Introduction

Relatively recently, about 30 years ago, the problem of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic was treated quite simply. In all parts of the Old World, paleoanthropes (Neanderthals) transformed into neoanthropes (Cro-Magnons) due to certain general historical patterns, which ultimately boil down either to the notorious "work activity", or to the "influence of the natural environment", or to a combination of both. The replacement of Middle Palaeolithic forms of culture by Upper Palaeolithic ones was an integral part of the same process. In the Russian science of primitiveness, this approach was most fully implemented in the" theory of two jumps " developed by the philosopher Yu. I. Semenov [1966].

Since the 1980s, the situation has become more and more complicated. In this article, I address the main aspects of the transition from the Middle Paleolithic to the Upper Paleolithic. The reference materials in this case are those from Eastern Europe and Gorny Altai, two regions of Eurasia where work in recent decades has yielded particularly noticeable and very unexpected results.

Gorny Altai

The process of transition to the Upper Paleolithic, reconstructed from the materials of this region, most closely corresponds to the" classical " scenario. According to researchers working in the Altai Mountains, it took place evolutionarily, on the basis of local Middle Paleolithic traditions. "The uniqueness of the multi-layered Middle Paleolithic localities of Gorny Altai, located at a relatively short distance from each other, lies precisely in the fact that they allow us to trace the evolution from Middle Paleolithic to Upper Paleolithic industries" (Derevyanko, 2005a, p.504).

First of all, it should be noted that some of the propositions put forward by researchers of this region in the late 1990s were later significantly corrected. In one of the generalizing publications of 1998, monuments of the early Upper Paleolithic period (hereinafter referred to as RVPs) Gorny Altai was considered as a single "Karabomovsky layer", which included, along with the eponymous multi-layered Kara-Bom site, such monuments as Denisova Cave, Ust-Karakol, Ust-Kanskaya, Malaya Syya sites, etc. [Derevyanko et al., 1998, p. 112, fig. 60]. The term "layer" was understood as "an interregional archaeological and stratigraphic system that combines industrial complexes of monuments that do not belong to the same "archaeological culture", but exist at the same time and have fundamentally common technological characteristics" [Ibid., p. 111]. It was postulated that monuments of the same stratum "should be comparable in at least three indicators: territorial, chronostrati-

The work was supported by the Program of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences "Adaptation of peoples and cultures to changes in the natural environment, social and technological transformations "(project " Adaptation of cultures of the Middle/Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Europe to changes in natural and climatic conditions (in the context of the Middle/Upper Paleolithic of Eurasia) and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project 04-06-80037).

page 2

graphic and technological " [Ibid.]. However, it is the technological level that is "the common thread that binds together the industries of various objects" [Ibid.].

I note that the special role of technology and the previously assumed diversity of the industry, combined into one "layer", bring the latter closer to the concept of "technocomplex" used by me (hereinafter - TC). However, there is also a significant difference: in order to assign an industry to a single TC, their territorial and chronological proximity is not required (see [Anikovich, 2003; et al.]).

In the future, the concept of "layer" by researchers of Gorny Altai was applied only to the Middle Paleolithic industries. In their works of the early 2000s, they consistently carried out the thesis that the basis for the formation of the traditions of North Asian RVPs was a "single cultural space" (i.e., "layer"), which includes a vast area from Mongolia, Gorny Altai and Central Asia to the Middle East. It is characterized by "direct technical and typological analogies" that can be traced both in the chipping technique and in the set of tools [Derevyanko and Shunkov, 20056, p. 72; Prirodnaya sreda..., 2003, p. 354-355]. However, at the end of the Middle Paleolithic (60-50 Ka BP) in Gorny Altai, two technical variants (lines of development, in some works - technocomplexes) were outlined: Kara - bomovsky and Denisovsky (Ust - Karakol).

The first one demonstrates the predominance of the Levallois cleavage and the plate cleavage technique. The typological set of tools was determined primarily by the Levallois forms in combination with crenellated and Upper Paleolithic tools. The Denisovian variant is characterized mainly by parallel and radial splitting, the dominance of various types of scrapers in the tool set, and the presence of expressive Levallois products [Derevyanko and Shunkov, 2005a, p.284; Derevyanko, 2005a, p. 504].

On the basis of these two variants, about 50 - 40 thousand years AGO, two independent traditions (lines of development) of the RVP were formed in Gorny Altai - Kara-Bomovskaya and Ust-Karakolskaya (sometimes called variants). The Ust-Karakol tradition (near Ust-Karakol-1, Denisova caves, Anuya-3, Tyumechina-4 and, apparently, Strashnaya Caves) is represented, in particular, by a complex of aurignacoid forms, including end scrapers on plates with signs of Aurignacian retouching (including" with interception"), karen-type scrapers, median incisors (including multi-facet ones), large plates that have been regularly retouched along the perimeter, retouched microplates.

According to the researchers, the Ust-Karakol tradition, on the one hand, grows on the basis of the Levallois technique of removing blanks, and on the other hand, it includes two-sided leaf-shaped forms. Numerous bone products were found, including needles with ears. An extremely early expressive set of jewelry is indicative, consisting of pendants and beads made of tusk and animal teeth, a fragment of a tusk ring, bone penetrations with symmetrical rows of deep wide cuts, mollusk shells with an artificial hole, pendants and beads made of soft ornamental stone [Derevyanko, 20056, p. 13; Derevyanko and Shunkov, 2005a, p. 284 Derevyanko and Rybin, 2005, pp. 243-245, 247]. A particularly strong impression is made by a fragment of a bracelet made of serpentine (serpentine), with a hole for a lace (?). On its surface, traces of very advanced technologies are imprinted - sawing, drilling, grinding [Paleolithic Childhood.., 2005, pp. 10-11].

Most of the bone tools and jewelry, including the mentioned fragment of the bracelet, belong to layer 11 of Denisova Cave , the oldest one containing finds of this kind. This layer is far from uniform and is a whole pack of sediments, including at least three habitat horizons - in fact, independent cultural layers. It should be noted that bone products and ornaments are found both in the middle and lower habitat horizons lying at the base of layer 11. For the middle part of this group of sediments, the conventional 14 C-date > 37235 BP was obtained [Prirodnaya Sreda..., 2003, pp. 110-111, 132, Fig. 70; Derevyanko and Shunkov, 20056, p. 74]. For the lower part of layer 11 in the eastern gallery of Denisova Cave, a 14-C AMS date of 48650 + 2380/1840 BP was obtained in 2005 (Derevyanko, 2005a, p. 504; Derevyanko, Shunkov, Volkov et al., 2005, p. 100-105). In general, the age of the corresponding horizons of Denisova Cave (layer 11) and Ust-Karakol-1 (layers 11 - 9) is determined by A. P. Derevyanko in the range of 45-35 Ka BP (2005b, p.13).

The Kara-bom tradition, which was formed on the basis of the Middle Paleolithic technical variant of the same name, is represented by the industries of the Kara-Bom, Kara-Tenesh sites and, possibly, the Maloyalomansky Cave [Prirodnaya Sreda..., 2003, p. 356]. It is characterized by a well-defined lamellar appearance. A large plate is combined here with a certain number of microplates. For a set of tools, the products obtained on plate blanks are most indicative [Derevyanko, 20056, p. 13; Derevyanko and Shunkov, 2005a, p.284]. As with the monuments of the Ust-Karakol tradition, the objects of the Kara-bom formation show a very early manifestation of symbolic activity-pendants made of animal bones and teeth. For the Kara-Bom site layer in which these items are recorded (habitat level 5), there is a 14 S-date of 43300 ± 1600 BP.

page 3

This is the general scenario of the transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic in one of the most studied parts of North Asia. For a paleolithic scholar who has spent his entire life studying European regions where the Upper and Middle Paleolithic is characterized by extremely fragmented cultural differentiations, the question arises: is the diversity of the Gorno-Altaian Middle and Upper Paleolithic regions limited by the above definitions? Or is their further differentiation possible?

