Faculty Publications

"Pleistocene volcanism and the geomorphological record of the Hrazdan valley, central Armenia linking landscape dynamics and the Palaeolithic record"
Quaternary Science Reviews (2019)

Authors: J.E. Sherriff, K.N. Wilkinson, D.S. Adler, D. Arakelyan, E.J. Beverly, S.P.E. Blockley, B. Gasparyan, D.F. Mark, K. Meliksetyan, S. Nahapetyan, K.J. Preece, R.G.O. Timms
Abstract: The Southern Caucases lies at the intersection of Africa, the Levant and Eurasia, and is thus a region of considerable interest in the study of Pleistocene hominin population dynamics and behaviour. While Palaeolithic archaeological sites in the region such as Dmanisi and Nor Geghi 1 attest to such palaeogeographic significance, a greater understanding of the chronology and nature of climatic and geomorphic changes in the region is needed to fully understand hominin settlement dynamics. The Hrazdan river valley, central Armenia, has the potential to offer such insights given its rich Palaeolithic record and complex history of Pleistocene infill as a result of alluvial, lacustrine, aeolian, and volcanic processes. We therefore present a stratigraphic framework for basin infill and hominin activity during the Pleistocene, based on extensive geomorphological and geological mapping, published chronometric results (40Ar/39Ar and K-Ar), and archaeological survey. We demonstrate that the onset of Pleistocene volcanism in the Gegham Range to the immediate east of the Hrazdan valley occurred around 700 ka BP, after which there were several phases of effusive eruption lasting until 200 ka. Interbedded with lava emplaced by these eruptions are alluvial and lacustrine sequences, some with evidence of pedogenesis and several of which have yielded Palaeolithic artefacts. Taken together these sequences suggest a cyclical model of infill whereby lava flow along the valley resulted in the blockage of the palaeo-Hrazdan river and lake formation in the lea of lava dams. Breaching of these dams resulted in a shift to predominately fluvial deposition, and the consequent development of floodplain soils. Hominin populations explited the floodplains at times when the last of these phases coincided with interglacial and interstadial climates, but they also occupied the surrounding valley sides during the same warm, humid phases.
Click here to view the article

"Geochemical Evidence for the Control of Fire by Middle Palaeolithic Hominins"
Scientific Reports (2019)

Authors: Alex Brittingham, Michael T. Hren, Gideon Hartman, Keith N. Wilkinson, Carolina Mallol, Boris Gasparyan, Daniel S. Adler
Abstract: The use of fire played an important role in the social and technological development of the genus Homo. Most archaeologists agree that this was a multi-stage process, beginning with the exploitation of natural fires and ending with the ability to create fire from scratch. Some have argued that in the Middle Palaeolithic (MP) hominin fire use was limited by the availability of fire in the landscape. Here, we present a record of the abundance of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), organic compounds that are produced during the combustion of organic material, from Lusakert Cave, a MP site in Armenia. We find no correlation between the abundance of light PAHs (3-4 rings), which are a major component of wildfire PAH emissions and are shown to disperse widely during fire events, and heavy PAHs (5-6 rings), which are a major component of particulate emissions of burned wood. Instead, we find heavy PAHs correlate with MP artifact density at the site. Given that hPAH abundance correlates with occupation intensity rather than IPAH abundance, we argue that MP hominins were able to control fire and utilize it regardless of the variability of fires in the environment. Together with other studies on MP fire use, these results suggest that the ability of hominins to manipulate fire independent of exploitation of wildfires was spatially variable in the MP and may have developed multiple times in the genus Homo.
Click here to view the article

"Lithic raw material units based on magnetic properties: A blind test with Armenian obsidian and application to the Middle Paleolithic site of Lusakert Cave 1"
Journal of Archaeological Science (2016)

