Human Dispersals: The Oldest Evidence: Turkmenistan.

Where humans originated and what their dispersal patterns were has always fascinated me. Over a series of posts I want to examine where the oldest evidence is found.

This is usually in the form of lithic tools. The two oldest being Oldowan and Acheulean. Today a short post on the Republic of Turkmenistan and some of its earliest lithic materials.

Turkmenistan is a country of about 5 million people located just east of the Caspian Sea.

Turkmenistan, geographical position in central Asia and the Lower Palaeolithic sites of  Krasnovodsk Plateau and Kopetdag mountains. Figure adapted from Mapsland (2020) and Wikipedia (2020).

Before I look at the evidence for Lower Palaeolithic man in Turkmenistan I’ll give you a potted history of Turkmenistan. If you’re not into history and want to skip this section, just scroll.. and scroll..

History of Turkmenistan [Adapted from Avantour (2020)]

Apart from the evidence for the Acheulian in Turkmenistan, the remnants of Neolithic settlements used by hunters/fishers are known from the Dzhebel grottos in the west of the country on the Caspian coast.

Southern Turkmenistan has some of the earliest sites indicating agriculture and cattle husbandry in Central Asia with Dzheitun village near Ashgabat (the capital) being one of the most ancient agricultural settlements (6,000 BC).

Ancient civilizations developed and prospered on the territory of modern Turkmenistan. In 1000 BC the states of Margiana, Parthia, Midia occupied various parts of the country. They were conquered by Persians in the 6th century BC and were a part of Persian Empire (Akhmenid Dynasty) which was in turn conquered by Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC. After Alexander's empire collapsed the territories passed to his heirs – the Seleucid Dynasty.

In the 7th – 8^th centuries AD the territory of Turkmenistan was taken by the Arabs who introduced Islam. In the 9th - 10th centuries Turkmen lands was a part of Takhirid, Samanid states, in the 11th - 13th centuries it was a part of Seljuk empire. In the 13th century the country was conquered by Mongolian armies led by Genghis Khan who annexed the territory of Turkmenistan to his great empire.

By the beginning of the 16th century the northern Turkmen nations spread all over the east coast of the Caspian Sea, the Mangyshlak Peninsula, Ustyurt and the Balkhany, northwest suburbs of Khorezm oasis, Lake Sarykamysh shores and the Kara Kum Desert. They also conquered the lands and oases of south Turkmenistan. During that period the majority of Turkmen nations were semi-nomadic combining agriculture on irrigated lands with cattle breeding. There were both cattlemen and farmers in each clan. Agriculture was a prerogative of poorer clan members.

In the 17th-19th centuries the territory of Turkmenistan were claimed by the Persian shah, Khiva khan and the Bukhara emir. As a result, Turkmen nations were divided among those three states (Iran, Khiva and Bukhara). The majority of Turkmenistani territory was under the control of the Iranian shah Nadir. He suppressed Turkmen resistance severely by killing and enslaving its people and confiscating cattle and property. In 1747 Nadir shah was killed, his state collapsed and Turkmen tribes which had temporarily left to the north came back to south Turkmenistan.

During the same period Lake Sarykamysh, on the shores of which Turkmen tribes lived, started to dry up gradually. So they were forced to move south to the Kopet Dagh area and therefrom southeast to the valleys of the Murghab and the Amu Darya. From the beginning of the 17th century the nomads' camps of northern Turkmen and the city of Khoresm were subject to attacks by the Kalmyks who had come from the east in search of unoccupied lands.

At the end of the 17th century some Turkmen tribes exhausted by the attacks of Kalmyks and warriors of Khiva khan, moved to the northern Caucasus and took Russian citizenship. Before entering the Russian Empire the Turkmen had occupied the entire territory of today's Turkmenistan as well as some areas of modern Iran and Afghanistan. Some of them lived in Ustyurt and Mangyshlak together with the Kazakh nomads. Like in the late Middle Ages Turkmen consisted of numerous tribes which in their turn were subject to multistage subdivision system. The largest tribes were tekes, yomuts, ersaris, saryks, salyrys, goklens, chovdurs. Up to the 1880’s patriarchal slavery had existed. All Turkmens were divided into "thoroughbreds", slaves and concubines. Except for these basic categories there were also arrivals from other tribes and descendants of subdued Iranian-speaking population. All those social categories except for "thoroughbreds" were not considered as valued members of a society.

In 1869 on the east coast of the Caspian Sea the Russians founded the port of Krasnovodsk, and by the middle of 1880 the surrounding territory became a part of the Russian Empire. In 1881 the Russian brutally suppressed the subsequent Turkmen revolt culminating in their notorious taking of the Turkmen Geok-Tele fortress. 20,000 men, women and children died in the fighting or the pursuit of the fleeing. The Russian general Skobelev was relieved of his command due to the wanton civilian casualties.

As a part of the Russian Empire Turkmenistan began to be involved in the Russian capitalism economic system which was more progressive in comparison with archaic social order of Turkmen tribes. By 1885, the remainder of the country had been subdued by the Russians.

In 1880-1885 the Trans-Caspian Railway was built on the territory of Turkmenistan which resulted in capital inflow to Central Asia. A number of new cities such as Krasnovodsk, Ashkhabad etc. emerged on the territory of Turkmenistan along with industrial enterprises. Thus, before the revolution of 1917 the elements of capitalism started to appear within the patriarchal - feudal system. After the revolution the Soviet power was officially proclaimed first in the trans-Caspian area and then and in the other cities and settlements of Turkmenistan.

