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. 23) and subject.Basedon the original materials (Sonne- Qafzeh Cave, layer E (Bar- Yosef and Belfer- ville-Bordes,1950: 146-150) the Aurignacian is Cohen 2004: figs. 11-12) are absent from Mez- definedasa blade industry _ ruost tools are made maiskaya. By contrast, typical Gravette points onblades.Further,the Aurignacian toolkit is de- with straight backs made by blunted retouch are ~;ed by the following characteristics: 20.5 to the most common point type in the EUP levels at .7 percentendscrapers, between 7.1 and 35.0 Mezmaiskaya (Fig. I). Various bone tools, which per~entAurignacian scrapers (including typical are poorly represented in the Ahmarian (possibly carmatedand nosed endscrapers), 28.9 to 43.0 due to poor bone preservation), are characteristic percentburins, 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-basepoints. Bladelets with Dufour re- and pendants made from ungulate teeth. Moreo- tQuc.harelesscommon and do not occur not in all ver, in layers IB and IA (dating from about 32 to Aungnacianassemblages. 28 ky BP), bone tools with geometric ornamenta- Incomparingthe new EUP assemblages from tion, plaque beads made from mammoth tusk, and ~ezmaiskayaCave 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 findstheMezmaiskaya materials to be most simi- Aurignacian. At Mezmaiskaya, bladelet and even 132 L. Golovanova et at. A response to Otte "Comments on Mezrnaiskaya" 133

, ! "

MEZMAISKAYA CAVE .. ,

o. 2 em

MEZ,MAISKAVA CAVE

I I"

DUFOUR GROTTO

o L..' -"'----'----', 3em

o 2 em ! !

LAGAMA VII 0- YAFTEH CAVE , o 2 ..,3cm

o * 1 2 YAFTEH CAVE

Fig,2. Backedbladelets from Mezmaiskaya Cave (Golovanova et al., 2006: fig. 22), and Dufour bladelets from Dufour Grotto (Brezillon, 1971: fig. 115) and Yafteh Cave (Orte et aI., 2007: fig. 6)

Fig.1. Various types of points on bl d I . f L a e ets from Me . & pomts rom agama VII (Bar- Yasef and B I~ zmalskaya Cave (GoI I 2006'fig.22). 2007: fig. 6) e rer, 1977: fig, 23) . ov~nova et a., . (ort" , and Arjeneh POints from Yafteh Cave (see Brazillon 197I: 266-267) first defined with Dufour retouch are completely absent in Dufouras a type of bladelet "finement retouchees, Layer I C at Mezmaiskaya, as are any bladelets micro-blade let production is more comm parretouchesalternes". We think that Otte refer- with ventral retouch (fig. 2). t~e large blade production typical of the on. than blanks) in the EUP ofMezmaiskaya (GoIO\~ ence to Dufour bladelets at Mezmaiskaya comes Otte identification (Eurasian Prehistory, this clan. Contrary to assertions by Orte th~u~lgna- etal., 2006: 65: fig. 21). fr~~ an inappropriate redefinition of these pieces issue) of Arjeneh points at Mezmaiskaya (GoIo- and unlike the true Aurignacian in F ( IS ISSue) OUec h'f"~ ortgmally defined as backed bIade!ets (see Golo- vanova et al., 2006: fig. 22: 1-11) is also not quite are relatively infrequent (...... 17 pe rance, blades omment (Eurasian Pre /S 0'1' iii' rcenr of laminar Sue) also requires that we get back to Ib' . vanova et al., 2006: fig. 22: 12-18). Following correct. Although, both Arjeneh points from ofthed fi " BU~ the originaldefinition of 1. Bouyssonie, bladelets e lnltlon of Dufour retouch. 1. OJ Yafteh Cave (Otte et al., 2007: fig. 6: 1-3) and 134 L. Golovanova et a/. A response to Otte "Comments on Mezmaiskaya" 135

