Promontoria Monográfica 16

Actas das IV Jornadas de Jovens em Investigação Arqueológica - JIA 2011

Vol. II

(Faro, 11 a 14 de Maio de 2011)

Editores Científicos: João Cascalheira Célia Gonçalves

Núcleo de Arqueologia e Paleoecologia Departamento de Artes e Humanidades

Faculdade de Ciências Humanas e Sociais (Universidade do Algarve)

Universidade do Algarve FACULDADE DE CIÊNCIAS HUMANAS E SOCIAIS Departamento de Artes e Humanidades Núcleo de Arqueologia e Paleoecologia

Promontoria Monográfica 16 Editor: Núcleo de Arqueologia e Paleoecologia e Departamento de Artes e Humanidades Faculdade de Ciências Humanas e Sociais Universidade do Algarve Campus de Gambelas 8005-139 Faro promontoria@ualg.pt Coordenação Editorial: Nuno Ferreira Bicho António Faustino Carvalho IMPRESSÃO: Tipografia Tavirense, Lda. TIRAGEM: 280 exemplares ISBN: 978-989-97666-2-4 Depósito Legal: 342265/l2 APOIOS:

Stones and Bones. The reconstruction of occupational palimpsests in the Late

Middle Palaeolithic of Crimea (Ukraine)

Guido Bataille

University of Cologne Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology

Weyertal 125, D-50923 Cologne, Germany gbataill@uni-koeln.de

ABSTRACT The aim of the article is to investigate the possibility of verifying occupational palimpsests on in-situ archaeological horizons. The region of interest is the Crimean Peninsula which exhibits more than 100 Late Middle Palaeolithic sites within the second range of the Crimean Mountains which date between Eemian Interglacial and Arcy/Denekamp Interstadial (Chabai & Uthmeier 2006: 298). Two horizons of the deeply stratified Middle Palaeolithic site Kabazi II, belonging to the Crimean Micoquian (CM) were investigated. Furthermore, each of the selected horizons show on-site butchering and processing of hunted wild ass (Equus hydruntinus) herds. The results argue for a complex land use system with only ephemeral activities in connection with Micoquian stations in contrast to the more intensely used camp sites of the same industry.

KEYWORDS Crimean Micoquian; Western Crimean Mousterian; Occupational palimpsest; Land use systems; Logistical adaptation

1. INTRODUCTION

The Crimean Peninsula is one of the key-regions for the research of the Middle Palaeolithic of Eastern Europe. This is due to the fact that here not only 30 multi-layered stratified sites could be documented yielding Middle Palaeolithic assemblages in primary context, like Kabazi II and Kabazi V (Chabai & Uthmeier 2006: 298). Furthermore, Neanderthal burials could be associated with Micoquian artefact assemblages, like in Kiik-Koba and Zaskalnaya VI (Chabai et al. 2004: 455) (FIGURE 1). Nearly all MP sites are situated within the second ridge of the Crimean Mountains, none further away from each other than 60 km. Kabazi II, showing a long sequence of killing butchering stations reaching without greater “hiatuses” from the end of the Last Interglacial (MIS 5d) until Denekamp Interstadial (MIS 3), exhibits the most complete Upper Pleistocene sequence of Eastern Europe and is among the latest representatives of Middle Palaeolithic evidence in Eurasia (FIGURE 2). Different important factors of the Crimean MP allow hypothesises on behavioural issues and land use strategies of Upper Pleistocene foragers: a good preservation of faunal and lithic assemblages at stratified sites, and not at least the occurrence of different site types, such as different killing-butchering sites (“stations” in the following) and dwelling places of variable duration (“camps” in the following) (Chabai & Uthmeier 2006).

