian plain. Open Archaeol. 3, 376–391. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-
2017-0024.
Borgia, V., Ranaldo, F., 2009. Analyse fonctionnelle des lamelles a d`
os aurignaciennes de
Grotta Paglicci. Hum. Evol. 24 (1–2), 121–130.
Borgia, V., Ranaldo, F., Ronchitelli, A., Wierer, U., 2011. What differences in production
and use of Aurignacian and early Gravettian lithic assemblages? The case of grotta
Paglicci (rignano garganico, foggia, southern Italy). In: Goutas, N., Klaric, L.,
Pessese, D., Guillermin, P. (Eds.), `
A la recherche des identit´
es gravettiennes:
actualit´
es, questionnements et perspectives. Actes de la Table ronde. M´
emoire LIII de
la Soci´
et´
e pr´
ehistorique française, Paris, pp. 161–174.
Borgia, V., Boschin, Fr, Ronchitelli, A., 2017. Grotta Paglicci, (Rignano Garganico,
Foggia, southern Italy), an overview on the bone and antler production. Archaeology
of the Eurasian steppes 2, 71–85.
Borziac, I., 2008. Paleoliticul Superior Din Spatiul Carpato-Nistrean (Cronostratigrae,
Culturogeneza, Paleoecologie). Academia de Stiinte a Republicii Moldova, Chisinau.
Borziac, I., Chirica, V., 2010. Paleoliticul mijlociu, paleoliticul superiors, i epipaleoliticul
mezoliticul în spatiul carpato-nistrean. Arheol. Mold. XXXIII, 25–68.
Boscato, P., 2005. I macromammiferi dell’Aurignaziano e del Gravettiano antico di
Grotta Paglicci. In: Palma di Cesnola, A. (Ed.), Paglicci. L’Aurignaziano e il
Gravettiano antico. Claudio Grenzi Editore, Foggia, pp. 49–61.
Boscato, P., 2007. Faunes gravettiennes a grands mammif`
eres de l’Italie du Sud: grotta
della Cala (Salerno) et Grotta Paglicci (Foggia). Pal´
eo 119, 109–114.
Broglio, A., Bertola, S., de Stefani, M., Marini, D., Lemorini, C., Rossetti, P., 2005. La
production lamellaire et les armatures lamellaires de ´
lAurignacien ancien de la
grotte de Fumane (Monts Lessini, V´
en´
etie). In: Le Brun-Ricalens, F. (Ed.),
Productions lamellaires attribu´
ees `
a ´
lAurignacien. Actes des XIV Congres UISPP,
Archѐologiques 1. Mus´
ee national ˇ
dhistoire et ˇ
dart, Luxembourg, pp. 415–436.
Bronk Ramsey, C., 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51 (1),
337–360.
Chernysh, O.P., 1953. The Volodymyrivka Paleolithic Site. Vydavnytvo AN USSR, Kyiv
(in Ukrainian).
Chernysh, O.P., 1961. The Paleolithic Site Molodove V. Naukova Dumka, Kyiv (in
Ukrainian).
Chernysh, A.P., 1973. The Paleolithic and Mesolithic on the Dniester River. Nauka,
Moscow (in Russian).
Chernysh, A.P., 1977. Multilayer Palaeolithic site Korman IV and its place in the
Palaeolithic. In: Goretskiy, G.I., Tseytlin, S.M. (Eds.), The Multilayer Paleolithic Site
Korman IV on the Middle Dniestr). Nauka, Moscow, pp. 7–77.
Chernysh, A.P., 1982. Multilayer paleolithic site Molodova I. In: Goretskiy, G.I.,
Ivanova, I.K. (Eds.), Molodova I. Unique Mousterian Settlement in the Middle
Dniester. Nauka, Moscow, pp. 6–102 (in Russian).
Chernysh, A.P., 1987. The standard multilayerd site Molodova V. Archeology. In:
Ivanova, I.K., Tzeitlin, S.M. (Eds.), The Multilayered Paleolithic Site Molodova V.
