DISCUSSION

L.B. Vishnyatsky Institute of' History of'Materia1 Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences,

Dvortsovaya Nab., 18, St. Petersburg, 191186, Russia E-mail: paleo@lv8699.spb.edu

EVOLUTIONARY RANKING OF THE LATE MIDDLE AND EARLY UPPER PALEOLITHIC INDUSTRIES: A TRIAL

Problem

Despite numerous and well known cultural differences separating the Middle and Upper Paleolithic periods (e.g., (Bar-Yosef, 2002: 365 - 369)), it is often rather difficult to say with confidence whether an industry should be assigned to the former or to the latter. This applies not only to sites with a poor inventory and vague chronology, but also to some quite representative and relatively well dated assemblages and whole cultures. One of the most famous examples is the Chltelperronian: while most authors assign it to the Upper Paleolithic (hereafter UP), some insist on its Middle Paleolithic (hereafter MP) status. The same is also true of the Szeletian and some other industries dated to the period between 50 and 30 ka BP.

Especially complicated is the situation in the east of Eurasia, where recent excavations along with the re-examination of some old collections have led to the identification of a number of ambiguous "transitional" andlor "early UP" assemblages such as the lower layer of Masterov Klyuch, assigned to the Upper Paleolithic (Goebel, Waters, Meshcherin, 2001) despi te i ts f lat cores, f lake-oriented technology, and the rarity of representative UP tool types. Another example of the same kind is the industry of Shuidungou that has traditionally been considered "developed Mousterian" (Bordes, 1968: 129 -130), but now is said to be early UP (Brantingham et al., 2001) on the basis of its relatively late radiometric age (Madsen et al . , 2001).

Nonetheless, if we give more weight to cultural criteria, such a conclusion may seem rather doubtful. Judging by the published descriptions and few drawings of lithics, all the cores from Shuidungou are flat, most identifiable flake butts are faceted, and retouched tools of the UP aspect are sparse.

It should be stressed that the point is not to prove that Masterov Klyuch and Shuidungou are definitely MP assemblages. Both examples are used here to show that the problem of distinguishing between MP and UP industries does exist, and that in the east of Eurasia we face it rather often. It is quite possible that those who attribute Shuidungou and Masterov Klyuch to the UP are correct, but this thesis has not yet received due substantiation and the question still remains open. This is the case with many other Siberian and Central Asian assemblages.

In this paper I consider the question of the claimed transitional1earlyUP status of Kara-Bom (levels 5 and 6) in South Siberia and Obi-Rakhmat (levels 2 - 14) in Uzbekistan using a simple method designed to evaluate the degree of "advancement" of stonelbone industries towards the UP condition in quantitative terms.

Method

The basic principles of the proposed method were briefly described for the first time two years ago (Vishnyatsky, 2002). Since then, they have been used also by some other researchers, who have applied them to materials from South Siberia (Rybin, 2003) and east

Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 3 (19) 2004 E-mail: eurasia@archaeology.nsc.ru O 2004, L.B. Vishnyatsky

Central Europe (Anisyutkin, in press). In general, what is reported here can best be defined as an attempt to create a system of ranking the MP and early UP industries, that would enable us to determine the place an assemblage occupies in the continuum of states between two extremes, the first of which is "ideal MP" and the second is "ideal UP".

Each of the two ideal extremes can be described by a number of non-overlapping characteristic states reflecting the principal features of stone and bone inventory. The ideal MP and UP differ in primary flaking technology, technique of blank detachment, character of blanks, typological composition of tool set, ways of making composite tools, technology of bone working, and presence of material evidence of symbolism (Table 1).

Certainly, the MP and UP could have also differed in many other respects, such as settlement structures, subsistence strategies and so on, but behavioral differences of this kind cannot be directly seen in archaeological material, and both their extent and sometimes even existence are still under question.

Of course, the extreme attribute states shown in Table 1 reflect only the most general trend in the development of stone and bone inventory during the MPIUP transition. The reality is much more complex. Most MP and UP industries are rather far from the ideal extremes, and there are many exceptions to the general trend. Nonetheless, neither blade-dominated Mousterian assemblages, nor UP industries with side- scrapers and flat cores, nor any other deviations of the "norm" abrogate this norm. Usually, when comparing the MP and UP assemblages, we observe the evolution from flat cores to volumetric ones, from non-marginal to marginal flaking, from flaked bone tools to cut, planed and polished ones, from side- scrapers to end-scrapers, and from flakes to blades, and not vice-versa.

Each assemblage is assessed according to 11 attributes: (1) flakes, (2) flat cores, (3) non-marginal flaking, (4) MP tool types, (5) blades, (6) volumetric cores, (7) marginal flaking, (8) UP tool types, (9)

preparation of stone tools for hafting, (10) formal bone tools, and (11) evidence of symbolism. The state of each attribute can be valued as 0, 0.5 or 1, depending on how rare or often it is found in the given collection. For attributes 1 - 8 value 0 means that the corresponding trait (e.g., blades) is absent or very rare, value 0.5 means that it is common, and 1 means that the trait is typical of the assemblage. The trait is considered absent or rare if its index is < 10, common if it ranges from 10 to 30, and typical if it is > 30. No indices are calculated for attributes 9 - 11. Here 0 corresponds to the total absence of a trait in the assemblage, 0.5 means that the trait is present but uncommon, and 1 means that it is common. All values other than zero obtained for attributes 1 - 4 are considered negative (that is -1 and -0.5), and the values for attributes 5 - 11 are considered positive. Therefore the ideal MP industry will have a total rating of -4, while the rating of the ideal UP is 7.