Kabazi II is situated 40km west of Simferopol on the southern slope of Kabazi Mountain in the direct vicinity of the small village Malinovka. It was excavated between 1986/87 and 2002 under the direction of Yu. Kolosov, A. Marks and V. P. Chabai (Patou-Mathis & Chabai 2003: 223). Kabazi II is situated within the second ridge of the western part of the Crimean Mountains, which cut in west-eastward direction the northern steppe zone from the small southern Black Sea coast (FIGURE 1). The site location provides a good access to different flint raw material sources of high quality: flint pebbles from Alma river terrace in direct vicinity, nodules from Bodrak Valley about 5km southwest. Since Hengelo Interstadial there was access to the primary outcrop of Mount Milnaya approximately 2km southeast of the site (Patou-Mathis & Chabai 2003). Altogether 26 geological strata have been documented containing 55 archaeological levels in primary context which were subdivided into eight archaeological units (Chabai 2005: 10 f.) (FIGURE 2). The levels of the lower section could be attributed to the Crimean Micoquian (Unit VI till Unit IIA/4) whereas the upper section yields 20 levels belonging to the Western Crimean Mousterian, a variant of the Eastern European Levallois-Mousterian (Unit IIA/2 till Unit A4) (Chabai 2005). The Western Crimean Mousterian starts in Kabazi II, overlying the Micoquian levels, under boreal xeric forest-steppe conditions in Hosselo stadial around 45 kyr BP (Level IIA/2) (Chabai & Uthmeier 2006).

201

JIA 2011 – Vol. II

2. AIM OF INTEREST According to the excavators the archaeological

horizons presented in this paper were found in primary context (Chabai 2005). Furthermore, the lithic and faunal material of the investigated archaeological horizons was found in good preservation. Nevertheless, it remains unclear if such in situ assemblages are the result of single episodes. Only few of the documented archaeological levels of Kabazi II have been interpreted as occupational palimpsests due to the composition of the faunal assemblages – the Micoquian layer III/2 and the Mousterian layers II/8 and II/7E (Bataille 2006a, 2006b, 2010; Patou-Mathis 2006a; Patou-Mathis & Chabai 2003). In these layers the presence of different animal herds were interpreted as the result of different hunting events. In this context a comparison of the spatial distribution of stone artefacts and faunal remains seems to be helpful. My aim of interest is to receive a higher resolution of in situ levels by comparing the distribution of stone artefacts belonging to different raw material units with the distribution of faunal assemblages belonging to different animal herds that were butchered on-site.

3. METHODOLOGICAL REMARKS

The Transformation Analysis which has been established by the German archaeologist W. Weissmüller (1995) was the basic tool for the analysis of flint artefact assemblages presented here. The analysis was conducted by members of the University of Cologne during field season 2004 (Bataille 2006a, 2006b, 2010; Kurbjuhn 2005; Uthmeier 2006). In a first step unpatinated artefacts are sorted to raw material units, according to macroscopic features. Such features are “the structure and colour of cortex and cleavage plains, fossil and inclusions and attributes like fissures and cracks etc.” (Bataille 2010: 46). Different artefacts showing a combination of such common features are sorted to common raw material units (RMUs): RMUs consisting of more than one artefact are called workpieces, artefacts which exhibit solitary features are regarded as imported to the site as single pieces (Bataille 2010; Uthmeier 2004a).

In a second step, the different RMUs are sorted into different classes according to the presence of specific artefact types and are marked with a specific code (FIGURE 3). A high degree of cortical remains indicates the import of a tested raw piece. Such RMUs are encoded with an “N” (= nodule). Low or none cortical remains on the contrary indicate the import of a core. Such RMUs are encoded with a “C” (= core). So the first letter of the code addresses the RMU’s import stage. The second letter within the code is dealing with the on-site transformation of the RMU; e.g. blank production in combination with a high degree of cortical remains is encoded as “Nb” (b = blank). Or on-site tool modification in connection with blank production from an imported core, as indicated by low cortical remains is encoded as “Cm” (m = tool modification) (FIGURE 3).

Finally, every raw material unit is mapped according to the square meters the artefacts came from in order to evaluate the correspondence to one of the zones of faunal dismemberment.