The Stone Age Men and Environment. Nauka, Moscow, pp. 7–93 (in Russian).
Chirica, V., 1989. The Gravettian in the east of the Romanian Carpathians. Bibliotheca
Archaeologica Iassiensis III (Ias¸ i).
Clark, G.A., 1994. Migration as an explanatory concept in paleolithic archaeology.
J. Archaeol. Method Theor 1 (4), 305–343.
Damblon, F., Haesaerts, P., van der Plicht, J., 1996. New datings and considerations on
the chronology of Upper Palaeolithic sites in the Great Eurasiatic plain. Prehistoire
europeenne 9, 177–231.
Damblon, F., Haesaerts, P., Borziak, I., Van Der Plicht, J., 1997. Climatic events and
upper Palaeolithic chronology in the Dniestr basin: new radiocarbon results from
Cosautsi. Prеhistoire Europ´
eene 12, 1–10.
Djindjian, F., Kozlowski, J., Otte, M., 1999. Le Pal´
eolithique sup´
erieur en Europe.
Armand Colin, Paris.
Doronicheva, E.V., 2015. The dispersal of Homo sapiens and inter-regional mobility in
the early Upper Paleolithic of the Caucasus and the Levant. Collection of the Museum
of Anthropology and Ethnography LXI, 212–226 (in Russian). http://lib.kunstkam
era.ru/les/lib/978-5-88431-301-9/978-5-88431-301-9_13.pdf.
Doronicheva, E.V., Shackley, M.S., 2014. Obsidian exploitation strategies in the Middle
and Upper Paleolithic of northern Caucasus (new data from Mezmaiskaya cave).
PaleoAnthropology 565–585.
Dudin, A.E., Pustovalov, A. Iu, Platonova, N.I., 2016. The second cultural layer of
Kost¨
enki 8 (Tel’manskaya): structure, features, microstratigraphy. Vestnik
Novosibirskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta (Seriia: Istoriia, lologiia) 15 (3),
41–52 (in Russian).
Emenko, P.P., 1953. Primitive Society. Izdatelstvo AN URSR, Kiev (in Ukrainian).
Emenko, P.P., 1958. Kostenki 1. Izdatelstvo AN SSSR, Moscow-Leningrad (in Russian).
Emenko, P.P., 1960. Near-Asian elements in the Upper Paleolithic sites of the northern
Black Sea area (to the origin of the Magdalenian culture of eastern Europe.
Sovetskaya arheologiya 4, 14–25 (in Russian).
Falcucci, A., Conard, N.J., Peresani, M., 2017. A critical assessment of the
Protoaurignacian lithic technology at Fumane Cave and its implications for the
denition of the earliest Aurignacian. PloS One 12 (12), e0189241. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0189241.
F´
eblot-Augustins, J., 2009. Revisiting European Upper Paleolithic raw material transfers:
the demise of the cultural ecological paradigm? In: Adams, B., Blades, B.S. (Eds.),
Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies. Willey-Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 25–46.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444311976.ch3.
V.N. Stepanchuk and D.O. Vietrov
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx
13
Fu, Q., Posth, C., Hajdinjak, M., Petr, M., Mallick, S., Fernandes, D., et al., 2016. The
genetic history of ice age Europe. Nature 534 (7606), 200–205. https://doi.org/
10.1038/nature17993.
Fullola, J.M., Roman, D., Soler, N., Villaverde, V., 2007. Le Gravettien de la cˆ
ote
m´
editerran´
eenne ib´
erique, 19, pp. 73–88. Pal´
eo. http://journals.openedition.org/
paleo/523.
Gambassini, P., 2007. Traits essentiels du Gravettien en Italie. Pal´
eo 19, 105–108. http://
journals.openedition.org/paleo/542.