In April, 1918 by the decree of the fifth Congress of the Turkmenistan Soviets the Turkestani Independent Soviet Socialist Republic was established. This comprised the majority of the territory of Turkmenistan including the trans-Caspian area.

In July, 1918 the Socialist revolutionaries and Mensheviks supported by British, assumed power. British armies invaded the area. The Civil war and foreign intervention lasted for about one and a half years. In July, 1919 the Red Army occupied Ashkhabad, and in February 1920, Krasnovodsk, thus ousting British armies from Turkmenistan.

By 1924 the Turkmen Socialist Soviet Republic was established and in 1925 the Turkmen SSR ‘voluntarily’ joined the USSR.

It would be nearly 70 years before any more change would come, due to a succession of isolationist presidents for life. In 1991 after disintegration of the USSR, Turkmenistan declared its independence and proclaimed, the former soviet puppet leader, Atayevich Niyazov first President of Turkmenistan. The president is the Supreme commander in chief of the Armed forces of Turkmenistan and the Chairman of Democratic Party of Turkmenistan. He has the right to appoint ambassadors and high-ranking officials of the executive authority including heads of the ministries and departments. He had himself declared president for life in 1999, in other words, he assumed complete control of every aspect of life: in effect a dictator. He was famous for his eccentric and/or despotic decrees, cult of personality, corruption and repression of the media and population in general. His and his family’s foreign currency deposits are truly staggering. By the time of his death they totalled $2-$3 billion, mainly obtained through the filching of the country’s gas and oil revenue.

Niyazoy was followed into power upon his death in 2006 by Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow. His record is similar to Niyazov’s with the Obozrevatel magazine naming Berdimuhamedow the 5th of the 23 worst dictators in the world. In the Press Freedom Index (Reporters Without Borders), Turkmenistan ranks 176 out of 178. According to international observers, Berdimuhamedow now leads "one of the most oppressive" and "closed" regimes in the world. Turkmenistan also leads in the number of political prisoners from all countries of the former Soviet Union.

In a bizarre and backward decree (2019), reminiscent of Niyazoy, Berdimuhamedow, decided to gradually end state funding of the Academy of Sciences of Turkmenistan; it will be phased out in three years

Unfortunately, Berdimuhamedow is still in power.

Central Asia at the crossroads

One strand of Turkmenistan’s story I have not really covered is its geographic importance as a conduit from east to west. An example is the Silk Road, the great trade-route between the West and Orient which was opened during the time of the Chinese Han Dynasty in 130 B.C.

It crossed the territory of modern Turkmenistan with the ancient city of Merv (then the largest city in the world with a population of 500,000) and its oasis being a major stopping off point. Trading caravans began in Xi'an and crossed the entirety of Central Asia up to the shores of the Black and thence to the Mediterranean Seas. The Silk Road routes remained in use until 1453 A.D, when the Ottoman Empire boycotted trade with China and closed the route to the west.

As explained above, and in my potted history of the country, Turkmenistan has always been on the central Asian route between east and west.

But what of pre-history? How far back does the use of this corridor, linked by oases, go? The out of Africa migration of modern humans ca.125,000 years ago? The original migration of Homo erectus? Perhaps even Homo habilis or Australopithecines passed this way over 2 million years ago?

What evidence of any of the above do we actually have?   

Krasnovodsk Plateau.

From Vishnyatsky (1989): “Until recently there were no firmly identified findings of Palaeolithic handaxes either in Turkmenia or in the south-west part of Soviet Central Asia in general…

Such evidence appeared just now. In 1987, a research team from the Institute of Archaeology (Leningrad) was engaged in field reconnaissance in Western Turkmenia. During the brief examination of the giant Palaeolithic workshop on the southern slope of Krasnovodsk plateau, not far from Yangadja railway-station, a section with some biface tools, with handaxes among them, came to light.”

Yangadzha Handaxes, edge of the Krasnovodsk plateau, western Turkmenistan from Vishnyatsky (1989).

“From this section, located on distinct hills, only bifaces, flakes and a few shapeless cores were collected; there was no other tool. So far, the total number of bifaces is no more than twenty, and only part of them are true handaxes: some are, perhaps, half-finished products intended to be points or something else. However, at least four of the bifaces are finally or almost finally prepared handaxes, some of which, unfortunately, came to us broken. All the tools from the site are made of local flint, available in the area.

It is worth mentioning that the surface of all the artifacts from the biface complex are covered by intensive desert patina. This feature is indicative of the relative age of our surface finds, because no traces of desert patina were found on the Neolithic tools made of the same flint, which are scattered in the vicinity. Obviously, such an observation does not enable to determine precisely the age of the handaxes, but it is evident that it should be looked for in the Pleistocene period.”

It is of note that Okladnikov (1956) found a number of Palaeolithic artifacts, most of which he labelled Mousterian and Upper Palaeolithic. However, he separated out two handaxes as Acheulean.

Four views of the Krasnovodsk Plateau. Clockwise from top left: The Krasnovodks plateau seen from the north looking west towards the sea; Distinct hills at the edge of the Krasnovodsk Plateau seen across the railway from the road. These hills fit the description given by Vishnyatsky above; Rockshelters towards the seaward end of Krasnovodsk Plateau; Kaipata Cave above the Gaip Ata cemetery. 1-3 from Сайт Красноводск (2017), 4 from Bobkin (2020).

