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 on Mezmaiskaya, North Caucasus", Eurasian Prehistory, this issue) that the Early Upper Paleo-lithic (EUP) at Mezmaiskaya Cave can be defined as Aurignacian (versus Golovanova et al., 2006). This raises an old methodological problem con-cerning the correct use of scientific terms and the definition of the Aurignacian. Lithic definitions such as Aurignacian and Gravettian, which were originally based on specific materials, have been rather more loosely applied to assemblages dis-tant in time and space. We believe that the wider application of these original terms not only sim-plifies them by a subjective reduction of their pri-mary determining attributes, but also confuses our understanding of cultural processes within and between various regions.

To get back to the basic definition of the Aurignacian, it is necessary to return to Sonne-ville-Bordes' (1950) classic publication on this subject. Based on the original materials (Sonne-ville-Bordes, 1950: 146- 150), the Aurignacian is defined as a blade industry - most tools are made on blades. Further, the Aurignacian toolkit is de-fined by the following characteristics: 20.5 to 72.7 percent endscrapers, b'etween 7.1 and 35.0 percent Aurignacian scrapers (including typical carinated and nosed endscrapers), 28.9 to 43.0 percent burins, 4.0 to 34.4 percent retouched blades, and two types of bone points - split and beveled-base points. Bladelets with Dufour re-touch are less common and do not occur not in all Aurignacian assemblages.

In comparing the new EUP assemblages from Mezmaiskaya Cave with coeval or slightly earlier industries (e.g. , Chatelperronian, Uluzzian, Auri-gnacian, and Ahmarian), Golovanova (2000: 175) finds the Mezmaiskaya materials to be most simi-

Jar to the Ahmarian tradition, and particularly the lithic assemblages from Abu Noshra and the La-gaman, dating between 30 and 35 ky BP (Gilead, 1991 ). This preliminary conclusion is based on the prevalence of micro-laminar (bladelet) debi-tage, a high percentage of tools made on bladelets (compared with 45 .7 percent at Lagama), and a rather low representation (about 20 percent) of endscrapers and burins. It is important to note that only the later Ahmarian assemblages provided a basis for this comparison. Moreover, despite many similarities, the EUP industry from Layer 1 C at Mezmaiskaya is not identical to the Ahmar-ian.

Ongoing excavations of EUP levels in Mez-maiskaya Cave now permit a more accurate com-parison with the Ahmarian. Typical el-Wad points with fine lateral retouch, which are very characteristic of the Ahmarian assemblages from Lagama (Bar-Yosefand Belfer 1977: fig . 23) and Qafzeh Cave, layer E (Bar-Yosef and Bel fer-Cohen 2004: figs . 11- 12) are absent from Mez-maiskaya. By contrast, typical Gravette points with straight backs made by blunted retouch are the most common point type in the EUP levels at Mezmaiskaya (Fig. 1). Various bone tools, which are poorly represented in the Ahmarian (possibly due to poor bone preservation), are characteristic of the EUP of Mezmaiskaya. These tools include points, awls, needles (including eyed needles), and pendants made from ungulate teeth. Moreo-ver, in layers lB and 1A (dating from about 32 to 28 ky BP), bone tools with geometric ornamenta-tion, plaque beads made from mammoth tusk, and pendants made from Black Sea seashells appear.

A comparison of flaking techniques also dis-tinguishes the EUP of Mezmaiskaya from the 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 the large blade production typical of the Aurigna-cian. Contrary to assertions by Otte (this issue) and unlike the true Aurignacian in France, blades are relatively infrequent ( - 17 percent of laminar

blanks) in the EUP ofMezmaiskaya (Golovanova eta/., 2006: 65: fig. 21).

Otte comment (Eurasian .Prehistory, this is-sue) also requires that we get back to the basics 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 Dufour as a type ofbladelet "finement retouchees, par retouches altemes". We think that Otte refer-ence to Dufour bladelets at Mezmaiskaya comes from an inappropriate redefinition of these pieces originally defined as backed bladelets (see Golo-vanova et al. , 2006: fig. 22: 12- 18). Following the original definition of J. Bouyssonie, bladelets

with Dufour retouch are completely absent in Layer 1 C at Mezmaiskaya, as are any blade lets with ventral retouch (fig. 2).

