Late Middle and Early Upper Paleolitihic Evidence from East European Plain and Caucasus

Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1999

Late Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic Evidencefrom the East European Plain and Caucasus: ANew Look at Variability, Interactions, andTransitions

Vadim Yu. Cohen1,2 and Vadim N. Stepanchuk1

This paper presents analyses of Late Middle Paleolithic (LMP) and EarlyUpper Paleolithic (EUP) material from the East European Plain and Cauca-sus. Late Middle Paleolithic industries show a highly variable pattern, al-though they are formally ascribed to a limited number of technocomplexes.Many of the LMP industries, especially in the Crimea, survived to the timeof the transition to the Upper Paleolithic, but data suggesting a local originof EUP are extremely rare. The transition is generally dated between32/30,000 and 26/24,000 years, while the most crucial changes coincide withthe Stillfried B interstadial. Aurignacian (two variants), Gravettian, and"Transitional" industries are recognized in the EUP. The presence of MiddlePaleolithic traits in the Aurignacian may indicate acculturation, while theTransitional industries might reflect either acculturation or independent localdevelopment of new technologies, raising the possibility of local transforma-tion of some Middle Paleolithic into non-Aurignacian EUP industries.

KEY WORDS: Middle Paleolithic; Upper Paleolithic; Aurignacian; Gravettian; eastern Eu-rope; Caucasus.

INTRODUCTION

The last decades have been marked by intensive studies of the problemof the transition from the Middle Paleolithic (MP) to the Upper Paleolithic

1Department of Stone Age Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology, Ukrainian Academy ofSciences, Av. Hero of Stalingrad, Kyiv, 254 6555 Ukraine.

2To whom correspondence should be addressed, e-mail: [email protected].

265

0892-7537/99/0900-0265$16.00/0© 1999 Plenum Publishing Corporation

(UP) and the transition from Neandertals to anatomically modern humansin the Old World (Mellars, 1992; 1996; Bar-Yosef et al., 1996). Some newdata and current interpretations are well known; for example, northernSpain and Portugal (Straus et al., 1993), Mediterranean Spain (Villaverdeet al., 1998), France (Leveque, 1989; Farizy, 1990), the Northern Mediterra-nean (Palma di Cesnola, 1989), the Balkans (Kozlowski, 1992), CentralEurope (Valoch, 1990; Allsworth-Jones, 1990; Oliva, 1995; Otte, 1994,1996;Freericks, 1995), the Levant (Marks, 1988; Bar-Yosef, 1992), the Zagros(Olzchewski and Dibble, 1993), and Siberia (Otte and Derevianko, 1996).It is clear that these questions require a multidimensional comparativeanalysis of material from geographically diverse areas, that is, an approachthat goes from the general (inter- or macroregional observations) to thespecific (analysis of the culture history of a particular region). At the sametime, complexity is introduced by dealing with lithic technology and typol-ogy coupled with issues surrounding the evolution of human cultural behav-ior. Unfortunately, only the most general aspects of these can be consid-ered here.

The problem of the origins of the Upper Paleolithic of eastern Europeis not a new one (Boriskovski, 1953). Nevertheless, for a long time thequestion of the nature and the explanation of the MP-UP transition wasposed in a very general form; works devoted to specific details of thisprocess appeared only comparatively recently (Amirkhanov et al., 1993;Anikovich, 1992). Eastern Europe (not including the southeastern area)apparently was not affected by the earliest shifts, whether biological orcultural, toward new technologies and behavioral patterns, but this shouldnot prevent us from asking questions concerning the local transition to theUpper Paleolithic. Such questions include the following:

Was the time of the transition roughly the same as elsewhere inEurope?

Was the local EUP (Early Upper Paleolithic) connected with the pre-ceding LMP (Late Middle Paleolithic)?

Is the nature of the early Aurignacian in this area the same as in otherparts of Europe?

Does the EUP of eastern Europe demonstrate relative homogeneityor marked variability?

Are there clear analogies between the eastern European EUP andthat from western or central Europe?

Was the MP-UP transition associated with human biological changes?Can the transition be explained solely in terms of either continuity or

discontinuity, or are there other models that can explain it?We begin with a brief review of data currently available concerning

the LMP and EUP succession.

266 Cohen and Stepanchuk

CHRONOLOGICAL AND PALEOENVIRONMENTALFRAMEWORKS OF THE MIDDLE TO UPPER

PALEOLITHIC TRANSITION

The period of the Middle Paleolithic to Upper Paleolithic transitiongenerally occurs during the Mologo-Sheksninski interstadial or the timeof formation of so-called Dofinovka paleosol. According to radiocarbondates (Svezentzev, 1993), most EUP assemblages lie between 32,000 and25/24,000 B.P., that is, within the optimum of the Dofinovka, which corre-sponds to the Arcy, Stillfried B, and Paudorf interstadials (Veklich, 1989)(Figs. 1 and 2). A high concentration of markedly variable assemblages isassociated with the period of the Stillfried B interstadial.

The geographic distribution of currently known sites shows them tobe within a periglacial zone and apparently associated with valleys of tribu-taries of the Black Sea (Fig. 1). The main site concentrations occur in alimited number of river valleys, which are characterized by high levels ofnatural resources.

The dynamic of cultural changes in many ways depends on, and to acertain extent is regulated by, global changes in climate and landscape devel-opment. For the territory in question, paleolandscape changes were directlyconnected with the history of oscillations of the Black Sea basin. The begin-ning of the Late Glacial coincides with the so-called Prichernomorskaya (orNovoevksinsk or Surozh) regression of the Black Sea, dated to between32,000 and 18,000 B.P. (Ostrovski et al., 1977, p. 135; Alekseev et al., 1986, p.189). The fluctuation of sea level was especially significant during the Novoev-ksinsk regression, when the sea level fell as much as 110 m and the Azov Seaand the Crimea became part of the continent. This regression was precededby the Surozh transgression (34,100 B.P. ± 900 years to 41,250 B.P. ± 340years), at which time the Caspian and Black seas were separated. The disap-pearance of LMP and the rise of various EUP industries in eastern Europegenerally coincide with the Prichernomorskaya regression. The profoundecological consequences of this event should not be underestimated, as itultimately led to the basic reconstruction of biological resources throughoutthe entire southern part of the East European plain and the Crimea—thevery areas that were most densely occupied during this time. It seems likelythat such a high-scale ecological shift would influence and, perhaps, stimulatethe processes of cultural and technological developments that took place.

LATE MIDDLE PALEOLITHIC EVIDENCE

A brief review of the development and variability of Middle Paleolithicindustries is useful for understanding the background to the transition itself.

Late Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic Evidence 267


Fig. 1. The main Early Upper Paleolithic sites of eastern Europe. Dufour-Aurignacian: 1,Mitoc; 2, Kostenki 1, Layer 3; 3, Vorona III; 4, Peremoga; 5, Syuren II; 6, Ivanichi; 6a,Samerzhle-Klde; 6b, Dzudzuana; 6c, Kamennomostkaya cave. Aurignacian of the Lower Dnies-ter culture: 7, Zeleniy Hutor I and II; 8, Climautzi I and II; 9, Anetovka 13; 10, NenasitezIII. Late Aurignacian and Epi-Aurignacian: 11, Sagaydac; 12, Muralovka; 13, Vorona III,upper layer; 14, Anetovka II; 15, Amvrosievka; 16, Lubimovka; 16a, Rashkov VII. BladeAurignacian: 17, Radomishl; 17a, Zornov; 17b, Temnata cave; 17c, Bacho-Kiro; 17d, Gubsrockshelter. Szeletian: 18, Korolevo 2/2. Post-Bohunician: 19, Kulychivka. Spitzinian: 20, Kos-tenki 17, Layer 2. Streletzian: 21, Kostenki 12, Layer 3, Kostenki 1, Layer 5, Kostenki 12,Layer la, and Kostenki 6; 22, Sungir; 23, Biryuch'ya balka. Gorodtzovian: 24, Kostenki 14,Layer 2, Kostenki 12, Layer 1, Kostenki 15, Kostenki 16, and Kostenki 14, Layer 3. Prutculture: 25, Gordineshti; 26, Ripiceni Izvor. Brinzenyan: 27, Brinzeny 1, Layer 3; 28, Bubuleshti6. Korpachian: 29, Korpach 1, Layer 4; 30, Korpach-Mis. Post-Eastern Micoquian: 29, Mira.

Eastern European Plain and Crimean Data

The overwhelming majority of MP sites are in the Dniester and Donvalleys, the upper and middle Dnieper valley, the middle Volga, and the Cri-mea. Well-excavated, stratified sites with rich archaeological layers occurmainly in the Dniester region (such as the well-known Molodova sites) andin the Crimean peninsula. Absolute dates are available for both regions, butmost of the dated sites are in the Crimea, which is, thus, the main databasefor understanding the exact stages of MP in eastern Europe (Figs. 3 and 4).A general approach allows us to define several MP technocomplexes in thelast interglacial/glacial cycle, including the Eastern Taubachian, Eastern Mi-coquian, Typical, Denticulate, and, probably, Charentian Mousterian.

Eastern Taubachian

Characteristic Eastern Taubachian seems to be mainly restricted tothe Eem. In the East European Plain, Crimea, Moldova, and Romania,these assemblages are associated with Homo neanderthalensis (for example,at Betovo, Chulatovo, Kiik-Koba lower layer, and Kabazi II: IV) (Stepan-chuk, 1996). In many respects, the assemblages show clear similarities to theCentral European Taubachian (Valoch, 1984). The Moldovian DenticulateMousterian (Stinkovian) (Anisyutkin, 1977) is a Last Glacial descendantof this technocomplex.

Eastern Micoquian

Eastern Micoquian assemblages are widely represented in eastern Eu-rope and are especially numerous in the Crimea. The technocomplex ishighly varied, with two distinct groups: true Eastern Micoquian and para-Micoquian. While the first group has clear analogies with Central Europeanrecords—both typological and technological—and supposedly similarroots, the latter can be described as a complex which includes a numberof Micoquian-influenced traditions. From the beginning of the last glacialor from the end of Eem, the southwestern and probably the entire southernarea of eastern Europe represents a contact zone between the EuropeanMicoquian, Balkan Charentian, Levallois-Mousterian, and, probably, a lo-cal Micoquoid substrate. These industrial traditions are characterized byadvanced bifacial technology but their toolkits include only single or atypi-cal biface-knives, along with bifacial points, sidescrapers, numerous leaf-point-like pieces, and also developed unifacial flake tools with a significantnumber of points and diverse sidescrapers, including limaces and thinned



pieces. These traditions appear to combine both Micoquian and Charentiantraits and can be regarded as para-Micoquian. The para-Micoquian ofeastern Europe is undoubtedly related to the Micoquian but as a peripheralphenomenon relative to the centre. Micoquian sites are concentrated inthe Crimea—the so-called Ak-Kaya tradition: Zaskal'naya V and VI, Sary-Kaya I, Prolom I, and others (Kolosov and Stepanchuk, 2000) (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5. Eastern Micoquian of Chokurcha I (1-3) (after Ernst, 1936) and Zaskalnaya V (afterKolosov, 1985). 1 and 2, Multiedged scrapers; 3, biface; 4, Micoquian biface.

They are also sporadically known in the Dnieper (Khotylevo, Zitomir,Rikhta, Kanev) and Don (Antonovka, Nosovo I) (Zavernyaev, 1978; Kukh-archuk, 1989, 1991; Smirnov, 1973; Gladilin, 1976; Praslov, 1972) regions.The Para-Micoquian is known in the Crimea and the Middle Dniester,Dnieper, and Volga areas (as at Orel, Ripiceni-Izvor, Sukhaya Mechetka,Chelyuskin, probably Rozhok I, Starosel'ye, GABO, Kiik-Koba upperlayer, Prolom I, etc.) (Smirnov, 1973; Paunescu, 1993; Zamyatnin, 1961;Formozov, 1958; Bonch-Osmolovski, 1941; Kolosov, 1979) (Figs. 6 and 7),with some bias toward the southeastern part of the East European Plain.

The Micoquian and para-Micoquian of eastern Europe are supposedlyreliably dated from at least the Amersfort up to the end of the Interpleni-glacial (although the site of Sukhaya Mechetka is interglacial). An earlierage for some Micoquian-related assemblages is based upon geology, butthere are also several absolute dates, both ESR and radiocarbon, mostlyfrom the Crimea. The ESR dates range roughly from 20,000 to 70,000 years,while most of the radiocarbon dates fall between 30,000 and 35,000 B.P.(Marks and Chabai, 1997; Stepanchuk, 1998, with references) (Fig. 4). Theend of the MP in the Crimea was, thus, around 30,000 years ago, and thearea may have been a kind of Neanderal refugium.

Both Micoquian and para-Micoquian sites in the Crimea (such asZaskal'naya V and VI, Prolom I, and Kiik-Koba) have yielded human fossilremains, almost all of which are attributed to Homo neanderthalensis. Theonly exception comes from the old excavations of Starosel'ye and is mostlikely an intrusive subrecent burial (Marks et al., 1997). Without directdating of the bones, this find cannot be seen as sure evidence of the presenceof modern Homo sapiens. The latest MP fossils are from Zaskal'naya VI:III and IIIa and are dated by 14C to about 35,000 and 39,000 B.P., respectively(Hedges et al., 1996). Layer IV of the site of Rozhok I—provisionallyclassified as para-Micoquian assemblages—provided a single human toothcharacterized as modern Homo sapiens. This is unexpected, given the possi-ble early Last Glacial age of the site.

