DOCSLIB.ORG

Comments on Mezmaiskaya"

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comments on Mezmaiskaya Eurasian Prehistory, 5 (1) : 131- 136. GETTING BACK TO BASICS: A RESPONSE TO OTTE "COMMENTS ON MEZMAISKAYA" Lubov Golovanova, Vladimir Doronichev and Naomi Cleghorn Marcel Otte recently argued (In "Comments Jar to the Ahmarian tradition, and particularly the on Mezmaiskaya, North Caucasus", Eurasian lithic assemblages from Abu Noshra and the La­ Prehistory, this issue) that the Early Upper Paleo­ gaman, dating between 30 and 35 ky BP (Gilead, lithic (EUP) at Mezmaiskaya Cave can be defined 1991 ). This preliminary conclusion is based on as Aurignacian (versus Golovanova et al., 2006). the prevalence of micro-laminar (bladelet) debi­ This raises an old methodological problem con­ tage, a high percentage of tools made on bladelets cerning the correct use of scientific terms and the (compared with 45 .7 percent at Lagama), and a definition of the Aurignacian. Lithic definitions rather low representation (about 20 percent) of such as Aurignacian and Gravettian, which were endscrapers and burins. It is important to note that ori ginally based on specific materials, have been only the later Ahmarian assemblages provided a rather more loosely applied to assemblages dis­ basis for this comparison. Moreover, despite tant in time and space. We believe that the wider many similarities, the EUP industry from Layer application of these original terms not only sim­ 1C at Mezmaiskaya is not identical to the Ahmar­ plifies them by a subjective reduction of their pri­ ian. mary determining attributes, but also confuses our Ongoing excavations of EUP levels in Mez­ understanding of cultural processes within and maiskaya Cave now permit a more accurate com­ between various regions. parison with the Ahmarian. Typical el-Wad To get back to the basic definition of the points with fine lateral retouch, which are very Aurignacian, it is necessary to return to Sonne­ characteristic of the Ahmarian assemblages from ville-Bordes' (1950) classic publication on this Lagama (Bar-Yosefand Belfer 1977: fig. 23) and subject. Based on the original materials (Sonne­ Qafzeh Cave, layer E (Bar-Yosef and Bel fer­ ville-Bordes, 1950: 146- 150), the Aurignacian is Cohen 2004: figs . 11 - 12) are absent from Mez­ defined as a blade industry - most tools are made maiskaya. By contrast, typical Gravette points on blades. Further, the Aurignacian toolkit is de­ with straight backs made by blunted retouch are fined by the following characteristics: 20.5 to the most common point type in the EUP levels at 72.7 percent endscrapers, b'etween 7.1 and 35.0 Mezmaiskaya (Fig. 1). Various bone tools, which percent Aurignacian scrapers (including typical are poorly represented in the Ahmarian (possibly carinated and nosed endscrapers), 28.9 to 43.0 due to poor bone preservation), are characteristic percent burins, 4.0 to 34.4 percent retouched of the EUP of Mezmaiskaya. These tools include blades, and two types of bone points - split and points, awls, needles (including eyed needles), beveled-base points. Bladelets with Dufour re­ and pendants made from ungulate teeth. Moreo­ touch are less common and do not occur not in all ver, in layers lB and 1A (dating from about 32 to Aurignacian assemblages. 28 ky BP), bone tools with geometric ornamenta­ In comparing the new EUP assemblages from tion, plaque beads made from mammoth tusk, and Mezmaiskaya Cave with coeval or slightly earlier pendants made from Black Sea seashells appear. industries (e.g., Chatelperronian, Uluzzian, Auri­ A comparison of flaking techniques also dis­ gnacian, and Ahmarian), Golovanova (2000: 175) tinguishes the EUP of Mezmaiskaya from the finds the Mezmaiskaya materials to be most simi- Aurignacian. At Mezmaiskaya, bladelet and even 132 L. Golovanova et al. 0 2 em MEZMAISKAYA CAVE I I'' 0 2cm LAGAMA VII 0 2 3cm t:::•==--.:=::!-, YAFTEH CAVE Fig. 1. Various types of points on bladelets from Mezmaiskaya Cave (Golovanova eta!., 2006: fig . 