Response to “Comment on LateMousterian Persistence near theArctic Circle”Ludovic Slimak,1* John Inge Svendsen,2 Jan Mangerud,2 Hugues Plisson,3

Herbjørn Presthus Heggen,2 Alexis Brugère,4 Pavel Yurievich Pavlov5

Contrary to what Zwyns et al. claim on a bibliographical basis, the lithic industry of Byzovayacannot belong to the Streletskayan complex or be considered as Upper Palaeolithic (UP).Direct analysis of northern assemblages and of Streletskayan technologies reveals incompatiblefeatures between these industries. Byzovaya is structured on specific Mousterian technologiesand does not show any unique features of the UP.

The main criticism by Zwyns et al. (1) isthat they think that the Byzovaya assem-blage “fits within the variability displayed

by Early Upper Paleolithic....Streletskaya tech-nocomplex.” They support their view by makinga comparison with some selected artifacts fromthe UP sites of Zaozer’e, Garchi, and Kostenkifarther to the south. We previously performed anin-depth analysis of all these industries and dis-agree with their assertion that the Byzovaya ma-terial offers several points of resemblance withthese and other UP sites. Our direct analysesreach the conclusion that three distinct Palaeo-lithic Boreal traditions existed over a periodcovering at least 7 millennia (2).

In all, 2437 lithic elements were availablefrom the Zaozer’e site, including our 2008 fieldcampaign. This includes 107 tools, as comparedwith 80 from Byzovaya. Zwyns et al. claimthat in Zaozer’e “there is also a strong MiddlePaleolithic component dominated by small plano-convex bifacial tools, similar to those found inthe eastern European Mousterian but, important-ly, also similar to the reported Keilmesser ofByzovaya.” Zaozer’e is dominated by retouchedblades, representing 28 of the 107 tools.We found14 plano-convex elements that represent an orig-inal category: bifacial end-scrapers presentinga regular circular front, for which no Mousterianequivalence is known (Fig. 1). Zwyns et al. furtherassume that “low frequency of small stoneartifacts” at Byzovaya would explain the “ab-sence of UP elements such as small blades, pen-

dants, or antler points that sometimes occurwithin similar assemblages in primary context.”This is not substantiated by the facts, as smallelements (<2 cm) are even more frequent fromByzovaya (20.8%) than from Zaozer’e (16.3%).The Zaozer’e collection also presents a variety oflarge tools and subproducts on bone, antler, andivory, which is typically UP (Fig. 1).

As many as 5000 lithic elements have beenuncovered fromGarchi. This includesmany char-acteristic triangular points with a concave basethat is considered diagnostic of the Streletskayanindustry. The remaining artifacts are for the mostpart subproducts of this point production. Finally,a few small end-scrapers that are shaped directlyfrom siliceous pebbles are present, and none ofthe lithic elements at Garchi share any techno-logical similarities with the artifacts from eitherByzovaya or Zaozer’e.

Direct technological data show that Byzovaya,Zaozer’e, and Garchi represent three differenttechnical traditions that are not related to each other.The Garchi lithics are typical of UP Streletskayanindustries, and it seems clear that Zaozer’e alsobelongs to a UP complex. These sites presentincompatible technologies, corroborating our pre-vious conclusion that they present no technicalrelation with Byzovaya.

Zwyns et al. discuss the Levallois technologyof Byzovaya. They argue that the core shown inour figure 3 (3) would lack a clear preparation ofthe flaking surface that would be typical for thistechnology. We lean on the explanation providedby Bordes (4): “the expression ‘facetted butt,’taken in the sense of the Levallois technique, isabsolutely erroneous, because there are manyflakes with facetted butts that are non-Levallois,and there exist Levallois flakes with a flat butt”(5). Their position is hardly understandable be-cause they refer to a major publication giving theLevallois diagnostic features that absolutely fit withthe Byzovaya elements (6). The less-disputed wayto demonstrate a Levallois technology is basedon the core geometry and structure that demon-strate that at Byzovaya, Levallois technologiesillustrate the preferential method, the most diag-nostic feature of the Mousterian.

