New from the journal ANTIQUITY website as noted in the "Bookyard" at:
CLICK HERE FOR THE URLis an article:
"Current Middle & Upper Palaeolithic Research in the Southern Caucasus" (Tushabramishvili, Adler, Bar-Yosef & Belfer-Cohen. 2003. Antiquity. vol. 77. no. 295.):
http://antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/Adler/adler.htmlA quote from this article: "....Previous research in the Georgian Republic, led to the identification of several distinct Middle Palaeolithic cultural variants based on perceived differences in lithic and faunal assemblages (Liubin 1977, 1989), but these groupings were developed without the benefit of reliable chronometric estimates. In addition, several important "transitional" assemblages from the region, now known to be the result of mixing, have led to the notion of a local transition from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic...."
Such a notion ("local transition") may or may not be suggested by:
Golovanova, Liubov V. & Doronichev, Vladimir B. (2003). The Middle Paleolithic of the Caucasus. Journal of World Prehistory. 17 (1). 71-140.
Presently freely available in pdf as noted in the "Bookyard" at:
CLICK HERE FOR THE
URLAbstract:
This paper presents a short review of the data and new approaches to Middle Paleolithic chronology and variability in the Caucasus. A climatostratigraphic scheme of the Caucasian Middle Paleolithic is proposed on the basis of the oxygen isotope stages. The authors attempt to identify tool types characteristic of the Caucasian Middle Paleolithic industries, as well as to reveal its development during more than 100,000 years. A new approach to treating Middle Paleolithic variability in the Caucasus recognizes three general cultural areas: (1) North Caucasian Micoquian in the Northwestern Caucasus; (2) Khostinian and several cultural entities possibly rooted in the Levantine D (Djruchulian), Levantine B (Tskhinvali group), and Karain (?) Mousterian (Tskhaltsitela-Tsutskhvati group) in the South-central Great Caucasus; (3) Zagros Mousterian in the southernmost part of the Caucasus.
End of Abstract.
As a reader, I found the authorship of this paper to be well-composed and everything the abstract promises, but it is very disappointing to note the flawed correlation of the text and illustrations. Once beyond that particular problem (which, rather than the authors, I'm inclined to blame on the editors of Journal of World Prehistory), I found substantial reasons to take seriously their proposed "new approach" of grouping the sites of the NW Caucasus, which had been previously assigned (by Liubin 1977, 1984, 1989) to "Typical" or "Denticulate" Mousterian industries, into a "North Caucasian Micoquian" (which IMHO seemingly would align it more closely with other Micoquian industries of Central and Eastern Europe, rather than with the various industries of "South-central" and "southernmost" (Zagros Mousterian) Caucasus.
I'll find it very useful as a reference to which additional data from this region can be compared as it becomes available in the future.
As noted, most of the dating results to make correlations between the various assemblages of NW Caucasus come from Mezmaiskaya Cave, which was excavated by one of the authors (Golovanova). However, IMO, Golovanova & Doronichev have done a reasonable job correlating the ("mostly palynological") data with the archaeological data into a chronological scheme that stretches from OIS 5e (the Eemian), about 130 ka until the Denekamp Interstadial (dated ~30 ka by thier charts).
One quote I found especially intriguing (p. 129):
"...Data for the later Middle Paleolithic (mostly palynological) allow us to propose that the end of this period in the Caucasus was not sharply bounded by the appearance about 32-33 ka B.P. of the early Upper Paleolithic assemblages with retouched bladelets (similar to the Ahmarian) in Mezmaiskaya and Dzudzuana caves. On the contrary, we see a relatively long Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition. This transition had different durations in different parts of the Caucasus, but the main shift toward Upper Paleolithic technology and typology may have occurred between the Hengelo and Denekamp interstadials and on through Denekamp itself..."
and (p. 130): "...even after Denekamp - that is, after 28 ka B.P...." (presumably this statement is based on the AMS-derived 28 kyr age determined for the Mezmaiskaya Neanderthal infant burial).
In contrast, Ofer Bar-Yosef and colleagues, in:
Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A. Meshveliani, T., Adler, D.S., Tushabramishvili, N., Boaretto, E., Mercier, N. & Weiner, S. (2002). The Middle-Upper Palaeolithic boundary in the Western Caucasus. Abstracts from the Palaeoanthropology Society Meetings, Denver, Colorado, 19-20 March 2002.
say of Ortvale Klde rockshelter and Dzudzuana Cave (the same sites described on the above-mentioned ANTIQUITY" webpage article):
"....Available dates on bones, charcoal and burned flint from Ortvale Klde indicate that the heavily retouched Mousterian industry represented here lasted until approximately 35 ka. The Initial Upper Paleolithic industry, characterized by the dominance of end-scrapers and bladelets with fine, abrupt retouch appeared by approximately 31 ka. Human occupations at the nearby site of Dzudzuana cave began at approximately the same time....."
Also, in other abstracts from the Palaeoanthropology Society Meetings, Bar-Yosef et al. have suggested an abrupt termination of Neanderthal occupation of the Caucasus, closely followed by new occupation of modern humans.
So there does seem to be some (understandable) differences of opinion concerning the "same old" questions of continuity and discontinuity in human biology and material cultures of the Caucasus over the time-frame of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic "transition".
As we should expect, I reckon.....
Dar
