Cultural stratigraphy at Mezhirich,
an Upper Palaeolithic site in Ukraine
with multiple occupations
OLGASOFFER,
JAMES M. ADOVASIO,
NINELJ
L. KORNIETZ,
ANDREI
A. VELICHKO,
YURIJN. GRIBCHENKO,
BRETTR. LENZ
81 VALERIY
Yu. SUNTSOV*
The later Palaeolithic sites on the East European plain are celebrated for their solid
buildings constructed of mammoth bones. Were these permanent settlements, occupied
all the year round? Or were they seasonally occupied, in a land where winters are harsh?
Stratigraphic explorations at Mezhirich, and excavation of the empty space between the
buildings, leads to a decisive interpretation.
The Upper Palaeolithic record of Eastern Europe -replete with spectacular mammoth-bone
dwellings and multiple features, including storage pits - is well known to professional and
1).It includes at least
lay audiences (FIGURE
1 3 sites such as Dobranichevka, Eliseevichi,
Gontsy, Mezin, Mezhirich, and Yudinovo, which
cluster near the valleys of the Dniepr and Desna
rivers and their tributaries, also such outliers
as Milovice near the Dyje in Moravia, and
Anosovka I1 and Kostenki I1 on the Don in Russia
(Soffer 1985; Svoboda et al. 1996). Radiocarbon assays from these sites, predominantly on
burnt mammoth bone and teeth - a less than
optimal medium - date their occupation to a
period between some 22,000 and 12,000 b.p.
(Svezhentsev 1993; Svoboda e t al. 1996). Although they do show some regional differences,
their lithic inventories are all assigned to the
poorly defined Eastern Gravettian technocomplex.
The sheer size of some of these sites, together
with the abundance of their features and the
wealth of their inventories has led many scholars
to see them as fully settled Palaeolithic villages
occupied by sizeablecommunities on a year-round
basis (e.g.Bibikov 1969; Klima 1983;Pidoplichko
1969; Shovkoplyas 1965). Pidoplichko (1969:
148), using meat weight estimates, postulated
that Dobranichevka was occupied for 8 years,
Gontsy for 9, Mezin for 8,and Mezhirich for
20 years. Other researchers, citing the presence
of particular taxa at the sites that were presumably harvested in different seasons, have argued
for year-round sedentism as well (e.g. Kornietz
et al. 1981). These conclusions use untested
assumptions including that:
all of the dwellings were occupied at the
same time
all the osteological remains resulted from
active hunting which gave the hunters
access to the animal protein.
They also disregard the fact that the storage of
food by freezing in dug-in pits erases the direct tie between the season of procurement and
the season of consumption [Soffer 1989).
Finally, seeing these sites as sedentary villages occupied for a decade or two also stands
in stark contrast to the thinness of the cultural
layers reported from these purportedly singlelayer sites where their thickness averages c. 10
cm (for full discussion see Soffer 1985).
In this paper we report the results of our
macro- and micro-stratigraphic studies at one
* Soffer & Suntsov, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois, 109 Davenport Hall, Urbana IL 61801, USA.
Adovasio, Mercyhurst Archaeological Institute, Mercyhurst College, Erie PA 16546, USA. Kornietz, Tsentral'nyj
Prirodovedcheskij Muzej NAN Ukrainy, m l . T. Shevtenko, Kyiv 252031, Ukraine. W i c h k o & Gribchenko, Laboratoria
Evoliutsionnoi Geografii, IG RAN, Staromonetnyj per. 29, Moscow 109017, Russia. Lenz, 210 North Poplar Street,
Ellensburg WA 98926, USA.
Received 2 1 April 1996, accepted 11July 1996, revised 19 October 1996.
ANTIQUITY
7 1 (1997): 48-62
-
CULTURAL STRATlGRAPHY AT MEZHIRICH, AN UPPER PALAEOLITHIC SITE IN UKRAINE
0
49
300
I---
km
/
Minsk
Eliseevichi
0 Moscow
2,
Yudinovo A
FIGURE
1. T h e East European Plain: Mezhirich and other mentioned Upper Palaeolithic sites.
5 0
SOFFER, ADOVASIO, KORNIETZ, VELICHKO, GRIBCHENKO, LENZ & SUNTSOV
r-"":
i
L... -
I
- ..!
4
L
m
FIGURE2. Plan of Mezhirich, 1995.
Keyed elements are
1 dwellings;
2 garbage dumps;
3 large bones;
4 hearths;
5 pits;
6 village road.
of these sites - Mezhirich - which clearly
documents repeated seasonal re-occupation
rather than year-round sedentism.
