Neanderthals of Crimea – Creative generalists of the late Middle Paleolithic. Contextualizing the leaf point industry Buran-Kaya III, Level C

Bataille, Guido

doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2015.12.071

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Beyond the general consensus that Proto-and Early Aurignacian assemblages were created by AMHs, much remains unclear about how and when Neanderthal extinction and initial AMH occupation occurred. Substantial disagreements exist over: a) the attribution to AMH or Neanderthals of earlier or penecontemporary assemblages (Bohunician, Uluzzian, Châtelperronian, Streletskian, Spitsynian: Anikovich et al, 2007;Hoffecker, 2009;Benazzi et al, 2011;Müller et al, 2011;Zilhão, 2011;Hublin, 2015;Hoffecker et al, 2016;Vishnyatsky, 2016;Bataille, 2017); b) the validity of particular artifacts as markers of specific archaeological assemblages (and, by extension, of AMHs/Neanderthals; e.g., Slimak et al, 2011;Zwyns et al, 2012;Nigst et al, 2014;Moreau et al, 2015;Teyssandier and Zilhão, 2018); and the association of dated samples with diagnostic material (e.g., Nigst et al 2014;Teyssandier and Zilhão 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New data for the Early Upper Paleolithic of Kostenki (Russia)

Dinnis

Bessudnov

Reynolds

et al. 2019

Journal of Human Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several questions remain regarding the timing and nature of the Neanderthal-anatomically modern human (AMH) transition in Europe. The situation in Eastern Europe is generally less clear due to the relatively few sites and a dearth of reliable radiocarbon dates. Claims have been made for both notably early AMH and notably late Neanderthal presence, as well as for early AMH (Aurignacian) dispersal into the region from Central/Western Europe. The Kostenki-Borshchevo complex (European Russia) of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) sites offers high-quality data to address these questions.Here we revise the chronology and cultural status of the key sites of Kostenki 17 and Kostenki 14. The Kostenki 17/II lithic assemblage shares important features with Proto-Aurignacian material, strengthening an association with AMHs. New radiocarbon dates for Kostenki 17/II of ~41-40 ka cal BP agree with new dates for the recently excavated Kostenki 14/IVw, which shows some similarities to Kostenki 17/II. Dates of ≥41 ka cal BP from other Kostenki sites cannot be linked to diagnostic archaeological material, and therefore cannot be argued to date AMH occupation. Kostenki 14's Layer in Volcanic Ash assemblage, on the other hand, compares to Early Aurignacian material. New radiocarbon dates targeting diagnostic lithics date to 39-37 ka cal BP. Overall, Kostenki's early EUP is in good agreement with the archaeological record further west. Our results are therefore consistent with models predicting interregional penecontemporaneity of diagnostic EUP assemblages. Most importantly, our work highlights ongoing challenges for reliably radiocarbon dating the period. Dates for Kostenki 14 agreed with the samples' chronostratigraphic positions, but standard pre-treatment methods consistently produced incorrect ages for Kostenki 17/II. Extraction of hydroxyproline from bone collagen using prep-HPLC, however, yielded results consistent with the samples' chronostratigraphic position and with the layer's archaeological contents. This suggests that for some sites compound-specific techniques are required to build reliable radiocarbon chronologies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New data for the Early Upper Paleolithic of Kostenki (Russia)

Dinnis

Bessudnov

Reynolds

et al. 2019

Journal of Human Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After the suggestion emerged from recent experimental data that the influence of the morphometry of handheld flakes on their efficiency in cutting is low (Key and Lycett 2014;Merritt and Peters 2019), it would seem fair to calculate the remnant use index using the median of the average of all negatives per core. In the Crimean Middle Paleolithic (Chabai 1998(Chabai , 2004aBataille 2017), there is ample evidence for the use of the Levallois concept in the Crimean Mousterian. Blank production in the Crimean Micoquian is based on simple cores with centripetal removals from one major flaking surface and the use of flakes from surface shaping.…”

Section: Interpretation Of Artifact Depositionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast to cores, bifacial preforms and bifacial tools are not considered a source of flake blanks. Despite exceptions such as the microliths from Buran Kaya III, level C (Monigal 2004;Bataille 2017) and retouched chips from Buran Kaya III, level B (Uthmeier 2013), flakes from surface shaping used during the Crimean Middle Paleolithic mainly stem from early phases of production in which it is difficult to distinguish with certainty between cores and bifacial preforms; such pieces are usually classified as undetermined preform. True bifacial preforms, by contrast, lack only the final trimming and lateral retouch.…”

