Demidenko 2014 - Starosele MP site in Crimea - 1st PDF version - EGA Springer USA

15.02.14 Starosele Middle Paleolithic Site with Hominin Remains - Springer

link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_1869/fulltext.html 1/11

(1)

Claire Smith

Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology

10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_1869

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Starosele Middle Paleolithic Site with HomininRemains

Yuri E. Demidenko 1

Crimean Branch, Institute of Archaeology, National Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Yaltinskaya St. 2,Simferopol, Crimea, 95007, Ukraine

Yuri E. DemidenkoEmail: [email protected]

Without Abstract

Introduction

The site of Starosele was discovered in the 1950s with Middle Paleolithic artifacts apparently

associated with human child remains, possibly transitional to Homo sapiens or modern Homo

sapiens. The discovery was seen as a kind of Eastern European sensation or mystery, mainly due to

the Levantine Skhul/Qafzeh hominin discoveries also in Mousterian archaeological context, found in

the 1930s. New excavations in the 1990s at Starosele have helped to clarify many archaeological,

anthropological, and chronological aspects of the site’s finds.

The site is located within the Kanly-Dere, a side, currently dry box canyon in Eocene limestones

running north into the Bakhchisaraiskaya valley at the village of Starosele, now within the northern

edge of the town of Bakhchisarai in southwestern Crimea. The site is not a cave as was suggested

during its excavations in the 1950s but, as became certain during the 1990s excavations, rather an

accumulation of sediments on a rock platform along the base of the eastern side of the canyon, 11–

13 m above the canyon bottom.

Key Issues/Current Debates/FutureDirections/Examples

mailto:[email protected]

http://link.springer.com/



Starosele: Discovery and the 1950s Excavations

The Middle Paleolithic flint artifacts were found in 1952 on a rock platform in Kanly-Dere canyon

by N.P. Katsur, an associate of the Bakhchisarai Museum. A young archaeologist from Moscow,

A.A. Formozov, then conducted excavations there from 1952 to 1956. The excavation data were

described in a series of articles and a book (Formozov 1958) and can be summarized as follows

(see also Demidenko 1998).

Formozov excavated a total area of c. 250 sq. m (Fig. 1). Only during the last two field seasons, in

1955 and 1956, when c. 140 sq. m. were excavated in the main site area, were both a 1-m2 grid

system and several datum points established. Vertical subdivision of the deposits (with an overall

thickness of 2–4 m) albeit with no separation of different lithological horizons was also done in

1955–1956 when artifacts and fauna were collected separately from deposits above and below a

level of thick limestone slabs. In addition to abundant flint artifacts (c. 12,000 pieces) and fauna (c.

60,000 items), a human child burial was discovered in 1953; separate bones of an adult woman

were identified only after the 1954 excavations during analysis of the fauna. The burial came to be

known as the famous “Starosele child,” while the other remains with fully Homo sapiens

morphology were generally ignored.

Starosele Middle Paleolithic Site with Hominin Remains, Fig. 1

Starosele site. Plan of the excavations at the site: the 1950s excavations, and the 1990s with heavierline. Stars indicate human burials: J-20 – 1953 Starosele child; C-29/30 – 1954 adult female remainsfound in fauna materials; I-22 – 1993 infant; H-25 – 1994 adult (Modified after Marks et al. 1996: Fig. 2)

Formozov himself came to the following conclusions after the first Starosele excavations: despite



considerable vertical stratigraphic artifact distribution, the site represented a continuous human

occupation during the Last Interglacial, in the 1950s in Soviet archaeology considered to be Late

Mousterian; the flint industry was homogeneous throughout the site and was Mousterian “with a

bifacial tool tradition”; the Starosele humans were engaged in specialized hunting of Equus

hydruntinus; the “Starosele child” was contemporaneous with the site’s Mousterian occupation;

and the child was evolutionarily “transitional” between Neanderthals and modern Homo sapiens.

Starosele: Interpretations after the 1950s Excavations

The Starosele geochronology was considered to be mainly Last Glacial due to the presence of

mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, reindeer, and arctic fox (Ivanova 1965; Klein 1965).

Archaeologically, V.N. Gladilin (1976, 1985) proposed the most interesting and valuable

interpretations for the Starosele lithic assemblages. He considered the industry to be a separate

Starosele type within the East European Micoquian. Although he discussed the site’s flints as a

single unit, he noted some differences for artifacts above and below the limestone slabs.

Accordingly, he considered Starosele to contain two Mousterian layers and hoped for future lithic

analyses by layers rather than a single assemblage.

Such analyses were done by V.P. Chabai in the late 1980s in Moscow for his doctorate (Chabai

1991). The presence of Levallois radial cores in “layer 2” (below the limestone slabs) and their

absence in “layer 1” (above the limestone slabs) was the only significant difference observed

between the two assemblages in the Moscow collections after the 1955–1956 excavations. At the

same time, the abundance of both unifacial and bifacial convergent points in both assemblages

allowed Chabai to exclude Starosele from the Eastern Micoquian, defining it instead as a separate

Crimean Mousterian industry of Starosele type with bifacial tools.

The Starosele child was also viewed differently by different specialists. Doubts were raised about

the strict association of the child with the Mousterian layers (e.g., S.N. Zamyatnin, M. Gabori, R.

Klein) as well as interpretation of its anatomic features as being transitional to modern Homo

sapiens rather than fully modern (e.g., G.F. Debets, A. Thoma, V.P. Alexeev). There was thus no

common agreement on either the nature of the archaeological context or the anthropological features

of the child. It is also worth noting that the Starosele child was never anthropologically defined as a

Neanderthal.

As a result, new excavations at Starosele were needed to clarify its geological and cultural

stratigraphy, geochronology, and nature of the lithic assemblages throughout the stratigraphic

sequence and potentially shed light on the nature of the human remains.

Starosele: The 1990s Excavations

A joint Ukrainian-American research program directed by A.E. Marks was carried out in 1993–



1995 (see also Marks et al. 1996; Marks et al. 1997; Marks & Chabai 1998; Marks & Monigal

1998; Chabai et al. 1999; Chabai 2004). An area of c. 40 m2 was excavated near the southern

edge of the 1956 excavation zone (Fig. 1). The c. 4-m-thick profile analyzed by R. Ferring showed

the presence of various deposits of different origin (Fig. 2). Four stratigraphically distinct

archaeological levels were identified within the sequence. Three of these levels – IV, II, and I (from

bottom to top) – are comparable to the 1950s Middle Paleolithic flint industry, containing mainly

points among bifacial tools, now attributed as the Starosele industry type of Crimean Micoquian

Tradition (Fig. 3). But surprisingly, the level III assemblage lacks any such bifacial tools and at the

time had no comparisons within the range of Crimean Middle Paleolithic industrial variability. It was

only in the 2000s that the present author (Demidenko 2003–2004) demonstrated that the Starosele

level III assemblage (Fig. 4) was quite similar to the assemblage from the lower layer at Kiik-Koba.

A systematic dating program was also carried out, as well as analyses of the fauna, microfauna, and

malacofauna recovered from the different archaeological levels. The proposed discontinuous

geochronological sequence can be presented as follows: Early Last Glacial Interstadials

(Amersfoort-Broerup & Odderade) for level IV, Lower Pleniglacial for level III, Moershoofd

Interstadial for level II, and Hengelo Interstadial for level I.




Starosele site. East/west profile along line 23/24, squares H and K (2 m to the south of Formozov’s1956 profile). I–IV – archaeological levels; A–F – geological units (After C.R. Ferring) A – modern soil; B– complex of alluvial and colluvial sediments; C – exfoliated limestone slabs with layer of fine sedimentsin between; D – gravels and exfoliated limestone fragments; E – boulders in red clayey matrix (Modifiedafter Marks et al. 1996: Fig. 4)




Starosele, level I –selected flint artifacts. 1–2 – cores; 3–4 – denticulates; 5–6 – notches; 7 – lateralend-scraper + ventral side-scraper; 8 – burin + perforator (Modified after Marks & Monigal 1998)




Starosele, level III – selected flint artifacts. 1 – bifacial perform; 2–4 – various unifacial side-scrapers onbifacial reduction debitage; 5–6 – bifacial leaf points (Modified after Marks & Monigal 1998)

Finally, new remains of modern humans were discovered during the 1990s excavations. A

destroyed infant burial was found in 1993 protruding from Formozov’s 1956 line 21 profile. An

additional burial of a middle-aged adult was exposed in 1994, some 2 m south of this infant burial

(Fig. 5). The infant burial had no clearly visible pit, but the skeleton lay fully within modern

sediments, the top of Middle Paleolithic level 1 being some 10 cm below it. The adult burial had a

clear burial pit originating in modern sediment and cutting through the Middle Paleolithic level I

sediments, ending on the top of the exposed exfoliated limestone slabs. The infant burial included

only the legs and feet, while the rest of the remains were most likely destroyed by Formozov’s team

when they sealed the 1956 southern profile. The infant’s legs and feet indicate that the infant was

buried in a semi-flexed position on its right side, with its head oriented to the west. The adult burial,

with a complete skeleton in extended anatomical position, was oriented east–west with the head to

the west and the face to the south. There were no grave goods, but some Middle Paleolithic flint

artifacts and fauna were mixed into the pit fill.




Starosele. Drawings of the 1994 adult burial and the 1953 child to scale, showing comparable bodyorientations and positions (Modified after Marks et al. 1996: Fig. 7).

There are many similarities between the 1950s Starosele child and the 1990s modern human burials

that make their association highly likely (Fig. 5). All three burials are located within a small area in a

line of c. 5 m. Both the 1950s child and the 1990s adult burials were in the same stratigraphic

positions – below the uppermost Middle Paleolithic level, resting on top of the exfoliated limestone

slabs. There were no grave goods, but some Middle Paleolithic artifacts and animal bones were

found above them in the sediments. In addition, both skeletons were in the same position, with the

same orientation. Such similarities between the 1990s clearly recent adult burial and the 1950s child

burial considered to be of Middle Paleolithic age and being only 3 m apart seriously question the

Middle Paleolithic affinity of the 1950s child. Moreover, it is well known that Kanly-Dere canyon

was a traditional burial area during late medieval times and a seventeenth-/eighteenth-century

Muslim cemetery existed about 100 m from the Starosele site. The two complete 1950s and 1990s

human burials at Starosele reflect traditional Muslim burial practices with an extended position on



the back, head to the west and face to the south, toward Mecca. Thus, both direct and indirect data

strongly support the argument that all of the Starosele human burials, including the 1950s child, are

of quite recent, clearly post-Paleolithic age.

Short Summary

The 1990s excavations at Starosele have led to many clarification of site context. Sediment

deposition took place during the Last Glacial period over a long period from c. 100,000 to c.

40,000 BP. Human visits of the site were both frequent and episodic, likely separated one from

another by no less than 5–10,000 years. Industrially, the Middle Paleolithic assemblages are

grouped into two very different industry types – Micoquian (levels I, II, and IV) and Kiik-Koba,

lower layer (level III) ones. Finally, the famous 1950s Starosele child is now accepted to be an

intrusive late medieval burial with Muslim burial practices, like the other modern human burials

discovered at the site.

Cross-References

Crimean Middle Paleolithic

Kiik-Koba Grotto: Significance for Paleolithic Studies in East Europe and the Former Soviet Union

References

CHABAI, V.P. 1991. The Early Paleolithic of the south-western Crimea. Unpublished PhD

dissertation, Institute of Archeology, Kiev (in Russian).

- 2004. The Middle Paleolithic of Crimea: stratigraphy, chronology, typological variability &

eastern European context. Simferopol: Shlyakh (in Russian).

CHABAI, V.P., A.E. MARKS & K. MONIGAL. (ed.) 1999. Middle Paleolithic paleoenvironment and

paleoeconomy, in V.P. Chabai & K. Monigal (ed.) The Middle Paleolithic of western Crimea,

Volume 2(ERAUL 87): 211-33. Liege: Université de Liège.

DEMIDENKO, Y.E. 1998. Starosele: the early excavations and unanswered questions, in A.E. Marks

& V.P. Chabai (ed.) The Middle Paleolithic of western Crimea, Volume 1 (ERAUL 84): 53–65.

Liege: Université de Liège.

- 2003–2004. Problems of epochal and industrial attribution for Kiik-Koba grotto, lower layer type

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_1862

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_1868



complexes in the Crimea. Stratum Plus 1: 271–300 (in Russian).

FORMOZOV, A.A. 1958. The cave site Starosele and its place in the Paleolithic (Materials and

Investigations of the Archeology of the USSR 71). Moscow (in Russian).

GLADILIN, V.N. 1976. The problems of the Early Paleolithic of eastern Europe. Kiev: Naukova

Dumka (in Russian).

- 1985. The Early Paleolithic. Archeology of the Ukrainian SSR 1: 12–53 (in Russian).

IVANOVA, I.K. 1965. Geological age of fossil man. Moscow: Nauka (in Russian).

KLEIN, R. 1965. The Middle Paleolithic of the Crimea. Arctic Anthropology 3: 34–68.

MARKS, A.E. & V.P. CHABAI. (ed.) 1998. The Middle Paleolithic of western Crimea, Volume 1

(ERAUL 84). Liège: Université de Liège.

MARKS, A.E., Y.E. DEMIDENKO, V. USIK, K. MONIGAL & M. KAY. 1996. The “chaine operatoire”

in the Middle Paleolithic of level 1, Starosele, Crimea. Quaternaria Nova VI: 57–82.

MARKS, A.E., Y.E. DEMIDENKO, K. MONIGAL, V.I. USIK, C.R. FERRING, A. BURKE, J. RINK & C.

MCKINNEY. 1997. Starosele and the Starosele child: new excavations, new results. Current

Anthropology 38: 112–23.

MARKS, A.E., Y.E. DEMIDENKO, K. MONIGAL & V.I. USIK. 1998. Starosele: the 1993–95

excavations, in A.E. Marks & V.P. Chabai (ed.) The Middle Paleolithic of western Crimea,

Volume 1 (ERAUL 84): 67–99. Liege: Université de Liège.

MARKS, A.E. & K. MONIGAL. 1998. Starosele 1993–1995: the lithic artifacts, in A.E. Marks &V.P.

Chabai (ed.) The Middle Paleolithic of western Crimea, Volume 1(ERAUL 84): 117–65. Liege:

Université de Liège.

Over 8.3 million scientific documents at your fingertips

© Springer, Part of Springer Science+Business Media

Demidenko 2014 - Starosele MP site in Crimea - 1st PDF version - EGA Springer USA

Documents

Transcript of Demidenko 2014 - Starosele MP site in Crimea - 1st PDF version - EGA Springer USA