Issue 2 (75)
| TECHNOLOGICAL REPERTOIRE OF THE TESHIK-TASH NEANDERTHALS: NEW DATA | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Year | 2022 | Number | 2(75) |
| Pages | 115-127 | Type | scientific article |
| UDC | 903(575.1)“632” | BBK | 63.442.12(5Óçá) |
| Authors | Pavlenok Galina D. Pavlenok Konstantin K. Bocharova Ekaterina N. Kogai Sergey A. |
Topic | ARCHAEOLOGICAL MOSAIC |
| Summary | The article presents the results of the technological analysis of the Teshik-Tash grotto lithic collection from the Kunstkamera funds (Saint Petersburg). Because the Teshik-Tash industry has an indisputable anthropological link to the Neanderthal population, which is unique for the western part of Central Asia, it is important to fully characterize the technological repertoire of this hominin species by studying the Teshik-Tash collection. Using the methods of mathematical statistics, the metric parameters of the artefacts were analyzed and the technical and typological homogeneity of the Teshik-Tash site complex (layers 1–5) was established, which indicates the representativeness of the sample at our disposal. The applied scar-pattern analysis revealed the dominance of the radial core reduction method aimed at obtaining non-standardized asymmetric blanks. At the same time, the toolkit contains the points with signs of Levallois knapping to obtain blanks: symmetry, regularity of convergent or longitudinally convergent dorsal surfaces, the presence of convex symmetric dihedral butts, overhang reduction. Thus, the problem of the Levallois component in the Teshik-Tash grotto industry remains open. The extent to which the Neanderthal population of Teshik-Tash used the Levallois technology will probably become clear after analysis of the Teshik- Tash grotto collections, stored in the funds of the Anuchin Research Institute and the Museum of Anthropology of MSU and the State Museum of history of Uzbekistan in Tashkent. | ||
| Keywords | Teshik-Tash grotto; Neandertals; Middle Paleolithic; lithic industry; scar-pattern analysis | ||
| References |
Bailey S., Glantz M., Weaver T. D., Viola B. The affinity of the dental remains from Obi-Rakhmat Grotto, Uzbekistan. Journal of Human Evolution, 2008, vol. 55, iss. 2, pp. 238–248. DOI: 10.1016/j. jhevol.2008.03.004 (in English). Cherdyntsev V. V. Uran-243 [Uranium-243]. Moscow: Atomizdat Publ., 1969. (in Russ.). Davis R., Ranov V. Recent work on the Paleolithic of Central Asia. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 1999, vol. 8, iss. 5, pp. 186–193. DOI: doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6505(1999)8:5<186::AID-EVAN6>3.0.CO;2-R (in English). Derevyanko A. P. Verkhniy paleolit v Afrike i Evrazii i formirovaniye cheloveka sovremennogo anatomicheskogo tipa [The Upper Paleolithic in Africa and Eurasia and the formation of the human of a modern anatomical type]. Novosibirsk: IAET SO RAN Publ., 2011. (in Russ.). Gerasimov M. M. Lyudi kamennogo veka [People of the Stone Age]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1964. (in Russ.). Glantz M. M. The History of Hominin Occupation of Central Asia in Review. Asian Paleoanthropology. Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology. Dordrecht: Springer, 2011, pp. 101–112. DOI: 10.1007/978- 90-481-9094-2_8 (in English). Glantz M. M., Ritzman T. B. A reanalysis of the Neandertal status of the Teshik-Tash child. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2004, vol. 123, iss. S38, pp. 100–101. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.60007 (in English). Glantz M., Athreya S., Ritzman T. Is Central Asia the eastern outpost of the Neandertal range? A reassessment of the Teshik-Tash child. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2009, vol. 138, iss. 1, pp. 45–61. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.20897 (in English). Glantz M., Viola B., Wrinn P. et al. New hominin remains from Uzbekistan. Journal of Human Evolution, 2008, vol. 55, iss. 2, pp. 223–237. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2007.12.007 (in English). Gunz P., Bulygina E. The Mousterian child from Teshik-Tash is a Neanderthal: a geometric morphometric study of the frontal bone. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2012, vol. 149, iss. 3, pp. 365–379. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.22133 (in English). Kharevich A. V., Kolobova K. A., Krivoshapkin A. I. Advantages of scar-pattern analysis in the study of paleolithic ñores. Teoriya i praktika arkheologicheskikh issledovaniy [Theory and practice of archaeological research], 2021, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 68–80. DOI: 10.14258/tpai(2021)33(3).-04 (in English). Kot M. A. The Earliest Middle Palaeolithic Bifacial Leafpoints in Central and Southern Europe. Technological Approach: Doc. Diss. Warsaw, 2013. (in English). Krause J., Orlando L., Serre D. et al. Neanderthals in Central Asia and Siberia. Nature, 2007, vol. 449, iss. 7164, pp. 902–904. DOI: 10.1038/nature06193 (in English). Krivoshapkin A., Viola B., Chargynov T. et al. Middle Paleolithic variability in Central Asia: lithic assemblage of Sel’Ungur cave. Quaternary International, 2020, vol. 535, pp. 88–103. DOI: 10.1016/j. quaint.2018.09.051 (in English). Movius H. The Lower Paleolithic Cultures of Southern and Eastern Asia. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1949. (in English) Nishiaki Y., Aripdjanov O. A new look at the Middle Paleolithic lithic industry of the Teshik-Tash Cave, Uzbekistan, West Central Asia. Quaternary International, 2021, vol. 596, pp. 22–37. DOI: 10.1016/j. quaint.2020.11.035 (in English). Okladnikov A. P. [Paleolithic and Mesolithic of Central Asia]. Srednyaya Aziya v epokhu kamnya i bronzy [Central Asia in the Age of Stone and Bronze]. Moscow; Leningrad: Nauka Publ., 1966, pp. 11–75. (in Russ.). Pastoors A., Schafer J. Analyse des états techniquesde transformation, d’utilisation et états post-dépositionnels. Illustrée par un outil bifacial de Salzgitter-Lebenstedt (FRG). Préhistoire Européenne, 1999, vol. 14, pp. 33–47. (in French). Pavlenok G. D., Kozlikin M. B., Shunkov M. V. [Small blade technology in the Early Upper Paleolithic industries from Denisova Cave: data from analysis of a lithic reduction sequence]. Ural’skij istoriceskij vestnik [Ural Historical Journal], 2021, no. 1 (70), pp. 123–128. DOI: 10.30759/1728-9718-20-21-1(70)-123-128. (in Russ.). Pavlenok K., Kot M., Pavlenok G. et al. Middle Paleolithic technological diversity during MIS 3 in the Western Tian Shan piedmonts: Example of the Katta Sai 1 open-air loess site. Archaeological Research in Asia, 2021, vol. 25, p. 100262. DOI: 10.1016/j.ara.2021.100262 (in English). Teshik-Tash. Paleoliticheskiy chelovek [Teshik-Tash. Paleolithic man]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1949. (in Russ.). Trinkaus E., Ranov V. A., Lauklin S. Middle Paleolithic human deciduous incisor from Khudji, Tajikistan. Journal of Human Evolution, 2000, vol. 38, iss. 4, pp. 575–584. DOI: 10.1006/jhev.1999.0370 (in English). Uthmeier Th. Transformation Analysis and the Reconstruction of On-Site and Off-Site Activities: Methodological Remarks. The Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Crimea: The Paleolithic of Crimea, vol. 3. Liège: ERAUL, 2004, no. 104, pp. 175–191. (in English). Vishnyatsky L. B. [On the causes of the transition to the Upper Paleolithic]. Sovremennyye eksperimental’no-trasologicheskiye i tekhniko-tekhnologicheskiye razrabotki v arkheologii. Tezisy dokladov mezhdunarod. nauch. konf. [Modern experimental-trasological and technical-technological developments in archaeology. Abstracts of reports of the international sci. conf.]. Saint Petersburg: IIMK RAN Publ., 1999, pp. 168–170. (in Russ.). Vishnyatsky L. B. Paleolit Sredney Azii i Kazakhstana [Paleolithic of Central Asia and Kazakhstan]. Saint Petersburg: “Evropeyskiy dom” Publ., 1996. (in Russ.). |
||
| Download in PDF | |||
