The article presents new data on the zooarchaeology of the Kotias klde grotto in Georgia, where a significant part of the faunal complex consists of the bone remains of a brown bear (Ursus arctos), discovered together with Mesolithic artifacts. Bear bones from Kotias klde stand out for their unusually good preservation against the background of other Caucasian and Eurasian osteological collections in general. The presence of bone remains of young individuals among the finds, the full range of skeletal elements represented in the complex, as well as traces of butchering and skinning indicate that bear hunting was active and can be considered as part of a complex system of relations between hunting communities and the animal world around them.

Keywords: Caucasus, bear hunting, brown bear, Mesolithic, taphonomy, zooarchaeology.

Introduction

In the Middle, Upper Paleolithic, and Mesolithic of Eurasia, large herbivores of mature age were commonly hunted. A skilled hunter requires a detailed knowledge of where and when to lie in wait for a particular game, how to track it and catch it. Successful hunting ends with the slaughter, butchering and eating of prey. The methods of hunting and butchering prey may differ in different cultures, regions, and periods, but they may be very similar in some basic aspects.

Providing themselves with a means of subsistence, hunters often encountered wild animals, whose defensive tactics were sometimes very aggressive. However, it was only in the late stages of the prehistoric era that humans began to regularly hunt large and dangerous predators (see, for example, [Klein, 2000]). One of these predators was the brown bear (Ursus arctos), whose hunting was an activity that had a special meaning for hunters of all cultures of the northern forest zone of the globe. Ethnographic literature describes a wide range of rituals designed to honor and show respect to the bear (see, for example, [Hallowell, 1926]). These data suggest that the bear was never hunted simply for its meat or fur; the importance of bear hunting was primarily due to its symbolic component.

The reverence with which the brown bear is treated is deeply rooted in the rituals of traditional societies. One of the most developed rituals among many indigenous peoples of Siberia was a holiday that followed a successful bear hunt. The dead bear, brought to the village by a whole procession, was entertained for several days with songs and dances, and offered food and drink. After the end of the celebration, the bear was dismembered (with the necessary ceremonies) and eaten, and its skull, cleaned of soft tissues, was displayed on a pole as a protective totem (Zolotarev, 1937). A remarkable rite involving a bear sacrifice is recorded among the Ainu of Japan. For them, the bear symbolized the god of mountains and forests. After hunting the bear, a ritual feast was held, during which they ate its meat and drank its blood (Hiroshi, 1992). At the Sami bear festivals, hunting this animal is presented as an action that has a partial meaning.

Sami shamans transform themselves into bears by disguising themselves and wearing masks (Gjessing, 1947).

Archaeological evidence provides further evidence of the importance of the bear to Paleolithic people and shows that the animal played a special role in prehistoric beliefs and rituals. In Paleolithic paintings, images of bears are always present on panels with carnivores located in parts of caves that seem to be specially designed for them and in most cases probably represent hunting scenes (see, for example, [Cauvet, Deschamps, Hillaire, 1996; Morel and Garcia, 2002; Rouzaud, 2002]). An Aurignacian bear figurine made from a mammoth tusk was found in the Swabian Jurassic in southwestern Germany (Conard, 2003). In the depths of the Montespan Madeleine Cave in the French Pyrenees, a life-size figure of a recumbent bear without a head was found (Begouen, Casteret, and Capitan, 1923; Kurten, 1976). Between the paws was a real bear's skull, which, most likely, was originally part of this sculpture. The figure is marked with spear marks , which were probably thrown at it during ritual ceremonies. A peculiar engraved image of a bear in the Trois Freres Madeleine cave in Arriège (France) (Morel and Garcia, 2002) is another evidence of the ritual significance of these animals for Paleolithic people. The beast appears to be vomiting blood, and there are various marks on its body, possibly spear wounds.