Authors: Ellery Frahm, Joshua M. Feinberg, Beverly A. Schmidt-Magee, Keith N. Wilkinson, Boris Gasparyan, Benik Yeritsyan, Daniel S. Adler
Abstract: Classification of lithic artifacts’ raw materials based on macroscopic attributes (e.g., color, luster, texture) has been used to pull apart knapping episodes in palimpsest assemblages by attempting to identify artifacts produced through the reduction of an individual nodule. These classes are termed “raw material units” (RMUs) in the Old World and “minimum analytical nodules” in the New World. RMUs are most readily defined for lithic artifacts in areas with distinctive cherts and other siliceous raw materials, allowing pieces from different nodules to be recognized visually. Opportunities to apply RMUs, however, are strongly limited at sites where lithic material visual diversity is low. The magnetic properties of obsidian, which result from the presence of microscopic iron oxide mineral grains, vary spatially throughout a flow. Consequently, obsidian from different portions of a source (i.e., different outcrops or quarries) can vary in magnetic properties. This raises the possibility that magnetic-based RMUs (mRMUs) for obsidian artifacts could be effective to distinguish individual scatters from multiple production episodes and offer insights into spatial patterning within a site or specific occupation periods. First, we assess the potential of mRMUs using obsidian pebbles from Gutansar volcano in Armenia. Second, we evaluate the validity of this approach based on a double-blind test involving an experimental assemblage of Gutansar obsidian flakes. Cluster analysis can successfully discern flakes from obsidian specimens containing high concentrations of iron oxides. Obsidian with more magnetic material has more opportunities for that material to vary in unique ways (e.g., grain size, morphology, physical arrangement). Finally, we apply the mRMU approach to obsidian artifacts from the Middle Palaeolithic site of Lusakert Cave 1 in Armenia and compare the results to traditional RMU studies at contemporaneous sites in Europe. In particular, we seek e but do not find differences between retouch flakes (which reflect rejuvenation of tools) and the other small debris (which reflect other reduction activities). This result likely reflects the local landscape, specifically the abundance of obsidian and, thus, little pressure to curate and retouch tools. As this approach is applied to additional sites, such findings will play a central role in regional assessments about the nature and timing of the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic “transition” and the relationship, or lack thereof, between technological behaviors and presumed population dynamics.
Click here to view the article

"Middle Palaeolithic toolstone procurement behaviors at Lusakert Cave 1, Hrazdan valley, Armenia"
Journal of Human Evolution 91 (2016)

Authors: Ellery Frahm, Joshua M. Feinberg, Beverly A. Schmidt-Magee, Keith N. Wilkinson, Boris Gasparyan, Benik Yeritsyan, Daniel S. Adler
Abstract: Strategies employed by Middle Palaeolithic hominins to acquire lithic raw materials often play key roles in assessing their movements through the landscape, relationships with neighboring groups, and cognitive abilities. It has been argued that a dependence on local resources is a widespread characteristic of the Middle Palaeolithic, but how such behaviors were manifested on the landscape remains unclear. Does an abundance of local toolstone reflect frequent encounters with different outcrops while foraging, or was a particular outcrop favored and preferentially quarried? This study examines such behaviors at a finer geospatial scale than is usually possible, allowing us to investigate hominin movements through the landscape surrounding Lusakert Cave 1 in Armenia. Using our newly developed approach to obsidian magnetic characterization, we test a series of hypotheses regarding the locations where hominins pro- cured toolstone from a volcanic complex adjacent to the site. Our goal is to establish whether the cave's occupants procured local obsidian from preferred outcrops or quarries, secondary deposits of obsidian nodules along a river, or a variety of exposures as encountered while moving through the river valley or across the wider volcanic landscape during the course of foraging activities. As we demonstrate here, it is not the case that one particular outcrop or deposit attracted the cave occupants during the studied time intervals. Nor did they acquire obsidian at random across the landscape. Instead, our analyses support the hypothesis that these hominins collected obsidian from outcrops and exposures throughout the adjacent river valley, reflecting the spatial scale of their day-to-day foraging activities. The coincidence of such behaviors within the resource-rich river valley suggests efficient exploitation of a diverse biome during a time interval immediately preceding the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic “transition,” the nature and timing of which has yet to be determined for the region.
Note: Officially updated at the beginning of 2016, this journal acknowledges various funding provided by Norian and Dr. Dan Adler's Education Abroad field school over the years. This article recognizes the financial support by the Norian Armenian Programs committee. 
Click here to view the article

Scholarly output resulting from Norian-funded projects conducted in Armenia by UConn’s Anthropology Department and international collaborators, 2008–present

Submitted by: Daniel S. Adler
Date Submitted: May 5, 2014
Location: Norian Armenian Studies Committee Meeting
Click here to view the output document shared with the Norian Committee

"Stone Age of Armenia"
A Guidebook to the Stone Age Archaeology in the Republic of Armenia

Monograph of the JSPS-Bilateral Joint Research Project
Authors: Daniel S. Adler, Levon Aghikyan, Gregory E. Areshian, Makoto Arimura, Pavel Avetisyan, Karen Azatyan, Ruben Badalyan, Tamara Bagoyan, Arsen Bobokhyan, Christine Chataigner, Charles P. Egeland, Sumio Fujii, Ivan, Gabrielyan, Boris Gasparyan, Phil Glauberman, Armine Harutyunyan, Hayk Haydosyan, Armine Hayrapetyan, Andrew W. Kandel, Anna Khechoyan, Lusine Margaryan, Kristine Martirosyan-Olshansky, Khachatur Meliksetian, Cyril Montoya, Firdus Muradyan, Samvel Nahapetyan, Ernst Pernicka, Ron Pinhasi, Arthur Petrosyan, Alexia Smith, Lyssa C. Stapleton, Diana Zardaryan
Editors: Boris Gasparyan, Makoto Arimura
Publication by: Center for Cultural Research Studies, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan. 2014
Click here to view the book