scholarly journals An examination of the worked bone and antler assemblage at Uğurlu (Gökçeada, Turkey)

10.4312/dp.23 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
pp. 368
Author(s):  
Jarrad W. Paul ◽  
Burçin Erdoğu
Keyword(s):  
Contextual Information ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Western Anatolia ◽  
Bone Tools ◽  
North East ◽  
The North ◽  
Worked Bone ◽  
Local Traditions ◽  
Tool Types ◽  
Dramatic Growth

Worked bone and antler tools were regularly used by prehistoric societies in northwest and western Anatolia to create and maintain everyday items. Uğurlu, one of the most important pre­historic sites in the north east Aegean, shows extensive evidence of bone and antler tool manufac­ture. This article examines the Uğurlu osseous assemblage from its inception during the Early Neo­lithic (6800 cal BC) to the middle Chalcolithic (4300 cal BC). A typology is established which labels the 534 items uncovered thus far, supported by contextual information. A comparison with other bone tool assemblages in the region is also presented, highlighting group similarities and type differences. The results show that few bone tools were found in the Early Neolithic Phase VI (6800– 6600 cal BC), while pointed tools dominate Phase V (6600–5900 cal BC). The established Neolithic Phase IV (5900–5600 cal BC) witnesses a dramatic growth in the number of bone tools produced, which is steadily adapted with the advent of the Chalcolithic Phase III (5500–4900 cal BC). During this transition between the Neolithic and Chalcolithic, certain tool types decline in number and manufacturing style changes. In the middle Chalcolithic Phase II (4500–4300 cal BC), bone objects seem to be crudely made, possibly reflecting the emergence of local traditions.

scholarly journals An examination of the worked bone and antler assemblage at Uğurlu (Gökçeada, Turkey)

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
pp. 368-385
Author(s):  
Jarrad W. Paul ◽  
Burçin Erdoğu
Keyword(s):  
Contextual Information ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Western Anatolia ◽  
Bone Tools ◽  
North East ◽  
The North ◽  
Worked Bone ◽  
Local Traditions ◽  
Tool Types ◽  
Dramatic Growth

Worked bone and antler tools were regularly used by prehistoric societies in northwest and western Anatolia to create and maintain everyday items. Uğurlu, one of the most important pre­historic sites in the north east Aegean, shows extensive evidence of bone and antler tool manufac­ture. This article examines the Uğurlu osseous assemblage from its inception during the Early Neo­lithic (6800 cal BC) to the middle Chalcolithic (4300 cal BC). A typology is established which labels the 534 items uncovered thus far, supported by contextual information. A comparison with other bone tool assemblages in the region is also presented, highlighting group similarities and type differences. The results show that few bone tools were found in the Early Neolithic Phase VI (6800– 6600 cal BC), while pointed tools dominate Phase V (6600–5900 cal BC). The established Neolithic Phase IV (5900–5600 cal BC) witnesses a dramatic growth in the number of bone tools produced, which is steadily adapted with the advent of the Chalcolithic Phase III (5500–4900 cal BC). During this transition between the Neolithic and Chalcolithic, certain tool types decline in number and manufacturing style changes. In the middle Chalcolithic Phase II (4500–4300 cal BC), bone objects seem to be crudely made, possibly reflecting the emergence of local traditions.

scholarly journals The Early and Middle Neolithic in NW Russia: radiocarbon chronologies from the Sukhona and Onega regions

10.4312/dp.8 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
pp. 122
Author(s):  
Henny Piezonka ◽  
Nadezhda Nedomolkina ◽  
Marina Ivanishcheva ◽  
Natalya Kosorukova ◽  
Marianna Kulkova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Contextual Information ◽  
Neolithic Period ◽  
14C Dating ◽  
Forest Zone ◽  
North East ◽  
The North ◽  
Russian North ◽  
European Forest ◽  
Freshwater Reservoir ◽  
The Baltic

The onset of the Neolithic period in the Russian North is defined by the emergence of pottery vessels in the archaeological record. The ceramics produced by mobile hunter-gatherer-fisher groups in the north-eastern European forest zone are among the earliest in Europe, starting around 6000 cal BC. After the initial mosaic of local styles in the Early Neolithic, including sparsely decorated wares and early Comb Ware, the Middle Neolithic period, starting in the 5th millennium cal BC, saw the development and spread of larger, more homogenous typological entities between the Urals and the Baltic, the Comb-Pit and Pit-Comb wares. Absolute chronologies, however, are still subject to debate, due to a general lack of reliable contextual information. Direct 14C dating of carbonised surface residues (‘food crusts’) on pots can help to address this problem, as it dates the use of the pottery; but if aquatic foods were processed in the vessels, the respective radiocarbon ages can appear to be too old due to the freshwater reservoir effect. In this pa­per, we discuss the radiocarbon chronologies of four important stratified archaeological complexes in the region between Lake Onega and the Sukhona basin, Berezovaya Slobodka, Veksa, Karavaikha, and Tudo­zero. A growing series of dates, including AMS dates, sheds new light on the onset and further periodisation of the Early and Middle Neolithic in this important area between Eastern Fennoscandia, Central Rus­sia and the Far North-East of Europe, although problems concerning the absolute chronology of the initial Neolithic remain.

scholarly journals The Early and Middle Neolithic in NW Russia: radiocarbon chronologies from the Sukhona and Onega regions

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
pp. 122-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henny Piezonka ◽  
Nadezhda Nedomolkina ◽  
Marina Ivanishcheva ◽  
Natalya Kosorukova ◽  
Marianna Kulkova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Contextual Information ◽  
Neolithic Period ◽  
14C Dating ◽  
Forest Zone ◽  
North East ◽  
The North ◽  
Russian North ◽  
European Forest ◽  
Freshwater Reservoir ◽  
The Baltic

The onset of the Neolithic period in the Russian North is defined by the emergence of pottery vessels in the archaeological record. The ceramics produced by mobile hunter-gatherer-fisher groups in the north-eastern European forest zone are among the earliest in Europe, starting around 6000 cal BC. After the initial mosaic of local styles in the Early Neolithic, including sparsely decorated wares and early Comb Ware, the Middle Neolithic period, starting in the 5th millennium cal BC, saw the development and spread of larger, more homogenous typological entities between the Urals and the Baltic, the Comb-Pit and Pit-Comb wares. Absolute chronologies, however, are still subject to debate, due to a general lack of reliable contextual information. Direct 14C dating of carbonised surface residues (‘food crusts’) on pots can help to address this problem, as it dates the use of the pottery; but if aquatic foods were processed in the vessels, the respective radiocarbon ages can appear to be too old due to the freshwater reservoir effect. In this pa­per, we discuss the radiocarbon chronologies of four important stratified archaeological complexes in the region between Lake Onega and the Sukhona basin, Berezovaya Slobodka, Veksa, Karavaikha, and Tudo­zero. A growing series of dates, including AMS dates, sheds new light on the onset and further periodisation of the Early and Middle Neolithic in this important area between Eastern Fennoscandia, Central Rus­sia and the Far North-East of Europe, although problems concerning the absolute chronology of the initial Neolithic remain.

scholarly journals P142 Restriction of use of high cost drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis by CCGs in England

Rheumatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
David Walker ◽  
Sandra Robinson ◽  
Jane Barry ◽  
Phillip Punter ◽  
Sinead Kearns
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
The South ◽  
North West ◽  
North East ◽  
The North ◽  
Secondary Failure ◽  
Effective Drugs

Abstract Background/Aims  It became apparent at a session at the 2019 BSR Annual Conferene that some CCGs were restricting the number of high cost drugs (HCDs) that were permitted to be prescribed for an individual with rheumatoid arthritis. Further HCDs could only then be prescribed by utilising an Individual Funding Request. We were interested to explore how common this was and what the restrictions were in different areas. Methods  The websites of all CCGs in England were scrutinised between March and July 2020 for local guidelines for the use of HCDs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The results were tabulated and mapped. Results  Of 134 CCGs in England, 69 (51%) had no expressed restriction on numbers of HCDs provided that NICE thresholds were observed. 10 (7%) had a pathway limiting the drugs to 6, 49 (33%) restricted to 4 and a further 9 (7%) restricted to 3. Dates of guidance implementation varied from 07/2017 to 07/2020 with the vast majority being 2018 and 2019. Geographically, the restrictions were not uniform. The CCGs restricting to 3 HCDs were all in London except for one, Oxford. Those restricting to 4 were mainly from the South East, North West and East. Those restricting to 6 HCDs were in the Liverpool area. Largely unrestricted areas were the North East, the South West, the Midlands and the majority of Yorkshire. The majority of CCGs gave no explanation for the restriction of HCDs. Where stated, the reason given was that it had not been shown to be cost effective. Conclusion  Restricting the number of HCDs may deprive some patients of effective drugs that have been NICE approved contrary to NICE guidance. There are currently 5 different modes of action (MOA) of HCDs (TNFi, B cell depletion, IL6i, CTLA4 and JAKi) for the treatment of moderately or severely active RA, therefore in some areas not even all MOAs may have been tried. There is no reliable way of predicting a patient's response to an individual drug, so it is necessary to trial and observe. Non-responders will require more treatment changes. Many patients have secondary failure of drugs after initial good response, so trying other drugs with the same MOA is a logical progression. Over a long disease course, patients will need many different interventions and access to the widest possible range is important. Whilst there are lower response rates for HCDs in biologic inadequate response phase III studies, responders can be observed after only 3 months of treatment. Restricting the number of drug choices is also likely to affect clinical practice, as less effective drugs could be continued unnecessarily for fear of running out of choices. Disclosure  D. Walker: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences Ltd, Ely Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals. Grants/research support; Gilead Sciences Ltd. S. Robinson: None. J. Barry: Corporate appointments; Gilead Sciences Ltd. P. Punter: Corporate appointments; Gilead Sciences Ltd. S. Kearns: Corporate appointments; Gilead Sciences Ltd.

Ras al Khaimah: further archaeological discoveries

Antiquity ◽  
1976 ◽  
Vol 50 (200) ◽  
pp. 216-222
Author(s):  
Beatrice De Cardi
Keyword(s):  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
The State ◽  
Focused Attention ◽  
North East ◽  
The North ◽  
History Of ◽  
The City

Ras a1 Khaimah is the most northerly of the seven states comprising the United Arab Emirates and its Ruler, H. H. Sheikh Saqr bin Mohammad al-Qasimi, is keenly interested in the history of the state and its people. Survey carried out there jointly with Dr D. B. Doe in 1968 had focused attention on the site of JuIfar which lies just north of the present town of Ras a1 Khaimah (de Cardi, 1971, 230-2). Julfar was in existence in Abbasid times and its importance as an entrep6t during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries-the Portuguese Period-is reflected by the quantity and variety of imported wares to be found among the ruins of the city. Most of the sites discovered during the survey dated from that period but a group of cairns near Ghalilah and some long gabled graves in the Shimal area to the north-east of the date-groves behind Ras a1 Khaimah (map, FIG. I) clearly represented a more distant past.

Lichens in the North-East regions of Cyprus

1999 ◽  
Vol 110 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 455-463 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Güvenç ◽  
Ş Öztürk
Keyword(s):  
North East ◽  
The North

TBE in Italy

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentina Tagliapietra ◽  
Flavia Riccardo ◽  
Giovanni Rezza
Keyword(s):  
Case Series ◽  
East Part ◽  
Mountainous Regions ◽  
North East ◽  
The North ◽  
Tick Borne Encephalitis ◽  
Low Incidence

Italy is considered a low incidence country for tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) in Europe. Areas at higher risk for TBE in Italy are geographically clustered in the forested and mountainous regions and provinces in the north east part of the country, as suggested by TBE case series published over the last decade.

TBE in Italy

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Surveillance System ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
National Level ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Mountainous Regions ◽  
North East ◽  
The North ◽  
Tick Borne Encephalitis ◽  
Low Incidence

Italy is considered a low-incidence country for tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) in Europe.1 Areas at higher risk for TBE in Italy are geographically clustered in the forested and mountainous regions and provinces in the north east part of the country, as suggested by TBE case series published over the last decade.2-5 A national enhanced surveillance system for TBE has been established since 2017.6 Before this, information on the occurrence of TBE cases at the national level in Italy was lacking. Both incidence rates and the geographical distribution of the disease were mostly inferred from endemic areas where surveillance was already in place, ad hoc studies and international literature.1

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document