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 "Commentsf onMezmaiskaya,North Caucasus", EurasianPrehistory, thisissue)that the Early Upper Paleo-Iilhic(EDP)atMezmaiskayaCave can be definedasAurignacian(versus Golovanova et al., 2006).Ihisraisesan old methodological problem con-cerningthecorrectuse of scientific terms and thedefinitionof the Aurignacian. Lithic definitionssuchasAurignacianand Gravettian which wereoriginallybasedon specific materials, have beenrathermoreloosely applied to assemblages dis-tantintimeand space. We believe that the widerap.plicationof these original terms not only sim-plifiesthemby a subjective reduction of their pri-mary determiningattributes, but also confuses ourunderstandingof cultural processes within andbetweenvariousregions.

To get hack to the basic definition of the~urignacian,it is necessary to return to Sonne-Ville-Bordes'(1950) classic publication on thissubject.Basedon the original materials (Sonne-ville-Bordes,1950: 146-150) the Aurignacian isdefinedasa blade industry _ ruost tools are madeonblades.Further,the Aurignacian toolkit is de-~;ed by the following characteristics: 20.5 to.7 percentendscrapers, between 7.1 and 35.0

per~entAurignacian scrapers (including typicalcarmatedand nosed endscrapers), 28.9 to 43.0percentburins, 4.0 to 34.4 percent retouchedblades,and two types of bone points - split andbeveled-basepoints. Bladelets with Dufour re-tQuc.harelesscommon and do not occur not in allAungnacianassemblages.

Incomparingthe new EUP assemblages from~ezmaiskayaCave with coeval or slightly earlierindustries (e.g., Chatelperronian, Uluzzian, Auri-gnacian,andAhmarian), Golovanova (2000: 175)findstheMezmaiskayamaterials to be most simi-

lar to the Ahrnarian tradition, and particularly thelithic assemblages from Abu Noshra and the La-gaman, dating between 30 and 35 ky BP (Gilead,1991). This preliminary conclusion is based onthe prevalence of micro-laminar (bladelet) debi-tage, a high percentage of tools made on bladelets(compared with 45.7 percent at Lagama), and arather low representation (about 20 percent) ofendscrapers and burins. It is important to note thatonly the later Ahmarian assemblages provided abasis for this comparison. Moreover, despitemany similarities, the EUP industry from Layerl C at Mezmaiskaya is not identical to the Ahmar-tan.

Ongoing excavations of EUP levels in Mez-maiskaya Cave now permit a more accurate com-parison with the Ahmarian. Typical el-Wadpoints with fine lateral retouch, which are verycharacteristic of the Ahmarian assemblages fromLagama (Bar-Yosefand Belfer 1977: fig. 23) andQafzeh Cave, layer E (Bar- Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 2004: figs. 11-12) are absent from Mez-maiskaya. By contrast, typical Gravette pointswith straight backs made by blunted retouch arethe most common point type in the EUP levels atMezmaiskaya (Fig. I). Various bone tools, whichare poorly represented in the Ahmarian (possiblydue to poor bone preservation), are characteristicof the EUP of Mezmaiskaya. These tools includepoints, awls, needles (including eyed needles),and pendants made from ungulate teeth. Moreo-ver, in layers IB and IA (dating from about 32 to28 ky BP), bone tools with geometric ornamenta-tion, plaque beads made from mammoth tusk, andpendants made from Black Sea seashells appear.

A comparison of flaking techniques also dis-tinguishes the EUP of Mezmaiskaya from theAurignacian. At Mezmaiskaya, bladelet and even

132 L. Golovanova et at.A response to Otte "Comments on Mezrnaiskaya"

, ! "

0-*

MEZMAISKAYA CAVE

blanks) in the EUP ofMezmaiskaya (GoIO\~etal., 2006: 65: fig. 21).

OUec h'f"~omment (Eurasian Pre /S 0'1' iii'Sue) also requires that we get back to Ib' .ofthed fi " BU~e lnltlon of Dufour retouch. 1. OJ

133

I I"

.. ,

o 2 em.

MEZ,MAISKAVA CAVE

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

DUFOUR GROTTO

,

o 2 em! !

