M.G. Zhilin

Kostyanaja industrija mezolita lesnoy zony Vostochnoi Evropy. Moscow. 2001.

Beginning of the Holocene in Eastern Europe was marked by substantial climatic changes, which led to rather quick change of landscapes. In the first half of Preboreal dense forests of the taiga type replaced cold tundra-steppes, park tundra and forest-tundra of terminal Pleistocene. The forest zone of Eastern Europe was formed. Climatic changes and local peculiarities influenced upon composition of forests, but since that time forest was the only zonal type of vegetation at this vast territory. Faunal composition changed in accordance with vegetation changes. In the beginning of the Holocene the forest faunal complex with the leading role of elk as game animal is observed in East European forest zone. Beaver, red deer, wild pig, reindeer occupied the second place in various regions. Human groups settled in new regions with unequal resources of lithic raw material for tool making. At that time main Mesolithic cultures were formed and intercultural links were established at this territory, contacts with population of neighboring territories probably took place.

These events found reflection in the tool kit of early Mesolithic communities. Compared with terminal Paleolithic, stone implements became more various, bust most striking changes are traced in artifacts, made of organic materials, first of all, bone and antler. Hardness and elasticity, capability of getting soft after soaking and retain its features when dried; possibility to apply percussion, cutting, scraping, whittling, sawing, perforation, grinding and polishing for its treatment; large size and wide spread determined very important role of bone and antler as raw materials for tool making in the Mesolithic. It was especially important for numerous regions, poor in flint resources. The number and assortment of bone and antler artifacts in early Mesolithic increased in many times, compared with terminal Paleolithic.

The number of excavated Mesolithic sites with bone and antler implements increased substantially during last decades. New series of reliable scientific dates were made, good progress was achieved in morphological studies of bone and antler artifacts. At the same time substantial progress was observed in the development of technological method of ancient tools research. Development of traceological method, based on experimental modeling of technologies of tool making made possible studies of technology of the manufacture of bone artifacts in the Mesolithic of Eastern Europe on a large scale. The result of such research was detailed reconstruction of primary and secondary treatment of bone and antler and technology of manufacture of various artifacts with exact characteristic of each operation. Such detailed studies on a wide scale formed the basis for tracing evolution of morphology and technology of the manufacture of bone and antler implements in the Mesolithic of East European forest zone as a whole. At the same time it gave possibility to show peculiarities of development of bone industry in separate Mesolithic cultures of this territory and to compare it with neighboring areas.

Emergence of many important tool types and inventions in technology of bone and antler treatment in the forest zone of Eastern Europe took place in the beginning of the Mesolithic, in the first half of the Preboreal. Among them are composite arrowheads, spearheads and daggers with flint inserts – regular microblades, pressed off from specially prepared cores. These inserts were fixed in slots with glue, made of coniferous pitch mixed with bee wax, or birch pitch. The second important invention were composite axes and adzes, made of stone or antler blade, fixed in a slot of an antler sleeve, perforated for attachment to a wooden handle. These two inventions determined development of weapons and wood-cutting tools in many aspects up to late Boreal.

At the same time other important tools and technologies of their manufacture emerged. Development of fishing demanded new gear, and first intact fishing hooks and bone points of fishing spears and leisters (“barbed points”) appear in early Preboreal. For working wood, which became one of most widespread materials in the forest zone, chisels, gouges and various artifacts, made of animals’ teeth and jaws emerged at the same time. The number and diversity of various bone and antler artifacts increased in the second half of the Preboreal, but real flourishing of bone industry is observed in the first half – middle of the Boreal. A wide range of technological schemes of treatment of bone and antler is known at that time, many of them became standard. A great diversity of various tools and weapons was serially produced at that time, many of them are beautifully polished, ornamented and look like masterpieces of art.