Gavrilov, K.N., 2016. Upper Paleolithic of Desna basin. In: Continuity and Variability in
Development of Material Culture. Nestor–Historia, Moscow-Saint-Petersburg (in
Russian).
Gerasimenko, N.P., 2004. The Development of Zonal Ecosystems in Ukraine during the
Quaternary. PhD Thesis. Kyiv (in Ukrainian).
Gerasimenko, N.P., Haesaerts, P., 2013. Description of Litho-Pedostratigraphy of the
Main Prole. Northern Wall of the Main Excavation, Data of 2000-2001. Appendix
in: Stepanchuk, V.N., 2013a. Mira: Early Upper Palaeolithic Site in the Dnieper
Valley, Stratum Plus (1), pp. 99–101 (In Russian). https://journals.indexcopernicus.
com/search/article?articleId=1450964.
Giaccio, B., Hajdas, I., Peresani, M., Fedele, F.G., Isaia, R., 2006. The Campanian
Ignimbrite tephra and its relevance for the timing of the Middle to Upper
Palaeolithic shift. In: Conard, N.J. (Ed.), When Neanderthals and Modern Humans
Met. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, pp. 343–375. https://www.researchgate.net/pu
blication/262822970.
Giaccio, B., Isaia, R., Fedele, F., Di Canzio, E., Hoffecker, J., Ronchitelli, A., Sinitsyn, A.,
Anikovich, M., Lisitsyn, S., Popov, V., 2008. The Campanian Ignimbrite and Codola
tephra layers: two temporal/stratigraphic markers for the Early Upper Palaeolithic in
southern Italy and eastern Europe. J. Volcanol. Geotherm 177, 208–226. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.10.007.
Haesaerts, P., 1993. Stratigraphie du gisement pal´
eolithique de Mitoc Malul Galben
(District de Botos
¸ani, Roumanie): ´
etude pr´
eliminaire. Prehistoire europeenne 3,
67–71.
Haesaerts, P., Borziac, I.A., Chirica, V., Damblon, Fr, Koulakovska, L., van der Plicht, J.,
2003. The East Carpathian Loess Record: a nouvelles recherches de terrain a Mitoc-
malu Galben (2013-2015) 36 Reference for the Middle and Late Plenigalcial
Stratigraphy in Central Europe. Quaternaire 14 (3), 163–188.
Haesaerts, P., Borziak, I., Chirica, V., Damblon, F., Koulakovska, L., 2004. Cadre
stratigraphique et chronologique du Gravettien en Europe Centrale. In: Svoboda, J.,
Sedl´
ackov´
a, L. (Eds.), The Gravettian along the Danube, Dolnovestonicke Studie, 11.
Archeologický Ustav AV CR, Brno, pp. 33–56.
Haesaerts, P., Borziac, I.A., Chirica, V., Damblon, Fr, Koulakovska, L.V., 2007. Cadre
stratigraphique et chronologique du Gravettien en Europe centrale. Pal´
eo 19, 31–52.
http://journals.openedition.org/paleo/496.
Haesaerts, P., Borziac, I.A., Chekha, P., Chirica, V., Drozdov, N.I., Koulakovska, L.,
Orlova, L.A., van der Plicht, J., Damblon, F., 2010. Charcoal and wood remains for
radiocarbon dating Upper Pleistocene loess sequences in eastern Europe and central
Siberia. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 291 (1–2), 106–127. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2010.03.034.
Haesaerts, P., Damblon, F., Gerasimenko, N.P., Stepanchuk, V.N., Cohen, V.Yu,
Kovalyukh, N.N., 2014. Stratigraphy, paleoenvironment and chronostratigraphic
background of the Mira succession (Zaporozhiye, Central Ukraine), midway between
Carpathians and Don. ERA 144, 33–58.
Hoffecker, J.F., 2011. The Early Upper Paleolithic of eastern Europe reconsidered. Evol.
Anthropol. Issues News Rev. 20, 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.20284.