Kopetdag Mountains

From Vishnyatsky (1999) "Kopetdag. This is the northern range of the Turkmen-Khorasan mountain system, representing a natural border between Turkmenistan and Iran. Its total length is about 500 km. This region, like many others, is still unexplored. No more than 200 objects claimed to be Palaeolithic artifacts have been reported, and it is highly probable that some of these are not artifacts. All of them are surface finds collected at different times by different researchers in the western, central, and eastern parts of the range. All Palaeolithic finds in the Western Kopetdag are located in the valleys of the Sumbar (a tributary of the Atrek) and Chandyr (a tributary of the Sumbar) rivers, not far from the town of Kara-Kala. V. P. Liubin collected slightly more than 100 stone artifacts here, which were found, as a rule, on the eroded slopes of the hills among many natural pebbles (Liubin, 1984, pp. 28-31; Vishnyatsky, 1996, pp. 37-43). All the objects are made from local limestone and chert. Unfortunately, there is so far no firm geological basis for dating. On typological grounds, Liubin dated the oldest of them as Acheulean, but this is questionable, since no bifaces were found. On the other hand, the predominance of large pebble cores, chopper/chopping tools, massive side-scrapers, and crude flakes allows us to regard the Western Kopetdag as an area where pebble industries were present in the past.”

Landscape of the Kopetdag. A karst scenery with caves (as noted in the foreground). Lithics found so far tend to found on valley slopes as at right middle of picture. From Padenko (2010).

Gorge leading to Kyrk-Gyz “Forty Girls” cave. This karst chain of mountains has many caves, mostly unexcavated. Did hominins make these caverns their home in the Lower Palaeolithic? From Dolgaya (2017).

What then are we to make of these lithic tools? Firstly they seem to be from two traditions: Bifacial Acheulian and possibly earlier pebble core chopper-chopping tools. Do these two lithic types represent two waves of human migration, presumably out of Africa? Or perhaps they represent a synchronous migration where individual hominins expediently used the locally available lithic material in the second case in the form of river cobbles?

What age they are, Lower Palaeolithic millions of years old or Middle Palaeolithic 100’s of thousands of years old will await a well stratified and dated site found within the borders of Turkmenistan.

References

Avantour (2020) History of Turkmenistan (XXXX) at: https://www.advantour.com/turkmenistan/history.htm accessed 19.07.20

Bobkin, M. (2020) Kaipata Cave: Look Into The Dragon's Pupil at: https://alpagama.org/peshera-kaypata-zrachok-drakona.html accessed 22.07.20

Сайт Красноводск (2017) at http://krasnovodsk.net/photo/10-13-0-0-2 accessed 20.07.20

Dolgaya, G. (2017) “Turkmenistan: from the Kugitang Mountains to the Caspian Sea.” at: http://nexttm.com/view/6237/ accessed 22.10.19

Mapsland (2020) “Detailed relief map of Turkmenistan“ at: https://www.mapsland.com/asia/turkmenistan/detailed-relief-map-of-turkmenistan accessed 22.07.20

Okladnikov, A. P. (1956) Drevnejshee proshloe Turkmenistana (drevnie okhotniki i sobirateli v stepyakh ipustnyakh Turkmenistana) [The most ancient past of Turkmenistan (ancient hunters and gatherers in the steppes and deserts of Turkmenistan)]. Trudy Instituta istorii, arkheologii i etnografii Akademii nauk Turkmenskoj SSR I: 181-221.

Padenko, A. (2010). “Where the mountains turn to desert” at: https://twitter.com/padenko/status/956956197550219264 accessed 22.07.20

Vishnyatsky L.B. (1989) The Discovery of Palaeolithic Handaxes in Western Turkmenia: A Preliminary report. Paléorient, Vol.15 No.2. pp. 95-98.

Vishnyatsky, L.B., 1999. The Paleolithic of Central Asia. Journal of World Prehistory, 13(1), pp.69-122.

Wikipedia (2020) Turkmenistan at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmenistan  accessed 22.07.20

Derbyshire Bone Caves 5: Ash Tree Cave

Ash Tree Cave was discovered by Leslie Armstrong in 1938 and excavated by him intermittently until his death in 1958.

Ash Tree Cave summer 2019. Photograph the author.

Ash Tree Cave internal view from cave centre, back towards the entrance. Note the depth of sediments removed by Armstrong is easily gauged as the floor was initially in line with the bottom of the gate! Loose, rocky, fill now covers the entirety of the floor.

The cave is located on the southeast side of a dry valley known as Burnfield Grips. Armstrong described his first impressions of the small cave in 1949 thus: “The interior is lofty, the floor piled high with debris and tabular rock fallen from the flat roof.”

Ash Tree Cave lies on the line of the royal blue Magnesian limestone rocks immediately east of Sheffield. Adapted from Hind (1998).

The chamber contained a collection of human remains belonging to several individuals. These represented at least four separate deposits, two were covered with a mass of rocks and earth which Armstrong had initially thought to represent roof collapse in the centre of the cave. A cist-like structure on the left of the passage, at the back of the cave contained further human remains. Lastly a scooped out hollow, just inside the entrance contained a cremation burial. No artefacts were associated with any of these burials, bar a few non-diagnostic flint flakes. However, an Early Bronze Age radiocarbon date (3970BP), derived from a human tibia, was published by Hedges (1996).

Other finds from the cave included a spectacular sequence of animal remains stretching back to the Pleistocene, with stone and bone tools apparently in situ.

