a paleolithic bracelet from denisova cave syberia

Copyright © 2008, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi: 10.1016/j.aeae.2008.07.002

ARCHAEOLOGY,ETHNOLOGY& ANTHROPOLOGYOF EURASIA

Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 34/2 (2008) 13–25

E-mail: [email protected]

13PALEOENVIRONMENT. THE STONE AGE

A PALEOLITHIC BRACELET FROM DENISOVA CAVE*

A.P. Derevianko, M.V. Shunkov, and P.V. VolkovInstitute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences,

Akademika Lavrentieva 17, Novosibirsk, 630090, RussiaE-mail: [email protected]

Introduction

Denisova Cave contains the longest chronological sequence among the archaeological sites discovered so far in Siberia. Artifacts from several culture-bearing horizons illustrate a continuous development of cultural traditions from the early stages of the Middle Paleolithic until the Late Middle Ages. It is important that the artifacts were recovered from a well-strati ed sequence of soft sediments representing the Pleistocene and Holocene epochs. Age estimates have been carried out using various relative and absolute dating techniques. Throughout the profile, artifacts have been recovered in association with biological remains that have yielded evidence of the environmental and climatic conditions in the region during various stages of the Quaternary.

Denisova Cave is situated in the northwestern part of the Altai Mountains. It is located on the upper reaches of

the Anui River where other multilayered archaeological sites have also been identi ed. These sites have yielded abundant and signi cant evidence on the prehistory of the Altai illustrating the onset and development of Paleolithic cultural and environmental changes throughout the Pleistocene (Prirodnaya sreda…, 2003).

The cave was formed in a large block of Silurian bioherm sandstone on the right bank of the Anui (Fig. 1). The cave entrance is elevated at approximately 30 m above the river level in a vertical cliff facing the southwest. The cave consists of several short, subhorizontal and slightly dipping galleries running from the Central Chamber. The total cave area is 270 m2. Presently the entrance is 6 m high; it leads to the Central Chamber through the main gallery, which is up to 7 m wide and 10 m long and oriented to the northwest. The Central Chamber (9 × 11 m) has an arch-shaped ceiling about 10 m high. One of the galleries (9 × 4.5 m) runs to the southwest from the Central Chamber and leads to the entrance terrace. The other two galleries (the eastern and the southern) are narrow and dark; they run into karst rock and are completely lled

*The study was supported by the Russian Foundation for the Humanities (Project 07-01-00441).

The collection of personal adornments and artifacts suggestive of symbolic behavior from the Early Upper Paleolithic deposits of Denisova Cave, Altai, is one of the earliest and the most representative of the Upper Paleolithic assemblages from Northern and Central Asia. Especially important is a fragment of a bracelet of dark-green chloritolite, found near the entrance to the eastern gallery of the cave in the upper part of stratum 11. The estimated age of the associated deposits is ca 30 thousand years. According to use-wear and technological analysis, techniques applied for manufacturing the specimen included grinding on various abrasives, polishing with skin, and technologies that are unique for the Paleolithic – high-speed drilling and rasping. The high technological level evidences developed manual skills and advanced practices of the Upper Paleolithic cave dwellers.

14 A.P. Derevianko et al. / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 34/2 (2008) 13–25

with soft sediments just beyond their entrances. The cave walls are smooth and even and are covered with subvertical and slanting ssures. These ssures probably determined the structure of the cave.

During the long period of excavations at the cave, digging was carried out in the Central Chamber, in the entryway zone, and at the entrances of the southern and eastern galleries (Fig. 2). Excavations in each area were executed in two stages. First, Holocene sediments designated as strata 0 to 8 were studied; these strata yielded artifacts from the Paleometal Age up to the Late Middle Ages (Derevianko, Molodin, 1994). The second stage of excavations was focused on the Pleistocene sediments; soft sediments were excavated until bedrock was reached.

