Crimean Middle Paleolithic

Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology Editors: Claire Smith ISBN: 978-1-4419-0426-3 (Print) 978-1-4419-0465-2

C

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

1766

- 2003. The Upper Paleolithic of Crimea: industrialchronological variability. Archeological Proceedings (Rostov-na-Donu) 2: 36-50 (in Russian). - 2004. The common characteristic of Middle Paleolithic Micoquian industry of Kiik-Koba type sites and find complexes, in Y.E. Demidenko (ed.) Buran-Kaya III rock-shelter, Layer B - the etalon find complex for Kiik-Koba type industry of Crimean Micoquian tradition. Complex analysis of flint artifacts: 8-29. Kiev, Simferopol: Shlyakh (in Russian). - 2008. The early and Mid Upper Palaeolithic of the North Black Sea region: an overview. Quartaer 55: 91-106. - 2011a. The late Middle Palaeolithic and early Upper Palaeolithic of the northeastern and eastern edges of the Great Mediterranean (south of eastern Europe and Levant): any archaeological similarities? in J.-M. Le Tensorer, R. Jagher & M. Otte (ed.) The Lower and Middle Palaeolitihic in the Middle East and neighbouring regions. Proceedings of the Basel Symposium (8-10 May 2008) (ERAUL 126): 151-67. Lie`ge: Universite´ de Lie`ge. - 2011b. North Black Sea region archaic Aurignacian complexes with different microliths and their role for western Eurasia Aurignacian variability and origin studies (Abstracts 26). Leipzig: European Society for the study of Human Evolution. DEMIDENKO, Y.E., M. OTTE & P. NOIRET. (ed.) 2012. Siuren I rock-shelter. From late Middle Paleolithic and early Upper Paleolithic till Epi-Paleolithic in Crimea (ERAUL 129). Liege: Universite´ de Lie`ge. DEMIDENKO, Y.E., P. NIGST, S. TALAMO et al. in press. AMS C14 dating of bone samples for the Micoquian and Proto-Aurignacian, and Late/Evolved Aurignacian interfaces at Siuren I, Crimea (Ukraine). Journal of Archeological Science. GOLOVANOVA, L.V., N.E. CLEGHORN, V.B. DORONICHEV, J.F. HOFFECKER, G.S. BURR & L.D. SULERGIZKIY. 2006. The early Upper Paleolithic in the northern Caucasus (new data from Mezmaiskaya cave, 1997 excavation). Eurasian Prehistory 4: 43-78. GOLOVANOVA, L.V., V.B. DORONICHEV & N.E. CLEGHORN. 2010a. The emergence of bone-working and ornamental art in the Caucasian Upper Palaeolithic. Antiquity 84: 299-320. GOLOVANOVA, L.V., V.B. DORONICHEV & N.E. CLEGHORN, M.A. KOULKOVA, T.V. SAPELKO & M.S. SHACKLEY. 2010b. Significance of ecological factors in the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition. Current Anthropology 51: 655-91. MESHVELIANI, T., O. BAR-YOSEF & A. BELFER-COHEN. 2004. The Upper Paleolithic in western Georgia, in P.J. Brantingham, S.L. Kuhn & K.W. Kerry (ed.) The early Upper Paleolithic beyond western Europe: 129-43. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press. PINHASI, R., T.F.G. HIGHAM, L.V. GOLOVANOVA & V.B. DORONICHEV. 2011. Revised age of late Neanderthal occupation and the end of the Middle Paleolithic in the northern Caucasus. PNAS 108: 8611-16.

Crimean Middle Paleolithic PRAT, S., S.C. PEAN, L. CREPIN, D.G. DRUCKER, S.J. PUAUD, H. VALLADAS, M. LAZNIKOVA-GALETOVA, J. VAN DER PLICHT & A. YANEVICH. 2011. The oldest anatomically modern humans from far southeast Europe: direct dating, culture and behavior. PLoS ONE 6: 1-13. YANEVICH, A. 2000. Buran-Kaya culture of Gravettian in Crimea. Archeology (Kyiv) 2: 11-19 (in Ukrainian). YANEVICH, A., S. PEAN, L. CREPIN, M. LAZNIKOVAGALETOVA, S. PRAT & V. PRYSYAJNUK. 2009. Upper Palaeolithic settlements in Buran-Kaya 3 (Crimea, Ukraine): new interdisciplinary researches of the layers 5-2, 6-1 and 6-2. Archeological Almanac 20 (Donetsk): 187-202.