Hoffecker, J.F., Holliday, V.T., Stepanchuk, V.N., Brug`
ere, A., Forman, S.L., Goldberg, P.,
Tubolzev, O., Pisarev, I., 2014. Geoarchaeological and bioarchaeological studies at
Mira, an early Upper Paleolithic site in the Lower Dnepr valley, Ukraine.
Geoarchaeology 29, 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.21460.
Hoffecker, J.F., Holliday, V.T., Stepanchuk, V.N., Lisitsyn, S.N., 2017. The hunting of
horse and the problem of the Aurignacian on the central plain of Eastern Europe.
Quat. Int. 492, 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2018.05.044.
Holt, B., Negrino, F., Riel-Salvatore, J., Formicola, V., Arellano, A., Arobba, D.,
Boschian, G., Churchill, S.E., Cristiani, E., Di Canzio, E., Vicino, G., 2018. The
Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition in northwest Italy: new evidence from Riparo
Bombrini (Balzi Rossi, Liguria, Italy). Quat. Int. 508, 142–152. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.quaint.2018.11.032.
Ivanova, I.K., 1977. Geology and paleogeography of the site Korman IV on the general
background of the geological history of the Paleolithic Middle Dniester Region. In:
Goretski, G.I., Tzeitlin, S.M. (Eds.), The Multilayer Paleolithic Site Korman IV on the
Middle Dniestr. Nauka, Moscow, pp. 126–182 (in Russian).
Ivanova, I.K., 1987. Paleogeography and paleo-ecology of the stone age human
environment on the Middle Dniester. The site of Molodova V. In: Ivanova, I.K.,
Tzeitlin, S.M. (Eds.), The Multilayered Paleolithic Site Molodova V. The Stone Age
Men and Environment. Nauka, Moscow, pp. 94–123 (in Russian).
J¨
oris, O., Street, M., Terberger, T., Weninger, B., 2011. Radiocarbon dating the Middle to
Upper Palaeolithic transition: the demise of the last neanderthals and the rst
appearance of anatomically modern humans in Europe. In: Condemi, S., Weniger, G.-
Chr (Eds.), Continuity and Discontinuity in the Peopling of Europe: One Hundred
Fifty Years of Neanderthal Study, pp. 239–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-
007-0492-3_22.
Kaczanowska, M., Kozłowski, J.K., Sobczyk, K., 2010. Upper Palaeolithic human
occupations and material culture at Klissoura Cave 1. Eurasian Prehistory 7 (2),
133–285.
Klejn, L.S., 1999. Migration: archaeological hallmarks. Stratum plus (1), 52–71 (in
Russian).
Koulakovska, L., Otte, M., 1998. Mezjigirzi. Pr´
ehistoire Europ´
eenne 13, 149–166.
Kozłowski, J.K., 2015. The origin of the Gravettian. Quat. Int. 359–360, 3–18. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.03.025.
Lisitsyn, S.N., 2019. Cultural differentiation and periodization of gravettian in Kostenki-
Borshevo region on Don. In: Lisitsyn, S.N., Platonova, N.I. (Eds.), Man and Mammoth
in Palaeolithic of Europe, Part 2: Dnieper-Don Historical and Cultural Habitat.
Dedicated to the Memory of Mikhail Anikovich. Ars Longa, Saint-Petersburg,
pp. 157–193. https://doi.org/10.31600/978-5-6041742-9-6ISBN 978-5-6041742 (in
Russian).
Litovchenko, L.M., 1969. Tel’manskaia paleolithic site (II Cultural Layer). Sovetskaia
Arkheologiia 3, 110–123 (in Russian).
Matviyishyna, Zh M., 2013. Mira, a paleopedological study. In: Stepanchuk, V.M.,
Matviyishyna, Zh M., Ryzhov, S.M., Karmazynenko, S.P. (Eds.), Ancient Man.
Paleogeography and Archaeology). Naukova Dumka, Kyiv, pp. 124–133 (In
Ukrainian).