22), el-Wad points from Lagama VII (Bar-Yosefand Belfer, 1977: fig. 23), and Arjeneh points from Yafteh Cave (Otte eta!., 2007: fig. 6) micro-bladelet production is more common than blanks) in the EUP ofMezmaiskaya (Golovanova the large blade production typical of the Aurigna­ eta/., 2006: 65: fig. 21). cian. Contrary to assertions by Otte (this issue) Otte comment (Eurasian .Prehistory, this is­ and unlike the true Aurignacian in France, blades sue) also requires that we get back to the basics are relatively infrequent (- 17 percent of laminar of the definition of Dufour retouch. J. Bouyssonie A response to Otte "Comments on Mezmaiskaya" 133 MEZMAISKAYA CAVE D uFOUR GROTTO 0 1 2 3cm I Fig. 2. Backed bladelets from "Mezmaiskaya Cave (Golovanova eta/., 2006: fig . 22), and Dufour bladelets from Dufour Grotto (Brezillon, 1971 : fig. 115) and Yafteh Cave (Otte eta/., 2007: fig. 6) (see Brazill on 1971 : 266- 267) first defined with Dufour retouch are completely absent in Dufour as a type ofbladelet "finement retouchees, Layer 1C at Mezmaiskaya, as are any blade lets par retouches altemes". We think that Otte refer­ with ventral retouch (fig. 2). ence to Dufour bladelets at Mezmaiskaya comes Otte identification (Eurasian Prehistory, this from an inappropriate redefinition of these pieces issue) of Arjeneh points at Mezmaiskaya (Golo­ originally defined as backed bladelets (see Golo­ vanova et al., 2006: fig. 22: 1-1.1) is also not quite vanova et al. , 2006: fig. 22: 12- 18). Following correct. Although, both Arjeneh points from the original definition of J. Bouyssonie, bladelets Yafteh Cave (Otte et al. , 2007: fig. 6: 1- 3) and 134 L. Golovanova eta/. Table 1 Comparison of EUP lithic indices at Mezmaiskaya Cave, layer 1C and Yafteh Cave (calculations by Golovanova based on published data ofOtte et al., 2007) Bladelets: Blades/bladelets: Tools on bladelets: Endscrapers/burins: Percent of all Percent of total flakes Percent of total tools Percent of total tools blades/bladelets Mezmaiskaya, Layer I C 73.2 82.8 57.6 25.9 Yafteh Cave 79.7 69.4 66.7 19.1 points from Mezmaiskaya are made on bladelets, authors (Amirkhanov, 1986; Cohen and Stepan­ their retouching is essentially different. While re­ chuk, 1999) that claim to have identified the touch in the Yafteh assemblage is fine and Aurignacian within the EUP of the Northern Cau­ semi-abrupt, it is more modifying and abrupt at casus. It is important to note, however, that both Mezmaiskaya. Moreover, Arjeneh points are not a articles reach this conclusion based on materials key component of the typical Aurignacian. On the from the old excavations in Kamennomostskaya contrary, some of these tools are similar to Cave. The Aurignacian characteristics of this as­ el-Wad points made on bladelets (Fig. 1), which semblage are the following indices: nearly 36.0 are characteristic for the Levantine Ahmarian percent blades, 18.8 percent tools on large blades, (e.g., Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 2004: figs. 22.3 percent endscrapers and burins, and 2.3 per­ 11- 12). cent blunted backed bladelets and points on bla­ Of the Aurignacian components described by delets (see Golovanova, 2000: 172). Excavation Otte, only endscrapers remain. Indeed, there are in Kamennomostskaya Cave was carried out more few Aurignacian-type endscrapers made on than 40 years ago, and the material is undated and blades at Mezmaiskaya (Golovanova et al., 2006: seems to be non-homogeneous. Unfortunately, fig. 23 : II). However, the majority of endscrapers the cave and its deposits have been completely de­ in Layer 1C are made by semi-abrupt retouch on stroyed by a limestone quarry, and it is impossible massive or technical flakes. No typical Aurigna­ to test the reliability ofthe published results. cian carinated or nosed endscrapers or husked By contrast, the modem excavations in Mez­ burins are found in the EUP levels of the cave. maiskaya and Korotkaya caves (Blajko, 2007) Among the bone tools from Mezmaiskaya have uncovered a very early(~ 32 ky) appearance cave, there are several types