ИСТИНА

The open-air Upper Paleolithic site Sungir is located on the central part of the Russian Plain in the basin of Klyazma river, 192 km east of Moscow, at the outskirts of the city of Vladimir (56°11’ NL, and 40°30’ EL) (Bader, 1978). It was found in 1956. For 24 field seasons (1957-2004) an expedition under the leadership of O. Bader, N. Bader and L.A. Mihailova revealed over 4000 square meter of the site area. The site became world famous after the discovery of the four burials, one skull, and two femur fragments with a very rich collection of accompanying inventory. Based on a series of 14С dates the site date to the period from around 29,000 to 26,000 uncalibrated radiocarbon years ago (Homo sungirensis… 2000). Stone industry is characterized by an original stone assemblage with specific triangle points. Analogous industry is discovered at the sites of Kostenki-Streletskian culture at the Middle Done. Also this industry has combined two techno-complex elements: Aurignacian and Szeletian (Bader, 1978; Gavrilov, 2004; Grigoriev, 1990; White, 1993). The faunal record of the Sungir site contains many amount of reindeer, mammoth, horse and polar fox. Literature devoted to Sungir is extensive (see, for example: Bader, 1978; Soldatova, 2014a; White, 1993; Zhitenev, 2013). But up to nowadays not all the materials from this site were research and published completely. As a part of this work a general analysis of bone findings (except objects from children’s burials and personal ornaments) from Sungir was carried out, including technical and typological characteristics. Analysis was conducted of the 175 objects, of which 98 are bone objects, 28 – antler, 49 – ivory. It must be noted that the relatively high percentage of objects made from antler (28 objects, or 16% of the total number of the finds from bone material except personal ornaments and art objects) distinguish Sungir from other chronologically close sites: Kostenki-Streletskian and Aurignacian archaeological sites of the Russian Plain, on which tooled antler was found either in minimum number (1-2 objects for the site) or didn't not occur at all (Bader, 1978; Soldatova, 2014b). The artifacts can be categorized as follows: 1) cores – 2.5%; 2) preforme – 26% (shaft straighteners, points, personal ornaments – “beams” for separate preformes of beads, and ivory flakes), 4) by-products – 7%; 5) undefinable fragments and pieces – 36.5%; 6) various tools – 22% (hoes – 8 items, retouchers – 7 finds, awls – 6 items, baguettes – 5 items, shaft straighteners – 4 finds, points – 3 items, chisels – 2 objects and butt – 1item); 7 ) others – 5% (pins and slotted discs) (Soldatova, 2014a). The bone collection of the Sungir is quite monotonous and we can conclusion that the use of bone took place during the time of human habitation on the site. The material allows the reconstruction of particular technological chaînes opératoires for the production of various items, including ornaments (see, for example: Semenov, 1968; White, 1993). Bone was worked mainly by longitudinal and transversal splitting, cutting, scraping, incision and sawing (?); antler – by chopping, fracture; ivory – by transversal fracture, longitudinal and transversal reduction, scraping, abrasion (?). Typological and technological study has showed that there are some differences between bone- and antler-working and ivory industry: ivory tools and ornaments the better well-formed than bone and antler tools. Also there are practically no ivory tools used in household activity: just hunting weapons (points, spears and, probably, rod- shaped pieces), art objects and ornaments. According some researchers in the Early Aurignacian bone material exploitation is characterized by functional divisions: bone used for domestic activities, antler utilized for hunting, ivory took for personal ornaments and art objects (see, for example: Liolios, 2006; Chiotti et al., 2003; etc). It is necessary for find an explanation of these differences to analyze the collections of other Early Upper Paleolithic sites of Europe (including the transitional industries). This comparison can help understand the reason for the differences of various methods of processing bone, antler and ivory, and in finding similarities – to identify the general nature of the bone industries of this period.