Limits of 10 and 30% were chosen based on the experience of previous work with collections and literature data. Of course, they are subjective, but if we use, for example, 8 and 25% instead, the final results will still be the same or almost the same. However, if the value obtained for a feature is close to the boundary status, the excess or shortage of some tenths of percent can sometimes be ignored. For example, if blades make only 9.5% of all blanks but are morphologically perfect and standardized, one may either state the value of this attribute as 0.5 or use a double value (0 - 0.5).

As for the threefold system of evaluation it is not, of course, the only possible one, but I consider it most appropriate. The twofold system (0 or 1) would be too coarse and unable to reflect many important nuances, whereas an attempt to move in the opposite direction and introduce a multifold gradation of values would make them so subjective that the comparison of data of different authors would become senseless.

Indices of flakes and blades (attributes 1 and 5 in Tables 2 - 9) are their percentages of the total number

Table I. Differences between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic

Parameter

Blanks

Cores

Technique of blank detachment

Tools

Stone tools with preparation for hafting

Formal bone tools

Evidence of symbolism

Ideal Middle Paleolithic

Flakes

Flat

Non-marginal

Mousterian points, side-scrapers, notches and denticulates, etc.

Absent or rare

Same

Same

Ideal Upper Paleolithic

Blades

Volumetric

Marginal

End-scrapers, burins, scaled pieces, etc.

Common

Same

Same

of blanks, including those used in tool manufacture. Technical spalls and flakes smaller than 2 cm are not taken into account.

Indices of flat and volumetric cores (attributes 2 and 6) are derived out of the total number of identifiable cores, including intermediate, transitional forms that cannot be securely classified as either group.

By index of marginal flaking (attribute 7), I mean the percentage of punctiform and linear platforms among all identifiable flake platforms. This index is very important, since marginal flaking is much more characteristic of full-fledged UP industries than of MP ones. Even in the initial UP assemblages, this feature usually remains underrepresented. Another way to determine the index of marginal flaking is by counting the percentage of "reduced platforms" (sensu (Nekhoroshev, 1999: 14 - 23)). In my view, the latter method is more complicated and therefore less preferable than the former, though practice shows that final results in both cases are quite comparable. This is not surprising, since flakes detached from reduced platforms tend to have thin proximal ends.

Indices of MP and UP tool types (attributes 4 and 8) are their percentages out of the total number of tools. It should be stressed that only artifacts with secondary working are taken into consideration here. Levallois points, naturally backed knives and other forms without retouch are excluded from the number of tools. The MP group of tools includes side- scrapers, Mousterian points, limaces, notches and denticulates (with some exceptions), bifacial (Micoquian) knives, and handaxes. The UP group consists of end-scrapers (with some exceptions), burins (except flat burins), chisel-like tools, some knives (Chltelperron, etc.), leaf-shaped and tanged points, typical perforators, geometric tools, and a number of peculiar forms that had very limited distribution in space and time (e.g., pi2ces a chanfrein). Of course, many retouched tools will neither fit into the first nor the second group.

Tools should not however be assigned to MP or UP groups on strictly formal criteria. Let us consider, for instance, notches/denticulates. Whereas in general notches and denticulates are more typical of MP industries, there still are many exceptions to this generalization, and therefore the presence of a notch or notches cannot of itself be considered a sufficient reason to include a tool into the MP group. For example, strangulated blades, despite the presence of two notches, are an UP type, while flakes and blades with isolated retouched notches are equally common in both MP and UP assemblages. The latter is also true for so called atypical end-scrapers, flat burins and many other forms which will make a neutral typological group.

One more nuance that must be considered is that each of the eleven attributes listed above should work only once. This means that many retouched blades, for example, cannot be included into the UP typological group because their UP appearance is often due not to the character of secondary working, but rather to the character of blanks, a feature already incorporated into attribute 5.

Stone tools with preparation for hafting (attribute 9) include various tanged and stemmed forms, thinned- base points (Streletskaya, Emireh, etc.), backed bladelets and microblades, and geometric microliths. They are typical o f the UP and rare in pre- UP contexts. The majority of stone tools with preparation for hafting will work also for the UP typological index (attribute g) , since as a rule their UP appearance is determined not only by the presence of a tang or thinned base, but also by the morphology of some other parts not related directly to hafting and accommodation. One possible exception to this rule is Emireh points, which have a typical MP form.

Formal bone tools (attribute 10) are tools of bone, antler and ivory manufactured with the use of cutting, planing, polishing, and drilling.

Evidence of symbolism (attribute l l ) includes personal ornaments, ornamental designs, and figurative images. The fact that the weight attached to this attribute here is the same as the weight of each of the other 10 attributes may raise doubts, but I do think that in the present case such an equalizing approach is justified. In any case, the presence or absence of the evidence of symbolism is less appropriate for distinguishing between MP and UP assemblages than for ranking UP cultures.

It is important to note that among the attributes listed above, there are no strictly interdependent pairs. True, the volumetric conception of flaking is usually associated with blade production, but blades can equally dominate among blanks in assemblages characterized by flat core technology. One can note also that the volumetric conception of flaking is often associated with marginal technique of blank detachment (marginal flaking), but still the former does not necessarily entail the latter. In many early UP industries, blades produced from (semi)prismatic cores often have thick platforms.