not characteristic of of micro-blade (bladelet) lithic industries in the the Aurignacian. These include bone needles, Northwestern Caucasus. Over the past 10 to 15 pendants made from ungulate teeth or mammoth years, research in the Caucasus has essentially tusk, and bone tools with geometric ornamenta­ changed our understanding of the Upper Paleo­ tion. Only one biconical bone point is nearly com­ lithic in this region. In our opinion, modernization plete - all other points are broken. It is worth not­ of excavation techniques has significantly con­ ing that biconical points occur not only in the tributed to this change. The careful documenta­ Aurignacian, but also in the Gravettian assem­ tion of micro-stratigraphical divisions and com­ blages in France (Sonneville-Bordes 1950). prehensive application of sediment water scree­ Moreover, according to Golovanova's (2007) sur­ ning have produced a whole range of micro­ vey of the published data, only biconical projec­ artifacts (both lithics and bone), which are com­ tile points are known from the Upper Paleolithic pletely absent in older collections. of the Caucasus. On the contrary, the split-base It is clear, if we get back to the basics of the bone points so typical of the Aurignacian have not Aurignacian, that Layer I C of Mezmaiskaya is been found in this region. not representative of this industry. Using such at­ Otte (Eurasian Prehistory, this issue) buttress tributes as the presence of bone projectile points their argument that Mezmaiskaya has an Aurigna­ or of endscrapers on large blades with continuous cian component by citing Russian and Ukrainian flat retouch, some authors have expanded the A response to Otte "Comments on Mezmaiskaya" 135 definition of the Aurignacian - or rather, the of modem excavation techniques and comprehen­ Aurignacoid - to many Upper Paleolithic indus­ sive publication will improve our understanding tries that are quite different from the typical of inter-assemblage variability within this area.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Past Climate Changes, Population Dynamics and the Origin of Bison in Europe Diyendo Massilani1†, Silvia Guimaraes1†, Jean-Philip Brugal2,3, E
    Massilani et al. BMC Biology (2016) 14:93 DOI 10.1186/s12915-016-0317-7 RESEARCHARTICLE Open Access Past climate changes, population dynamics and the origin of Bison in Europe Diyendo Massilani1†, Silvia Guimaraes1†, Jean-Philip Brugal2,3, E. Andrew Bennett1, Malgorzata Tokarska4, Rose-Marie Arbogast5, Gennady Baryshnikov6, Gennady Boeskorov7, Jean-Christophe Castel8, Sergey Davydov9, Stéphane Madelaine10, Olivier Putelat11,12, Natalia N. Spasskaya13, Hans-Peter Uerpmann14, Thierry Grange1*† and Eva-Maria Geigl1*† Abstract Background: Climatic and environmental fluctuations as well as anthropogenic pressure have led to the extinction of much of Europe’s megafauna. The European bison or wisent (Bison bonasus), one of the last wild European large mammals, narrowly escaped extinction at the onset of the 20th century owing to hunting and habitat fragmentation. Little is known, however, about its origin, evolutionary history and population dynamics during the Pleistocene. Results: Through ancient DNA analysis we show that the emblematic European bison has experienced several waves of population expansion, contraction, and extinction during the last 50,000 years in Europe, culminating in a major reduction of genetic diversity during the Holocene. Fifty-seven complete and partial ancient mitogenomes from throughout Europe, the Caucasus, and Siberia reveal that three populations of wisent (Bison bonasus)and steppe bison (B. priscus) alternately occupied Western Europe, correlating with climate-induced environmental changes. The Late Pleistocene European steppe bison originated from northern Eurasia, whereas the modern wisent population emerged from a refuge in the southern Caucasus after the last glacial maximum. A population overlap during a transition period is reflected in ca. 36,000-year-old paintings in the French Chauvet cave.