Moreau, L., 2010. Geißenkl ¨
osterle. The swabian gravettian in its European context.
Quartar 57, 79–93.
Moreau, L., 2012. Le Gravettien ancient d’Europe centrale revisit´
e: mise au point et
perspectives. L’Anthropologie 116, 609–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
anthro.2011.10.002.
Mussi, M., Gioia, P., Negrino, F., 2006. Ten small sites: the diversity of the Italian
Aurignacian. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilh˜
ao, J. (Eds.), Towards a Denition of the
Aurignacian. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45. American School of Prehistoric
Research/Instituto Portuguˆ
es de Arqueologia, Lisboa, pp. 189–209. ISSN 0871-2581.
Nit¸u, E.-C., Carciumaru, M., Nicolae, A., Cırstina, O., Lupu, F.I., Leu, M., 2019. Mobility
and social identity in the Mid Upper Paleolithic: new personal ornaments from
Poiana Cires¸ului (Piatra Neamt¸, Romania). PloS One 14 (4), e0214932. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214932.
Noiret, P., 2007. Le Gravettian de Moldavie (30 000-23 000 BP). Pal´
eo 19, 159–180. htt
p://journals.openedition.org/paleo/592.
Noiret, P., 2009. Le Paleolithique superieur de la Moldavie. Essai de synthese d’une
evolution multi-culturelle. Universite de Liege, Liege. http://hdl.handle.net/22
68/63065.
Nuzhnyi, D.Y., 2009. The industrial variability of the eastern Gravettian assemblages of
Ukraine. Quart¨
ar 56, 159–174.
Nuzhnyi, D.Y., 2015. The Upper Palaeolithic of Western and Northern Ukraine
(Technical and Typological Variation and Periodization). Vidavets’ Oleg Filiuk, Kyiv
(in Ukrainian).
Otte, M. (Ed.), 2013. Les Gravettiens. Civilisations et cultures. Editions Errance, Paris.
Otte, M., Noiret, P., 2004. Evolution du Gravettien au Moyen Danube. In: The Gravettian
along Danube. Brno, Institute of Archaeology (The Dolni Vestonice Studies, vol. 11,
pp. 8–32.
Otte, M., Noiret, P., Chirica, V., Borziac, I., 2006. Mitoc-Malu Galben: ´
Etude de
l’industrie lithique. In: Otte, M., Chirica, V., Haesaerts, P. (Eds.), L’Aurignacien et le
Gravettien de Mitoc-Malu Galben (Moldavie roumaine). ERAUL, vol. 72, pp. 85–135.
Palma di Cesnola, A., 1993. La campagna di scavi 1991 a Grotta Paglicci. In: Atti 13
Convegno Nazionale sulla Preistoria, Protostoria e Storia della Daunia – San Severo
1991, pp. 9–16.
Palma di Cesnola, A., 1996. Le Gravettien le plus ancien en Italie. In: Palma di
Cesnola, A., Montet-White, A., Valoch, K. (Eds.), XIII Congr`
es International d’U.I.S.P.
P., Section 6: the Upper Palaeolithic Colloquim XII. The Origine of the Gravettian.
Forli, pp. 227–235.
Palma di Cesnola, A., 1998. Il problema dell’origine del Gravettiano. Commenti sul XII
Colloquio del Congresso U.I.S.P.P. 1996. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche XLIX,
379–394.
Palma di Cesnola, A., 2000. L’Aurignacien `
a lamelles `
a dos marginal de la Grotte Paglicci
au Mont Gargano (Pouilles, Italie du Sud), `
A la recherche de l’Homme pr´
ehistorique.
ERA 95, 305–310.
Palma di Cesnola, A., 2003. Paglicci e il Paleolitico del Gargano. Grenzi Editore, Foggia.
Palma di Cesnola, A., 2004. Rapports entre l’Aurignacien et l’Uluzzien en Italie. In: Actes
du XIVe Congr`
es UISPP, Universit´
e de Li`
ege, Belgique, 2–8 septembre 2001, BAR
International Series, vol. 1240, pp. 7–12, 2004.
