Upper Paleolithic Portable Art in Light of Ethnographic Studies

ARCHAEOLOGY,ETHNOLOGY& ANTHROPOLOGYOF EURASIA

Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 40/3 (2012) 31–37

E-mail: [email protected]

© 2012, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserveddoi:10.1016/j.aeae.2012.11.005

31

Introduction

Until the late 1950s–early 1960s, Upper Paleolithic art was traditionally interpreted with reference to modern native art. Later, ethnographic comparativism was generally abandoned in favor of the belief that the explanations of archaeological facts must be sought in these facts themselves (see, e.g., (Laming-Emperaire, 1962; Ler i-Gourhan, 1965, 1995)). Modern specialists try to avoid both these extremes and look for optimal ways of combining archaeological and ethnographic evidence (see, e.g., (Integratsiya arkheologicheskikh i etnograficheskikh issledovanii, 2001, 2008; Tomilov, 1999; Sher, 2006: 19–210)).

Many at tempts are being made to explore connections of parietal art with shamanism and altered states of consciousness using neuropsychological and ethnographic data (Clottes, Lewis-Williams, 2001; Lewis-Williams, 2003; Clottes, 2011: 68–142). Also, acoustic properties of caves are being studied in view of associating them with hunting magic rites (Reznikoff, 1987, 2010). Some specialists suggest that Paleolithic art is inherently related to folklore and, by analogy, refers to mytho-poetic formulae, which are ethnically relevant

Yu.S. VolkovaKemerovo State University of Culture and Arts,

Voroshilova 17, Kemerovo, 650029, RussiaE-mail: [email protected]

UPPER PALEOLITHIC PORTABLE ART IN LIGHT OF ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDIES

This article addresses ethnographic evidence relevant for understanding the meaning of Upper Paleolithic gurines. Certain aspects of Siberian native art may offer new approaches to these works of Paleolithic art.

Keywords: Upper Paleolithic, portable art, traditional art, gurines, decoration.

and migrate in space and time with their bearers (Sher, 2000: 81–82).

One of the major dif culties in the study of portable art is that its archaeological contexts remain largely unknown. Most specimens were found before the late 1960s, and many critically important details are missing in the excavation reports. Therefore the researchers must glean all information exclusively from the figurines themselves. Fortunately, this limitation has resulted in very detailed descriptions (Abramova, 1962, 2005, 2010). Typologies based on measurements have been created (Gvozdover, 1985), attempts have been made to interpret the signs on sculptures (Frolov, 1981: 71–109; Larichev, 2003, 2008), and parallels have been discovered among nds from Western and Eastern Europe, central Russia,

and Siberia (Abramova, 1960: 22–23; McDermott, 1996; Pervobytnoye iskusstvo, 1998: 80; Demeshchenko, 1999: 104, 108; Mussi et al., 1999; Dupuy, 2007: 279; Volkova, 2011: 41–42; and others).

Even at the descriptive stage, researchers use ethnographic terms suggesting an interpretation: “amulet”, “chief’s staff”, “magic rattle”, “spear-thrower”, etc. (see, e.g., (Roussot, 1998)). This may indicate a transition of the language of Paleolithic art research

PALEOENVIRONMENT. THE STONE AGE

32 Yu.S. Volkova / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/3 (2012) 31–37

from “scienti c slang” to “primary formalization” (Sher, 1978: 44).

The principal areas involved in the study of portable art and using ethnographic evidence are ethnoarchaeology, experimental archaeology, and multidisciplinary studies. The objective of ethnoarchaeology, as defined in Western science, is the reconstruction of sociocultural phenomena, speci cally the regularities and mechanisms underlying the transformation of an extant (ethnographic) culture into an extinct (archaeological) culture. Once these regularities are known, a sociocultural reality can be reconstructed on the basis of archaeological data. Obviously, experimental archaeology strives to achieve the same goal – reconstructing the human past.