Continuity of traditions of production of bone and antler artifacts is observed in the second half of the Mesolithic in the forest zone of Eastern Europe. But we see almost no new technologies of bone work.. On the contrary, some tool types and technologies, connected with their production disappear. Some of them, for example, treatment of surface of arrowheads like on a turning lathe, was not in use again until Iron Age. The role of composite tools with inserts decreases, antler sleeves, gouges, hollow edge scrapers, spearheads gradually disappear. At the same time some new variants of arrowheads and barbed points emerge, their prototypes being known in an earlier period.

The same process is traced in the final Mesolithic, in early Atlantic time. Many tools and weapons are carelessly made, as if in a hurry. Among innovations of this period composite arrowheads with a shallow groove for a flint point at the end are worth noting. The next substantial innovation is the spread of bone and antler sculpture, made in the technique of three dimension carving. Similar trends are observed in the early Neolithic, though in some regions technologies, used previously on a very small scale, become widespread. One such example is the wide use of sawing bone, which was very limited in late Mesolithic Kunda culture, in early Neolithic Narva culture.

Technical and morphological analyses of bone and antler artifacts of separate Mesolithic cultures showed strong semblance in both morphology and technology of the manufacture of inventories of Kunda, Veretje, Onego and Butovo cultures. They can be grouped in the Kunda-Butovo cultural unity (technocomplex), which was formed in early Mesolithic. It is genetically linked with the Swiderian culture. Development of bone and antler inventories of these cultures during the Mesolithic was to much extent similar. At the same time, each of them has its own specific features in tool types and technology of their manufacture, as well, as in development of bone industry. By the end of the Mesolithic differentiation between then increased. It indicates, that Kunda, Veretje, Onego and Butovo were related, but separate cultures, and each of them had its own way of development. The Resseta culture, which is clearly distinct from these four by its flint inventory, showed strong difference in bone artifacts also. This culture is studied very poorly, the number of bone tools is very small, but it is clear, that it does not belong to the Kunda-Butovo cultural unity.

Comparison with materials from neighboring territories – cultures Duvensee and Maglemose to the west, and sites of the Urals region to the east, showed different picture. The semblance between East European and Duvensee and Maglemose materials is of the most general character. It could be explained by properties of raw material, possibilities of processing it with stone tools, and similar economy in forest environment. Differences in morphology of tools, technology of their manufacture and in composition of tool kits are plenty and deep. They indicate, that Duvensee and Maglemose, on one side, and cultures of East European forest zone on the other, belong to different cultural unites, or technocomplexes. Sporadic contacts with the Maglemose culture is traced only in materials of the Kunda culture.

Comparison of artifacts from the East European forest zone with the Urals region also shows strong difference, indicating, that they belong to different cultural unites or technocomplexes. But at the same time strong semblance, even in specific details, which can’t be explained by general properties of raw material or its treatment in the Mesolithic, is observed. It is seen most clearly in the most important weapon group – bone arrowheads. Taking into account chronology of assemblages, we come to a conclusion, that the Urals region population had borrowed some types of bone arrowheads with technology of their manufacture from the Eastern Europe, most probably in early Boreal. It is hard to describe mechanics of this process now, but we can say, that the border between these two cultural unites was obscure, and cultural contacts were regular. It can also be traced in early Neolithic.

The research, presented above, showed great informative abilities of Mesolithic bone and antler artifacts and good perspectives for its studies from morphological and technological points of view. Like lithic, bone and antler tools can be widely used for cultural and chronological attribution of sites. Weapons, wood-cutting tools and ornaments are the most informative for such studies. Investigation of materials of excavated sites with clear cultural belonging, dated by scientific methods gave morphological and technological criteria for division of materials of large mixed collections of bone and antler tools and attribution of stray finds. The number of reliable sites is still small, so discovery and excavations of them is one of primary tasks for future investigations. Bone and antler tools, many of which have no analogies among stone artifacts, are very important for investigation of economy, way of life and spiritual culture of Mesolithic population. Functional analysis of these tools, based on traceological, experimental and ethnographic data would be very useful for this purpose, but it is the subject of other large scale research.