The site of Mezhirich
Location
The site, found in the centre of the Mezhirich
village (49"38'N,31°24'E),is located in the Kanev
raion, Cherkassy oblast' in Ukraine, some 160
Lin e/da te corn bin a tions indica f e :
1966 - excavation of Dwelling 1;
1969-1 970 - excavation of Dwelling 2;
1972 - excavation of Dwelling 3;
1974 - excavation of Dwelling 3;
1976 - Gladkikh excavation;
1979 and o n - excavation of Dwelling 4;
1989 - Gladkikh test trench.
km (100 miles) directly south of the capital city
of Kyiv. A suite of radiocarbon dates on osteological remains indicates that Mezhirich was
occupied around 15,000 years ago (Svezhentsev
1993).
Cultural remains here are found in calcareous loess at the depth of 2.7-3.4 m. below the
present-day surface, which, in turn, lies at the
height of c. 98 m above the level of the Baltic
CULTURAL STRATIGRAPHY AT MEZHIRICH, AN UPPER PALAEOLITHIC SITE IN UKRAINE
51
FIGURE
3. Dwelling 4,
1979 field season.
[Photo 0. Soffer.)
sea (Gladkikh & Kornietz 1978). Geomorphological studies indicate that at the time of occupation the site sat on a promontory of the
second terrace which sloped gently towards the
confluence of the near-by Ros’ and Rossava rivers. Macrostratigraphic work, which shows
cultural remains associated with embryonic soil
formation, coupled with palaeoenvironmental
reconstructions, shows that people occupied
the site during one of the milder interstadials,
possibly the Trubchevskij, which followed the
Last Glacial Maximum (Velichko et nl. 1994).
History of research
Mezhirich is quite well known in the literature. Its fame rests on its spectacular features,
which include mammoth-bone dwellings made
of at least 149 animals, numerous external storage pits, internal and external hearths filled with
burnt mammoth bones, external dump areas,
as well as extensive faunal and artefactual inventories (Gladkikh et al. 1984; Kornietz et nl.
1981; Pidoplichko 1976; Soffer 1985).
The site was discovered in 1965 when a local
farmer, Mr Novitsky, expanding a food-storage
cellar outside of his house, encountered large bones
of what turned out to be a mammoth. Subsequent
excavations, from 1966 intermittently to the
present, have yielded four round or oval dwellings, ranging in area between c. 1 2 and 24 sq. In.
These dwellings,located 10-24 m from each other,
lie in a V-shaped pattern fanning out in the direction of the rivers (FIGURES
2, 3).
As at other like sites, the Mezhirich dwellings contained interior hearths and work-areas,
exterior work-areas, and what appear to be garbage-dump areas found close to the dwellings.
Although extensive coring showed the presence of cultural remains over an area some 10,
000 sq. m in size, this area was not investigated
continuously or contiguously; rather, a series
of level-unconnected excavations were designed
to uncover, investigate, and remove a particular mammoth-bone dwelling and associated
materials in its immediate vicinity (Pidoplichko
1976; Soffer 1985; Soffer et al. 1994). These
excavations of limited size, while producing a
plethora of information, focused on studying
individual components of the site rather than
of the entire settlement; they left the central
area between the dwellings totally uninvestigated.
Site type
There is much which we already know about
Mezhirich. The documented spread of cultural
materials over an area of some 10,000 sq. m, if
occupied simultaneously, represents one of the
largest -if not the largest -Upper Palaeolithic
settlement on record. The nature and abundance
of the features and the diversity of the inventories suggests a residential site. The relative
thinness of what has been reported as a single
cultural layer (but see Kornietz et al. 1981)
suggests a limited duration of occupation. Inventories for the three fully excavated dwell-
5 2
SOFFER, ADOVASIO, KORNIETZ, VELICHKO, GRIBCHENKO, LENZ & SUNTSOV
FIGURE
4. Detail of current Mezhirich excavation, showing Dwelling 4 and related features.
Keyed elements are:
1 storage pits around Dwelling 4;
4 excavation of Dwelling 2 and nearby areas;
2 large mammoth bones;
5 unexcavated areas;
3 remnants of cultural layer;
6 excavation of Dwelling 1.
ings indicate their use as habitation structures
where such utilitarian activities as tool-manufacturing and repair and food preparation and
cooking took place. Contextualizing Mezhirich
in a regjonal settlement matrix argues against
its being a seasonal aggregation location. At the
same time, the site-wide planning and design
evident in the construction of the mammothbone dwellings hints at Mezhirich being more
than a simple base camp (Soffer 1985). The
faunal inventory, taken with data on the making and use of in-ground storage pits and hearths,
has been interpreted by the senior author of
this paper as indic:ating occupation during the
cold season or seasons (Soffer 1985; Soffer et
01. 1994).
Recent research at Mezhirich
Our research at Mezhirich centres around the
excavation of c . 200 sq. m that include Dwell-
ing 4, the features that surround it, and the area
between this dwelling and Dwellings 1 and 2
uncovered and removed in the 1960s and 1970s.