Zwyns et al. assume that “Comparison be-tween Streletskayan assemblages from Kostenki1 level V (A), Kostenki 12 level III (B to E), andByzovaya” would demonstrate that tools de-scribed as typically Mousterian by us occur inStreletskayan complexes. However, they do notcompare the full “assemblages” but illustratetheir view from drawings of five selected objectsfrom Byzovaya and five others from two dif-ferent sites of Kostenki. In our opinion, this ap-proach is misleading because it: (i) is based onsecond-hand data, (ii) focuses on a handful ofselected objects, (iii) mixes elements from dif-ferent sites, and (iv) isolates objects from theirspecific technological context. Any lithic elementbelongs to a coherent system that has to be ex-amined as an entity. In this case, their supposedsimilarities are very vague. For making this clear,we added five tools from a French final Neolithicsite to figure 2 in (1) (Fig. 3), illustrating the dan-ger of such analogic methods.

Before our original paper (3) was published,we performed a first-hand technological compar-ison with Streletskayan assemblages from thewell-known UP sites Kostenki 6 (the eponymousStreletskayan) and Biryuchya Balka, which of-fers the richest collection of such an industry. Wecould not find a single element reflecting a realMousterian technology. We suspect that the so-called archaic structure is the frequent occurrenceof retouched flakes whose blanks occur from thebifacial shaping of the concave-base points as atGarchi (Fig. 2). However, it is noteworthy thatnone of the 50,000 artifacts fromBiryuchyaBalkacould be confused with a Levallois or discoid ar-tifact by any experienced lithicist.

Zwyns et al. interpret the elements fromKostenki and Byzovaya shown in figure 2A in(1) as a “leaf point” (Blattspitzen). The artifactfrom Kostenki is more than 2 cm thick and hasvery irregular edges and two differently shapedfaces—one with flat covering retouch, the otherscalar, showing that it represents an unfinishedand undiagnostic bifacial element. We are muchin doubt about this classification. In contrast, theirselected artifact from Byzovaya is much thinnerand more regular but bears a plano-convex con-struction. To be precise, such tool is no more com-patible with the leaf-point definition but appearsclassically among Mousterian technologies [see(4), plate 49].

Figure 4 shows a Blattspitzen fromByzovaya,symmetric across all axes, with indisputable reg-ular edges. Flat retouch covers each face, and thetool is only fewmillimeters thick.We consider it aclassic example of its category, typical for theCentral and Eastern European Mousterian in-dustries and distinctively different from the un-convincing example from Kostenki.

The given samples of “Quina-type side-scrapers”[figure 2D in (1)] are no more relevant; the onefromByzovaya is an artifact struck from a naturalslate and shaped by a bifacial flat retouch [com-pare with figure S6 in (3)].

TECHNICALCOMMENT

1CNRS, UMR 5608, TRACES, Université de Toulouse le Mirail,Maison de la Recherche, 5 Allées Antonio Machado, 31058Toulouse Cedex 9, France. 2Department of Earth Science andBjerknes Centre for Climate Research, University of Bergen,Allégaten 41, N-5007, Bergen, Norway. 3CNRS, UMR 5199,PACEA, IPGQ, Université Bordeaux 1, Bâtiment B18, Avenue desFacultés, 33405 Talence Cedex, France. 4CNRS, USR 3225, andUMR 7041, ArScAn, “Archéologies Environnementales,” Maisonde l'Archéologie et de l'Ethnologie René Ginouvès, CC023, 21,Allée de l'Université, 92023 Nanterre Cedex, France. 5Depart-ment of Archaeology, Institute of Language, Literature and His-tory, Komi Science Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences,Kommunisticheskaya Street 26, 167000 Syktyvkar, Komi, Russia.

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:slimak@univ-tlse2.fr

13 JANUARY 2012 VOL 335 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org167-c

on Novem

ber 23, 2018

http://science.sciencemag.org/

Dow

nloaded from

Finally, the commenters argue for the lack ofMiddle Palaeolithic sites previously found in theregion. We underline that, since the 19th century,Palaeolithic research has been conducted there byonly three archaeologists, in an area bigger thanFrance and where Pleistocene discoveries are re-stricted to eroded river banks. We therefore warnagainst conclusions based on negative evidence.

Such debate cannot stay at such a binary levelandwithin a closed frame that would exclude anynew data. First-hand analyses reveal the existenceof at least three distinct traditions, illustratingconcretely the complexity of the High Latitudescolonization.

