- •Preface
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •1 Introduction: Azokh Cave and the Transcaucasian Corridor
- •Abstract
- •Introduction
- •History of Excavations at Azokh Caves
- •Excavations 1960–1988
- •Excavations 2002–2009
- •Field Seasons
- •2002 (23rd August–19th September)
- •2003 (4th–31st August)
- •2004 (28th July–6th August)
- •2005 (26th July–12th August)
- •2006 (30th July–23rd August)
- •2007 (9th July–4th August)
- •2008 (8th July–14th August)
- •2009 (17th July–12th August)
- •Correlating Huseinov’s Layers to Our Units
- •Chapters of This Book
- •Acknowledgments
- •References
- •Abstract
- •Introduction
- •Azokh 1
- •Sediment Sequence 1
- •Sediment Sequence 2
- •Discussion on the Stratigraphy of Azokh 1
- •Azokh 2
- •Azokh 5
- •Discussion on the Stratigraphy of Azokh 5
- •Conclusions
- •Acknowledgments
- •References
- •3 Geology and Geomorphology of Azokh Caves
- •Abstract
- •Introduction
- •Geological Background
- •Geomorphology of Azokh Cave
- •Results of the Topographic Survey
- •Azokh 1: Main Entrance Passageway
- •Azokh 2, 3 and 4: Blind Passages
- •Azokh 5: A Recently Discovered Connection to the Inner Chambers
- •Azokh 6: Vacas Passageway
- •Azokh I: The Stalagmite Gallery
- •Azokh II: The Sugar-Mound Gallery
- •Azokh III: The Apron Gallery
- •Azokh IV: The Hall Gallery
- •Results of the Geophysical Survey
- •Discussion
- •Conclusions
- •Acknowledgments
- •References
- •4 Lithic Assemblages Recovered from Azokh 1
- •Abstract
- •Introduction
- •Methods of Analysis
- •Results
- •Unit Vm: Lithic Assemblage
- •Unit III: Lithic Assemblage
- •Unit II: Lithic Assemblage
- •Post-Depositional Evidence
- •Discussion of the Lithic Assemblages
- •Comparison of Assemblages from the Earlier and Current Excavations
- •Chronology
- •Conclusions
- •Acknowledgements
- •References
- •5 Azokh Cave Hominin Remains
- •Abstract
- •Introduction
- •Hominin Mandibular Fragment from Azokh 1
- •Discussion of Early Work on the Azokh Mandible
- •New Assessment of the Azokh Mandibular Remains Based on a Replica of the Specimen
- •Discussion, Azokh Mandible
- •Neanderthal Remains from Azokh 1
- •Description of the Isolated Tooth from Azokh Cave (E52-no. 69)
- •Hominin Remains from Azokh 2
- •Human Remains from Azokh 5
- •Conclusions
- •Acknowledgements
- •References
- •6 The New Material of Large Mammals from Azokh and Comments on the Older Collections
- •Abstract
- •Introduction
- •Materials and Methods
- •General Discussion and Conclusions
- •Acknowledgements
- •References
- •7 Rodents, Lagomorphs and Insectivores from Azokh Cave
- •Abstract
- •Introduction
- •Materials and Methods
- •Results
- •Unit Vm
- •Unit Vu
- •Unit III
- •Unit II
- •Unit I
- •Discussion
- •Conclusions
- •Acknowledgments
- •8 Bats from Azokh Caves
- •Abstract
- •Introduction
- •Materials and Methods
- •Results
- •Discussion
- •Conclusions
- •Acknowledgements
- •References
- •9 Amphibians and Squamate Reptiles from Azokh 1
- •Abstract
- •Introduction
- •Materials and Methods
- •Systematic Descriptions
- •Paleobiogeographical Data
- •Conclusions
- •Acknowledgements
- •References
- •10 Taphonomy and Site Formation of Azokh 1
- •Abstract
- •Introduction
- •Taphonomic Agents
- •Materials and Methods
- •Shape, Size and Fracture
- •Surface Modification Related to Breakage
- •Tool-Induced Surface Modifications
- •Tooth Marks
- •Other Surface Modifications
- •Histology
- •Results
- •Skeletal Element Representation
- •Fossil Size, Shape and Density
- •Surface Modifications
- •Discussion
- •Presence of Humans in Azokh 1 Cave
- •Carnivore Damage
- •Post-Depositional Damage
- •Acknowledgements
- •Supplementary Information
- •References
- •11 Bone Diagenesis at Azokh Caves
- •Abstract
- •Introduction
- •Porosity as a Diagenetic Indicator
- •Bone Diagenesis at Azokh Caves
- •Materials Analyzed
- •Methods
- •Diagenetic Parameters
- •% ‘Collagen’
- •Results and Discussion
- •Azokh 1 Units II–III
- •Azokh 1 Unit Vm
- •Azokh 2
- •Prospects for Molecular Preservation
- •Conclusions
- •Acknowledgements
- •References
- •12 Coprolites, Paleogenomics and Bone Content Analysis
- •Abstract
- •Introduction
- •Materials and Methods
- •Coprolite/Scat Morphometry
- •Bone Observations
- •Chemical Analysis of the Coprolites
- •Paleogenetics and Paleogenomics
- •Results
- •Bone and Coprolite Morphometry
- •Paleogenetic Analysis of the Coprolite
- •Discussion
- •Bone and Coprolite Morphometry
- •Chemical Analyses of the Coprolites
- •Conclusions
- •Acknowledgements
- •References
- •13 Palaeoenvironmental Context of Coprolites and Plant Microfossils from Unit II. Azokh 1
- •Abstract
- •Introduction
- •Environment Around the Cave
- •Materials and Methods
- •Pollen, Phytolith and Diatom Extraction
- •Criteria for the Identification of Phytolith Types
- •Results
- •Diatoms
- •Phytoliths
- •Pollen and Other Microfossils
- •Discussion
- •Conclusions
- •Acknowledgments
- •References
- •14 Charcoal Remains from Azokh 1 Cave: Preliminary Results
- •Abstract
- •Introduction
- •Materials and Methods
- •Results
- •Conclusions
- •Acknowledgments
- •References
- •15 Paleoecology of Azokh 1
- •Abstract
- •Introduction
- •Materials and Methods
- •Habitat Weightings
- •Calculation of Taxonomic Habitat Index (THI)
- •Faunal Bias
- •Results
- •Taphonomy
- •Paleoecology
- •Discussion
- •Evidence for Woodland
- •Evidence for Steppe
- •Conclusions
- •Acknowledgments
- •Species List Tables
- •References
- •16 Appendix: Dating Methods Applied to Azokh Cave Sites
- •Abstract
- •Radiocarbon
- •Uranium Series
- •Amino-acid Racemization
- •Radiocarbon Dating of Samples from the Azokh Cave Complex (Peter Ditchfield)
- •Pretreatment and Measurement
- •Calibration
- •Results and Discussion
- •Introduction
- •Material and Methods
- •Results
- •Conclusions
- •Introduction
- •Laser-ablation Pre-screening
- •Sample Preparation and Measurement
- •Results
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Index
170 |
S.A. Parfitt |
A small number of highly distinctive cheek teeth of jerboas have been found. Three species are currently found in the Caucasus, the small five-toed jerboa (Allactaga elator) and Williams’s jerboa (Allactaga williamsi) are both found in the southern Caucasus, whereas the larger great jerboa (A. major) has a range that extends into northern foothills of the Caucasus. Jerboas are highly specialized for a saltorial way of life and are good indicators of local steppe and semi-desert with hard ground; marshy areas, dense grass and thicket vegetation are avoided.
Although there is no suggestion of any clear taphonomic change during the period when the Unit Vu sediments were accumulating, changes in faunal composition through sequence are apparent. These hint at fluctuations in local ecological conditions during the deposition of this unit, with humid conditions at the base, becoming increasingly arid, followed by a return to more humid conditions in the upper samples (Fig. 7.1).
One notable feature of the assemblage is the presence of charred and calcined bones and teeth in the upper part of the sequence (Fig. 7.1). Charcoal has also been recovered from this unit (Allué 2016). Peak values for burnt bone abundance were encountered in the middle of the sequence, with up to 6.5% of the teeth either charred or calcined. Burnt material also occurs in the upper part of the sequence, but at much lower frequencies (0.4–2.1%). The presence of butchered large mammal in this horizon suggests that the burnt small
mammal material is probably linked to human activity in the cave, possibly through the lighting of fires on surfaces where bones had already accumulated.
Unit III
This unit yielded a total of 121 identifiable cranial elements (Table 7.2). Overwhelmingly the most important small mammals are voles of the Microtus arvalis/socialis group. All of the Microtus M2s (n = 17) have an extra loop indicative of the social voles group. This dominance suggests steppe or semi-desert habitats were prevalent, a conclusion supported by the relatively high numbers of mole voles and jirds. The remaining taxa, represented by at most two specimens each, include white-toothed shrew (Crocidura sp.), pika (Ochotona sp.), murids (Apodemus sp., Mus cf. macedonicus), hamster (Mesocricetus sp.) and voles (Clethrionomys glareolus, Microtus (Terricola) spp.). The presence in this small assemblage of Clethrionomys glareolus is noteworthy. None of the teeth are burnt (possibly due to the small size of the sample). Digested rodent teeth are present in Unit III, but the sample is too small to identify the type of predator responsible for accumulating the small mammal bones (Andrews et al. 2016).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
socialis |
|
|
|
|
|
morph) |
|
|
|
|
|
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
. |
|
|
|
araneus |
migratorius |
glareolus |
nivalisgud |
|
|
|
(M2 |
|
|
(%) |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
(sample |
no |
|
ex |
|
minutus |
OchotonaMarmotaSpermophilusMesocricetusAllocricetusClethrionomysCricetulus Microtus |
arvalis |
|
TerricolaChionomysChionomysEllobius Meriones |
|
macedonicus |
socialis |
|
|
bone |
|
||||
|
|
|
ex |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
SorexCrociduraT |
|
|
Mus |
AllactagaMicrotus |
|
|
Burnt |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
gr |
|
gr |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ApodemusRattus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unit |
Sorex |
|
|
|
|
alpa |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I
II
III (31) (11)
(4)
(9) Vm (21)
(16)
(10)
(25)
(1) Vm
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
20 0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
40 |
60 0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
20 0 |
20 |
40 0 |
200 |
0 |
20 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
40 |
60 |
80 |
100 |
0 |
2 |
5 |
7 |
Fig. 7.1 Stratigraphical distribution and relative abundances of rodent taxa at Azokh 1. The taxa are arranged in an approximate ecological order with ‘humid’ taxa on the left and ‘arid’ taxa on the right. Values of taxonomic abundance are expressed as percentages of the total number of identified small mammal specimens, excluding all arvicoline molars other than M1s. Alteration by burning was noted as either charred (blackened) or calcined (ash grey with flaking or mosaic cracking) as described by Preece et al. (2007). Fluctuations in the numbers of burnt bones may indicate differences in the intensity of fire use or changes in the nature of the human occupation. Fire intensity appears to vary with environmental conditions, as indicated by changes in the relative proportions of steppic voles (M. socialis group) and mesic grassland voles (M. arvalis group and Terricola sp.) through the sequence