It is a multidisciplinary collaborative project
involving scholars from Ukraine, Russia, Great
Britain, and the United States. As done by our
predecessors, our basic site grid is of 2x2-m units,
sub-divided into four metre-square quadrants
sequentially lettered A, B, V, G. In addition to
the scientific agenda, our work is motivated
by the decree of the Presidium of Ukrainian
Academy of Sciences to build a research museum at the site, which necessitates investigating
the area on which it will be built.
In the 1992-1996 seasons we concentrated
on excavating the central part of the site -the
area lying between Dwellings 4, 2, and 1, including a microstratigraphic excavation of Pit
4, some 2 m east of Dwelling 4 - and a trench
running across Dwelling 4 (FIGURE
4).
CULTURAL STRATIGRAPHY AT MEZHIRICH, AN UPPER PALAEOLITHIC SITE IN UKRAINE
53
FIGURE
5. Plan view
of Pit 4,1995 season.
(Photo 0.Soifer:)
Pit 4
Of five pits which surrounded Dwelling 4, three
(Pits 1-3) were fully excavated in the 1980s,
while we were able to study the partially excavated pits numbered 4 and 5 .
These two pits, south and east of the dwelling, are significantly different from each other.
Our previous research showed Pit 5 to be a typical garbage-dump, packed with burnt bone and
bone ash, fragmented burnt and unburnt bone,
lithic debris, small pieces of amber and ochre,
and carnivore and leporid paws in anatomical
order (Adovasio et al. 1994).This pit contained
very few large bones which primarily bordered
it. The north-south stratigraphic profile across
the centre of this pit, which has not been fully
excavated to date, shows a clean sterile sand
lens at the depth of 429 to 435 cm below a permanent wall-mark that separates the overlying
pit fill from what lies below. The stratigraphic
connection between this pit fill and the adjacent remains of the cultural layer indicates that,
although most of the fill came from purposeful dumping episodes, some material flowed
into the pit after the site was abandoned.
Pit 4 tells a different story. Partially excavated at various times in the 1970s and 1980s,
enough remained of Pit 4 to allow reconstruction of its east-west profile and probable dimensions on this axis (c.2.5 m) as well as its
north-south profile and probable depth (c. 1
m). Fortunately, though the southern edge of
the pit i s incomplete, the eastern one-half to
one-third was essentially intact from its sur5, 6). Due to
face to very near its base (FIGURES
the well-preserved condition of this part of Pit
4, it was decided to excavate it by microstratigraphic levels and to extract a continuous sediment and geochemical sampling
column.
The microstratigraphic excavation of Pit 4
produced very few cultural materials and indicates a distinctly different use and life-his6 demonstrates, Pit
tory for the pit. As FIGURE
4 is excavated from the surface of a thin ( G . 152 0 cm) depositional unit designated in 19931994 as Stratum A (Velichko et al. 1994) upon
and into which Dwelling 4 is also excavated.
Stratum A is a light yellowish brown (2.5Y6/
4) loess-like silt with a noticeable abundance
of very pale brown (lOYR8/3)carbonates, many
in the form of concretions which strongly resemble root casts. Numerous intercalated discontinuous sand lenses occur in Stratum A,
some of which are plano-convex to biconvex
in cross-section with diameters ranging from
10 to 20 cm. Geochemical analyses of Stratum
A document an increase in humus and CaCO,
content: it is reasonable to consider this unit a
weakly or poorly developed palaeosol or incipient A horizon. The origin of the discontinuous sand lenses has been postulated as
resulting from rain or melting snow accumulating as a series of puddles which washed the
clay-sized particles out of the matrix (Velichko
et a]. 1994).
5 4
SOFFER, ADOVASIO, KORNIETZ, VELICHKO, GRIBCHENKO, LENZ & SUNTSOV
FIGURE
6. Partial profile of Pit 4 at Mezhirich, facing east. Sand 0 i s not shown in this profile.
Pit 4 extends through and truncates a package of microstrata underlying Stratum A (Field
Designation B-G, 2)as well as still deeper strata
designated H and I. Units B-G and Z, cryogenically deformed, probably represent a period of locally severe climate while H may be
another and older palaeosol. The base of Pit 4
penetrates into and partially truncates depositional units previously identified as Strata J,
K, and L which appear to be a series of fluvial
sands (Velichko et (11. 1994: 14).
The base of Pit 4 is lined with a thin (c. 3
cm) layer of sterile sand (Sand 0)which in turn
is superimposed by a level of loess fill (Field
Designation F4a). This package is in turn overlain by another thin sterile sand lens (Sand 1).