Typical Mousterian

The Typical Mousterian is heavily concentrated in the Dniester region(Molodova I and V, Ketrosy, Pronyatyn, Zhornov) (Chernysh, 1982; Anisy-utkin, 1981; Sytnyk, 1995; Pyasetzki, 1992) (Fig. 8), but assemblages of thistype are also known in the Middle Dnieper (Smirnov, 1973) and the Crimea(Kabazi II: II, probably Chokurcha II, Kholodnaya Balka, and Kabazi III(Bader, 1979; Formozov, 1958; Kolosov et al., 1988; 1993; Chabai, 1996)(Fig. 9). Some Moldovan sites, such as Buteshty and Trinka I, layer 4, are



Fig. 6. Para-Micoquian of Prolom 1 (1-3,7,11) (after Stepanchuk, 1993) and Kiik-Koba (4-6)(after Bonch-Osmolovski, 1940). 1-3 and 8, Mousterian points; 4-6, small Mousterian points;7, 9, and 11, bifaces.


Fig. 7. Staroselian of GABO (after Stepanchuk, 1996). 1-3, Mousterian points; 4-6, scrapers;7 and 8, bifaces.


Fig. 8. Mousterian of Molodova V (after Chernish, 1987). 1-8, 10, 17, and 19, Mousterianpoints; 9,11,12,16 and 20, scrapers; 13 and 18, radial cores; 14,15, and 22, retouched blades;21, prismatic core; 23, opposed-platform core.


Fig. 9. Typical Mousterian of the Crimea (Kabazian) of Kabazi II (1-6) (after Chabai andSithliviy, 1993) and Aleshin Grot (7-9) (after Kolosov and Stepanchuk, 1997). 1, Point; 2,retouched blade; 3, 5, and 9, scrapers; 6, opposed-platform core; 7 and 8, Levallois points.

also regarded as Typical Mousterian (Anisyutkin et al., 1986; Anisyutkin,1990). All the assemblages are based on Levallois technology, which issometimes almost exclusively blade-oriented. The chronological positionof this technocomplex is well established for the Dniester region, wherethe characteristic assemblages of the Molodova I and V sequences havetheir upper limits somewhere between the Odderade and the Brorup. Incontrast, the youngest Typical Mousterian assemblages in the Crimea ap-pear to be during or just after the first Pleniglacial. For example, the earliestdates from Kabazi II are 47,700 and 51,600 years (U-series and ESR,respectively), while the uppermost cultural horizons are all dated between30,000 and 32,000 years by AMS, ESR, and U-series (Hedges et al., 1996;McKinney and Rink, 1996; Chabai, 1996). This spatial and chronologicalshift probably reflects the dispersal of the makers of these assemblagesfrom the northern toward the southern part of eastern Europe. There areno associated hominid finds. Available data show no strong links in eitherthe Dniester or the Crimea between Typical Mousterian and local EUP as-semblages.

Denticulate Mousterian

The Denticulate Mousterian is known in Moldova, the Transcarpathi-ans, and eastern Ukraine. The right-bank Don area, a territory neighboringthe far north of the Ukraine (that is, in the upper part of the MiddleDnieper valley), the Middle Dniester, and the Transcarpathians providedata suggesting the existence of Denticulate Mousterian at roughly thesame time in each area (during the locally defined Bug interval). This isbased on assemblages from sites such as Belokuzminovka, Stinka, ChernaX, and Korolevo I/I (Kolesnik, 1993; Kulakovskaya, 1989). However, al-though the assemblages are attributed to the same taxon, meaningful associ-ations among them are unlikely. Transcarpathian assemblages of the Chernatype are most similar to the Central European assemblage of Shipka, whilethe Dniester's site of Stinka has close analogies in the surrounding areasof Moldova and gives its name to a distinct industry, the Stinkovian. Theyoungest Stinkovian material is supposedly dated to the Hengelo episode(Anisyutkine, 1990) and there are some suggestions of technological andtypological links between the Stinkovian and the Brynzenian Upper Paleo-lithic. The assemblage from Belokuzminovka is most probably anothervariant of Denticulate Mousterian and is based on a blade technology. Thegreat majority of assemblages are thought to date to oxygen-isotope Stage 3.


Charentian

The Charentian assemblages of eastern Europe have only recentlybegun to be differentiated and understood. Such Crimean sites as Shaitan-Koba I, and, probably, Shaitan-Koba IV and Alyoshin Grot (Bonch-Osmo-lovski, 1930; Kolosov, 1972; Kolosov and Stepanchuk, 1997) are attributableto this group. They are characterized by a predominance of radial andpreferential techniques and such Charentoid tools as thinned-back scrapers,bifacially retouched scrapers, and limaces. Some Moldova Middle Paleo-lithic assemblages, such as Trinka II, can also be assigned to this group.There are no absolute dates for these sites, but they are considered to beolder than the late instances of the Crimean Typical Mousterian (Kolosovet al., 1993) and seem to be intrusive, possibly from the Balkans (Kolosov,1972). There are no hominids associated with the Charentian or the TypicalMousterian, and no clear typological or technological features which con-nect them to the EUP.

Summary of the East European Plain and the Crimea

The LMP of the East European Plain and the Crimea shows a ratherhigh degree of variability and the Micoquian, para-Micoquian, and Typicaland Denticulate Mousterian all continue until at least 40,000 years. Onlythe Stinkovian of Moldova suggests a purely local transition from the Middleto the Upper Paleolithic. During the LMP, the most densely occupied areasseemed to be the Dniester region and the Crimea; the latter additionallysaw the most continuous occupation. It is important to emphasize therelationship between the warm climatic fluctuations of stage 3 and thespread of population northward, while the extreme southern part of theterritory was permanently occupied. Another intriguing issue is that theCrimean Middle Paleolithic survived as late as 30,000 years. The onlyparallel to this in eastern Europe is the Levallois-Mousterian assemblageof Zhornov, Layer II, in the Upper Dnieper area, which geologically isdated to the beginning of Dofmovka interval.

Caucasian Data

Middle Paleolithic sites are well known both in the northern Caucasus,which is closer to the lower Don area, and in the Transcaucasus, whichincludes the northeastern coast of the Black Sea and is thus open towardAnatolia and the Near East. Geographically related differences are clearlyreflected in the archaeological record. The northern Caucasus generally


yields assemblages of para-Micoquian type, while sites in the Great Cauca-sus and Transcaucasus show more similarities to more southerly MiddlePaleolithic. Available data allow us to recognize assemblages of severalMiddle Paleolithic technocomplexes: Eastern Micoquian, Typical Mouster-ian, Denticulate Mousterian, and, probably, Charentian.

Eastern Micoquian

The Eastern Micoquian in its para-Micoquian variant occurs at thenorthern Caucasian sitesofll'skaya.Mezmaiskaya, Barakayevskaya,Monas-heskaya, Gubs shelter 1, and probably Matuzka. Barakayevskaya, Monas-heskaya, and Gubs shelter 1 represent less developed Micoquian componentsand are similar to Typical Mousterian of non-Levallois facies (Lyubin, 1994).In fact, there is no evidence of the Micoquian in Transcaucasus, althoughsingle bifaces, sometimes leaf-shaped, are found sporadically in the Trans-caucasus Middle Paleolithic. The northern Caucasian para-Micoquian isthought to range in age from the Eem (Il'skaya I: lower layer) to just after40,000 years (Monasheskaya: 2). Until recently, the only absolute dates fromnorthern Caucasia were radiocarbon dates from Il'skaya I run in the 1950son bone samples; they ranged between 155,000 and 34,000 B.P. The sequencein the recently discovered cave of Mezmai (Golovanova et al., 1998) providesa reliable series of radiocarbon dates ranging between 40,000 and 32,000 B.P.Layer 4B of the site of Matuzka has also yielded a date of 34,200 B.P. ± 1410years (LU-3692). The sample from the lowermost (3-d) layer of Mezmai hasan infinite date of >45,000 B.P.; provisionally, this layer is suggested to datearound 50,000-55,000 B.P. The exact chronological position of this layer isimportant since it yielded a rich and characteristic para-Micoquian lithic as-semblage and an almost-undisturbed skeleton of a prenatal(?) infant (Golo-vanova et al., 1998). It is remarkable that, as was the case in the Crimea,the Micoquian-related sites provide more human fossils: the remains fromBarakayevskaya, Monasheskaya, and Mezmaiskaya are all Homo neander-thalensis (Lyubin, 1989,1994; Belyaeva, 1994; Golovanova et al., 1998).

Typical Mousterian

Assemblages of Typical Mousterian are common and widely dispersedthroughout the northern Black Sea area, the Great Caucasus, and Transcau-casus. The Typical Mousterian may be Levallois or non-Levallois, blade-or flake-oriented, and have varying percentages of denticulated pieces.The earliest evidence of Typical Mousterian, which is based on Levallois


technology but with one biface, is from the Azykh cave, Layer III, whichprobably dates to the Eem or to the very beginning of Stage 4. It has beensuggested that Levallois blade-oriented industries from Kudaro I (Levels3 and 4), Tsona, Dzhruchula (Levels I and II), Lusakert Level B, and Taglar(Levels 2-6) should be assigned to early Last Glacial interstadials. Theyoungest part of Kudaro I Middle Paleolithic sequence has a radiocarbondate of 44,150 B.P. +2400/-1850 years. In Layer II-d of the cave of Dzru-chula, a tooth of an adult Homo neanderthalensis was discovered (Lyubin,1977, 1984, 1989; Doronichev, 1993). Typical Mousterian based onnon-Levallois technology has been discovered in several caves, such asBronzovaya (Layers I-V), Bizonovaya Layer 3, Erevanskaya, and MalayaVorontsovskaya (Layers 2-4) (Tushabramishvili, 1978; Lyubin 1984,1989;Tchistyakov, 1996). The Imeretian sites of Bronzovaya and Bizonovayaand others, as well as Malaya Vorontsovskaya (in the northeastern part ofthe Black Sea area) and Lusakert (in the Transcaucasus uplands), includenumerous denticulates and are often assigned to the Denticulate Mouster-ian. These assemblages date mainly to the middle Last Glacial and theyoungest examples belong to the optimum period at the end of this timespan. There are radiocarbon dates of 49,000 B.P. (Erevanskaya: 4) and35,680 B.P. ±480 years (Malaya Vorontsovskaya Layer 3). Layer II-d of:Bronzovaya cave also produced isolated teeth which appear to be Homoneanderthalensis.

Denticulate Mousterian

Industries based on Levallois technology but typologically characterizedby a preponderance of denticulated and notched tools are known mainly inthe northeastern part of the Black Sea region (Akhshtyrskaya, Navalishen-skaya) and in western Georgia (Sakazhia) (Vekilova, 1973; Tchistyakov,1996; Nioradze el al., 1978). The earliest evidence of these industries is in theSakazhia sequence and is thought to date to one of the interstadials of theearly Last Glacial (Lyubin, 1989). A similar industry from Akhshtyrskaya(Layer 3/2) provided a U/Th date on stalactite of 35,000 ± 2000 years. TheMiddle Paleolithic Layer 3d of Sakazhia cave yielded a fragment of an upperjaw of Homo neanderthalensis. One tooth from the upper horizons of theMiddle Paleolithic sequence of Akhshtyrskaya cave has been attributed toanatomically modern humans (Vekilova and Zubov, 1972).

Charentian

The only Caucasian assemblage seen as Charentian is in eastern Geor-gia at the open-air site of Tsopi. The industry is characterized by a predomi-


nance of thick flake sidescrapers, with scalar and stepped retouch, andaccompanied by handaxes. The age of the assemblage is not known (Lyu-bin, 1989).

Summary of the Caucasus

Although the late Middle Paleolithic of the Caucasus has the samerange of technocomplexes as the East European plain, there are anumber of differences. Unlike the East European plain, almost all ofthe Micoquian-related industries of the northern Caucasus show extremelyweak traces of classic Micoquian technology and typology. Typical Moust-erian assemblages from the Great Caucasus and Transcaucasus are highlyvariable and often include numerous denticulates; there are no clearassemblages of this type in the East European plain and the Crimea.The Caucasian Denticulate Mousterian is also peculiar due to its relianceon Levallois reduction strategies. Likewise, the Caucasian Charentian issignificantly different from that of eastern Europe and the Crimea. Onthe basis of available absolute dates, the para-Micoquian and Typicaland Denticulate Mousterian survived until about 35,000-40,000 yearsago. There are no perceptible shifts toward Upper Paleolithic technologies,although many of the local EUP sites exhibit LMP components, whichare regarded as indicating a local transition. The assemblage of Il'skayaI, upper layer, is extremely interesting in terms of a transition since itincludes both Middle Paleolithic (Micoquian?) and Upper Paleolithicelements; unfortunately this material is not yet completely published.Its age supposed to lie between 60,000 and 40,000 years (Hoffecker etal., 1991). Many Caucasian Middle Paleolithic sites yield hominid remainsidentified as Homo manderthalensis. The only possible anatomical mod-erns are the single teeth from Akhshtyrskaya cave and Rozhok I, andthese identifications must be treated as very provisional.

EARLY UPPER PALEOLITHIC EVIDENCE

East European Plain and Crimean Data

Flake-Blade or Krems-Dufour Aurignacian

This industry is characterized by flake technology, with typical cari-nated endscrapers, burins, and alternately retouched Dufour bladelets (Fig.


10). It occurs in widely scattered sites, such as Mitoc Malu Galben on thePrut, Syuren I (Layers G and F) in the Crimea, Kostienki I (Layer 3) onthe Don, Vorona III on the Dnieper Ridges, and Peremoga I in the LowerDnieper. The industry lasted through the interstadials of the Wurm II/III-Arcy (32,000-30,000 B.P.), Stillfried B-Bryansk (29,000-27,000 B.P.),and Paudorf (26,000-24,000 B.P.) (Fig. 2). The older sites tend to be situatedfarther southwest (Mitoc), while the latest appears in the east (KostienkiI), raising the possibility of a movement of Krems-Dufour Aurignacianfrom southwest to the east (Otte et al., 1996a, p. 129).