4. THE CRIMEAN MICOQUIAN

In the course of the present analysis the Micoquian horizons levels III/2 and III/1 were investigated. Both Micoquian levels were geo-chronologically attributed to the time between the last interglacial complex and the first glacial maximum. Techno-typologically they have been attributed to the Ak-Kaya facies of the Crimean Micoquian, which is one of three technological facies of that industry (Chabai 2004: 301 ff.). All facies are characterized by the presence of different forms of plano-convex uni- and bifacial surface shaped side scrapers and points and moreover exhibit backed knives (“Keilmesser”), which is according to Bosinski (1967), a distinct feature of the (Central European) Micoquian.

Level III/2 was accumulated under south-boreal steppe conditions during MIS 5a and is correlated with Odderade Interstadial (Gerasimenko 2005). The overlying layer III/1 showing more harsh boreal forest steppe conditions is correlated with the following Uday stadial (onset of the north-west European Pleniglacial).

4.1. Level III/2

Only 74 flint artefacts bigger 3 cm belong to this small assemblage. They are dispersed over the southern part of the excavation surface. All in all, 67 lithics could be sorted back to 23 raw material units (Kurbjuhn 2006).

In contrast to the low number of lithic artefacts, 16.983 faunal remains could be assigned to 49 individuals (Patou-Mathis 2006b: 222). The assemblage is dominated by the little wild ass Equus hydruntinus. Altogether 45 individuals were hunted recurrently during summer and early winter: 33 adults with useable meat of 4000 kg and 12 young and sub-adult individuals with an amount of useable meat of 800 kg (Patou-Mathis 2006b). An inverse gourmet strategy was proposed, indicated by the absence of body parts of high nutritional value. The lack of these body parts was interpreted as their exportation to a camp site (Patou-Mathis 2006b).

Two different sectors of primary butchering were located in the western and in the south-eastern parts of the occupation surface (Patou-Mathis 2006b: 229 f.) (FIGURE 4). These two sectors are reflected by the visualisation of the lithic artefacts >3cm (FIGURE 4). Altogether 19 RMUs could be assigned to one of these two butchering sectors (Zone 1 & 2) (FIGURE 5). Due to the homogenous distribution over the surface, three RMUs could not be associated with one of the two butchering sectors (RMUs 8, 9, 20). Artefacts of RMU 22 lacked information about their horizontal position. In Zone 1, a slight horizontal shift of flint artefacts to the east is recognizable, probably due to anthropogenic activities. In Zone 2 the horizontal shift shows a complementary north-westward orientation. In the author’s opinion this

202

Stones and bones. The reconstruction of occupational palimpsests in the Late Middle Palaeolithic of Crimea (Ukraine)

clustering of raw material units and faunal elements is the result of at least two different occupational events.

This interpretation is confirmed by a Cluster Analysis that was conducted in order to control these results. A matrix was established with all artefacts bigger than 3 cm present within the squares of both or one of both zones. In order to receive a satisfactory grouping and to avoid long chains the method “furthest neighbour” was chosen. As a result the impression of a dichotomy of the artefact distribution can be upheld (FIGURE 6): at a distance of five steps four significant clusters are present with the RMUs belonging to Zone 2 grouped within one cluster, albeit together with RMU 8, which is present in Zones 1 and 2 with one artefact each – due to its unclear association with both zones it has to be sorted out. Solely RMU 19 is, due to its comparatively high share of artefacts within both zones, a cluster of his own. Nevertheless, due to the prevalence of artefacts within Zone 2 the assignment of RMU 19 to this area should be upheld. The second cluster is represented by the less numerous RMUs of Zone 1 (RMUs 4 & 11) followed by those with only one artefact within Zone 1 and none within Zone 2 (RMUs 16, 21, 6). RMU 9 is integrated in that cluster because it exhibits no artefacts within both zones; nevertheless, it cannot be attributed to one of both zones. A third cluster consists of RMUs 5, 13, 14 and 15 which were associated with Zone 1 because of the preponderance of artefacts within that area. These RMUs share the bigger scatter of artefacts over the occupational surface, also with pieces within Zone 2 or within the surrounding area. To sum up, clusters 1 and 2 represent the central zones where during two occupational events wild ass was primary butchered and lithic artefacts were produced and reduced. Cluster 3 consists of RMUs which originally belonged to Zone 1 or to both activity zones and which reflect the horizontal dislocation of artefacts most probably from the centres of activities to the periphery. This dislocation is accompanied by the horizontal mixing of artefacts from both zones. In order to avoid deteriorations by the clustering of RMUs according to their artefact numbers a presence-absence matrix was established (FIGURE 7). Since the single pieces still would cohere solely with one zone and thus would again be grouped together these respective RMUs were sorted out as well (RMUs 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, 17, 20 & 22). Furthermore, only squares associated with both butchering zones were taken into consideration. Using the method “furthest neighbour” and “squared Euclidian distance measurement” six clusters are visible at a distance of 14 steps which are furthermore integrated within two clusters at a distance of 17 steps. These clusters are in accordance with the two visualized artefact zones.