The most serious problem that arises when one tries to put the described analytical procedure into practice and to apply it to concrete Paleolithic assemblages is the problem of the representational nature of the studied materials. First, it is hardly possible to use the proposed method when one has to deal with small collections. Second, when comparing the indices obtained for different sites, it is necessary

to take into consideration the functional character of the latter. Workshops devoted exclusively or mainly to primary flaking should probably be excluded from the analysis. Last but not least, the possible influence of taphonomy has also to be considered. This is particularly important concerning attributes 10 and 11, since the rarity or absence of formal bone tools and symbolic objects may often be due not to their real absence in a culture but to poor preservation of organic materials under specific taphonomic conditions. For instance, the overwhelming majority of Ahmarian sites presently known lack any artifacts made of organic raw materials, but thanks to the finds from a couple of sites with excellent organic preservation, we know that Ah~narian populations used both bone tools and personal ornaments.

One more problem is that i t is very often impossible to give a complete assessment of the assemblages of interest on the basis of literature data only. Unfortunately, most publications, even monographs, do not provide all of the data necessary to fill in each column of our tables. However, in this paper I rely mainly on materials that I examined personally (except those discussed in the final section of the paper).

Materials

The analytical procedure described in the previous section of the paper was first used in the course of studying the collections from Ksar Akil (layers 27 - 22), housed at the Peabody Museum, Harvard University. Although this material comes from excavations of the 1930-S and was subject to some sorting, in general it is representative enough to allow the assessment of those parameters of the industries which are of primary importance for the present study. The material of layers 27 - 26 dates to the end of the MP period, while layers 25 - 22 according to the common view yielded transitional or early UP assemblages. A description of the industry from layers 26 - 27 can also be found in a paper by Marks and Volkman (1986), whereas the Peabody part of the early UP materials remains mainly unpublished. The widely known works by Azouri (1986) and Ohnuma (1988) are based on the London part of the Ksar Akil collections.

It is quite obvious that here we have to deal with a single tradition of stone working, as is testified not only by the continuity of basic technological features, but also by the presence in the uppermost Mousterian layer (26) of such a peculiar form as the piece ri chanfrein (chamfered piece). There are two items of this type, both on flakes. Starting from layer 25 these tools become

numerous, and most of them are now on blades. Besides Ksar Akil, I know of only one other example of a true pi2ce ri chanfrein in a MP context. This is Keoue Cave in the north of Lebanon (Nishiaki, Copeland, 1992), which yielded an industry in most aspects very similar to that of Ksar Akil layer 26.

The data on Kara-Born were collected as a result of work with a considerable part of the materials from the site, housed at the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Novosibirsk). The counts given below are based on a large sample of lithics from the MP layers of this site (so-called "horizons 1 - 2'7, and on those materials from Okladnikov's excavation of 1980 which, judging by the stratigraphic records and the results of latest refitting studies, correspond to "occupation levels 5 and 6" distinguished in 1992 - 1993 (Derevianko, Rybin, 2003: 35).

The data for Obi-Rakhmat used in the present analysis are taken from a recent paper by Derevianko et al. (2001). The authors of this work define the industry of layers 2 - 14 as "early UP" and therefore it would be especially interesting to see how the data they publish support such a view. In agreement with common practice the collections from layers 2 - 14 are divided here into 3 groups: 2 - 5, 6 - 9, 10 - 14.

Judging by the available radiocarbon dates and other data, the absolute age of the industries under consideration ranges between 40 and 50 ka BP, which corresponds to the end of the MP and the onset of the UP. However, the ThIU dates obtained recently for Obi-Rakhmat suggest a somewhat earlier age for the layers claimed to be transitional or early UP.* In any case, cultural rather than chronological criteria are of primary importance for us here.

Results

Ksar-Akil

Layer 27. The materials from horizons A and B are considered here as one assemblage. Index of flakes (I,) - 77.4, index of blades (I,,,) - 22.6. Index of flat cores (I,) approaches 100. Index of volumetric cores (IYC) approaches 0. Index of marginal flaking (Imf) - 5.7. Index of the MP group of tools (MPtyp) - 61.5. Index of

* Wrinn P,, Krivoshapkin A., Derevianko A., Islamov U., Anoikin A., Wagner J., Patchett P. "The Middle-Upper Paleolithic Transition in Central Asia: Preliminary Results from Obi-Rakhmat Grotto, Northeastern Uzbekistan", Paper presented at the Paleoanthropology Society Meeting, Montreal, March 3 1,2004.

45

Table 2. Integrative assessment of the Ksar Akil assemblages

Table 3. Integrative assessment of the Kara-Bom industry

Rating

-3

-3.5

1

1

1

Layer

27

26

24

23

22

the UP group of tools (UPtyp) - 13.3. Stone tools with preparation for hafting, formal bone tools, and evidence of symbolism are absent.

It should be noted that if one uses the data published by Marks and Volkman (1986), the indices prove to be very similar. I,,, for layer 27 will be about 25, and UPtyp about 22. Thus, in the first case the results are nearly identical, while some difference in the second case can perhaps be accounted for by the fact that for their typological counts, Marks and Volkman used both the Harvard and London collections. At any rate, this difference has no influence on the values presented in Table 2.

Layer 26. The materials from horizons A and B are considered here as one assemblage. I, - 77.8. I,,, -

22.2. I, approaches 100. I,,,, - 3.7. MPtyp - 61.9. UPtyp - 5.2. Stone tools with preparation for hafting, formal bone tools, and evidence of symbolism are absent.

