Getting Back to Basics: a Response to Otte "comments on Mezmaiskaya"

Marcel Otte recently argued (In "Comments on Mezmaiskaya, North Caucasus", Eurasian Prehistory, this issue) that the Early Upper Paleo-lithic (EUP) at Mezmaiskaya Cave can be defined as Aurignacian (versus Golovanova et al., 2006). This raises an old methodological problem concerning the correct use of scientific terms and the definition of the Aurignacian. Lithic definitions such as Aurignacian and Gravettian, which were ori ginally based on specific materials, have been rather more loosely applied to assemblages distant in time and space. We believe that the wider application of these original terms not only sim-plifi es them by a subjective reduction of their primary determining attributes, but also confuses our understanding of cultural processes within and between various regions. To get back to the basic definition of the Aurignacian, it is necessary to return to Sonne-ville-Bordes' (1950) classic publication on this subject. Based on the original materials (Sonne-ville-Bordes, 1950: 146-150), the Aurignacian is defined as a blade industry-most tools are made on blades. Further, the Aurignacian toolkit is defined by the following characteristics: 20.5 to 72.7 percent endscrapers, b'etween 7.1 and 35.0 percent Aurignacian scrapers (including typical carinated and nosed endscrapers), 28.9 to 43.0 percent burins, 4.0 to 34.4 percent retouched blades, and two types of bone points-split and beveled-base points. Bladelets with Dufour re-touch are less common and do not occur not in all Aurignacian assemblages. In comparing the new EUP assemblages from Mezmaiskaya Cave with coeval or slightly earlier industries (e.g. , Chatelperronian, Uluzzian, Auri-gnacian, and Ahmarian), Golovanova (2000: 175) finds the Mezmaiskaya materials to be most simi-Jar to the Ahmarian tradition, and particularly the lithic assemblages from Abu Noshra and the La-gaman, dating between 30 and 35 ky BP (Gilead, 1991). This preliminary conclusion is based on the prevalence of micro-laminar (bladelet) debi-tage, a high percentage of tools made on bladelets (compared with 45 .7 percent at Lagama), and a rather low representation (about 20 percent) of endscrapers and burins. It is important to note that only the later Ahmarian assemblages provided a basis for this comparison. Moreover, despite many similarities, the EUP industry from Layer 1 C at Mezmaiskaya is not identical to the Ahmar-ian. Ongoing excavations of EUP levels in Mez-maiskaya Cave now permit a more accurate comparison with the Ahmarian. Typical el-Wad points with fine lateral retouch, which are very characteristic of the Ahmarian assemblages from Lagama (Bar-Yosefand Belfer 1977: fig. 23) and Qafzeh Cave, layer …