The answer of the researchers of this region concerning the Mousterian industries is quite unambiguous: "At present, there are no sufficiently strong reasons to associate the technical variants identified in the Middle Paleolithic of Gorny Altai with isolated groups of the ancient population, carriers of independent cultural traditions. There are also no serious arguments in favor of classifying the industrial variability of the Altai Middle Paleolithic as a chronological phenomenon. The chronostratigraphy of the Altai Paleolithic indicates a long parallel development of two main industrial variants throughout the so-called Mousterian Wurm " (Derevyanko and Shunkov, 2005b, p. 70). Thus, the differences that are recorded at the moment are not due to cultural phenomena-diffusion, infiltration of a new population, etc., but to natural factors and differences in adaptation strategies."...The differentiation of stone industries within a single Middle Paleolithic culture was most likely associated with a combination of various seasonal, landscape, and industrial factors... and other factors" [Ibid.]. Changes in the chronological order are interpreted in a similar way: "The Middle Paleolithic industry in Gorny Altai is characterized by striking homogeneity. This does not mean that it has not developed. ...For example, sites dating back to 70-60 thousand years AGO differ from earlier ones by a greater proportion of jagged, notched, and similar forms. According to palynological data, the number of dark coniferous species increased at this time. The more widespread use of jagged and notched forms indicates the adaptation of humans to changing environmental conditions, the transition to a more active use of wood products. The appearance of bifacial products at certain localities (Ust-Karakol-1 and Anuy-3) should also be considered from these positions" (Derevyanko, 2005a, p. 504). As far as I know, the question of a more fractional differentiation of the two distinguished Upper Paleolithic traditions of Gorny Altai is not being raised at the moment.

If the lower chronological boundary of the Gorny Altai RVP is defined by the boundary of 504 - 5 KA BP, then the upper one is obviously about 28 KA BP, judging by the chronological framework established for the middle pore of the Upper Paleolithic (hereinafter referred to as the SVP) of this region. "The next stage of development of the Upper Paleolithic (i.e. SVP. - MA) in the Altai belongs to 28-23 thousand years ago. In this era, the main technical indicators of stone structures remained within the tradition of parallel splitting for chipping small and medium-sized plates from planar, prismatic and end nuclei. The most expressive component of the inventory, which determines the specifics of the Middle stage of the Upper Paleolithic, is miniature tools, among which there are products of gravettoid shapes" (Derevyanko and Shunkov, 2005a, pp. 285-286).

Eastern Europe

The situation is different on the European continent. In this paper, I found it necessary to focus specifically on Eastern European materials, since: a) the materials of Eastern Europe are least known to our Western colleagues; b) the results of the study of finds from this territory, conducted in the last decade, have given a new light to the problem of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic. I should note that the general characteristics of the transition process are generally pan-European, although they manifest themselves through pronounced local specifics.

General characteristics of RVP Europe

In its most general form, the PRTR of Europe can be defined as a combination (co-existence )of three main types of industry: 1) the Upper Paleolithic proper ("developed"), in which there is no any pronounced Middle Paleolithic component; 2) the Middle Paleolithic proper (surviving Mousterian); 3) the" symbiotic "* ("archaic"), in which, along with the pronounced Upper Paleolithic elements, there is an equally well-expressed (at least in the case of the Upper Paleolithic elements). typologically) mousterian component**.

* The term belongs to V. N. Stepanchuk. In my opinion, it is more accurate than the term "archaic industry"that I have used so far.

** In the literature, such industries are often referred to as "transitional"industries. I prefer not to use this term, because it raises a legitimate question: from what and to what do they "move"? From Moustier to the Upper Paleolithic? But technologically, this is already the undisputed Upper Paleolithic, although with the presence of archaic elements.

page 4

This is how this period is defined by many modern researchers [Bar-Yosef. 1998; Kozlowski, 2000; Kozlovsky, 2005; Mellars, 1989; Zilhao and d'Errico, 1999]. The original attempt to understand the RVP of Europe in a slightly different way belongs to A. A. Sinitsyn. In his opinion, the RVP is characterized by a "binary opposition": aurignac - "transitional" industries. The list of the latter as interpreted by A. A. Sinitsyn includes "selet, castelperron, uluzzo, linkombien" [2005, p.179]. At the same time, the "early Upper Paleolithic" proper is preceded by a special periodization unit - the "initial Upper Paleolithic" (hereinafter-NVP), which is not characterized by the mentioned "binary". "In addition to the older age in the series, the main qualitative features of the NVP industry in AA are: Sinitsyn is characterized by: a) the peculiarity of the inventory, which does not allow it to be attributed either to the Aurignacian or to "transitional" cultures; b) the lack of a pronounced connection with both the previous Mousterian era and the monuments of the subsequent early Upper Paleolithic era; c) the presence of specific cultural elements, the developed forms of which are traditionally associated with later ones archaeological epochs, - ornaments and specific technical and typological characteristics of the flint industry for layer II Kostenok-17 and bone tools for the lower layer of Markina Gora " [Ibid., p. 180].

A. A. Sinitsyn considers their" strong variability " in cultural terms to be another characteristic characteristic of NEP monuments in Europe (the researcher seems to imply that the situation was different in the subsequent period!). The list of Eastern European localities assigned by him to this period includes: lower layers of Kostenok-14 (Markina Gora), "Lashamp-Kargopolovo deposits lying inside and under the paleomagnetic excursion "(i.e. " horizon in the soil "(GP) and layer IVb); Kostenki-17 / II; Buran-Kaya grotto III, layer C in the Crimea; Sokirnitsa-1, layer III in Transcarpathia; Mezmayskaya cave, layer 1C in the North Caucasus, as well as ("what is especially important") the Zaozerye and Mamontovaya Kurya sites in north-eastern Europe [Ibid.].

In my opinion, the grounds on which NVP is opposed to RVP in terms of periodization are essentially incorrect. In the Upper Paleolithic of Europe, of course, there were initially highly developed industries. But again, symbiotic ("transitional") industries initially co-existed with them. A. A. Sinitsyn is silent about this. Here are some examples. In the list of monuments classified by him as NVP, Sokirnitsa-1, layer III is indicated. But there is no mention of the synchronous symbiotic Selet industry of Korolevo-2 / / II*. As for Sokyrnitsa-1 / / III itself, according to the same A. A. Sinitsyn, the aurignacoid appearance of the industry is expressed there "much more strongly than it seems" to the authors of the excavations. I completely agree with this and consider it possible to consider this industry as one of the earliest manifestations of aurignacoid TK.

The Kostenkov monuments, which were classified by A. A. Sinitsyn as a non-governmental organization, also have their own full-fledged "binary opposition". However, A. A. Sinitsyn does not mention Kostenki-12 / III in his list. Meanwhile, its industry lies in sediments with the Lachamp-Kargopolovo paleomagnetic excursion** and is synchronized with the Kostenok - 14/GP and Kostenok-17/II industries according to a set of data (including 14 C and AMS dates) [Anikovich, 2005a, pp. 75-77]. The materials of Kostenok-12 / III, which represent the earliest stage of the symbiotic Strelet culture, are indeed very archaic in typological terms. They do not contain any jewelry or works of art. However, as in the Mamontovaya Kurya, a fragment of a processed tusk was found in Kostenki-12/III.

A. A. Sinitsyn is right about one thing: the developed Upper Paleolithic industries in Kostenki today seem to be at least no younger (and in some cases even older!) symbiotic (compare: Kostenki-12/III - symbiotic, Kostenki-12/IV, 14/IVb - developed). However, this does not mean that there was a single layer of developed industries throughout Europe that preceded the symbiotic ones. Thus, for example, Mammoth Kurya and Zaozerye (north-eastern Europe), whose belonging to the NEP, according to A. A. Sinitsyn, is of particular importance, are not "developed" Upper Paleolithic. They quite clearly fit into the symbiotic seletoid TC. It is not by chance that the researcher of these monuments P. Y. Pavlov points out the typological connections of the Zaozerye materials with the Crimean mikok [2004].

In relation to monuments outside Eastern Europe, A. A. Sinitsyn's concept of "on the map" is applied.-

* Hereafter, the first (Arabic) digit indicates the number of the monument, and the second (Roman) digit indicates the number of the cultural layer. This system was first introduced by A. N. Rogachev in the late 1970s to number monuments in the Kostenkovsko-Borshchevsky district. Since then, it has been consistently applied by me.

** Strictly speaking, in all three cases (Kostenki-12/III, Kostenki - 14/GP, Kostenki - 17/II), the presence of this paleomagnetic excursion needs to be rechecked. Not all samples taken for PM analysis from the corresponding Kostenok-12 and 14 horizons gave a positive result. The data of the PM analysis for Kostenki-17 have not been published and are based only on the oral report of N. D. Praslov.

page 5

in the Early Upper Paleolithic," as a periodization unit looks even more shaky. For example, the Bogunisien (14 C older than 40 thousand years ago) cannot be excluded from the initial time of the EAP. However, it cannot be classified as a "highly developed" industry with decorations and without archaic elements. But what about the most ancient monuments of the Uluzzo and Chatelperron cultures? One can argue about whether they "reach" the 40-millennial milestone, but their deep antiquity (at least 36 thousand years AGO) is not disputed by anyone. On what basis should we classify them as RVPs, if the same Mezmayskaya, layer 1C, assigned to the "initial" time, according to AMS dates back 35-33 thousand years ago?