While Mesolithic and Creswellian material represented by microliths and animal bones, was fully accepted, Armstrong claimed to have found human made tools of Pleistocene date, but examination of the extant material by Jenkinson in the late 1970s failed to identify a single artefact of Palaeolithic date. Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman pottery was also found.

Armstrong excavation at Ash Tree Cave in the 1950’s, from Sykes (2010). Original caption reads: Figure 2.2.19 Ash Tree Cave during excavation by Armstrong, showing location in gorge edge and deposits in front of cave (photograph courtesy of Sheffield Museum).

Subsequently, the excavations were continued by the Hunter Archaeology Society, initially by West and Riley, with the final excavation being undertaken in 1959-60 by McBurney.

In order to understand what was found during these and subsequent excavations, I have collated the key finds and stratigraphic detail given by Armstrong (1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956),  and by Fisher (1959 and 1960) in the table below:

Year	Depth	Description
1949	3’6’’	A trial trench cut across the external rock shelter revealed a soil layer of 6’’ - 1’ resting on a glacial drift layer 2’6’’ - 3’. On which were traces of a Mesolithic occupation. Drift rests on red cave earth of Pleistocene date with Creswellian tools and charcoal
1950	4’6’’	Cave surface presented as a tabular limestone slabs loosely compacted by a Black loam. Centre of cave higher assumed to be a larger rockfall, it was in fact a layer of slabs laid on a burial. 6’’ below and right another burial, also human remains scattered on this horizon throughout the cave. Brown sandy loam - a glacial drift varying in depth 2’6’’ at entrance merging into red cave earth 10’ into cave. Archaeologically sterile, except for intrusive cremation burial at entrance. Has abraded limestone fragments, erratic and Bunter pebbles, and has all the characteristics of glacial drift or outwash material. Rests on red cave earth 4 to 6’’ in depth containing charcoal fragments and artifacts of Creswellian type, bone tools, and split bones. Bones of Reindeer, Bison and Horse. Characterised as a ‘Pleistocene deposit’ by Armstrong.. Rests on a Yellow, stony cave earth the depth of this zone is not yet known.
1951	5’6’’ 6’6’’	Rear of Cave - Extension of cave further backwards and down – Tabular limestone and black loam [Neolithic cist burial in dry cove] Centre of cave. Yellow cave earth examined to depth of 1’ – Top Creswellian flint flakes and bone awl. Below in same stratum a Mousterian layer [charcoal, flaked quartzite pebbles, large pebble pounder bones of Hyaena, horse, bison reindeer]. Evidence of waterlogging.
1952	9’6’’	Centre of cave. Yellow cave earth stony and calcareous. Evidence of occupation scanty = occasional use, crumbs of charcoal. LA divides this into 3 zones: Zone 1, 6’ - 6’ 9’’, Zone 2, 7’6’’ - 8’6’’; Zone 3, at 9’ 6’’. Cave Lion, Woolly Rhinoceros, Bear, Badger, Arctic Fox, and Red Deer. Mousterian zones pebbles and pounders of quartzite; split and chipped quartzite pebbles; two flakes of flint; a small scraper of Derbyshire black chert, step flaked on one edge; utilised split bones and a bone awl; two tibias of bird, perforated at the distal end for suspension and believed to be personal ornaments/amulets. (Similar examples found in the Mousterian levels of Pin Hole Cave). A human tooth was found in Zone 2. It is a third molar, of the upper right side, with two short and rather weak roots, fused together, and degenerate cusping on the crown. Though abnormal in some respects and possessing some of the characters of a Neanderthal tooth (found in association with Mousterian artifacts).
1953	10’6’’	Mousterian Zone 3 teeth of Cave Bear and Cave Lion, also a tooth of Giant Deer, together with specimens of all the fauna previously recorded. Interesting fragments of an unidentified species of deer. Fragments of bone, both gnawed and humanly split are frequent. The artifacts include split & chipped quartzite pebbles; pebble pounders; utilized split bones, bone tools & a bone awl.
1954	12’’	[Yellow] cave earth more compacted and stony. Mousterian occupation continues, evidence more plentiful. Well worked Mousterian point in flint, patinated white, (similar to those from the Pin Hole Cave); a few small flakes of flint; split quartzite pebbles; also a number of large quartzite pebbles, possibly used as pounders, [no evidence of use]. Numerous stone tools and utilised split bones and two large pieces of split bone, probably Rhinoceros, or Mammoth long bones, and a portion of rib, showing signs of use. Several teeth of Woolly Rhino, tooth of Mammoth; teeth of Hyaena; Giant Deer; Horse; Wolf and Cave Bear teeth. Reindeer teeth and fragments of Antler, rodent remains and molluscs.
1955	15’6’’	Calcareous [white] clay layer. Hearth in centre of cave [Mousterian]. Around it numerous splinters of bone, including a large portion of a young Rhino humerus, gnawed by Hyenas, probably brought there by man. Numerous quartzite pebble tools, crudely worked.
1956		Report writing
1957		Removal of a remnant of the hearth revealed a fissure, 18’’ inches wide, filled with carbonaceous matter and humanly split fragments of bone, in a matrix of sandy clay. Excavated to a depth of two feet beneath floor level, but the bottom has not been reached. A Mousterian quartzite side scraper was found embedded in the fissure at a depth of twelve inches, and a deer antler awl, skilfully cut and trimmed at the point, was found beside the hearth on the floor of the cave.
1958		Death of Armstrong. Excavations by Mr. D. N. Riley and Mr. S. E. West begin.
1959		McBurney takes over directorship of excavations.
1960		McBurney continues excavations. Important correlations of the cave filling with a boulder clay in the valley (Main Wurm glaciation) have been noted. Flint flakes in the lower part of the stony cave earth are associated with a fragment of a human jaw and rich Pleistocene fauna.