Tahiti definition of the Aurignacian - or rather, the of modern excavation techniques and comprehen- Comparison of EUP lithic indices at Mezmaiskaya Cave, layer 1 C and Yafteh Cave Aurignacoid - to many Upper Paleolithic indus- sive publication will improve our understanding (calculations by Golovanova based on published data ofOtte el al., 2007) tries that are quite different from the typical of inter-assemblage variability within this area. Aurignacian of France. This broad definition BJadesIbJadele!s: Bladelets: Tools 011 bladelets: masks important differences between localities Percent of total flakes Percent of all Endscrapersbems Acknowledgments blades/bladelen Percent of total tools PercentofIota]lools and regions. We thank Marcel Otte for his discussion of Mezmaiskaya, Layer J C 73.2 As in the Northwestern Caucasus, researchers 82.8 57.6 25.9 Mezmaiskaya and for giving us the opportunity to clar- Yafteh Cave 79.7 I studying the EUP of Georgia (particularly at 69.4 66.7 t9t ify the nature of the EUP at this site. We also thank Dzudzuana Cave and Ortvale Klde Rockshelter) Ofer Bar-Yoseffor his comments on this manuscript. also note the similarity of these assemblages to the Levantine Ahmarian, and reject their affilia- points from Mezmaiskaya are made on bJadelets, authors (Amirkhanov, 1986; Cohen and Stepan· tion with the Aurignacian (Meshveliani et al., their retouching is essentially different. While re- chuk, 1999) REFERENCES touch III tbe that claim to have identified the 2004; Bar-Yosef et al., 2006). Further, these au- Yafteh assemblage IS fine and Aurignacian within the EUP of the Northern Cau· AMIRKHANOV H. A. 1986. Verhkniy palealit semi-abrupt, it is more modifying and abrupt at thors point out the differences between the Geor- casus. It is important to note, however, thatboili gian EUP and that at Mezmaiskaya by noting the Prikubanya (The Upper Paleolithic of the Kuban Mezmaiskaya. Moreover, Arjeneh points are not a River Valley). Moscow. articles reach this conclusion based on materials higher percent of blunted backed bladelets at the key component of the typical Aurignacian. On the Bar-YosefO., A. Belfer-Cohen, D. S. Adter. 2006. The contrary, some from the old excavations in Kamennomostskaya latter site. of these tools are similar to implications of the Middle-Upper Paleolithic chro- Cave. The Aurignacian characteristics of thisas· Thus, we can conclude that the EUP assem- el-Wad points made on bladelets (Fig. I), which nological boundary in the Caucasus to Eurasian pre- are semblage are the following indices: nearly 360 blages from Mezmaiskaya Cave belong to a cul- characteristic for the Levantine Ahmarian history. Anthropologie XLIV/l: 49-60. percent blades, 18.8 percent tools on large hlades, tural area of widespread bladelet industries found BAR-YOSEF 0., BELFER-COHEN A. 2004. The (e.g., Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 2004: figs. 11-12). 22.3 percent endscrapers and burins, and 2.3 per· from the Levant to the Caucasus between 40 or 38 Qafzeh Upper Paleolithic assemblages: 70 years cent blunted backed bladelets and points on ble Of the Aurignacian components described by and 30 ky. As a group, these industries are distin- later. Eurasian Prehistory 2( 1-2): l45-180. Otte, only endscrapers remain. Indeed, there are delets (see Golovanova, 2000: 172). Excavation guished by a very high level of bladelet produc- BAR-YOSEF 0., BELFER A. 1977. The Lagaman In- in Kamennornostskaya Cave was carried out more dustry. Prehistoric investigations in Gebel Mag- few Aurignacian-type endscrapers tion in the flaking technique and by the fact that made on hara, Northern Sinai. Jerusalem: 42-84. blades at Mezmaiskaya (Golovanova et at., 2006: than 40 years ago, and the material is undated and one of the largest and most variable groups of BLAJKO A. V. 2007. Raskopki verkhnepaleolitiches- fiig. 23: 11). However, the majority of endscrapers seems to be non-homogeneous. Unfortunately, tools is made on bladelets. In the Levant, this in- the cave and its deposits have been completely de- dustry type is called Ahmarian. koi stoyanki v Korotkoi peshere na Severo-Zapad- in Layer 1C are made by semr -abrupt retouch on nom Kavkaze (Excavations of the Upper Paleolithic stroyed by a limestone quarry, and it IS ImpossIble