Both identified artefact zones differ slightly, concerning the import state of stone artefacts. While in Zone 1 the composition of imported artefacts comprises single pieces, cores and nodules, in Zone 2 there is a stronger emphasis on imported raw pieces. The raw material units originate mainly from the regional flint sources at Bodrak Valley (FIGURE 8); only one single piece of Zone 1 derives from the raw material source in the Kacha Valley, located about 20km southwest. The only small numbers of artefacts per

raw material unit, between one and eight pieces, emphasize the ephemeral character of the site. Only a few cores and preforms were exported (Kurbjuhn 2006).

On the other hand, a huge amount of faunal elements was butchered on-site and further on moved away off-site. It is very likely that this high amount of meat has been brought to a camp-site at the vicinity of Kabazi II (FIGURE 8). It can be concluded that activities in level III/2 were focused around faunal exploitation and that we are therefore dealing with a killing-butchering station. The butchering activities of Zone 1 were accompanied by the activities blank production from imported cores and nodules indicated by RMUs of transformation sections Nb and Cb, core rejuvenation indicated by RMU 4 of Transformation section Cc, tool production from imported raw nodules and cores indicated by the RMUs of transformation section Nm(/f) and Cm(/f) and furthermore the usage and rejuvenation of imported (bifacial) tools which were discarded after utilization (transformation sections Tw(/f) and Ei).

Contrary to Zone 1, within Zone 2 activities were more clearly and without exception focused on butchering of hunted animals. This task was accompanied by short activities interconnected with faunal processing: the blank production from imported cores and raw nodules is attested by the presence of two RMUs of transformations sections Cb and Nb/f and Cw, the usage and the following discard of imported tools is indicated by transformation sections Tw/f and the rejuvenation of imported tools by section WE. In only one case an imported raw nodule was prepared and afterwards exported as indicated by blanks from initial stages of flaking from RMU 19. A comparison of the assemblages from both zones with each other emphasizes the very ephemeral activities of Zone 2, what is especially indicated by the imported and discarded bifacial tools which were discarded after final usage, most possibly in connection with butchering activities. Nevertheless, both zones indicate only short stays at the site in connection with a high share of tools imported as single pieces in a pronounced stage of reduction and, at least in Zone 1, preponderant blank production from imported cores, probably for on-site butchering activities.

The small amount of stone artefacts, the contrasting high amount of bones from two recurrent hunting events and the reconstructed export of usable body-parts emphasizes the existence of a central camp site in the vicinity of Kabazi II where these parts must have been brought to for final consumption. Such types of camp site can be understood as the logistical centre of activities from which people received or prepared their stone kits and consumed the biggest parts of the hunting game.