The Pleistocene soft sediments in the interior part of the cave include strata 9 – 22 subdivided into the four major periods of human habitation during the Paleolithic. The lowermost portion, strata 22 and 21, dates from the Middle Pleistocene and has yielded lithic artifacts of the initial Middle Paleolithic. The lithic industries recovered from strata 22 and 21 are characterized by Levallois and parallel strategies of stone reduction; the tool kit is dominated by sidescrapers and notch-denticulate tools.

Lithic artifacts recovered in association with strata 20 – 12, dating from the rst half of the Upper Pleistocene, represent the subsequent development of the Middle Paleolithic industry. The main feature of this industry is the predominant use of parallel and radial reduction strategies. Sidescrapers of various types are common, and there are a few typical Levallois tools.

The archaeological materials recovered from stratum 11 have been attributed to the initial Upper Paleolithic of the Altai established in the range of 50 – 40 ka BP. The artifacts illustrate a continuous development of the local Middle Paleolithic traditions of stone working. The primary reduction was mostly carried out using the parallel technique. The tool kit includes typologically Upper Paleolithic implements and foliate bifaces among other tool types. The Upper Paleolithic collection also includes bone tools and various personal decorations made of bone and stone.

Stratum 9 has yielded Upper Paleolithic artifacts. This collection includes prismatic, cone-shaped and narrow-faced varieties of cores. The narrow-faced cores were also used for blade detachment. The tool kit comprises tools on blades in greater proportions compared to the underlying horizons. Such new types as composite tools

Fig. 1. Denisova cave. Fig. 2. Excavations of the Pleistocene layers in the entry zone of the eastern gallery at Denisova Cave.

A.P. Derevianko et al. / Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 34/2 (2008) 13–25 15

with inlaid parts and geometric microlithic pieces have been recovered from this stratum.

Given the abundant data characterizing a signi cantly long period of time, the archaeological materials from the Pleistocene deposits at Denisova Cave should be regarded as one of the most important sources of information about the Paleolithic of Northern and Central Asia.

The Paleolithic collection of Denisova Cave also contains artifacts re ecting the spiritual and social aspects of early human life: personal body decorations and objects of symbolic activities. Such artifacts were mostly recovered from lithological stratum 11, dating to the Early Upper Paleolithic. The art collection includes decorations made of bone, mammoth tusk, animal teeth, ostrich egg shell, mollusk shell, and semi-precious stone.

A stone bracelet made of dark green chloritolite (Fig. 3, 4) is noteworthy among other objects of this collection. The bracelet was recovered from the upper portion of the Pleistocene deposits within the entrance zone of the eastern gallery. There are two bracelet fragments (Fig. 4). The fragments were found in the lowermost portion of the stratigraphic layer 11.1, 0.75 m from one another. The bracelet is 27 mm wide and 9 mm thick, and the diameter of the complete object seems to be about 70 mm. The bracelet has a biconic drilled opening up to 8 mm in diameter close to one of the fractured ends. Preliminary observations suggest that the bracelet surface exhibits traces of working with various abrasive tools and signs of use-wear (Derevianko et al., 2005). The collection comprises a needle with a drilled out eye, pendants fashioned on teeth and phalanges of ungulates

Fig. 3. Early Upper Paleolithic bracelet from the eastern gallery of Denisova Cave.

Fig. 4. Exterior (1), interior (2), superior (3), and inferior (4) views of the bracelet.

0 3 cm

1 2

3 4


with biconical drilled out holes, cylindrical beads made of tubular bones including specimens decorated with symmetrical linear incisions encircling the bone, a ring made of a mammoth tusk as well as lithic points, burins, awls-borers, and other Early Upper Paleolithic artifacts.