LAGAMA VII

o 2 3cm..,

YAFTEH CAVE

YAFTEH CAVE

o 21

Fig,2. Backedbladelets from Mezmaiskaya Cave (Golovanova et al., 2006: fig. 22), and Dufour bladelets fromDufour 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

micro-blade let production is more commt~e large blade production typical of the on. thanclan. Contrary to assertions by Orte th~u~lgna-and unlike the true Aurignacian in F ( IS ISSue)are relatively infrequent (.......17 pe rance, blades

rcenr of laminar

(see Brazillon 197I: 266-267) first definedDufouras a type of blade let "finement retouchees,par retouchesalternes". We think that Otte refer-ence to Dufour bladelets at Mezmaiskaya comesfr~~ an inappropriate redefinition of these piecesortgmally defined as backed bIade!ets (see Golo-vanova et al., 2006: fig. 22: 12-18). Followingtheoriginal definition of 1. Bouyssonie, bladelets

with Dufour retouch are completely absent inLayer I C at Mezmaiskaya, as are any bladeletswith ventral retouch (fig. 2).

Otte identification (Eurasian Prehistory, thisissue) of Arjeneh points at Mezmaiskaya (GoIo-vanova et al., 2006: fig. 22: 1-11) is also not quitecorrect. Although, both Arjeneh points fromYafteh Cave (Otte et al., 2007: fig. 6: 1-3) and

134

bfi

in Layer 1C are made by semr abrupt retouch onmassive or technical flakes. No typical Aurigna-cian carinated or nosed end scrapers or buskedburins are found in the EUP levels of the cave.

Among the bone tools from Mezmaiskayacave, there are several types not characteristic ofthe Aurignacian. These include bone needles,pendants made from ungulate teeth or mammothtusk, 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 theAurignacian, 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 Paleolithicof the Caucasus. On the contrary, the split-basebone points so typical of the Aurignacian have notbeen found in this region.

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

L. Golovanova et a/.

stroyed by a limestone quarry, and it IS ImpossIbleto test the reliability of the published results.

By contrast, the modem excavations in Mez-maiskaya and Korotkaya caves (Blajko, 2007)have uncovered a very early (_ 32 ky) appearanceof micro-blade (bladelet) lithic industries in theNorthwestern Caucasus. Over the past 10 to 15years, research in the Caucasus has essentiallychanged our understanding of the Upper Paleo-lithic in thi~ region. In Our opinion, modernizationo~ excavatIOn techniques has significantly con-tnbuted to this change. The careful documenta-tion of micro-stratigraphical divisions and com-prehensive application of sediment water scree-ni~g have produced a whole range of micro-artIfacts (bothlithics and bone), which are com-pletely absent In older collections.

It is clear, if we get back to the basics of theAurignacian, t~at Layer I C of Mezmaiskaya isn~t representatIve of this industry. Using such at.tributes as the presence of bone projectile pointsor of endscrapers on large blades with continuousflat retouch, some authors have expanded the

A response to Otte "Comments on Mezmaiskaya"

Tahiti definition of the Aurignacian - or rather, theAurignacoid - to many Upper Paleolithic indus-tries that are quite different from the typicalAurignacian of France. This broad definitionmasks important differences between localitiesand regions.

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

Thus, we can conclude that the EUP assem-blages from Mezmaiskaya Cave belong to a cul-tural area of widespread bladelet industries foundfrom the Levant to the Caucasus between 40 or 38and 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 thatone of the largest and most variable groups oftools is made on bladelets. In the Levant, this in-dustry type is called Ahmarian.

In our opinion, materials from Yafteh Cave inIran (Otte et a!., 2007) belong to the same groupof industries and are similar to the Later Ahmar-ian and to Mezmaiskaya Cave in the followinggeneral characteristics (see Table 1): a flakingtechnology oriented to the production of blades(especially bladelets - 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. Although, predominance ofbladelets with Dufour retouch (47.4 percent of thetotal tool assemblage) and Arjeneh points (19.3percent) both determine the specificity of the EUPmaterials from Yafteh Cave against the Ahrnarianor Mezmaiskaya.

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

Comparison of EUP lithic indices at Mezmaiskaya Cave, layer 1 C and Yafteh Cave(calculations by Golovanova based on published data ofOtte el al., 2007)

BJadesIbJadele!s: Bladelets:Tools 011 bladelets: EndscrapersbemsPercent of allPercent of total flakes

blades/bladelen Percent of total tools PercentofIota]loolsMezmaiskaya, Layer J C 73.2 82.8 57.6 25.9 IYafteh Cave 79.7 69.4 66.7 t9t

points from Mezmaiskaya are made on bJadelets,authors (Amirkhanov, 1986; Cohen and Stepan·

their retouching is essentially different. While re- chuk, 1999) that claim to have identified thetouch III tbe Yafteh assemblage IS fine and Aurignacian within the EUP of the Northern Cau·semi-abrupt, it is more modifying and abrupt atcasus. It is important to note, however, thatboiliMezmaiskaya. Moreover, Arjeneh points are not aarticles reach this conclusion based on materialskey component of the typical Aurignacian. On thefrom the old excavations in Kamennomostskayacontrary, some of these tools are similar to Cave. The Aurignacian characteristics of thisas·el-Wad points made on bladelets (Fig. I), whichsemblage are the following indices: nearly 360are characteristic for the Levantine Ahmarianpercent blades, 18.8 percent tools on large hlades,(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 bleOf the Aurignacian components described bydelets (see Golovanova, 2000: 172). ExcavationOtte, only endscrapers remain. Indeed, there arein Kamennornostskaya Cave was carried out morefew Aurignacian-type endscrapers made on than 40 years ago, and the material is undated andlades at Mezmaiskaya (Golovanova et at., 2006:seems to be non-homogeneous. Unfortunately,ig. 23: 11). However, the majority of endscrapersthe cave and its deposits have been completely de--

135

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

Acknowledgments

We thank Marcel Otte for his discussion ofMezmaiskaya and for giving us the opportunity to clar-ify the nature of the EUP at this site. We also thankOfer Bar-Yoseffor his comments on this manuscript.

REFERENCESAMIRKHANOV H. A. 1986. Verhkniy palealit

Prikubanya (The Upper Paleolithic of the KubanRiver Valley). Moscow.

Bar-YosefO., A. Belfer-Cohen, D. S. Adter. 2006. Theimplications of the Middle-Upper Paleolithic chro-nological boundary in the Caucasus to Eurasian pre-history. Anthropologie XLIV/l: 49-60.

BAR-YOSEF 0., BELFER-COHEN A. 2004. TheQafzeh Upper Paleolithic assemblages: 70 yearslater. Eurasian Prehistory 2( 1-2): l45-180.

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 Paleolithicoccupation at Korotkaya cave in the North-WesternCaucasus). Arkheologicheskie otkritiya 2006 gada.Moscow, in press.

BREZILLON M. N. 1971. La Denomination des objetsde pierre taillee. Paris.

COHEN V. Yu., STEPANCHUK V. N. t999. LateMiddle and Early Paleolithic Evidence from theEast European Plain and Caucasus: A new look atvariability, interactions, and transitions. Journal ofWorld Prehistory t3(3):265-319.

GILEAD 1. 1991. The Upper Paleolithic period in theLevant. Journal of World Prehistory 5(2).

GOLOVANOVA L. V. 2007. Ob odnoi vashnoi chertepozdnego paleolita Kavkaza (On one important fea-ture of the Late Paleolithic in Caucasus). Materiali iissledovania po arheologii Kuban! 3. Krasnodar, inpress.

GOLOVANOVA L. V. 2000. Rubej srednego i poz-dnego paleolita na sevamom Kavkaze. (The Middleto Upper Paleolithic Interface in the Northern Cau-casus). Stratum plus. The Time of the Last Nean-derthals I. Kishinev: l58-177.

Go1ovanova 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. Golcvanova et al.

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

MESHVELlANl T., BAR-YOSEF 0., BELFER-CO-HEN A. 2004. The Upper Paleolithic in WesternGeorgia. In: P. 1. Brantingham, S. L. Kuhn, K. W.Kerry (eds.). The Early Upper Paleolithic beyondWestern Europe. University of Cali fomi a Press.

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

ZWYNS, M. MASHKOUR, R. NADER!,A.M~HASEB, N. HASHEMI, J. DARVISH,V.RA~2007. The Aurignacian in the Zagros region: O\'i

research at Yafteh Cave, Lore- stan, Iran.AII/iqrr."8, 82-96.

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

136 L. Golovanova et al.

susJnew data from Mezmaiskaya Cave, 1997 exca-varion). Eurasian Prehistory 4(1-2):43-78.

MESHVELIANI T., BAR-YOSEF 0., BELFER-CO-HEN A. 2004. The Upper Paleolithic in WesternGeorgia. In: P. 1. Brantingham, S. L. Kuhn, K. W.Kerry (eds.). The Early Upper Paleolithic beyondWestern Europe. University of Cali fomi a Press.