Basing the counts on the data published by Marks and Volkman (Ibid.), I,,, will be ca 22, and UPtyp, ca 10.

Layer 24." I, and I,,, > 30. If= - 20.8. Iyc - 79.2.** I,, - 6.3. MPtyp < 10. UPtyp > 30. Stone tools with

* As the Harvard collection from this layer contains few cores, I, and Ivc are based on the data published by Ohnuma (1988: table 62) for the London part of the Ksar Akil collection. Here, as well as in all other cases, only identifiable cores are taken into account, while those classified by Ohnuma as "miscellaneous" are not.

** No counts for layer 25 have been carried out because the collection is too small.

Attribute

Rating

-3

0

Horizon (level)

1 and 2

5 and 6

preparation for hafting and formal bone tools are absent. Evidence of symbolism is present."

Layer 23. I, - 37.4. I,,, - 62.6. Ifc - 10.8. Ivc - 89.2.** I,, - 4.7. MPtyp - 7.7. UPtyp - 79.0. Stone tools with preparation for hafting and formal bone tools are absent. Evidence of symbolism is present.

Layer 22. I, - 26.5. I,,, - 73.5. Ifc > 30.*** Ivc > 30. I,, - 6.9. MPtyp - 3.3. UPtyp - 88.0. Stone tools with preparation for hafting and formal bone tools are absent. Evidence of symbolism is present.

In the resulting table the indices counted for Ksar Akil are as follows (Table 2).

Kara-Born

Attribute

Horizons 1 and 2. I, - 73.6. I,,, - 26.4. If= > 30. Ivc < 10. I,, - 0.5. MPtyp - 42.3. UPm - 12.7. Stone tools with preparation for hafting, formal bone tools, and evidence of symbolism are absent.

8

0.5

0

1

1

1

1

1 1

1

1

0.5

* According to Kuhn et al. (2001), some small mollusk shells from layer 25 and other early UP layers of Ksar Akil were used

4

1

1

0

0

0

as beads. ** As the Harvard collection from this layer contains few

cores, I, and IVE are based on the data published by Ohnuma (1988: table 62) for the London part of the Ksar Akil collection. *** According to the data published by Ohnuma for the

London collection (1988: table 62), this index would be less

9

0

0

0

0

0

2

1

1

0.5

0.5

1

8

0.5

0.5

1 p----

1

0.5

than 10. This seems to be the only instance when the difference between the counts based on different parts of the collection

5

0.5

0.5

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

4

1

0.5

is significant.

10

0

0

0

0

0

9

0

0

2

1

1

11

0

0

0.5

0.5

0.5

6

0

0

1

1

1

5

0.5

1

3

1

1

7

0

0

0

0

0

10

0

0

11

0

0.5

6

0

0.5

7

0

0.5

Table 4. Integrative assessment of the Obi-Rakhmat assemblages

Table 5. Late MP and early UP ("transitional") assemblages of Ksar Akil (KA), Kara-Bom (KB), and Obi-Rakhmat (OR)

Layer

10-14

6 - 9

2-5

Table 6. Assessment of the Aterian assemblages

Rating

-2.5

-2

-2

Attribute

Rating

-3

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-2

0

1

1

1

Assemblage

KA 27

KA 26

KB 1 ,2

OR 10- 14

O R 6 - 9

O R 2 - 5

KB 5 ,6

KA 24

KA 23

KA 22 -

Occupation Itc > 30. 30 > UP,", - 18.8.

levels 5 and 6. I, - 22.5. I,,, - 77.5. Ivc >10. I,, - 13.7. MPtyD - 15.6. Stone tools with preparation for

and formal bone tools are absent. Evidence of symbolism is present.

The indices for "occupation levels 5 and 6" reported above are based on the materials from Okladnikov's excavation of 1980. If one recalculates the same indices after the data published in the book devoted to the 1992 - 1993 excavation (Derevianko et al., 1998: 76 - 78), the results are rather similar: I, - 19.5, I,, - 26.5, MPtyp - 12.6 (for the reasons

1

1

1

1

Attribute

Assemblage

Aroua kim

El-Azrag

Rafas

Wadi Gan

Mnasra I, 1.V

Mnasra I, 1. 111

- Foum el Hartani

explained above, notches were not included into the MP typological group), UPtyp - 21.9.

Data for Kara-Born are summarized in Table 3. The rating obtained for the industry of Kara-Bom

"occupation levels 5 and 6" is rather close to that of Ksar Akil layers 24 - 22 and clearly differs from the ratings obtained for the MP assemblages of both sites. This confirms the widely held view of the transitional1 early UP status of Kara-Bom. This leads to the question of whether this is the case with the industry of Obi-Rakhmat, layers 2 - 14, which are also believed by some researchers to be early UP (Derevianko et

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0.5

1

1

0.5

Rating

-2

-2

-2.5

-1

?-2.5

?-2

?-2

2

1

1

1

6

0

0

0

Source

Pasty, 1998

Pasty, 1997

Wengler,1997

McBurney, Hey, 1955

Bouzouggar,1997

Ibid.

Chavaillon,1985

Attribute

7

0

0

0

8

0.5

0.5

0.5

3

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0.5

0.5

1

1

1

1

1

1

9

0

0

0

4

1

1

1

1

0.5

0.5

0.5

0

0

0

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1

1

1

1

4

1

0.5

0.5

1 1

1 1

1

1

1

5

1

1

1

10

0

0

0

5

0.5

0.5

0.5 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

l

1

1

1

1

11

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.5

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1 0 . 5

0

0

0.5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

7

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.5

0

0

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1

1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

0

0

0 . 5 0 . 5 0

?