Clearly, the extant materials did not include the lithics highlighted in bold. What material was, actually preserved from Armstrong’s excavation is unclear and hence the conclusion of Jenkinson is only based on the material available to him.

However, he statements of Armstrong (1956) on the cave stratigraphy are quite indisputable: he found a Mesolithic layer, a Creswellian (Magdelanian) one and Mousterian levels in situ below those. From his original paper a Neanderthal occupation is quite clear: “A central cross-section of the deposit, cut from the Creswellian horizon to bed rock of the cave, revealed three zones of Mousterian occupation comparable in general character and position with those of the Pin Hole Cave.”

After describing the depth and composition of each zone, and noting their similarity to those from Pin Hole Cave, Armstrong goes on:

“In each zone the evidence of occupation was scanty and indicative of only occasional use either by man or animals. The artifacts found are similar in type to those from corresponding horizons in the Pin Hole, but of inferior workmanship. Quartzite tools predominate but few of them bear any secondary retouch and as a whole they suggest production for casual use. Flakes of flint chert were present, but few in number. One well worked flint point and a skilfully retouched scraper of black Derbyshire chert, are the most outstanding artifacts.

Several bone awls were found, also portions of two bird tibias each perforated at the distal end for suspension, and believed to be personal ornaments, or amulets. These are similar to examples found in the Pin Hole, in Mousterian levels.”

Lastly, an addendum added after the report was complete states: “During 1957, subsequent to writing this Report, removal of a remnant of the hearth in the centre of the section revealed that it was sited over a fissure, in the rock floor eighteen inches wide. This proved to be filled with carbonaceous matter and humanly split fragments of bone, in a matrix of sandy clay. The fissure has been excavated to a depth of two feet beneath floor level, but the bottom has not been reached. A Mousterian quartzite side scraper was found embedded in the fissure at a depth of twelve inches, and a deer antler awl, skilfully cut and trimmed at the point, was found beside the hearth on the floor of the cave.”

Beresford (2011), commenting on the lithic and faunal remains says “Artefacts recovered from within the cave showed it had been used from Neanderthal times right through to the Neolithic.”

Dating on a bison upper molar, excavated by McBurney in 1960 from the ‘Clay’ layer of trench CII, spit 36 and analysed by the Oxford AMS system gave an age of 40,500 +/- 1600.

On balance, it seems likely, given Jenkinson’s examination of only the extant material and not the full range of lithics excavated, that this cave was, however briefly, occupied by Neanderthals.

During a review of the above text and its supporting references, prior to the publication of this article on my blog, I became aware of a new appraisal of both the Ash Tree Cave lithics and their dating by Rebecca Wragg Sykes (2010a).

Her introduction is very succinct and telling: “Our understanding of the archaeology of the late Neanderthals in Britain rests on a basis of many decades of previous research, with a corresponding development in methodologies, concepts and the types of questions informing interpretations. This thesis seeks to bring our knowledge of the stone tool assemblages of this period up to date using current lithic analysis methodologies, and thereby redefine the British Mousterian through synthesising the available data and producing a new interpretation of the occupation of Britain during MIS 3. To this aim, material from twenty-two sites is analysed, and interpreted within a broader context of other data from Britain and Europe, to create a comprehensive new understanding.”

She includes Ash Tree Cave, ergo, it is a Neanderthal site as her PhD dissertation passed peer review. End of story.

However, it is worth looking at Sykes’ analysis of the faunal and lithic evidence in detail to show how she firmly positions Ash Tree Cave in the Neaderthal re-colonisation of Britain during the late MIS 4 – early MIS3 transition 50,000 – 40,000 years ago.

One of the main supporting planks of Sykes’ argument are the radiocarbon dates drawn from a variety of sources carried out on bone samples from the lowest levels of the cave and the typification of these remains as Pinhole MAZ. She comments:

“The fauna here is very important, as it appears to be one of the few cave sites with a Pin Hole MAZ and an underlying MIS 5a Banwell MAZ (Hedges et al 1994: 339; 1996: 392, 397), see Table 2.1.32. A similar Banwell fauna at Wood Quarry, Steetley, Nottinghamshire has produced a mean date from U-Series of 66,800 ± 3000 BP (date range 72,800- 60,800 BP) (Pike et al 2005), and also at Stump Cross Cavern, North Yorkshire another Banwell assemblage has been dated to >79,200 ± 2400 BP (Sutcliffe et al 1985), providing a terminus post quem for the deposits containing the Pin Hole MAZ and the archaeology.”

Here is her Table 2.1.32:

On dating Sykes (2010) states: “The dates for the Stony Cave Earth containing the Pin Hole MAZ are MIS 3 (Table 2.1.33), although the relatively late hyaena specimen low in the sequence suggests either disturbance of the deposits or a poor sample. Samples from the Basal Clay (Banwell MAZ) are older, and especially the ultra-filtrated samples. As no samples from the Stony Cave Earth are ultra-filtrated, it is likely that the age of this deposit is currently a minimum.”

Here is her table 2.1.33:

Sykes goes on: “The total number of artefacts excavated is not known at present due to poor publication. The total included here, based on raw materials and techno-typological assessment is 28 including flint, quartzite and clay-ironstone artefacts, from the excavations by Armstrong, West and Riley and McBurney.”