Palma di Cesnola, A., 2005. Paglicci. L’Aurignaziano e il Gravettiano antico. Claudio
Grenzi Editore, Foggia.
Palma di Cesnola, A., 2006. L’Aurignacien et le Gravettien ancien de la grotte Paglicci au
Mont Gargano. L’Anthropologie 110, 355–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
anthro.2006.06.011.
Posth, C., Renaud, G., Mittnik, A., Drucker, D.G., Rougier, H., Cupillard, C., Valentin, F.,
et al., 2016. Pleistocene mitochondrial genomes suggest a single major dispersal of
Non-Africans and a late glacial populationturnover, in Europe. Curr. Biol. 827–833.
Mar 26.
Praslov, N.D., Rogachev, A.N. (Eds.), 1982. The Palaeolithic of Kostenki-Borshchevo
Area on the River Don. 1879-1979. Some Results of Field Investigations. Nauka,
Leningrad, p. 285 (in Russian).
Prat, S., 2014. Stress physiologique et ´
etat de sant´
e des plus anciens Hommes
anatomiquement modernes du sud-est de l’Europe (donn´
ees dentaires, couche 6-1,
Buran-Kaya III, Crim´
ee). L’Anthropologie 118 (5), 567–583. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.anthro.2014.09.008 (dans ce num´
ero).
Prat, S., P´
ean, S., Cr´
epin, L., Drucker, D., Puaud, S., Valladas, H., L´
azniˇ
ckov´
a-
Galetov´
a, M., van der Plicht, J., Yanevich, A., 2011. The oldest anatomically Modern
Humans from Far Southeast Europe: direct dating, culture and behavior. PloS One 6
(6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020834.
Reimer, P., Austin, W., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Blackwell, P., Bronk Ramsey, C., et al., 2020.
The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere radiocarbon age calibration curve (0–55 cal
kBP). Radiocarbon 62 (4), 725–757. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.41.
Reynolds, N., 2019. Threading the weft, testing the warp: population concepts and the
European Upper Paleolithic chronocultural framework. In: Groucutt, H.S. (Ed.),
V.N. Stepanchuk and D.O. Vietrov
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx
14
Culture History and Convergent Evolution: Can We Detect Populations in Prehistory?
Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7BU95.
Reynolds, N., Lisitsyn, S.N., Sablin, M.V., Barton, N., Higham, T.F.G., 2015. Chronology
of the European Russian Gravettian: new radiocarbon dating results and
interpretation. Quartar 62, 121–132.
Rogachev, A.N., Anikovich, M.V., 1984. Pozdnii paleolit russkoi ravniny i kryma (the
upper palaeolithic of the Russian plain and Crimea). In: Boriskovskii, P.I. (Ed.),
Paleolit SSSR (Arkheologiia SSSR, vol. 1. Nauka, Moscow, pp. 162–271 (in Russian).
Rudenko, L.G. (Ed.), 2007. National Atlas of Ukraine. DNVP Kartograya, Kyiv (In
Ukrainian).
Sergin, V. Ya, 1998. Zhilischa na pamyatnikah vostochnogo gravetta Russkoy ravniny.
In: Amirkhanov, KhA. (Ed.), The East Gravettian. Nauchnyy mir, Moscow,
pp. 151–176 (in Russian).
Sikora, M., Seguin-Orlando, A., Sousa, V.C., Albrechtsen, A., Korneliussen, T., Ko, A.,
et al., 2017. Ancient genomes show social and reproductive behavior of early Upper
Paleolithic foragers. Science 358, 659–662.
Sinitsin, A.A., 1997. The “west Gravettian” of the eastern Europe. In: Amirkhanov, KhA.
(Ed.), The East Gravettian. Zaraysk– Moscow, pp. 60–63 (in Russian).