    [Show full text]
  • Comments on Mezmaiskaya"
    EllrasianPrehistory, 5 (I): 13/-136. GETTING BACK TO BASICS: A RESPONSETO OTTE "COMMENTS ON MEZMAISKAYA" Lubov Golovanova, Vladimir Doronichev and Naomi Cleghorn MarcelOtte recently argued (In "Comments lar to the Ahrnarian tradition, and particularly the f onMezmaiskaya,North Caucasus", Eurasian lithic assemblages from Abu Noshra and the La- Prehistory, thisissue)that the Early Upper Paleo- gaman, dating between 30 and 35 ky BP (Gilead, Iilhic(EDP)atMezmaiskayaCave can be defined 1991). This preliminary conclusion is based on asAurignacian(versus Golovanova et al., 2006). the prevalence of micro-laminar (bladelet) debi- Ihisraisesan old methodological problem con- tage, a high percentage of tools made on bladelets cerningthecorrectuse of scientific terms and the (compared with 45.7 percent at Lagama), and a definitionof the Aurignacian. Lithic definitions rather low representation (about 20 percent) of suchasAurignacianand Gravettian which were endscrapers and burins. It is important to note that originallybasedon specific materials, have been only the later Ahmarian assemblages provided a rathermoreloosely applied to assemblages dis- basis for this comparison. Moreover, despite tantintimeand space. We believe that the wider many similarities, the EUP industry from Layer ap.plicationof these original terms not only sim- l C at Mezmaiskaya is not identical to the Ahmar- plifiesthemby a subjective reduction of their pri- tan. mary determiningattributes, but also confuses our Ongoing excavations of EUP levels in Mez- understandingof cultural processes within and maiskaya Cave now permit a more accurate com- betweenvariousregions. parison with the Ahmarian. Typical el-Wad To get hack to the basic definition of the points with fine lateral retouch, which are very ~urignacian,it is necessary to return to Sonne- characteristic of the Ahmarian assemblages from Ville-Bordes'(1950) classic publication on this Lagama (Bar-Yosefand Belfer 1977: fig.
    [Show full text]
  • The Aurignacian Viewed from Africa
    Aurignacian Genius: Art, Technology and Society of the First Modern Humans in Europe Proceedings of the International Symposium, April 08-10 2013, New York University THE AURIGNACIAN VIEWED FROM AFRICA Christian A. TRYON Introduction 20 The African archeological record of 43-28 ka as a comparison 21 A - The Aurignacian has no direct equivalent in Africa 21 B - Archaic hominins persist in Africa through much of the Late Pleistocene 24 C - High modification symbolic artifacts in Africa and Eurasia 24 Conclusions 26 Acknowledgements 26 References cited 27 To cite this article Tryon C. A. , 2015 - The Aurignacian Viewed from Africa, in White R., Bourrillon R. (eds.) with the collaboration of Bon F., Aurignacian Genius: Art, Technology and Society of the First Modern Humans in Europe, Proceedings of the International Symposium, April 08-10 2013, New York University, P@lethnology, 7, 19-33. http://www.palethnologie.org 19 P@lethnology | 2015 | 19-33 Aurignacian Genius: Art, Technology and Society of the First Modern Humans in Europe Proceedings of the International Symposium, April 08-10 2013, New York University THE AURIGNACIAN VIEWED FROM AFRICA Christian A. TRYON Abstract The Aurignacian technocomplex in Eurasia, dated to ~43-28 ka, has no direct archeological taxonomic equivalent in Africa during the same time interval, which may reflect differences in inter-group communication or differences in archeological definitions currently in use. Extinct hominin taxa are present in both Eurasia and Africa during this interval, but the African archeological record has played little role in discussions of the demographic expansion of Homo sapiens, unlike the Aurignacian. Sites in Eurasia and Africa by 42 ka show the earliest examples of personal ornaments that result from extensive modification of raw materials, a greater investment of time that may reflect increased their use in increasingly diverse and complex social networks.