We cannot agree with the statement of A. A. Sinitsyn that the monuments referred to by him as NVP "do not have a pronounced connection with the monuments of the subsequent Early Upper Paleolithic era" [2005, p.180]. We can immediately point out that the Kostenki-17/II industry is culturally closest to the Kostenki-12/II industry. Stratigraphically, it can be linked to the" horizon in ashes " of Kostenok-14. But this is no longer the initial stage of the EAP, but a "subsequent era".

According to P. Y. Pavlov, the Zaozerye site contains the same culture as the Byzovaya site, which has a 14-C age of about 28 thousand years AGO and is undoubtedly related to the RVP. In addition, in our time, it seems that none of the researchers deny the cultural links of Bogunisien with the later Kulichiv industries. Finally, most of the monuments of the Strelet culture date back to 32-23 thousand years AGO (Kostenki - 12/1a, Garchi-1, Sungir), although the early stage of this culture is synchronous with a number of highly developed areas of the NEP listed in A. A. Sinitsyn's lists.

It should also be noted that the Upper Paleolithic industries of the subsequent stage of the RVP are by no means the embodiment of "pure" Aurignacian and show significant cultural variability. As an example, we can cite at least the monuments of the Molodovskaya archaeological culture (hereinafter - AK). It is hardly necessary to prove the cultural variability of symbiotic industries of the same period. The differences between the cultures of Uluzzo, Chatelperron, Gorodtsovskaya and Streletskaya are quite obvious.

Thus, I tend to stick to the positions that I detailed and justified in 2000 [2000]. The term "early period of the Upper Paleolithic" has only a purely chronological meaning - Upper Paleolithic industries are older than 32 thousand years ago. From an archaeological (periodization) point of view, this is an integral part of the RVP, which is characterized not even by a binary, but by a triple opposition: symbiotic industries - "developed" industries - a remnant moustache. A detailed technical and typological analysis of the entire PRT industry in Europe reveals very high cultural variability.

Chronology and cultural variability of Eastern European RVPs

The lower chronological boundary of the RVP corresponds, of course, to the appearance of the oldest Upper Paleolithic industries - it does not matter whether they are "developed" or symbiotic. For European monuments, this time is "older than 40 thousand years ago" (early industries of Bogunicien, Bachokirien, Selet, and possibly Chatelperron). However, there is a tendency to rejuvenate the early Western and Central European "aurignac". Recently, it has been dated no earlier than 36.5 (rarely 38) Ka BP; the earlier dates are doubtful (Zilhao and d'Errico, 1999).

For most of Eastern Europe, Upper Paleolithic industries that are reliably dated earlier than 32 thousand years ago are not known. The exception is the Kostenkovsko-Borshchevsky district (middle Don) and a few monuments located in the north-east of Europe. Therefore, I will start my review with Kostenok.

A whole layer of the oldest rocks of the Kostenkovsko-Borshcheyesky region, lying below the lenses of volcanic ash, according to the results of 14 C-dating, is older than 36 thousand years ago. The dates established by other methods are from 50 to 38 thousand years ago. In 2003, D. Pyle (Cambridge, Great Britain) clarified the origin of the Kostenkov ash: it is associated with the Phlegrean ash Y5 (C1), dating from 41-38 Ka BP (Pyle et al. , in press). Of course, when assessing this aging, one should take into account the discrepancy between the chronological scales obtained by different radiometric methods. IRSL / OSL dates are also older than 14S-dates. It is worth noting, however, that this discrepancy seems to tend to decrease when dating younger sediments. For example, the chronological "gap" between the definitions for the roof of the upper Gumu Syro-van strata on Kostenki-12 (cultural layer 1), and especially for the "Gmelinskaya soil", is quite small [Anikovich et al., 2005, p. 74]. However, at the present time, when dating the oldest deposits of Kostenok, we are forced to focus primarily on the results of IRSL/OSL. It is also worth considering that successively occurring fossil soils containing cultural remains have been discovered below the volcanic ash at the sites of Kostenki-1, -12, -14, and Borshchevo-5. Taking into account the differences in the palynological characteristics of these soils, clearly recorded in the course of a comparative analysis of the Coste materials-

page 6

noc-12 and -14, it is difficult to assume that this entire pack of paleosols was formed in a short period of time. Therefore, when estimating the age of the lower fossil soil D on Kostenki-12 and the archaeological materials contained in it (cultural layer V) I focus on the IRSL and OSL dates obtained by S. L. Forman for this paleosol and the sediments directly overlying it. In general, they fit into the range of 50-43 thousand years ago (more precisely, see [Ibid., p. 75; Forman, 2006, p. 125-126]). The upper part of the underlying gray-fawn loam has a date of 52-50 Ka BP (Anikovich et al., 2005, p. 75).

The upper boundary of the RVP in Kostenki corresponds to the age of the roof of the so - called upper humus layer (hereinafter referred to as the VGT) - a pack of humus deposits lying above the volcanic ash. There are 14 C-definitions for it: from 32 (bottom) to 25-24 (roof) thousand years ago. Of course, there are some clearly " rejuvenated "dates (as well as some clearly "aged" ones). However, such deviations are possible with any absolute dating technique. Synchronization of the main RVP monuments of the Kostenkovsko-Borshchevsky district, based on a set of all the data obtained so far, was proposed by me in 2005 [2005a, p. 84].

Culturally, the RVP of the Middle Don is as follows:Mousterian monuments are not yet known at all; among the symbiotic traditions, two cultural traditions (AK) are clearly distinguished - Streletskaya and Gorodtsovskaya.

Monuments of the Streletskaya AK are also found outside the Kostenkovsko-Borshchevsky district (layers with triangular tips at the sites of Biryuchya Balka, Garchi-1, and Sungir). However, the early stage of the Strelet culture is recorded only in Kostenki. It is most clearly represented by materials of layer III Kostenok-12. They are characterized by: signs of a non-plate technique of primary splitting; flat, parallel removal of nuclei; tools (approx. 250 copies), made mainly on flakes, fragments and fragments of yellow flint tiles. A significant part of the tools are typically Middle Paleolithic forms: peaked heads, scrapers of various types. There are specific points of the kanson type. Knives on fragments of flagstone flint are serially presented. Of the typical Upper Paleolithic tools, the most characteristic are scrapers, mostly short, sub-triangular in shape, sometimes with a ventrally combed base. Chisels are not numerous, but typologically expressive (this term is quite widespread in the literature. Of course, it is just as conventional as the terms "chisels", "scrapers", etc.) with carefully designed straight high transverse blades. Incisors are missing, although some items show incisor chips. Items with traces of scaly undergrowth are rare (Anikovich, 2003, Fig. 4).

Typologically, the most expressive are leaf-shaped bilaterally processed tools: elongated points with a rounded base and with a base treated with" scraper " retouching; elongated points tapering to the base; triangular tips with a concave base; tips of the "poplar leaf" type. A unique tool is a large bilaterally processed quartzite tip with a petiole [Ibid., Fig. 5, 1]. No bone tools, jewelry, or works of art were found, but a mammoth tusk with traces of processing was found.

According to technical and typological characteristics, there are three more stages of development of the Streletskaya AK. The second stage is represented in Kostenki by monuments dedicated to the foundation of the VGT-Kostenki-1 / V (eastern part of the parking lot)*, -11/V, -12/1a, and in the Kama basin by the Garchi-1 parking lot. A sub-triangular shale suspension with a drilled hole was found in the la Kostenok-12 layer (Anikovich, 2005b, p. 39, Fig. 1; 2, 1). I refer the Streletsky complexes of Biryuchya Balka** to the third stage, and the Sungir parking lot to the fourth (final) one. The general trend of development can be traced in the strengthening of the role of lamellar cleavage, a decrease in the proportion of Middle Paleolithic forms among tools. Percentage of bilaterally processed handpieces and their typological variability

* Recent work has raised the question of the age difference of the Kostenok-1 Sagittarius strata in the western and eastern parts of the site. It seems that Kostenki-1 / V (East) (excavations in the 1950s) is younger than Kostenki-1/V (West) (excavations in the 1980s-1990s). Verification of this assumption is one of the most important tasks facing the Kostenkov-Borshchevskaya archaeological expedition.

** A. E. Matyukhin, the author of the excavations in Biryuchya Balka, objects to this. In his opinion, the layers with triangular tips of the Biryuchya Gully grow out of the local moustache, and the "Streletsky" monuments of the Middle Don, Kama and Klyazma should also have a local basis [2002, 2005, etc.]. The inconsistency of his argument, as well as criticism of me, was covered in detail by me in a special article on the genesis of the Kostenkov-Strelet culture [2004a, pp. 288-289]. The final conclusion is that both methodologically and methodologically, A. E. Matyukhin's concept represents a return to decades ago, to the beginning of the 1930s. It was then that any attempt to engage in typology as such was immediately branded for "idealizing forms". Everywhere and everywhere there were necessarily "local roots", and the word "migration" was almost an expletive. Of course, in the contemporary works of A. E. Matyukhin there is no phraseology characteristic of those years, but this does not seem to me fundamentally important.

page 7

they increase in the second and third stages, but fall sharply in the fourth. The final stage is characterized by the richness and variety of bone tools, jewelry, and the presence of works of art.

