Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 1123 E-mail: Eurasia@archaeology.nsc.ru PALEOENVIRONMENT. THE STONE AGE
11
K.A. Kolobova1, A.I. Krivoshapkin1, K.K. Pavlenok1, D. Flas2, A.P. Derevianko1, and U.I Islamov3
1
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Akademika Lavrentieva 17, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia E-mail: kolobovak@yandex.ru shapkin@archaeology.nsc.ru derev@archaeology.nsc.ru 2 Department of Prehistory, University of Lige, Place du XX Aot 7, Bat. A1 4000, Lige, Belgium E-mail: damien as@yahoo.com 3 Institute of Archaeology, Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan, Akademika V. Abdullaeva 3, Samarkand, 140051, Uzbekistan E-mail: utkur_islamov@mail.ru
Introduction In the 1960s, Franois Bordes proposed a classi cation of Middle Paleolithic assemblages, speci cally those
*The study was conducted under the Federal Program, Scienti c and Scienti c-Pedagogical Cadres of Innovational Russia (State Contract No. 02.740.11.0353); the RAS Program, The Culture of the Prehistoric Population of Northern Asia during the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition (Project No. 28.1.9); and was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Project No. 11-06-12003 OFI-M). Illustrations of lithic artifacts were made by N.V. Vavilina, artist at the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography SB RAS.
of the French Mousterian (Bordes, 1961). His typology was based on a single type-list of cores and tools, known as Bordess type-list, and on uni ed typological and technological indices (Levallois index, blade index, side-scraper index, etc.). This typology was attractive since it provided the possibility for comparing industries widely separated in space. Bordes typology, originally meant to explain the Mousterian of Southern France, was applied to other regions of the Old World and has been successfully used by many archaeologists up to the present time. In certain cases, however, attempts at interpreting regional variation solely in terms of the European sequence are rather formal and can engender faulty interpretations.
Copyright 2012, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2012.05.003
12
K.A. Kolobova et al. / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 1123
In this study we address the idea of the Denticulate Mousterian in Uzbekistan using the assemblage from a key strati ed site Kulbulak. The Denticulate Mousterian The Denticulate Mousterian as a separate Middle Paleolithic facies was first described by F. Bordes in his 1953 classification of the Mousterian industries of southwestern France. Later he gave a complete description of this facies and of ve other facies based on a statistical analysis of typological and technological features expressed as indices (Bordes, 1961). According to indices such as the Levallois index, facet index, side-scraper index, etc., Middle Paleolithic denticulate industries were both typologically and technologically non-Levallois, the striking platforms had few facets, there were not many side-scrapers, bifaces, and backed knives, and most tools were denticulate and notched (Bordes, 1961; Dibble, Rolland, 1992). Bordes classi cation became quite popular, and the Denticulate Mousterian was frequently mentioned among the Middle Paleolithic industries of Eurasia including the former USSR. Thus in 1965, V.P. Lyubin suggested differentiating between the Denticulate and Typical Mousterian in the Caucasian Middle Paleolithic (1977). V.P. Grigoryev (1965) recognized the Microdenticulate variant of the Near Eastern Mousterian along with the Yabrudian, Acheulian-Levallois, Levallois, and Amudian versions. In 1966, I.I. Korobkov identi ed two different Mousterian industries the Teyacian-Denticulate and Levallois-Mousterian in the Sochi-Sukhumi Pontic region (Korobkov, Mansurov, 1972; Lyubin, 1977). In the same year, V.N. Gladilin revealed six technical variants in the Middle Paleolithic of the Russian Plain and the Crimea: Denticulate, Micro-Mousterian, MicroMousterian with Acheulian traditions, Mousterian with Acheulian traditions, Levallois-Mousterian, and Levallois-Mousterian with Acheulian traditions (Gladilin, 1966). In addition to F. Bordes characteristics of the Denticulate Mousterian, Gladilin turned to the dimensions of stone tools. He attributed assemblages with a low bifacial tool index and a domination of notchdenticulate implements to the Denticulate variant of the industry. According to Gladilin, assemblages of this sort comprise mostly large and medium-sized (over 5 cm) artifacts (1976). Researchers involved in the Paleolithic studies in Western Central Asia were also affected by the fashion of the Mousterian facies. V.A. Ranov was the rst who made an attempt to classify the Middle Paleolithic assemblages in the region into facies. He suggested the following local groups: the Levallois, Levallois-Mousterian, Mousterian, and Mousterian-
Soanian (1968). Based on the lithic assemblage from the multilayered site of Kulbulak, M.R. Kasymov for the rst time proposed the existence of a speci c Denticulate Mousterian in the region in general and in Uzbekistan in particular (Istoriya, 1967; Ranov, Nesmeyanov, 1973). R.H. Suleimanov (1972) suggested his own classi cation of the local Mousterian. According to the researcher, two major groups can be distinguished: on the one hand, assemblages that are characterized by notch-denticulate tools, discoidal cores, side-scrapers, and planes, and on the other hand, assemblages of the Obi-Rahmat culture. Following M.R. Kasymov, R.H. Suleimanov considered the Kulbulak collection to be the standard denticulate assemblage. In his later works, Suleimanov writes about two developmental trends in the local Middle Paleolithic industry: the Levallois and Denticulate (Tashkenbaev, Suleimanov, 1980). T. Omanzhulov in his Candidate Dissertation on the Mousterian sites in the Tashkent oasis also divided them into two groups: Teyacian-Denticulate industries (including Kulbulak, Bozsu-1 and 2, Kukhisim, and Burguliuksai) and those attributable to the Obi-Rahmat culture. In the Zaravshan River valley, he also identi ed the variant of the Atypical Denticulate Mousterian represented by Kuturbulak and Zirabulak. The reason why Omanzhulov considers this variant atypical is that despite the predomination of denticulate-notched tools, these industries are based on blade and Levallois technology, which links them with the Obi-Rahmat culture, whereas typically DenticulateTayacian industries are based on the ake technique (Omanzhulov, 1984). Upon the analysis of the published data on the Middle Paleolithic assemblages of Western Central Asia, L.I. Kulakovskaya also has arrived at the conclusion that there were two variants: Typical Mousterian and Denticulate Mousterian (1990). The identi cation of the latter was primarily based on the Kulbulak materials. Thus all the mentioned classi cations of the Middle Paleolithic industries in Western Central Asia necessarily include the Denticulate Mousterian that is identi ed on the basis of the archaeological materials from the reference site of Kulbulak in Uzbekistan. At other sites attributable to this variant artifacts are either exposed on the surface (Bozsu-1 and 2 and Burgulyuksai) or perhaps redeposited (Kukhisim, Kuturbulak and Zirabulak) (Fig. 1). Middle Paleolithic assemblage from Kulbulak History and problems of study The Kulbulak multilayered open-air site (4100 31 N; 7000 22 E) is located on the southeastern face of the Chatkal Range in the Tashkent Province, Uzbekistan.
K.A. Kolobova et al. / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 1123
13
Fig. 1. Map showing the location of sites attributable to the Denticulate Mousterian in Western Central Asia (after (Kasymov, 1990; Omanzhulov, 1984)).