Although bear bones are quite often found in deposits of cave sites in Eurasia starting from the Middle Paleolithic, their connection with stone artefacts is not obvious in many cases, and bear bones and artefacts may have been found independently in most caves [Kurten, 1958, 1976; Chase, 1987; Stiner, 1994, 1998; Stiner, Arsebuk, and Howell, 1996; Baryshnikov, 1997; Tillet, 2002]. A similar situation was recorded in Western Georgia, where several partial skeletons (bones of the upper half of the trunk and forelimbs) of a cave bear were found in a cave that does not contain materials of anthropogenic origin, although it is located nearby (in the same speleosystem) from the Middle Paleolithic cave site (Bronzovaya Cave) (Tushabramishvili, 1978). In addition, the bone remains of this animal are dominant in the Jruchula Cave faunal complex (Adler and Tushabramishvili, 2004). Although there are cases where Paleolithic people clearly deliberately collected the skulls and possibly other bones of bears (mainly the extinct European cave bear, Ursus spelaeus andUrsus deningeri), direct archaeological evidence of hunting this beast is rare. Bear bones found in cave sites mostly belong to either immature or old individuals who died during hibernation (see, for example, [Kurten, 1958; Gargett, 1996; Stiner, 1998; Lord et al, 2007]). This may be related to the activity of large carnivores and scavengers (see, for example, Gargett, 1996; Niven, 2006; Argenti and Mazza, 2006). In some cases, it can also be assumed that young bears died after falling into natural cave traps (Wolverton, 2001, 2006). Only occasionally do the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic sites contain single bones of brown bears that are clearly associated with anthropogenic remains or bear traces of butchering (Barta, 1989; Stiner, 1994; Chaix Bridault and Picavet, 1997). Such finds are most likely to be considered as evidence that this animal was obtained by humans as a result of either attacking it during hibernation or actively hunting. Of particular importance for establishing the fact of active bear hunting are data indicating that the animal was not killed during the hibernation season. It is from this perspective that we approach the analysis of new faunal materials from the Kotias klde grotto in Western Georgia, a significant part of which is represented by brown bear bones found in a clear stratigraphic and spatial relationship with Mesolithic artifacts [Meshveliani et al., in press]. Data on the species diversity, age structure, frequency of occurrence of various skeletal elements, and the nature of bone modification are used to understand how the Mesolithic faunal complex of the monument was formed.

Kotias klde

Kotias klde is a karst grotto in the limestones of the Mandaeti plateau, located south of the Kvirila River, about 1 km from its tributary Sadzali Khevi, at an altitude of approx. 700 m above sea level (Fig. 1). From it there is a passage to a narrow cave cavity, which branches further into two corridors that have not yet been explored and mapped.

A 9 ^m2 excavation located in the entrance part of the grotto revealed a sequence of Neolithic, Mesolithic, and Upper Paleolithic layers (excavations in 2003-2005) [Ibid]. The object of this study is finds from the Mesolithic layer, for which calibrated dates from 12.4 to 10.3 thousand years ago were obtained from four samples of charcoal. Traces of habitation are associated with dark clay deposits (maximum thickness-

Figure 1. Geographical location of Kotias klde.

capacity approx. 60 cm), rich in stone artifacts and faunal remains. All the soil from the excavation site was manually disassembled and washed through a sieve with 2 mm cells, while the spatial and stratigraphic origin of all materials was recorded.

The stone industry is characterized by plates and flakes with unidirectional negatives. Their chipping was carried out mainly outside the monument. The microlytic nature of the complex is expressed in an abundance of various plates with retouching and padding, including products with oblique truncation. The most expressive types of tools of this Mesolithic industry are geometric (versatile and equilateral triangles), mostly made by means of counter retouching on plates and plates [Ibid].

Bone Analysis procedure

The collection of bones analyzed here includes only faunal remains, the connection of which with Mesolithic layers is beyond doubt. The principles of zooarchaeological and taphonomic definitions and designations used in data collection and evaluation were described earlier [Bar-Oz and Adler, 2005; Bar-Oz, 2004; Bar-Oz and Munro, 2004]. The materials of each excavation square were processed separately and their stratigraphic position was recorded. Bone identification and taxonomic definitions were performed in the field using a virtual reference collection of animal skeletons and osteological catalogues (Schmid, 1972; Hillson, 1999). The identified samples, which included epiphysis and diaphysis of long bones, teeth, skull fragments, carpal and tarsal bones, vertebrae and their fragments, were determined with the greatest possible taxonomic detail. Closely related species were differentiated thanks to the assistance of the employee of the State Museum of Georgia A. Vekua and the opportunity to use the collections of this museum for comparisons.