The Gorodtsovskaya AK in the Kostenkovsko-Borshchevsky district includes the Kostenki-12/I, -14/II and -15 parking lots. They are younger than the Strelet monuments and occur in the middle and upper parts of the VGT*. They are characterized by the following specific features. In the Upper Paleolithic tool set, scrapers predominate, the shapes of which are very diverse, but among them there are products with sub-parallel edges, with edges extending to the blade and close to rounded, and each of these options, in turn, is divided into types. There are many tools with traces of scaly undergrowth, especially small scaly tools of the "Gorodtsov type"stand out. Punctures are characterized by short stings. There are few incisors, and they are not very expressive. The archaic set of tools includes multi-blade scrapers, including those with a ventral sub-cast of the base, as well as sharp points, limas, and small "choppers" (Anikovich, 2003, Fig. 10). Bone inventory is rich. The most specific type is bone spatulas with a handle ending in a cap-shaped pommel.

Outside of the Kostenkovsko-Borshchevsky district, some specific features of the Gorodtsovskaya AK are quite clearly manifested in the upper layer of the Mira-1 site in the Middle Dnieper basin. The radiocarbon age of this monument, according to a compact series of conventional dates, is 27 thousand years ago [Stepanchuk, 2005, p. 233]. The collection includes scrapers with parallel edges extending to the blade, limas, Mousterian tips, and convergent scrapers, including those with a ventrally thin base (Koen and Stepanchuk, 2000). Typological parallels between Mira-1 and Kostenki-14 / II were considered in detail by V. N. Stepanchuk [2005, p. 213]. According to the first publications, I confidently attributed this monument to the Gorodtsovskaya AK [Anikovich, 2003, p. 28], but now, with the expansion of the number of materials, this confidence is somewhat shaken. There are quite a few chisels of prominent tools in Mir-1, but there are plates and points of dufour, as well as "non-geometric" microlites that are absent in the Gorodtsov monuments of the Middle Don. The question of the genetic connections of these factors requires further development. However, in any case, it can already be argued that Mira-1 can't possibly be older than the Gorodtsov monuments of the Kostenkovsko-Borshchevsky district. In terms of time, it is synchronous with Kostenki-12/I.

Typological parallels to the Gorodtsov culture are also found in the east, in the Chusovaya River basin - the Talitsky site. The radiocarbon age of this monument is 18,700 ± 200 years (TIN-1907) [Radiocarbon chronology..., 1997, p.61]. Despite the spatial and temporal distance from the monuments of Gorodtsovskaya AK, this industry shows significant similarities with them. It contains rounded scrapers, traces of such typical Gorodtsov elements as a spike, an edge, signs of ventral flat retouching, and the pointed shape of individual blades. There are scaly tools of the Gorodtsov type. The shapes of punctures are similar. Speaking about the differences, it should be noted that there are no skrebels of Gorodtsov types in the Talitsky parking lot, as well as limas and rubilets. However, such differences can be fully explained by the chronological features of the development of one system of traditions [Anikovich, 1991, p. 30].

The earliest proper Upper Paleolithic ("developed") RVP industries are represented in the middle Don region by materials Kostenok-12/IV and -14 / IVb. The last monument gave quite a lot of material. As AA notes. Sinitsyn, flint industry Kostenok-14 / IVb " is characterized by a lamellar technique of primary cleavage using three-dimensional, flat, end and radial removal of nuclei. The typological composition is determined by a combination of scrapers, dihedral incisors, mainly with the angular position of the blade, chisel-shaped tools and bilaterally processed products of oval and sub-triangular shape... The bone inventory is expressive... in particular, horn "hoes", a rib with a mirror-polished end, points of at least two varieties, a rib with an artificially cut longitudinal groove, tusks with signs of artificial splitting and processing, an ornamental rod made of mammoth tusk " (Sinitsyn et al., 2004, pp. 52-53, Fig. 13]. It is noteworthy that the layer contains art objects (?) and jewelry. A pendant with two artificial holes made from a Columbellidae shell and an object interpreted by the author of the excavation as the head of a figurine made from a mammoth tusk were found in the bones-14/IVb [Ibid., p. 52].

The collection of Kostenok-12/IV is small - 72 stone products, of which only nine are subjected to secondary processing. The predominant raw material is colored flint. The collection includes a plate and microplate of chalk flint. All products with traces of secondary processing are made of colored flint. Among them - an end scraper on a lamellar flake, two massive bilaterally processed

* Previously, the Kostenka-16 parking lot was also referred to the Gorodtsovskaya AK. However, in my opinion, the industry of this monument demonstrates other cultural traditions (see [Anikovich, 1991, pp. 28-30]).

page 8

tools, a chopper-shaped biface, two scrapers (on a chip and on a shard), a kanson point and a notched tool on a shard of colored flint. Note the typological similarity of the oval tools from Kostenok-12/IV and -14 / IVb. According to the aggregate data, both monuments are older than 40 thousand years ago. For cultural attribution (even at the level of TC), the available materials are not enough. We can only talk about their originality.

I refer the somewhat younger monuments of the Spitsyn AC (Kostenki-17/II and -12/II) to the aurignacoid TC. The reason for this is the presence of fragments of plates with elements of "Aurignacian" retouching, karenoid scrapers, the predominance of median multi-facet incisors, and the presence of microplates with fine retouching [Anikovich, 2003, p. 24]. Bone inventory is known only in Kostenki-17 / II. It includes two awls made from the ulna bones of a hare or arctic fox, two fragments of bone points, two fragments of handicrafts from a tusk and a fragment of a hollow. The collection of jewelry is quite large - about 50 pendants, including 37 drilled arctic fox tusks, four drilled belemnite pendants, as well as pendants made of stone, fossil shells and corals [Ibid., Fig. 13]. According to S. A. Semenov, drilling was performed manually, without using a beam drill (see: [Boriskovsky, 1963, p. 104]). According to the totality of data, these monuments of the Spitsyn AK date from 40-33 thousand years ago.

Even younger "typically Aurignacian" (as they are often called in the literature) Kostenok-14/GWP (radiocarbon age 32420 ± 440-420 years (GrA-18063)) and Kostenok - 1/III (age determined from a series of conventional 14 S-dates-26-25 thousand years ago) [Anikovich, 2005a, pp. 75-76]. These monuments seem to belong to the same culture. They are characterized by plates with signs of "Aurignacian" retouching (including "with interception"), tools on such plates, scrapers, multi-facet incisors, points, carenay scrapers, dufour plates. However, such typical "classical Aurignacian" forms as busquet incisors and bone tips with a split base are absent here. Decorations are also different.

The earliest typically gravettoid Early Upper Paleolithic Kostenka-8/II industry in Eastern Europe is also recorded on the Middle Don (14 C-date 27 KA). L. N.) [Ibid., pp. 78-79]. The splitting technique is typically prismatic, lamellar. The predominant type of workpieces is plates and microplates. There are few nuclei, and they are extremely well worked out. Most of the tools are made up of micro-points and micro-plates with a blunted edge. In addition to needle-like points with one or, more rarely, two blunted edges, there are shapes close to geometric microliths. The second largest group is incisors, among which angular and lateral incisors predominate. There are not many scrapers; they are all heterogeneous. An expressive group of gear-notched tools, made almost exclusively on plates. The bone inventory and jewelry set are quite rich. It is interesting that despite the significant difference between Kostenok-8 / II and the monuments of the Gorodtsovskaya AK (primarily Kostenok-14/II), their bone inventory is very similar, even in specific details (small tubular bones decorated with rows of parallel incisions, teardrop-shaped plano-convex pendants ornamented with parallel lines). The Kostenok-8 / II industry has no analogues either in the middle Don region or in other territories.

The few diverse industries in the north-east of Europe are quite old. Serial 14-C dating carried out for each of the four monuments studied here gave fairly close values and allowed us to determine the age of objects with confidence. The oldest site of the Mamontov Kurya is 38-34 thousand years old, and the Zaozerye site as a whole is 33-30 thousand years old, but if we focus primarily on conventional dates, its age is 31 thousand years [Pavlov, 2004, p. 7], the Byzovaya site is about 28 thousand years old, and the Garchi site is 1, Verkhny the layer is about 29 thousand years old.