?

?

8

0.5

0

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

1

1

1

0

0

?

?

0.5

9

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.5

0.5

1 1

0.5

0.5

0.5

10

0

0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

11

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

47

Table 7. Assessment of the Chltelperronian assemblages

Table 8. Assessment of the Uluzzian assemblages

Assemblage

La Ferrassi, L3b

La Ferrassi, L3a

Roc-de-Combe,VIII

al., 2001) (see however (Schafer, Ranov, 1998; Vishnyatsky, 1999)). The count based on the data published by Derevianko et al. (2001) gives the values shown in Table 4.

It should be emphasized that in the present case the resultant ratings are rather overestimated than underestimated. Examination of a considerable part of the collection from both old and new excavations has led the present author to the conclusion that the artifacts previously defined as "lateral end-scrapers7' do not represent proper end-scrapers. In my view, most of them should rather be considered small side- scrapers and retouched flakes, and therefore it would be incorrect to include them into the group of UP tools when counting UPtyp. If we introduce this correction, the value of 0.5 in attribute 8 would probably change to 0, and then the ratings for layers 2 - 9 and 10 - 14 would be -2.5 and -3, respectively. However, in Table 5 , which compares all the studied assemblages, I use the figures given in Table 4 without any changes. It is quite evident that even these overestimated ratings clearly gravitate toward the MP and are very distant from the ratings characteristic of the transitionallearly UP industries.

Assemblage

Gr. della Cala

Castelcivita

Cavallo, 1.11, 1

Cavallo, 1.111

Fabbrica

Averagevalues and rating

Rakhmat (layers 2 - 14), can be defined as MP, while the industry of "occupation levels 5 and 6" of Kara- Bom should be considered early UP. To test this conclusion the range of compared assemblages should be broadened.

As has already been said, very often it is impossible to give a complete assessment of the relevant parameters on the basis of literature data only. Nonetheless, for a number of industries of the period under consideration some cautious assessments can still be made. Tables 6, 7, and 8 present results obtained for the Aterian, Chltelperronian, and Uluzzian, respectively. To save space the original data has been omitted, giving instead references to the works from which they were taken.

Thus, the average rating that can be inferred for the MP Aterian industry from the literature is somewhat higher than that of Obi-Rakhmat layers 2 - 14. If one takes at face value the information that the Aterian layers of Mnasra contained single formal bone tools (Hajraoui, 1994), the difference will increase. As to the Chltelperronian, the ratings of different assemblages classified to this tradition turned out to be highly variable. Some assemblages (perhaps the earliest ones?) gravitate to the MP, while some are certainly within the UP range of variability."

Attribute

Discussion

Rating

-2

-1

1.5 - 2

1

1

1

1

The comparison of 10 assemblages listed in Table 5 leads to the conclusion that the industry of Obi-

Source

Tuffreau, l984

Ibid.

Pelegrin, 1995

Attribute

* The Chiitelpenonian layers of Grotte de Renne are not included in Table 9 due to the paucity of numerical data on their lithic inventory. However, there is little doubt that these assemblages with their rich bone industry would fit the UP ratings.

2

1

1

0-0.5

Rating

?

?

?

?

?

020.5

.

?

1

1

1

Source

Benini, Boscato, Gambassini, 1997

Mussi, 2001

Gioia, 1988

Mussi, 2001

Ibid. -

1

1

1

1 2 3

1

? ? ?

?

1 1 1

1

1

1

0.5

?

?

? ?

1

3 4 5 6

4

1

1

0.5

1

1

0.5-1

0.5

1

1

5

?

0.5 1

0.5

0.5

0.5-1

0.5

0.5

1

6 ?

?

?

?

?

?

7

0.5

0.5

1

7

?

?

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

8

0.5

1

1

8

1

1

1

1

1

9

0

0

0.5

9

1 0 . 5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0

0.5

10

0

0

0

10

0

0.5 0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

11

0

0

0

11

0

0

0.5

0.5

0

0.5

48

Table 9. Assessment of some Ahmarian and Aurignacian assemblages

A similar situation can also be supposed for the Uluzzian, though unfortunately most Uluzzian assemblages are described in a general way only. For this reason I have to limit myself to deriving an average rating for the industry as a whole (in addition to the sources referred to in Table 8, see (Palma di Cesnola, 1989)) which is analogous to the ratings obtained for layers 24 - 22 of Ksar-Akil and "occupation levels 5 and 6" of Kara-Bom.

The industries with ratings ranging from about -1 to 2 - 2.5 can be designated as "archaic early UP". Besides the assemblages described in the previous pages, this group would include (partly or entirely) such entities as Szeletian, Bohunician, Emiran, and some others. At the same time, some of the industries of the transitional period (50 - 30 ka BP) in the totality of their characteristics are rather far from the "archaic", intermediate state, approaching the "ideal" UP extreme (Table 9). These industries can be designated as "advanced early UP". They include, for example, the Ahmarian, some (but not all) early Aurignacian assemblages, and the Spitsynian (according to a preliminary estimate, its rating may be ca 6 - 6.5). All these industries are early UP only in the chronological, not the cultural sense of the term. However, their consideration is beyond the limits of this paper, which is devoted to industries with an ambiguous status.

