Discussion

As in other Altai cave and open archaeological sites, both human and carnivore activity have been identified in the perimortem taphonomy of Kaminnaya Cave. We infer that much of the carnivore bone damage was done by hyenas. In addition, as a significant

Contributor to general bioturbation, the use of Kaminnaya Cave by hyenas requires that serious consideration be given to the possibility that its stratigraphy was disturbed to a significant extent. Such disturbance could, of course, blur the distinction between Middle and Upper Paleolithic assemblages. If sufficient mixing had taken place, a model of local evolution (Derevianko 2005:13) could be based on what might seem like clear-cut stratigraphic grounds, when in fact migration into the Altai by anatomically modern Upper Paleolithic humans and their replacement of the Mousterians might have been the actual sequence of events. Basing a local evolutionary hypothesis on stratigraphic trait frequency changes in an environment that seemingly supported an abundant hyena population is a substantial scientific risk.

In addition to the probable bioturbation, Kaminnaya has in lower deposits cobbles and small boulders that are rounded. This means that the cave had at some time been an active underground river. In sum, with such a complex taphonomic history, Kaminnaya would be a poor choice on which to create a chronology and history of humans in the Altai Pleistocene.

Kaminnaya presented some unusual specimens outside our 26 traits. In general, phalanges were not damaged by Paleolithic Siberians, but this occurred at Kaminnaya (Fig. 3.37). Another oddity is a specimen with severe periodontal disease, almost certainly an old and probably weak animal (Fig. 3.38). Fig. 3.39 shows the most extreme plant root damage seen during this study. Fig. 3.40 shows what Grichen believed was a bone tool. If so, it would be one of a very few pieces of bone that might be thought of as

Fig. 3.37 Kaminnaya bone damage. Cracked open phalanges. Left specimen is 9.5 cm in length (CGT neg. IAE 7-4-00:26).

Fig. 3.38 Kaminnaya periodontal disease. This socket-bearing maxillary fragment shows the pitting and bone erosion characteristic of periodontal disease. This 1985 specimen is one of only a few pieces of bone evidencing disease or trauma. On the basis of what we have seen in these various faunal collections, it would be hard to defend the position that human and non-human hunters preyed mainly on weak and sick game. Young prey may have been the major kill objectives. Actual width of image is 6.0 cm (CGT neg. IAE 7-4-00:27).

Fig. 3.39 Severe plant root damage. None, or very little, of the original bone surface remains. Specimens like this were eliminated from our study because there is no way to be certain that cut marks or other perimortem damage were once present. Specimen excavated by S. Markin, Kaminnaya Cave, 1994 (CGT neg. IAE 6-29-99:21).

Fig. 3.40 Kaminnaya artifacts. When these stone flakes and bone fragment were photographed in 1987, Grichan thought that they represented the oldest artifacts from Kaminnaya Cave. Scale is 15 cm (CGT color IAE 6-4-87:36).

Fig. 3.41 Kaminnaya artifacts. According to Markin, new but very questionable dates for Kaminnaya

Suggest the site dates to the middle Pleistocene. These artifacts are claimed to be younger than 250 000 BP. In a brief examination the senior author could not distinguish any meaningful difference between these pieces of stone and those of Fig. 3.40. Scale is 10 cm (CGT color Kaminnaya 7-8-99:33).

Fig. 3.42 Kaminnaya artifacts. Stone flakes and cores from Layer 15 that Markin claims are more than 200 000 years old. Again, there is no readily determined difference between these artifacts and those of the two previous figures. In all three cases, the kinds of cut marks on bone illustrated in the previous Kaminnaya photographs could have been made by any of these flakes. Scale is 10 cm (CGT color Kaminnaya 7-8-99:30).

Having been tools. Fig. 3.41 shows stone artifacts of reputed great age. Fig. 3.42 shows more stone artifacts for which great age is proposed. Since bone tools are generally absent in our assemblages, such a tool might suggest a different tribe of people, which among other faunistic considerations has led Ovodov (1973b) to become concerned about the origins of Altai humans.