According to technical and typological characteristics, all four industries belong to the seletoid TC. A more detailed typological analysis allows us to conclude that Garchi-1 undoubtedly belongs to the Kostenkov-Streletskaya AK, more precisely, to the second stage of its development [Pavlov et al., 2004, p. 118; Anikovich, 2004a, p.88]. P. Y. Pavlov rightly connects Zaozerye and the Byzovaya parking lots with a special cultural tradition, different from the Streletskaya one, in other words, to a different culture. The materials of the Mammoth Kurya are still too insignificant for cultural definition, but the presence of a fragment of biface and a tusk with traces of processing is indicative. Thus, it can be argued that during the era of RVP, people not only reached the Arctic Circle - the central and northern foothills of the Urals, but also more or less regularly lived in the north-eastern region [Pavlov, 2004, p.16; Pavlov et al., 2004, p. 118-119].

Turning to the more southern regions of Eastern Europe, we see a completely different picture. In the Dniester-Prut interfluve, where there are many Middle Paleolithic sites and it would seem that the evolution of the Middle Paleolithic to the Upper Paleolithic can be traced, there is not a single Upper Paleolithic site that reliably dates back earlier than 32-30 thousand years AGO. On such important monuments as Molodova V and Korman IV, older layers are recorded (Molodova-5/Xa, Korman-4/X), but the materials identified there are too insignificant to be reliable.

page 9

Middle or Upper Paleolithic sites. As for the monuments belonging to the Molodovskaya AK (Molodova-5/X-VII), the new series of dates has somewhat aged them, but in any case, the age of the sites remained in the range of 30-28 thousand years (Haesaerts et al., 2003). The dates obtained for the most abundant layer VII range from 21070 ± 150 years (GrA-9443) to 28730 ± 250 years (GrN-23578), which raises the question of the homogeneity of these materials.

A similar picture is given by the symbiotic industries represented on the territory of Northern Moldova. Now they are usually called Moldavian villages, but they are clearly multicultural (Brynzenskaya AK, Gordinesti AK, etc.). Genetically, these industries (or at least some of them) seem to be related to the industries of Central Europe. Particularly significant in this respect is the Korpach Mys site, which is characterized by a combination of seletoid and aurignacoid elements. It shows tips of the Mladech type (Borziak, Grigorieva, Ketraru, 1981, pp. 86-103).

Earlier, I assumed that the Brynzeny-1YAP grotto is quite ancient [1991, p. 14]. However, a series of nine 14 C-dates obtained later showed a relatively young age of this monument - from 14,700 ± 130 BP (OxA-4120) to 26,600 ± 370 BP (OxA-4122). Even if we recognize dates of the order of 14-16 thousand years AGO as clearly rejuvenated, then even in this case the main series gives a spread from 19 to 26 thousand years ago, and the majority clearly tends to the upper limit. It is significant that for the single-culture Brynzenam-1 Chungtu grotto, three dates were obtained in the range from 18510 ± 200 BP (OxA-4125) to 22100 ± 220 BP (OxA-4774) [Radiocarbon Chronology..., 1997, pp. 59-60].

Two other symbiotic industries representing foreign cultural traditions have a radiocarbon age determined for Brynzen-1 close to the lower boundary of the series: Klimautsy-2, lower layer-24840 ± 410 years (LU-2351) and Korpach, layer IV-25250 ± 300 years (GrN-9758) [Ibid., p. 57-60]. Thus, on the territory of Northern Moldova, symbiotic cultures, which according to technical and typological characteristics should belong to the RVP, are dated within 26-20 thousand years ago.Of course, it is possible that in the course of further accumulation of data, the picture will change. However, it probably reflects the real state of affairs and, at least in part of the territory of the Southwestern region, the formation of the EAP took place at a much later time than in the Middle Don, although there are a large number of Middle Paleolithic monuments there. However, there is one exception - multi-layer parking of the Machine-1. Its discoverer and researcher N. K. Anisyutkin refers the lower (Middle Paleolithic) layer of the site to the "preselete", and the overlying layer to the seletoid TC and notes the presence of a number of aurignacoid elements, including Karenet scrapers and dufour plates. Unfortunately, there are no absolute dates for this monument, but according to a set of other data (geological stratigraphy, palynological and paleozoological materials), N. K. Anisyutkin is inclined to associate the lower ("Preseletsky") layer of Stinka-1 with the cold arid stadial of the early pleniglacial (OIS 4) (however, dating to the early stadial of the Middle Wurm is not excluded - OIS 3). The seletoid layer itself undoubtedly dates from the Middle Wurmian period. Aurignacoid elements are present in both industries, but it is significant that they are more abundant in the lower, Mousterian, layer. In this regard, the researcher points out: "In the light of new data, two groups of the oldest Upper Paleolithic were identified in the Balkans in Central and Eastern Europe, which can be attributed to the Aurignacoid and seletoid TC. The first one is a "pure" Upper Paleolithic, the second one is distinguished by distinctly pronounced mousteroid features. This latter category also includes the Stanki 1... industry [2005, p.173]. Thus, at present, the symbiotic seletoid industry of Stinky-1 is the main contender for the role of the oldest Upper Paleolithic industry in Southwestern Europe. However, to confirm or refute this assumption, new data is needed, first of all, 14 C-dates, which is impossible without new excavations of the monument. By its general characteristics, this industry fits perfectly into the general circle of diverse symbiotic industries of the region, which can be called Moldavian selet, if you take into account primarily the leaf - shaped bilaterally processed tips, or Moldavian aurignac, if you give priority to the aurignacoid elements that are always present in them.

On the territory of Volyn-Podolia, the oldest known Upper Paleolithic area (Kulichivka, layer III) belongs to the Aurignacoid TC. The production of this layer, as well as the overlying layers I-II, is based on the plate chipping technique, aimed at obtaining large and sufficiently massive plates, combined with a well-defined Levallois technique, represented by typical Levallois points and nuclei. This combination is not typical for a typical Aurignacian, but the shape of the tools (scrapers and points on Aurignacian plates, high scrapers, scrapers "with a spout", plates "with an intercept", multi-facet incisors) and the manifestations of the method of their manufacture ("excessive" edge retouching, multi-facet incisor chips) quite fit into the definition of aurignacoid that I proposed TC [1994, 2003, 2005a]. Expressive archaic

page 10

the component only indicates that the different cultural industries related to this TC (as, indeed, to any other) have different origins. In this case, the hypothesis that the Volyn-Dnieper aurignacoid rocks are related to the Central European Bogunisien (Koen and Stepanchuk, 2000; Stepanchuk and Koen, 2002; Meignenetal., 2004) seems quite valid.

As for the more eastern aurignacoid plants, whose cultural and genetic connection with Kulichivka is very likely (Zhornov-1, upper layer; Radomyshl), they are relatively young both stratigraphically and by 14 C-dates. The corresponding layer of Zhornov-1 probably dates from the end of the Middle Valdai megainterstadial, while the Radomyshl belongs to the Late Valdai (Anikovich, 1991, pp. 23-34). To the east of these monuments (Desna basin) There is also a significant gap between the Middle Paleolithic industries such as Khotylevo-1, Betovo and others. and the most ancient Upper Paleolithic monuments of the Khotylevo-2 type, dated to 14 C-24 thousand BC.There is no need to talk about any cultural continuity between them in this region.

In the Black Sea-Azov basin, as well as in the lower reaches of the Dnieper, Don and Dniester rivers, Upper Paleolithic sites older than 22 thousand years are rare. Culturally, they are related to neighboring regions: the "Strelet" layers of the Biryuchya Balka site complex - with the middle Don, Green Farm-1, - 2 Dniester-Prut interfluve. However, the lifting materials of Green Farm-1, -2 can only be dated intuitively. A series of AMS dates obtained for the sites of Biryuchya Balka shows that the Mousterian layers of their monuments belong to approximately 40-35 thousand years ago. For the typical Streltsy layers of these objects, primarily Biryuchya Balka-2, 14 C-the date of 26 thousand years ago, although there is a more ancient date - ca. 31 thousands of years ago [Otte, Matyukhin, Flas, 2006]. A. E. Matyukhin (2005) sees cultural and genetic connections between the local moutier and strata belonging to the Strelet culture, but I strongly deny such connections.

The Crimean Peninsula is the most specific area of the formation of the Upper Paleolithic - the "Neanderthal refugium". According to recent data, Middle Paleolithic industries existed here until 20-18 thousand years AGO (Stepanchuk, Kovalyukh, and van der Plicht, 2004, pp. 41-44). These definitions certainly need to be tested, but they cannot be rejected unconditionally on the sole ground that they do not correspond to our usual ideas.