Sinitsyn, A.A., 2000. Composants archaiques de assamblage lithique de Kostenki XIV
(couch 2). ERA 95, 295–307.
Sinitsyn, A.A., 2010. The early Upper Palaeolithic of Kostenki: chronology, taxonomy,
and cultural afliation. In: Neugebauer, Ch, Owen, L.R. (Eds.), New Aspects of the
Central and Eastern European Upper Paleolithic – Methods, Chronology, Technology
and Subsistence, vol. 72. Mittelungen der Pr¨
ahistorischen Komission, pp. 27–48.
Sinitsyn, A.A., 2013. The Gravettian of Kost¨
enki in the context of the Gravettian of
eastern Europe. In: Sinitsyna, G.V. (Ed.), Problems of Settlement of the North-west of
Eastern Europe in the Upper and Final Palaeolithic (Culture-Historical Processes).
IIMK RAN, Saint-Petersburg, pp. 4–32 (in Russian).
Sinitsyn, A.A., 2015a. Perspectives on the palaeolithic of Eurasia: Kostenki and related
sites. In: Sanz, N. (Ed.), Human Origin Sites and the World Heritage Convention in
Eurasia (HEADS 4) 1. UNESCO, Paris, Mexico City, pp. 163–189.
Sinitsyn, A.A., 2015b. Kostenki 14 (Markina gora) — a key-section of cultural and
geological sequences for the East European Upper Palaeolithic in the chronological
framework of 27–42 ka (GS-11–GI-3). Zamiatnin collection 4, 40–59 (in Russian).
Stepanchuk, V.N., 2005. The archaic to true Upper Paleolithic interface: the case of Mira
in the Middle Dnieper area. Eurasian Prehistory 3, 23–41.
Stepanchuk, V.N., 2011. Early Upper Palaeolithic archaic industries of the eastern
Europe: exploring the question of blade technology and «aurignacoїde» features.
Archeology and ancient history of Ukraine 2, 38–51 (in Russian). http://dspace.
nbuv.gov.ua/bitstream/handle/123456789/83939/07-Stepanchuk.pdf?sequence
=1.
Stepanchuk, V.N., 2013a. Mira: early upper palaeolithic site in the dnieper valley.
Stratum plus (1), 15–110 (In Russian). https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/
search/article?articleId=1450964.
Stepanchuk, V.N., 2013b. Small opportunities and big needs: Mira early Upper
Paleolithic case of raw materials exploitation (Dnieper basin, Ukraine). ERA 138,
131–154.
Stepanchuk, V.N., 2019. Bifacial products of the upper layer of the site of Mira in the
Dnieper region: the context, techno-morphological features, and current
interpretations. Prehistoric Archaeology: J. Interdiscipl. Stud. 2, 5–34. https://doi.
org/10.31600/2658-3925-2019-2-5-34 (In Russian).
Stepanchuk, V., Petrоugne, V., 2005. Raw materials as source for tracing migration: the
case of Mira in Middle Dnieper area. Archaeometriai M˝
uhely 4, 38–45.
Stepanchuk, V.N., Cohen, V. Yu, Pisaryev, I.B., 1998. Mira, a new late Pleistocene site in
the Middle Dnieper, Ukraine (preliminary report). Pyrenae 29, 195–204.
Stepanchuk, V.N., Cohen, V.Yu, Gerasimenko, N.P., Damblon, F., Haesaerts, P.,
Zhuravlev, O.P., Kovalyukh, N.N., Petrougne, V.F., van der Plicht, J., Putshkov, P.V.,
Rekovets, L.I., Turner, C.G., 2004. The multilayered open-air site of Mira in Middle
Dnieper area: the main results of 2000 eld campaign. The Stone Age of Ukraine 5,
62–98 (in Ukrainian).
