The Middle Pleistocene Lithic Assemblage from Yarimburgaz Cave, Turkey.

Kuhn, Steven L.; Arsebük, Güven; Howell, F. Clark

doi:10.3406/paleo.1996.4625

Cited by 50 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Paleolithic artifacts are found in the uppermost seven layers. 36,37 The dating of the Lower Paleolithic deposits at Yarım-burgaz is problematic. Electron spin resonance dates on cave-bear teeth range from Oxygen Isotope Stage 6 through Stage 9.…”

Section: Lower Paleolithicmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is suspected that the consistency and the clast shape of different raw materials were important influences on divergent reduction techniques at Yarımburgaz Cave. 35,37 The Yarımburgaz archeofauna is dominated by an extinct bear (Ursus deningeri), which accounts for nearly 95% of the large vertebrate remains: At least 42 individuals are represented. The bear remains show no evidence of human intervention, although damage resulting from scavenging by large adult bears and other carnivores can be observed.…”

Section: Lower Paleolithicmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Paleolithic archeology in Turkey

Kuhn

2002

Evolutionary Anthropology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Lower Paleolithicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Lower Paleolithicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paleolithic archeology in Turkey

Kuhn

2002

Evolutionary Anthropology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It is evident that the experimental and archaeological sample needs to be expanded to ensure valid quantitative and statistical studies and reinforce our hypotheses. Nevertheless, based on our results we believe that at Azokh Cave, bears (Ursus spelaeus) affected the PDSM of lithic and faunal assemblages (Asryan et al in press and Marin-Monfort et al in press) as is indicated at many other bear den sites (Baryshnikov & Hoffecker 1994;Kuhn et al 1996;Stiner et al 1996;Golovanova et al 1999;Stiner 1999;Quiles et al 2004;Moncel & Rivals 2011). The results of our bear trampling experiment clearly demonstrate that in a short period of time, bears can cause horizontal and some vertical dispersion of artefacts as well as some macro-and microscopic alterations on them.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Reality and confusion in the recognition of post-depositional alterations and use-wear: an experimental approach on basalt tools

Asryan

Ollé

Moloney

2014

JLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:While many experimental studies have been done on siliceous and metamorphic rocks for both use-wear and post depositional surface modification (PDSM) events, little is known about such experiments on volcanic materials (other than obsidian), and on basalt in particular. Here we present the preliminary results of several experiments related to: a) evidence for basalt use (e.g., butchery and fresh hide scraping) and the subsequent characteristic use-wear patterns that can be seen; and b) postdepositional surface modifications caused by bear (Ursidae) trampling on experimental basalt flakes and subsequent use of these flakes for a tumbling experiment in a special tumbling machine.The results of these experiments were compared to better understand some surface modifications noted on the Middle to Upper Pleistocene lithic assemblages of the Azokh Cave site (Nagorno Karabagh, Lesser Caucasus).Although some aspects of both events (use-wear and PDSM) remain to be studied in depth, the experiments have improved our understanding of the effects of use-wear and post-depositional trampling and tumbling on basalt lithic artefacts. In particular, it has allowed us to recognise mechanical alterations (e.g., cracks, striations, fractures, edge damage) caused by trampling and tumbling and to note differences between these modifications and those caused by use. In particular, the experiments have shown that macroscopic modifications are rarely diagnostic, especially those observed after use. Microscopic wear features such as edge rounding, polish, abrasion and striations were the most evident types of alteration on basalt flakes, although occurring at different times and from different types of use. Distribution and orientation of alterations may be key in distinguishing use-wear from post-depositional alterations on basalt artefacts.

show abstract

“…Kuhn et al (1996) and Schick (1998) Peninsula (Bae 1987;Norton et al, 2006). Of these, Yunxian is Early Pleistocene, Bose likely ca.…”

Section: ) Methodological Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life without the Movius Line: The structure of the East and Southeast Asian Early Palaeolithic

Dennell

2016

Quaternary International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The starting point of this paper is that the Movius Line is no longer an appropriate way of studying the Early Palaeolithic of East and Southeast Asia, and should be disregarded. Instead, it is argued that the Early Palaeolithic of East and Southeast Asia needs to be seen as comparable to that in the rest of Eurasia, rather than the product of an isolated backwater. Contra Movius, East Asia was not isolated throughout the entire Early and Middle Pleistocene, but open to immigration during interglacials, as is indicated by its fossil hominin record. As in Europe and Southwest Asia, both bifacial and non-biface assemblages are present in China and Korea, thus indicating the presence of an Acheulean component, although the lack of agreement over how the Acheulean should be defined creates difficulties in establishing its extent in Southeast Asia. Regarding non-biface assemblages, Zhoukoudian was an unfortunate choice of an East Asian site that lacked bifaces, as bifaces are also rare or absent in a number of caves in Southwest Asia and Europe. Additionally, the absence of bifaces in some sites is not convincingly demonstrated because of the small size of the lithic assemblage. Finally, the simple flake industries in Southeast Asia are likely contemporary with Upper Pleistocene, Middle Palaeolithic and microlithic assemblages in India rather than with Middle Pleistocene, Acheulean assemblages, as proposed by Movius. Quaternary InternationalWe the undersigned declare that this manuscript is original, has not been published before and is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.We confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors and that there are no other persons who satisfied the criteria for authorship but are not listed. We further confirm that the order of authors listed in the manuscript has been approved by all of us.We understand that the Corresponding Author is the sole contact for the Editorial process. He/she is responsible for communicating with the other authors about progress, submissions of revisions and final approval of proofs.Signed by all authors as follows: AbstractThe starting point of this paper is that the Movius Line is no longer an appropriate way of studying the Early Palaeolithic of East and Southeast Asia, and should be disregarded.

show abstract

The Middle Pleistocene Lithic Assemblage from Yarimburgaz Cave, Turkey.

Cited by 50 publications

References 1 publication

Paleolithic archeology in Turkey

Paleolithic archeology in Turkey

Reality and confusion in the recognition of post-depositional alterations and use-wear: an experimental approach on basalt tools

Life without the Movius Line: The structure of the East and Southeast Asian Early Palaeolithic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About