Certainly, the proposed method of ranking the MP and early UP industries does not solve all problems and cannot replace other methods of analysis and interpretation o f lithiclbone assemblages. Nonetheless, it is hoped that at least in some cases, the method described here may serve as a useful addition to the others and will help to clarify some of the questions that often arouse a divergence of opinions. It is very simple and based mainly on the use of traditional criteria. Of course, it does not exclude subjectivity, but still gives some "common denominator" to compare different industries and data given by different authors. This method can by no

Assemblage

Tor Sadaf (Ahmarian)

Abu Noshra II (Ahmarian)

Boker A (Ahmarian)

Gr.de Renne, 7 (Aurignacian)

Riparo Mochi, G (Aurignacian)

means serve to reveal genetic links or cultural affinities; it is designed for periodization only, ranking, and the study of cultural dynamics in the Middle and Upper Paleolithic.

Perhaps a more or less similar method of analysis could be used to arrange the industries of some other periods within the Stone Age, like the Final Paleolithic and Mesolithic, but whether this makes any sense or not should be judged by those who study these epochs.

Acknowledgements

Research was supported by the Fulbright Foundation and the Russian Academy of Sciences project "Intercultural contacts in Eurasia" (N 23-2003). For access to collections and help received during the work I am grateful to A.A. Anoikin, 0 . Bar-Yosef, A.P. Derevianko, A.I. Krivoshapkin, S.V. Markin, A. Marks, E.P. Rybin, and M.V. Shunkov. Useful comments were made by M.V. Anikovich, P.E. Nekhoroshev, E.P. Rybin, and A.A. Sinitsyn.

Attribute

References

Rating

4 5

4.5

4

4.5 - 6 4.5 k 1

0.5

0.5

1

1

Anisyutkin N.K. in press Tekhnika pervichnogo rasshcheplenia kamnya na paleoliticheskoi stoyanke Stinka 1 i problema perekhoda ot srednego paleolita k verkhnemu. Arkheologichesky almanakh (Donetsk).

Azouri I. 1986 Ksar Akil, Lebanon: A Technological and Typological Analysis of the Transitional and Early Upper Palaeolithic Levels of Ksar Akil and Abu Halka. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. (Inter. Ser.; N 289).

Bar-Yosef 0. 2002 The Upper Paleolithic revolution. Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 3 1: 363 - 393.

Benini A., Boscato P., Gambassini P. 1997

Grotta della Cala (Salerno): Industrie litiche e faue uluzziane ed aurignaziane. Rivista di scienze preistoriche, vol. 48: 37 - 95.

Source

Coinman, Fox, 2000

Phillips, 1988

Personal examination (see also (Jones, Marks, Kaufman, 1983))

Schmider, 2002

Kuhn, Stiner, 1998

1 2 3

0

1 0 0

0

0

?

0

0

?

?

4

0

0

0.5

0 - 0.5 0.5

5

1

1

1

l .

1

1

1 1

1

1

6 7 8

1

1

1

1

?

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

9 1 0 1 1

0

0.5

0

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

Bordes F. 1968 The Old Stone Age. New York: McGraw Hill.

Bouzouggar A. 1997 ~ c o n o m i e des matieres premieres et du debitage dans la sequence atkrienne de la grotte d'el Mnasra I. Prkhistoire Anthropologie Mkditerrankennes, vol. 6: 35 - 51.

Brantingham P.J., Krivoshapkin A.I., Li J., Tserendagva Y. 2001

The Initial Upper Paleolithic in Northeast Asia. Current Anthropology, vol. 42, N 5: 735 - 747.

Chavailon N. 1985 L'Aterien du Foum el Hartani au Sahara nord-occidental (Republique Algerienne). Bull. de la Soc. Prihist. Fran., vol. 82, N 8 - 10: 307 - 337.

Coinman N.R., Fox J.R. 2000 Tor Sadaf (WHNBS 8): The transition to the Upper Paleolithic. In The Archaeology of the Wadi AI-Hasa, West-Central Jordan, vol. 2, N.R. Coinman (ed.). Phoenix: Arizona State Univ. Press, pp. 123 - 142.

Derevianko A.P., Krivoshapkin A.I., Anoikin A.A., Islamov U.I., Petrin V.T., Saifullaiev B.K., Suleimanov R.Kh. 2001

The Initial Upper Paleolithic of Uzbekistan: The lithic industry of Obi-Rakhmat Grotto (on the basis of materials recovered from Strata 2 - 14). Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, N 4: 42 - 63.

Derevianko A.P., Petrin V.T., Rybin E.P., Chevalkov L.M. 1998

Paleoliticheskie kompleksy stratifitsirovannoi chasti stoyanki Kara-Bom. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN.

Derevianko A.P., Rybin E.P. 2003

The earliest representations of symbolic behavior by Paleolithic humans in the Altai mountains. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, N 3: 27 - 50.

Gioia P. 1988 Problems related to the origins of the Italian Upper Palaeolithic: Uluzzian and Aurignacian. In L'Homme de Neandertal. Vol. 8: La Mutation, J. Kozlowski (ed.). Liege: Univ. de Liege, pp. 71 - 101.

Goebel T., Waters M.R., Meshcherin M.N. 2001

Masterov Kliuch and the Early Upper Paleolithic of the Transbaikal, Siberia. Asian Perspectives, vol. 39, N 112: 47 - 70.