The brown bear (Ursus arctos) and the cave bear (Ursus spelaeus and Ursus deningeri) were distinguished by morphological and metric criteria described by B. Kurten (1958) and M. K. Stiner (1998; Stiner et al., 1998). Bones that could not be determined with precision to the species were grouped into classes according to the size of the animals ' bodies. This applies to many bear and wild boar skeletal remains grouped under the Sus/Ursus category. They are easily distinguished from the much larger bones of red deer (Cervus elaphus).

Fragments of the diaphysis were designated according to their position (i.e., proximal, middle, or distal), the presence of specific features (e.g., the muscular opening, according to [Stiner, 2004]), and other morphological criteria (see, for example, [Barba and Dominguez-Rodrigo, 2005]). In most cases, when registering identifiable samples, the degree of their completeness was taken into account (according to [Marean, 1991]). Data on the frequency of occurrence of different parts of a particular bone were used to estimate the minimum number of skeletal elements (MNE) and individuals (MNI) (according to [Grayson, 1984; Klein and Crazuribe, 1984; Lyman, 1994; O'Connor, 2000]). The number of identified specimens (NISP) was the main measure of taxonomic diversity (Grayson, 1984).

The bones were examined for macroscopic signs of surface modification using low-resolution magnifying lenses (x 2.5). Traces left by humans (cutting, burning, intentional fragmentation), animals (gnawing, digesting), and postdeposition processes (weathering, trampling, discoloration, abrasion, and root imprints) have been identified (see, for example, Behrensmeyer, 1978; Binford, 1981; Villa and Mahieu, 1991; Lyman, 1994; Bar-Oz, Dayan, 2003]). The morphology of fractures on long bone fragments was thoroughly studied, in particular, the angle and shape that allow us to determine whether the bone was fresh or already dried at the time of fragmentation (for a detailed description of the types of fractures, see Villa and Mahieu, 1991). To assess the extent to which these bones were used for bone marrow extraction, the degree of preservation of the circumference of their diaphysis was recorded (i.e., complete, more or less than half, according to [Bunn, 1983]).

Age determinations were made based on the degree of fusion of the epiphysis of long bones, as well as wear and eruption of teeth, the fourth premolar (dP4) and the third molar (M3) (data for the bear -

Table 1. Species composition and frequency of occurrence of faunal remains from Mesolithic layers of the Kotias klde

[Stiner, 1998]; for wild boar - [Bull, Payne, 1982; Grant, 1982]). Each bear tooth was assigned to one of nine stages of wear (according to [Stiner, 1998; p. 312-313]). The bones were divided into four age categories: "newborns", "young", "mature", "old". The first includes bones that, judging by their size and texture, belong either to unborn (fetus) or recently born animals; the second-long bones with still ungrown sutures, which should heal after reaching 24 months, as well as milk and permanent teeth without traces of abrasion (stages I-III according to scheme M. K. Steiner (1998)); the third - teeth in the IV-VII stages of wear and bones with fused sutures; the fourth-strongly worn teeth (stages VIII-IX).

Faunal Collection

A total of 775 bones and fragments were identified as taxonomically related, including specimens grouped in the Sus / Ursus group (Table 1). Most of them (more than 75%) belong to the wild boar (Sus scrofa) and brown bear (Ursus arctos) (Table 1). 2) at least four individuals of each species. They were evenly distributed over the area of the Mesolithic layer, lying mixed with the bones of other animals, and in no case were they found in anatomical order. Bone remains of ungulates are relatively few: roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) - 7.6% of all detectable samples, red deer (Cervus elaphus) -7.5 %. In addition to the bear, predators include the marten (Martes martes), wolf / dog (Canis sp.), and fox (Vulpes sp.).