Above Sand 1are three more loess fill units the uppermost of which is subdivided into two
parts. These are designated from lowermost to
uppermost as F4b, F4c, F4d and F4d.l. All hut
the surface of the uppermost loess unit are veneered with sterile sands, labelled in ascending order, Sands 1, 2 , 3 and 3a.
The large mammoth bones, with the exception of cranial elements, were found at the very
bottom of the pit; they likely represent those
meat stores which were not used prior to first
abandonment of the pit. The different positions
of the cranial elements in this pit -some near
the outside edges, others diagonally slanting
towards the centre - suggests they originally
served as structural elements either on the sides
of the pit or positioned on top surrounding the
pit. The use of mammoth cranial elements to
delimit this pit was previously reported in relation to a mammoth tusk stuck vertically at
the western edge of this pit (Soffer et (11.1994).
Similar structuring of pits with mammoth crania has been observed by Grekhova (1985) at
the site of Eliseevichi as well.
Detailed particle size analysis (PSA) on each
of the loess and sand units within Pit 4 are
graphically displayed in FIGURES
5-8. As FIGURE 6 clearly indicates, sands 2, 3 and 3a exhibit very similar grain-distribution patterns
which are interpreted as representing a single
source. Sands 0 and 1,quite different from each
other and from that ‘set’,are interpreted as two
other sand sources (see FIGURES
6 & 9). The minor
silt distributions with the sands are congruent
with and verify this tri-fold grouping.
Significantly, the PSA profiles for Sands 03a are quite different from those cited in Velichko
et al. (1994) for the fluvial sand units in the
stratigraphic sequence beneath Dwelling 4;
further, they lack any evidence of laminations
or structures reflective of a fluvial origin. Indeed, rather than a fluvial or any other natural
transport mechanism or origin, we interpret the
sands within Pit 4 to result from deliberate
planned anthropogenic activity reflecting at least
three chronologically distinct use-episodes in
the life of the pit. Pollen spectra recovered from
I
the analogous sterile sand lens in Pit 5 have
CULTURAL STRATIGRAPHY AT MEZHIRICH, AN UPPER PALAEOLITHIC SITE IN UKRAINE
Mezhirich
1995 PSA analysis.
Pit 4 stratigraphic
units.
~
FlGURE 7.
F4d.l
F4b
House sand
Sand 3
Sand 2
Sand 0
55
~~
Sand 3a
Sand 1
-
I
ii
p” 20
----I
ji
VCOS
I
f
t-
t
COS
FIGURE 8.Mezhirich
1995 PSA analysis.
Pit 4, Sands 2, 3, and
3a.
been identified as Palaeogene in age while those
recovered from culture-bearing Stratum A are
assignable to Late Pleistocene taxa. Sands of
Palaeogene age are reported in the vicinity of
the site. Extending these observations to Pit 4,
we suggest that an anthropogenic transport
mechanism offers the most parsimonious explanation for their occurrence in this pit.
Pit unit 4d, which ‘caps’ Pit 4, exhibits a
fining upward pattern which suggests that af-
MS1
MS2
FS1
texture
FS2
VFSl
VFS2
ter final abandonment, this feature was gradually infilled by loess; it may have held standing water. A leaching zone just above Sand 3a
supports this (FIGURES
6 , 10).
The hypothesis, to be tested first through
biochemical assay, is that Fit 4 served on at
least three separate occasions to store meat on
the bone. This use of pits is documented at other
similar sites on the Russian or East European
Plain where they were excavated into perma-
SOFFER, ADOVASIO, KORNIETZ, VELICHKO, GRIBCHENKO, LENZ & SUNTSOV
5 6
5 30
e
25
5 20
c
f
15
Q)
a 10
2
“
W
e3
.3
5
$ 0
FIGURE
9.Mezhirich
1995 PSA analysis.
Pit 4 sands.
texture
cm
texture
frost to the depth of the summer thaw layer, and
used to store meat in the naturally created icecellars (Pidoplichko 1969; 1976; Shovkoplyas
1965; Soffer 1985).
Soffer (1985; 1989)has argued that two types
of pits found at Mezhirich - and yet another
type of pit completely filled with large-sized
bones, antlers, and tusks found at Anosovka I1
and Gontsy -resulted from the sequential use
FIGURE
10. Mezhirich
1995 PSA. Pit 4, strat
F - 4d fining
upwards sequence.
of the pits throughout the residential season at
the sites: first to store meat on the bone, then
to store bones to keep them fresh for tool-manufacturing and burning in hearths, and finally
as garbage-dumps. Our excavations of the two
of the three types at Mezhirich - one probably used for meat storage and the other for
garbage disposal - lends partial support for
this hypothesis but argues against it as well.