    [Show full text]
  • JHE Wezmeh Accepted.Pdf
    Kent Academic Repository Full text document (pdf) Citation for published version Zanolli, Clément and Biglari, Fereidoun and Mashkour, Marjan and Abdi, Kamyar and Monchot, Hervé and Debue, Karyne and Mazurier, Arnaud and Bayle, Priscilla and Le Luyer, Mona and Rougier, Hélène and Trinkaus, Erik and Macchiarelli, Roberto (2019) A Neanderthal from the Central Western Zagros, Iran. Structural reassessment of the Wezmeh 1 maxillary premolar. DOI Link to record in KAR https://kar.kent.ac.uk/75685/ Document Version Author's Accepted Manuscript Copyright & reuse Content in the Kent Academic Repository is made available for research purposes. Unless otherwise stated all content is protected by copyright and in the absence of an open licence (eg Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher, author or other copyright holder. Versions of research The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record. Enquiries For any further enquiries regarding the licence status of this document, please contact: [email protected] If you believe this document infringes copyright then please contact the KAR admin team with the take-down information provided at http://kar.kent.ac.uk/contact.html A Neanderthal from the Central Western Zagros, Iran. Structural reassessment of the Wezmeh 1 maxillary premolar Clément Zanolli a, *, Fereidoun Biglari
    [Show full text]
  • Biologické a Sociokulturní Antro- ÚSTAV ANTROPOLOGIE Pologie: Modulové Učební Texty Pro Studenty Antropologie a „Příbuzných“ Oborů Dosud Vyšlo
    V rámci řady – Jaroslav Malina (ed.): Panoráma biologické a sociokulturní antro- ÚSTAV ANTROPOLOGIE pologie: Modulové učební texty pro studenty antropologie a „příbuzných“ oborů dosud vyšlo: 1. Jiří Svoboda, Paleolit a mezolit: Lovecko–sběračská společnost a její proměny (2000). 2. Jiřina Relichová, Genetika pro antropology (2000). 3. Jiří Gaisler, Primatologie pro antropology (2000). 4. František Vrhel, Antropologie sexuality: Sociokulturní hledisko (2002). 5. Jaroslav Zvěřina – Jaroslav Malina, Sexuologie pro antropology (2002). 6. Jiří Svoboda, Paleolit a mezolit: Myšlení, symbolismus a umění (2002). 7. Jaroslav Skupnik, Manželství a sexualita z antropologické perspektivy (2002). 8. Oldřich Kašpar, Předkolumbovská Amerika z antropologické perspektivy (Karibská oblast, Mezoamerika, Andský areál) (2002). 9. Josef Unger, Pohřební ritus a zacházení s těly zemřelých v českých zemích (s analogiemi i jinde v Evropě) v 1.–16. století (2002). 10. Václav Vančata – Marina Vančatová, Sexualita primátů (2002). 11. Josef Kolmaš, Tibet z antropologické perspektivy (2002). 12. Josef Kolmaš, Smrt a pohřbívání u Tibeťanů (2003). 13. Václav Vančata, Paleoantropologie – přehled fylogeneze člověka a jeho předků (2003). 14. František Vrhel, Předkolumbovské literatury: Témata, problémy, dějiny (2003). PŘÍRODOVĚDECKÁ FAKULTA 15. Ladislava Horáčková – Eugen Strouhal – Lenka Vargová, Základy paleopato- MASARYKOVA UNIVERZITA logie (2004). PANORÁMA ANTROPOLOGIE 16. Josef Kolmaš, První Evropané ve Lhase (1661) (Kircherovo résumé Gruebe- rovy cestovní zprávy. Latinský text a český překlad) (2003). biologické - sociální - kulturní 17. Marie Dohnalová – Jaroslav Malina – Karel Müller, Občanská společnost: Minulost – současnost – budoucnost (2003). 18. Eva Drozdová, Základy osteometrie (2004). 19. Jiří A. Svoboda, Paleolit a mezolit: Pohřební ritus (2003). 20. Stanislav Komárek, Obraz člověka v dílech některých význačných biologů 19. a 20. století (2003). Modulové učební texty 21.
    [Show full text]
  • The Appendicular Remains of the Kiik-Koba 2 Neandertal Infant
    The Appendicular Remains of the Kiik-Koba 2 Neandertal Infant ERIK TRINKAUS Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA; [email protected] MARIA B. MEDNIKOVA Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Dm. Ulianova str. 19, Moscow 117036, RUSSIA; [email protected] LIBBY W. COWGILL Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65201, USA; [email protected] submitted: 9 August 2016; revised 21 November 2016; accepted 7 December 2016 ABSTRACT The appendicular skeleton (scapula, humerus, ulnae, radii, metacarpals, pollical phalanges, hip bone, femora, tibiae and fibula) of the Neandertal infant from Kiik-Koba (Crimea), Kiik-Koba 2, are reassessed in the context of Late Pleistocene archaic and modern human infant remains. Based on long bone lengths, it should have been 4–6 months old at death, of indeterminate sex. The infant resembles (most) older Neandertals in its scapular dorsal sulcus axillary border, medially oriented radial tuberosity, radial curvature, large pollical opponens flange, and low crural index. It lacks the mediolateral pubic elongation seen in some older Neandertals, its brachial index is average for a Late Pleistocene or recent human, and its femoral neck-shaft angle is low for its developmental age. The percent cortical areas of its humerus and especially femur are average for its age, but its tibial one is unusually low. Yet, when scaled to intermetaphyseal lengths, the midshaft rigidities of all three long bones are unexceptional for a Late Pleistocene or non-mechanized recent human infant. The Kiik-Koba 2 infant limb bones thus provide additional data and inferences concerning the mosaic of Neandertal early postnatal development of postcranial features and appendicular hypertrophy, when assessed in the broader context of both Late Pleistocene and recent human infant remains.
    [Show full text]
  • The Discovery of an in Situ Neanderthal Remain in the Bawa Yawan Rockshelter, West- Central Zagros Mountains, Kermanshah
    PLOS ONE RESEARCH ARTICLE The discovery of an in situ Neanderthal remain in the Bawa Yawan Rockshelter, West- Central Zagros Mountains, Kermanshah 1,2,3 4,5 5,6 1,2 Saman Heydari-GuranID *, Stefano Benazzi , Sahra Talamo , Elham Ghasidian , Nemat Hariri2,7, Gregorio Oxilia4, Samran Asiabani3,8, Faramarz Azizi3, Rahmat Naderi3, 9 5,10 11 11 Reza SafaieradID , Jean-Jacques Hublin , Robert A. Foley , Marta M. Lahr 1 Stiftung Neanderthal Museum, Mettmann, Germany, 2 Department of Prehistoric Archaeology University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany, 3 DiyarMehr Centre for Palaeolithic Research, Kermanshah, Iran, 4 Department of Cultural Heritage, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy, 5 Department of Human Evolution, a1111111111 Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany, 6 Department of Chemistry G. a1111111111 Ciamician, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy, 7 Department of Archaeology, a1111111111 University of Mohaghegh Ardabili University, Ardabil, Iran, 8 Department of Architecture, Faculty of Art and a1111111111 Architecture, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran, 9 Department of Physical Geography, University of a1111111111 Tehran, Tehran, Iran, 10 Collège de France, 11 Place Marcelin Berthelot, Paris, France, 11 Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies, Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom * [email protected] OPEN ACCESS Citation: Heydari-Guran S, Benazzi S, Talamo S, Abstract Ghasidian E, Hariri N, Oxilia G, et al. (2021) The discovery of an in situ Neanderthal remain in the Neanderthal extinction has been a matter of debate for many years. New discoveries, better Bawa Yawan Rockshelter, West-Central Zagros chronologies and genomic evidence have done much to clarify some of the issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Ain Difla Rockshelter (Jordan) and the Evolution of Levantine Mousterian Technology