Bones from the Kotias klde Mesolithic collection are highly preserved. The entire range of bone tissues of varying degrees of density is represented, including porous parts such as fragments of the sternum. There were no differences in the degree of preservation by animal species (Table 3). The surface area of the plant is not affected by the presence of a single animal. -

Table 2. NISP and MNE for different skeletal elements from Mesolithic Cotias clde layers

End of Table 2

Table 3. Taphonomic characteristics of faunal remains from Mesolithic layers of the Kotias Klde

* The number of broken bones is shown in parentheses.

** The number of weathered bones is shown in parentheses.

2. Representation of different parts of the brown bear (a) and wild boar (b) skeletons in Kotias kld.

See Table 4. Age group ratio

most of the long bones do not show signs of significant weathering, i.e., more severe than the weathering of stage 1 according to the six-step scale of A. K. Behrensmeyer (1978), which indicates the rapid burial of materials by cave deposits. Traces of the destructive impact of predators are also small (only three cases were recorded; all on the bones of a bear: a bite of the distal tarsal, a tooth hole on the second phalanx, and signs of destruction as a result of digestion on the first), as well as traces of rodents left by rodents. Plant root imprints on bones are very rare, and bone remains that have undergone noticeable leaching (discoloration) or abrasion are absent. The only difference in preservation between taxa is the degree of fragmentation of the diaphysis of long bones containing bone marrow. It is expressed by the NISP : MNE ratio. This indicator is lowest for bear bones, which are characterized by the least fragmentation. The degree of preservation of the circumference of the diaphysis in them is also higher than in the bones of ungulates. This may mean that, unlike the latter, the bear bones were not opened to extract the brain from them. At the same time, both of them, judging by the nature of the fractures, were fragmented in most cases, while still fresh.

Few traces of tools were recorded, although their localization on the bones of deer and wild boar reflects almost all stages of butchering, including skinning (a trace on the distal part of the deer metapodium), dismemberment of the carcass (separate traces on the proximal part of the rib and distal part of the boar femur, distal part of the humerus and on the articular fossa of the deer scapula), separation of meat from the bones (two marks on the ribs and one on the middle part of the boar's femur). The collection contains all the skeletal elements of wild boar (Fig. 2) and traces of the main stages of butchering boar carcasses. This may mean that they were dismembered and prepared directly on the monument. However, there are quite a few burnt bones, and most of them are phalanges (nine) and metapodia (two). This suggests that the boar's legs were subjected to heat treatment before the meat was removed from them.

On bear bones, traces of butchering were recorded in three cases; all on the distal parts of the tarsus. They correspond to traces of a circular incision made to separate the claws from the fur (Binford, 1981), and most likely appeared during skinning. Samples with obvious signs of burn were found only among the leg bones. These are four phalanges (three first and one second) and one distal metapodium. Although the collection is too small for a detailed reconstruction of the composition of skeletal elements, it seems that all of them are present (Figure 2). Obviously, the bear carcasses were delivered to the parking lot entirely.

While roe deer and deer are represented exclusively by adult bones, wild boar bone remains are dominated by the bones of young animals (approximately 50% of the bones belong to individuals under 24 months of age) and newborn piglets (approx. 10 %) (Table 4). The age of some of the latter, judging by metric characteristics, at the time of slaughter It was less than 3 months old (Amorosi, 1989). The offspring of wild boars in the Caucasus appear in early spring (March-April) [Heptner, Nasimovich, Banninkov, 1989], so these animals were caught in late spring and early summer. Judging by the degree of tooth wear and fusion of the epiphysis of the long bones, the bear is mainly represented by the bone remains of adult individuals (pl. 4), although several bones with ungrown sutures belong to at least one young animal.

Discussion

Faunal remains from the Mesolithic layers of Kotias Klde reflect the fact of repeated seasonal visits to the grotto by people who hunted mainly wild boar and bear. The abundance of piglet bones indicates that they were hunted in late spring and early summer, and therefore bear prey was more likely the result of active hunting activities than slaughtering during hibernation. This is confirmed by the age composition of the extracted bears, whose bone remains belong mainly to adults. Further, the occurrence of a Mesolithic layer in the middle of the entrance area of the grotto suggests that the accumulation of bear bones here could not have been the result of animals falling into natural traps (Wolverton, 2001, 2006).