Crimean Middle Paleolithic Yuri E. Demidenko Crimean Branch, Institute of Archaeology, National Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Simferopol, Crimea, Ukraine

Introduction Geographical Setting The Crimean peninsula (Fig. 1) is located in the southeastern corner of the European continent, on the northern coast of the Black Sea in southern Ukraine. Moreover, except during the Last Interglacial period (c. 128–116 year BP, MIS 5e) when Crimea was an island, present-day Crimea was not a peninsula but rather the southernmost edge of a continuous land belt from the Eastern Balkans to Northwestern Caucasus in Eastern Europe during most of the Upper Pleistocene. Occupying such a transitional geographical position between different European and Asian regions, Crimea is quite important for Western Eurasian Paleolithic studies. Crimea, (see Ferring in Marks & Chabai 1998), 300 km wide and 180 km from north to south with a total area of about 26,000 km2 centered on 45 N, 34 300 E, is subdivided into two main regions by its physiography. The steppe is located in the north and the mountainous areas in the south. All of the known in situ Paleolithic sites are situated in the latter. The Crimean Mountains, with three ridges, stretches 160 km

Crimean Middle Paleolithic

1767

C

C

Crimean Middle Paleolithic, Fig. 1 Map of the Crimea with Middle Paleolithic site locations (Map prepared by Dr. G. Bataille, Cologne University)

west–east and 50 km north–south. The ridges are composed of limestone, sandstone, sedimentary rock, chalk, marl, and conglomerates, often added including karstic terrain. A number of natural sheltered places (caves/grottos/rockshelters) and primary and secondary high-quality flint outcrops are known along various cuestas and cliffs. These two key components for the survival Paleolithic human groups certainly attracted them to this region. In addition, it was possible to hunt different ungulates (Equus hidruntinus, Saiga tatarica, Bovinae) near steppe plateaus located above limestone cuestas and cliffs adjacent to river valleys. Such resources made the Crimean mountainous region indeed an attractive region for occupation over the last 100,000 years, by different hominin groups with different cultures and industries, some of whom stayed for a long time, while others simply passed through the region during long distance migrations.

At the same time, the majority of Crimea, its northern steppe zone, from a geological point of view, usually features many-meter-thick loess deposits with no rocky cuestas or cliffs with caves/grottos/rockshelters. Only a few archaeological surveys have been attempted to find Paleolithic sites in this region, but very few Mesolithic and Neolithic sites have been found in Holocene deposits and not a single Paleolithic site. Systematic survey is needed for to discover open-air Paleolithic sites in the Crimean steppe region. Before such sites are found, present knowledge of the Crimean Paleolithic is based only on in situ sites in the southern mountainous region, which while important, is still but a part of the entire Crimean territory. Future discoveries of sites in both the northern steppe zone and the southernmost sea coastal shore, zones lacking high-quality flint outcrops, in addition to the very few surface flint artifacts found, will make

C

1768

the picture of Crimea and its Middle Paleolithic much more mosaic.

Historical Background History of Middle Paleolithic Studies in the Crimea Another Paleolithic feature of the Crimea should be noted. Despite some suggestions for the presence of the Acheulian or Lower Paleolithic in Crimea, there are neither in situ sites nor clearly identifiable artifacts for such industries as yet (Chabai et al. 2000). The oldest Crimean Paleolithic is therefore represented by the Middle Paleolithic, the subject of this entry. The first Middle Paleolithic site (Volchiy Grotto, eastern Crimea) and surface flints (Kabazi Mountain, western Crimea) were discovered by the pioneer of Crimean Paleolithic archaeology, Konstantin S. Merejkowski (St. Petersburg) in 1879–1880. These Middle Paleolithic finds in the Crimea were also the first for the entire Russian Empire at that time. These important discoveries, however, were not followed up and actually forgotten, despite the fact that G. de Mortillet (France), the most authorized Paleolithic Age archaeologist in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, confirmed the Mousterian Age of the Volchiy Grotto finds in 1900. Only with the real rediscovery of the Crimean Paleolithic by Gleb A. Bonch-Osmolowski (Leningrad) during fieldwork from 1924 to 1932 was Crimea recognized as a region rich in Paleolithic sites in Eastern Europe. Bonch-Osmolowski excavated three Middle Paleolithic sites in Crimea in the 1920s: Kiik-Koba grotto with two Neanderthal burials, Shaitan-Koba grotto and Adzhi-Koba cave. The Kiik-Koba deposits contained two Paleolithic layers, the lower of which was considered to be “an amorphous stage of the Pre-Chelleen,” also comparable to the “Old Clactonian,” “Tayacien,” and the upper “Late Micoquian” connected to “the end of the Acheulian or . . .to the transition from Acheulian to Mousterian” (Bonch-Osmolowski 1940).