CULTURAL STRATIGRAPHY AT MEZHIRICH, AN UPPER PALAEOLITHIC SITE IN UKRAINE
First, the interstratification of loess with anthropogenic sand lenses in Pit 4 suggests this pit
served the same function during different occupations. The presence of a sterile sand lens in Pit
5 argues for a similar conclusion there. The functional transformation of one type of pit into another posited by Soffer (1985) probably did not
occur during one long season of occupation; it
may have taken place over a longer span of time
and through a number of occupation episodes.
Central part of the site
Our excavation of the central part of the site
between Dwellings 1, 2, and 4 addressed the
relationship between different settlement components and the questicin of whether the different components at Mezhirich were occupied
synchronically. Pidoplichko (1976) concluded
that bones of the same individual mammoths
in constructing different dwellings made their
contemporaneity likely. Soffer (1985)augmented
this argument by noting the site-wide design
evident in the construction of the dwellings.
Testing this hypothesis through excavations
revealed a more ambiguous scenario.
Specifically, the excavation of the area between three of the dwellings showed an absence
of a continuous cultural layer between theni
and a great sparseness of cultural remains. Away
from the dwellings and features directly associated with them, cultural remains -lithic and
osteological fragments -occurred as very sparse
discontinuous small patches of ephemeral thickness (to 1-1.5 cm).Circular matrix discolouration
as well as the presence of almost vertically standing artefacts in these patches suggest disturbance by burrowing animals.
Work near the previously excavated Dwellings 1 and 2 revealed more abundant cultural
remains and additional features. Two pits of
uncertain origin lie just to the west of Dwelling 1 (numbers 7 & 8 in FIGURE
4).These pits,
except for three large mammoth bones, had no
cultural remains surrounding them. These features were identified in plan through the spatial distribution of concentric ‘rings’ of sand
lenses which probably reflect the different episodes of pit fill. The periphery of pit no. 7 contained a mammoth mandible and a long bone
which lay gently sloping towards the pit. A few
parallel sand lenses, running north-south between these two possible pits, suggest their
association with an already extant depression
57
or gully whose relationship to the pits or depressions remains under study.
Another fragment of a mammoth long bone
marked the western edge of the southern pit or
depression (no. 8, FIGURE
4). The area between
this pit and the backfill from the 1966 excavation of Dwelling 1, some 6 m to the NW, contained fairly abundant cultural remains -burned
and unburned bones and lithics. These materials are likely related to the hearth Pidoplichko
reported excavating to the south of Dwelling
1, and constitute a part of its periphery. Both
of these features will be excavated during future field seasons.
A third possible pit was identified just south
of the previous excavations around Dwelling
2 (keyed as number 6 in FIGURE 4). This feature was also seen in plan view through the
presence of concentric sand lenses and three
small fragments of mammoth bones on its periphery. As with the two pits near Dwelling l,
the periphery of this pit contained no cultural
remains.
The only part of the central area between
the dwellings which did contain a continuous,
dark-coloured cultural layer was uncovered in
squares 318 and 321 where it formed an oval
continuous deposit c. 2 m long and up to 2 cm
thick. Consisting of fragments of burned and
unburned bone, lithics and ochre, it is similar
in composition to the toptalishche or dump area
we previously excavated south of Dwelling 1
(see Adovasio et al. 1994 with references). We
interpret this feature, whose northern and western parts are truncated by previous excavations,
as representing the remnants of a continuous
midden deposit extending southward from
Dwelling 2 to the periphery of Dwelling 4. Previous research has reported parts of this feature in squares around Dwelling 4 where it was
reported to be thinner and less intensely coloured (Gladkikh & Kornietz 1978; 1982), and
in squares around Dwelling 2 , where it appears
to have been considerably thicker (Pidoplichko
1976; Gladkikh 1977).
This feature between Dwellings 1and 2 ties
them chronologically and suggests that at least
these two may have been occupied simultaneously. Tying patches excavated at different times
into a continuous layerimidden deposit and arguing for contemporaneity of occupation is hypothetical;this hypothesis, however, is currently
being tested with conjoining studies.
5 8
SOFFER, ADOVASIO, KORNIETZ, VELICHKO, GRIBCHENKO, LENZ & SUNTSOV
0
2
I
m
FIGURE11. Dwelling 4. Shaded areas represent concentrations of cultural remains and ash. Features
numbered 1-5 are pits. The central rectangle represents the area excavated during the 1994-1995field
seasons. Dotted area -hearth location.
The midden deposit is thicker in the contiguous squares of excavations around Dwelling 2 (Gladkikh & Kornietz 1978) suggesting
the bulk of it was associated with Dwelling 2.
Its location south of Dwelling 2, when combined with our excavations of a thick midden
deposit south of Dwelling 4 (Adovasio et a].
1994) permits u s to suggest a non-random placement of midden deposits at the site. The dumping was done mostly south of the dwellings.
Because we have yet to understand how these
dwellings were entered, it remains unclear if
this location simply reflects the positioning of
entrances, or also conforms to cultural pro-
scriptions or environmental considerations, such
as prevailing wind direction.
Dwelling 4
The 1994 and 1995 field seasons also studied
Dwelling 4, unearthed in 1978, made of the bones
of at least 29 mammoths and containing an interior hearth. After its opening and prior to our
excavation, the dwelling had its more fragile
surficial tusks -about 40 -removed. Periodic
cleaning and conservation have inadvertently
removed some cultural materials from inside it.
The work here cleaned, stabilized and conserved the remaining bones, and investigated
CI JLTURAL STRATIGRAPHY AT MEZHIRICH, AN UPPER PALAEOLITHIC SITE IN UKRAINE
its occupation in a manner least destructive to
a feature slated for in s i t u preservation and
potential exhibition. A 1-mx5-m trench was
partially hand-excavated across the dwelling
in a west-to-east direction (FIGURES
11,12),the
orientation so selected because it involved the
removal of the fewest remaining mammoth
bones. The discussion of this dwelling is necessarily tentative in nature.
The distribution of the cultural materials in
the excavated 5 sq. m showed that the dwelling was artificially emplaced into Stratum A
rather than built upon its surface. This is congruent with previous speculation based on conductivity studies within the dwelling (Strong
et al. 1994). Cultural remains from the outer
squares, east and west in the trench, were repeatedly at higher elevations than in the centre. The range of materials recovered - lithic
materials at all stages of the reduction and retouch sequence -from nuclei to minute debitage -was distributed in both the eastern and
western parts of the trench; both primary flaking and retouch and rejuvenation of tools took
place inside the dwelling. These production and
maintenance activities were augmented by the
use of colourants -red and yellow ochre, and
biotite and muscovite mica - as well as by
the use of bone and antler tools, e.g. an intact
eyed ivory needle and a hammer made of reindeer antler. Unburned, complete skeletons of
Arctic fox or weasel-sized animals in the trench
suggest that skinning of fur-bearing carnivores
also took place inside the dwelling; and burned
and calcined osteological remains of herbivores, as well as hares, show the same of food
preparation and consumption.
Our trench also contained a portion of a
hearth, which was simply cleaned and opened,
but not excavated; filled with burned bone
charcoal, it was concave in profile - as little
as 0.5 cm thick at its northern boundary, but
deepening to 3 cm at the southern boundary.
The northern, southern and western edges of
this burned mass were delimited by large sections of mammoth tusks placed horizontally,
which possibly curbed the feature. People occupying this dwelling made fires inside it which
they probably used for light and for cooking.
Microscopic analyses of flotation samples taken
in cleaning the top of this feature show minuscule fragments of both hard and soft woods,
possibly used to kindle the bones which served
59
FIGURE12. Trench across Dwelling 4, including
squares 332B; 333A, B; 334 A, B), 1995 seuson
[photo 0. Soffer).
as the primary fuel. This analysis of plant remains, by Mason ef d.(1995), also shows the
microscopic presence of berries and seed plants
-all potential plant nutrients used to augment
the diet of animal protein postulated for the
inhabitants of the site.
The microstratigraphy of the trench, and
horizontal and vertical distributions of the artefacts, shows at least two discrete occupation
horizons, each or both of which may have been
associated with cleaning or sweeping episodes.
Two layers of superimposed horizontally distributed artefacts are clearly present. The majority of the cultural remains, including an
ochre-stained grinding stone, antler hammer,
mica colourant, and a complete skeleton of a
fur-bearing carnivore came from depths between
-396.5 and -392; below is a sterile sand layer,
then other cultural remains at the depth of 404 cm. Similarly, near the east end, many finds
came from depths of -399 to 4 0 3 cm, a hori-
6 0
SOFFER, ADOVASIO, KORNIETZ, VELICHKO, GRIBCHENKO, LEN2 & SUNTSOV
FIGURE
13. Two layers
observed in square
333B, 1995 field
season (photo J.M.
Adovasiol.
zon separated by a clear sterile layer of sand
up to 5 cm thick from another cultural horizon; at the depth of -406 cm to -411 cm. It
contained more lithics, an ochre-stained grinding stone, and an articulated skeleton of a furbearing carnivore. A third, and the clearest
indication of a second occupation layer, came
from a small 10 cmx30 cm area in the northern
part of the trench (FIGURE
13). In it a hearth at
the depth of 4 0 5 cm was underlain by a sterile layer and then a horizontally-lying unburnt
reindeer antler together with a few lithics at
the depth of 4 1 1 . 3 cm. Our on-going study of
the vertical distribution of the lithic artifacts
across the dwelling centre, controlling for the
size and weight of the pieces, as well as conjoining studies, indicate that cultural remains
in the dwelling did not experience any postdepositional disturbance due to seasonal heezethaw cycles (Suntsov 1996). At least two intact
and chronologically separate occupation floors
are recognized in this dwelling.
The sand separating the two layers of cultural remains i n the trench differ in texture
from the sand found elsewhere on the site.
Particle size analysis of the Dwelling 4 sand
lens indicates that it is the same sand or derives from the same source as Sand 0 as the
bottom of Pit 4 (FIGURES
7, 9). This, in turn,
suggests that the excavation of Pit 4 is synchronous with the initiation of the second
occupation of Dwelling 4 and, further, that
all three pit-refurbishing events are part of
the second use of the dwelling.
A smaller number of artefacts were found
in both the western and eastern parts of the
trench which lay above the two delimited occupation horizons. In sterile loess not coloured
by inclusions of burned matter or colourants,
these were stratified between very thin sand
lenses. Their depths in the western part of the
trench ranged from -388 cm to -393 cm and in
the eastern part from -392 cm to -396 cm. We
think these possibly result from regular sweep
or clean episodes associated with one or both
of the two main occupation horizons documented for the dwelling.
In sum, the data from the trench inside
Dwelling 4 mirror those from Pit 4 associated
with it, and suggest that the site was occupied
during at least two occasions. We hypothesize
that the site’s occupants, upon each return to
the site, cleaned and stabilized the surface of
the features they intended to use by throwing
down clean sand obtained from sources near
the site, practices amply documented in the
ethnographic and archaeological literature.
Interpretations and conclusions
Our excavations at Mezhirich during the 1994
and 1995 field seasons have shown the following:
CULTURAL STRATIGRAPHY AT MEZHIRICH, AN UPPER PALAEOLITHIC SITE IN UKRAINE
61
Dwelling 4 served as a residential feature
where people conducted a full range of activities, including processing and cooking of foods,
tool manufacture and rcpair, the sewing and
repair of clothing, and the skinning and processing of fur-bearers for hides or pelts. The diverse
inventory inside the dwelling, the sparseness
of cultural remains outside it, together with
tentative evidence for the periodic cleaning and/
or sweeping of the dwelling and the dumping
of garbage in outside middens, argue that processing and maintenance activities were carried out indoors. A concentra‘tion of diverse
human activities i n roofed-over space adds
further credence to the hypothesis that these
were cold-weather occupations in this land of
harsh winters.
The presence of at least two occupation horizons inside Dwelling 4, mirrored in the stratification observed in Pits 4 and 5 , argue that
the site was occupied not by fully sedentary
groups but by mobile groups who periodically
returned here.
The sterile anthropogenic sand layers in the
two pits and in Dwelling 4 suggests that groups
returning to the site may have prepared and
stabilized their living surfaces by lining them
with clean sand obtained near-by.
The relative thinness of cultural horizons
inside Dwelling 4 suggests that stays lasted a
matter of months rather than years.
The patterned location of garbage disposal
areas outside the dwellings, identified south
of Dwellings 2 and 4, suggests some permanence
in site use - something also reflected in the
reuse of pits for the same functions. Periodic
returns to the site, we think, occurred during a
short time-span congruent with people’s memo-
Acknowledgemenfs. The 1990-1995 field work and attendant
laboratory analyses of Mezhirich, Ukraine were funded by
the National Geographic Society, t h e International Research
and Exchange Board (IREX), the Wenner Gren Foundation
for Archaeological ResearLh, Mercyhurst College, the University of Illinois, and the Tsentral’nyj Prirodovedcheskij
Muzej, NAN Ukrainy. FIGURES
2 , 4 & 11were drafted by S.
Holland and FTGLJRE 6 is by D. Pedler.
References
&OV.4SIO, J. M., 0.SOFMK,
K.W CAW, C.L. F’EDLFR, D.C. KIRKMAAT,
D.R. PEDLER,
R. DAVIS,N.KORNIETZ & M.R. BUYCE. 1994.
Pits and middens at Mezhirich: the third installment. Paper presented at the SAA annual meeting, Anaheim [CA).
BIBIKOV,
S.N. 1969. Nekotoriye aspekti paleoekonomicheskogo
modelirovaniya paleolita, Sovetskaia Arkheologjia 4: 5-23.
GLADKIKH,
M.I. 1977. Otchet o raskopkakh Mezhirichskogo
pozdnepaleoliticheskogo poselenia v 1976 godu. Keport
on file at the Institute of Archaeology, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Kyiv.
GLADKIKH,
M.I. & N.L. KORNIETZ.1978. Otchet o raskopkakh
Mezhirichskogopozdnepaleoliticheskogo poselenia v 1978
godu. Report on file at the Institute of Archaeology,Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Kyiv.
1982. Otchet o raskopkakh Mezhirichskogo pozdnepaleoliticheskogo poselenia v 1879-1 981 godakh. Report on
file at the Institute of Archaeology, Ukrainian Academy
of Sciences, Kyiv.
GLADKIKH,
M.I., N.L. KORNIETZ
& 0. SOFFER.
1984. Mammoth
bone dwellings on the Russian Plain, Scientific American (November): 164-75.
GREKHOVA,
L.V. 1985. Kostno-zemlianye konstruktsii na pozdnepaleoliticheskoj stoianke Eliseevichi, Trudy Gosudarstvennogo storicheskogo Muzeia 60: 5-33.
KLIMA, B. 1983. Dolni VCstonice. Praha: Academia,
KORNIETZ,N.L., M.I. GLADKIKH,
A.A. VELTCHKO, G.V. ANTONOVA,
Y.N. GRIBCHENKO,
E.M. ZELIKSON,
E.I. KLIRENKOVA,T.A.
KHALCHEVA& A.L. CHEPALYGA.
1981. Mezhirich, in A.A.
Velichko [ed.),Arkheologiia i paleogeografiia pozdnego
Paleolita Russkoj ravniny 1[)6-119. Moscow: Nauka.
MASON,S . , J. HATHER
& G. HILLMAN.
1996. Preliminary report on the plant remains from Mezhirich 1 9 9 5 excavations, in Otchet o raskopkakh pozdnepaleoliticheskoi
stoianki Mezhirich 1995 godu. Report on file at the Institute of Archaeology, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences,
Kyiv.
ries of it - as would be the case with seasonal
returns.
The absence of a continuous cultural layer
in the central part of the site between the dwellings can be interpreted in a number of ways. It
can be used to argue against the synchronic
occupation of the dwellings. But the explanation we favour is that since the site was probably occupied during the bitter cold seasons, a
minimum of activities would have been performed outdoors -resulting in a minimum of
archaeological remains deposited. One can
predict that materials found outside would
primarily consist of garbage dumped through
periodic cleaning of the dwellings - as amply
documented at Mezhirich.
Our data also suggest a probability that at
least two of the dwellings at Mezhirich, numbers 2 and 4, were occupied simultaneously.
This is the first empirical evidence linking two
habitation complexes at the site behaviourally
to each other and one being evaluated through
on-going conjoining studies.
The distribution of the storage and refuse pits,
around each dwelling rather than in a central
communal location, tends to argue for autonomous economic behaviour of each household
rather than for some central pooling of resources,
evidence in good accord with egalitarian economic
relationships postulated for coeval sites on the
East European Plain (Soffer 1985).
6 2
SOFFER, ADOVASIO, KOKNIETZ, VELICHKO, GRIBCHENKO, LEN2 & SUNTSOV
PIDOPLICHKO,
I.G. 1969. Pozdnepaleolificheskiie zhilishcha iz
kostei mamonta. Kyiv: Naukuva Dumka.
1976. Mezhirichskie zhilishcha iz kostei mamonta. Kyiv:
Naukova Dumka.
SHOVKOPLYAS,
I.G. 1965. Mezin. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka.
SOFFER,0. 1985. The LIpper Paleolithic ofthe Central Russian
Plain. San Diego (CA): Academic Press.
1989. Storage, sedentism, and the Eurasian Paleolithic record,
Antiquity63: 719-32.
SOFFER,0..J.M. ADUVASICJ
& N.L. KORNIETZ. 1994. Mezhirich
ca. 15,000 B.P. Paper presented at the SAA annual meeting, Anaheim (CA).
STRONG,
D.E. %
. M??J??.M. ADOVASIO.1994. Conductivity studies
at Mezhirich, 1993. Paper presented at the SAA annual
meeting, Anaheim (CA).
SUNTSOV, VYU. 1996. Evidence ofmnltiperiod occupations from
mammoth-bone dwelling at Mexhirich, Ukraine. Paper
presented at the 30th International Symposium on
Archaeometry, Urbana (IL).
SVEZHENTSEV,
Y.S.1993. Radiocarbon chronology for the Upper Paleolithic Sites on the East European Plain. in 0.
Soffer & N.D. Praslov [ed.), From Kostenki to Clovis: 2330. New York (NY): Plenum.
SVOBODA,
J., V. LCIZRK
& E. VLCEK.1996. Huntcrs between East
and West: the Pdeolithic of Morovia. New York (NY):
Plenum.
BUYCE, J.M. ADOVASIO8rG.A. COOKE. 1994.
VEI.ICHKO,A.A.,M.R.
Geology and geomorphology at the Upper Paleolithic site
of Mezhirich: macro- and micro-Perspectives. Paper presented at the SAA Annual Meeting, Anaheim (CA).