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.