The features common to Syuren I and Kostienki I layer 3 were firstrecognized by Rogachev (1953, p. 50). The similarity in lithic typology isstrengthened by the presence of similar bone artefacts, including decoratedpieces, and sea shells from the Black Sea coast (Rogachev, 1953, p. 48).Nevertheless, there are some problems in assessing these similarities. Theoriginal excavation of the Aurignacian layers of Syuren I found a significantMiddle Paleolithic component (Vekilova, 1957), but this was not found inthe more recent excavations (Otte et al., 1996a, c). The new excavationsalso show no technotypological differences between the lower and themiddle layers of the site (Otte et al., 1996c), while the earlier excavationrevealed a higher frequency of backed bladelets in the lower layer and anincrease in Dufour bladelets in the middle layer (Vekilova, 1959; Cohen,1996). In general, Krems Aurignacian assemblages lack a Middle Paleolithiccomponent (Banesz, 1993). The Middle Paleolithic series of Syuren I mightbelong to a separate microhorizon embedded in the Aurignacian sequenceor might be intrusive. In either case, it should not be seen as a true character-istic of this industry (Cohen, 1996; Stepanchuk, 1996a).

The site of Ivanichi in northwest Ukraine can also be ascribed to theKrems Aurignacian. Its cultural layer is in poorly preserved sandy depositswith some soil formation, which is dated to Stillfried B (Pyasetzki, 1988).Although the assemblage is not very rich, it has a high frequency of Aurigna-cian endscrapers, including nosed scrapers, and massive fragments of dihe-dral burins. There are no microliths, but this may be due to the fact thatit is a small collection. The assemblage of another western Ukrainian Aurig-nacian site, Chervony Kamin', is generally similar to that of Ivanichi (Pyaset-zki, 1995).

The roots of this group of Aurignacian industries probably lie in thevery early Aurignacian of the Balkan area, which is characterized by ablade industry rich in carinated endscrapers [as at Temnata cave Layer 4,dated to 45,000 B.P. ± 7000 years (GDTL-256)]. The beginning of DufourAurignacian technology is late in the eastern Balkan sequence, occurringin Bacho-Kiro Layers 6d 6/7, with dates of 32,700 B.P. ± 300 years (GrN-4569) and 29,150 B.P. ± 950 years (Ly-1102) (Kozlowski, 1992), respec-



Fig. 10. Dufour-Aurignacian of Kostenki I, Layer 3 (1-10) (after Rogachev, 1953), SiurenI, middle layer (11-19) (after Vekilova, 1957), and Ivanichi (20-22) (after Pyasetzkij, 1988).1-3, Microliths; 4, convergent point; 5, 13, 14, 17, and 18 endscrapers; 6, pieces ecaillees; 7,endscraper on Aurignacian blade; 8, carinated endscraper; 9, burin; 10, retouched blade; 11,Dufour bladelet; 12, Font-Yves bladelet; 15 and 16, carinated endscrapers; 19, core; 20 and21, thick endscraper; 22, nosed endscraper.

lively. Similar trends are observed in the Levant, where almost the sameblade industries rich in carinated and nosed endscrapers, the "LevantineAurignacian A," precede more flake-based Aurignacian technology withcarinated endscrapers, dihedral burins, Dufour bladelets, and Krems or El-Wad points. These industries are dated to between 36,000/35,000 and32,000/28,000 years (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1996). Unlike theAhmarian tradition (43,000/42,000-36,000 years), the Levantine Aur-ignacian is thought to be an intrusive phenomenon (Kozlowski 1992; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1996). Thus, available data suggest geographicalexpansion of the Krems-Dufour Aurignacian, while its technotypologicalfeatures remain rather stable.

Blade Aurignacian

One assemblage from the site of Radomyshl in the Dnieper-Desnabasin represents a very unusual Aurignacian tradition (Shovkoplyas, 1964;Anikovich, 1992). The prismatic knapping technology is oriented to theproduction of large blades which are then frequently modified by heavyretouch. There are also typical Mousterian points and sidescrapers, but nobifacially worked pieces. This probably indicates connections with TypicalMousterian. Radomyshl also yielded short carinated endscrapers and poly-hedral burins, while backed bladelets and the Dufour technology are notknown. One radiocarbon date that points to the maximum of the SecondPleniglacial (Fig. 2) is regarded as too young (Anikovich, 1992). Techno-typologically (excluding the Middle Paleolithic component), Radomyshl isconsistent with other early Blade Aurignacian materials from southeasternand western Europe. The survival of such industries until the second halfof the Middle Last Glacial is an intriguing problem, and the associationwith a Middle Paleolithic component might be understood in the contextof a process of acculturation.

The Il-a assemblage from the site of Zhornov is somewhat similar toRadomyshl (Anikovich, 1992). The EUP layer is geologically dated to the"Dofinovka" paleosol, which is analogous to the Stillfried B interstadial(Pyasetzki, 1991, pp. 136-138). A radiocarbon date of 28,100 B.P. ± 500years (GiN-4143) from the underlying Gravettian layer does not contradictthis notion. Thus, the Zhornov sequence gives rare evidence of a BladeAurignacian industry overlying Gravettian. As at Radomyshl, the Zhornovindustry combines Middle Paleolithic (Typical Mousterian?) and early Up-per Paleolithic elements (Fig. 11). There are very large sidescrapers, knives,limaces, and several pieces considered leaf-points (Pyasetzki, 1991). Bifacesare rare and atypical and Levallois components are absent. Endscrapers



Fig. 11. Blade Aurignacian of Zornov, Layer 1 (after Pyasetskij, 1991). 1-4, 8-11, 22, 23, and25, Scrapers; 5 and 6, heavily retouched blades; 7, limace; 12-14,16, and 21, heavily retouchedendscrapers; 15, Mousterian point; 17, retouched blade; 18-20, burins; 24, bifacial blank.

and burins are almost equal in frequency. The laterally retouched endscrap-ers are usually prepared on massive Aurignacian blades, while typical Auri-gnacian nosed and carinated endscrapers are not represented.

Distinct Types of Aurignacian Assemblages

A distinct group of Aurignacian-related assemblages is clearly recog-nizable in the Lower Dniester and adjacent River Bug area (Zeleny KhutorI and II, Climautsy I and II, Anetovka 13) (Fig. 12). The Lower Dniestersites are defined as belonging to the Lower Dniester culture (Sapozhnikov,1994; Covalenko, 1996) and differ from the Middle Dnieper site of Nenasy-tetz. The Anetovka 13 assemblage is quite original (Stanko and Petrun,1994) but related to the Lower Dniester culture. This industry is character-ized by multiplatformed cores and many nosed and carinated endscrapers.There are no tools on microblades; instead, massive points, including spe-cific types such as "Climautsy points," are typical. Denticulated and notchedpieces predominate and are associated with rare bifacially worked andscaled tools (Fig. 12). Bone artifacts are not known (Sapozhnikov, 1994;Covalenko, 1996). Two 14C dates from Climautsy II point to a Wuirm IIIdate including the maximum of the second Pleniglacial. Some regard Cli-mautsy II as separate from the other assemblages, since blade technologyis slightly more developed here (Covalenko, 1996, p. 235). Presumed techno-logical and typological connections between the local Denticulate MiddlePaleolithic of Stinkovian type and the later Lower Dniester culture arealso noteworthy (Anisyutkin, 1977; Stanko et al., 1989). They would implya separate origin, as opposed to the more common interpretation of theappearance of the Aurignacian.

Another Aurignacian group is apparent in the steppes of the northernpart of the Black Sea area and it coincides with the maximum of the secondPleniglacial. These are microlithic industries and include points made onvery small flakes (up to 1 cm long) and Dufour bladelets. These technologi-cal components occurred within two succeeding chronological horizons,named Sagaidak and Anetovka-Amvrosievka (Cohen and Otte, 1996),although general typological characteristics are different. The earlier assem-blages of Sagaidak I and Muralovka contain no micro-Gravettes, whilesites such as Anetovka II, Amvrosievka, Bolshaya Akkarzha, and RashkovVII have technological components characteristic of both the Aurignacianand the Epi-Gravettian traditions (Krotova, 1995; 1996). In fact, the firstgroup represents a latest Aurignacian, while the second one can be seen asan Epi-Gravettian technocomplex with some features of local Aurignacian.Although this has some relevance also to the Central European Aurignacian



Fig. 12. Aurignacian of the Lower Dniester culture of Zeleniy Hutor 1 (after Sapoznikov,1994). 1-5, 10, 12, and 13, Rabots; 6-9 and 11, nosed endscrapers; 14, carinated endscraper.

of Gura Pulavska type (Stanko et al., 1989), one would expect that such asuccession would be peculiar to the northern area of Black Sea. Instead,there is essentially the same tendency toward microlithization in the DufourAurignacian of "Levantine Aurignacian C" type. We should not forget,however, that some of the steppe Upper Paleolithic occurrences are ambigu-ous and that there is a notable chronological break between the Dufour

Aurignacian of Syuren I and the late Aurignacian in the steppe zone (Cohenand Otte, 1996).

Early Eastern Gravettian Industries

Sites in the Kostienki area yielded a classic example of EUP culturalvariability. There are two chronostratigraphic groups: one associated witha lower humic bed underlying a volcanic ash horizon (such as the Streletzianassemblages, Kostienki IV, Layer IVa, and the Spitzinian assemblages)and the other overlying the volcanic ash (the Gorodtzovian). The latter iscontemporaneous with the Dufour Aurignacian of Kostienki I, Layer 3, andthe Eastern Gravettian of Telmanskaya (Rogachev et al., 1982; Anikovich,1992). The Spitzinian industry (as at Kostienki 17, Layer 2, and Kostienki12, Layer 2) is based on prismatic knapping and burins on truncations andpolyhedral burins dominate among the tools. Endscrapers are generallymade on blades and are sometimes laterally retouched. Scaled pieces arequite typical. While backed bladelets are present, they are more rare. Thus,an origin of the early Eastern Gravettian in the Spitzinian is not supportedby available data (Anikovich, 1992). Unlike the contemporaneous Strelet-zian, the Spitzinian contains no Middle Paleolithic technological or typologi-cal components and almost no Aurignacian features. In technotypologicalindices, the Spitzinian resembles the very early Gravettian, but it is consider-ably earlier than the earliest known Gravettian (for example, at WillendorfII, Layers 5-6, and Kostienki VIII, Layer 2). Recent thought on the develop-ment of the Gravettian considers the Spitzinian as pre-Gravettian or "Phase0" of a classic Gravettian (Otte et al., 1996b). However, this does not solvethe problem of Spitzinian origins and there is reason to believe that theorigin was not the Kostienki-Borshevo area. There is also the relatedquestion of the origins of the backed-blade industries generally regardedas Eastern Gravettian. Relevant evidence is known from the Middle Dnies-ter area in the classic sequences of Molodova V and Korman' IV. Bothearly Molodovian and Spitzinian assemblages are characterized by featuressuch as an advanced blade technique, a high frequency of burins, rareendscrapers, backed bladelets, and backed micropoints.

Chernysh, the excavator of the Dniester sites, argued for local originsof the EUP from the local Levallois Middle Paleolithic (Chernysh, 1959,1973,1985,1987). He considered the lower layer of Babin as the beginningof the Dniester Upper Paleolithic sequence, while Layers l0b and l0a ofMolodova V—geologically dated to the Hengelo interstadial—were de-nned as transitional assemblages. However, we now know that Layers l0aand l0b are redeposited (Ivanova, 1987a). In reality, the best-documented


beginning of the Upper Paleolithic at Molodova V is in Layer 10, withinthe upper paleosol. Absolute dates from Layer 9, 28,100 B.P. ± 100 years(LU-15B) and 29,650 B.P. ± 1320 years (LG-15), point to the beginningof Bryansk or Stillfried B interstadial (Ivanova, 1987b). Based on sedimen-tological and palynological data, Layer 10 could date to around 30,000years—that is, well within the time of the earliest Gravettian assemblagesfrom central Europe (Willendorf II: 5 and Dolni Vestonice I) (Kozlowski,1986; Otte et al., 1996b; Valoch, 1996). Unfortunately, there is no goodevidence of the exact age of the early Upper Paleolithic layer of Babin I.This industry is based on prismatic blade technology (Chernysh, 1959) andretouched and utilized blades predominate among the tools. Large blades(8-9 cm long) are very common. Endscrapers are not as numerous asburins, but large, laterally retouched endscrapers on blades are common.The microliths include three micropoints, several Krems points, and threebacked bladelets. Both Dufour bladelets and carinated endscrapers areabsent (Fig. 13). The Babin industry is very similar to those of MolodovaV, Layers 10-7 and, apparently, is the oldest one in the sequence of theEarly Molodova culture. This culture is based on an advanced prismaticblade technology and is characterized by a steady growth of technologicallyassociated Gravettian components. Two Dniester Upper Paleolithic assem-blages, Molodova V, Layer 10, and Voronovitsa, yielded Szeletian-likebifacial points, which may indicate some short-term influence of the CentralEuropean Szeletian (these points are not known in the earlier or laterMolodova assemblages). However, there are no solid grounds to supposelinks between the Early Molodova culture and the Szeletian, as is sometimesargued (Grigorieva and Anikovich, 1993).

Non-Aurignacian or Transitional Industries

Several assemblages with a consistent combination of Middle and Up-per Paleolithic features have been assigned to this group. Obviously, itmay result from either acculturation (perhaps the Kulychivka, Prut, andBrynzeny cultures) or independent autochthonous development (perhaps inthe case of Streletzian, Gorodtzovian, and Mira). Only Kulychivka providesevidence suggesting a Middle Paleolithic base, in this case a Typical Mous-terian of recurrent Levallois facies; other EUP assemblages show moreor less pronounced Micoquian (or para-Micoquian) features, sometimescomplicated by signs of Denticulate Mousterian. Transitional EUP is knownin the Dniester and Prut basins, Don and Severski Donetz, middle Dnieper,upper Dniester, and Transcarpathia. We do not deal in detail with Transcar-



Fig. 13. Early industries with backed pieces of Babin 1, Layer 1 (1-21), and Voronovitza 1,Layer 1 (22-29), in the Dniester area (after Chernish, 1959). 1, Retouched bladelet; 2, needle-shaped micropoint; 3, convergent micropoint; 4, 13, and 29, dihedral burins; 5, 6, 8, 19, 22,and 23, heavily retouched blades; 7, 10, 11, 14 and 15, heavily retouched endscrapers; 9, 12,18, 24, and 28, endscrapers on blades; 16, 17, 20, and 21, combination tools; 25, biface; 26and 27, Mousterian points.

pathia, since it is most relevant to central Europe (such as in the similaritiesof the Szeletian and Korolevo 2/2).

The cultural sequence of Kulychivka, in western Ukraine, includesthree Upper Paleolithic layers. The lowest appears to lie under a paleosoldated to the Stillfried B interstadial. A radiocarbon date of abour 31,000years accords with this (Savich, 1987). The middle and upper UP layers,dated to ca. 25,000 years, yield basically the same industry plus someGravettian components. The technology of Kulychivka is oriented aroundblade production from prismatic and bidirectional Levallois cores. Re-touched blades, endscrapers (including carinated forms), multifaceted bu-rins, and typical elongated Levallois products, including points, are alsocharacteristic in the two lower layers (Fig. 14). Levallois technology ischaracteristic of the Kulychivka assemblages (Savich, 1987; Anikovich,1992), although some define it as a "post-Levallois" tradition (Sytnyk 1996,pp. 81-82). Unfortunately, the large collections from this site are still inade-quately published and therefore remain open to different interpretations.Nevertheless, there is every reason to regard the assemblages of Kulychivkaas analogous to the Moravian Bohunician. Available dates from Bohuniceand Stranska Skala are concentrated between 43,000/42,000 and 38,000/36,000 years (Valoch, 1990; Damblon et al., 1996) and are therefore signifi-cantly earlier than Kulychivka. Some Czech researchers have stressed thatLevallois technological forerunners of the Bohunician are not found incentral Europe but, to the contrary, might be seen in the Middle Paleolithicof the Dniester region. Unfortunately, the latest clear Levallois assemblageat Molodova V, Layer 11, is geologically dated to as early as ca. 60,000years (Ivanova, 1987a). However, it remains possible that the Kulychivkaassemblages are the final stages of Bohunician or post-Bohunician develop-ment. Similar transformation of a Levallois industry toward Upper Paleo-lithic technology and typology is known in the Negev (Ferring, 1988; Marks,1989; Gilead, 1991; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1996) and, probably, inSiberia (Otte and Derevianko, 1996). Thus, roughly contemporaneous andbasically similar technological and typological shifts rooted in some Leval-lois Middle Paleolithic industries which developed into non-AurignacianUpper Paleolithic ones are currently known in Europe, Asia, and the NearEast. This would be extremely interesting for future comparative studies.

Several rather distinct groups of assemblages are apparent in the Prutand Dniester river basins and have some peculiarities that distinguish themfrom the Aurignacian. The so-called Prut culture is represented at Gor-dineshti (Layer 3) and in the "Aurignacian la and 1b" of Ripiceni-Izvor,which date to the Stillfried B interstadial (Figs. 2 and 15). The Gordineshtiassemblage is characterized by endscrapers (with very few carinated forms),Middle Paleolithic scrapers, denticulated pieces, ventrally retouched blades,



Fig. 14. "Post-Bohunician" of Kulychivka, lower layer [1-7, after Sitnik (1996); 8-12, afterSavich (1987); 13-17, after Chernish (1985)]; 1-7, Levallois points; 8,14, and 15, endscraperson blades; 9, 11, and 16, burins; 10, heavily retouched blade; 12, carinated endscraper; 13,Mousterian point; 17, Szeletian point.


Fig. 15. Prut culture of Ripiceni-Izvor, Layers la and IIa (after Paunescu, 1993). 1, 11, and17, Bifaces; 2, dihedral burin; 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 14, and 15, endscrapers; 5, 6, 8, and 16, heavilyretouched blade; 9, Mousterian point; 13, angle burin.

and single backed bladelets. There are several types of bifacial leaf-points,including triangular with concave base (Streletzian type) and elongatedwith convex base (Szeletian type) (Anikovich, 1992; Grigorieva, 1996; Otteet al., 1996b).

The Brynzeny culture is well represented by the assemblage fromBrynzeny I, Layer 3, in the Prut valley. Radiocarbon dates range between26,000 and 14,000 B.P. (Hedges et al., 1996), but the earlier dates seemmore reliable. Prismatic blade reduction strategies predominate. The toolkitincludes retouched (sometimes ventrally thinned) blades, bifacially workedpoints, triangular points, single bifaces, and denticulated pieces but only afew backed bladelets and endscrapers, including nosed forms (Anikovich,1992; Grigorieva, 1996; Otte et al., 1996b).

Distinctions between the Prut and the Brynzeny cultures can be ex-plained in terms of different origins. The Brynzeny culture may integrateelements of a local Denticulate Mousterian and Micoquian (or EasternMicoquian), while the assemblage from Gordineshty might constitute directaffiliation with the Micoquian technocomplex (which was also involved inthe formation of the Streletzian). We are inclined to regard occurrencesof some Aurignacian and Gravettian elements in these industries as aconsequence of acculturation which occurred as different populations set-tled in the Dniester-Prut area during the Stillfried B interstadial (Otte etal., 1996).

The effect of various EUP traditions (including the Dufour Aurigna-cian) and Gravettian "expansion" probably resulted in the appearanceof such peculiar assemblages as Korpach, Layer 4, and Korpach-Mys,Ripicheni-Izvor, Layer IIb (Fig. 16). The Korpach assemblage, dated tothe Paudorf interstadial, includes typical bifaces, arched double-points,endscrapers, sidescrapers, and denticulated and some retouched bladelets.Aurignacian blades and carinated endscrapers are not present (Grigorieva,1996). As the product of a complicated and still-unclear process of interac-tion among several traditions, the Korpach industry ultimately cannot bedefined as either Aurignacian (Grigorieva, 1996) or Gravettian (Allsworth-Jones, 1990). The site of Korpach-Mys has no absolute dates. The lithictechnology combines both prismatic and radial reduction. Both carinatedand short endscrapers are numerous. Burins are represented by regularand rather simple types and there are several backed bladelets. The MiddlePaleolithic group consists of sidescrapers, leaf points and denticulatedpieces.

The modern view of the origins of the Streletzian suggests a continuousdevelopment, divisible into four stages (Bradley et al., 1995). The earliestassemblage, Kostienki 12, Layer 3, is not dated, but the latest stage at thesite of Sungir is dated to the end of the Paudorf. Most dates are concentrated



Fig. 16. Korpachian of Ripiceni-lzvor, Layer IIb (after Paunescu, 1993). 1, 5, 11, and 13,Endscrapers; 2-4 and 8, arched double points; 6 and 10, burins; 7 and 22, endscrapers onblades; 6, 9, 14-16, 19, and 21, leaf points; 12, carinated endscraper; 17, scraper; 18 and 20,Streletzian points.

in the Stillfried B interstadial (Fig. 1). Streletzian sites are known not onlyin the Don valley, but also in the lower reaches of the Kama (Gachi),in the Severski Donetz and Klyazma areas (Biryuchiya Balka, Sungir)(Anikovich, 1992). The Streletzian is characterized by the clear combinationof Middle and Upper Paleolithic features. The triangular and laterallyretouched endscrapers occupy a leading place among the tools, along witha high frequency of sidescrapers, Mousterian points, and scaled pieces.There are no burins. Both bifaces and bifacially worked points, includingleaf-points and triangular tools with concave bases—a characteristic Strelet-zian type—are present throughout the duration of this industry (Fig. 17).The main Streletzian trends involve an explicit shift from flake to bladetechnology along with an increase in Upper Paleolithic types and a decreaseof bifaces. The Middle Paleolithic types survive until the end of the se-quence, while Aurignacian types appear only in the final stage (Bradley etal., 1995). The search for forerunners of the Streletzian among the Crimeanbifacial Middle Paleolithic or in the south of the East European Plain hasgone on for decades (Formozov, 1958; Anikovich, 1991; Stepanchuk, 1991).

Gorodtzovian sites are known only in the Kostienki-Borshevo area(Praslov and Rogachev, 1982; Anikovich, 1992; Sinitsyn, 1996). Radiocar-bon dates mostly coincide with the Stillfried B interstadial, although severalmore recent dates extend up to the maximum of the Second Pleniglacial(Fig. 1). The lithic industry (Sinitsyn, 1996) is clearly flake oriented, withalmost no regular prismatic; secondarily worked pieces of Middle Paleolithicappearance reach up to 50%. Sidescrapers, Mousterian points, and knivesare typical, bifaces are not very numerous, and there are frequent toolswith alternate or bifacial retouch (Fig. 18). Also worthy of note is thepresence of truncated simple sidescrapers and limaces, while pieces ecaillesare frequent. Endscrapers vary from small circular to massive carinatedforms. Burins, backed bladelets, and Aurignacian Dufour components arenot known. The impressive bone industry includes decorated pieces, spatu-las, and numerous bone retouchers.

The Gorodtzovian is not easily definable at the level of a technocom-plex (Cohen and Stepanchuk, 2000), and its origins remain unclear despiteattempts to integrate the data (Anikovich, 1992; Sinitsyn, 1996). New evi-dence from eastern Europe suggests the presence of a transitional episodebetween the Crimean para-Micoquian and the EUP flake-oriented indus-tries of the Don area. This evidence comes from the site of Mira, locatedon the right bank of the Dnieper about 30 km south of Zaporozye (Ukraine).Only a brief description is presented here (Stepanchuk et al., 2000).

At Mira, stone artifacts, faunal remains, fragments of charcoal, andburned bones were discovered within a thin stratum of a clayey-sandyburied soil covered by 8 m of terrace sediments. The cultural remains may



Fig. 17. Spitzinian of Kostenki 17, Layer 2 (1-14), and Streletzian of Kostenki I, Layer 5(15-28) (after Praslov and Rogachev, 1982). 1-3, Drilled teeth; 4, micropoint; 5, retouchedbladelet; 6-9 and 13, burins; 10,11,18, and 22-24, heavily retouched endscrapers; 12, retouchedblade; 14, limace; 15, truncated-faceted piece; 16, multiple scraper; 17,20,21, and 25, Streletzianpoints; 26 and 28, bifaces; 27, scraper.

date to the maximum of the Dofinovka in the Ukrainian scheme, which isanalogous to the Stillfried B interstadial of central Europe. The assemblagehas an extremely limited number of flakes, many of which show traces ofuse, and rare cores. Convergent multiedged tools predominate, and thereis a high frequency of retouching and resharpening products from bothbifacial pieces and flake tools. The technology is essentially flake-oriented.The secondary reduction exhibits various retouch techniques, including


Fig. 18. Gorodtzovian of Kostenki 15 (after Praslov and Rogachev, 1982). 1-8, Heavilyretouched endscrapers; 9, burin on truncation; 10-13, 16, 17, 18, 22, and 24, endscrapers; 14,double endscraper; 15, 23, and 25, heavily retouched blades; 19, scaled piece; 20, biface; 21,limace; 26, alternately retouched scraper; 27, truncated-faceted scraper.

truncation and flat pressure retouch. In typology, the assemblage containsbifaces, bifacially retouched pieces, sidescrapers, Mousterian points, andtriangular laterally retouched endscrapers. The industry has an obviousmicrolithic character, since the majority of retouched pieces does not exceed5 cm length. The Aurignacian component is limited to a single alternatelyretouched Dufour bladelet. Neither carinated nor nosed endscrapers arerepresented (Fig. 19). Thus, the Mira assemblage is neither Middle Paleo-lithic nor Upper Paleolithic and could plausibly be described as a transi-tional flake-oriented industry. Its closest analogies can be seen in the Cri-mean para-Micoquian of Kiik-Koba type and the EUP of the Donarea—particularly the Gorodtzovian.

Caucasian Data

The Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition in eastern Europe cannotbe fully understood without reference to the Caucasian data. Unfortunately,many important aspects of the development of the Caucasian Upper Paleo-lithic are still unresolved. In fact, most of the assemblages traditionallyregarded as basic for cultural-historical studies are probably mixed withMiddle Paleolithic materials or have problems of stratigraphy (Kozlowski,1970; Lyubin, 1989). Additionally, none of the five schemes of periodizationproposed for the Caucasian Upper Paleolithic is based on absolute dates(Zarnyatnin, 1957; Kozlowski, 1972; Berdzenishvili, 1972;Tushabramishvili,1981; Amirkhanov, 1994). The only two radiocarbon dates for the EUPare from the cave of Apiancha, 25,970 B.P. ± 2000 years (Berdzenishviliand Nioradze, 1991), and from the Upper Paleolithic Layer "1 C" of Mez-maiskaya cave, 32,010 B.P. ± 250 years (Beta-113536) (Golovanova et al.,1999, p. 79).

Characteristics of the Caucasian Upper Paleolithic include a local ori-gin of the EUP, similarity to the Upper Paleolithic of neighboring areasof central Asia, an "Aurignacoid" appearance combined with "Perigor-dian" or Gravettian tool types, and a comparatively early emergence andbroad distribution of geometric microliths (Lyubin, 1989). These featureshave long been seen as relevant to understanding the development of theUpper Paleolithic. Alternative views, for at least part of the Upper Paleo-lithic (Nioradze, 1975), have been proposed. One such was Kozlowski'sargument (1972) that the Transcaucasus Upper Paleolithic consisted offragments of various industrial traditions, a view which is supported by thehigh level of technotypological variability. Most scholars have stressed thesignificant differences between the EUP of the northern Caucasus and thatof Transcaucasus (Bader, 1965; Amirkhanov, 1986), and they suggest that



Fig. 19. "Post-Eastern Micoquian" of Mira (after Stepanchuk el al., 2000). 1, Truncatedbladelet; 2, alternately retouched blade; 3, retouched piece; 4 and 5, truncations; 6-8, heavilyretouched endscrapers; 9, retouched blade; 10, limace; 11, 13, and 14, bifacial and reworkedtools; 12, convergent point; 15 and 16, cores.

consistent interaction between these regions dates only to after the LastGlacial Maximum, which served as a natural ice barrier (Lyubin, 1992, p.210). A few EUP sites of the northern Caucasus occur in the Cuban riverbasin, which was a tributary of the paleo-Don, which, in turn, was part ofthe northern Black Sea fluvial basin during the Black Sea regression ofthe Inter-Pleniglacial and the beginning of the Pleniglacial. Layer 3 ofKamennomostskaya cave and Layer 2 of Gubs rockshelter 1 should bereferred to the EUP (Formozov, 1964; Amirkhanov, 1986; Lyubin, 1989).Unfortunately, it is not possible to include here some potentially important,but not fully published, assemblages. Nevertheless, the available data allowus to recognize the same pattern of EUP in the Caucasus as in the EastEuropean Plain and Crimea.

Flake-Blade or Krems-Dufour Aurignadan

Both Samertskhle-Klde and Dzudzuana have a flake-blade-orientedtechnology. Carinated endscrapers and polyhedral burins are equally com-mon. Backed bladelets are virtually absent, while alternately retouchedDufour bladelets are well represented, as are scaled pieces (Fig. 20). MiddlePaleolithic pieces are absent. Thus, these assemblages seem to representtypical Dufour Aurignacian, although the question of their origin is com-plex. Possibilities include local development through the Sagvardzhile; in-trusion from the adjacent central Asian or Crimean regions—that is, apenetration of either the Zagros Aurignacian (Olszewski and Dibble, 1993)or the Lower Syuren culture; and interaction of local and external popula-tions (acculturation).

The stratigraphic position of Kamennomostskaya, Level 3 (northernCaucasus), probably indicates an interstadial age for this assemblage. Bothprismatic and flat cores were used for the manufacture of short blades andflakes (Fig. 21). As noted by Amirkhanov (1986), denticulated retouchpredominates, but there are isolated examples of inverse and alternatingretouch. Tools of both Middle Paleolithic (sidescrapers and points) andUpper Paleolithic types are generally small (ca. 5 cm long). Upper Paleo-lithic types dominate the assemblage, and burins (dihedral, nucleiform, andon truncation) are about twice as common as endscrapers. The latter includetypical Aurignacian types, such as carinated, nosed, and short endscrapers.There are also several Krems or El-Wad points.

It has been suggested that this industry developed from a local Denticu-late Mousterian (Amirkhanov, 1986). However, we do not believe that thefrequency of denticulated retouch can serve as an indicator of this kind of"genetic" link. Other indices suggest more probable relationships with a



Fig. 20. Transcaucasian Early Upper Paleolithic of Sagvardzile, Layer 4 (1-18), andSamertzhle-Klde (19-28) (after Lyubin, 1988). 1 and 2, Retouched bladelets; 3, burin ontruncation; 4-6 and 13, endscrapers; 7,8, and 25, retouched blades; 9-12 and 14-18, Mousterianpoints; 19, Dufour bladelet; 20 and 21, carinated endscrapers; 22 and 23, endscrapers onblades; 24, blade; 26, truncated faceted piece; 27, angle burin; 28, dihedral burin.

Typical Mousterian of non-Levallois fades. The Upper Paleolithic compo-nents, in turn, have obvious features of the Dufour Aurignacian.

Blade Aurignacian

The EUP assemblage of Gubs rockshelter is associated with a paleosolwhich is preliminary dated to the Stillfried B interstadial (Amirkhanov,1986). The industry is strongly blade-oriented using prismatic cores (Fig.21). The artifacts regarded as Middle Paleolithic are atypical and rare.Various types of endscrapers are extremely frequent, constituting up to67% of the toolkit (Amirkhanov, 1986); most are typical Aurignacian cari-nated and nosed pieces. There are no Dufour bladelets, backed bladelets,or microliths. Amirkhanov stressed the originality of the Gubs industry buthe also recognized some analogies to Sagvardzhile and Dzudzuana in termsof the absence of backed bladelets and the presence of carinated endscrap-ers (Amirkhanov, 1986, pp. 44-46).

Transitional Industries

The industry of Sagvardzhile, Level V, seen as clearly transitional(Berdzenishvili, 1953), contains no Aurignacian elements, such as carinatedendscrapers, heavily retouched blades, or polyhedral burins. The use of acentripetal, or radial, core reduction strategy resulted in flakes and rare,irregular blades. Typical Mousterian points and sidescrapers predominateand bifacial tools are rare. Burins are less frequent than endscrapers. Thereare only a few retouched blades and no signs of a Dufour technology (Fig.20). These data suggest that the Sagvardzhile assemblage is a transitionalindustry, with many of the features of a non-Levallois Typical Mousterian.

Summary of the Caucasus

Current interpretations of the Caucasian Middle-to-Upper Paleolithictransition still suffer from a lack of reliable data. Nevertheless, some prelimi-nary remarks can be made. The Caucasian EUP assemblages may or maynot have a developed Middle Paleolithic component. The Sagvardzhileassemblage is a transitional assemblage, while that from the Kamennomost-skaya cave currently tends to be seen as a "true" Aurignacian. Thereare no convincing signs of links between the two. The Caucasian EUPassemblages with a strong LMP component suggest connections with a non-


Cohen and Stepanchuk

Fig. 21. Aurignacian of Kamennomostkaya cave (1-18) (after Lyubin, 1989) and Gubs, Layer2 (19-31) (after Amirkhanov, 1986). 1, Font-Yves point; 2, Dufour bladelet; 3, 14 and 15,dihedral burins; 4, notch; 5-7, burins; 8,9, and 13, scrapers; 10,12, and 20, carinated endscrapers;11 and 21-29, endscrapers; 16-18, convergent scrapers; 19, nosed endscraper; 30 and 31, cores.

306

Levallois Typical Mousterian. In contrast, the EUP of the Don and Dniesterareas shows clear signs of affiliation with the Eastern Micoquian and TypicalMousterian of Levallois facies, respectively. In many respects, this is similarto the situation noted for Warwasi in the Zagros (Olszewski and Dibble,1993), where there was also a Middle Paleolithic component, consistingprimarily of flake points and sidescrapers, followed by combination ofnon-Levallois Typical Mousterian and Aurignacian features (including anoverwhelming predominance of carinated end scrapers, polyhedral burins,Font-Yves or Krems points, and Dufour bladelets). The typological similar-ity between these assemblages and that of Kamennomostskaya cave seemsclear but must be confirmed through future study. In any case, the originof the Kamennomostskaya industry is basic to the whole concept of EUPorigins. If we accept the monocentric hypothesis for the origin of the Aurig-nacian, then the Kamennomostskaya industry would be due to an interac-tion between a local Middle Paleolithic and an intrusive Aurignacian. Interms of typology, Samertskhle-Klde and Dzudzuana probably representtypical Dufour Aurignacian or Near Eastern "Aurignacian B" industries.However, the long-standing hypothesis of a local origin for these assem-blages contradicts the notion of such industries being intrusive in the NearEast and eastern Europe (Kozlowski, 1992; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen,1996), although, in some respects, it fits well with the idea of a Zagrosorigin for a Dufour-like Aurignacian (Olszewski and Dibble, 1993).

The industry of Gubs rockshelter is quite similar to the Blade Aurigna-cian known in the Balkans, Levant, and Zagros (early Baradostian), al-though the age is yet to be determined. A high degree of similarity betweenthe Transcaucasus Aurignacian industries and assemblages in adjacentareas, such as Syuren I and Warwasi, should allow us to assign them to thesame technocomplex—the Krems or Dufour Aurignacian. In the presenceof backed bladelets, and the ratio and structure of endscrapers andburins, Samertskhle-Klde and Dzudzuana are closely similar to the middlelayer of Syuren I. There are differences in the percentages of Dufourbladelets and Font-Yves points, but we believe that these are notreally sensitive to cultural and chronological subdivisions. However, highfrequencies of such pieces are characteristic in western and central Europe(Banesz, 1993), the Crimea (Vekilova, 1957), and Zagros (Olszewski andDibble, 1993) but rare in the Levant (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 1996)and Caucasus.

The classical Transcaucasus sites, such as Hergulis-Klde, Taro-Klde, Sa-kazhia, and Devis-Hvreli, are not included in this review, since the data arenot reliable. On the other hand, Sagvardzhile, Dzudzuana, and Samandzhle-Klde, which were long regarded as exceptions, are, in reality, fairly represen-tative of the early stage of Transcaucasus Upper Paleolithic. Thus, the Cauca-

Lale Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic Evidence 307

sian data, as elsewhere in eastern Europe, show considerable variability inthe EUP, which include both Aurignacian and transitional industries.

DISCUSSION

Studies of the origins and development of the eastern European EUPface three basic problems: the appearance and rise of the Aurignacianindustries, the origins and development of transitional assemblages, andthe origins and spread of the eastern Gravettian industries characterizedby backed points and backed bladelets. Available data suggest that theEUP of the Eastern Europe was a time of wide-scale cultural and, probably,biological change, with significant migrations and acculturation. The eastEuropean and Caucasian EUP records suggest both "population continu-ity" and "population replacement" scenarios for the Middle-to-Upper Pa-leolithic transition. It should be stressed that population replacement seemsto be supported by the numerous examples of acculturation processesreflected in the archaeological record, while population continuity is sup-ported by the presence of the rare, so-called transitional assemblages.

To date, more than 30 sites throughout eastern Europe are directlyrelevant to the problem of the EUP (Fig. 1). These sites are generallywithin a periglacial zone and tend to be in the valleys of rivers of the BlackSea basin. Radiocarbon dates place EUP assemblages between 32,000 and25,000/24,000 years—that is, within the optimum of Dofinovka, which corre-lates with the Arcy, Stillfried B, and Paudorf interstadials. Except for afew dates in the Upper Pleniglacial (Figs. 2 and 4), most dates indicate thatthe precise time of the local Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition wasthe Stillfried B interstadial. The period beginning at about 30,000 B.P.saw drastic environmental changes, coinciding with the beginning of theNovoevksinsk regression of the Black Sea (32,000-18,000 B.P.). This regres-sion led to a vast broadening of the terrestrial links between the Crimeanpeninsula and the East European Plain, while a reconfiguration of landscapezones resulted in considerable increase in steppe areas.

The eastern European LMP is highly variable in technotypology. Thereis Typical Mousterian with both Levallois and non-Levallois facies, highlydiverse Denticulate Mousterian, Eastern Micoquian sensu stricto as well aspara-Micoquian, and, probably, Charentian. The Crimea, where differenttraditions coexisted in a geographically limited region, is an excellent exam-ple of Middle Paleolithic variability (Stepanchuk, 1998). Also interestingis the very late survival of the Crimean LMP, which almost coincided withthe first local Upper Paleolithic at ca. 30,000 years; other LMP is usuallyno later than ca. 35,000 years. At roughly this time, Crimean LMP popula-


tions may have migrated toward the North, resulting in the rise or adoptionof elements of Upper Paleolithic technology.

The eastern European record shows a broad spectrum of industriesrelated to the Aurignacian, various kinds of transitional industries withMiddle Paleolithic features in typology or technology, and early industrieswith backed bladelets which are usually called "Eastern Gravettian." Mostsites coincide with the "Black Sea" Novoevksinsk regression, and it is clearthat there was some kind of a correlation between general social changesand the ecological shifts that took place at this time. It is worth noting thatthere was a similar correlation in the northern Black Sea area before andafter the Last Glacial Maximum (Cohen and Gorelik, 2000).

The "true" eastern European Aurignacian can be subdivided intotwo technocomplexes: a flake-blade (or Krems-Dufour) Aurignacian anda blade Aurignacian. It is difficult to discern the forerunners of the BladeAurignacian technology in the Late Middle Paleolithic. The Levallois as-semblages of the Altai area have been suggested as the most probable rootof the Aurignacian (Otte and Derevianko, 1996), but this remains unproven.The earliest Aurignacian of Temnata and Bacho-Kiro also shows no linkswith the preceding Middle Paleolithic (Kozlowski, 1992), but Kozlowski(1996) has suggested relating the Mediterranean (or blade-oriented) Aurig-nacian to the Near Eastern Ahmarian.

Provisionally, the Radomyshl, Zhornov 1 and Ila, and Gubs 1 assem-blages may be classified as Blade Aurignacian. They are based on a blade-oriented technology; heavily retouched Aurignacian blades are quite typi-cal, while Dufour components, backed bladelets, and micropoints are miss-ing. Both Radomyshl and Zhornov contain Middle Paleolithic points andsidescrapers that might be interpreted as a contribution of the TypicalMousterian. Although cultural distinctions are not usually made within theBlade Aurignacian, Kozlowski cautiously suggests a distinct Bacho-Kiriancultural tradition at about 40,000 years and, at the same time, stresses itssimilarity to the western European Aurignacian. If Radomyshl is really thesame age as Zhornov and falls within the Stillfried B interstadial, thenthese assemblages are significantly younger than comparable Europeanoccurrences. Since there is considerable cultural variability during StillfriedB, the latter idea cannot be rejected.

The flake-blade Aurignacian is widely dispersed through eastern Eu-rope and is known in the Caucasus. Its appearance is probably connectedwith the second migration wave of Balkan Aurignacian (Kozlowski, 1992);this is indirectly supported by the European Dufour or flake-blade Aurigna-cian being stratigraphically younger than Blade Aurignacian. The earliestdates for Flake Aurignacian are from Bacho-Kiro, Layer 6b [32,7000 B.P.± 300 years (GrN-7569) (Kozlowski, 1982)] and Mitoc Malu Galben [32,730


B.P. ± 220 years (GrA-1357) (Otte et al., 1996b)], and the latest is fromKostienki 1, Layer 3 (ca. 25,000 years). Local variants can be seen withinthis unit, such as the Lower Syuren culture in the Crimea (Cohen, 1996)and the Kamennomostskaya cave assemblage in the northern Caucasus.Modern theoretical approaches to the problem of the Middle-to-UpperPaleolithic transition allow us to interpret the Middle Paleolithic componentof this assemblage as evidence of interactions between an intrusive Aurigna-cian and local Typical Mousterian rather than as a result of local "ge-netic" origins.

Eastern Europe also has two distinct variations of Aurignacian whichcannot satisfactorily be referred to any of the above Aurignacian techno-complexes, that is, the Lower Dniester culture (Climautsy I, II, ZelenyKhutor I, Anetovka 13) and the Late Aurignacian of the steppe zone ofthe Black Sea area (Sagaidak I and Muralovka). We see the Lower Dniesterculture as analogous to the Moravian assemblage of Vedrovice II, whichOliva (1991) suggested is derived from the local Middle Paleolithic. Thisvariant is dated to about 33,000 years, which, compared with the ClimautsyII radiocarbon dates (Fig. 2), is earlier than the Lower Dniester culture.

Theoretically, the early Gravettian of the Central Europe should beconsidered a forerunner to the "Eastern Gravettian without shoulderedpoints." However, the Spitzinian assemblages are definitely older than theearly Gravettian, and this does not support such an idea. In turn, the originsof the central European Gravettian are a highly debated problem. It hasbeen suggested that it developed in Moravia, Austria, and western Slovakiafrom the Szeletian (Kozlowski and Otte, 1987) or as a result of contactbetween the Szeletian and, probably, a local Aurignacian (Valoch, 1996).More recently, it has been proposed that there are links between the EasternGravettian and the early Aurignacian of Bacho-Kiro, Layer 11, and Mitoc,Layer 1-s, which show trends toward a Gravettian typological pattern (Borzi-yak, 1997). This view agrees well with the archaeological and chronologicalevidence, but there is no basis for extending it to the origins of Spitzinian(that is, as a response to the first wave of Aurignacian expansion throughthe East European Plain).

In this context, the following issues are important: the early EasternGravettian assemblages show no convincing connections with local MiddlePaleolithic; the earliest (<40,000 years) appearances of backed pieces arein several EUP contexts, such as Bacho-Kiro, Layer 11 (Kozlowski, 1982),and the lower level of Szeleta (Grigorieva and Anikovich, 1993); and backedpieces become typologically standardized and common at about 32,000years (Bacho-Kiro, Layer 6b, and Szeleta, upper level); the early Molodovaculture is probably rooted in the early Bacho-Kirian (Borziyak, 1997), andduring its development, it was occasionally influenced by the Szeletian.


Another problem is the origin and development of the transitionalindustries. Some trends in their development suggest acculturation withAurignacian or Gravettian. Typological manifestations of acculturation maybe more marked, as in the Prut culture, Brynzenian, Korpachian, andKorpach-Mys in the Dniester-Prut region, or less marked, as in the Gorodt-zovian, or may appear only in the final stages of development, as in theStreletzian. However, all the transitional industries of eastern Europe showclear signs of derivation from the Middle Paleolithic in that they have manytechnological and typological features of the latter.

The origin of the Streletzian and Gorodtzovian flake industries is oneof the most intriguing problems in the EUP of eastern Europe. Their largelyMiddle Paleolithic technology allows us to regard them as a distinct groupderived from an eastern Micoquian substrate. In technology and typology,they show no connection with the Aurignacian and they probably haveeastern European roots. Both are also associated with anatomically modernhumans [from the earliest Gorodtzovian site of Kostienki 14, Level 3 (Pras-lov and Rogachev, 1982; Sinitsyn, 1996) and from the latest Streletzian siteof Sungir (ASS, 1984; Bradley et al., 1995)]. We therefore believe that theStreletzian and Gorodtzovian arose from the same flake-oriented, non-Levallois, technological base and from a tradition of bifacial tool manufac-ture (cf. Amirkhanov et al., 1993)—most probably the Crimean para-Mico-quian industries of Staroselian and Kiik-Kobian type. The origin of thePrut culture, on the other hand, most likely lies in the Eastern Micoquiantradition, while the Brynzenian included features of both Typical Mouster-ian and Eastern Micoquian.

Our knowledge of the dynamics of the early stages of formationof the transitional industries is limited. They were probably associatedwith deep cultural transformations, including changes in population mo-bility, subsistence strategy, and the like. In practice, these transfor-mations can be recognized in the transitional industries because of thestrong survival of Middle Paleolithic traditions. Three examples of tran-sitional industries, all different in technology and typological, are of es-pecial interest: Kulychivka, in northwestern Ukraine; Mira, on the MiddleDnieper; and Sagvardzhile, in the Transcaucasus. Kulychivka probablyrepresents the latest occurrence of the central European Bohunician, butwith a special chronological and territorial situation [for more details, seeCohen and Stepanchuk (2000)]. Mira represents the transition betweenthe Crimean Kiik-Kobian and the EUP of the Don area, most pro-bably the Gorodtzovian. This succession has some analogies with the Mico-quian-Szeletian sequence but also has typological and chronological differ-ences. Sagvardzhile is probably derived from a non-Levallois TypicalMousterian.


In summary, the following are some of our views on the questionsposed at the beginning of the paper:

The timing of the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition in easternEurope is different from that seen in central and western Europeand generally centers on Stillfried B.

Only some of the local EUP industries are seen as developing fromthe preceding LMP.

The appearance of the early local Aurignacian is basically the sameas elsewhere in Europe, and two kinds of Aurignacian can be distin-guished, Blade and Flake (Dufour) Aurignacian.

The EUP record of eastern Europe shows a complicated picture ofthe coexistence of sometimes sharply different industries, which,nevertheless, can generally be ascribed to Aurignacian, Gravettian,or transitional industries.

In the eastern European EUP, only the Aurignacian and Gravettiancan be regarded as analogous to the western or central Europeanrecord; most of the transitional industries cannot.

The LMP of eastern Europe and the Caucasus is regularly associatedwith Homo neanderthalensis. Several finds of Homo sapiens areassociated with transitional EUP industries of the Gorodtzovian andStreletzian types. Some Neandertal-like features in the Sungir findsmay mean that the transition was associated with biological changes.

Available data suggest that the Middle-to-upper Paleolithic transitionwas discontinuous in nature, probably involving both "replacement"and "acculturation."

We propose the following scenario for the local transition from Middleto Upper Paleolithic. Starting some millennia earlier but generally by 30,000years ago, new peoples and new technologies penetrated widely into theeastern European Plain and the Caucasus. This is reflected in the appear-ance and further development of Aurignacian-related industries, in thepartial disappearance of the local LMP traditions (mostly clearly, of theCrimean Middle Paleolithic), and in the rise of industries with both Middleand Upper Paleolithic features. These processes involved a wide variety ofMiddle Paleolithic and intrusive cultures. While a local origin for at leastsome Upper Paleolithic industries might be argued on technotypologicalgrounds, this is contradicted by their association with anatomically mod-ern people.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We are warmly grateful to Harold L. Dibble for reading and discussingthis paper.


REFERENCES

Alekseev, M. P., Chistyakov, A. A., and Scherbakov, F, A. (1986). Chetuertichnaya geologiyamaterikovykh okrain (The Quaternary geology of the continental borderlands), Nedra,Moscow.

Allsworth-Jones, P. (1990). Les industries a pointes foliacees de 1'Europe centrale. Questionsde definitions et relations avec les autres techno-complexes. In Farizy, C. (ed.), Paleolith-ique Moyen recente et Paleolithique superieur ancien en Europe, Memoires du Musee dePrehistoire de l'Ile-de-France 3, Paris, pp. 78-95.

Amirkhanov, H. A. (1986). Verhniy paleolit Prikubanya (The Upper Paleolithic of the Kubanvalley), Nauka, Moscow.

Amirkhanov, H. A. (1994). K probleme evolutsii i periodizatsii verhnego paleolita ZapadnogoKavkaza (On the problem of evolution and periodization of the West Caucasian UpperPaleolithic). Sovelskaya arkheologiya 4: 9-23.

Amirkhanov, H. A., Anikovich, M. V., and Borziyak, I. A. (1993). Probleme de la transitiondu Mousterien au Paleolithique superieur sur le territoire de la Plaine Russe et duCaucase. L'Anthropologie 97: 311-330.

Anikovich, M. V. (1991). Pannyaya stadiya pozdnego paleolita v Vostochnoy Europe (AnEarly stage of the Upper Paleolithic in Eastern Europe), abstract of Ph.D. dissertation,Preprint, St. Petersburg.

Anikovich, M. (1992). Early Upper Paleolithic industries of Eastern Europe. Journal of WorldPrehistory 6: 205-245.

Anisyutkin, N. (1977). Ob arkheologicheskih kulturah Must'e—po materialam Pridnestroviya(About archaeological Mousterian cultures—On the basis of materials of the Dniesterarea). Arkheologicheskiy sbornik Gosudarstvennogo Ermitaza 18: 5-19.

Anisyutkin, N. K. (1981). Arkheologicheskoe izuchenie Must'erskoy stoyanki Ketrosi (Archae-ological study of the Mousterian site Ketrosy). In Praslov, N. D. (ed.), Ketrosy. Mus-t'erskaya stoyanka regiona Srednego Dnepra, Nauka, Moscow, pp. 9-65.

Anisyutkin, N. K. (1990). Les industries mousteriennes a pointes foliacees du Sud-Ouest dela partie europeenne de 1'URSS. In Kozlowski, J. K. (ed.), Les industries a pointes foliaceesdu paleolithique superieur europeen, Etudes et Recherches Archeologiques de 1'Universitede Liege 42, Liege, pp. 31-42.

Anisyutkin, N. K., Borziyak, I. A., and Ketraru, N. A. (1986). Drevniy chelovek v pescherahTrinka I-III (Ancient Man in Trinka I-III caves), Stiintsa, Kishinev.

ASS (1984). Antropologicheskoe issledovanie stoyanki Sungir (Anthropological Studies ofSungir), Nauka, Moscow.

Bader, N. O. (1965). Varianty kultury Kavkaza kontsa verhnego paleolita i mezolita (Culturalvariability at the end of Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic of the Caucasus). SovetskayaArkheologiya 4: 58-95.

Bader, O. N. (1979). Novaya Chokurchinskaya Must'erskaya stoyanka (New Mousterian siteof Chokurcha). In Kolosov, Yu. (ed.), Izuchenie paleolita Krima, Naukova dumka, Kiev,pp. 141-156.

Banesz, L. (1993). Beitrag zur Problematic des Kremsien. Slovenska Archaeologia XLI-2:151-90.

Bar-Yosef, O. (1992). The excavations in Kebara Cave, Mt. Carmel. Current Anthropology33: 497-550.

Bar-Yosef, O., and Belfer-Cohen, A. (1996). Another look at the Levantine Aurignacian. InMontet-White, A., Palma de Cesnola, A., and Valoch, K. (eds), XIII International Con-gress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Proceedings, Volume 6, The Upper Paleo-lithic, Abaco, Forli, pp. 139-152.

Bar-Yosef, O., Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., March, R. J., and Piperno, M. (eds.) (1996). XIII Interna-tional Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Proceedings, Volume 5, TheLower and Middle Paleolithic, Abaco, Forli.

Belyaeva, E. V. (1994). Rannepaleolithicheskie stoyanki Gubskogo basseyna (Lower Paleolithicsites of the Gubs basin), Abstract of Ph.D. dissertation, Preprint, St. Petersburg.


Berdzenishvili, N. Z. (1953). Mnogoslojniy arkheologicheskiy pamyatnik Sagvrdzhile (Multi-layer archaeological site of Sagvardzile). Soobscheniya Academii nauk Gruzinskoy SSR14(9): 87-95.

Berdzenishvili, N. Z. (1972). K voprosu o nachalnoy stadii verhnego paleolita Gruzii (On thequestion of the initial stage of the Upper Paleolithic of Georgia). In Masson, V. M.(ed.), Kamenniy vek Srednej Asii i Kazahstana, Izdatelstvo Kazahskoy Academii Nauk,Tashkent, pp. 23-25.

Berdzenishvili, N. Z., and Nioradze, M. J. (1991). Seda paleoliti (Paleolithic stage). Sakartvelosarkheologia l(Tbilisi): 161-300.

Bonch-Osmolovski, G. A. (1930). Shaitan-Koba—myst'erskaya stoyanka tipa Abri-Adi vKrimu (Shaitan-Koba—the Crimean Mousterian site of Abri-Audi type). Bulleten Komis-sil po Izucheniyu Chewertichnogo perioda 2: 61-82.

Bonch-Osmolovski, G. A. (1941). Peschera Kiik-Koba (Kiik-Koba cave). Paleolithic of theCrimea I, 1-168.

Boriskovski, P. I. (1953). Paleolit Ukrainy (The Paleolithic of Ukraine), Nauka, Moscow-Leningrad.

Boriskovski, P. I., and Praslov, N. D. (1964). Paleolit basseina Dnepra i Priazov'ya (ThePaleolithic of the Dnieper Basin and Azov Area), Nauka, Moscow-Leningrad.

Borziyak, I. (1997). The origin and local variants of the eastern Gravettian in the Dniester-Carpathian area. In Amirkhanov, H. (ed.), The Gravettian in Eastern Europe, Preprint,Zaraysk-Moscow, pp. 172-210.

Bradley, B. A., Anikovich, M., and Giria, E. (1995). Early Upper Palaeolithic in the RussianPlain. Streletskayan flaked stone artefacts and technology. Antiquity 69: 989-998.

Chabai, V. (1996). Kabazi II in the context of the Crimean Middle Paleolithic. PrehistoireEuropeenne 9: 31-48.

Chernish, A. P. (1959). Pozdniy paleolit Srednego Pridnestroviya (Upper Paleolithic of theMiddle Dniester area). Trudi Komissiipo izucheniyu Chewertichnogo perioda XV: 5-205.

Chernish, A. P. (1973). Paleolit i mezolit Pridnestroviya (Paleolithic and Mesolithic of theDniester area), Nauka, Moscow.

Chernish, A. P. (1982). Mnogosloinaya paleoliticheskaya stoyanka Molodova I (MultilayeredPaleolithic site of Molodova I). In Ivanova, I. K. (ed.), Molodova I. Unikalnaya mus-t'erskaya stoyanka Srednego Dnestra, Nauka, Moscow, pp. 12-56.

Chernish, A. P. (1985). Pozdniy paleolit (Upper Paleolithic). In Telegin, D. Ya. (ed.), Arkheo-logiya Vkrainskoy SSR, tome 1, Naukova dumka, Kiev, pp. 54-89.

Chernish, A. P. (1987). Etalonnaya mnogosloinaya stoyanka Molodova (Standard multilayeredsite Molodova V). In Ivanova, I. K., and Tzeitlin, S. M. (eds.), Mnogosloinaya paleo-liticheskaya stoyanka Molodova V, Nauka, Moscow, pp. 19-95.

Cohen, V. (1996). The Upper Paleolithic of the Crimea: some new data applications. Anthropo-logie et Prehistoire 107: 93-108.

Cohen, V., and Otte, M. (1996). Some chronological problems of the Upper PaleolithicAzov-Pontic area in light of new radiocarbon data from Crimea. Prehistoire Europeenne9: 363-392.

Cohen, V., and Gorelik, A. (2000). The late Glacial Upper Paleolithic of the Northern BlackSea coast. Taxonomy and chronology. Anthropos (in press).

Cohen, V., and Stepanchuk V. (2000). Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Central-Eastern Europe: A new step from uniformity to variability. In Vishnyatskiy, L. (ed.),Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in Eastern Europe, Kishinev (in press).

Covalenko, S. (1996). The Upper Paleolithic industries in the Dniester zone of Moldavia.Prehistoire Europeenne 9: 233-267.

Damblon, F., Haesaerts, P., and Van der Plicht, J. (1996). New datings and considerationson the chronology of Upper Paleolithic sites in the Great Eurasiatic Plain. PrehistoireEuropeenne 9: 177-231.

Doronichev, V. D. (1993). Mustierskie industrii Bolshogo Kavkaza (Mousterian industries ofthe Great Caucasus). Peterburgski Arkheologicheski Vestnik 7: 34-48.

Farizy, C. (ed.) (1990). Paleolithique moyen recent et paleolithique superieur ancien en Europe,Memoires du Musee de Prehistoire de l'Ile-de-France 3, Paris.



Ferring, C. R. (1988). Technological change in the Upper Paleolithic of the Negev. In Dibble,H. L., and Montet-White, A. (eds.), Upper Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia,University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp. 333-347.

Formozov, A. A. (1958). Peschernaya stoyanka Staroselie I i mesto v paleolite (The cave siteof Starosel'ye and its place in the Paleolithic), Nauka, Moscow.

Formozov, A. A. (1964). Paleoliticheskiye stoyanki v pescherakh Prikubaniya (The Paleolithicsites of the Cuban caves area). Kratkiye Soobscheniya Institua Arkheologii AN SSSR98: 5-117.

Freericks, M. (1995). Transition du paleolithique moyen au paleolithique superieur en Allem-agne. Quelques exemples. Paleo 1: 117-125.

Gilead, I. (1991). The Upper Paleolithic period in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory5: 105-154.

Oladilin, V. N. (1976). Problemi rannego paleolita Vostochnoy Evropi (Problems of the EarlyPaleolithic of Eastern Europe), Naukova dumka, Kiev.

Golovanova, L. V., Hoffecker, J. F., Kharitonov, V. M., and Romanova, G. P. (1998). Mez-mayskaya peschera (predvaritelnie reezultati issledovaniy v 1987-1995) [Mezmaiskayacave (results of preliminary investigations in 1987-1995)]. Rossijskaya Arkheologiya 3:85-98.

Golovanova, L. V., Hoffecker, J. F., Kharitonov V. M., and Romanova, G. P. (1999). Mez-maiskaya Cave: A Neanderthal occupation in the northern Caucasus. Current Anthropol-ogy 40: 77-86.

Grigorieva, G. (1996). Le paleolithique superieur ancien du sud-ouest de la plaine russe. InMontet-White, A., Palma de Cesnola, A., and Valoch, K. (eds.), XIII International Con-gress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Proceedings, Volume 6, The Upper Paleo-lithic, Abaco, Forli, pp. 153-159.

Grigorieva, G., and Anikovich, M. (1991). Au sujet des liens culturels entre certaines industriesdu paleolithique superieur d'Hongrie et de 1'Europe Est. In Chirica, V. (ed.), Le Paleolith-ique et Mesolithique de la Roumaine en contexte Europeen,. Bibliotheca Archaeologicalassiensis IV, Bucharest, pp. 105-162.

Hedges, R. E. M., Housley, R. A., Petitt, P. B., Bronk Ramsey, C., and Van Klinken, G. J.(1996). Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry datelist 21.Archaeometry 38: 181-207.

Hoffecker, J. F., Barishnikov, G., and Potapova, O. (1991). Vertebrate remains from theMousterian site of IPskaya I (Northern Caucasus, USSR): New analysis and interpretation.Journal of Archaeological Science 18: 113-147.

Ivanova, I. K. (1987a). Paleogeographiya i paleoekologiya sredi obitaniya ludey kamennogoveka na Srednem Dnestre (Paleogeography and paleoecology of the Stone Age peopleof the Middle Dniester). In Ivanova, I. K., and Tzeitlin, S. M. (eds.), Mnogosloinayapaleoliticheskaya stoyanka Molodova V, Nauka, Moscow, pp. 94-124.

Ivanova, I. K. (1987b). Prirodnaya obstanovka vremeni obitaniya mnogosloinoy stoyankiMolodova V (The environment at the time of the multilayered site, Molodova V). InIvanova, I. K., and Tzeitlin, S. M. (eds.), Mnogosloinaya paleoliticheskaya stoyanka Molo-dova V, Nauka, Moscow, pp. 170-195.

Kolesnik, A. V. (1993). Panniy paleolit Yugo-Vostochnoy Ukraini (Early Paleolithic of south-eastern Ukraine). Abstract of Ph.D. dissertation, Nauka, Kiev.

Kolosov, Yu. G. (1972). Must'erskaya stoyanka Shaitan-Koba v Krimu (Shaitan-Koba—theCrimean Mousterian Site), Naukova dumka, Kiev.

Kolosov, Yu. G. (1979). Novaya Must'erskaya stoyanka v grote Prolom (New Mousteriansite in the cave of Prolom). In Kolosov, Yu. G. (ed.), Izuchenie Paleolita Krima, NaukovaDumka, Kiev, pp. 157-171.

Kolosov, Yu., and Stepanchuk, V. (1997). New type of Middle Paleolithic Industry in EasternCrimea. Arkheologicke Rozhledy XLIX: 124-145.

Kolosov, Yu. G., and Stepanchuk, V. N. (2000). Crimean assemblages with bifacial tools:brief review. Paleo (in press).

Kolosov, Yu. G., Stepanchuk, V. N., and Chabay, V. P. (1988). New Mousterian sites in SouthWestern Crimea. Arkheologiya 64: 34-45.

Kolosov, Yu. G., Stepanchuk, V. N., and Chabay, V. P. (1993). Panniy Paleolit Krima (EarlyPaleolithic of the Crimea), Naukova dumka, Kiev.

Kozlowski, J. K. (1970). Gorny paleolit w krajach zakaukaskich i na Bliskim Wschodzie(Upper Paleolithic of Transcaucasus and Near East). Cz. I: Geochronologia i zagadnieniepoczatkow gornego paleolitu. Prace Komisji Archeologicznej PAN 9: 14-124.

Kozlowski, J. K. (1972). Gorny paleolit w krajah zakaukaskich i na Bliskim Wschodzie (UpperPaleolithic of Transcaucasus and Near East). Cz. II: Periodyzacja gornego paleolituzahodnich krajow zakaukaskich. Swiatowit 33: 12-87.

Kozlowski, J. K. (1983). Le paleolithique superieur en Pologne. L'Anthropologie 87: 49-82.Kozlowski, J. K. (1986). The Gravettian in Central and Eastern Europe. In Wendorf, F., and

Close, A. E. (eds.), Advances in World Archaeology Volume 5, Academic Press, Orlando,pp. 133-200.

Kozlowski, J. K. (1992). The Balkans in the Middle and Upper Paleolithic: The gate to Europeor a cul-de-sac? Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58: 1-20.

Kozlowski, J. K. (1996). Cultural context of the last Neanderthals and early modern humansin central-eastern Europe. In Bar-Yosef, O., Cavalli-Sforza L. L., March R. J., andPiperno M. (eds.), XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences,Proceedings, Volume 5, The Lower and Middle Paleolithic, Abaco, Forli, pp. 205-218.

Krotova, A. A. (1995). Chronostratigraphie du paleolithique superieur des steppes d'Azovet de la Mer noire. Paleo 1: 227-233.

Krotova, A. (1996). Amvrosievka new AMS Dates for a unique bison kill site in the Ukraine.Prehistoire Europeenne 9: 357-362.

Kukharchuk, Yu. V. (1989). Paleolit yugo-zapada SSSR i sosednih territoriy (Paleolithic ofthe south-west of the USSR and adjacent territories), Preprint, Kiev.

Kukharchuk, Yu. V. (1991). Zitomirskaya stoyanka (Must'e) [Site of Zhitomir (Mousterian)],Preprint, Kiev.

Kulakovska, L. V. (1989). Must'erskie kultuuri Karpatskogo baasseyna (Mousterian culturesof the Carpathian basin), Naukova dumka, Kiev.

Leveque, F. (1989). L'Homme de Saint-Cesaire: sa place dans le Chatelperronien de Poitou-Charentes. In Vandermeersh, B. (ed.), L'Homme de Neanderthal 7, Etudes et RecherchesArcheologiques de 1'Universite de Liege 34, Liege, pp. 99-108.

Lyubin, V. P. (1984). Ranniy Paleolit Kavkaza (Early Paleolithic of the Caucasus). In Boriskov-ski, P. I. (ed.), Paleolit SSSR, Nauka, Moscow, pp. 87-165.

Lyubin, V. P. (1989). Paleolit Kavkaza (Paleolithic of the Caucasus). In Boriskovski, P. I.(ed.), Paleolit Kavkaza I Sredney Azii, Nauka, Leningrad, pp. 9-144.

Lyubin, V. P. (1992). Human adaptation in the mountain environments of the Caucasus duringUpper Paleolithic and Mesolithic. Prehistoria Alpina 28: 207-219.

Lyubin, V. P. (ed.) (1994). Neandertaltsi Gubskogo uscheliya na Severnom Kavkaze (Neander-thals of Gupps Canyon in Northern Caucasia), Meoti, Maikop.

Marks, A. E. (1988). The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in the southern Levant:technological change as an adaptation to increasing mobility. In L 'Homme de Neanderthal8, Etudes et Recherches Archeologiques de 1'Universite de Liege 35, Liege, pp. 109-123.

Marks, A. E. (1989). The Middle and Upper Palaeolithic of the Near East and the Nile valley.In Mellars, P., and Stringer, C. (eds.), The Human Revolution. Behavioural and BiologicalPerspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press,pp. 56-79.

Marks, A. E., and Chabai, V. P. (eds.) (1997). The Middle Paleolithic of Western Crimea,Etudes et Recherches Archeologiques de 1'Universite de Liege 84, Liege.

Marks, A. E., Demidenko, Yu. E., Monigal, K., Usik, V. I., Ferring, C. R., Burke, A., Rink,J., and McKinney, C. (1997). Starosele and Starosele child: New excavations, new results.Current Anthropology 38: 112-123.

McKinney, C., and Rink, J. (1996). The absolute chronology of the Middle Paleolithic ofthe Crimea. Paper presented at the 61st Annual Meeting of the Society for AmericanArchaeology, New Orleans.

Mellars, P. A. (1992). Archaeology and the population-dispersal hypothesis of modern humanorigins in Europe. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 337:225-234.


Mellars, P. A. (1996). Models for the dispersal of anatomically modern populations acrossEurope: Theoretical and archaeological perspectives. In Bar-Yosef, O., Cavalli-Sforza L.L., March, R. J., and Piperno, M. (eds.), XIII International Congress of Prehistoric andProtohistoric Sciences, Proceedings, Volume 5, The Lower and Middle Paleolithic, Abaco,Forli, pp. 225-235.

Nioradze, M. G. (1975). Peschera Samertskhle-Klde i verhniy paleolit zapadnoy Gruzii (Thecave Samertskhle-Klde and the Upper Paleolithic of western Georgia), Sakartvelo, Tbilisi.

Nioradze, M. G., Vekua, A. G., Gabunia, L. K., and Mamatsashvili, N. S. (1978). PescheraSakazia (Cave of Sakazhia). Archaeology and Paleogeography of the Early Paleolithic ofthe Crimea and Caucasus. The guide of joint Soviet-French field seminar on the topic"The dynamics of interaction of natural environment and prehistoric society," Nauka,Moscow, pp. 56-69.

Nuznij, D. Yu. (1994). Piznopaleolitichna statziya Vorona 3 na Dniprovih porogah i ii mystzesered Oriniyakckih pamiyatok Shidnoi Evropi (Paleolithic site of Vorona 3 and it placeamongst Aurignacian sites of Eastern Europe). Arkheologichniy almanah 3: 204-216.

Olenkovski, N. P. (1994). Kulturno-istoricheskaya gradatziya pozdnego paleolita Niznedne-provskogo regiona (Cultural and historical gradations of the Upper Paleolithic in theLower Dnieper region). Arkheologichniy almanah 3: 193-216.

Oliva, M. (1991). L'Aurignacien morave dans son contexte geographique et culturel. InChirika. V. (ed.), Le Paleolithique et Mesolithique de la Roumaine en contexte Europeen,Bibliotheca Archaeologica lassiensis IV, Bucharest, pp.105-162.

Oliva, M. (1995). Le Szeletian de Tchechoslovaquie: Industrie lithique et repartition geograph-ique. Paleo 1: 83-90.

Olszewski, D., and Dibble, H. (1993). The Zagros Aurignacian. Current Anthropology 68:68-75.

Ostrovski, A. B., Izmailov, Ya. A., Sheglov, A. P., Arslanov, Kh. A., Tertichny, N. A., Gey,N. A., Piotrovskaya, T. Yu., Muratov, V. M., Shsceinski, V. E., Balabanov, I. P., andSkiba, I. P. (1977). Novie dannie po stratigraphii I chronologii pleistoysenovih morskihterras Chernomorskogo poberez'ya Kavkaza I Kerchensko-Tamanskogo regiona (Newdata on the stratigraphy and geochronology of Pleistocene marine terraces of CaucasianBlack Sea shore and Kerch-Taman' region). Paleogeography and Pleistocene Sedimentsof Southern Seas of the USSR, Nauka, Moscow, pp. 112-167.

Otte, M. (1994). Origine de I'homme moderne: approche comportementale. Comptes Rendusde I' Academic des Sciences 318/II: 267-273.

Otte, M. (1996). Le bouleversement de Phumanite en Eurasie vers 40.000 ans. In Carbonell,E., and Vaquero, M. (eds.), The Last Homo neanderthalensis, the First AnatomicallyModern Humans: A Tale About the Human Diversity, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarra-gona, pp. 95-106.

Otte, M. and Derevianko, A. (1996). Transformations techniques au Paleolithique de 1'Altai(Siberie). L'Anthropologie et Prehistoire 107: 131-143.

Otte, M., Noiret, P., Tatartsev, S., and Lopez-Bayon, I. (1996a). L'Aurignacien de Syuren I(Crimee, Ukraine). L'Anthropologie et Prehistoire 107: 81-92.

Otte, M., Lopez-Bayon, I., Noiret, P., Borziyak, I., and Chirika, V. (1996b). Recherches surle paleolithique superieur de la Moldavie. L'Anthropologie et Prehistoire 107: 45-80.

Otte, M., Noiret, P., Tatartsev, S., and Lopez-Bayon, I. (1996c). L'Aurignacien de Syuren I(Crimee): fouilles 1994 et 1995. In Montet-White, A., Palma de Cesnola, A., and Valoch, K.(eds.), XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Proceedings,Volume 6, The Upper Paleolithic, Abaco, Forli, pp. 123-137.

Paunescu, A. (1993). Ripiceni-Izvor paleolitic si mezolitic (The Paleolithic and Mesolithic siteof Ripiceni-Izvor), Sciintza, Bucharest.

Praslov, N. D., and Rogachev, A.N. (eds). (1982). Paleolit Kostenkovsko-Borschevskogo ray-ona na Donu (Paleolithic of Kostienki-Borschevo area on the Don river), Nauka,Leningrad.

Pyasetzki, V. K. (1988). Orin'yakska stoyanka Ivanichi na Volini (Aurignacian site of Ivanichion the Voliniya). Arkheologiya 64: 49-56.

Pyasetzki, V. K. (1991). Paleoliticheskoe mestonahozdenie Zornov: pozdnepaleeoliticheskiy


kulturniy sloy (Zhornov Paleolithic locality: the upper cultural layer). Sovetskaya arkheo-logiya 2: 131-147.

Pyasetzki, V. K. (1992). Must'erskiy kulturniy sloy paleoliticheskogo mestonahozdeniya Zor-nov I nekotorie voprosi stratigraphii paleolita (Mousterian cultural layer of ZhornovPaleolithic locality and certain questions of the stratigraphy of the Paleolithic). Rossijskayaarkheologiya 3: 112-126.

Pyasetzki, V. K. (1995). Orin'yakskaya stoyanka Chervoniy Kamen' okolo Rovno (Aurigna-cian site Chervony Kamin' in the Rovno region). Rossijskaya arkheologiya 2: 123-135.

Rogachev, A. N. (1953). Noviye danniye o stratigrafii pozdnego paleolita Vostochnoy Evropi(New evidence of Upper Paleolithic stratigraphy in Eastern Europe). Materiali i issledo-vaniya po arkheologii SSSR 39: 38-55.

Sapoznikov, I. B. (1994). Paleolit stepey Niznego Pridnestroviya (Paleolithic of the steppes inthe Lower Dniester region), Preprint, Odessa.

Savich, V. P. (1987). Pozdniy paleolit Voloni (Upper Paleolithic of the Volinia). ArkheologiyaPrikarpaliya, Volini i Zakarpaliya, kamenniy vek, Naukova Dumka, Kiev, pp. 56-94.

Shovkoplyas, I. G. (1964). Paleoliticheskaya stoyanka Radomyshl (Paleolithic site of Radom-ishl'). Arkheologiya 16: 205-245.

Sinitsin, A. A. (1996). Kostienki 14 (Markina Gora): Data, problems and perspectives. Prehis-toire Europeenne 9: 273-313.

Smirnov, S. V. (1973). Paleolit Dniprouskogo Nadporizzya (Paleolithic of the above-Dnieperridges area), Naukova Dumka, Kiev.

Stanko, V. N., and Petrun, V. F. (1994). Anetovka-13—pamyatnik nachalnoy pori PozdnegoPaleolita v Stepnom Prichernomor'ye (Anetovka 13—an initial Upper Paleolithic site inthe Black Sea coast steppes). Arkheologicheski Aimanakh 3: 161-179.

Stanko, V. N., Grigorieva, G. P., and Shvaiko, T. A. (1989). PozdnepaleoliticheskoyeposeleniyeAnetovka II (The Upper Paleolithic site of Anetovka II), Naukova Dumka, Kiev.

Stepanchuk, V. N. (1991). Kiik-kobinskaya must'erskaya kultura (Kiik-Koba Mousterian cul-ture), Ph.D. dissertation, Scientific Archives of the Institute of History of Material Culture,St. Petersburg.

Stepanchuk, V. N. (1994). The Eastern Taubachian: Preliminary remarks. ArcheologickeRozhledy XLVI: 533-540.

Stepanchuk, V. N. (1996). Vozniknovenie I razvitie Krimskogo Paleolita (Genesis and Evolu-tion of the Crimean Paleolithic). Arkheologiya 3: 20-29.

Stepanchuk, V. N. (1998). The Crimean Paleolithic: Genesis and evolution between 140-30kyr. Prehistory of Anatolia, Etudes et Recherches Archeologiques de 1'Universite deLiege 85, Liege, pp. 210-219.

Stepanchuk, V. N., Cohen, V. Yu. and Pisarev, I. B. (2000). Mira, a new Late Pleistocenesite in the Middle Dnieper, Ukraine (Preliminary Report). Pyrenae (in press).

Straus, L. G., Bishoff, J. L., and Carbonell, E. (1993). A review of the Middle to UpperPaleolithic transition in Iberia. Prehistoire Europeenne 3: 11-25.

Svezintzev, Yu. S. (1993). Radiocarbon chronology for the Upper Paleolithic sites on the EastEuropean Plain. In Soffer, O., and Praslov, N. (eds.), From Kostienki to Clovis, PlenumPress, New York, pp. 23-30.

Sytnyk, O. S. (1995). Must'erskaya stoyanka Pronyatin I i mesto v Paleolite VostochnoyEvropi (Mousterian site of Pronyatyn I and its place in Paleolithic of Eastern Europe).Arkheologicheski Aimanakh 3: 101-120.

Sytnyk, O. S. (1996). Shlyah rozvitku levalluazs'kih industriy Ukraini (Way of developmentof the Levallois industries of the Ukraine). Arkheologicheski Al'manakh 5: 75-84.

Tchistyakov, D. A. (1996). Must'erskie stoyanki severo-vostoka Prichernomorskogo regiona(Mousterian sites of the northeastern part of the Black Sea region), Evropeiskiy dom,St. Petersburg.

Tushabramishvili, D. M. (1978). Arkheologiya Bronzovoj pescheri I navesa Dvoiniy (Archaeol-ogy of the Bronzovaya cave and the Dvoinoy rockshelter). Archaeology and Paleogeogra-phy of the Early Paleolithic of the Crimea and Caucasus, Guide of joint Soviet-Frenchfield seminar on the topic "The dynamics of interaction of natural environment andprehistoric society," Nauka, Moscow, pp. 43-47.


Tushabramishvili, D. M. (1981). Paleolit Gruzii (Paleolithic of Georgia). Pescheri Gruzii9: 3-12.

Valoch, K. (1984). Le Taubachien, sa geochronologie, paleoecologie et paleoethnologie.L'Anthropologie 88: 193-208.

Valoch, K. (1990). La Moravie il y a 40 000 ans. In Farizy, C. (ed.), Paleolithique moyenrecent et Paleolithique superieur ancien en Europe, Memoires du Musee de Prehistoirede l'Ile-de-France 3, Paris, pp. 15-127.

Valoch, K. (1996). L'origine du Gravettien de 1'Europe Centrale. In Montet-White, A., Palmade Cesnola, A., and Valoch, K. (eds.), XIII International Congress of Prehistoric andProtohistoric Sciences, Proceedings, Volume 6, The Upper Paleolithic, Abaco, Forli, pp.203-207.

Vekilova, E. A. (1957). Paleoliticheskaya stoyanka Syuren I i mesto sredi paleoliticheskihmestonahozdeniy Krima I sosednih territoriy (The Paleolithic site of Syuren I and itsplace among Paleolithic localities of the Crimea and adjacent territories). Materialy iIssledovaniya po Paleolitu SSSR 59: 12-98.

Vekilova, E. A. (1973). O zubchatom must'e must'erskih sloev Ahshtirskoy pescheri (On theDenticulate Mousterian and denticulate tools of the Mousterian layers in Akshtyrskayacave). Kratkiye Soobscheniya Institua Arkheologii AN SSSR 137: 34-56.

Vekilova, E. A., and Zubov, A. A. (1972). Antropologicheskie ostanki iz Must'erskih sloevAkshtirskoy pescheri (Anthropological remains from the Mousterian layers of the Akhsht-yrskaya cave). Kratkiye Soobscheniya Institua Arkheologii AN SSSR 131: 15-27.

Veklich, M. F. (1989). Kompleksniy paleogeograficheskiy metod i recomendatzii po sostavleniyulitologo-fatzialnih ipaleogeograficheskih kart (The multi-aspectual approach to palaeogeo-graphical data and recommendations for making palaeogeographic maps), NaukovaDumka, Kiev.

Villaverde, V., Aura, J. E., and Barton, C. M. (1998). The Upper Paleolithic in MediterraneanSpain: A review of current evidence. Journal of World Prehistory 17: 121-198.

Zamyatnin, S. N. (1957). Paleolit Zapadnogo Zakavkaz'ya I: Paleoliticherskie pescheri Imeretii(Paleolithic of the western Caucasus, I: Paleolithic caves of Imeretiya). Sbornik TrudovMAE 17: 12-68.

Zamyatnin, S. N. (1961). Stalingradskaya paleoliticheskaya stoyanka (The Paleolithic site ofStalingradskaya). Kratkiye Soobscheniya Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 82: 40-49.

Zavernyarv, F. M. (1978). Paleoliticheskaya stoyanka Hotilevo (The Paleolithic locality ofKhotylevo), Nauka, Leningrad.


Late Middle and Early Upper Paleolitihic Evidence from East European Plain and Caucasus

Documents

Transcript of Late Middle and Early Upper Paleolitihic Evidence from East European Plain and Caucasus