2003_2 - Archeologický ústav AV ČR

Archeologické rozhledy LV–2003 271terial is shown by the ochre painted skull at the entrance to the first hut at Mezirič and the collectionof large, ornamented bones in a hut at Mezin (Pidoplichko 1998, plates 8 and 60). Personally, I believethat the treatment of mammoth remains was merely formalised in the eastern Epi–Gravettian.That which in the Pavlovian should have been visible in the form of variously classed stockpileslent a monumental cast to dwellings, and that which was hidden in marshy zones was stored in pitsin the Ukrainian Epi–Gravettian. The transcendental sense of deposition is enhanced further by theconspicuous arrangement. In connection with these structures it is impossible to omit reference to“whalebone alley”, the ritual precinct of Eskimo whalers of a much later period (perhaps the 13 th –14 thcentury AD) discovered on Arakamchechen island near Chukokta (Arutjunov et al. 1982).On the transformation of irrationalities: once and todayThe symbolic motivation for the bringing together of bones may be subjective and thus variableto such an extent that to present specific examples would be senseless (cf. e.g. the richly cited dataand literature in Frazer 1994; Friedrich 1941–1943; 1943; Gahs 1928; Holmberg 1925; Lot–Falck1953; Pacher 1997; Paulson 1963; Zelenin 1936). Their common trait is an effort to store, as a rule,the remains of the major or largest (or most dangerous and most prestigious) game animals, motivatedby a conviction of their rebirth, or fear of their disappearance. The greatest number of examples relateto the treatment of the remains of bears, here thanks to their important role in the mythology of theNordic nations (summarised by Pacher 1997). Bones are hung from trees, thrown into water, burned,classed and arranged into visible groups and so on. Even from these examples the diversity of archaeologicalcontexts that could be preserved can be discerned – sometimes there is an effort to showthe bones, at others to hide them or speed their way out of the world. In a highly competitive societyan important motivation came into play associated with the aforementioned prestige representationof individuals or entire groups. That which today seems entirely irrational, e.g. the potlatch of theNative Americans of the north–west, had at that time an irreplaceable social importance. It cannotbe ruled out that the size of the mass of bones at a mammoth hunter settlement represented, even ifonly subconsciously, the hunting success of the group, and that several large bones might have beendragged here merely to increase the effect (Oliva 2000a). Such symbols of success assume an importancein particular in the period meetings of allied groups, which might occur precisely duringthe hunting of mammoths. According to Soffer et al. (2001, 148–149) mammoths might be good tothink of rather than good to eat – why not accept, then, that the causes of the accumulations of theirbones relate rather to the realms of thought than to nourishment?Current polemics on the importance of mammoth bone accumulations are evidence that evenrational motivations can be discussed irrationally, while we must still wait for a rational discussionof (what are from a modern perspective) irrational motives.I would like to thank Olga Soffer, not only for her support during my stay in the USA, but also for hervaluable contribution to archaeological knowledge. Her work has always been a source of inspiration,and if ever our views were in disagreement, she stimulated me to pursue new avenues of research.MARTIN OLIVA, Moravské zemské muzeum, Zelný trh 7, Brno 659 37; moliva@mzm.cz