In comparison with the Middle and Upper Paleolithic fauna complexes of the Caucasus, which are dominated by the Caucasian tur (Capra caucasica) and steppe bison (Bison priscus) (for example, collections from Ortvale klde and Dzudzuana [Bar-Oz and Adler, 2005; Adler et al., 2006; Bar-Oz et al., 2008]), Kotias klde is a different set of species, where dangerous animals such as wild boar and bear predominate. The only complex of faunal remains that is similar in composition (although significantly inferior in quantity to the described one) comes from the Mesolithic layers of the Darkveti grotto (Nebieridze, 1978), located a few kilometers from Kotias Klde in the valley of the Kvirila River.

Brown bear bone remains are found in many Mesolithic sites in Eurasia, but they are usually represented by a small number of bones (for a review, see Sommer and Benecke, 2005). In contrast, it is one of the dominant prey species in Kotias Kld.

Although traces of skinning may indicate that the bear was hunted for fur [Charles, 1997], it is reasonable to assume that the main reason for hunting it was different. Such hunting itself is a challenge for the hunter, allowing him to prove his skill. Most likely, this practice was also closely related to the mythological and ideological aspects of Mesolithic societies. As noted above, the bear plays an important role in the complex mythological beliefs and cults of many indigenous peoples of the North (Hallowell, 1926; Edsman, 1987; Janhunen, 2003). Materials from Kotias klde can also be associated with similar beliefs, although it is very difficult to determine exactly whether the bear bones from this monument are the result of ritual killings, such as those practiced at bear festivals among different peoples of Eurasia.

Changes in the composition of prey during the transition from the Paleolithic to the Mesolithic may also indicate the emergence of new types of hunting weapons and, possibly, new ways of organizing hunting that allowed for the extraction of dangerous animals. Although we found no clear evidence of the use of bows or large spearheads, it is possible that geometric flint tools (mostly versatile triangles) served as inserts for equipping arrows. In any case, the capture of such dangerous animals as the bear and wild boar is impossible without great skill and bravery of hunters. Hunting young boars meant facing off against their ferocious mothers, who were ready to protect their offspring. The danger was even greater when encountering hungry and aggressive bears that came out of the woods at the end of the hibernation period. Since such encounters could take on the character of direct hand-to-hand encounters, they served as a test of the skill and bravery of hunters; for young people, they may have served as an initiation, a rite of passage into the full membership of the hunting community. Ethnographic data are consistent with this view. Similar hunting rites were practiced, for example, by Siberian Orcs who hunted a bear with a wooden spear equipped with a tip (Hallowell, 1926; Reid, 2002). It was an extremely dangerous undertaking, since to drive a spear through a bear's heart, you would have to get close to it. Similar hunting rituals also existed among some other Siberian peoples, for example, among the Khants, who went to bear hunting with knives (Reid, 2002) (the hunter wrapped his left hand tightly and held a long blade in his right).

If the hunting of dangerous game was motivated by ideological considerations for the inhabitants of Kotias klde, this may explain why bear bones, unlike those of ungulates, were hardly or not extracted from bone marrow. Another possible explanation is that Mesolithic hunters, who were well acquainted with the characteristics of the animals they hunted, knew that after a long period of hibernation, too little bone marrow remains in the bones of bears.

We believe that bear hunting in the Mesolithic of the Caucasus can be considered as a component of a complex system of relations between hunting communities and the surrounding animal world. It is possible to see a connection between the activities carried out in Kotias Kld and the origin of the traditions of bear worship and ceremonial bear hunting, which are still widespread among the indigenous peoples of the North.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the American School of Prehistoric Research (Peabody Museum, Harvard University) for the financial support of the project. We are grateful to our colleagues from the State Museum of Georgia D. Lordkipanidze, F. Vekua and N. Tushabramishvili for their cooperation and assistance during their work in Georgia. It is also worth noting the contribution of K. Yeshurun (University of Haifa), who participated in excavations and laboratory analysis of the material during field work in 2005 - 2006.D. Adler and R. Yeshurun provided useful comments on early versions of the article.