Stepanchuk, V.N., Sapozhnikov, I.V., Gladkikh, M.I., Ryzhov, S.N., 2009. Ukrainian
Upper Paleolithic between 40/10.000 BP: current insights into
environmentalclimatic change and cultural development. In: Djindjian, F.,
Kozlowski, J., Bicho, N. (Eds.), Le Concept de Territories dans le Pal´
eolithique
sup´
erieur europ´
een. BAR International. Series 1938. British Archaeological Reports,
Oxford, pp. 63–74. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1200191.
Svoboda, J., 2007. The Gravettian on the middle danube. Pal´
eo 19, 203–220.
Svoboda, J., 2015. Perspectives on the upper palaeolithic in eurasia: the case of the dolní
vestonice-pavlov sites. In: Sanz, N. (Ed.), Human Origin Sites and the World Heritage
Convention in Eurasia (HEADS 4) 1. UNESCO, Paris, Mexico City, pp. 190–204.
Sytnyk, O., Cyrek, K., Koropetskyi, R., Wrzesi´
nska, A., 2005. Gravettian site Halych I.
Materials and Studies on Archeology of Sub-carpathian and Volhynian Area 9,
pp. 32–89 (in Ukrainian).
Tartar, E., White, R., 2013. The manufacture of Aurignacian split-based points: an
experimental challenge. J. Archaeol. Sci. 40 (6), 2723–2745. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jas.2013.02.009.
Tejero, J.-M., 2016. Spanish Aurignacian projectile points: an example of the rst
European paleolithic hunting weapons in osseous materials. Vertebrate Paleobiology
and Paleoanthropology 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0899-7_5.
Vietrov, D.O., 2010. The Gravettian sites of the Velyka Vys river basin in Kirovograd
region. Archeology and ancient history of Ukraine 2, 9–16 (in Ukrainian).
Vietrov, D.O., 2015. Gravettian sites of the Southern Bug basin and their connections
with the Gravettian of the Dniester area. The Stone Age of Ukraine 16, 112–125 (in
Ukrainian).
Weninger, B., J¨
oris, O., Danzeglocke, U., 2007. CalPal-2007, cologne radiocarbon
calibration & palaeoclimate research package. http://download.calpal.de/calpal-do
wnload/.
Wierer, U., 2013. Variability and standardization: the early Gravettian lithic complex of
Grotta Paglicci, southern Italy. Quat. Int. 288, 215–238.
Yanevich, O.O., 1999. Buran-kaya 3 in the context of the late paleolithic of Crimea. In:
Archaeological Collection of Papers of the Kherson Oblast State Inspection of
Monuments Protection. Kherson, pp. 132–141 (in Ukrainian).
Yanevich, O.O., 2000. Buran-kaya Gravettian culture of Crimea. Arkheolohiya 2, 11–20
(in Ukrainian).
Yanevich, A., 2014. Les occupations gravettiennes de Buran-Kaya III (Crim´
ee) : contexte
arch´
eologique. L’anthropologie 118, 554–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
anthro.2014.10.006.
Zaliznyak, L.L., Vietrov, D.O., 2011. New Gravettian site of Ozerove in Kirovohrad
region. The Stone Age of Ukraine 14, 56–62 (in Ukrainian).
Zaliznyak, L.L., Stepanchuk, V.M., Tovkaylo, M.T., Vietrov, D.O., Ozerov, P.I., 2007. The
Gravettian of Central Ukraine and its historical fates). Archeology 2, 3–9 (in
Ukrainian).
Zaliznyak, L.L., Vietrov, D.O., Khoptynts, I.M., Ozerov, P.I., 2013. The Gravettian of
Central Ukraine. In: Zaliznyak, L.L. (Ed.), The Ancient Past of Novomyrhorod
Region. The Stone Age of Ukraine, vol. 15, pp. 106–193 (in Ukrainian).
Zhuravlev, O.P., 2015. The Osteological Materials from the Paleolithic Localities of the
Lower Dnieper and Crimea. Oleg Filiuk Press, Kiev (in Russian).
V.N. Stepanchuk and D.O. Vietrov
