- •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
218
•Manganese dioxide deposits are common at Azokh 1 in agreement with a karstic damp environment. The presence of manganese deposition is related to envi-
ronmental condition characterized by high wet, mildly alkaline and oxidizing (López-González et al. 2006). Manganese dioxide is insoluble and tends to form crusts and coatings in caves (Karkanas et al. 2000).
Histology
We have followed sample preparation methods described by Fernández-Jalvo et al. (2010a) and criteria to identify microscopic focal destruction (MFD). The histological modification according to Hackett (1981) is divided into Wedl and Non-Wedl foci (i.e. Hackett’s “linear longitudinal, lamellate and budded foci”). Hacket’s non-Wedl MFD is associated with the activity of bacteria. Bacterial attack can be recognized in the BSE-SEM (backscattered electron mode SEM) as a brighter rim (i.e. more compact and dense bone mineral) that is reprecipitation of amorphous hydroxylapatite surrounding the MFD destructive foci (small pores and thin channels 0.1–2.0 microns in diameter). The Oxford Histological Index established by Hedges et al. (1995) from OHI 5 unmodified histology to OHI 0 with no original features identifiable, was used to characterize the general histological preservation of the bone. Tunnelling between 5 and 15 microns is usually assigned to fungal activity following Wedl (1864) and named “Wedl tunnelling” (see also Trueman and Martill 2002; Jans et al. 2002; Jans 2005).
Results
Skeletal Element Representation
Of the 1879 fossils examined from Azokh only 462 fossils (24.6%) could be taxonomically or anatomically identified due to the high frequency of breakage in the sample (Table 10.1).
With regard to family (Fig. 10.1) or order taxonomic identifications (Fig. 10.2), Unit I differs from the other units with a higher percentage of Bovidae. Unit I is associated with a fumier (manure hearth) from occupation of the cave by people who entered with livestock (Fernán- dez-Jalvo et al. 2010b). In contrast Units II to V are Pleistocene in age and have a predominance of cave bear in the mammalian fauna. Among these Pleistocene deposits, Units II and III are similar to each other and slightly
M.D. Marin-Monfort et al.
%Az,percentage |
|
|
%Az |
24.6 |
21.4 |
54.0 |
100.0 |
10.3 |
48.33 |
31.0 |
10.4 |
fossils per unit. |
|
Total |
NR |
462 |
402 |
1015 |
1879 |
193 |
908 |
582 |
196 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
number of |
|
|
%t |
23.3 |
19.8 |
57.0 |
29.1 |
15.1 |
60.8 |
20.9 |
3.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
to the total |
|
Unit Vm |
NR |
80 |
68 |
196 |
344 |
52 |
209 |
72 |
11 |
percentage referred |
|
|
%t |
30.2 |
21.5 |
48.3 |
9.2 |
6.4 |
55.2 |
29.1 |
9.3 |
|
Vu |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
partial |
|
Unit |
NR |
52 |
37 |
83 |
172 |
11 |
95 |
50 |
16 |
number of remains(fossils). %t, |
|
Unit III |
NR %t |
52 36.4 |
43 30.1 |
48 33.6 |
143 7.6 |
3 2.1 |
76 53.2 |
51 35.7 |
13 9.1 |
1. NR, |
|
|
%t |
24.6 |
20.3 |
55.1 |
55.9 |
9.6 |
41.4 |
35.2 |
13.7 |
Table 10.1 Fossil identifications from each fossiliferous unit of Azokh referred to the total number of fossils (1879) from Azokh1 |
Levels of identification Units |
Unit I Unit II |
NR %t NR |
Taxonomic 20 11.8 258 |
Anatomic 41 24.1 213 |
Unidentified 109 64.1 579 |
Total (%Az) 170 9.1 1050 Fossil size |
Fossil size <2 cm 26 15.3 101 |
Fossil size 2–5 cm 93 54.7 435 |
Fossil size 5–10 cm 39 22.9 370 |
Fossil size >10 cm 12 7.1 144 |
|
|
10 Taphonomy and Site Formation of Azokh 1 |
219 |
Fig. 10.1 Percentages of different families identified from each stratigraphic unit from Azokh 1 (obtained from the number of remains, NR)
Fig. 10.2 Percentage of macromammal orders (Carnivora, Perisodactyla and Artiodactyla) from Azokh 1 stratigraphic units (obtained from the number of remains, NR)
Table 10.2 Levels of identification. NR, number of remains; NISP, number of identified specimens; MNE, minimum number of elements; MNI, minimum number of individuals
|
Unit I |
Unit II |
Unit III |
Unit Vu |
Unit Vm |
NR |
170 |
1050 |
143 |
172 |
344 |
NISP |
54 |
417 |
81 |
85 |
133 |
MNE |
39 |
280 |
61 |
71 |
95 |
NISP:NR |
0.3 |
0.4 |
0.6 |
0.5 |
0.4 |
MNE:NISP |
0.7 |
0.7 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
0.7 |
MNI Carnivores |
0 |
9 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
MNI Ungulates |
10 |
10 |
4 |
7 |
11 |
different from Units Vu and Vm, which have higher abundances of taxa other than ursids. The classification by size of mammals in Azokh 1 gives percentages of 36.93% for the large sized animals, 25.55% for medium sized and 13.41% for small sized (24.11% could not be assigned to any of these size classes). The size classification by units shows a higher abundance of medium sized animals in Units I, Vu and Vm, while Units II and III have higher percentages of large sized mammals (cave bears).
The minimum number of identified elements (MNE) is lower than the number of fossils (NR) or the number of identified specimens (NISP) because of the high degree of breakage, which restricts their identification to skeletal element (Table 10.1). This table also includes indices comparing NISP/NR and MNE/NISP that, according to Lyman (1994), provide an indication of completeness. These indices are low showing the high breakage rates of these fossil assemblages. The minimum number of individuals is also given in Table 10.2, with carnivores and ungulates shown separately.
Skeletal elements that could be anatomically identified provide a total percentage in Azokh 1 of 7% for vertebrae, 6.6% for ribs, 6.8% for isolated teeth, 4.5% for phalanges 3.8% for metapodials with the rest of the skeleton elements below 2%. Hyoid bone and baculum, which are uncommon in fossil sites, have been recovered from Units II and III. Comparing skeletal abundances of anatomical elements per unit, most fossils could only be assigned to indeterminate long bones (non-assigned to fore or hind limbs). This is
220 |
M.D. Marin-Monfort et al. |
Fig. 10.3 Relative abundances (Ri) of major cranial and postcranial elements identified from five stratigraphic units of Azokh 1
common to all units, and next most abundant in all units are axial elements, particularly of juvenile individuals. Units Vu and Vm have greater numbers of cranial elements compared with other units. Main anatomical skeletal elements of bears and large, medium and small sized animals have been compared per stratigraphic unit (Fig. 10.3) showing an uncommon pattern of human occupation. Small sized animals may be transported complete, but in general the proportion of these animals in most units is low. Similarly, medium and large sized animals are less abundant and less well represented when compared to bears at this part of the cave.
Ages of individuals could be identified in many cases, and there is a high predominance of adults in all units of Azokh 1. Based on dental elements, Ursus spelaeus is the only taxon that has a range of ages, with adults, juveniles and old individuals in Units II and Vm. This could suggest that in these two levels the cave was occupied by female bears with their young (Kurten 1958; Andrews and Turner 1992), while at other levels, where only adult specimens have been found, the evidence may suggest that males only were living in the cave, but the interpretation is complicated both by the low numbers of individuals in all units (Table 10.2), and by the fact that cut marks are present on
10 Taphonomy and Site Formation of Azokh 1 |
221 |
Fig. 10.4 Shape categories established by Blott and Pye (2008) showing the different shapes: elongation, flatness and sphericity. These diagrams represent orthogonal dimensions of fossils from Units I to Vm of Azokh 1. The ratio between width (D2) and length (D1) is shown on the vertical axis and the ratio between thickness (D3) and width (D2) on the horizontal axis. These diagrams characterize predominance of fossil shapes selected by hydrology or gravitational agents. In Azokh 1 the shape of the fossils are randomly dispersed in all categories indicating the absence of fossil shape selection. Black circles: unidentified fossil bone fragments; grey circles: large sized animals; white circles: medium and small sized animals.
222
Table 10.3 Correlation through Rho Spearman between the structural bone density and the relative abundance of different skeletal elements of fossils from each unit of Azokh1
|
Density |
Large sized |
|
|
|
Density |
Medium sized |
|
|
|
Density |
Small sized |
|
|
|
|||
|
bison |
Ri |
|
|
|
|
cervid |
Ri |
|
|
|
|
sheep |
Ri |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unit I |
Unit II |
Unit III |
Unit Vu |
Unit Vm |
|
Unit I |
Unit II |
Unit III |
Unit Vu |
Unit Vm |
|
Unit I |
Unit II |
Unit III |
Unit Vu |
Unit Vm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mandible |
79.0 |
0.0 |
42.9 |
12.5 |
0.0 |
8.3 |
61.0 |
12.5 |
10.0 |
16.7 |
50.0 |
0.0 |
62.0 |
20.0 |
14.3 |
0.0 |
21.4 |
20.0 |
Vertebrae |
62.0 |
3.1 |
13.4 |
3.1 |
3.1 |
0.5 |
30.0 |
1.8 |
6.4 |
1.2 |
3.6 |
1.4 |
26.0 |
1.4 |
2.0 |
0.9 |
0.5 |
0.7 |
Rib |
57.0 |
1.4 |
3.6 |
0.7 |
1.4 |
0.9 |
40.0 |
1.0 |
8.5 |
2.6 |
2.6 |
1.5 |
37.0 |
1.5 |
2.2 |
1.0 |
1.1 |
3.1 |
Scapula |
50.0 |
0.0 |
28.6 |
25.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
49.0 |
25.0 |
10.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
20.0 |
10.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Pelvis |
55.0 |
0.0 |
42.9 |
25.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
49.0 |
0.0 |
20.0 |
0.0 |
33.3 |
20.0 |
49.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
14.3 |
0.0 |
Humerus |
48.0 |
25.0 |
35.7 |
12.5 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
63.0 |
12.5 |
10.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
10.0 |
42.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
7.1 |
10.0 |
Radius |
62.0 |
0.0 |
35.7 |
12.5 |
12.5 |
8.3 |
68.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
57.0 |
0.0 |
7.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Ulna |
69.0 |
0.0 |
28.6 |
25.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
45.0 |
0.0 |
10.0 |
16.7 |
0.0 |
10.0 |
28.0 |
10.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
10.0 |
Femur |
45.0 |
25.0 |
57.1 |
0.0 |
12.5 |
0.0 |
57.0 |
12.5 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
36.0 |
10.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
20.0 |
Tibia |
76.0 |
0.0 |
28.6 |
12.5 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
74.0 |
12.5 |
10.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
59.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
14.3 |
0.0 |
Carpal/ |
51.0 |
0.0 |
19.2 |
6.7 |
2.9 |
1.3 |
81.0 |
3.9 |
1.5 |
1.3 |
2.6 |
1.5 |
65.5 |
0.0 |
2.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.8 |
Tarsal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Metapodial |
61.0 |
0.0 |
85.7 |
43.8 |
25.0 |
8.3 |
73.0 |
12.5 |
15.0 |
8.3 |
25.0 |
20.0 |
67.5 |
5.0 |
7.1 |
0.0 |
3.6 |
5.0 |
Phalanx |
42.0 |
8.3 |
41.7 |
8.3 |
14.6 |
9.7 |
39.0 |
0.0 |
1.7 |
6.9 |
0.0 |
2.5 |
42.3 |
0.8 |
1.2 |
1.0 |
0.0 |
3.3 |
r Spearman |
|
−0.61 |
−0.17 |
0.23 |
−0.31 |
0.07 |
|
0.40 |
0.05 |
−0.21 |
−0.01 |
−0.13 |
|
42.53 |
0.57 |
−0.30 |
0.41 |
0.03 |
P-level |
|
0.03 |
0.58 |
0.44 |
0.30 |
0.82 |
|
0.17 |
0.88 |
0.49 |
0.97 |
0.67 |
|
0.27 |
0.04 |
0.32 |
0.17 |
0.93 |
.al et Monfort-Marin .D.M