DOCSLIB.ORG

Comments on Mezmaiskaya"

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. 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.
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"
    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.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Neanderthal Brain Size at Birth Provides Insights Into the Evolution of Human Life History
    Neanderthal brain size at birth provides insights into the evolution of human life history Marcia S. Ponce de Leo´ n*†, Lubov Golovanova‡, Vladimir Doronichev‡, Galina Romanova‡, Takeru Akazawa§, Osamu Kondo¶, Hajime Ishidaʈ, and Christoph P. E. Zollikofer*† *Anthropological Institute and Museum, University of Zurich, CH-8057 Zu¨rich, Switzerland; ‡Laboratory of Prehistory, St. Petersburg 199034, Russia; §Kochi University of Technology, Kochi 782-8502, Japan; ¶Department of Biological Sciences, Graduate School of Science, University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan; and ʈDepartment of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, University of the Ryukyus, Nishihara, Okinawa 903-0213 Japan Edited by Erik Trinkaus, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, and approved July 25, 2008 (received for review April 23, 2008) From birth to adulthood, the human brain expands by a factor of only scarcely represented in the fossil record. A recent analysis 3.3, compared with 2.5 in chimpanzees [DeSilva J and Lesnik J of the only well preserved Homo erectus infant neurocranium (2006) Chimpanzee neonatal brain size: Implications for brain suggested that brain growth in H. erectus followed a chimpanzee- growth in Homo erectus. J Hum Evol 51: 207–212]. How the like rather than a modern human-like pattern (8). However, required extra amount of human brain growth is achieved and comprehensive comparative studies do not confirm this hypoth- what its implications are for human life history and cognitive esis; rather, they indicate that modern human-like ontogenetic development are still a matter of debate. Likewise, because com- traits such as increased neonate brain size and postnatal brain parative fossil evidence is scarce, when and how the modern growth rates were already present in H.
    [Show full text]
  • Dietary and Behavioral Strategies Of
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 5-2011 Dietary and Behavioral Strategies of Neandertals and Anatomically Modern Humans: Evidence from Anterior Dental Microwear Texture Analysis Kristin Lynn Krueger University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Biological and Physical Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Krueger, Kristin Lynn, "Dietary and Behavioral Strategies of Neandertals and Anatomically Modern Humans: Evidence from Anterior Dental Microwear Texture Analysis" (2011). Theses and Dissertations. 92. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/92 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. 1 DIETARY AND BEHAVIORAL STRATEGIES OF NEANDERTALS AND ANATOMICALLY MODERN HUMANS: EVIDENCE FROM ANTERIOR DENTAL MICROWEAR TEXTURE ANALYSIS DIETARY AND BEHAVIORAL STRATEGIES OF NEANDERTALS AND ANATOMICALLY MODERN HUMANS: EVIDENCE FROM ANTERIOR DENTAL MICROWEAR TEXTURE ANALYSIS A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology By Kristin L. Krueger University of Wisconsin-Madison Bachelor of Science in Anthropology, 2003 University of Wisconsin-Madison Bachelor of Science in Spanish, 2003 Western Michigan University Master of Arts in Anthropology, 2006 May 2011 University of Arkansas ABSTRACT The extreme gross wear of Neandertal anterior teeth has been a topic of debate for decades. Several ideas have been proposed, including the excessive mastication of grit- laden foods and non-dietary anterior tooth use, or using the anterior dentition as a clamp or tool.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Anthropology
    Forthcoming Current Anthropology Wenner-Gren Symposium Current Anthropology Supplementary Issues (in order of appearance) Current VOLUME 58 SUPPLEMENT 17 DECEMBER 2017 The Anthropology of Corruption. Sarah Muir and Akhil Gupta, eds. Cultures of Militarism. Catherine Besteman and Hugh Gusterson, eds. Patchy Anthropocene. Anna Tsing, Nils Bubandt, and Andrew Mathews, eds. Anthropology Previously Published Supplementary Issues Engaged Anthropology: Diversity and Dilemmas. Setha M. Low and Sally Engle Merry, eds. THE WENNER-GREN SYMPOSIUM SERIES Corporate Lives: New Perspectives on the Social Life of the Corporate Form. December 2017 Damani Partridge, Marina Welker, and Rebecca Hardin, eds. The Origins of Agriculture: New Data, New Ideas. T. Douglas Price and HUMAN COLONIZATION OF ASIA IN THE LATE PLEISTOCENE Ofer Bar-Yosef, eds. GUEST EDITORS: CHRISTOPHER J. BAE, KATERINA DOUKA, The Biological Anthropology of Living Human Populations: World Histories, AND MICHAEL D. PETRAGLIA National Styles, and International Networks. Susan Lindee and Ricardo Ventura Santos, eds. Human Colonization of Asia in the Late Pleistocene Human Biology and the Origins of Homo. Susan Antón and Leslie C. Aiello, eds. Human Colonization of Asia in the Late Pleistocene: The History of an Invasive Species Potentiality and Humanness: Revisiting the Anthropological Object in 58 Volume A Genomic View of the Pleistocene Population History of Asia Contemporary Biomedicine. Klaus Hoeyer and Karen-Sue Taussig, eds. Testing Modern Human Out-of-Africa Dispersal Models Using Dental Nonmetric Data Alternative Pathways to Complexity: Evolutionary Trajectories in the Middle Archaic Hominin Populations in Asia before the Arrival of Modern Humans: Their Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. Steven L. Kuhn and Erella Hovers, eds.