In our opinion, materials from Yafteh Cave in massive or technical flakes. No typical Aurigna- occupation at Korotkaya cave in the North-Western to test the reliability of the published results. cian carinated or nosed end scrapers or busked Iran (Otte et a!., 2007) belong to the same group Caucasus). Arkheologicheskie otkritiya 2006 gada. burins are found in the EUP levels of the cave. By contrast, the modem excavations in Mez- of industries and are similar to the Later Ahmar- Moscow, in press. Among the bone tools from Mezmaiskaya maiskaya and Korotkaya caves (Blajko, 2007) ian and to Mezmaiskaya Cave in the following BREZILLON M. N. 1971. La Denomination des objets cave, there are several types not characteristic of have uncovered a very early (_ 32 ky) appearance general characteristics (see Table 1): a flaking de pierre taillee. Paris. the Aurignacian. These include bone needles, of micro-blade (bladelet) lithic industries in the technology oriented to the production of blades COHEN V. Yu., STEPANCHUK V. N. t999. Late pendants made from ungulate teeth or mammoth Northwestern Caucasus. Over the past 10 to 15 (especially bladelets - 48.3 percent of the total as- Middle and Early Paleolithic Evidence from the East European Plain and Caucasus: A new look at tusk, and bone tools with geometric ornamenta- years, research in the Caucasus has essentially semblage from Yafteh), a clear abundance ofbla- changed our understanding of the Upper Paleo- delet tools, and a rather low percentage of end- variability, interactions, and transitions. Journal of tion. Only one biconical bone point is nearly com- World Prehistory t3(3):265-319. lithic in thi~ region. In Our opinion, modernization scrapers and burins. Although, predominance of plete - all other points are broken. It is worth not- GILEAD 1. 1991. The Upper Paleolithic period in the o~ excavatIOn techniques has significantly con- bladelets with Dufour retouch (47.4 percent of the ing that biconical points occur not only in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory 5(2). tnbuted to this change. The careful documenta- Aurignacian, but also in the Gravettian assem- total tool assemblage) and Arjeneh points (19.3 GOLOVANOVA L. V. 2007. Ob odnoi vashnoi cherte blages in France (Sonneville-Bordes 1950). tion of micro-stratigraphical divisions and com- percent) both determine the specificity of the EUP pozdnego paleolita Kavkaza (On one important fea- prehensive application of sediment water scree- Moreover, according to Golovanova's (2007) sur- materials from Yafteh Cave against the Ahrnarian ture of the Late Paleolithic in Caucasus). Materiali i vey of the published data, only biconical projec- ni~g have produced a whole range of micro- or Mezmaiskaya. issledovania po arheologii Kuban! 3. Krasnodar, in artIfacts (bothlithics and bone), which are com- press. tile points are known from the Upper Paleolithic In general, we conclude that the time period pletely absent In older collections. GOLOVANOVA L. V. 2000. Rubej srednego i poz- of the Caucasus. On the contrary, the split-base between 40 or 38 and 30 kya was significant for It is clear, if we get back to the basics of the dnego paleolita na sevamom Kavkaze. (The Middle bone points so typical of the Aurignacian have not the dispersal of essentially new EUP blade and Aurignacian, t~at Layer I C of Mezmaiskaya is bladelet-based industries, particularly across the to Upper Paleolithic Interface in the Northern Cau- been found in this region. casus). Stratum plus. The Time of the Last Nean- n~t representatIve of this industry. Using such at. region including the Zagros, Levant and Cauca- Otte (Eurasian Prehistory, this issue) buttress derthals I. Kishinev: l58-177. tributes as the presence of bone projectile points sus. The study of the character, origin and spread their argument that Mezmaiskaya has an Aurigna- Go1ovanova L. V., Cleghorn N. E., Doronichev V. B., or of endscrapers on large blades with continuous of these industries will continue to occupy archae- cian component by citing Russian and Ukrainian Hoffecker J. F., Burr G. S., Sulergizkiy L. D. 2006. flat retouch, some authors have expanded the ologists in the future. The continued application The Early Upper Paleolithic in the Northern Cauca- 136 L. Golcvanova et al.

sus (new data from Mezmaiskaya Cave, 1997 exca- ZWYNS, M. MASHKOUR, R. NADER!,A. M~ vation). Eurasian Prehistory 4(1-2):43-78. HASEB, N. HASHEMI, J. DARVISH, V.RA~ MESHVELlANl T., BAR- YOSEF 0., BELFER-CO- 2007. The Aurignacian in the Zagros region: O\'i HEN A. 2004. The Upper Paleolithic in Western research at Yafteh Cave, Lore- stan, Iran.AII/iqrr." Georgia. In: P. 1. Brantingham, S. L. Kuhn, K. W. 8, 82-96. Kerry (eds.). The Early Upper Paleolithic beyond SONNEVILLE-BORDES DE D. 1950. Le Palii, Western Europe. University of Cali fomi a Press. thique superieur en Perigord. T. I. Bordeaux OTTE M., F. BJGLARl, D. FLAS, S. SHIDRANG, N. 136 L. Golovanova et al.

susJnew data from Mezmaiskaya Cave, 1997 exca- ZWYNS, M. MASHKOUR, R. NADER!,A. M~ varion). Eurasian Prehistory 4(1-2):43-78. HASEB, N. HASHEMI, J. DARVISH, V.RA~ MESHVELIANI T., BAR- YOSEF 0., BELFER-CO- 2007. The Aurignacian in the Zagros region:!II'i HEN A. 2004. The Upper Paleolithic in Western research at Yafteh Cave, Lore- stan, Iran.AI//iq~'· Georgia. In: P. 1. Brantingham, S. L. Kuhn, K. W. 8, 82-96. Kerry (eds.). The Early Upper Paleolithic beyond SONNEVILLE-BORDES DE D. 1950. Le Pa/ii, Western Europe. University of Cali fomi a Press. thique superieur en Perigord. T. I. Bordeaux Guidelines for Authors OTTE M., F. BJGLARl, D. FLAS, S. SHIDRANG, N.

I. The aim of this journal is to publish lengthy site re- must be ranked, and this should be marked in ink in the pons (including preliminary site reports) and other left margin using TOmannumerals (i.e., I, II, III). data-based articles (not syntheses), and to provide Figures and Tables space for many illustrations. Illustrations, line drawings, graphs, and photo- 2. Please include the radiocarbon information with graphs are all considered 'figures'. Figures should be yourarticle. When citing dates, the date should be cited the width of one column (70 mrn), or two columns (145 as BPcalibrated or BP uncalibrated. You must cite the mm), and may not exceed 205 111m in height. Each fig- softwareused for calibration and the lab number. C 14 ure must be cited in the text, and must be in a separate dates and their locations should be marked where ap- file and numbered consecutively with Arabic numerals propriateon the illustrations. (i.e., figure I, figure 2). All illustrations (scanned 3. Please use metric units of measure. graphics, photos and vector graphics) should be sup- 4. For review and editorial purposes, please send 3 plied as a TIFF format (at publication size) at 600 dpi in copies of the manuscript, 3 photocopies of tile figures, grayscale. Do not usc word processing programs to and 3 photocopies of the tables, along with an elec- produce figures, drawings, or graphs, or to embed Ironic copy of the paper in Microsoft Word on a 3.5 graphics into the text. If after your artielc is accepted mch floppy disk, CD, or 100 MB zip disk. Be sure to you plan to submit original 'hard copies' of figures, keep an electronic copy and a paper copy of your arti- please consult with the USA editorial office regarding cle and illustrations. specifications for submission and mailing. Please in- Please send your manuscript packet to the USA elude a legend, a directional arrow, a title and a caption editorial office to the attention of the Production Editor, for each figure, and letter each item in the figure (i.e. a., Wren Fournier, who will consult with the Scientific b., c.). Co-Editors and arrange for its review. The address is All tables must be done in MS Word or Excel. Wren Fournier, Harvard University, Peabody Museum, Tables with graphic figures should be submitted as Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. ote: the editorial staff TIFF files. of Eurasian Prehistory will assist in editing the Eng- Permissions lish text if necessary. Please mark diskettes with your Permission for the use of figures must adhere to USA name. the disk format (LBM or MAC), and the name of legal regulations. If you are using a figure that has been the software programs that you used for both the manu- published, you must provide a written, signed letter script and any figures. The preferred software for from that journal or press granting permission for the manuscripts is Microsoft Word. figure to be used. Credit must be granted to the original To prevent valuable figures from being lost in the illustrator or photographer in the figure caption. mail. please do not send original figures, photos, or Acknowledgements drawings. The originals will be requested once the pa- Please use the full name of universities or organi- per IS accepted for publication. zations and do not abbreviate. 5. Organization of the manuscript: References Title page The reference list should contain only the refer- Title of the paper (not to exceed 90 characters). ences that appear in the text. Please cress-check the text Author names, affiliations, addresses, fax numbers, with the reference list to ensure the accuracy of spell- and e-mail address for all authors. ings and dates, and ensure thai all oftbe references that - Abstract (001 longer than 300 words). appear in the text appear in the reference Ii t and vice - Keywords (7 words or less). verse. Papers that have not been accepted for publica- Article tion may not be cited. Do not abbreviate the names of Manuscripts must be written in English and all of journals, books, publishers, or cities. When referring to the text must be double-spaced on A4 or 8.5 inch x 11 tables and figures in cited papers, please usc lowercase mch paper. Text should be in Times ew Roman font, (for example, Smith, 1961 fig. 3, tab. 6). References in and divided into sections and paragraphs. Headings the text should be cited as: (Smith, 1988), usin Ie CTS