Otte identification (Eurasian Prehistory, this issue) of Arjeneh points at Mezmaiskaya (Golo-vanova et al., 2006: fig . 22: 1-1.1) is also not quite correct. Although, both Arjeneh points from 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 1 C and Yafteh Cave

(calculations by Golovanova based on published data ofOtte et al., 2007)

Blades/bladelets: Bladelets:

Tools on bladelets: Endscrapers/burins: Percent of total flakes

Percent of all Percent of total tools Percent of total tools

blades/bladelets

Mezmaiskaya, Layer I C 73.2 82.8

Yafteh Cave 79.7 69.4

points from Mezmaiskaya are made on bladelets, their retouching is essentially different. While re-touch in the Yafteh assemblage is fine and semi-abrupt, it is more modifying and abrupt at Mezmaiskaya. Moreover, Arjeneh points are not a key component of the typical Aurignacian. On the contrary, some of these tools are similar to el-Wad points made on bladelets (Fig. 1), which are characteristic for the Levantine Ahmarian (e.g. , Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 2004: figs. 11- 12).

Of the Aurignacian components described by Otte, only endscrapers remain. Indeed, there are few Aurignacian-type endscrapers made on blades at Mezmaiskaya (Golovanova et al., 2006: fig. 23 : II). However, the majority of endscrapers in Layer 1 C are made by semi-abrupt retouch on massive or technical flakes. No typical Aurigna-cian carinated or nosed endscrapers or husked burins are found in the EUP levels of the cave.

Among the bone tools from Mezmaiskaya cave, there are several types not characteristic of the Aurignacian. These include bone needles, pendants made from ungulate teeth or mammoth tusk, and bone tools with geometric ornamenta-tion. Only one biconical bone point is nearly com-plete - all other points are broken. It is worth not-ing that biconical points occur not only in the Aurignacian, but also in the Gravettian assem-blages in France (Sonneville-Bordes 1950). Moreover, according to Golovanova's (2007) sur-vey of the published data, only biconical projec-tile points are known from the Upper Paleolithic of the Caucasus. On the contrary, the split-base bone points so typical of the Aurignacian have not been found in this region.

Otte (Eurasian Prehistory, this issue) buttress their argument that Mezmaiskaya has an Aurigna-cian component by citing Russian and Ukrainian

57.6 25.9

66.7 19.1

authors (Amirkhanov, 1986; Cohen and Stepan-chuk, 1999) that claim to have identified the Aurignacian within the EUP of the Northern Cau-casus. It is important to note, however, that both articles reach this conclusion based on materials from the old excavations in Kamennomostskaya Cave. The Aurignacian characteristics of this as-semblage are the following indices: nearly 36.0 percent blades, 18.8 percent tools on large blades, 22.3 percent endscrapers and burins, and 2.3 per-cent blunted backed bladelets and points on bla-delets (see Golovanova, 2000: 172). Excavation in Kamennomostskaya Cave was carried out more than 40 years ago, and the material is undated and seems to be non-homogeneous. Unfortunately, the cave and its deposits have been completely de-stroyed by a limestone quarry, and it is impossible to test the reliability ofthe published results.

By contrast, the modem excavations in Mez-maiskaya and Korotkaya caves (Blajko, 2007) have uncovered a very early(~ 32 ky) appearance of micro-blade (bladelet) lithic industries in the Northwestern Caucasus. Over the past 10 to 15 years, research in the Caucasus has essentially changed our understanding of the Upper Paleo-lithic in this region. In our opinion, modernization of excavation techniques has significantly con-tributed to this change. The careful documenta-tion of micro-stratigraphical divisions and com-prehensive application of sediment water scree-ning have produced a whole range of micro-artifacts (both lithics and bone), which are com-pletely absent in older collections.

It is clear, if we get back to the basics of the Aurignacian, that Layer I C of Mezmaiskaya is not representative of this industry. Using such at-tributes as the presence of bone projectile points or of endscrapers on large blades with continuous flat retouch, some authors have expanded the

A response to Otte "Comments on Mezmaiskaya" 135

definition of the Aurignacian - or rather, the Aurignacoid - to many Upper Paleolithic indus-tries that are quite different from the typical Aurignacian of France. This broad definition masks important differences between localities and regions.

As in the Northwestern Caucasus, researchers studying the EUP of Georgia (particularly at Dzudzuana Cave and Ortvale Klde Rockshelter) also note the similarity of these assemblages to the Levantine Ahmarian, and reject their affilia-tion with the Aurignacian (Meshveliani et a!., 2004; Bar-Yosef et a!., 2006). Further, these au-thors point out the differences between the Geor-gian EUP and that at Mezmaiskaya by noting the higher percent of blunted backed bladelets at the latter site.

Thus, we can conclude that the EUP assem-blages from Mezmaiskaya Cave belong to a cul-tural area of widespread bladelet industries found from the Levant to the Caucasus between 40 or 38 and 30 ky. As a group, these industries are distin-guished by a very high level of bladelet produc-tion in the flaking technique and by the fact that one of the largest and most variable groups of tools is made on bladelets. In the Levant, this in-dustry type is called Ahmarian.

In our opinion, materials from Yafteh Cave in Iran (Otte et at., 2007) belong to the same group of industries and are similar to the Later Ahmar-ian and to Mezmaiskaya Cave in the following general characteristics (see Table I): a flaking technology oriented to the production of blades (especially blade lets - 48.3 percent of the total as-semblage from Yafteh), a clear abundance ofbla-delet tools, and a rather low percentage of end-scrapers and burins. Althougp, predominance of bladelets with Dufour retouch (47.4 percent of the total tool assemblage) and Arjeneh points ( 19.3 percent) both determine the specificity of the EUP materials from Yafteh Cave against the Ahmarian or Mezmaiskaya.

In general, we conclude that the time period between 40 or 38 and 30 kya was significant for the dispersal of essentially new EUP blade and bladelet-based industries, particularly across the region including the Zagros, Levant and Cauca-sus. The study of the character, origin and spread of these industries will continue to occupy archae-ologists in the future. The continued application

of modem excavation techniques and comprehen-sive publication will improve our understanding of inter-assemblage variability within this area.

Acknowledgments We thank Marcel Otte for his discussion of

Mezmaiskaya and for giving us the opportunity to clar-ify the nature of the EUP at this site. We also thank Ofer Bar-Yosef for his comments on this manuscript.

REFERENCES AMIRKHANOV H. A. 1986. Verhkniy paleo/it

Prikubanya (The Upper Paleolithic of the Kuban River Valley) . Moscow.

Bar-YosefO., A. Belfer-Cohen, D. S. Adler. 2006. The implications of the Middle- Upper Paleolithic chro-nological boundary in the Caucasus to Eurasian pre-history. Anthropologie XLfV/ 1: 49- 60.

BAR-YOSEF 0 ., BELFER-COHEN A. 2004. The Qafzeh Upper Paleolithic assemblages: 70 years later. Eurasian Prehistory 2(1-2): 145- 180.

BAR-YOSEF 0 ., BELFER A. 1977. The Lagaman In-dustry. Prehistoric investigations in Gebel Mag-hara, Northern Sinai. Jerusalem: 42-84.

BLAJKO A. V. 2007. Raskopki verkhnepaleolitiches-koi stoyanki v Korotkoi peshere na Severo-Zapad-nom Kavkaze (Excavations of the Upper Paleolithic occupation at Korotkaya cave in the North-Western Caucasus). Arkheologicheskie otkritiya 2006 goda. Moscow, in press.

BREZILLON M. N. 1971. La Denomination des objets de pierre taillee. Paris.

COHEN V. Yu ., STEPANCHUK V. N. 1999. Late Middle and Early Paleolithic Evidence from the East European Plain and Caucasus: A new look at variability, interactions, and transitions. Journal of World Prehistory 13(3):265- 319.

GILEAD I. 1991. The Upper Paleolithic period in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory 5(2).

GO LOY ANOV A L. V. 2007. Ob odnoi vashnoi cherte pozdnego paleo !ita Kavkaza (On one important fea-ture of the Late Paleolithic in Caucasus). Materiali i issledovania po arheologii Kubani 3. Krasnodar, in press.

GO LOY ANOV A L. V. 2000. Rubej srednego i poz-dnego paleolita na sevarnom Kavkaze. (The Middle to Upper Paleolithic Interface in the Northern Cau-casus). Stratum plus. The Time of the Last Nean-derthals I. Kishinev:l58- 177.

Golovanova L. V., Cleghorn N. E., Doronichev V. B., Hoffecker J. F., Burr G. S., Sulergizkiy L. D. 2006. The Early Upper Paleolithic in the Northern Cauca-

136 L. Golovanova eta!.

sus (new data from Mezmaiskaya Cave, 1997 exca-vation). Eurasian Prehistory 4(1-2):43- 78.

MESHVELIANI T., BAR-YOSEF 0., BELFER-CO-HEN A. 2004. The Upper Paleolithic in Western Georgia. In : P. J. Brantingham, S. L. Kuhn, K. W. Kerry (eds.). The Early Upper Paleolithic beyond Western Europe. University of California Press.

OTTE M., F. BlGLARJ, D. FLAS, S. SHIDRANG, N .

.. _

ZWYNS, M. MASHKOUR, R. NADER!, A. MO-HASEB, N. HASHEMI, J. DARVISH, V. RADU. 2007. The Aurignacian in the Zagros region: new research at Yafteh Cave, Lore- stan, Iran. Antiquity 8: 82- 96.

SONNEVILLE-BORDES DE D. 1950. Le Paleoli-thique superieur en Perigord. T. I. Bordeaux

Scan.pdfScan 1.pdfScan 2.pdfScan 3.pdfScan 4.pdfScan 5.pdf