List of literature

Tushabramishvili D. M. Archaeological monuments of the Tsupkhvat multi-storey cave complex. Tbilisi: Metsniereba Publ., 1978, 141 p. (in Russian)

Adler D. S., Bar-Oz G., Belfer-Cohen A., Bar-Yosef O. Ahead of the Game: Mddle and Upper Palaeolithic Hunting

Behaviors in the Southern Caucasus // Current Anthropology. - 2006. - Vol. 47. - P. 89 - 118.

Adler D. S., Tushabramishvili N. Middle Palaeolithic Patterns of Settlement and Subsistence in the Southern Caucasus // Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Palaeolithic and Middle Stone Age / ed. by N. Conar. - Tubingen: Kerns Verlag, 2004. - P. 91 - 132. - (Publications in Prehistory).

Amorosi T. A Postcranial Guide to Domestic Neo-Natal and Juvenile Mammals -The Identification and Aging of Old World Species. - Oxford: BAR, 1989. - 380 p. - (BAR Intern. Ser.,N 533).

Argenti P., Mazza P. P. A. Mortality analysis of the Late Pleistocene bears from Grotta Lattaia, central Italy // J. of Archaeological Science. - 2006. -Vol. 33. - P. 1552 - 1558.

Barba R., Dominguez-Rodrigo M. The Taphonomic Relevance of the Analysis of Bovid Long Limb Bone Shaft Features and their Application to Element Identification: Study of Bone Thickness and Morphology of the Medullary Cavity // J. of Taphonomy. - 2005. - Vol. 3. - P. 29 - 42.

Bar-Oz G. Epipalaeolithic Subsistence Strategies in the Levant: A Zooarchaeological Perspective. - Cambridge: Brill Academic Publishers Inc, 2004. - 154 p. - (The American School of Prehistoric Research (ASPR) Monograph Series).

Bar-Oz G., Adler D. S. Taphonomic History of the Mddle and Upper Palaeolithic Faunal Assemblage from Ortvale Klde, Georgian Republic // J. of Taphonomy. - 2005. - Vol. 3. - P. 185 - 211.

Bar-Oz G., Belfer-Cohen A., Meshveliani Т., Jakeli N., Bar-Yosef O. Taphonomy and Zooarchaeology of the Upper Palaeolithic Cave of Dzudzuana, Republic of Georgia//Intern. J. of Osteoarchaeology. - 2008. - Vol. 17. - P. 1 - 21.

Bar-Oz G., Dayan T. Testing the Use of Multivariate Intersite Taphonomic Comparisons: The Faunal Analysis of Hefzibah In Its Epipalaeolithic Cultural Context // J. of Archaeological Science. -2003. - Vol. 30. - P. 885 - 900.

Bar-Oz G., Munro N. D. Beyond Cautionary Tales: A Multidimensional Taphonomic Approach for Identifying Subpatterns in Ungulate Body-Part Data // J. of Taphonomy. - 2004. - Vol. 2. - P. 201 - 220.

Barta J. Hunting of Brown Bears in the Mesolithic: Evidence from the Medvedia Cave Near Ruzinin Slovakia // The Mesolithic in Europe / ed. by С. Bonsall. - Edinburgh: John Donald, 1989. - P. 456 - 460.

Baryshnikov G. Cave Bears from the Paleolithic of the Greater Caucasus // Quaternary Paleozoology in the Northern Hemisphere / eds. J. J. Saunders, B. W. Styles, G. Baryshnikov. -Springfield: Scientific Papers of the Illinois State Museum, 1997. - P. 69 - 118.

Begouen H., Casteret N., Capitan L. La Caverne de Montespan // Revue Anthropologique. - 1923. - Vol. 33. - P. 333 - 350.

Behrensmeyer A. K. Taphonomic and Ecological Information from Bone Weathering // Paleobiology. - 1978. - Vol. 4. - P. 150 - 162.

Binford L. R. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. - N. Y.: Academic Press, 1981. - 320 p.