Hajraoui M.A. 1994 L'industrie osseuse aterienne de la grotte d'el Mnasra (Region de Temara, Maroc). Prghistoire Anthropologie Miditevrankennes, vol. 3: 91 - 94.

Jones M., Marks A.E., Kaufman D. 1983

Boker: The artifacts. In Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, vol. 3, A. Marks (ed.). Dallas: Southern Methodist Univ., pp. 283 - 329.

Kuhn S.L., Stiner M.C. 1998

The earliest Aurignacian of Riparo Mochi (Liguria, Italy). Current Anthropology, vol. 39, suppl.: 175 - 189.

Kuhn S.L., Stiner M.C., Reese D.S., Giileg E. 2001

Ornaments of the earliest Upper Paleolithic: New insights from the Levant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 98, N 13: 7641 - 7646.

Madsen D.B., Li J., Brantingham P.J., Gao X., Elston R.G., Bettinger R.L. 2001

Dating Suidonggou and the Upper Palaeolithic blade industry in North China. Antiquity, vol. 75, N 290: 706 - 71 6.

Marks A., Volkman P. 1986

The Mousterian of Ksar Akil: Levels XXVIA through XXVIIIB. Palborient, vol. 12, N l : 5 - 20.

McBurney C.B.M., Hey R. 1955 Prehistory and Pleistocene Geology in Cyrenaican Lybya. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Mussi M. 2001 Earliest Italy: An Overview of the Italian Paleolithic and Mesolithic. New York: Kluwer AcademicIPlenurn Publishers.

Nekhoroshev P.E. 1999 Tekhnologicheskiy metod izucheniya pervichnogo rasshchepleniya kamnya srednego paleolita. St. Petersburg: Evropeisky dom.

Nishiaki Y., Copeland L. 1992 Keoue Cave, Northern Lebanon, and its place in the context of the Levantine Mousterian. In The Evolution and Dispersal ofModern Humans in Asia, T . Akazawa, K. Aoki, T. Kimura (eds.). Tokyo: Hokusen-Sha, pp. 107 - 127.

Ohnuma K. 1988 A Technological Study of the Earlier Upper Palaeolithic Levels of Ksar Akil. Levels XXV-XIV. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. (Inter. Ser.; N 426).

Palma di Cesnola A. 1989 L'Uluzzien: Facies italien du leptolithique archaique. L'Anthropologie, vol. 93, N 4: 783 - 812.

Pasty J.-F. 1997 Etude technologique du site Aterien d'El-Azrag (Mauritanie). Paleo, N 9: 173 - 190.

Pasty J.-F. 1998 Etude du s i te Aterien d'Arouakim (Mauritanie). L'Anthropologie, vol. 102, N 3: 241 - 263.

Pelegrin J. 1995 Technologie lithique: Le Chltelperronien de Roc-de-Combe (Lot) et de La CBte (Dordogne). Paris: CNRS Editions.

Phillips J.L. 1988 The Upper Paleolithic of the Wadi Feiran, Southern Sinai. Paliorient, vol. 4, N 2: 183 - 200.

Rybin E.P. 2003 O spetsifike perekhodnyh i ranneverkhnepaleoliticheskih industrii Severnoi i Tsentralnoi Azii. In Problemy arkheologii i paleoekologii Severnoi, Vostochnoi i Tsentralnoi Azii. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN.

Schafer J., Ranov V. 1998 Middle Palaeolithic blade industries and the Upper Palaeolithic of Central Asia. In Prihistoire d'Anatolie, Genbe de deux mondes, M. Otte (ed.). Liege: Univ. de Liege, pp. 785 - 814. (ERAUL; N 85).

Schmider B. (dir.) 2002 L'Aurignacien de la Grotte de Renne. Les fouilles d'AndrC Leroi-Gourhan a Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne ). Paris: CNRS Editions.

Bordes F. 1968 The Old Stone Age. New York: McGraw Hill.

Bouzouggar A. 1997 ~ c o n o m i e des matieres premieres et du debitage dans la sequence atkrienne de la grotte d'el Mnasra I. Prkhistoire Anthropologie Mkditerrankennes, vol. 6: 35 - 51.

Brantingham P.J., Krivoshapkin A.I., Li J., Tserendagva Y. 2001

The Initial Upper Paleolithic in Northeast Asia. Current Anthropology, vol. 42, N 5: 735 - 747.

Chavailon N. 1985 L'Aterien du Foum el Hartani au Sahara nord-occidental (Republique Algerienne). Bull. de la Soc. Prihist. Fran., vol. 82, N 8 - 10: 307 - 337.

Coinman N.R., Fox J.R. 2000 Tor Sadaf (WHNBS 8): The transition to the Upper Paleolithic. In The Archaeology of the Wadi AI-Hasa, West-Central Jordan, vol. 2, N.R. Coinman (ed.). Phoenix: Arizona State Univ. Press, pp. 123 - 142.

Derevianko A.P., Krivoshapkin A.I., Anoikin A.A., Islamov U.I., Petrin V.T., Saifullaiev B.K., Suleimanov R.Kh. 2001

The Initial Upper Paleolithic of Uzbekistan: The lithic industry of Obi-Rakhmat Grotto (on the basis of materials recovered from Strata 2 - 14). Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, N 4: 42 - 63.

Derevianko A.P., Petrin V.T., Rybin E.P., Chevalkov L.M. 1998

Paleoliticheskie kompleksy stratifitsirovannoi chasti stoyanki Kara-Bom. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN.