    [Show full text]
  • Source Provenance of Obsidian Artifacts from Mezmaiskaya Cave, Northwest Caucusus Mountains, Russia
    www.escholarship.org/uc/item/1802k5d4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL X-RAY FLUORESCENCE SPECTROMETRY LABORATORY 8100 WYOMING BLVD., SUITE M4-158 ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87113 USA SOURCE PROVENANCE OF OBSIDIAN ARTIFACTS FROM MEZMAISKAYA CAVE, NORTHWEST CAUCUSUS MOUNTAINS, RUSSIA by M. Steven Shackley, Ph.D., Director Geoarchaeological XRF Laboratory Albuquerque, New Mexico USA Report Prepared for Drs. Liubov Golovanova, and Vladimir Doronicheva ANO Laboratory of Prehistory St. Petersburg, Russia 23 February 2014 www.escholarship.org/uc/item/1802k5d4 INTRODUCTION This report documents the EDXRF analysis of 5 additional obsidian artifacts from Mezmaiskaya Cave in the Caucasus of Russia. As with the previous analysis, and based on these data and the literature it appears that two of the obsidian samples were produced from the Zayukovo source in the central Caucasus and the rest appear to be from the Kojun Daği (Paravan) source in southern Georgia (Doronicheva et al. 2013; Golovanova et al. 2010). LABORATORY SAMPLING, ANALYSIS AND INSTRUMENTATION All archaeological samples are analyzed whole. The results presented here are quantitative in that they are derived from "filtered" intensity values ratioed to the appropriate x- ray continuum regions through a least squares fitting formula rather than plotting the proportions of the net intensities in a ternary system (McCarthy and Schamber 1981; Schamber 1977). Or more essentially, these data through the analysis of international rock standards, allow for inter- instrument comparison with a predictable degree of certainty (Hampel 1984; Shackley 2011). All analyses for this study were conducted on a ThermoScientific Quant’X EDXRF spectrometer, located in the Archaeological XRF Laboratory, Albuquerque, New Mexico. It is equipped with a thermoelectrically Peltier cooled solid-state Si(Li) X-ray detector, with a 50 kV, 50 W, ultra-high-flux end window bremsstrahlung, Rh target X-ray tube and a 76 µm (3 mil) beryllium (Be) window (air cooled), that runs on a power supply operating 4-50 kV/0.02-1.0 mA at 0.02 increments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hominin Footprints at Le Rozel (Normandy, France)
    Supplementary Information: Direct evidence of the composition of a Neandertal social group: the hominin footprints at Le Rozel (Normandy, France) Jérémy Duveau1,*, Gilles Berillon1, Christine Verna1, Gilles Laisné2, and Dominique Cliquet2,3,4 1UMR 7194 HNHP, Centre national de la recherche scientifique, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Université Perpignan Via Domitia, 75013 Paris, France. 2Projet Collectif de Recherche « Les premiers Hommes en Normandie », Ministère de la Culture, France 3Service Régional de l’Archéologie, Direction Régionale des Affaires Culturelles Normandie, Ministère de la Culture, 14052 Caen Cedex 4, France. 4 UMR 6566 CReAAH, Centre national de la recherche scientifique, Université de Rennes 1, 35042 Rennes, France *Email: [email protected] Adress: Musée de l’Homme, 17 Place du Trocadéro, 75116 Paris, France. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1901789116 The hominin footprints sites: Fig. S1. Geographical distribution of pre-Holocene sites with potential hominin footprints Legends: 1-Trachilos (Greece), 2-Laetoli (Tanzania), 3-Ileret (Kenya), 4-Koobi Fora (Kenya), 5-Happisburgh (Great-Britain), 6-Gombore II-2 (Ethiopia), 7-Terra Amata (France), 8-Roccamonfina (Italia), 9-Biache-Saint-Vaast (France), 10- Still Bay (South Africa), 11-Theopetra (Greece), 12-Nahoon (South Africa), 13-Langebaan (South Africa), 14-Vârtop (Romania), 15-Brenton-on-Sea (South Africa), 16-Valsequillo (Mexico), 17-Chauvet (France), 18-Ciur-Ibzuc (Romania), 19-Catalan Bay (Gibraltar), 20- Cussac (France), 21-Jeju Island (South Korea), 22-Pech-Merle (France), 23-Willandra Lakes (Australia), 24-Tibetan plateau (China), 25-Engare Sero (Tanzania), 26-Lascaux (France), 27-Ojo Guareña (Spain), 28-White Sands National Monument (USA), 29-Monte Verde (Chile), 30-Tuc d'Adoubert (France), 31- Calvert Island (Canada), 32-Niaux (France), 33-Tana della Basura (Italia), 34-Fontanet (France), 35- Pehuen-Co (Argentina), 36-Lake Bogoria (Kenya).
    [Show full text]