Bull G., Payne S. Tooth Eruption and Epiphysial Fusion in Pigs and Wild Boar // Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites / eds. B. Wilson, C. Grigson, S. Payne. - Oxford: BAR, 1982. - P. 55 - 71. - (BAR Intern. Ser., N 109).

Bunn H.T. Evidence on the Diet and Subsistence Patterns of Plio-Pleistocene Hominids at Koobi Fora, Kenya, and Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania // Animals and Archaeology 1: Hunters and Their Prey / eds. J. Clutton-Brock, С. Grigson. - Oxford: BAR., 1983. - P. 21 - 30.

Cauvet J. -M., Deschamps E. B., Hillaire С. Dawn of Art: The Chauvet Cave. - N. Y.: Harry N. Abrams, 1996. - 135 p.

Chaix L., Bridault A., Picavet R. A Tamed Brown Bear (Ursus arvtos L.) of the Late Mesolithic from La Grande-Rivoire (Ise're, France)? // J. of Archaeological Science. - 1997. -Vol. 24. - P. 1067 - 1074.

Charles R. The Exploitation of Carnivores and Other Fur-Bearing Mammals During the North-Western European Late Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic // Oxford J. of Archaeology. - 1997. -Vol. 16. - P. 253 - 277.

Chase P. The Cult of the Cave Bear // Expedition. - 1987. - Vol. 29. - P. 4 - 9.

Conard N. J. Palaeolithic Ivory Sculptures from Southwestern Germany and the Origin of Figurative Art // Nature. -2003. - Vol. 426. - P. 830 - 833.

Edsman C. -M. Bears // The Encyclopedia of Religion / ed. by M. Eliade. - N. Y: Macmillan, 1987. - Vol. 2. - P. 86 - 89.

Gargett R. H. Cave Bears and Modern Human Origins: The Spatial Taphonomy of Pod Hradem Cave, Czech Republic. - Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1996. - 265 p.

Gjessing G. Norwegian Contributions to Lapp Ethnography // J. of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. - 1947. - Vol. 77. - P. 47 - 60.

Grant A. The Use of Tooth Wear as a Guide to the Age of Domestic Ungulates // Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites / eds. B. Wilson, С. Grigson, S. Payne. - Oxford: BAR, 1982. - P. 91 - 108. - (BAR Intern. Ser, N 109).

Grayson D. K. Quantitative Zooarchaeology. - N. Y: Academic Press, 1984. - 202 p.

Hallowell I. A. Bear Ceremonialism in the Northern Hemisphere //American Anthropologist. - 1926. - Vol. 28. - P. 1 - 175.

Heptner V. G., Nasimovich A. A., Banninkov A. G. Mammals of the Soviet Union. - Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989. - Vol. 1: Ungulates. - 540 p.

Hillson S. Mammal Bones and Teeth: an Introductory Guide to Methods of Identification. - L.: Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 1999. - 64 p.

Hiroshi U. The "Sending-Back" Rite in Ainu Culture // Japanese J. of Religious Stuhes. - 1992. - Vol. 19. - P. 255 - 270.

Janhunen J. Tracing the Bear Myth in Northeast Asia // Acta Slavica Iaponica. - 2003. - Vol. 38. - P. 1 - 24.

Klein R. G. Archeology and the Evolution of Human Behavior // Evolutionary Anthropology. - 2000. - Vol. 17. - P. 17 - 36.

Klein R. G., Cruz-Uribe K. The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. - Chicago: University Chicago Press, 1984. - 266 p.

Kurten B. Life and Death of the Pleistocene Cave Bear: A Study in Paleoecology //Acta Zoologica Fennica. - 1958. - Vol. 95. - P. 4 - 59.

Kurten B. The Cave Bear Story. - N. Y: Colombia University Press, 1976. - 163 p.

Lord T. C., O'Connor T. P., Siebrandt D. C., Jacobi R. M. People and Large Carnivores as Biostratinomic Agents in Late

Glacial Cave Assemblages // J. of Quaternary Science. - 2007. - Vol. 22. - P. 681 - 694.

Lyman R. L. Vertebrate Taphonomy. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. - 524 p.

Marean C. W. Measuring the Postdepositional Destruction of Bone in Archaeological Assemblages // J. of Archaeological Science. - 1991. - Vol. 18. - P. 677 - 694.