From time to time, from about 32 to 30 thousand years AGO, carriers of various Upper Paleolithic cultural traditions periodically appeared on this territory - in order to disappear without having any noticeable impact on the local population. It was only in the Late Glacial Period that the local Middle Paleolithic traditions were interrupted, giving way to highly developed Upper Paleolithic industries. There is no cultural continuity between the two groups.

It is necessary to mention that on the opposite end of Europe, on the Iberian Peninsula, there is a very similar situation. New trends in stone and bone processing did not enter the region for a long time after the Middle Paleolithic was replaced by the Upper Paleolithic in neighboring Franco-Cantabria and to the east of it. The latest Mousterian monuments there date from ca. 30 thousand years AGO and later. No evidence of the appearance of Upper Paleolithic rocks in the region has been found before (Straus, 1996, p. 210). Thus, it can be assumed that the transition to the Upper Paleolithic occurred later in the extreme west of Europe than in other regions (Villaverde, Aura, and Barton, 1998, p. 185). According to some data, in Western Iberia, on the territory of Portugal, Upper Paleolithic (Gravetta) industries appeared only 26-25 thousand years ago (Raposo, 2000, p. 104).

Something similar, although not in such a pronounced form, is observed in the Caucasus. There is also a long-term experience of SP, VP appears relatively late. 14C-dates obtained for the upper Mikok and Mousterian layers of the North Caucasian Mezmayskaya and Myshtulagty-Lagat caves are about 33-32 Ka BP, and for the Matuzka cave/layer 4B-C - 34200 ± 1400 BP (Golovanova and Doronichev, 2003; Hidjrati, Kimball, and Koetje, 2003). The most recent Mousterian complex of the Akhshtyr cave is quite close to them in time - 35 ± 2 thousand years AGO (Lubin, 1989, p. 74). In Transcaucasia, Mousterian materials in Ortval Kld are of similar age. The age of the lower Upper Paleolithic layer 1C in the Mezmay cave, judging by a single 14 C-date, is 32 Ka BP (Golovanova et al., 1999). For the 7th Apianchi layer, a 14 S-date of 32800 BP was obtained (Kozlowski and Otte, 2000, p. 525). Thus, according to the currently available data, in the Caucasus, the change from the Middle Paleolithic to the Upper One began somewhere in the range from 35 to 32 thousand years ago.

Paradoxes of the Eastern European RVP and the problem of its origin

The review revealed a paradox: the oldest Upper Paleolithic sites do not appear where they would seem to be expected (south, South-

page 11

west of Eastern Europe), and in the northern regions - on the middle Don, in the Klyazma, Kama and Pechora basins. In addition, where there is an ancient EP (older than 36 and even 40 thousand years ago), there is no trace of the mustier from which it should "grow", according to classical evolutionist ideas. Finally, there is no reason to say that the oldest symbiotic systems predate "developed" ones. Rather, on the contrary, highly developed industries such as Kostenok-14 / IVb are clearly older than the most archaic industry Kostenok-12 / III. On the contrary, in those regions where sufficiently expressive Middle Paleolithic industries are represented, as a rule, there are no traces of the "transition" from them to the local Upper Paleolithic. The symbiotic industries mentioned here, such as the "Moldavian village", are often relatively young. I mentioned a possible exception to this rule (Stink-1) above, but in the absence of absolute dates, it is still premature to talk about it with confidence.

All this is completely inconsistent with the ideas of autochthonous, evolutionary development and requires explanations.

I have repeatedly written about the methodological foundations for establishing probable genetic links between industries belonging to different epochs - in this case, the joint Venture and the EAP [Anikovich, [2004a], p. 267; 2005b, p. 43-46]. I won't repeat myself here. I will only point out the main point: cultural and genetic connections can be established only if the transmission of cultural traditions is recorded, at least in a reduced form. In the stone industries, such traditions are most clearly manifested in deliberately defined forms (types). Genetic connections of the Strelet culture with the Crimean mycoc were established by me on the basis of the coincidence of five specific types (triangular tips with a concave base, "Chokurchinsky triangles", tips with a rounded base of the "poplar leaf" type, tips with a narrowed base, sub-triangular scrapers, including those with traces of ventral processing of the base)*. The same principles were used to argue for the alleged connection of the Gorodtsovskaya AK with the Ilskaya parking lot (North Caucasus) [Anikovich, 2003, pp. 27-28, Fig. 17]. Similarly, it establishes the genetic relationship between the "Preseletsky" and seletoid cultural layers of Stinka-1 N. K. Anisyutkin and Ukrainian colleagues, who write about the relationship of Kulichivka with bohunisien (Stepanchuk and Koen, 2002; Meignen et al., 2004). The last example, however, concerns the RVP itself, which is at the initial stage of the Central European Bohunicien, and not the cultural continuity between different epochs.

Analysis of other symbiotic plants in the south-west of the Russian Plain suggests that they are closely related to the RVS of Central Europe. This is also evidenced by the general structure of these plants: they can be equally considered as aurignacoid with leaf-shaped tips, and as seletoid with aurignacoid forms. But the main thing is the coincidence of specific types. The most striking example is the Mladech - type bone arrowheads found at the Korpach Mys site (Borziak, Grigorieva, and Ketraru, 1981, Fig. 43). We can see links between individual RVP monuments in South-Eastern Europe (the so-called Steppe Zone) and sites in other regions. For example, the Zelyony Khutor-1, -2 localities located in the Steppe Zone (Odessa region) are typologically similar to such sites in the southwestern part of the Russian Plain as Klimautsy-1 and Mitok-Malu-Galben in the Prut basin (Sapozhnikov, 2005, p.12). Connections of the Streltsy strata of the Biryuchya Balka sites (Seversky Donets) and the Bone was mentioned above.

Thus, a number of symbiotic cultures of the Russian Far East show cultural and genetic similarity with the industries of the previous Middle Paleolithic (Mousterian) era. However, these relationships are not strictly autochthonous anywhere in Eastern Europe (the only possible exception is Stinka - 1). Crimean mycoc may have played an important role in the formation of the oldest Upper Paleolithic industries with leaf-shaped tools (Streletskaya AK, Zaozerye-Byzovaya type industries, possibly Gorodtsovskaya AK). However, the transformation of this type of moutier into an EAP did not take place within the Crimea itself. Nothing like this has been recorded in the area of the Crimean mycoc itself.

The situation is even more complicated with the typical Upper Paleolithic ("developed") cultures of RVPs. Only a relatively young Molodovskaya AK (again, based on the similarity of a number of types) can be genetically linked, but not with Mousterian cultures, but with the symbiotic "Bukk village"**. As for the oldest "developed" industries (Spitsynskaya AK, Kok-14 / IVb),

* I consider the similarity of more "banal" forms (longitudinal and angular scrapers, Mousterian points, etc.) only as an additional argument and do not attach decisive importance to it.

** In the literature, the archaism of the classical Central European selet is often greatly exaggerated. The presence of prismatic chipping techniques, gravettoid shapes, etc. is usually interpreted as an extraneous impurity. And on what grounds?

page 12

it is not yet possible to offer any plausible hypothesis of their origin. Only one thing can be said: these cultures were introduced to Eastern Europe from outside.

One more important remark should be added to what has been said. Until now, researchers have not been able to prove that the Middle Paleolithic industries of Europe developed along the line of increasing Upper Paleolithic characteristics (see, for example, [Vishnyatsky, 2006]). In other words, the evolution of the Middle Paleolithic to the Upper Paleolithic on the European continent is not traceable. However, judging by the publications of our Siberian colleagues, this is the direction in which the development of the Siberian Paleolithic took place. This eventually led to the formation of two RVP cultural traditions in Gorny Altai - Kara-Bomovskaya and Ust-Karakolskaya. There are at least two different scenarios for the transition to the EAP.

The South Siberian version is undoubtedly closer to the usual "transition" scenario: a gradual reduction of Mousterian and an increase in Upper Paleolithic features in the technology of stone tools. However, even here, the appearance of a whole complex of bone tools and ornaments in the lower layers of layer 11 of Denisova Cave looks more like a revolutionary leap, and not as a result of gradual development.

As for the formation of the Eastern European EAP, it is more likely to be associated with acculturation: the typical developed Upper Paleolithic culture introduced by migrants influenced the development of the local Mousterian culture. As a result of this, the so-called symbiotic cultures of the Eastern European RVPs appeared.

The idea of acculturation as one of the determining factors in the formation of the European EAP was proposed and elaborated in detail by F. A. Kropotkin. Allsworth - Jones (1986). It was supported by a number of researchers, including myself. New materials obtained on the middle Don in 1998-2004 not only confirm this concept, but also fill it with new content.