Geochronological, archaeological, and petrographic context

The bracelet fragments were recovered from the upper portion of lithological stratum 11. This stratum is composed of grey, loose sandy loam. The age of these sediments has been established within the range of Oxygen Isotope Stage 3. Three dates are available for stratum 11: for the lower portion, an AMS date of 48,650 + 2380/ – 1840 BP (KIA 25285 SP 553/D19) was generated on a bone at Christian Albrecht University of Kiel, Germany; an in nite radiocarbon date of > 37,235 BP (SOAN-2504) was obtained for the middle portion of the stratum; and a date of 29,200 ± ± 360 BP (AA-35321) on charcoal from the border zone between strata 11 and 10 was released by the University of Arizona AMS Facility. Sediments of stratum 11 are overlaid by a thin layer of attened and heavily weathered gravel with ferrous-manganese formations dispersed over the layer (stratum 10) and light yellow loess-like Sartan loam (stratum 9) (OIS 2). Strata of lenses and laminations of multicolored clayey loam (strata 12 – 20) underlay stratum 11. A RTL-date of 69 ±17 ka BP (RTL-611) was obtained for the uppermost portion of stratum 14. Stratum 21 represents a distinct horizon of dark loam; a date of 155 ± 31 ka BP (RTL-546) is available for this stratum. The lowest stratum 22 of this pro le is composed of light yellow clayey loam; the age estimates of this horizon fall in the range of 282 ± 56 ka BP (RTL-548) and 171 ± 43 ka BP (RTL-737).

The climate during the period of deposition of stratum 11 was relatively cool and wet (Prirodnaya sreda…, 2003). Available palynological data suggest that the region was predominantly vegetated by r forests with an admixture of pine and cedar. Available data on the animal bone remains indicate that the share of forest taxa of small mammals decreased, while the share of the nival taxa increased. However, there were relatively warm episodes during this generally cool climatic period. In the middle portion of stratum 11, the proportion of tsokor (Myospalax) bones increased considerably suggesting an expansion of meadow biotopes. Deposition of the uppermost portion of stratum 11 seems to have occurred during the warmest phase of this period. The proportions of bone remains of mole and eld vole increase compared to the lower sediment layers, and bones of Microtus economus and flying squirrel are present. The bird

community is dominated by open landscape species including taxa populating meadow biotopes. Judging by the established composition of large mammals, Paleolithic inhabitants of the cave lived under favorable climatic conditions in the mosaic mountain ecozone. The major hunted species were bison, horse, dzeren, and saiga inhabiting the steppe zones of the valley as well as roedeer and Siberian maral deer in the mixed forests and argali and Siberian ibex in the rocky landscapes.

The onset of the Upper Paleolithic in the Altai is characterized by a continuous development of the Middle Paleolithic tradition of stone working and the gradual emergence of features of Early Upper Paleolithic technology. The same raw material was used for the most part. Tools were primarily produced on pebbles and cobbles of sedimentary and volcanic rock from the river alluvium (Derevianko, Kulik, Shunkov, 2000). Sedimentary rocks were predominantly used, of which aleurolite and ne-grained sandstone prevailed. About half of the tools were made on aphyric and porphyric effusive rock. Hornfels and vein quartz were also used.

Among the initial Upper Paleolithic artifacts, a few implements made of jasperoid rock, smoky topaz, talc-steatite, shale, agalmatolite and chloritolite have been encountered. However, these new rock types were seldom used and the strategy of raw material utilization did not change: the proportion of tools made of these materials does not exceed 3.5 % in the Upper Paleolithic industries.

The technocomplex of the Early Upper Paleolithic is mostly based on the parallel reduction strategy, but radial and Levallois reduction were also employed. The tradition of producing small blades is one of the important features characterizing this stage of development of the lithic industry.

The Upper Paleolithic tools include endscrapers, burins, awls, and retouched blades. The following tool types are noteworthy: endscrapers and carenated endscrapers, angle and transverse burins, large prismatic blades bearing signs of continuous retouch on their lateral sides, small backed blades, and foliate bifaces. Other tool categories comprise typical Middle Paleolithic implements, like sidescrapers, knives with natural and prepared backs, denticulate, beak-shaped and spur-like tools as well as notched tools bearing signs of retouch on the working element.

The Upper Paleolithic assemblage from Denisova Cave includes a set of tools and personal decorations made of bone. This set comprises small needles with drilled-out eyes, awls-borers, and pendants made of animal teeth with biconical holes or with a carved groove encircling the tooth close to the root. The collection of bone implements also includes sets of cylindrical beads made of tubular bones and decorated with symmetrical linear incisions encircling the bone, beads and rings made of mammoth tusk and at bead-rings made of fossilized


ostrich eggshell. Also, ornaments with drilled holes made of the shells of a fresh water mollusk, with a drilled hole at the basal part, and a set of adornment pieces made of semi-precious stones have been recognized. This set includes pendants made of green kaolinitic agalmatolite and white talc – steatite showing a biconical drilled opening on one of the narrow sides; beads made of various stones: talc, yellowish-green serpentine and shale and the bracelet made of dark green chloritolite.

According to data of the X-ray phase analysis executed by L.V. Miroshnichenko (Institute of Geology and Mineralogy SB RAS), the green pendant was made of kaolinitic agalmatolite that originated within the external areas of secondary quartzite formed during the post-magma modi cations in the acidic volcanic rock. Denisova Cave is situated in the southwestern ridge of the Anui ridge; the mountains are composed of the Devonian rhyolitic-dacitic porphyry. This rock was modi ed into albitophyric and jasperiod rock and possibly secondary quartzite in the southern slopes. In the northern slopes, acidic effusive rock was modified into medium and alkaline porphyry. In the course of post-magma processes, the alkaline rock can serve as a source of nickel producing the yellowish-green color (Kulik, Shunkov, 2004). The distance between the cave and the watershed of the Anui ridge is about 20 km. The source of kaolinitic agalmatolite is likely situated in this zone.

The X-ray phase analysis has shown that the dark green chloritolite is mostly composed of ne-lamellar aggregate of chloritolite that can be de ned as the igneous rock pennine. In the northwestern Altai, rock with this ne-lamellar chloritolite aggregate has not been found. The nearest outcrop of complete chloritolite and chloritolite associated with modi ed ore-containing rock is located in the Ridderski, Belousovski, and Zolotushinski lead and zinc elds in the southwestern part of the Altai (Shilin, Ivanova, 1954).

The exact provenance of the talc-steatite has not been established. The petrographic analysis carried out by N.A. Kulik (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography SB RAS) revealed that this mineral belongs to the apohyperbasitic metasomatite characteristic of the southern areas of the Altai, where magma-alkaline processes are typical.

In all appearances, the nearest provenance of these types of rock is located 200 km away in the southern and southwestern parts of the Altai. Adornments made of this rock so unusual for the area might have been considered special and hence valuable.

Technological and use-wear analyses

In order to determine the method of the bracelet manufacturing, its functional characteristics, and the

cause of breakage, technological and use-wear analyses were conducted. Observations were carried out with the aid of a specially adapted microscope Olympus BHT-M × × 100 – 500 with shadowless illumination through the objective. In addition, a binocular MBS-10 × 16 – 56 with unilateral illumination of the study object and discrete regime of amplification and a microscope MSPE-1 × × 19 – 56 with sliding regime of ampli cation and strong, shadowless, two-side illumination were used.

The study was based on the method of use-wear analysis worked out by S.A. Semenov and G.F. Korobkova (Semenov, 1957; Semenov, Korobkova, 1983; Korobkowa, 1999) and the analysis of polish traces resulting from utilization of tools by L. Keeley (Keeley, 1980; Moss, 1983; Vaughan, 1985). The synthetic method of use-wear analysis elaborated in the course of works with artifact collections from Paleolithic and Neolithic sites of Northern Asia was employed (Volkov, 1999). Production and use-wear signs noted on the Denisova bracelet were compared with specimens from the Siberian collection of standard tools with use-wear marks.

The microscopic analysis of the bracelet’s surfaces have shown that the following techniques of working were used: formation through polishing on a “grinding stone” – a at and stable abrasive surface; formation through boring of the interior surface with the aid of a small mobile tool; nishing polish on a ne-grained abrasive surface; burnishing of the interior and exterior surfaces; repeated drilling from both surfaces; carving by a tool with a relatively narrow working edge; carving by a chisel with a relatively wide working edge.

Other use-wear signs were also noted: long-term contacts with soft organic matter; fastening of additional items with organic matter; repeated striking; utilization and breakage; modi cation for further use.

The recorded marks were classi ed by production technique (polishing, burnishing, drilling), utilization (polishing through contacts with human attire and skin), features of damage (scratches, blow depressions, fractures), and repair (polishing on a coarse-grained abrasive surface). The most characteristic use-wear signs resulted from long contact of the interior surface with soft human skin. The item was most likely used as an arm bracelet. Analyses of the whole variety of use-wear marks on the bracelet surface make it possible to reconstruct the technology of its manufacturing, to reveal speci c features of its construction, and to de ne the manner of its utilization and the cause of breakage.

Manufacturing technology

At the rst stage, the pebble was given a at-globular shape through abrasion and polishing. The approximate


shape of the blank can be reconstructed on the basis of the bracelet fragments (Fig. 5). The blank was most likely abraded against a coarse-grained, at, and fairly large stone until the required shape was obtained (Fig. 6). The straight and at edges of the bracelet can be regarded as indirect support of this supposition (Fig. 7). Then, an opening was drilled out in the center of one of the blank surfaces (Fig. 8). The technique of drilling can hardly be recognized because the traces of drilling were destroyed in the course of boring (Fig. 9). Judging by the “polyhedral” con guration of the interior surface of the bracelet, boring was executed with a tool reminiscent of a rasp file of today: a movable abrasive instrument with a relatively at and wide working edge. The polyhedral structure

is typical of the whole main surface of the bracelet (Fig. 10). This feature suggests that the surface was abraded rather than drilled out, despite the fact that drilling was widely used in production of implements of this type during the Neolithic (Semenov, 1957).

Then the bracelet was polished and burnished. All the angles resulting from abrasion were smoothed out. Burnishing was carried out with the aid of skin and hide of varying degrees of smoothness. The resulting surface is smooth and glossy (Fig. 11).

At the nal stage, a hole was drilled close to one of the edges. Drilling was carried out with a stable drill over the course of at least three stages. Judging by traces on the surface (Fig. 12), the speed of drill running was considerable. Vibrations of the rotation axis of the drill are minor, and the drill made multiple rotations around its axis. Polishing of the bracelet with the help of soft, possibly newly tanned skin was then repeated. Traces of the skin have been noted in ssures on the bracelet surface close to the hole at the edge.

The available bracelet fragment allows us to assume that originally, the bracelet was ovoid. The exterior surface was slightly convex, and the interior surface was relatively planar.

Fig. 5. Reconstruction of the blank shape according to the outline of the exterior side

of the bracelet.

Fig. 6. Shape of the blank after abrasion.

Fig. 7. Prepared exterior surface of the bracelet.

Fig. 8. Formation of the technical opening in the blank.

Fig. 9. Scheme of boring of the interior surface of the bracelet.


Utilization

The use-wear marks suggest that the bracelet was exposed to contact with sharp objects and blows. Signs of contacts with harder objects have been noted all over the exterior surface (Fig. 13). Such a “rough” handling of the bracelet is poorly correlated with its “exclusive” qualities.

The exterior surface also exhibits traces of minor repair through repeated polishing of ssures with the help of some coarse abrasive material. When the ssures were smoothed down, additional polishing and burnishing was not performed and the item lost its gloss (Fig. 14).

The bracelet is made of a relatively soft material; the surface can be easily scratched, and the material can be easily fractured through blows. The surface of the bracelet is covered with numerous signs of contacts with abrasive materials (Fig. 15). Scratches can be smoothed out through burnishing with soft skin, yet signs of this type of treatment were not found.

Fig. 10. “Polyhedral” con guration of the interior surface of the bracelet after boring.

Fig. 11. Rubbed and polished surface of the bracelet.

Fig. 12. Traces of drilling of the lateral opening.

Fig. 13. Traces of blows on the exterior surface.

Fig. 14. Traces of rubbing and polishing of the holes on the exterior surface.


The interior surface of the bracelet shows areas bearing remains of ne abrasive powder (soil, sand and others) and fat from human skin. The noted marks represent typical traces of contacts with skin (“collecting” signs) and signs of abrasion with dust (Fig. 16). The dirt accumulated on the interior surface of the bracelet was repeatedly removed. Signs of scraping represented by characteristic parallel scratches (Fig. 17) can be traced in hollows in the interior areas of the boring surfaces of the bracelet. The adhesive mixture of organic and inorganic substances mostly accumulated in such places.

Fig. 15. Scratches on the exterior surface.

Fig. 16. Use-wear marks on the interior surface.

Fig. 17. Traces of scraping on the interior surface.

Fig. 18. Traces of polishing on the exterior surface close to the lateral opening.

Fig. 19. Fluctuation angle of the pendant strap at the lateral opening.


The area around the hole at the edge exhibits evidence of friction of some soft organic matter (Fig. 18). Judging by the location of these signs, we can assume that a skin strap holding a pendant was attached to the bracelet through the hole. The polished area is limited (Fig. 19) suggesting that the pendant was rather heavy and caused a strictly set amplitude of oscillation of the strap. The outlines of the polished area suggest the “up” and “down” sides of the bracelet and allow us to assume that the bracelet was worn on the right arm. If it were worn on the left arm, the high borderline of the polished area would be on the right side (see Fig. 19). The extensive marks of polishing left by the pendant strap are similar to the extensive “collection” signs on the interior surface of the bracelet. This fact suggests that the pendant was originally attached to the bracelet.

Damage signs

The material of the bracelet is rather fragile, and hence this decorative piece could hardly have been used for a long time. Most likely it was broken soon after its manufacture. The bracelet was broken at least two times. The breakage surface after the rst break (Fig. 20, cross-section 1) is planar (Fig. 21). The material is not crumbled: both fragments t one another. Experiments show that this type of damage can be caused by pressure (Fig. 22) when putting the bracelet on the arm.

Signs of thorough preparation of the breakage surfaces for bonding allow us to assume that there were several attempts to repair the bracelet. It is better to glue stone and ceramic fragments together along the original breakage surfaces. The natural uneven surfaces

Fig. 20. Cross sections of the surface of breakage (1)and one of the bracelet tips (2).

1

2

Fig. 21. Surfaces of breakage.

Fig. 22. Scheme of experimental surfaces of breakage resulting from release (1) and constriction (2).

Fig. 23. Smoothed surface of breakage.

1

2

t together well and are easily connected by liquid glue. When the adhesive substance is thick, the breakage surfaces need special preparation. It looks like the breakage surfaces were rubbed for this purpose. Rubbing was executed through transverse movements of abrasive


that case, the signs of soft rubbing would have been noted all over the surface of the piece rather than on the edges at the tips of the fragment. Rubbing was executed thoroughly (Fig. 26), yet the item did not attain the necessary strength and the bracelet was broken again.

Compared to modern closed bracelets, the diameter of the Denisova bracelet is smaller (Fig. 27). It is practically impossible to put even the thinnest hand into it. The Paleolithic bracelet was most likely separable, i.e., it had a cut. The dimensions of a separable bracelet presently are close to those of the Paleolithic bracelet (Fig. 28). In all appearances, the originally complete ring-shaped blank was cut. The tips of the bracelet were likely cone-shaped. Such a shape of the ends of the bracelet makes it easy to put on a hand tangentially. The available piece contains an even and smooth end that probably served as an original tip of the item (see Fig. 20, cross-section 2).The use-wear analyses revealed traces of length-wise

Fig. 24. Traces of rubbing at the edges of the surface of breakage.

Fig. 25. Traces of smoothing at the edges of the surface of breakage.

Fig. 26. Pro le of the surfaces of breakage prepared for adhesion.

Fig. 27. Fragment of the Paleolithic bracelet and a modern specimen.

Fig. 28. Fragment of the Paleolithic bracelet and a modern separable specimen.

material (Fig. 23), after that the edges were smoothed (Fig. 24) and rubbed with the aid of some relatively soft material (Fig. 25). These signs of soft rubbing can be regarded as traces resulting from the use of the bracelet fragment as a separate decoration piece. However, in


Fig. 29. Traces of polishing on the end of the bracelet.

Fig. 30. Traces of treatment on the surfaces of breakage (1, 2) and on the end (3) of the bracelet.

1

2

3

Fig. 31. Traces of intensive smoothing on the interior surface of the bracelet close to the ends.

Fig. 32. Supposed shape of the bracelet’s ends.

Fig. 33. Surfaces of the second breakage.

and transverse rubbing, sharp end removal, and thorough polishing (Fig. 29). This end was specially abraded and polished in both the length-wise and transverse directions (Fig. 30, 3), while the bonded surfaces were polished only in the transverse direction (Fig. 30, 1, 2).

Judging by the size of the artifact and the signs of extensive use-wear on the interior surface close to the end (Fig. 31), the bracelet sat tightly on the wrist. Usually the dull gloss of the surface, in addition to short linear micro-signs, is suggestive of contact of a stone item with human skin. The position and direction of these micro-scratches on the interior surface point to the typical movement of a human hand into the bracelet. The tips were beveled in

order to make this movement easy (Fig. 32). The break between the bracelet tips should not be narrower than 35 – 40 mm, even if the wrist is thin.

The bracelet was broken for the second (most likely the last) time by a blow against a hard surface


Fig. 35. Reconstruction of the Paleolithic bracelet from Denisova Cave.

also technologies, like high-speed drilling on a stationary device and boring with a tool reminiscent of a rasp file, that are unique for the Paleolithic. The bracelet demonstrates a high level of technological skills: the quality of execution of practically all the technological operations is high, secondary working is perfect, technical problems are resolved accordingly. Clearly, the implement represents a well-developed technology of this sort of works that were practiced by the Early Upper Paleolithic population of Denisova Cave.

The technological process of bracelet manufacture is characterized by a combination of simple and progressive, elaborated techniques. Given these characteristic features and the chronological position of this item, we can assume that during the Early Upper Paleolithic, certain prototypes of technologies emerged that were subsequently developed during later periods.

The exterior surface of the bracelet was prepared with the help of fairly simple methods of rubbing and polishing, without using any stationary device commonly found during the Neolithic (Semenov, 1968: 63). The interior portion of the bracelet was made through boring with the use of a rasp file-like abrasive device. This technology is imperfect as it may cause breakage of the implement. During later periods, Neolithic burins considered prototypes of rotary machines were used, as well as thick drills.

It is a common assumption that stone drilling originated during the Upper Paleolithic, but gained the features of a well-developed technology only during the Neolithic. The comparatively archaic method of two-handed drilling was replaced by the more ef cient bow drill (Ibid.: 62). The process of stationary drilling, i.e., with the help of the bow drill, did not leave signs of drill vibration. These progressive features have been noted on the Denisova bracelet. It constitutes unique evidence on an unexpectedly early employment of two-sided fast stationary drilling during the Early Upper Paleolithic. All of the other known Paleolithic implements with signs of drilling bear features suggesting relatively slow drilling with a considerable drill vibration.

The reconstruction evidences the specimen’s high artistic properties (Fig. 35). It brightly shimmers in broad daylight and reveals a rich play of hunter green shades in the light of a camp re. The bracelet was hardly an everyday item. Fragile and elegant, it was apparently worn on very special occasions. Given the utmost rarity of the material and the thorough nish, the bracelet was a prestigious ornament attesting to its owner’s high status.

In sum, the chloritolite bracelet is quite exceptional among the Early Upper Paleolithic ornaments from Denisova Cave – the earliest and the most representative collection from Northern and Central Asia.

Fig. 34. Scheme of experimental breakage through percussion against a hard surface.

(Fig. 33). Comparisons of the broken surface of the bracelet with the experimental specimens (Fig. 34) suggest that the total weight of the hard surface was considerable, indicating breakage through such a blow. The features on the breakage surface differ signi cantly from those resulting from breakage through pressure (see Fig. 22). It was impossible to repair the bracelet after such a severe breakage.

Conclusions

The detailed use-wear analyses of the bracelet have shown that this artifact was manufactured with the help of various technical methods of stone working including those that are considered non-typical for the Paleolithic period. These include rubbing with various abrasive materials and polishing with skin and hide. There were


Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to N.A. Kulik for information on the geology of the Altai and the petrographic composition of the raw material. The authors also acknowledge the assistance of L.V. Miroshnichenko, who executed the X-ray phase analyses of the material. Our special thanks go to A.V. Abdulmanova and N.M. Shunkova for preparation of the analytical data and illustrations.

References

Derevianko A.P., Kulik N.A., Shunkov M.V. 2000Geologicheskie factory razvitia paleoliticheskikh industrii

Severo-zapadnogo Altaya. In Itogi i perspektivy geologicheskogo izuchenia Altaya. Gorno-Altaisk: Gorno-Altaisk. kn. izd., pp. 143 – 147.

Derevianko A.P., Molodin V.I. 1994Denisova peschera, pt. 1. Novosibirsk: Nauka.Derevianko A.P., Shunkov M.V., Volkov P.V., Ulianov V.A., Chernikov I.S. 2005Issledovaniya v vostochnoi galeree Denisovoi peschery.

In Problemy arkheologii, etnografii i anrtopologii Sibiri i sopredelnykh territorii, vol. 11, pt. 1 Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN, pp. 100 – 105.

Keeley L.N. 1980Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses.

A Microwear Analysis. Chicago, London: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Korobkowa G.F. 1999Narzedzia w pradziejach. Torin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu

Mikolaja Kopernika.

Kulik N.A., Shunkov M.V. 2004Kamennye ukrasheniya epokhi paleolita iz Gornogo

Altaya. In “Mineralogia vo vsem prostranstve sego slova”.St. Petersburg: Izd. SPb. Gos. Univ., pp. 245 – 246.

Moss E.H. 1983The Functional Analysis of Flint Implements – Pincevent

and Pont d’Ambon: Two Case Studies from the French Final Palaeolothic. Oxford. (BAR Internat. Series; No. 177).

Prirodnaya sreda i chelovek v paleolite Gornogo Altaya. 2004A.P. Derevianko, M.V. Shunkov, A.K. Agadjanian,

G.F. Baryshnikov, E.M. Malayeva, V.A. Ulianov, N.A. Kulik, A.V. Postnov, A.A. Anoikin. Novosbirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN.

Semenov S.A. 1957Pervobytnaya tekhnika. Moscow, Leningrad. (MIA;

No. 54).Semenov S.A. 1968Razvitie tekhniki v kamennom veke. Leningarad: Nauka.Semenov S.A., Korobkova G.F. 1983Tekhnologiya drevneishikh proizvodstv. Leningrad:

Nauka.Shilin D.M., Ivanova V.P. 1954Khloritosoderzhaschie porody i ikh poiskovoe znachenie.

Moscow: Gosgeoltehizdat, pp. 148 – 195.Vaughan P. 1985Use-wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. Tucson: Univ. of

Arizona Press.Volkov P.V. 1999Trasologicheskie issledovaniya v arkheologii Severnoi Azii.

Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN.

Received September 20, 2007.

a paleolithic bracelet from denisova cave syberia

Documents