Section: Interpretation Of Artifact Depositionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This said, we should not underestimate the potential value of small flakes and chips in the case of the Crimean Middle Paleolithic. At least when raw material sources were distant, as at Buran Kaya III, levels B and C, even small bifacial shaping flakes were modified (Monigal 2004;Bataille 2017). This caveat notwithstanding, for the purpose of calculating the remnant use index, the remnant use of chips is still fixed at 0 due to the threshold of approximately 3 cm as suggested in experiments and ethnographic data, for the minimum size of used flakes.…”

Section: The Evident Feature Of Pit 9aamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

From the apron into the pit: the deposition of the complete debris from the manufacture of a bifacial preform at the Middle Paleolithic site of Kabazi V, level III/4-2

Uthmeier

Chabai

Veselsky

2020

Archaeol Anthropol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At Kabazi V, level III/4-2, the entire debris from the manufacture of a bifacial preform was found deposited in a small anthropogenic pit. The bifacial preform itself was missing. The fact that it was possible to refit all larger blanks, as well as several chips, from the pit, whereas refits with artifacts discarded on the surface of the corresponding archeological level were not found, underlines the character of the pit's contents as a closed find sensu stricto. The only explanation for the presence of chips of very small size from the same nodule, alongside the larger ones, in the pit fill is the use of an apron to collect all detached items during the process of flaking. Among the numerous anthropogenic pits from the Crimean Middle Paleolithic, the one found at Kabazi V, level III/4-2, and two other examples from Zaskalanya V and Zaskalnaya VI stand out for the intentional deposition of carefully selected artifacts in them. The sizes of the pits match the volumes of the artifacts deposited, which emphasizes the close relationship between the construction of the pits and the artifacts' deposition. This article explores the significance of the three cases of artifact deposition referred to above to our understanding of segmented production processes and of why these depositions occurred. The most evident interpretation is that they were caches of equipment stored as insurance for unforeseen circumstances, which is indicative of substantial planning depth and a recurrent use of logistical territories.

show abstract

“…However, some exceptions could be found, for example comments on the change of the morphology of Pradnik knives (Krukowski 1939(Krukowski -1948, or the definition of a unique way of Micoquian tool shaping: wechsel-seitig-gleichgerichtete Kantenbearbeitung = alternating unidirectional edge reduction (Bosinski 1967), or the formation of active parts on tools by tranchet blows (Krukowski 1939(Krukowski -1948Kowalski 1967;Jöris 1992). Starting from the mid-1990s, attempts on more detailed characteristics of production stages considering structural models of operational chains were made (Boëda 1995;Demidenko 2015;Gouédo 2001;Bataille 2017;Iovita 2014;Jöris 2001Jöris , 2006Kurbjuhn 2005;Migal and Urbanowski 2006;Pastoors 2001;Sudoł 2013;Uthmeier 2016;Uthmeier and Chabai 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On Making of Micoquian Bifacial Backed Tools at Pietraszyn 49a, SW Poland

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper attempts to show that manufacture of Micoquian bifacial backed tools was structured. Data for this study were collected using a comprehensive analysis of artefacts from the site Pietraszyn 49a, Poland, which is dated to the beginning of Marine Isotope Stage 3. Based on the whole data set, it was possible to distinguish four stages of the manufacturing process. During manufacturing, both mineral hammer and organic hammer were used. The tools were usually shaped due to distinct hierarchization of faces. The study has also shown that the shape of bifacial tools from Pietraszyn 49a is very similar to the other Micoquian examples from central Europe. The ways of shaping of some tools are finding their counterparts also in the Early Upper Palaeolithic inventories, but the similarities are rather limited to the narrow range of preparation of bifacial form.

show abstract

Neanderthals of Crimea – Creative generalists of the late Middle Paleolithic. Contextualizing the leaf point industry Buran-Kaya III, Level C

Cited by 11 publications

References 12 publications

New data for the Early Upper Paleolithic of Kostenki (Russia)

New data for the Early Upper Paleolithic of Kostenki (Russia)

From the apron into the pit: the deposition of the complete debris from the manufacture of a bifacial preform at the Middle Paleolithic site of Kabazi V, level III/4-2

On Making of Micoquian Bifacial Backed Tools at Pietraszyn 49a, SW Poland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About