    Eurasian Prehistory, 5 (1): 47- 83. QUANTIFYING DIACHRONIC VARIABILITY: THE 'AIN DIFLA ROCKSHELTER (JORDAN) AND THE EVOLUTION OF LEVANTINE MOUSTERIAN TECHNOLOGY Mentor Mustafa' and Geoffrey A. Clark2 1 Department ofAnthropology, Boston University, 232 Bay State Road, Boston, MA 02215; [email protected] 2 Department ofAnthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona; 85287-2402; [email protected] Abstract Typological, technological, and metrical analyses of a lithic assemblage from the 'Ain Difla rockshelter in west­ central Jordan are consistent with the results of previous studies that align 'Ain Difla with the Tabun D-type Levantine Mousterian. Technological and typological affinities are discernible from a direct comparison of tools from this assem­ blage with those found in Tabun layer D, as well as metrical and categorical comparisons between 'Ain Ditla and other well-known Tabun D Mousterian sites. The 'Ain Difla sample is dominated by elongated Levallois points. Blanks were obtained from both uni- and bipolar convergent and predominantly Levallois cores that show evidence of bidirectional flaking. The typological and technological comparisons reported here suggest that the evolution of the blade-rich Mouste­ rian can be viewed as a continuum between the early (Tabun) and late (Boker Tachtit) Mousterian; that (on any index) 'Ain Difla falls somewhere around the middle of this continuum, and that Mousterian laminar technologies develop more or less continually into the early Upper Paleolithic Ahmarian. INTRODUCTION rich technologies
    [Show full text]
  • Ahead of the Game: Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Hunting Behaviors in the Southern Caucasus
    Ahead of the Game: Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Hunting Behaviors in the Southern Caucasus The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Adler, Daniel S., Guy Bar#Oz, Anna Belfer#Cohen, and Ofer Bar# Yosef. 2006. Ahead of the Game: Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Hunting Behaviors in the Southern Caucasus. Current Anthropology 47, no. 1: 89–118. Published Version doi:10.1086/432455 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12242824 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Current Anthropology Volume 47, Number 1, February 2006 89 Ahead of the Game Middle and Upper Palaeolithic Hunting Behaviors in the Southern Caucasus by Daniel S. Adler, Guy Bar-Oz, Anna Belfer-Cohen, and Ofer Bar-Yosef Over the past several decades a variety of models have been proposed to explain perceived behavioral and cognitive differences between Neanderthals and modern humans. A key element in many of these models and one often used as a proxy for behavioral “modernity” is the frequency and nature of hunting among Palaeolithic populations. Here new archaeological data from Ortvale Klde, a late Middle–early Upper Palaeolithic rockshelter in the Georgian Republic, are considered, and zooar- chaeological methods are applied to the study of faunal acquisition patterns to test whether they changed significantly from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic.