Derevianko A.P., Rybin E.P. 2003

The earliest representations of symbolic behavior by Paleolithic humans in the Altai mountains. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, N 3: 27 - 50.

Gioia P. 1988 Problems related to the origins of the Italian Upper Palaeolithic: Uluzzian and Aurignacian. In L'Homme de Neandertal. Vol. 8: La Mutation, J. Kozlowski (ed.). Liege: Univ. de Liege, pp. 71 - 101.

Goebel T., Waters M.R., Meshcherin M.N. 2001

Masterov Kliuch and the Early Upper Paleolithic of the Transbaikal, Siberia. Asian Perspectives, vol. 39, N 112: 47 - 70.

Hajraoui M.A. 1994 L'industrie osseuse aterienne de la grotte d'el Mnasra (Region de Temara, Maroc). Prghistoire Anthropologie Miditevrankennes, vol. 3: 91 - 94.

Jones M., Marks A.E., Kaufman D. 1983

Boker: The artifacts. In Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, vol. 3, A. Marks (ed.). Dallas: Southern Methodist Univ., pp. 283 - 329.

Kuhn S.L., Stiner M.C. 1998

The earliest Aurignacian of Riparo Mochi (Liguria, Italy). Current Anthropology, vol. 39, suppl.: 175 - 189.

Kuhn S.L., Stiner M.C., Reese D.S., Giileg E. 2001

Ornaments of the earliest Upper Paleolithic: New insights from the Levant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 98, N 13: 7641 - 7646.

Madsen D.B., Li J., Brantingham P.J., Gao X., Elston R.G., Bettinger R.L. 2001

Dating Suidonggou and the Upper Palaeolithic blade industry in North China. Antiquity, vol. 75, N 290: 706 - 71 6.

Marks A., Volkman P. 1986

The Mousterian of Ksar Akil: Levels XXVIA through XXVIIIB. Palborient, vol. 12, N l : 5 - 20.

McBurney C.B.M., Hey R. 1955 Prehistory and Pleistocene Geology in Cyrenaican Lybya. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Mussi M. 2001 Earliest Italy: An Overview of the Italian Paleolithic and Mesolithic. New York: Kluwer AcademicIPlenurn Publishers.

Nekhoroshev P.E. 1999 Tekhnologicheskiy metod izucheniya pervichnogo rasshchepleniya kamnya srednego paleolita. St. Petersburg: Evropeisky dom.

Nishiaki Y., Copeland L. 1992 Keoue Cave, Northern Lebanon, and its place in the context of the Levantine Mousterian. In The Evolution and Dispersal ofModern Humans in Asia, T . Akazawa, K. Aoki, T. Kimura (eds.). Tokyo: Hokusen-Sha, pp. 107 - 127.

Ohnuma K. 1988 A Technological Study of the Earlier Upper Palaeolithic Levels of Ksar Akil. Levels XXV-XIV. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. (Inter. Ser.; N 426).

Palma di Cesnola A. 1989 L'Uluzzien: Facies italien du leptolithique archaique. L'Anthropologie, vol. 93, N 4: 783 - 812.

Pasty J.-F. 1997 Etude technologique du site Aterien d'El-Azrag (Mauritanie). Paleo, N 9: 173 - 190.

Pasty J.-F. 1998 Etude du s i te Aterien d'Arouakim (Mauritanie). L'Anthropologie, vol. 102, N 3: 241 - 263.

Pelegrin J. 1995 Technologie lithique: Le Chltelperronien de Roc-de-Combe (Lot) et de La CBte (Dordogne). Paris: CNRS Editions.

Phillips J.L. 1988 The Upper Paleolithic of the Wadi Feiran, Southern Sinai. Paliorient, vol. 4, N 2: 183 - 200.

Rybin E.P. 2003 O spetsifike perekhodnyh i ranneverkhnepaleoliticheskih industrii Severnoi i Tsentralnoi Azii. In Problemy arkheologii i paleoekologii Severnoi, Vostochnoi i Tsentralnoi Azii. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN.

Schafer J., Ranov V. 1998 Middle Palaeolithic blade industries and the Upper Palaeolithic of Central Asia. In Prihistoire d'Anatolie, Genbe de deux mondes, M. Otte (ed.). Liege: Univ. de Liege, pp. 785 - 814. (ERAUL; N 85).

Schmider B. (dir.) 2002 L'Aurignacien de la Grotte de Renne. Les fouilles d'AndrC Leroi-Gourhan a Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne ). Paris: CNRS Editions.

Tufreau A. 1984 verkhnii pleistotsen: Dinamika prirodnykh sobytii i Les industries mousteriennes et castelperroniennes de periodizatsiya arkheologicheskih kultur. St. Petersburg: La Ferrassie. In Le grang abri de La Ferrassie: Fouilles IIMK RAN, pp. 42 - 45. 1968 - 1973, H. Delporte (ed.). Paris: Inst. de Paleontologie Wengler L. 1997 Humaine, pp. 11 1 - 144. La transition du Mousterien a 1'AtCrien. L'Anthropologie,

Vishnyatsky L.B. 1999 vol. lO1,N 3: 4 4 8 4 8 1 . The Paleolithic of Central Asia. Journal of World Prehistory, vol. 13: 69 - 122.

Vishnyatsky L.B. 2002 Opyt ranzhirovania perekhodnyh i rannikh verkhnepaleoliticheskih industrii: Predvaritelnye rezultaty. In Verkhnii paleolit - Received 25 February, 2004.