Acculturation as a variant of socio-cultural adaptation

When archaeologists talk about adaptation processes, they usually refer to various ways in which human culture can adapt to changing natural conditions. This is basically correct. It is in this vein that our Siberian colleagues interpret the variability of the Middle Paleolithic regions in the south of North Asia. In my opinion, this is the way to interpret the further transition from the PRTR to the SVP on the territory of Eastern Europe (this is a topic for a separate paper). However, what happened on the territory of Eastern Europe during the formation of the EAP was fundamentally different. Here we are not talking about the adaptation of culture to changing natural conditions, but rather about the mutual adaptation of fundamentally different cultural traditions - the Middle and Upper Paleolithic.

In fact, can we say that the process of the formation of the EAP in Eastern Europe was the result of the influence of a certain geographical, natural factor on human culture? Given what we already know about the time and circumstances of this process in the specified region, the answer is unequivocal-no, we can't. Then another question arises: are the paradoxes that I have already pointed out above random? In the south of Eastern Europe, there are a large number of Mousterian monuments, but there is no trace of a "smooth transition" from the local Mousterian to the local EAP. The connection between the symbiotic cultures of the RVP and the Mousterian cultures of the same southern regions is quite obvious, but it is not fixed in the places where the Mousterian kulyurs-"progenitors" - existed for thousands of years. Is this an accident? I don't think so. I believe that the process of acculturation took place primarily where both its "components" - the bearers of the Upper and Middle Paleolithic traditions - turned out to be newcomers, outsiders. It was the meeting on the "foreign" territory that opened up the possibility of more or less fruitful contacts, mutual socio-cultural adaptation. That is why in the Dniester-Prut region, and especially in the Crimea, "progressive" newcomers were quickly pushed out of the territory that was firmly developed by the Middle Paleolithic population. It was the outcasts, not the autochthons, who needed socio-cultural adaptation. That is why the most ancient and highly developed Upper Paleolithic cultures of Eastern Europe did not appear in the areas where Mousterian monuments were concentrated, but, on the contrary, where they did not exist, for example, on the middle Don. And here the earliest manifestations of "symbiotic" traditions are recorded.

Probably, in the Kostenkovsko-Borshchevsky district there was a "meeting" of two or several streams of immigrants-carriers of Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic cultural traditions. The first, most likely, were immigrants from the Crimea. Second... who knows? Perhaps immigrants from the same Southern Siberia? Today it is difficult to say anything definite about the place of their "exodus". Therefore, any, even the most risky assumptions in this regard deserve careful consideration and analysis.

page 13

List of literature

Anikovich M. V. Rannaya pora verkhnego paleolita Vostochnoi Evropy: Avtoref [Early period of the Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Europe]. dis ... of Doctor of Historical sciences. - SPb., 1991. -40 p.

Anikovich M. V. Osnovnye printsipy khronologii i periodizatsii verkhnego paleolita Evropy [Basic principles of chronology and periodization of the Upper Paleolithic of Europe]. to lead. - 1994. - N 3. - P. 144-157.

Anikovich, M. V., Nachalnaya pora verkhnego paleolita Vostochnoi Evropy, Stratum plus, 2000, No. 1, pp. 11-30.

Anikovich M. V. Rannaya pora verkhnego paleolita Vostochnoi Evropy [Early time of the Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Europe]. -2003. - N 2(14). - p. 15-29.

Anikovich, M. V., The origin of the Kostenkov-Strelet culture and the problem of searching for cultural and genetic links between the Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic, Stratum plus 2001-2002, [2004a]. - N 1. - p. 266-290.

Anikovich M. V. Rannaya pora verkhnego paleolita Vostochnoi Evropy (periodizatsiya, khronologiya, genezis) [Early period of the Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Europe (periodization, chronology, genesis)]. Kostenki i rannaya pora verkhnego paleolita Evrazii: obshchee i localnoe: Guidebook to support sites of the Kostenkovsko-Borshchevsky paleolithic region and tez.dokl. International Conference, dedicated to 125th anniversary of the discovery of the Paleolithic in Kostenki (August 23-26, 2004). - Voronezh: Istoki. - 2004b. - p. 86-91.

Anikovich M. V. O khronologii paleolita Kostenkovsko-Borshchevskogo rayon [On the Paleolithic chronology of the Kostenkov-Borshchevsky district]. - 2005a. - N 3 (23). - p. 70-86.

Anikovich M. V. Sungir ' v kul'turno-istoricheskogo kontekste i problema stanovleniya sovremennogo chelovechestva [Sungir in the cultural and historical context and the problem of formation of modern humanity]. - 20056. - N 2 (22). - pp. 37-47.

Anikovich M. V., Hoffecker J. F., Popov V. V., Dudin A. E., Levkovskaya G. M., Pospelova G. A., Kuzmina I. E., Platonova P. P., Forman S., Holliday V. T., Carter B. Chronostratigraphy of the Kostenki-12 multilayer site (Volkovskaya) in the context of Paleolithic chronostratigraphy of the Kostenkovsko-Borshchevsky district / / Problems of the early Upper Paleolithic of the Kostenkovsko-Borshchevsky district and adjacent territories. St. Petersburg: Kopi-R Ltd., 2005, pp. 66-86 (Proc. of the Kostenkov-Borshchevskaya Archaeological Expedition; Issue 3).

Anisyutkin P. K. The Paleolithic site of Stilka 1 and the problem of transition from the Middle Paleolithic to the Upper One in the South-West of Eastern Europe. St. Petersburg: Kopi-R LLC, 2005, 186 p. (Proc. of the Kostenkovsko-Borshchevskaya Archaeological Expedition; Issue 2).

Borziak I. A., Grigoryeva G. V., Ketraru N. A. Ancient stone Age settlements in the North-West of Moldova. - Chisinau: Stiinca. - 1981. - 136 p.

Boriskovsky P. P. Essays on the Paleolithic of the Don basin. - M.; L.: AN SSSR, 1963. - P. 5-191.- (MIA; N 121).

Vishnyatsky L. B. Cultural dynamics in the middle of the Late Pleistocene and transition to the Upper Paleolithic. - St. Petersburg, 2006. - 36 p.

Derevyanko A. P. Transition from the Middle to Late Paleolithic-a view from Northern Asia // Transition from the Early to Late Paleolithic in Eurasia: hypotheses and facts. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAEt SB RAS, 2005a, pp. 501-508.

Derevyanko A. P. The oldest human migrations in Eurasia and the problem of Upper Paleolithic formation // Transition from the Early to Late Paleolithic in Eurasia: hypotheses and facts. Novosibirsk: Izv. IAEt SB RAS, 20056, pp. 5-19.

Derevyanko A. P., Petrin V. T., Rybin E. P., Chevalkov L. M. Paleolithic complexes of the stratified part of the Kara-Bom site (Mustier-Upper Paleolithic). Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAEt SB RAS, 1998, 280 p. (in Russian)

Derevyanko, A. P. and Rybin, E. P., The oldest manifestation of the symbolic activity of a Paleolithic person in the Altai Mountains, in Perekhod ot rannego k pozdnemu paleolitu v Evrazii: hypothezy i fakty. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAEt SB RAS, 2005, pp. 232-255.

Derevyanko A. P., Shunkov M. V. Stanovlenie verkhnepaleoliticheskikh traditsii na Altae [Formation of Upper Paleolithic traditions in the Altai]. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAEt SB RAS, 2005a, pp. 283-311.

Derevyanko A. P., Shunkov M. V. Osnovnye etapy razvitiya paleoliticheskikh traditsii na Altae [Main stages of development of paleolithic traditions in the Altai]. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAEt SB RAS, 2005, pp. 68-77.

Derevyanko A. P., Shunkov M. V., Volkov P. A., Ulyanov V. A., Chernikov P. S. Issledovaniya v vostochnoi galerie Denisovoi caves [Research in the Eastern gallery of Denisova Cave]. Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredel'nykh territorii: Matly XI Godovoi sessii Instituta arkheologii i etnografii SB RAS, Novosibirsk: Izd. IAEt SB RAS, 2005- P. 100-105.

Koen, V. and Stepanchuk, V., Variability of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic, Stratum plus, 2000, No. 1, pp. 31-53.

Kozlovskii, Ya. K., The significance of transition rocks that are Levallois derivatives for the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic in Western Eurasia, in Aktual'nye voprosy evraziyskogo paleolitovedeniya. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAEt SB RAS, 2005, pp. 98-114.

Lyubin V. P. Paleolith of the Caucasus / / Paleolith of the Caucasus and Northern Asia, Nauka Publ., 1989, pp. 9-142.

Matyukhin, A. E., On the early pore and genesis of the Late Paleolithic in the Lower Don basin, Osobennosti razvitiya verkhnego paleolita Vostochnoi Evropy. St. Petersburg: Akadem-Print, 2002, pp. 81-101 (Proc. of the Kostenkov Paleolithic Expedition, Issue 1).

Matyukhin, A. E., Late Paleolithic industries with two-sided cusps of the Seversky Donets Valley, Archeol. to lead. -2005. - N 12. - p. 44-61.

Pavlov P. Yu. Early Upper Paleolithic period in the North-East of Europe (based on the materials of the Zaozerye site): Dokl. at the meeting of the Presidium of the Komi Scientific Center of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Syktyvkar, 2004, issue 467, 36 p.

Pavlov E. Yu., Gribchenko Yu. N., Robrooks V., Svendsen P. I. Rannaya pora verkhnogo paleolita na Severo-Vostoke Evropy [Early Upper Paleolithic age in the North-East of Europe]. International Conference, dedicated to 125th anniversary of the discovery of the Paleolithic in Kostenki (August 23-26, 2004). - Voronezh: Istoki, 2004. - pp. 117-120.

page 14

Paleolithic childhood of Altai // First-hand science. - 2005. - N 3. - p. 6-11.

Natural environment and people in the Paleolithic of Gorny Altai. Derevyanko A. P., Shunkov M. V., Aghajanyan A. K., Baryshnikov G. F., Malaeva E. M. Habitat conditions in the vicinity of Denisova Cave. Ulyanov, N. A. Kulik, A.V. Postov, and A. A. Anoikin, Novosibirsk: Izd. IAEt SB RAS, 2003, 448 p. (in Russian)

Radiocarbon chronology of the Paleolithic of Eastern Europe and Northern Asia: problems and Prospects. Sinitsyn, N. D. Praslov. St. Petersburg: Akadem-Print Publ., 1997, 141 p.

Сапожников І. В. Пізній палеоліт степів південного заходу України: хронологія, періодизація і господарство. - Author's abstract of the dissertation of the Doctor of Historical Sciences. - Київ, 2005. - 32 с.

Semenov Yu. I. How humanity emerged, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1966, 576 p.

Sinitsyn, A. A., Similarity and difference between the Kara-bom formation and the initial Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Europe, in Aktual'nye voprosy evraziyskogo paleolitovedeniya. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAEt SB RAS, 2005, pp. 179-184.

Sinitsyn, A. A., Hoffecker, J. F., Sinitsyna, G. V., Spiridonova, E. A., Guskova, E. G., Forman, S., Serebryakov, A. K., Bessudnov, A. A., Mironov, D. S., and Reynolds, B. Kostenki 14 (Markina Gora), Kostenki i rannaya pora verkhnego paleolita Evrazii: obshchee i lokal'noe: Guidebook to the Upper Paleolithic of Eurasia. reference sites of the Kostenkovsko-Borshchevsky Paleolithic region and theses of the dokl. International Conference, dedicated to 125th anniversary of the discovery of the Paleolithic in Kostenki (August 23-26, 2004). - Voronezh: Istoki. - 2004. - p. 39-59.

Stepanchuk V. P. Voprosy perekhoda k verkhnem palaeolitu v svete novykh dannykh po Krymu i yuga Vostochno-Evropeiskoi ravniny [Issues of transition to the Upper Paleolithic in the light of new data on the Crimea and the South of the Eastern European Plain]. Problemy rannego verkhnego paleolita Kostenkovsko-Borshchevskogo rayonaismezhnykhterritoriy [Problems of the Early Upper Paleolithic of the Kostenkovsko-Borshchevsky district and adjacent Territories], St. Petersburg: Kopi-R LLC, 2005, pp. 197-233. . 3).

Stepanchuk V. N., Koen V. Yu. Industry of the third layer of the Kulychivka site, Western Ukraine / / Osobennosti razvitiya verkhnego paleolita Vostochnoi Evropy. - St. Petersburg: Akadem-Print, 2002. - pp. 102-115. - (Proc. of the Kostenkov Paleolithic expedition; Issue 1).

Stepanchuk V. M., Kovalyukh M. M., van der Plicht J. Радіовуглецевий вік пізньоплейстоценових палеолітичних стоянок Криму // Кам'яна доба України. - 2004. - Issue 5. - P. 34-61.

Allsworth-Jones Ph. The Szeletian and the Transition from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic in Central Europe. - Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986. - 412 p.

Bar-Yosef O. On the nature of transitions: The Middle to Upper Paleolithic and the Neolithic revolution // Cambridge Archaeological Journal. - 1998. - Vol. 8, N. 2. - P. 141 - 163.

Forman S. L. OSP Dating of Kostenki: methods and results / / Early time of the Upper Paleolithic of Eurasia: general and local: Materials of the International Conference on the 125th anniversary of the discovery of the Paleolithic in Kostenki, August 23-26, 2004-St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriya, 2006. - pp. 125-130- (Proc. of the Kostenkovsko-Borshchevskaya archaeological expedition; Issue 4).

Golovanova L. V., Hoffecker J. F., Kharitonov V. M, Romanova G. P. Mezmaiskaya Cave: A Neanderthal occupation in the Northern Caucasus // Current Anthropology. - 1999. - Vol. 40, N 1. - P. 77 - 86.

Golovanova L. V., Doronichev V. B. The MddlePaleolithic of the Caucasus // J. of World Prehistory. - 2003. - Vol. 17, N 1. - P. 71 - 140.

Haesaerts P., Borziak I., Chirica V., Damblon E, Koulakovska L., van der Plicht J. The East Carpatian Poess Record: a Reference for the Mddle and Pate Pleniglacial Stratigraphy in Central Europe//Quaternaire. -2003. - Vol. 14, N 3. - P 163 - 188.

Hidjrati N. I., Kimball L. R., Koetje T. Mddle and Pate Pleistocene investigations of Myshtulagty Pagat (Weasel Cave) North Ossetia, Russia //Antiquity. - 2003. - Vol. 77, N 298. Режим доступа: antiquity.ac.uk.ProjCall/asia.html.

Kozlowski J. K. The problem of cultural continuity between the Middle and the Upper Paleolithic in Central and Eastern Europe // The Geography of Neandertals and Modern Humans in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean / Eds. O Bar-Yosef, D. Pilbeam. - Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000. - P. 77 - 105.

Kozlowski J. K., Otte M. The formation of the Aurignacian in Europe // J. of Anthropological Research. - 2000. - Vol. 56, N 4. - P. 513 - 534.

Meignen L., Geneste J. -M., Koulakovskaia L., Sytnik A. Koulichivka and its place in the Mddle-Upper Paleolithic transition in Eastern Europe // The Early Upper Paleolithic Beyond Western Europe / Eds. P. J. Brantingham, S. P. Kuhn, K. W. Kerry. - Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. - P. 50 - 63.

Mellars P. Major issues in the emergence of modern humans // Current Anthropology. - 1989. - Vol. 30. - P. 349 - 385.

Otte M., Matyukhin A. E., Flas D. Pa Chronologie de Biryuchya Balka (Pdigion de Rostov, Russie) / / Early part of the Upper Paleolithic of Eurasia: general and local: Materials of the International Conference on the 125th anniversary of the discovery of the Paleolithic in Kostenki, August 23-26, 2004-St. Petersburg: NestorIstoriya Publ., 2006, pp. 183-192 (Proc. of the Kostenkovsko-Borshchevskaya Archaeological Expedition, issue 4).

Pyle D. M., Ricketts G. D., Margari V., Andel T. H., Sinitsyn A. A., Praslov N. D., Lisitsyn S.N. Wide dispersal and deposition of distal tephra during the Pleistocene 'Campanian Ignimbrite/Y5' eruption, Italy // Quarternary Science Reviews. - In press.

Raposo L. The Mddle-Upper Palaeolithic transition in Portugal // Neanderthals on the Edge / Eds. C. B. Stringer, R. N. E. Barton, J. C. Finlayson. - Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2000. - P. 95 - 109.

Straus L. G. Continuity or rupture; convergence or invasion; adaptation or catastrophe; mosaic or monolith: Views on the Mddle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Iberia // The Past Neandertals, the First Anatomically Modern Humans / Eds. E. Carbonell, M. Vaquero. - Barcelona, 1996. - P. 203 - 218.

Villaverde V., Aura J. E., Barton C. M. The Upper Paleolithic in Mediterranean Spain: A review of current evidence // J. l of World Prehistory. - 1998. - Vol. 12, N 2. - P. 121 - 198.

Zilhao J., d'Errico F. The chronology and tafonomy of the earliest Aurignacian and its implications for the understanding of Neandertal extinction // J. of World Prehistory. - 1999. -Vol. 13, N 1. - P 1 - 68.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 18.10.06.

page 15

Permanent link to this publication: