Lithic assemblages of Azokh Cave (Nagorno Karabagh, Lesser Caucasus): Raw materials, technology and regional context

Abstract

Abstract:Azokh Cave is a Middle Pleistocene to Holocene site located in Nagorno Karabagh (Lesser Caucasus). The main entrance, Azokh 1, is a large cave that has two geological sequences (lower and upper) with nine geo-archaeological units of which only the upper ones (Units I to V) have a significant archaeological record. The faunal remains and lithic artefacts in these units indicate aspects of human occupation, and exploitation of, and association with animals.The lithic artefacts presented here were recovered from Units V, III and II during the 2002 -2009 excavation seasons. The available chronological data indicates an age between 293 -100 Ka for these units. The operational chain is incomplete and artefacts found in the cave are primarily endproducts dominated by flake-tools. The assemblage of Unit V is composed primarily of simple, unretouched flakes with a minimal presence of retouched flakes and cores. The Unit II lithic assemblage includes a substantial Levallois component, although with fewer cores and retouched flakes. There are very few flake tools in Unit III. While it is still difficult to assign the Unit V assemblage to a techno-typological group or complex (i.e. Acheulean, Mousterian or other local techno-complexes such as the Kudarian), the Unit II assemblage is clearly associated with Mode 3 or the Mousterian techno-complex.Different local and non-local raw materials were exploited in all units for the production of lithic artefacts, although the range of raw materials is more varied in Unit II. Local chert, flint and basalt were used most commonly, probably due to their easy accessibility. Limestone, jasper and sandstone, from local and non-local sources, are present in small quantities in Units V and II. Obsidian is the only raw material that possibly originates from more distant sources. Flint and chert appear to have been preferentially exploited for flake tool production in all units, but the toolmakers show a preference for better quality raw material (flint, basalt, obsidian) for retouched pieces in Units V and II, and for Levallois production in Unit II.

Chemical Alteration of Lithic Artefacts: an Experimental Case Study on the effect of Guano on Stone Flakes and Its Contextualization in the Archaeological Assemblage of Azokh Cave (Southern Caucasus)

“…S1). The raw material for the first four lithologies was collected from the area immediately surrounding Azokh Cave, whereas the obsidian was obtained from a non‐local source (Lusakert, Central Armenia; Asryan et al ; Asryan ). The flakes were not all produced from the same nodule (e.g., some were from medium‐ and fine‐grained basaltic rocks, some from coarse‐ and very fine‐grained limestones).…”

“…The archaeological record of the site consists of macro‐ and micro‐faunal remains, lithic artefacts, hominin remains and charcoals. These were recovered from five different stratigraphic horizons (Units V–I) belonging to the upper sedimentary sequence preserved at the rear of the cave passage, and ranging in age from ~300 to 100 ka (Units V–II) and ~150 bp (Unit I) (Fernández‐Jalvo et al ; Murray et al , ; Asryan et al ; King et al , : for extensive results from an earlier phase of excavation work at the cave, see also Huseinov ; Lioubine ).…”

Middle Pleistocene environments, landscapes and tephrostratigraphy of the Armenian Highlands: evidence from Bird Farm 1, Hrazdan Valley

“…Even so, excepting NG1 and Koudaro III in South Ossetia (Doronichev, 2011), Palaeolithic sites in the region have yet to be chronometrically dated to the MIS 11-9 interval, albeit that several are known from the MIS 7 interglacial (e.g. Azokh cave in Nagorno-Karabakh: Fernández Yalvo et al, 2010;Asryan et al, 2014;Djruchula, Georgia: Mercier et al, 2010). The tephrostratigraphic approach outlined above may in the future enable correlation of the BF1 stratigraphy with the wider Middle Pleistocene archaeological record.…”