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

ZWYNS, M. MASHKOUR, R. NADER!,A.M~HASEB, N. HASHEMI, J. DARVISH,V.RA~2007. The Aurignacian in the Zagros region:!II'iresearch at Yafteh Cave, Lore- stan, Iran.AI//iq~'·8, 82-96.

SONNEVILLE-BORDES DE D. 1950. Le Pa/ii,thique superieur en Perigord. T. I. Bordeaux Guidelines for Authors

I. The aim of this journal is to publish lengthy site re-pons (including preliminary site reports) and otherdata-based articles (not syntheses), and to providespace for many illustrations.2. Please include the radiocarbon information withyourarticle. When citing dates, the date should be citedas BPcalibrated or BP uncalibrated. You must cite thesoftwareused for calibration and the lab number. C 14dates and their locations should be marked where ap-propriateon the illustrations.3. Please use metric units of measure.4. For review and editorial purposes, please send 3copies of the manuscript, 3 photocopies of tile figures,and 3 photocopies of the tables, along with an elec-Ironic copy of the paper in Microsoft Word on a 3.5mch floppy disk, CD, or 100 MB zip disk. Be sure tokeep an electronic copy and a paper copy of your arti-cle and illustrations.

Please send your manuscript packet to the USAeditorial office to the attention of the Production Editor,Wren Fournier, who will consult with the ScientificCo-Editors and arrange for its review. The address isWren Fournier, Harvard University, Peabody Museum,Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. ote: the editorial staffof Eurasian Prehistory will assist in editing the Eng-lish text if necessary. Please mark diskettes with yourname. the disk format (LBM or MAC), and the name ofthe software programs that you used for both the manu-script and any figures. The preferred software formanuscripts is Microsoft Word.

To prevent valuable figures from being lost in themail. please do not send original figures, photos, ordrawings. The originals will be requested once the pa-per IS accepted for publication.5. Organization of the manuscript:Title pageTitle of the paper (not to exceed 90 characters).Author names, affiliations, addresses, fax numbers,

and e-mail address for all authors.- Abstract (001 longer than 300 words).- Keywords (7 words or less).Article

Manuscripts must be written in English and all ofthe text must be double-spaced on A4 or 8.5 inch x 11mch paper. Text should be in Times ew Roman font,and divided into sections and paragraphs. Headings

must be ranked, and this should be marked in ink in theleft margin using TOmannumerals (i.e., I, II, III).Figures and Tables

Illustrations, line drawings, graphs, and photo-graphs are all considered 'figures'. Figures should bethe width of one column (70 mrn), or two columns (145mm), and may not exceed 205 111m in height. Each fig-ure must be cited in the text, and must be in a separatefile and numbered consecutively with Arabic numerals(i.e., figure I, figure 2). All illustrations (scannedgraphics, photos and vector graphics) should be sup-plied as a TIFF format (at publication size) at 600 dpi ingrayscale. Do not usc word processing programs toproduce figures, drawings, or graphs, or to embedgraphics into the text. If after your artielc is acceptedyou plan to submit original 'hard copies' of figures,please consult with the USA editorial office regardingspecifications for submission and mailing. Please in-elude a legend, a directional arrow, a title and a captionfor each figure, and letter each item in the figure (i.e. a.,b., c.).

All tables must be done in MS Word or Excel.Tables with graphic figures should be submitted asTIFF files.PermissionsPermission for the use of figures must adhere to USAlegal regulations. If you are using a figure that has beenpublished, you must provide a written, signed letterfrom that journal or press granting permission for thefigure to be used. Credit must be granted to the originalillustrator or photographer in the figure caption.Acknowledgements

Please use the full name of universities or organi-zations and do not abbreviate.References

The reference list should contain only the refer-ences that appear in the text. Please cress-check the textwith the reference list to ensure the accuracy of spell-ings and dates, and ensure thai all oftbe references thatappear in the text appear in the reference Ii t and viceverse. Papers that have not been accepted for publica-tion may not be cited. Do not abbreviate the names ofjournals, books, publishers, or cities. When referring totables and figures in cited papers, please usc lowercase(for example, Smith, 1961 fig. 3, tab. 6). References inthe text should be cited as: (Smith, 1988), usin Ie CTS