    [Show full text]
  • An Anthropological Assessment of Neanderthal Behavioural Energetics
    DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY, CLASSICS & EGYPTOLOGY An Anthropological Assessment of Neanderthal Behavioural Energetics. Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements of the University of Liverpool for the Degree of Doctor in Philosophy by Andrew Shuttleworth. April, 2013. TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………..i LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………………v LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………..vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…………………………………………………………………...vii ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………viii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1 1.1. Introduction..............................................................................................................1 1.2. Aims and Objectives................................................................................................2 1.3. Thesis Format...........................................................................................................3 2. THE NEANDERTHAL AND OXYEGN ISOTOPE STAGE-3.................................6 2.1. Discovery, Geographic Range & Origins..............................................................7 2.1.1. Discovery........................................................................................................7 2.1.2. Neanderthal Chronology................................................................................10 2.2. Morphology.............................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Early Cave Art and Ancient DNA Record the Origin of European Bison
    ARTICLE Received 22 Apr 2016 | Accepted 9 Sep 2016 | Published 18 Oct 2016 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms13158 OPEN Early cave art and ancient DNA record the origin of European bison Julien Soubrier1,*, Graham Gower1,*, Kefei Chen1, Stephen M. Richards1,BastienLlamas1,KierenJ.Mitchell1,SimonY.W.Ho2, Pavel Kosintsev3, Michael S.Y. Lee4,5, Gennady Baryshnikov6, Ruth Bollongino7, Pere Bover1,8, Joachim Burger7, David Chivall9,EvelyneCre´gut-Bonnoure10,11,Jared E. Decker12, Vladimir B. Doronichev13,KaterinaDouka9,DamienA.Fordham14, Federica Fontana15,CaroleFritz16, Jan Glimmerveen17, Liubov V. Golovanova13, Colin Groves18, Antonio Guerreschi15, Wolfgang Haak1,19,TomHigham9, Emilia Hofman-Kamin´ska20, Alexander Immel19, Marie-Anne Julien21,22, Johannes Krause19, Oleksandra Krotova23, Frauke Langbein24,GregerLarson25, Adam Rohrlach26, Amelie Scheu7, Robert D. Schnabel12,JeremyF.Taylor12, Małgorzata Tokarska20, Gilles Tosello27, Johannes van der Plicht28, Ayla van Loenen1, Jean-Denis Vigne29, Oliver Wooley1, Ludovic Orlando30,31, Rafał Kowalczyk20, Beth Shapiro32,33 & Alan Cooper1 The two living species of bison (European and American) are among the few terrestrial megafauna to have survived the late Pleistocene extinctions. Despite the extensive bovid fossil record in Eurasia, the evolu- tionary history of the European bison (or wisent, Bison bonasus) before the Holocene (o11.7 thousand years ago (kya)) remains a mystery. We use complete ancient mitochondrial genomes and genome-wide nuclear DNA surveys to reveal that the wisent is the product of hybridization between the extinct steppe bison (Bison priscus) and ancestors of modern cattle (aurochs, Bos primigenius) before 120 kya, and contains up to 10% aurochs genomic ancestry. Although undetected within the fossil record, ancestors of the wisent have alternated ecological dominance with steppe bison in association with major environmental shifts since at least 55 kya.
    [Show full text]
  • What's in a Neanderthal
    WHAT’S IN A NEANDERTHAL: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Taylorlyn Stephan Oberlin College Dept. of Anthropology Advised by Prof. Amy Margaris TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Abstract – pg. 3 II. Introduction – pg. 3-4 III. Historical Background – pg. 4-5 a. Fig. 1 – pg. 5 IV. Methods – pg. 5-8 a. Figs. 2 and 3 – pg. 6 V. Genomic Definitions – pg. 8-9 VI. Site Introduction – pg. 9-10 a. Fig 4 – pg. 10 VII. El Sidron – pg. 10-14 a. Table – pg. 10-12 b. Figs. 5-7 – pg. 12 c. Figs. 8 and 9 – pg. 13 VIII. Mezmaiskaya – pg. 14-18 a. Table – pg. 14-16 b. Figs. 10 and 11 – pg. 16 IX. Shanidar – pg. 18-22 a. Table – pg. 19-20 b. Figs. 12 and 13 – pg.21 X. Vindija – pg. 22-28 a. Table – pg. 23-25 b. Fig. 14 – pg. 25 c. Figs. 15-18 – pg. 26 XI. The Neanderthal Genome Project – pg. 28-32 a. Table – pg. 29 b. Fig. 19 – pg. 29 c. Figs. 20 and 21 – pg. 30 XII. Discussion – pg. 32- 36 XIII. Conclusion – pg. 36-38 XIV. Bibliography – pg. 38-42 2 ABSTRACT In this analysis, I seek to understand how three separate lines of evidence – skeletal morphology, archaeology, and genomics – are used separately and in tandem to produce taxonomic classifications in Neanderthal and paleoanthropological research more generally. To do so, I have selected four sites as case studies: El Sidrón Cave, Mezmaiskaya Cave, Shanidar Cave, and Vindija Cave. El Sidrón, Mezmaiskaya, and Vindija all have detailed archaeological records and have yielded Neanderthal DNA.
    [Show full text]