Strange as it seems, results of the early multi-disciplinary expeditions appear to be more reliable than later ones because the authentic features of native cultures, both material and spiritual, are becoming less and less distinguishable. Results of early studies suggest that native art, speci cally sculpture, is related to folklore and ideology (see, e.g., (Sternberg, 1936)). As D.A. Sergeyev has convincingly demonstrated, paleo-Eskimo sculptures from walrus ivory, found at Ekven, the Chukchi Peninsula, reveal parallels with the beliefs of modern Eskimos. One such nd is an amulet showing several animals and their parts including the head of a killer whale (orca) on one side, and opposite to it, the head of a wolf. This coupling is hardly incidental. Eskimo whale hunters of the recent past regarded orcas as their patrons since whales pursued by these carnivores sometimes beach themselves, becoming an easy prey for hunters. Also, Eskimos failed to understand where orcas disappear in the winter, when the sea freezes. One of the versions was that orcas turn into wolves when the winter sets in. This was the reason the wolf became sacred and untouchable, and people did not avenge it for killing reindeer: “In the winter orcas borrow reindeer from people, and in the summer they give those reindeer back as whales” (Sergeyev, 1970).

Certain native Siberian sculptures resemble Upper Paleolithic figurines. They have been subjected to a detailed analysis by ethnographers (see, e.g., (Ivanov, 1970)). Drawing on the results of these studies we can try to elaborate certain approaches to the analysis of Upper Paleolithic art without using direct parallels.

Upper Paleolithic portable art and traditional art

Variability of forms. Upper Paleolithic gurines represent either humans or animals. Native Siberian sculptures fall in the same two categories. No semantic parallels would be warranted in this case. Based on ethnographic data, it is impossible to say what the Upper Paleolithic gurines,

for instance, those of females, meant. Ethnographers claimed that Siberian sculptures referred to spirits, souls, ancestors, personi ed diseases, etc. While some sculptures were domestic (dolls), others were ritual (Ivanov, 1949: 9, 163–164; 1979: 150–155; Anisimov, 1950: 30, 32). Their functions, then, were quite different. Could this account for the presence of various types of female gurines at a single Upper Paleolithic site? Examples

include Malta, Gagarino, and other sites (Gerasimov, 1958: 30–50; Abramova, 1962: 28–29, 44–51; Tarasov, 1972: 200; Lipnina et al., 1997)?

Material and semantic shifts. According to S.V. Ivanov, the meaning of a speci c representation could change over time, depending on the circumstances or context. The functions of similar gurines made of various materials could have been different. One case of transformation of a nonutilitarian artifact is that of an ivory rod from Malta, “decorated” with transverse incisions (Fig. 1). On one of its ends, the outer layer was removed in order to drill a hole. Here, too, the surface appears to have been “decorated”, as small depressions have remained from former transverse lines. This might indicate a shift of function: initially the object was a gurine, and then it turned into a pendant, possibly evidencing a semantic and functional shift.

Properties of various materials and beliefs related to them were highly relevant to native Siberian artists (Smolyak, 1976: 138). The shape and surface of certain Upper Paleolithic artifacts made of mammoth ivory imitate other materials and textures such as shell, teeth, sh scale, the inside of mammoth tusk, etc. (Bibikova,

1965; Taborin, 1990: 31, g. 2; Chollet, Airvaux, 1990: 82, g. 7; White, 1997: 96, 109; Volkova, 2010). Possibly the imitated materials were especially valuable due to their rarity, due to some physical or tactile properties, or for some unknown reasons.

Figurines from Kostenki I, made of ivory and soft stone, are notable in this respect. According to certain writers, fragments of stone gurines suggest that these artifacts, unlike those made of ivory, were intentionally broken (Abramova, 1966: 90; Dupuy, 1999: 152–154; Dupuy, Praslov, 1999: 29). The difference may have been due to the ritual function, possibly related to short-term versus long-term use. Replicating the ivory horse gurine from Vogelherd took Hahn forty hours – quite a

long time for a prehistoric artist. Hahn (1990: 173–183) believes that the longer it took to manufacture a gurine, the longer it was used. Our experiments suggest that sculpturing a Kostenki-type marl gurine with a int blade takes no more than ve hours on average (Fig. 2). Making an ivory figurine, then, takes eight times as much, possibly enhancing its value in the artist’s eyes. Intentional breaking of terracotta gurines was registered at Moravian sites as well, one of the possible reasons being hunting magic (Svoboda, 1999: 262–263).

Yu.S. Volkova / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/3 (2012) 31–37 33

Terracotta was used in various ways and in various contexts. In the French Pyrenees, clay artifacts were made by modeling, sculpturing, and engraving. In Moravia mostly sculptures, both anthropomorphous and zoomorphic, were manufactured. They followed a distinct canon, and, judging from the ngerprints, the artists were women and children. In the French Pyrenees, therefore, the techniques were variable and the approach was individualized, whereas in Moravia a more standardized approach was practiced (Boureux, 2004; Bougard, 2010).

