Eurasian Prehist01y, 5 (1) : 129- 130.

COMMENTS ON MEZMAISKAYA (NORTH CAUCASUS)

Marcel Otte

The recent publication of the upper levels at the roots of the local Mousterian, as demonstrated Mezmaiskaya has made it possible to better un­ in the Georgian Caucasus (Nioradze and Otte, derstand the Early Upper Paleolithic in this cave 2000; Bar Yosef eta!., 2006; Kozlowski, 1969). and, more generally, for area in the Caucasus re­ In effect, evidence of Mousterian techniques is gion (Golovanova eta!., 2006, specifically Eur­ rarely documented on the plates (Golovanova et asian Prehistory Vol. 4: 2: 2006: 43- 78). In par­ a!., 2006: Fig. 23: 12- 13) and the assemblage ticular, the early dates (36,100 ± 2,300 BP) de­ suggests a rapid change, apparently due to a wave monstrate the importance of this site in the study of migration of anatomically modem humans of exchanges between the Zagros and the Crimea. across Europe (crania from Oase, in Romania; The abundant figures clearly show the technologi­ Trinkaus, 2007; Rougier eta!., 2007). cal and typological affinities of these assem­ At Mezmaiskaya, the lithic techniques em­ blages. The authors insist on the abrupt nature of ployed first demonstrate the preparation of short the appearance of these industries that break from blades, extracted from multidirectional cores with 130 M. Otte crest preparation (Golovanova et a/., 2006: Fig. REFERENCES 20: 5-1 0). Tablets were also removed, either from Amirkanov H. A. 1986. Le Paleolithique Superieur du blade cores or from the fronts of thick endscrapers Bassin du Kouban, Moscou. Academie des Sciences (Golovanova et al., 2006: Fig. 20: 11 - 12). (in Russian). Among the dihedral burins, certain specimens BarYosefO., Belfer-Cohen A., Adler D. 2006. The im­ have multiple twisted removals (Golovanova et plications of the middle- upper Palaeolithic chrono­ a/. , 2006: Fig. 23: 1-2). The toolkit includes end­ logical boundary in the Caucasus to Eurasian Pre­ scrapers with a high front and at least one made history. Anthropologie (Bmo), 44(1), 49- 60. on an Aurignacian blade (Golovanova et al., Cohen V., Stepanchuk V. 1999. Late middle and early upper Palaeolithic evidence from the East European 2006: Fig. 23: 11). Bladelet tools are abundant plain and Caucasus. Journal of World Prehist01y, and include Arjeneh points (Golovanova et al., 13(3), 265-319. 2006: Fig. 22: 1- 11) and bladelets with Dufour Demidenko Y, Otte M. 2007. Siuren I (Crimea) as a retouch (Golovanova et al., 2006: Fig. 22: 12- key site for Aurignacian industries of Krems-Du­ 18). Figure 22:19, is, it appears, inverted. Bone four type in Eastern Europe. Promontoria Mono­ tools are also abundant (Golovanova et al., 2006: graflca 7, l 01 - 107. Universidade do Algarve. Fig. 24) and perhaps include a sagaie fragment Golovanova L. V., Cleghorn N. E., Doronichev V. 8., (Golovanova et al., 2006: Fig. 25: 25). Hoffecker J. F., Burr G. S., Sulergizkiy L. D., 2006. All of these criteria clearly indicate the pres­ The Early Upper Paleolithic in the Northern Cauca­ sus (new data from Mezmaiskaya cave, 1997 exca­ ence of Aurignacian assemblages in this part of vation). Eurasian Prehistory, 4(1-2), 43-78. the Caucasus, comparable to those observed in the Kozlowski J. K. 1969. Zur Stratigraphie der Grotte Zagros (Otte and Kozlowski, 2007; Otte et al., Sakazia und ihre Bedeutung fiir die Chronologie des 2007) and the Crimea (Demidenko and Otte, Jungpalaolithikums Georgi ens. Jaarschrift fur mit­ 2007; Noiret, 2005). Such a presence seems to teldeutsches. Vorgeschichte 53 , 157- 166. confirm an east-to-west axis joining the Zagros Nioradze M., Otte M. 2000. Paleolithique superieur de Mountains, the Caucasus chain, with the Crimea Georgie. L 'An thropologie (Paris) 104, 265- 300. and the Balkans. The sites ofSiuren, Buran-Kaya, Noiret P. 2005. Productions lamellaires aurignaciennes Mitoc (Romania) and Kozamika (Bulgaria) are a !'Est des Carpates. In Productions Lamellaires thus associated with this movement. Russian and Attribuees a I 'Aurignacien, Actes du 14e Congres de l 'UISPP, Liege, Sept. 2001. Archeologiques, Ukrainian authors have already interpreted the Luxembourg, I, 439--462. Early Upper Paleolithic in the northern Caucasus Otte M. 2006. The Aurignacian of the Caucasus. Tra­ in this manner (Amirkanov, 1986; Cohen and balhos de Arqueologia 45, Lisbonne, 287- 294. Stepanchuk, 1999). It should be noted that during Otte M., Kozlowski J. K. 2007. L 'Aurignacien du this stage of the Pleistocene marine levels were Zagros ERAUL 118, Liege. very low and the Black Sea formed an isolated Otte M., Biglari F., Flas D., Shidrang S., Zwyns N., lake for which the northern shore was largely ex­ Mashkour M., Naderi R. , Mohaseb A., Hashemi N. , posed, joining the Crimea to the continent (the Darvish J., Radu V. 2007. The Aurignacian in the Zagros region: New research at Yafteh Cave, Lore­ Azov Sea did not exist at t~s point). A large ter­ stan, Iran. Antiquity 81 (311 ), 82- 96. restrial passage from the Zagros to the Carpa­ Rougier H., Milota S., Rodrigo R. , Gherase M. , Sarcina thians was thus exposed in a uniform geographic L. , Moldovan 0., Zilhao J., Constantin S., Fran­ area, forming a sort of land bridge between Asia ciscus R. , Zollikofer C., Ponce de Leon M., Trin­ and Europe (Fig. 1). This article (Golovanova et kaus E. 2007. Pettera cu Oase 2 and the cranial mor­ al., 2006) thus constitutes an excellent contribu­ phology of early modem Europeans. Proceedings of tion to our understanding of the range of funda­ the National Academy of Science (USA) 104(4), mental phenomena linking the two continents at a 1165- 1170. crucial moment in their history, at the origins of Trinkaus E. 2007. European Early Modem Humans the Aurignacian. and the fate of the Neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) I 04( 18), 7367- 7372.