The assemblage was mainly debitage elements (25 of 28), there are however, two retouched tools and a single core.

Of the raw materials, a very high percentage was clay-ironstone  (57.1%, n=16), followed by quartzite (28.6%, n=8), a much smaller amount of northern flint (10.7%, n=3) and a single piece of southern flint (3.6%).

Importantly Sykes states: “Due to the recording of the excavations and lack of detailed publication, it is difficult to know whether discrete assemblages existed within the Stony Cave Earth deposit. Some spatial data was recorded for some artefacts, but there is not enough information to discern clear groups; the lithics are therefore treated as a single palimpsest assemblage for the purposes of the analysis.”

It is worth pointing out here, that at least two of the most diagnostically Mousterian tools (see highlighted examples in my table above) are missing and hence do not feature in Sykes’ analysis.

Let us turn to the tools from Ash Tree Cave she included in her analysis.

Section 6.7.2 “Debitage and cores” can be summarised as follows:

• Debitage is most the common category of elements 25/28 artefacts
• All raw materials have examples of debitage
• Many of the flakes are thinning/resharpening flakes
• At least one of the flakes may be from retouching a tool (ATC9, clay-ironstone) as it appears to preserve two edges of an artefact that would be too narrow for a biface, unless it was the very tip.
• Many of the other clay-ironstone examples are certainly biface thinning/re-sharpening flakes based on their morphology (Figure 6.7.2). 

Sykes figure 6.7.2., a clay-ironstone biface thinning/re-sharpening flake (ACT 6). 

• Also mentioned are 2 quartzite flakes either from biface thinning or of retouching tools (these are give a figure reference but not actually figured).
• A southern flint is likely a flake from a biface based on the presence of large flat scars on the dorsal (Figure 6.7.3).

Sykes figure 6.7.3. Original caption reads: Figure 6.7.3 Southern flint biface thinning flake ATC 31.

• Some artefacts display features that likely attributable to a discoidal reduction technique. This is a key point as this method, according to Thiébaut (2013), generates pseudo-Levallois points used by Neanderthals in hunting. Additionally, according to, Eren et al. (2008) this method of core reduction was used only between MIS5 and 3 – before atomically modern humans arrived in Britain. 
• Two examples of possible a-typical pseudo-Levallois points, made from quartzite, were indeed found (ATC-4 and ATC-25), which strengthen Sykes’ supposition at the bullet point above. 
• The analysis of non-thinning flakes thinning flakes and the solitary core found, show that partially decorticated and fresh cores were imported and worked. Orphan flakes (transported-in artifacts that do not refit to anything) without parent cores and a core without any debitage flakes from this chaînes opératoires, show that lithic material was transported to the cave and then removed again.
• Sykes also notes that “Despite primary flakes being present in all raw materials, none are Toth types 2 or 1, implying that cores (brought in) were at least already partially decorticated.”It is worthy of note that “Toth’s flake types are good indicators of the prevalent mode of core reduction represented in an assemblage..” [Pei et al. (2017)]

Type 1 and 2 flakes are those struck are as follows:

Toth type 1 and 2 flake definitions from Toth (1982).

• On thinning flakes of quartzite having remaining cortex Sykes comments “This suggests that the bifaces in this stone may only have been partially worked, and finished at the site, while those in other raw materials were already finished and were being re-sharpened in-situ.”
• The single core of quartzite and is relatively small and thin, with a flattened lenticular shape, which is naturally suited to knapping. It retains large areas of cortex as it is not much reduced from its original volume (Figure 6.7.4). The reduction approach used is alternate/centripetal, with at least one other removal. Although seven flake scars are present, it could have been further reduced (there is an incipient fracture cone present showing perhaps that further attempts were made, but here the striking angle was too obtuse). One flake scar is quite large, > 3cm breadth, but most of the others are much smaller, < 2cm in breadth. The core is a pale grey colour, different to all of the quartzite debitage which is either reddish-grey or white, indicating that the flakes acquired from it may have been removed from the cave.

Quartzite core from Ash Tree cave, Sykes (2010b). Figure 6.7.4 Quartzite core ATC 2.

The same quartzite core from Sykes (2017). Original caption reads: Fig. 4. Discoid and centripetally reduced cores.. D Ash Tree Cave (quartzite)..

Sykes (2017) commentary on cores of this type are very apposite to the find of this quartzite core at Ash Tree Cave: “Alternate or alternating reduction occurs in some assemblages alongside centripetal and discoid technology, at a similar frequency. This is more volumetrically ‘informal’ than discoid, lacking a secant plane, instead reduction proceeds along a ridge or perimeter. Yet it still features systematic gestures, where previous flake scars are utilised as striking platforms as the core is ‘flipped’, which produces some cores with partially radial scar patterns.

Alternate reduction is strongly associated with non-flint raw materials, and is the most common single strategy for quartzite at the Creswell Crags sites. This may be because it allowed easy exploitation of the hard cobbles, with the high energy impact necessary on this stone producing thick, naturally-backed removals. Previous authors have tended to refer to such cores at Creswell Crags as “choppers” (e.g. White and Pettitt, 2011), but they do not show obvious evidence of use-wear, and many have irregular edges unsuitable for use, therefore are likely to be primarily aimed at flake production.”

6.7.3 Retouched artefacts. On these two artifacts (a denticulate in northern flint and a clay-ironstone notch), the main points are:

• Sykes simply describes the likely Chaînes opératoires. However, she also adds comment on the flint “The denticulate seems to be made on a possible core-edge removal flake with a facetted butt which may indicate more intensive management of this raw material,..”

This again adds weight to her high mobility hunting model of Neanderthals in the region, with their curated toolkits.

Sykes (2010b) Fig. 6.7.5 Clay-ironstone retouched notch ATC 18 from Ash Tree Cave derived from the coal-measures ca. 10km to the east.

Sykes (2010b) Fig. 6.7.6 Northern flint denticulate ATC 3.

6.7.4 Raw material procurement

Main points:

• Ash Tree Cave is 2.5 km northwest of Creswell Crags, therefore sources of raw materials are broadly similar
• Quartzite pebbles appear to occur locally in the superficial deposits of the surrounding area.
• The cave is < 10km from the coal measure deposits to the east, this explains the dominance of clay-ironstone working, as it is available locally in superficial deposits in this geological formation.
• The northern flint was probably available in local superficial deposits, or regionally, but the southern flint biface that the thinning flake came from is likely to have been sourced at least 60 km away.

6.7.5 Technological organisation

Main points:

• Chaînes opératoires are very discontinuous for all raw materials.
• Northern flint occurs as a tiny flake fragment, a biface thinner and a denticulate. The physical appearance of all these artefacts is dissimilar, suggesting that are not from the same parent material. It would appear that the retouched flint tool was brought in and discarded. Given its small size, the flake fragment is likely to reflect the in-situ working of a core, which was subsequently removed together with any other products. The thinning flake is evidence that a biface was brought in, probably resharpened and removed again.
• Quartzite tool and core, colour analysis, shows that some of the flakes from the core may be missing, and that almost all the debitage comes from at least three different cores that are not present in the assemblage.
• This could indicate either that these cores were knapped in-situ and then removed, or that the flakes were imported into the cave. However, given the rather small size of most of the flakes and the local availability of nodules the first scenario seems probable.
• The two thinning flakes in quartzite, which were probably from bifaces, therefore these represent the import, finishing/reworking and export of at least two quartzite bifaces, based on colour differences. 

Sykes (2017), discussion on how this type of assemblage fits in with Neanderthal behaviour in early MIS3, in Britain is also quite illuminating:

“While patterns of techno-economic organisation within the British LMP such as preferential transport of high quality stone (most often in the form of bifaces or retouched tools) match existing systems known for Neanderthals, some aspects stand out.

The dominance of bifaces and coherent core reduction approaches (discoid/centripetal, alternate and informal), with a lack of Levallois, present across the whole region is unusual for the period and

wider north-western Continental context. The overall technological strategy appears to be focused on flexibility, reliability and maintainability, and may reflect a combined adaptation to fluctuating MIS-3 environments, greater seasonality and dispersal of fauna, that resulted in highly mobile hunting.”

To me this paints a picture of Neanderthals, possibly from as far afield as northern France or Belgium following the migratory herds west and north each year in the spring, into Britain.

Britain ca. 50,000BP  with dry land shown in green, adapted from AOHB (2009).

These human hunters probably travelled as families or groups of families. They likely made camp in the open air or based themselves in caves such as those at Creswell Crags and carried out hunting forays from there.

The hunting groups, likely to consists of single individuals to small groups of both male and female Neanderthals, travelled light with a toolkit of large flakes and partially worked bifaces. They carried a variety of locally available stone types and highly curated fine flints from southern England. These they fashioned into weapons – perhaps hafting points into spears – and tools for butchering the animals they brought down.

They stayed, where possible at suitable caves such as Ash Tree Cave and may even have ventured as far west as Ravencliffe Cave or Elderbush Cave (see here and here) 40km away in the White Peak.

The landscape they passed through, ca. 40,000BP [see Buckland et al. (2019)] being Taiga, Dwarf Shrub Heath and Tundra further north was extremely uninviting in winter, with temperature ranging, in winter, from -22 to -2⁰C. In summer, however, a range of 8 to 14⁰C caused the Tundra vegetation to flourish, therefore attracting big game, which the Neanderthals hunted.

Seasonal Neanderthal hunters going after (very!) big game, from Wenban-Smith (2010)

When these seasonal hunting trips/low level occupations began is the subject of intense debate, with most authorities settling on a date of around 60,000BP. However, Wenban-Smith et al. (2010) has found pristine Neanderthal tools at a site in Kent dated to between 115,000BP and 88,000BP, with a most likely date of 95,000BP.

It therefore seems that this phase of Neanderthal visits and/or occupation of Britain lasted a considerable length of time from 95,000BP to ca. 35,000BP, when anatomically modern humans replaced them entirely.

My last thoughts on this cave are that I have many unanswered questions.

Do the three best lithic pieces from Ash Tree Cave still lurk in some dusty museum draw? What about the flint flakes found by McBurney in the lower part of the stony cave earth, in association with with a fragment of a human jaw and rich Pleistocene fauna? Where did this earliest lithic material originate?

Where exactly are the two critical bone samples – the Neanderthal like tooth excavated by Armstrong from his Mousterian zone 2 and the partial lower jaw excavated by McBurney in 1960 as mentioned above? What about the bone tools, utilised bones and awls from the Mousterian levels? Has anyone analysed them? What sort of tools were they?

Intriguingly, on human bones Wall and Jacobi (2000) during their cataloguing effort of the very dispersed collections from the Creswell Crags area, do record human bones in several museum collections:

“The museum [NHM London] is temporarily holding two human specimens, a human mandible from Ash Tree Cave thought to be either Neolithic or Bronze Age..”

Cambridge University, Department of Bio-Anthropology: “This is a small collection of human bone from two sites excavated by Leslie Armstrong. There are about twelve specimens altogether, six specimens are from Sepulchral Cave in Markland Grips and six from Ash Tree Cave in Burnhill Grips.”

Sheffield City Museum, Department of Archaeology: “Material from Ash Tree cave was excavated by Leslie Armstrong in the 1930s and Charles McBurney in 1959/60. McBurney’s archive was transferred to Sheffield from Cambridge in 1990. The collection includes a wide range of Pleistocene and Holocene material including fauna (including small mammals), human bone, stones/pebbles, flint and chert, quartzite flakes and pebbles, pottery, glass, molluscs, charcoal samples, sediment, breccia. The largest proportion of the material is bone which includes many small bone fragments and a small number of larger specimens.”

I think Ash Tree Cave has a lot more to tell us yet..  

Note: I visited this cave in May 2019. Recent excavations may have taken place and it is now gated.

References:

Ancient Human Occupation of Britain [AHOB] (2009), at: https://www.ahobproject.org/AHOBIII/About.php accessed 18.07.20

Armstrong, A.L. 1949 Exploration of Prehistoric Sites In East Derbyshire. Derbyshire

Archaeological Journal.69: 69-73

Armstrong, A.L. 1950 Exploration of prehistoric sites in East Derbyshire. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal.70: 88-91

Armstrong, A.L. 1951 Exploration of prehistoric sites in East Derbyshire. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal. 71: 66-68

Armstrong, A.L. 1952 Exploration of prehistoric sites in East Derbyshire. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal. 72: 133-135

Armstrong, A.L. 1953 Exploration of prehistoric sites in East Derbyshire. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal. 73: 102-104

Armstrong, A.L. 1954 Exploration of prehistoric sites in East Derbyshire. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal. 74: 156-157

Armstrong, A.L. 1955 Exploration of prehistoric sites in East Derbyshire. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal. 75: 145-150

Armstrong, A.L. 1956 Exploration of prehistoric sites in East Derbyshire. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal.76: 133-137

Armstrong, A.L. 1957 Report on the excavation of Ash Tree Cave, near Whitwell, Derbyshire, 1949 to 1957 76:57-74

Beresford, M. (2011) An Analysis of Prehistoric Cave Burials in the Magnesian Limestone region of north-east Derbyshire. Archaeology Local Heritage Series, Number 2

Buckland, P.I., Bateman, M.D., Bennike, O., Buckland, P.C., Chase, B.M., Frederick, C., Greenwood, M., Murton, J., Murton, D. and Panagiotakopulu, E., 2019. Mid-Devensian climate and landscape in England: new data from Finningley, South Yorkshire. Royal Society open science, 6(7), p.190577.

Eren, M.I., Greenspan, A. and Sampson, C.G., 2008. Are Upper Paleolithic blade cores more productive than Middle Paleolithic discoidal cores? A replication experiment. Journal of Human Evolution, 55(6), pp.952-961.

Fisher, F 1959 Archaeological Reports, Notes and News 1959.  Derbyshire Archaeological Journal.79: p130

Fisher, F 1960 Archaeological Reports, Notes and News 1960.  Derbyshire Archaeological Journal.80: p132-133

Hedges, R.E.M., Pettitt, P.B., Ramsey, C.B. and Klinken, G.V., (1996). Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 22. Archaeometry, 38(2), pp.391-415.

Hind, D. (1998). Chert use in the Mesolithic of Northern England. Published online at: https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/assemblage/html/4/4hind.html accessed 28.06.20

Historic England (2015) at: https://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=318369  accessed 25.05.19

Pei, S. et al. (2017). Early Pleistocene archaeological occurrences at the Feiliang site, and the archaeology of human origins in the Nihewan Basin, North China. PloS one, 12(11), p.e0187251.

Sykes, R.W., (2010a). Neanderthals in Britain: Late Mousterian Archaeology in Landscape Context v.1 (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield, Department of Archaeology).

Sykes, R.W., (2010b). Neanderthals in Britain: Late Mousterian Archaeology in Landscape Context v.2 (Appendices: tables, figures and supplementary statistics)

Sykes, R.M.W., 2017. Neanderthals in the Outermost West: Technological adaptation in the Late Middle Palaeolithic (re)-colonization of Britain, Marine Isotope Stage 4/3. Quaternary International, 433, pp.4-32.

Thiébaut, C., 2013. Discoid debitage stricto sensus: a method adapted to highly mobile Middle Paleolithic groups?. Palethnologie. Archéologie et sciences humaines.

Toth, N.P., (1982). The stone technologies of early hominids at Koobi Fora, Kenya: an experimental approach. University of California, Berkeley.

Wall, I.J. and Jacobi, R.M., 2000. An assessment of the Pleistocene collections from the cave and rockshelter sites in the Creswell area. Creswell Heritage Trust, Worksop.

Wenban‐Smith, F., 2010. M25 roadworks reveal earliest UK Neanderthal occupation at Dartford. Geology Today, 26(5), pp.175-179.

Wenban‐Smith, F.F., et al. 2010. Early Devensian (MIS 5d–5b) occupation at Dartford, southeast England. Journal of Quaternary Science, 25(8), pp.1193-1199.