4.2. Level III/1 Like level III/2 level III/1 exhibits an only small lithic

assemblage with not more than 73 artefacts > 3cm. The lithic artefacts could be sorted back to 13 RMUs, including nine workpieces and four single pieces (Uthmeier 2006: 259). Contrary to the small lithic inventory a quite comprehensive faunal assemblage was documented again (Patou-Mathis 2006b, 216 ff.). The remains of altogether 17 individuals of Equus hydruntinus have been

203

JIA 2011 – Vol. II

processed on site. Four zones of primary butchering could be recognized in different sectors of the excavation surface (FIGURE 9) (Patou-Mathis 2006b: 221). The presence of juvenile individuals indicates hunting and scavenging of small family groups during the end of spring and during summer. In addition to that, within five squares the remains of Bison cf. priscus and Cervus elaphus were found.

By mapping the unpatinated flint artefacts > 3 cm the four zones of faunal dismemberment can be visualized (FIGURE 9). Nevertheless, regarding the different RMUs, only the single pieces but none of the workpieces is distributed solely in one of the recognized butchering zones, but most of them show prevailance in one of these zones. In order to receive better information about the belonging of different RMUs to one of the four butchering zones the Cluster Analysis was chosen again as statistical instrument (FIGURE 10). To get a higher resolution about spatial relations between RMUs and zones of dismemberment a Cluster Analysis with a presence-absence matrix was conducted. All workpieces and the four butchering zones were listed as attributes and all squares of the excavation surface as cases. Using the “Ward” method with “squared Euclidian distance measurement” at the position of ten steps four groups emerge: group 1 inhering butchering Zones 3 and 4 and RMUs 1, 4, 5 and 9. Group 2 inherits butchering Zones 1 and 2, as well as RMUs 8 and 3. Solely RMUs 2 and 6 (group 3) and RMU 7 (group 4) do not show any clear association with one of both clusters due to their strong spatial heterogeneity. Concerning the results of the spatial distribution and the Cluster Analysis of lithic artefacts the following interpretations can be made:

1) According to the Cluster Analysis the remains of at least two recurrent events of butchering and scavenging constitute the assemblage with Zones 1 and 2 as well as Zone 3 and 4 constituting one single event with two different activity zones each. On-site produced blanks and imported bifacial tools were used for the primary butchering and dismemberment of wild ass individuals.

2) The spatial distribution of all lithic artefacts mirrors all four zones of primary butchering. Due to that, it is more likely that during at least four occupational events the assemblages were accumulated and that the two groups sorted by Cluster Analysis have further to be separated.

To give an answer to the second point, raw material units are sorted again together with the four butchering zones by Cluster Analysis using a “presence-absence matrix” for the comparison of all RMUs with only the squares belonging to the four butchering zones. By featuring the methods “furthest neighbour” and “Ward” in both cases a further distinction of the RMUs analogous to the four zones of butchering is possible (FIGURE 11). Only RMUs 2, 6 and 7, which again form a group of their own, cannot be traced to one of the four zones.

To sum up, even stronger than in level III/2 the present assemblage indicates the general ephemerality of Micoquian butchering stations, in this case with four short

occupations for primary butchering of hunting game. This contrasts with the more intensely used camp sites of the same industry characterized by features like fire-places, pits and higher artefact densities (Chabai 2004: 302).

5. RESULTS

It is obvious that the investigated Micoquian levels exhibit an ephemeral character. Levels III/2 and III/1 represent butchering stations of very short duration. Only few stone artifacts belong to single occupations. The main activities focus on the provisioning of camp sites with game while the lithic material can be interpreted as by-products for meat processing.