Archaeological contexts. In the Grimaldi rock shelter, groups of female gurines were found in caches. R. White suggested that they had been hidden with a view of future use by women during childbirth – not a very frequent occasion in small hunter-gatherer groups (White, 1997: 116–117). Finds of Upper Paleolithic gurines in caches, or “storage pits,” have been reported

by Russian archaeologists as well (Zamyatnin, 1935: 36, 63; Ye menko, 1958: 346–350; Amirkhanov, Lev, 2003: 24–26; 2007; and others). Caches where portable sculptures were held are mentioned in a number of ethnographic studies.

In sum, gurines, in a way, lived their own life related to the life of their owners, and their meaning changed over time.

Appearance. Certain ethnographers have tried to deduce the function of gurines from their appearance. In certain cases, simplified rod-like representations are believed to have been “dressed,” so no nish was needed (Ivanov, 1979: 158). S.A. Demeshchenko (2008) suggested that holes in the lower parts of bird and female gurines from Malta had been drilled to enhance perception: if such a pendant was worn on the neck or on the belt, its owner was always able to “look it in the face” when taking it in his/her hand.

In traditional art, minute details are known to be critical for the rendition of certain images. According to S.V. Ivanov, Amur natives, when suffering from abdominal pain, made female bear gurines with a slightly swollen belly. The Nanai, when feeling general discomfort, made a wooden gurine of a sitting bear covered with shavings (Ivanov, 1937: 12).

Various gurines referred to speci c diseases. For instance, representations of emaciated humans alluded to tuberculosis, those of swollen bodies, to dropsy, etc. (Zelenin, 1936: 262). The Orochi suffering from cardiovascular disease used to make a figurine of a hunchback, and those suffering from diarrhea, a gurine of a man without legs, with stumps of arms, and with an inside hole passing from the neck to the groin. A human gurine with arms and legs hooked on to the trunk was

supposed to be a remedy from rheumatic pain (Larkin, 1964: 94–95).

General classi cations of female gurines are based on body-build (see, e.g., (Abramova, 1966: 13–15; Jelinek,

1982: 372–373)), whereas more detailed classi cations proceed from the shape of the preforms (Khlopachev, 1998; 2006: 120–132). Other approaches are based on tiny details of rendition, which, apart from evidencing the individualization of the female image (Anikovich, 2000; Demeshchenko, 2000), provide a basis for a typology of gurines.

Decoration. The analysis of what is considered the “decorative designs” on utilitarian and non-utilitarian artifacts has become a separate area of research. Here, too, ethnographic parallels may be useful. S.V. Ivanov deemed it correct to analyze the combinations of patterns rather than separate patterns, because the latter tend to be universal and occur in vastly divergent artistic traditions (1952: 86; 1963: 5–43; 1964: 145). Ivanov’s conclusion is supported by neuropsychological data. D. Lewis-

Fig. 1. “Decorated” rod from Malta.

Fig. 2. Experimental replica of a marl female gurine of the Kostenki type, made by Yu.S. Volkova.

0 5 cm

0 5 cm


Williams and T. Dowson have described six types of basic signs, which are universal because they are based on entoptic vision: grid, parallel lines, dots, zigzag lines, nested catenary curves, and ligrees (thin meandering lines) (Lewis-Williams, Dowson, 1988: 203). According to S.V. Ivanov (1958: 19–23), only the totality of designs and techniques can be regarded as a reliable indicator of ethnic af nities.

Studies addressing the “decoration” of Upper Paleolithic artifacts mention “lines” and “dots” as the basic elements of design (see, e.g., (Taborin, 1990: 21)). While several types of “lines” are mentioned, “dots” remain just “dots” or “pits” (Sauvet, 1990: 87). Given Ivanov’s remarks about the technique as an ethnic indicator, this simpli ed approach can be challenged. Speci cally, the analysis of “decorated” artifacts from Malta makes it possible to separate at least two stable types of dots: those with incised lines and paired ones.