Byzovaya is typically Mousterian accordingto its original definition (4), which does not de-pend on the biological identity of the knapper oron other aspects of hominin social organization.In Europe, Mousterian industries have so far al-ways been associated with Neandertals, a realitythat could be dismissed, but only by concrete facts.From current knowledge, the Byzovaya technolo-gies probably reveal a Neandertal Arctic persist-ence, although we still stick to our statement fromour original paper; “whether Byzovaya repre-sents a Neandertal site or not cannot be demon-strated beyond doubt until human bones or DNAare found” (3).

References and Notes1. N. Zwyns et al., Science 335, 167 (2012); www.

sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/335/6065/167-b.2. P. Pavlov, Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 33, 33 (2008).3. L. Slimak et al., Science 332, 841 (2011).4. F. Bordes, Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et Moyen

(Delmas, Bordeaux, France 1961).5. In the original French: “L’expression ‘talon à facettes,’

prise dans le sens de technique Levallois, est de plusparfaitement erronée, car il y a bien des éclats à talonsfacettés qui ne sont pas Levallois et il existe des éclatsLevallois à talon lisse.”

6. E. Boeda, Le Concept Levallois: Variabilité des Méthodes(CNRS Editions, Paris, 1994).

Acknowledgments: We thank A. E. Matyukhin for theopportunity to access the Biryuchya Balka collections in2007 and J. E. Lewis for improving the English.

14 July 2011; accepted 28 November 201110.1126/science.1210211

Fig. 1. Zaozer’e industry is, like any other UP industry, based on blade and bladelets technology. Theplano-convex tools are 14 very specific end-scrapers. Moreover, the industry contains various evidenceof bone, ivory, and antler technology, including ornaments. None of these elements is present inByzovaya, and their combination is unknown in the Mousterian industries of Eurasia. (1) Antler tool. (2to 4) Bladelets. (5 to 7) Blades. (8) Zaozer’e end-scraper shaped from plano-convex blank. (9 and 10)Fossil pendants. [Photos by L. Slimak]

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 335 13 JANUARY 2012 167-c

TECHNICAL COMMENTon N

ovember 23, 2018

http://science.sciencem

ag.org/D

ownloaded from

Fig. 2. Small concave base-point production represents the main diagnostic feature of the Streletskayanindustries. It is based on precise technological criteria easily recognizable both in the structure of theseprojectiles points and in the numerous subsequent subproducts. (1 to 3) Garchi. (4 to 6) BiryuchyaBalka. [Photos by H. Plisson and L. Slimak]

13 JANUARY 2012 VOL 335 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org167-c

TECHNICAL COMMENTon N

ovember 23, 2018

http://science.sciencem

ag.org/D

ownloaded from

Fig. 4. Byzovaya. RealBlattspitzen. [Photos byLudovic Slimak]

Fig. 3. Tools from LesCalades shown alongsidethe drawings from figure2 in (1). The comparisonof morphological traitsout of their specific tech-nologicalandarchaeologi-cal context is misleading.Designations from (1) aremisleading because theyare extracted from theirspecific archeological con-text and their precise tech-nological background: “(A)Leafpoint. (B)Bifacialknife(with scalar retouch). (C)Mousterian scrapers. (D)Quina-type side-scrapers.(E) End-scrapers.” [Draw-ings from Les Calades sitesby R. Furestier]

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 335 13 JANUARY 2012 167-c

TECHNICAL COMMENTon N

ovember 23, 2018

http://science.sciencem

ag.org/D

ownloaded from

Response to ''Comment on Late Mousterian Persistence near the Arctic Circle''

Yurievich PavlovLudovic Slimak, John Inge Svendsen, Jan Mangerud, Hugues Plisson, Herbjørn Presthus Heggen, Alexis Brugère and Pavel

DOI: 10.1126/science.1210211 (6065), 167.335Science 

ARTICLE TOOLS http://science.sciencemag.org/content/335/6065/167.3

CONTENTRELATED

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/332/6031/841.fullhttp://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/335/6065/167.2.full

REFERENCES

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/335/6065/167.3#BIBLThis article cites 3 articles, 2 of which you can access for free

PERMISSIONS http://www.sciencemag.org/help/reprints-and-permissions

Terms of ServiceUse of this article is subject to the

is a registered trademark of AAAS.Sciencelicensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. The title Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. 2017 © The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive

(print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published by the American Association for the Advancement ofScience

on Novem

ber 23, 2018

http://science.sciencemag.org/

Dow

nloaded from