The ephemeral character of Micoquian stations stands in contrast to the known Micoquian camp-sites of Crimea which exhibit traces of intensive activities and of occupations of long duration, like at archaeological horizons level B1 of Buran-Kaya III (Uthmeier 2004b: 229). Taking into consideration the high share of faunal remains, the postulated export of big quantities of meat and the very low density of lithic artefacts of Micoquian killing-butchering stations, both site-types show complementary peculiarities. The intensity of activities and the potentially long duration of stays within the camp-sites are complementarily reflected by the intensity of very short butchering events which resulted in a big amount of bones of hunted individuals and only few lithic artifacts that were needed for specific tasks at the butchering sites. Since the bulk of game is enough for a whole forager band, we can conclude on a specific land-use pattern that differs from the one of the Western Crimean Mousterian (WCM). Contrary to the Micoquian site types the few known WCM camp-sites, like Shaitan-Koba and Karabi Tamchin, seem to be more ephemeral, and were only occupied during comparably short durations (Chabai & Uthmeier 2006: 312 ff.). In contrast to the Micoquian stations the Mousterian stations known from levels II/8 and II/7E are the result of twofold activities: the center of archaeologically demonstrable activities are the preparation of cores and blank kits on the one hand and the primary butchering of prey on the other hand, both for the aim of exportation to short-term camp sites nearby (like cores and blank sets) (Bataille 2006a, 2006b, 2010). Due to that, it seems justifiable to valuate those levels as general “task stations for resources procurement” in contrast to the occupations of Micoquian stations, which function as simple butchering stations.

REFERENCES

BATAILLE, G. 2010. Recurrent occupations of the Late Middle Palaeolithic Station Kabazi II, Unit II, Level 8 (Crimea, Ukraine) – Seasonal adaptation, procurement and processing of resources. Quartär 57: 43-77. 2006a. The production and usage of stone artefacts in the context with faunal exploitation – the repeatedly visited primary butchering station Unit II, Level 7E, in V.P. Chabai, J. Richter &

204

Stones and bones. The reconstruction of occupational palimpsests in the Late Middle Palaeolithic of Crimea (Ukraine)

Th. Uthmeier (eds.) Kabazi II: The 70 000 Years since the Last Interglacial: 111-130. Simferopol – Cologne: Shlyak. 2006b. Kabazi II, Level II/8: Import and Evacuation of Lithic Material, in V.P. Chabai, J. Richter & Th. Uthmeier (eds.) Kabazi II: The 70 000 Years since the Last Interglacial: 131-142. Simferopol-Cologne: Shlyak. CHABAI, V.P. 2005. Kabazi II: Stratigraphy and Archaeological Sequence, in V.P. Chabai, J. Richter, & Th. Uthmeier (eds.) Kabazi II: The Last Interglacial Occupation, Environment & Subsistence. Palaeolithic Sites of Crimea. Vol. 1: 1-24. Simferopol-Cologne: Shlyak. 2004. The Middle Paleolithic of Crimea: stratigraphy, chronology, typological variability & Eastern European Context. Simferopol: Shlyak. (in Russian). CHABAI, V.P., A.E. MARKS & K. MONIGAL 2004. Crimea in the context of the Eastern European Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic, in V.P. Chabai, K. Monigal & A. Marks (eds.) The Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Crimea. The Paleolithic of Crimea III. ERAUL 104: 419-460. Liège. CHABAI, V.P. & TH. UTHMEIER 2006. Settlement Systems in the Crimean Middle Palaeolithic, in V.P. Chabai, J. Richter & Th. Uthmeier (eds.) Kabazi II: The 70 000 Years since the Last Interglacial. Palaeolithic Sites of Crimea. Vol. 2: 297-359. Simferopol-Cologne: Shlyak. GERASIMENKO, N. 2005. Vegetation Evolution of the Kabazi II Site, in V.P. Chabai, J. Richter, & Th. Uthmeier (eds.) The Last Interglacial Occupation, Environment & Subsistence. Palaeolithic Sites of Crimea. Vol. 1: 25-49. Simferopol-Cologne: Shlyak.

KURBJUHN, M. 2006. Recurrent Butchering Activities at Kabazi II, Level III/2, in V.P. Chabai, J. Richter & Th. Uthmeier (Eds.) Kabazi II: The 70 000 Years since the Last Interglacial. Palaeolithic Sites of Crimea. Vol. 2. Simferopol – Cologne: Shlyak, 271-284. PATOU-MATHIS, M. 2006a. Analyse archéozoologique de l’ Unite II, Niveaux II/7AB à IIA/4B, in V.P. Chabai, J. Richter & Th. Uthmeier (eds.) Kabazi II: The 70 000 Years since the Last Interglacial. Palaeolithic Sites of Crimea. Vol. 2: 37-62. Simferopol-Cologne: Shlyak. 2006b. Analyse Archéozoologique de l’Unite III in V.P. Chabai, J. Richter & Th. Uthmeier (eds.) Kabazi II: The 70 000 Years since the Last Interglacial. Palaeolithic Sites of Crimea. Vol. 2: 209-239. Simferopol-Cologne: Shlyak. PATOU-MATHIS, M. & V.P. CHABAI 2003. Kabazi II (Crimée, Ukraine): un site d’abattage et de boucherie du Paléolithique moyen. L’anthropologie 107: 223-253. UTHMEIER, TH. 2006. Stone Tools, Horses and Cognition: Transformation of Lithic Raw Materials at the Middle Palaeolithic Open Air Kill and Butchering Site of Kabazi II, Level III/1, in V.P. Chabai, J. Richter & Th. Uthmeier (eds.) Kabazi II: The 70 000 Years since the Last Interglacial. Palaeolithic Sites of Crimea. Vol. 2: 253-269. Simferopol-Cologne: Shlyak. 2004a. Transformation Analysis and the Reconstruction of On-Site and Off-Site Activities, in V.P. Chabai, K. Monigal & A. Marks (eds.) The Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Crimea. The Paleolithic of Crimea III. ERAUL 104: 175-191. Liège. 2004b. Planning Depth and Saiga Hunting: On-Site and Off-Site Activities of Late Neanderthals in Level B1 of Buran-Kaya III, in V.P. Chabai, K. Monigal & A. Marks (eds.) The Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Crimea. The Paleolithic of Crimea III. ERAUL 104: 193-231. Liège.

205

JIA 2011 – Vol. II

FIGURE 1. Map of selected Middle Palaeolithic sites in Crimea.

FIGURE 2. Stratigraphy of Kabazi II. After dates of Patou-Mathis & Chabai 2003 and Chabai 2005, Tab. 1-1.

206

Stones and bones. The reconstruction of occupational palimpsests in the Late Middle Palaeolithic of Crimea (Ukraine)

FIGURE 3. Transformation Analysis. Transformation sections according to the import stage and the on-site transformation of

lithic artefacts. From Bataille 2010.

FIGURE 4. Level III/2 – Crimean Micoquian. Total distribution of lithic artefacts > 3cm. Indicated are the different zones of

primary butchering.

FIGURE 5. Level III/2 – Crimean Micoquian. Spatial distribution of lithic artefacts >3cm belonging to butchering zones 1 and 2.

207

JIA 2011 – Vol. II

FIGURE 6. Level III/2 – Crimean Micoquian. Cluster analysis of artefacts > 3cm of all workpieces within the squares of Zones 1

and 2 – comparison of total artefact numbers of RMUs and squares of the excavation surface with the statistic program

SPSS 18. Method: furthest neighbour, distance measurement: squared Euclidian distances.

FIGURE 7. Level III/2 – Crimean Micoquian. Cluster analysis of artefacts > 3cm of all workpieces within the squares of Zones 1

and 2 using a presence-absence matrix with the statistic program SPSS 18. Single pieces were sorted out. Method:

furthest neighbour, distance measurement: squared Euclidian distances.

FIGURE 8. Level III/2 – Crimean Micoquian. Land-use model.

208

Stones and bones. The reconstruction of occupational palimpsests in the Late Middle Palaeolithic of Crimea (Ukraine)

FIGURE 9. Level III/1 – Crimean Micoquian. Total distribution of lithic artefacts > 3cm. Indicated are the different zones of primary

butchering.

FIGURE 10. Level III/1 – Crimean Micoquian. Cluster analysis of all RMUs, all squares and the four butchering zones with the

statistic program SPSS 18. Method: ward, distance measurement: squared Euclidian distances.

FIGURE 11. Level III/1 – Crimean Micoquian. Cluster analysis of all RMUs and the four butchering zones (E.h.1 till E.h.4) with

the statistic program SPSS 18. Method: ward, distance measurement: squared Euclidian distances.

209