Dar,
Given that this has to do more with content than with "bibliography", I have taken the liberty to post this in "Prehistory" instead of "Links".
CLICK HEREfor access to the PDF.
First, I should mention that Skrdla's paper is truly an "education" for people who have not had the chance to work with or see some of these assemblages. This said, I would just like to add a few comment and bits of information on the basis of the last part of Skrdla' conclusion:
The detailed comparison of knapping technologies from Stránská skála and Boker Tachtit based on refits (Figs. 5-6) has confirmed the previously postulated similarity between these assemblages (Svoboda and Skrdla 1995; Skrdla 1996). The highest degree of similarity was documented between Boker Tachtit Level 2 and Stránská skála, while Boker Tachtit Level 4 represents a local development without any influence on European assemblages.
The collections from Üçagizli Cave, Turkey (Kuhn et al.1999), Kulichivka, Ukraine (Demidenko and Usik 1993), Temnata Cave, Bulgaria (Ginter et al.1998), and possibly Kara Bom, Russia (Derevianko et al. 2000), all show a high degree of similarity to the Emiran/Bohunician technology. In accordance with Bar-Yosef (e.g., 2000) and Tostevin (2000), and based on my own results presented in this technological study, I have hypothesized a diffusion of lithic technological practices from the Levant to Moravia some 45-40,000 years ago, during a period most probably connected with the first migrations of early anatomically modern humans into Europe.
The archaeological record of the Near East and Central Europe around 40,000 B.P does not hold evidence for other similarities in material culture, expect [sic] the ones documented here in the lithic technologies. If the “Out of Africa” hypothesis is accepted, it is the Emiran–Bohunician connection that demonstrates it archaeologically.
1 – Despite the cautious "if" of the last sentence, it is clear, to me, that the author adheres fully to the OoA explanation for the so-called MP/UP transition.
2 – The reference to Kara Bom [] (Derevianko et al. 2000) is somewhat misleading to the extent that Derevianko and quite a number of his Russian colleagues tend to favour an MP/UP technological continuity in Central Siberia/Inner Asia. In this regard, here is a quote from Goebel & al. report on Masterov Kliuch -- for the exact reference,
CLICK HERE:
The origins of this early Upper Palaeolithic technocomplex may lie in the preceding inner Asian Mousterian (Derev'anko 1998), or perhaps in the initial Upper Palaeolithic of southwestern Asia (Goebel 1993, 1999), best known from sites in Israel like Boker Tachtit and Kebara Cave (Bar-Yosef et al. 1992; Marks 1983). Whether this early Upper Palaeolithic technocomplex represents the emergence of anatomically modern humans in inner Asia is unclear, since diagnostic hominid fossils have not been found.
Interestingly, there are obvious parallels between the comparative bases that are being used (by the OoA supporters) from the Levant/Eastern Europe and from Siberia. Goebel, in his writings has shown that he also supports a "replacement" solution to the transition question. Note also that in the last sentence Goebel & al. cautiously leave the door ajar for another explanation.
3 – Finally, there is this interesting conclusion arrived at by the authors of a recent study on the Bacho Kiro – Level 11 assemblage:
Tsanova, Tsenka et Jean-Guillaume Bordes. 2003.
Contribution au débat sur l'origine de l'Aurignacien: principaux resultants d'une etude technologique de l'industrie lithique de la couche 11 de Bacho Kiro. Ts. Tsonev and E. Montagnari Kokelj (eds.) The Humanized Mineral World: Towards social and symbolic evaluation of prehistoric technologies in South Eastern Europe
Proceedings of the ESF workshop, Sofia - 3-6 September 2003.
ERAUL 103, 2003, p. 41-50.
On the basis of a detailed analysis of the lithic material – whose presentation, however, is not a thorough at that of Skrdla – these workers conclude the following:
The Bacho Kiro Level 11 assemblage does present techno-typological elements that are indeed representative of both MP (i.e., Mousterian and EUP. This had previously been interpreted by earlier workers as indicative admixture, whereas the Mousterian elements had, through whatever means intruded in what was viewed as some sort of an early Aurignacian assemblage/deposit whose origin was from the Levant.
Tsanova and Bordes, however state the following [my very quick and very dirty translation]:
" On the basis of these results, the criteria that allow us to consider this industry as belonging to the MP are as follows:
– The debitage is of the Levallois type.
– The technique used to obtain supports [for tools] is systematically of the hard hammer/direct percussion type.
- The most obvious tool type consists of Mousterian points (rare because systematically fractured). The other tool types (e.g., end scrapers or burins) are not clearly identifiable, but present a very high degree of variability.
- The presence of Kombewa debitage.
The criteria that allow us to view this industry as showing paralles with the UP are as follows:
- The choice of [a type of] flint, non local in origin, as opposed to miscellaneous raw material that could have been found in the vicinity of the site.
- A frequent occurrence of various tools types (end scrapers, burins, pieces esquillées) which is unusual in MP assemblages.
- The apparent systematic effort at producing very regular and light [tool] supports which is exhibited by "laminarity" and leptholitism as well as by the spatial segmentation of the "chaîne opératoire" (importance of the support selection phase). [Sorry about this last one!]
[And they conlude]:
The association of all these attributes cannot be attributed to mixture because they are associated on the same objects in the context of coherent system. If from the point-of-view of technical traditions this industry appear to belong to the MP, it also looks as if it corresponds to traces left by groups exhibiting techno-economic behaviours usually attributed the UP. In this sense, we feel that this industry can be viewed as a transitional one, with affinities to complexes such as the Central European Bohunician (Svoboda, 1990) or, also with industries such as Boker Tachtit, in Israel(Marks & Reid Ferring, 1988; Marks, 1983), Üçagizli cave in Turkey (Kuhn, 2002 ; Kuhn et al., 1999), and Ksar Aqil in Lebanon (Azoury, 1986). While there is need for more detailed comparisons [between these complexes/industries] we feel that, at this time, the most apt label for the Bacho Kiro material is Bachikirian. On the other hand, we believe that the Bacho Kiro-Level 11 cannot be viewed anymore as signaling a possible origin of the Aurignacian because the principal traits/markers/indicators of this technocomplex [Aurignacian] (soft hammer direct percussion, volumetric organization of the debitage, importance of blade production, unipolarity…) in both its atlantic and mediterranean facies, (Bon & Bodu, 2002), are not found at Bacho Kiro. It follows that one cannot view anymore Bacho Kiro-Level 11 as an element testifying to the diffusion of the Aurignacian in Europe, but, instead, as the trace of gradual transformations which, everywhere in Europe, seem to emerge from a Mousterian substrate".
A bit confusing, but nonetheless interesting. Barring an archaeological/taphonomic miracle in the near future, this particular debate is likely to go on for quite a while.
Jacques Cinq-Mars