A “design” consisting of dots with incised lines is present on the central pendant of a composite necklace (Abramova, 1962: pl. LVI, 5), on a plate with a central hole (Ibid.: pl. LI, 2), and on a fragment of an indistinct object from mammoth ivory (Fig. 3). The peculiar feature of this combination of elements is that it results in a relief. A.K. Filippov (2004: 115) has suggested that the lines were incised with a point of a tool beginning from the drilled hole. At no other site has this technique been described. Possibly it should be regarded as an indicator of the local artistic tradition peculiar to Malta.

A “design” consisting of paired dots is present on two female gurines (Abramova, 1962,: pl. XLVI, 8; XLVII, 9), on a small pendant from a composite necklace (Ibid.: pl. LVI, 2), and on fragments of indistinct artifacts from mammoth ivory (Fig. 4). The description of the Tungus costume mentions special headgear with an opening in the back part, through which the braid was passed (Vasilevich, 1969: 134). Patterns on the heads of Siberian female gurines may refer to some features of the hairdo or headdress (Slobodin, 2002: 145–149). Patterns on the Malta gurines, too, might render braids; if so, then the “braid” in one specimen descends to the breast. This explanation is hardly warranted, however, because other artifacts such as a pendant and fragments of ivory artifacts are also decorated with paired dots.

In sum, the principle of separating stable combinations of decorative elements can be applied in comparing artifacts from various Upper Paleolithic sites in order to evaluate local artistic traditions and their af nities (Fedorova, 1995: 15; Amirkhanov, Lev, 2004: 318).

Conclusions

Certain approaches to traditional art may be helpful in the study of Upper Paleolithic gurines:

(1) the meaning of a speci c representation might have changed over time, and depending on the archaeological context and material;

(2) the appearance of a gurine may have a direct bearing on its function;

(3) minute details in the rendition of the same image may be relevant for its meaning;

(4) combinations of elements of “decoration” and their technique may be indicative of a speci c artistic tradition.

Given the above considerations, we hardly need to address direct ethnographic parallels. The basic principles underlying works of portable art may be universal and, if recognized, may be used for interpreting Upper Paleolithic representations.

Fig. 4. Fragments of sculptured ivory artifacts from Malta.

Fig. 3. Fragment of a sculptured ivory pendant from Malta.

0 1 cm

0 1 cm 0 1 cm


References

Abramova Z.A. 1960Paleoliticheskoye iskusstvo Sibiri. Cheremhovo: Che-

remhovskii rabochii.Abramova Z.A. 1962Paleoliticheskoye iskusstvo na territorii SSSR. Moscow,

Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR. (Arkheologiya SSSR. Svod arkheologicheskikh istochnikov).

Abramova Z.A. 1966Izobrazheniya cheloveka v paleoliticheskom iskusstve

Evrazii. Moscow, Leningrad: Nauka.Abramova Z.A. 2005Zhivotnoye i chelovek v paleoliticheskom iskusstve Evropy.

St. Peterburg: Evropeiskii dom.Abramova Z.A. 2010Drevneishii obraz cheloveka: Katalog po materialam

paleoliticheskogo iskusstva Evropy. St. Petersburg: Peterburg. vostokovedenie.

Amirkhanov H.A., Lev S.Yu. 2003Statuetka bizona s Zaraiskoi stoyanki: Arkheologicheskii

i znakovo-simvolicheskii aspekty izucheniya. Rossiskaya arkheologiya, No. 4: 14–28.

Amirkhanov H.A., Lev S.Yu. 2004Statuetka bizona s Zaraiskoi stoyanki. In Problemy

kamennogo veka Russkoi ravniny. Moscow: Nauchny mir, pp. 299–321.

Amirkhanov H.A., Lev S.Yu. 2007Novye proizvedeniya paleoliticheskogo iskusstva s Zaraiskoi

stoyanki. Rossiskaya arkheologiya, No. 1: 22–35.Anikovich M.V. 2000Obschestvo i lichnost v paleolite – chto mogut skazat ob

etom arkheologicheskiye dannye. In Kultura: Sotsium i individ. St. Petersburg: Izd. SPb. Gos. Univ., pp. 103–112.

Anisimov A.F. 1950Semeinye okhraniteli u evenkov. Sovetskaya etnogra ya,

No. 3: 28–43.Bibikova V.I. 1965O proiskhozhdenii mezinskogo paleoliticheskogo ornamenta.

Sovetskaya arkheologiya, No. 1: 3–8.Bougard E.J. 2010The Use of Clay in the Upper Paleolithic of Europe.

Symbolic Applications of a Material. Oxford. (BAR Internat. Ser.; S2069).

Boureux C.-J. 2004L’Homme et l’argile au Paléolithique supérieur dans

l’espace franco-cantabrique. Bull. de la Société Préhistorique Ariège-Pyrénées, vol. 59: 93–108.

Chollet A., Airvaux J. 1990Bases objectives de la chronologie de l‘art mobilier

paléolithique en Poitou. In L’art des objets au Paleolithique: Colloque international Foix – Le Mas-d’Azil 16–21 novembre 1987. T. 1: L’art mobilier et son contexte. Paris: Direction du Patrimoine, pp. 77–82.

Clottes J. 2001Pourquoi l’art préhistorique? Paris: Gallimard.Clottes J., Lewis-Williams D. 2001Les chamanes de la préhistoire. Paris: La maison des

roches.

Demeshchenko S.A. 1999Otnositelnaya khronologiya paleoliticheskogo iskusstva

malykh form i khudozhestvenno-stilisticheskiye traditsii. In Mezhdunarodnaya konferentsiya po pervobytnomu iskusstvu. Kemerovo: Nikals, pp. 96–109.

Demeshchenko S.A. 2000Iskusstvo paleolita (k voprosu ob individualizatsii).

In Kultura: Sotsium i individ. St. Petersburg: Izd. SPb. Gos. Univ., pp. 163–164.

Demeshchenko S.A. 2008Semanticheskaya interpretatsiya arkheologicheskikh

artefaktov. In Homo Eurasicus: V glubinakh i prostranstvakh istorii. St. Petersburg: Asterion, pp. 191–201.

Dupuy D. 1999Novyi podkhod k izucheniyu zhenskikh statuetok iz

Kostenok I i Avdeyevo. In Lokalnye razlichiya v kamennom veke: Tezisy dokladov na Mezhdunar. konferenstii, posvyasch. 100-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya S.N. Zamyatnina. St. Petersburg: pp. 15–154.

Dupuy D. 2007Fragments d’images, images de fragments: La statuaire

gravettienne, du geste au symbole. Thèse de doctorat Nouveau Régime, vol. 1. Marseille: Univ. de Provence.

Dupuy D., Praslov N.D. 1999Fragmentatsiya zhenskikh statuetok iz kamnya v Kosten-

kakh I. In Osobennosti razvitiya verkhnego paleolita Vostochnoi Evropy: Tezisy dokladov na Mezhdunar. konferenstii, posvyasch. 120-letiyu otkrytiya paleolita v Kostenkakh. St. Petersburg: pp. 29–30.

Fedorova E.G. 1995Ornament kak priznak “svoei” i “chuzhoi” veschi.

In Chuzhaya vesch v kulture: Materialy nauch. konferentsii. St. Petersburg: Izd. SPb. Gos. Univ., pp. 14–16.

Filippov A.K. 2004Khaos i garmoniya v iskusstve paleolita. St. Petersburg:

Leningr. obl. obschestv. organizatsiya “Sokhranenie prirod-nogo i kulturnogo naslediya”.

Frolov B.A. 1981O chem rasskazala sibirskaya madonna. Moscow: Znanie.Gvozdover M.D. 1985Tipologiya zhenskikh statuetok kostenkovskoi paleo-

liticheskoi kultury. Voprosy antropologii, No. 75: 27–66.Gerasimov M.M. 1958Paleoliticheskaya stoyanka Malta. Sovetskaya etnogra ya,

No. 3: 28–52.Hahn J. 1990Modelage et peinture dans l‘art mobilier. In L’art des objets

au Paleolithique: Colloque international Foix – Le Mas-d’Azil 16–21 novembre 1987. T. 2: Les voies de la recherche. Paris: Direction du Patrimoine, pp. 173–185.

Ivanov S.V. 1937Medved v religioznom i dekorativnom iskusstve narodnostei

Amura. In Pamyati V.G. Bogoraza (1865–1936): Sbornik statei. Moscow, Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR, pp. 24–44.

Ivanov S.V. 1949O znachenii dvukh unikalnykh zhenskikh statuetok

amerikanskikh eskimosov. Sbornik MAE, vol. 11: 162–170.Ivanov S.V. 1952Materialy ornamenta k probleme kulturno-istoricheskikh

svyazei khantov i mansi. Sovetskaya etnogra ya, No. 3: 85–99.


Ivanov S.V. 1958Narodnyi ornament kak istoricheskii istochnik. Sovetskaya

etnogra ya, No. 2: 3–23.Ivanov S.V. 1963Ornament narodov Sibiri kak istoricheskii istochnik.

Moscow, Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR.Ivanov S.V. 1964K voprosu o metodike sobiraniya i izucheniya proizvedenii

narodnogo izobrazitelnogo iskusstva. Sovetskaya etnogra ya, No. 4: 136–146.

Ivanov S.V. 1970Skulptura narodov severa Sibiri XIX – pervoi poloviny

XX v. Leningrad: Nauka.Ivanov S.V. 1979Skulptura altaitsev, khakasov i sibirskikh tatar XVIII –

pervoi chetverti XX v. Moscow: Nauka.Integratsiya arkheologicheskikh i etnogra cheskikh issledovanii: Sbornik nauchnykh trudov. 2001Nalchik, Omsk: Izd. Omsk. Gos. Ped. Univ.Integratsiya arkheologicheskikh i etnogra cheskikh issledovanii: Sbornik nauchnykh trudov. 2008Odessa, Omsk: Izd. Omsk. Gos. Ped. Univ.Jelinek J. 1982Bolshoi illiustrirovannyi atlas pervobytnogo cheloveka.

Prague: Artia.Khlopachev S.A. 1998Dva podkhoda k postroeniyu gury zhenskikh statuetok

na vostochno-gravvetiiskikh stoyankah Russkoi ravniny. In Vostochnyi gravvet. Moscow: Nauch. mir, pp. 226–233.

Khlopachev G.A. 2006Bivnevye industrii verkhnego paleolita Vostochnoi Evropy.

St. Petersburg: Nauka.Laming-Emperaire . 1962La signification de l’art rupestre paléolithique. Paris:

Picard. Larichev V.E. 2003Pozhirayuschii vremya (skulpturnoe izobrazhenie

planetarnogo bozhestva maltinskoi kultury). In Drevnie kultury Severo-Vostochnoi Azii: Astroarkheologiya. Paleoinformatika. Novosibirsk: Nauka, pp. 187–200.

Larichev V.E. 2008Pervoobrazy luny (rasshifrovka znakovykh zapisei na

skulpturakh Malty i semantika voploscennykh v nikh obrazov). In Antropogen: Paleoantropologiya, geoarkheologiya, etnologiya Azii. Irkutsk: Ottisk, pp. 90–101.

Larkin V.G. 1964Orochi: Istoriko-etnogra cheskii ocherk s serediny XIX v.

do nashih dnei. Moscow: Nauka.Leroi-Gourhan A. 1965Préhistoire de l’art occidental. Paris: Mazenod.Leroi-Gourhan A., Delluc B., Delluc G. 1995Préhistoire de l’art occidental. Paris: Citadelles &

Mazenod.Lewis-Williams D. 2003The Mind in the Cave. London: Thames & Hudson.Lewis-Williams J.D., Dowson T. 1988The signs of all times: Entoptic phenomena in Upper

Palaeolithic art. Current Anthropology, vol. 29, No. 2: 201–245.

Lipnina E.A., Medvedev G.I., Novoseltseva V.N., Kov N., Kun D., Sitlivyi V., Shmygun P.E. 1997Novoye antropomorfnoye skulpturnoye izobrazheniye

iz maltinskogo paleoliticheskogo mestonakhozhdeniya. In Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredelnykh territorii, vol. 3. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN, pp. 24–25.

McDermott Le R. 1996Self-representation in Upper Paleolithic female gurines.

Current Anthropology, vol. 37, No. 2: 227–275.Mussi M., Cinq-Mars J., Bolduc P. 1999Echoes from the mammoth steppe: The case of the Balzi

Rossi. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia, vol. 31: 105–124.Pervobytnoe iskusstvo. 1998Kemerovo: Izd. Kemerov. gos. inst. iskusstv i kultury.Reznikoff I. 1987Sur la dimension sonore des grottes à peintures du

Paléolithique (I). Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences, vol. 304, Sér. II, No. 3: pp. 153–156.

Reznikoff I. 2010La dimension sonore des grottes paléolithiques et rochers

à peintures. Congrès IFRAO sur l’art pleistocène dans le monde. Ariège. Pleistocene art of Europe. Tarascon-sur-Ariège: Lacombe, (DVD).

Roussot A. 1998Glossaire de l’art préhistorique au Paléolithique. Paris:

Con uences. Sauvet G. 1990Les signes dans l’art mobilier. In L’art des objets au

Paleolithique: Colloque international Foix – Le Mas-d’Azil 16–21 novembre 1987. T. 2: Les voies de la recherche. Paris: Direction du Patrimoine, pp. 83–99.

Sergeyev D.A. 1970Motivy eskimosskogo folklora v drevneberingomorskoi

skulpture (pervye veka nashei ery). In Folklor i etnogra ya. Leningrad: Inst. etnogra i AN SSSR, pp. 105–114.

Sher J.A. 1978O razvitii yazyka arkeologii. In Problemy arkheologii II:

Sbornik statei v pamyat prof. M.I. Artamonova. Leningrad: Izd. Leningr. Gos. Univ., pp. 44–48.

Sher J.A. 2000Ancient art: Facts, hypotheses, methods, and theory.

Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, No. 2: 77–87.

Sher J.A. 2006Pervobytnoye iskusstvo: Uchebnoye posobie. Kemerovo:

Kuzbassvuzizdat.Slobodin S.B. 2002Unikalnaya nakhodka koryakskoi statuetki s severnogo

poberezhya Okhotskogo moray. In Istoriya i kultura Vostoka Azii: Materialy mezhdunar. nauch. konferentsii k 70-letiyu V.E. Laricheva, vol. 2. Novosibirsk: IAE SO RAN, pp. 145–149.

Smolyak A.V. 1976Predstavleniya nanaitsev o mire. In Priroda i chelovek

v religioznykh predstavleniyakh narodov Sibiri i Severa. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 129–154.

Sternberg L.Ya. 1936Pervobytnaya religiya v svete etnogra i: Issledovaniya,

statii, lektsii. Leningrad: Izd. Inst. narodov Severa CIK SSSR.


Svoboda J. 1999L’art gravettien en Moravie. Contexte, dates et styles.

L’anthropologie, vol. 99, No. 2/3: 258–272.Taborin Y. 1990Le décor des objets de parure. In L’art des objets au

Paléolithique. Colloque du Ministère de la Culture, Foix – Le Mas d’Azil 16–21 novembre 1987. T. 2: Les voies de la recherche. Paris: Direction du Patrimoine, pp. 19–39.

Tarasov L.M. 1972Skulptura gagarinskoi paleoliticheskoi stoyanki. MIA.

No. 185: Paleolit i neolit SSSR, vol. 7: 193–201.Tomilov N.A. 1999Etnoarkheologiya: Novye napravleniya rossiiskoi nauki.

Vestnink Omskogo universiteta, iss. 2: 5–9.Vasilevich G.M. 1969Evenki: Istoriko-etnograficheskie ocherki (XVIII–nach.

XX vv.). Leningrad: Nauka.Volkova Yu.S. 2010O “prirodnom” istochnike vozniknoveniy ornamenta.

In Materialy dokladov V (L) Rossiiskoi (s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem) arkheologo-etnogra cheskoi konferentsii studentov i molodykh uchenykh, g. Irkutsk, 4–9 aprelya 2010 g. Irkutsk: pp. 397–398.

Volkova Yu.S. 2011K probleme suschestvovaniya “prayazyka” na territorii

Evrazii v epokhu verkhnego paleolita (kontury gipotezy). In Arkheologiya Yuzhnoi Sibiri , iss. 25. Kemerovo: Kemerov. Gos. Univ., pp. 41–45.

White R. 1997Substantial acts: From materials to meaning in Upper

Paleolithic representation. In Beyond Art: Pleistocene Image and Symbol. San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences, pp. 93–120.

Ye menko P.P. 1958Kostenki I. Moscow, Leningrad: Nauka.Zamyatnin S.N. 1935Raskopki u s. Gagarina (verhovya Dona, CChO). Izvestiya

GAIMK, iss. 118: 26–77.Zelenin D.K. 1936Kult ongonov v Sibiri. Moscow, Leningrad: Izd. AN

SSSR.

Received April 11, 2011.

Upper Paleolithic Portable Art in Light of Ethnographic Studies

Documents

Transcript of Upper Paleolithic Portable Art in Light of Ethnographic Studies