Meshveliani Т., Bar-Oz G., Bar-Yosef O., Belfer-Cohen A., Boaretto E., Jakeli N., Koridze I., Matskevich Z. Mesolithic Hunters at Kotias Klde, Western Georgia // Paleorient (in press).

Morel P., Garcia M. -A. La Chasse a Pours dans A'art Paleolithique // L'ours et L'homme / eds. P. Pillet, L. R. Binford. - Liege: Etudes et Recherches Archeologique de l'Univesite de Liege, 2002. - P. 219 - 228.

Nebieridze L. Darkvetis Mravalpeniani Ekhi: (Phe Darkveti Multilayer Rockshelter). - Pbilisi: Metsniereba, 1978. - 103 p.

Niven L. Phe Palaeolithic Occupation of Vogelherd Cave: Implications for the Subsistence Behavior of Late Neanderthals and Early Modern Humans. - Pubingen: Kerns Verlag, 2006. -312 p.

O'Connor T. P. Phe Archaeology of Animal Bones. - Pexas: A&M University Anthropology Series, 2000. - 206 p.

Reid A. Phe Shaman's Coat: A Native History of Siberia. - N. - Y: Walker and Company, 2002. - 226 p.

Rouzaud F. L'ours dans L'art Paleolithique // L'ours et L'homme / eds. P. Pillet, L. R. Binford. - Liege: Etudes et Recherches Archeologique de l'Univesite de Liege, 2002. - P. 201 - 218.

Schmid E. Atlas of Animal Bones for Prehistorians, Archaeologists and Quaternary Geologists. - Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing Company, 1972. - 159 p.

Sommer R. S., Benecke N. Phe Recolonization of Europe by Brown Bears Ursus arctos Linnaeus, 1758 After the Last Glacial Maximum // Mammal Review. - 2005. - Vol. 35. - P. 156 - 164.

Stiner M. C. Honor among Phieves: A Zoo-archaeological Study of Neandertal Ecology. - Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994. - 447 p.

Stiner M. C. Mortality Analysis of Pleistocene Bears and Its Paleoanthropological Relevance // J. of Human Evolution. - 1998. - Vol. 34. - P. 303 - 326.

Stiner M. C. A Comparison of Photon Densitometry and Computed Pornography Parameters of Bone Density in Ungulate Body Part Profiles // J. of Paphonomy. - 2004. - Vol. 2. - P. 117 - 146.

Stiner M. C., Achyuthan H., Arsebiik G., Howell F. C., Josephonc S., Juell K. E., Pigati J., Quade J. Reconstructing Cave Bear Paleoecology from Skeletons: A Cross-Discplinary Study of Middle Pleistocene Bears from Yarimbrugaz Cave, Purkey // Paleobiology. - 1998. - Vol. 24. - P. 74 - 98.

Stiner M. C., Arsebuk G., Howell F. C. Cave Bears and Paleolithic Artefacts in Yarimburgaz Cave, Purkey: Dissecting A Palimpsest // Geoarchaeology. - 1996. - Vol. 11. - P. 279 - 327.

Tillet T. Les Grottes a Ours et Occupations Neandertaliennes dans les Alps // L'ours et L'homme / eds. P. Pillet, L. R. Binford. - Liege: Etudes et Recherches Archeologique de l'Univesite de Liege, 2002. - P. 167 - 184.

Villa P., Mahieu E. Breakage Patterns of Human Long Bones//! of Human Evolution. - 1991. -Vol. 21. -P. 27 - 48.

Wolverton S. Caves, Ursids, and Artifacts: A Natural-Prap Hypothesis // J. of Ethnobiology. - 2001. - Vol. 21. - P. 55 - 72.

Wolverton S. Natural-Prap Ursid Mortality and the Kurten Response // J. of Human Evolution. - 2006. - Vol. 50. - P. 540 - 551.

Zolotarev A. M. The Bear Festival of the Olcha //American Anthropologist. - 1937. - Vol. 39. -P. 113 - 130.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 29.01.08.

Permanent link to this publication: