During
last 64 years, 16 volumes were published and prepared about the
Crimean Middle Paleolithic. The vast majority of those were devoted
to the publication of variable data about artifact assemblages,
fauna remains, stratigraphical and temporal positions, etc. Of
all Eastern European Paleolithic regions, Crimea now provides
the most complete and variable data, at least for the Middle and
Early Upper Paleolithic. This book is the first attempt to produce
the regional s ynthesis of Crimean Middle Paleolithic chronology,
typological variability, and settlement systems, as well as to
put the Crimean Middle Paleolithic in Eastern European context.
The
investigations, which are represented here, are the result of
the number of projects. The core projects are: the National Ukrainian
Academy of Sciences project "The archeology and history of
Crimea" and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft project ZI276/7-1
"Funktionale Variabilitat im spaten Mittelpalaolithikum auf
der Halbinsel Krim, Ukraine".
Chapter I. Stratigraphy and Chronology
The
Crimean Middle Paleolithic assemblages are subdivided into three
groups: the stratified and well dated sites; stratified sites
without chronological control; and, redeposited or mechanically
mixed during the excavations assemblages. The first group is represented
by Kabazi II, Kabazi V, Starosele (1993-95), GABO, 2 layer, Zaskalnaya
V, Zaskalnaya VI, Siuren I, Prolom I, Prolom ll, Chokurcha I,
Krasnaya Balka, Karabi Tamchin and Buran Kaya III. The second
group consists of Shaitan-Koba, Kiik-Koba, Sary-Kaya, Ak-Kaya
III, Ak-Kaya IV and Volchi Grot sites. The third group is represented
by Bakchisaraiskaya, Kholodnaya Balka, Kabazi I, Tav-Bodrak I,
GABO, 1 layer, Kabazi III, Alioshin Grot, Chokurcha II and Adji-Koba.
Regional
chronological synthesis indicates that: (1) no known Middle Paleolithic
assemblage can be dated before the Last Interglacial; (2) the
latest manifestation of the Middle Paleolithic occurred during
the Arcy Interstadial; and, (3) from about 38,000/36.000 to 28,000/27.000
BP Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic industries co-existed.
The
Crimean Middle Paleolithic chronology is currently the best dated,
the most detailed, and the most complete among the Middle Paleolithic
sequences of Eastern Europe. This chronological framework has
been developed using numerous AMS, U-series, and ESR dates, as
well as bio-stratigraphical sequences (geological, pollen, snail,
and microfauna). Such as Kabazi II, Starosele, Zaskalnaya V, and
Buran-Kaya III have produced significant chronological/environmental
data. All this, permits the Crimean Middle Paleolithic to be divided
into three temporal units: the 1st Period dates from the Last
Interglacial through the Moershoofd Interstadial, (i.e., Riss-Wurm
to Wurm I/II); the 2nd Period includes the Hengelo Interstadial
and the previous Stadial (i.e., from Wurm II to Wurm II/ III);
and, the 3rd Period includes Arcy (Denekamp) Interstadial and
the preceding Stadial (i.e., Wurm III - Wurm III/IV). This subdivision
of the Crimean Middle
Paleolithic
has been based mainly on the Kabazi II sequence, which contains
stratigraphic, environmental, and cultural sequences from the
Last Interglacial to the Arcy (Denekamp) Interstadial. Using this
long sequence as a base, correlations have been proposed to other
stratified but temporally more limited Crimean sites, such as
Kabazi V, Starosele, and Zaskalnaya V.
While
other temporal divisions are certainly possible, using the end
of the Moershoofd as a line of demarcation is also based on major
changes at that time in the appearance and disappearance of the
Levallois Mousterian and the Micoquian in Crimea. In fact, this
proposed periodization reflects major archeologically defined
events: the earliest dated Middle Paleolithic; the appearance
of the Levallois Mousterian (Western Crimean Mousterian) in Crimea,
the appearance of the Upper Paleolithic, and the latest dated
Middle Paleolithic in Crimea. The Last Interglacial, Moershoofd,
Hengelo, and Arcy (Denekamp) Interstadials serve as the chronological
borders for these "events" in Crimea.
Chapter
II. The Western Crimean Mousterian
The
Western Crimean Mousterian industry (WCM) is known from three
stratified sites: Kabazi II, Units II and IIA, Shaitan-Koba, upper
level and Karabi Tamchin, layers II/2 and III. The Kabazi II and
Shaitan-Koba sites situated on the second ridge of the Crimean
Mountains in the western part of the peninsula. While, Karabi
Tamchin found on the first ridge in Eastern Crimea. The main technological
features that separate the WCM from the other Crimean Middle Paleolithic
industries (Ak-Kaya, Starosele, and Kiik-Koba) are the complete
absence of bifacial technology and exploitation of Levallois and
blade primary flaking. Taking into account the number of WCM archeological
levels (20 occupational surfaces), as well as available chronological
and environmental information, Kabazi II provided the base for
understanding the evolution of WCM industry in Crimea.
All
of WCM occupations, except upper level of Shaitan-Koba, demonstrate
the highly ephemeral character with very low density of artifacts
and complete absence of hearths or other kind of structures. In
Shaitan-Koba, upper level the only fire-place was excavated.
Based
on the chronological, environmental and typological studies of
the artifact assemblages the evolution of WCM was subdivided on
two stages: early– from the Stadial preceding Hengelo to Les Cottes,
inclusively; and, late stage - from the Stadial preceding Arcy
through Arcy (Denekamp), inclusively. The early stage is represented
by the assemblages of the lowest occupations - Levels IIA/ 2-II/7,
while the late stage is represented by the assemblages from the
uppermost occupations - Levels II/6-II/1A.
Both
attribute analyses and refitting show the presence in the lower
stage of three different reduction strategies: Levallois Tortoise
(Preferential), Biache-like method, and volumetric. The use of
both Levallois Tortoise and the Biache methods led to the manufacture
of Levallois blankswith centripetal dorsal scars. The Biache method
additionally led to the production of blades, while the volumetric
method is mainly oriented to blade production. The exploitation
of volumetric cores usually started with crested blade preparation
and duri ng their flaking core-tablets were used. Therefore, the
assemblages of the early stage of WCM appear to contain one more
example of the coexistence of Levallois and volumetric methods
of flaking.
The
late stage assemblages of WCM had blank production only from single
and opposed platform cores; that is, the volumetric method о f
core reduction was employed. The technological characteristics
of volumetric flaking method (uni-and bidirectional cores, crested
blades, and core tablets) might be recognized as belonging to
a somewhat peculiar Upper Paleolithic mode of blank detachment.
The peculiarity оf this Upper Paleolithic technology сonsists
in the pronounced employment of faceted core striking platforms.
In
spite of the technological evolution, which is seen in these levels,
there is no comparable change in the tool assemblages. Mainly,
the tool-kits are represented by scrapers (about 60%); the main
types are simple convex and straight, amounting to more than a
half of all scrapers. Double scrapers are half as numerous. The
percentage of converging scrapers is about 15% of all scrapers,
more than one-half of which are of semi-crescent and sub-triangular
types. Generally, the scrapers were made on blades or elongated
flakes, including Levallois (for the lowest levels), and have
obverse, scalar, flat retouch.
Points
account for about 20% of all tools. The majority of points are
distal, sub-triangular, sub-leaf and semi-crescent shapes. Shapes
such as obliquely retouched points are important in the upper
levels. Mainly, the points were made by obverse scalar, flat,
and marginal retouch. Denticulates are represented by the same
shapes as the majority of scrapers. The classes of notches, borers,
etc. are represented by a few pieces each. Two new tool classes
appear in the uppermost assemblages of Levels II/1A and II/1:
obliquely truncated blades and backed blades. Each type is represented
by few pieces each. Both end-scrapers and burins are uncommon.
Thus,
the typological structure of all WCM assemblages is more or less
stable. The changes in tool-kit and in the methods of tool retouch
are not significant. On the other hand, the changes through time
in the methods of core reduction are significant and obvious.
The core reduction strategy, therefore, of the late stage of the
WCM assemblages could be characterized as being of Upper Paleolithic
mode, while the typological structure of the tool assemblages
is clearly Middle Paleolithic.
The
closest analogy to the early stage of the WCM is seen in the Levallois-Mousterian
assemblages from the Dniester River, such as Proniatin, Molodova
I and Molodova V.
Chapter
Ш. The Micoquian: Ak-Kaya facies
The
Ak-Kaya assemblages were found in a number of occupations in such
multilayered deeply stratified sites as Zaskalnaya V, layers II,
III, V, VI, Sary-Kaya, Zaskalnaya VI, layers II and III, Chokurcha
I, Unit IV, Kabazi П, Units II A, III, V and VI. The oldest Ak-Kaya
facies assemblages are from last Interglacial soil of Kabazi II
stratigraphical sequence. The latest evidence of Ak-Kaya typological
structure originated from Zaskalnaya VI, layer II, which was dated
by AMS to 35,00+-0,9 ca BP.
With
Ak-Kaya occupations associate the variable structures: pits, cashes,
hearths, and finally, the burial complex. The last one, was excavated
in Zaskalnaya VI, layer IIIa. The Ak-Kaya occupations are characterized
by high density о f artifacts. The exceptions were found in Kabazi
II, Units III, V,VI and Sary-Kaya. The geoarcheological analysis
demonstrates that Zaskalnaya V and VI "cultural" layers
are represented by the palimpsest of occupations.
In
spite of a bout 90 thousands years of Ak-Kaya evolution, there
are no evidences of change in technological and typological structures
of artifact assemblages. The flint knapping process was based
оn plano-convex bifacial technology, the exploitation of radial,
discoidal and uni-directional cores. The last one demonstrates
rare evidence of either supplementary platforms or faceted platforms
at all. At the same time, the variable knapping instruments were
found in Ak-Kaya assemblages. Among them are: hammer-stones, retouchers
on pebbles, bones and ventral surface of artifacts. The Ak-Kaya
tool-kits are characterized by the dominant role of simple scrapers,
which compose about the half identified tools, high amount of
bifacial points and scrapers (20-43 %), low percentage of points
(no more than 10 %) and medium amount of convergent scrapers (in
average up to 35 %).
The
morphology of unifacial points and scrapers is about the same:
the variations of triangular, trapezoidal and crescent shapes
are dominated among others tool forms. The denticulates, notches
and "Upper Paleolithic" tool types do not play any significant
role in Ak-Kaya assemblages. The most pronounced component in
Ak-Kaya tool-kits is the bifacial tools. They are represented
by points and scrapers of four main shapes and their varieties:
triangular and sub-triangular, leaf-shaped, semi- and sub-crescent,
semi- and sub-trapezoidal. About 10% of both bifacial points and
scrapers have the platforms on opposite to long edge side. Some
of these backed scrapers resemble such Central European types
as Prondnik and Klaussennische. The
rests of nine Neanderthals were found in association with Ak-Kaya
assemblages.
Chapter
IV. The Micoquian: Starosele facies
The
Starosele facies assemblages were found in Zaskalnaya V, layers
I and IV, Zaskalnaya VI, layers IV and V, Prolom II, layers II
and III, Chokurcha I, level IV-O, Starosele, level 1, Karabi Tamchin,
levels IV/2 and V. The Chokurcha I and Zaskalnaya V stratigraphical
sequences demonstrate the interstratification of Ak-Kaya and Starosele
assemblages. The oldest Staroselian complex might be Karabi Tamchin,
level V, which was dated to the time of the Early Glacial Interstadials.
The latest is the assemblage of layer I from Zaskalnaya V, layer
I, which associates with Arcy (Denekamp) pollen spectrum. All
of Staroselian 1evels are represented by the palimpsest of occupation.
There
are no differences in raw material reduction technologies and
instruments of flint knapping berween Staroseleand Ak-Kaya assemblages.
In addition, the Staroselian and Ak-Kaya tool types are the same.
The main difference between Staroselian and Ak-Kaya, as well as
the reason for Staroselian identification is the statistical variety
of the same tool classes and types. Bifacial points and scrapers
in Staroselian assemblages are rarely exceed 15 %. At the same
time, bifacial tools are represented by the same varieties of
shapes characteristic to Ak-Kaya facies. The only difference consists
in rarity of backed bifacial scrapers in Staroselian, which compose
to about 10 % in Ak-Kaya assemblages. Also, the unifacial convergent
scrapers and points play more pronounced role in Staroselian-
up to 45 %. In sum, the difference between Staroselian and Ak-Kaya
assemblages are of statistical value. The fluctuation of statistical
indexes is about 10-15 % from end to end. In addition, in Staroselian
the average tool sizes are smaller than in Ak-Kaya assemblages.
The rests of two humans, supposedly Neanderthals, both from Prolom
II, are associated with Starosele facies assemblages.
Chapter
V. The Micoquian: Kiik-Koba facies
The
Kiik-Koba assemblages originate from three karstic rock-shelters
Prolom I, Buran-Kaya III (layer B) and Kiik-Koba (upper level).
These rock-shelters are characterized by extremely low rates of
sediments accumulation. The Pleistocene sediments in Kiik-Koba
and Prolom I compose about 1 m of deposits. While, the Pleistocene
stratigrafical sequence at Buran-Kaya III composes about 2 m.
Due to the low sedimentation rates the Kiik-Koba facies occupations
are characterized as unique, densely packed by artifacts and bones
palimpsests. The available chronological control and environmental
studies indicate that assemblages from Prolom I and Buran-Kaya
III, level В are very late from the point of view of Middle Paleolithic
chronology. The radiocarbon dates from the upper level in Prolom
I are: 30,51+0,58/-0,5 and 31,3+0,63/-0,58, while the AMS dates
from layer В in Buran-Kaya III are: 28,84±0,46 and 28,52±0,46.
Also, the pollen and micro-fauna studies demonstrate that Buran-Kaya
III, layer В associates with environmental conditions of Arcy
(Denekamp) Interstadial. The pits and hearths were found in Kiik-Koba,
upper level. While, the occupations of Prolom I and Buran-Kaya
III, В are represented by dense "ashy" lenses.
Technologically
the assemblages of Kiik-Koba facies are based on plano-convex
manner of bifacial tools production, as well as discoidal, radial
and unidirectional core reduction strategies were employed. The
instruments of flint knapping are the same as in Ak-Kaya and Staroselian
assemblages. There are no differences in tool typology and morphology
between all of facies of Crimean Micoquian. Certainly, the statistical
composition of main tool classes is very different in Kiik-Koba
assemblages. The unifacial points compose from 30 to 40 %, convergent
scrapers exceed to about the half of tool-kits, while bifacial
tools are represented by "only" 10-14 %. In addition,
the tool sizes of Kiik-Koba assemblages are extremely small. The
majority of bifacial and unifacial tools are no longer than 4
cm.
Thus,
the sense of statistical transformations in tool typology of Crimean
Micoquian from Ak-Kaya to Starosele and, finally, to Kiik-Koba
facies might be described in terms of reduction model. On one
end of the spectrum, the Ak-Kaya has the highest percentages of
bifacial tools, simple scrapers, and 1arge tools, but the 1owest
percentage оf unifacial convergent tools. While, on opposite end
is Kiik-Koba with the lowest percentage of bifacial tools, simple
scrapers, having the highest percentage of convergent tools. Moreover,
the Kiik-Koba has the smallest tools.
The
Staroselian falls intermediate between the other two for all these
attributes. It means that Kiik-Koba assemblages demonstrate the
most intensive raw material exploitation, which led to the intensive
tool reduction and to proportional increasing of the convergent
scrapers and points. One of the reasons for intensive raw material
exploitation in Kiik-Koba facies assemblages is the low sedimentation
rate at Prolom I, Buran-Kaya III and Kiik-Koba rock-shelters.
The unburied artifacts in these rock-shelters were utilized and
reduced each time the sites were revisited. The other reason for
typological variability of Crimean Micoquian facies is the inter-site
activity. Therefore, in the case of Crimean Micoquian, there is
no reason to believe that it facial variability was caused by
stylistic factors derived from three "paleo-ethnic groups":
Ak-Kaya, Staroselian, and Kiik-Koba. The
remains of Neanderthal child from the upper level of Kiik-Koba
rock-shelter are associated with Kiik-Koba facies assemblages.
Chapter
VI. The Settlement Systems and Typological Variability
Both
Crimean Micoquian and Western Crimean Mousterian (WCM) occupations
are represented by two major kinds of settlements: highly specialized
ephemeral stations and short-term camps. These kinds of settlements
are subdivided on numerous types depends on the strategy of raw
material and fauna exploitation.
The
ephemeral stations, type A are characteristic for WCM occupations
at Kabazi II, levels IIA/1 though II/ 1A. These are the killing-butchering
sites. The main and only hunting prey is Equus hydruntinus. The
most gourmet pieces of horse carcasses were transported out of
site area. The raw material exploitation is characterized by on
site core reduction, tools production and utilization. Pits, hearths,
etc were not found.
The
ephemeral stations, type В were found in both Micoquian (Kabazi
II, III/7 - IIA/4) and WCM (Kabazi II, IIA/2) occupations. These
are also killing-butchering sites. The model of fauna exploitation
is about the same as employed in ephemeral stations of type A.
At the same time, the strategy of raw material exploitation is
quite different. The raw material exploitation was based on off-site
tool production. The tools were used and discard on the area of
ephemeral stations. Thus, there were no core reduction and tool
production on-site area of ephemeral stations, type B. Neither
pits, nor other types of construction are characteristic to this
settlement type. Also, there are no evidence of fire implication.
The
short-term camps, type A are characteristic for both Crimean Micoquian
(Zaskalnaya V, I - VI, Zaskalnaya VI, П - V) and WCM (Shaitan-Koba,
upper level). These settlement areas were arranged by hearths,
pits, cashes, and even burial. The model of fauna exploitation
were based on secondary butchering - consumption of saiga and
horse parts of skeleton. On-site core reduction, tools production,
and discard characterized the raw material exploitation on sbort-terms
camps of type A.
The
short-term camps, type В are characteristic for both Micoquian
(Kabazi II, V/3, V/4, Karabi Tamchin, IV/2, V, Chokurcha I, IV)
and WCM (Karabi Tamchin, II/2, III). Аll of them produced extensive
traces of use of fire on sites area. The model of fauna exploitation
was based on secondary butchering and consumption of saiga and
horses carcasses. The raw material exploitation is characterized
by mainly оff-site tool production, tool discard, tool reshaping
and rejuvenation. The bifacial reshaping flakes were employed
as blanks for unifacial tools production.
The
short-term сamps, type С were recognized at Proiom II, layers
II and III (Micoquian). The models of fauna and raw material exploitation
are the same as in short-term camps В, with only exception. The
inhabitants of Proiom II used the additional source of local raw
material for cores reduction and unifacial tool production. While
imported tools were used in the same way as in short-term camps,
type B.
The
short-term camps, type D were found in Starosele, level1, Proiom
I, Kiik-koba, upper level and Buran-Kaya III, layer B. The patterns
of fauna and raw material exploitation are very close to what
was employed at short-term camps, type B. The major difference
consists in the extensive implication of both unifacial and bifacial
tools rejuvenation and reutilization. The process of tools reutilization
was more pronounced at Proiom, Kiik-Koba and Buran-Kaya rock-shelters,
where due to the low rate of sedimentation the unburied artifacts
utilized and reduced each time the site was revisited. To some
extend, the site area became the source of raw material.
The
WCM and Micoquian settlement patterns were based on elements of
both idealized "radiating" and "circulating"
settlement systems. The absence of clear base camps suggests the
high mobility of hominids, which is characteristic feature of
circulating system. The binary system of settlement types, where
highly specialized ephemeral stations produced meat for camps,
is the characteristic feature of radiating system. The social
equivalents of these settlement types are unknown. The kill/butchering
stations might well represent the efforts of male, activity-specific
small groups. The short-term camps that suggest longer and more
varied activities logically should represent more inclusive social
units-the microband, for instance. Also, the high mobility characteristic
for Crimean Middle Paleolithic hominids might be the indirect
evidence of relatively small size of social unit.
Perhaps,
due to the small sample of WCM sites, no typological variations
were observed. It is clear, that there were no intensive artifact
utilization on ephemeral stations areas. All of Micoquian ephemeral
stations associate with Ak-Kaya facies assemblages. One of the
main reasons for short-term camps typology is the difference in
depth of raw material utilization. The assemblages of short-terms
camps, type A belong to Ak-Kaya and Starosele facies, and show
little if any sufficient degree of artifacts utilization.
More
or less sufficient artifacts utilization is seen in camps В and
C, which are represented mainly by the assemblages of Starosele
facies. And, finally, deeply reutilized artifact assemblages of
short-term camps, type D belong to Kiik- Koba fcies, except Starosele,
layer 1. That is, the facial variability оf Crimean Micoquian
strongly corresponds with the hominids activity on a different
types of settlements.
Chapter
VII. Crimea in the context of Eastern European Middle Paleolithic
variability
The
typological and technological variability of Eastern European
Middle Paleolithic are represented by three industries: Eastern
Micoquian, Levallois-Mousterian and Blade Mousterian. The Eastern
Micoquian assemblages were found in al more or less investigated
regions of Eastern Europe. The sites with Levallois-Mousterian
industries are known from Prut-Dniestr rivers valleys and Crimea.
While, the Blade Mousterian complexes were found in Donets-Don
rivers basin only. Last Interglacial, limits the chronology of
Eastern European Middle Paleolithic from one side, and Arcy (Denekamp)
Interstadial, from the other. As it was discussed in Chapter I,
the available chronological control gives a possibility to subdivide
the evolution of Eastern European Middle Paleolithic into three
periods: the early period (from the Last Interglacial to Wurm
I/II); the middle period (from Wurm II to Wurm II/III); and late
or transitional to Upper Paleolithic period (from Wurm III to
Wurm III/IV).
The
early period is characterized by the development of Eastern Micoquian
in Crimea and Donets River basin. Also, the Levallois-Mousterian
from Dniestr River basin and Blade Mousterian from Donets River
are known. At the same time, there are three assemblages, which
clearly correspond to the time of Last Interglacial. There are
Micoquian from Kabazi II, Units V, VI (Crimea), from Belokuzminovka,l
(Donbass) and Levallois-Mousterian from Yezupil, layer III (Dniestr).
During the time of Wurm I - Wurm I/II the number of Levallois-Mousterian
assemblages from Dniestr basin (Igrovitsa I, layer II; Proniatin;
Ripiceni Izvor, layers I -III, Molodova I, layer 4; Molodova V.,
layers 11 - 12; Bugliv V, layer II) are known. In Crimea the Wurm
I -Wurm I/II was the time of Eastern Micoquian (Kabazi II, Unit
III and lower part of Unit II A; Starosele, level 4; Kabazi V,
Unit III; Zaskalnaya V, layer V). Also, some Micoquian assemblages
dated to Wurm I - Wurm I/II were found in Donets river basin (Antonovka
II) and northern bank of Azov Sea (Nosovo I). In frames of Wurm
I - Wurm I/II on Don-Donets rivers basin the В lade Mousterian
assemblages (Kurdumovka; Zvanovka; Belokuzminovka, complexes 2
and 3; Shlyakh, level 8C) are known. The time of Wurm I/II was
the upper limit of Levallois-Mousterian at Prut-Dniestr rivers
basin, as well as Micoquian and possibly Blade Mousterian at Don-Donets
Rivers and Volga basins.
The
middle period of Eastern European Middle Paleolithic is characterized
by the appearance of Levallois-Mousterian (Kabazi II, upper part
of Unit II/A and Unit II) and further development of Micoquian
in Crimea (Zaskalnaya V, layer III; Starosele, levels 1, 2). The
time of Wurm II–Wurm II/III belongs the first well-documented
Micoquian industries on the Northern Caucasus (Mezmaiskaya, layers
2B-1, 2, 2B-3, 3; Barakaevskaya; Monasheskaya, layers 2-4). Also,
the Micoquian assemblages are known in the Prut valley (Ripiceni
Izvor, layers, IV and V). That time, there is no evidence for
any Middle Paleolithic assemblages in Don-Donets and Volga rivers
basins.
On
a whole, the Middle Paleolithic sequence of Prut-Dniestr valleys
is similar to that found in Central Europe: the M icoquian are
always superimpose the Levallois industries. While, the Crimean
and Don-Donets rivers basin Middle Paleolithic sequences demonstrate
quite different pattern: the Levallois Mousterian and Blade Mousterian
are superimpose the Micoquian industries. In Central Europe there
are no Micoquian industries dated to the time of the Last Interglacial.
Thus, there are no reasons to support the idea about Central Europe,
as a core region for Micoquian diffusion to the east. On the other
hand, the Central Europe might be the source for Levallois-Mousterian
of Prut-Dniestr basin. At the same time, there is no e ven the
possibility to propose the " ancestor" for Blade Mousterian
of Don-Donets rivers basin.
Chapter
VIII. Crimea in the context of Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition
in Eastern Europe
In
spite of the great number of Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic
industries traditionally cited in transitional studies of Eastern
Europe, those strictly connected to this problem are not so numerous.
There are the Late MP Eastern Micoquian and Levallois-Mousterian
industries of Crimea and the Northern Caucasus and the EUP industries
along the Middle Don, Prut, Dniestr rivers and Crimea, represented
by the Streletskaya, Spitsynskaya, and Gorodtsovskaya "cultures",
as well as the Krems-Dufour variant of the Aurignacian. All of
these coexisted from about ca. 38/36,000 to ca. 29/28,000 BP.
From the point of view of Interpleniglacial geography, the Crimean,
Caucasian and Don sites were found in an Ancient Don River basin,
which include the Don's Crimean and Northern Caucasus tributaries.
This geographical setting was determined by Upper Pleistocene
Black Sea fluctuations. Even during the periods of transgressions,
the sea basin was about 30 m lower than at present.
The
appearance of Early Upper Paleolithic assemblages in the western
(Prut-Dniester) and central (Mid Don) regions of Eastern Europe
during the Stadial preceding Arcy/Denekamp was a major event (Figures
25-13 and 25-17). They appeared while Middle Paleolithic peoples
still inhabited Crimea and Northern Caucasus and, seemingly, their
presence had little initial affect on the Micoquian residents.
This may relate to Early Upper Paleolithic choice of settlement
locations. The Mid Don Early Upper Paleolithic Spitsynskaya from
Kostenki 17, II, was associated with humid forests of northern
taiga type. There is no reason to believe that Streletskaya occupations
of about the same time and same area existed indifferent environments:
they both appear to have been limited to the taiga forest.
The
Micoquian at this time was distributed mainly in forest-steppe
environments of Crimea and the Northern Caucasus. Later, at the
end of the same Stadial and then after Arcy/Denecamp, the Streletskaya
appears to have spread into the steppe environment of Crimea and
the Lower Don, as well as during some unknown time into the northern
latitudes of the Northern Urals.
The Streletskaya adaptation to open steppe landscapes coincides
with changes in arrowhead typology. The heavy bifacial triangular
arrowheads useful in forested landscapes of the taiga were augmented
by light, bifacially retouched micro-points and trapezoids. The
connection between the Mid Don and Crimea was geographically determined
by the Black Sea Basin regression, which caused the disappearance
of Azov Sea. In such situation, the eastern Crimean Rivers became
the tributaries of Don River.
The
first appearance of Aurignacian in Eastern Europe is documented
at the end of Stadial and beginning of Arcy/ Denecamp Interstadial
in the Prut Valley. Also, during Arcy/ Denecamp the Aurignacian
was found in Crimea and in the Mid Don. Thus, the Aurignacian
was not precedes the local Early Upper Paleolithic, while it co-existed
with the Crimean Micoquian. The first documented Aurignacian "visit"
to Crimea and the Mid Don was after the first manifestation of
Streletskaya and Spitsynskaya industries. The Eastern European
Aurignacian is associated with open landscapes. The same kind
of landscapes was exploited by Middle Paleolithic population.
The Aurignacian exploitation of the "Don Passage" between
the Mid Don and Crimea is documented by Black Sea shells found
in Kostenki 1, III.
After
30 ca BP, during Lower Humic Bed deposition, the Mid Don region
was visited by another "taiga people" - the Gorodtsovskaya.
In spite of being from the taiga, they were undoubtedly Anthropologically
Modern Humans. At least, two Gorodtsovskaya assemblages from Kostenki
14, layers П and Ш, are associated with forested landscapes, which
was not as humid or cold as at Kostenki 17, II, but still of taiga
type. The Gorodtsovskaya has a relatively "primitive"
stone technology but shows an incredibly developed and variable
bone industry, adornments, burial customs, and dwelling structures
for that period.
The
emergence of the Gravettian at Prut and "Gravettoid"
industries in the Mid Don around 28/27,000 BP marks the beginning
of the end of incredible environmental, technological, typological,
and adaptive variability of Transitional Period in Eastern Europe.
There is no documented evidence of Middle Paleolithic or Spitsymkiya
assemblages after 28,000 BP and none for the Corodtsovskaya after
Arcy/Denecamp.
The
number of Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic complexes,
such as Levallois Mousterian, Micoquian Aurignacian, and Gravettian
demonstrate their environmental and technological affinities with
the same or similar complexes оf Central Europe. Although, the
environmental context, stone, and bone technologies of the Spitiyuikeyn,
Streletskaya, and Gorodtsovskaya have nothing common with either
Central European and local Middle Paleolithic predecessors and
contemporaries. At the same time, at least two of them are associated
with Anatomically Modern Humans. It most likely that during the
Transitional Period the Eastern European Plain was populated by
Modern Humans in two environmentally different regions: the East
European belt of taiga forests and the forest-steppe zone of eastern
Central Europe. The Central European modern human "invaders"
preferred to exploit the same environment, as local Neanderthals.
The
сoexistence of Aurignacian end Micoqultn in Crimea resulted in
neither archeologically nor anthropologically visible interactions.
In addition, there is no evidence for influence of the anthropologically
modern "taiga peopole" on the local Middle Paleolithic.
Thus,
there are two core regions for Modem Humans dispersal in Eastern
Europe: the Central European belt of forest-steppe and taiga forest
belt of Eastern Europe and / or Asia. Thus, the Eastern European
model of "Transitional Period" based on of two steps
scenario. First, between Hengelo and Arcy the Modern Humans of
taiga belt origin populated mainly the northern part of Eastern
European Plain. During that time, the Middle Paleolithic and Early
Upper Paleolithic coexisted in environmentally different regions.
Second, during the Arcy Interstadial the Modern Humans of Central
European origin following the steppe expansion replaced the local
Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic variability. After Arcy, on
the territory of Eastern European Plain became the time of Gravettian
uniformity, while in Crimea begins the archeological hiatus, which
end up at 18/17 ca BP with Epi-Gravettian industries.
©
автор