The lower layer of Adzhi-Koba was similar to the upper layer of Kiik-Koba “Late Micoquian” artifacts, but the lithic assemblage was limited (Bonch-Osmolowski 1940). These two sites, with assemblages characterized by a near absence of core reduction and the presence of bifacial “plano-convex” tool production, a term introduced by Bonch-Osmolowski, were the first Paleolithic sites for both Middle and Upper Paleolithic (the upper layer at Adzhi-Koba contained, in modern Paleolithic terms, an Epigravettian assemblage) in the first ridge areas of Crimean Mountains in eastern Crimea. Shaitain-Koba grotto with two Middle Paleolithic layers, on the other hand, was characterized by many Levallois and blade cores and very rare bifacial tools. The Shaitan-Koba assemblages were considered to be “Late Mousterian,” perhaps even transitional to the Upper Paleolithic (Bonch-Osmolowski 1940). Two other “Late Micoquian” assemblages were excavated in the 1930s by O.N. Bader (Moscow) at Volchiy Grotto and N.L. Ernst (Simferopol, Crimea) at Chokurcha cave. On the basis of these Crimean Middle Paleolithic sites, Bonch-Osmolowski (1940) laid the foundations of Crimean Middle Paleolithic studies, proposing a unilinear Middle Paleolithic evolutionary sequence in Crimea containing the amorphous “Pre-Chelleen,” “Late Micoquian,” and “Late Mousterian” stages. Moreover, looking at this database today, we clearly see that assemblages from all three of the now defined Middle Paleolithic industries in Crimea were already known in the 1930s: Denticulate Mousterian of Kiik-Koba, lower layer; Crimean Micoquian Tradition with bifacial “plano-convex” tools; and Western Crimean Mousterian/Levallois-Mousterian. The latter two industries were supplemented in the late 1930s and the 1950s by new assemblages from sites excavated by D.A. Krainov and A.A. Formozov (Moscow): Bakchisaraiskaya, Kholodnaya Balka grotto, Kabazi I buried grotto, and Starosele. Here it should be noted that the 1950s marks the end of systematic Crimean Paleolithic fieldwork by Russian archaeologists from Leningrad and Moscow because in February 1954 Crimea passed


from Russia to Ukraine. Subsequently, Ukrainian archaeologists were actively involved in Crimean Paleolithic studies. Yuri G. Kolosov (Kiev) was the leader of Crimean Paleolithic archaeology studies from the 1960s to the early 1990s. Regarding the Middle Paleolithic, he discovered and excavated Prolom I and II grottos and, most importantly, several buried rockshelters at Ak-Kaya and Zaskalnaya and the open-air site of Krasnaya Balka in Red Valley behind the Ak-Kaya Cretaceous and Eocene limestone and marl rocky massif, more than 100 m above the surrounding steppe areas in eastern Crimea. Excavations of Zaskalnaya V and VI multilevel buried rockshelters led to the recovery of abundant flint assemblages, fauna, and even Neanderthal remains. Moreover, several repeated and probably chronologically successive collective child burials with eight individuals in layers III and IIIa at Zaskalnaya VI were found. On the basis of Zaskalnaya, Kolosov identified another Mousterian culture with bifacial tools – Ak-Kaya – in addition to the Kiik-Koba, upper layer and Starosele cultures. In the mid-1980s, Kolosov began new excavations in western Crimea and several new important Middle Paleolithic sites were found (notably among them, Kabazi II and Kabazi V) (Kolosov et al. 1993). New and ongoing fieldwork for the Crimean Middle Paleolithic was initiated in 1992 after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when it became possible to collaborate with Western colleagues. Such studies in Crimea were realized by Crimean archaeologists headed by Victor P. Chabai (KievSimferopol, one of Kolosov’s students) with archaeologists from the USA (A.E. Marks), Belgium (M. Otte) and Germany (J. Richter and Th. Uthmeier) and their associates and students, as well as many natural science specialists from Ukraine, Russia, Moldova, the USA, Canada, France, and England. Between 1993 and 2006, these groups of researchers excavated the following stratified Middle Paleolithic sites and multi-period Paleolithic and/or prehistoric sites with Middle Paleolithic level(s), both already known and newly discovered: Kabazi II, Kabazi

1769

C

V, Starosele, Siuren I, Chokurcha I, Buran-Kaya III, Karabi Tamchin, Karabai I, Sary-Kaya I, and Karabai II. The analysis of new materials from these ten sites and reanalysis of old collections, a great number of articles, and eleven books have been published (Marks & Chabai 1998; Chabai & Monigal 1999; Chabai et al. 2000; Chabai 2004; Chabai et al. 2004; Demidenko 2004; Chabai et al. 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008; Demidenko et al. 2012), plus two more volumes in press. These present the results from new approaches, multi-complex studies and absolute dates for the Crimean Middle Paleolithic.

Key Issues/Current Debates Geochronology of the Crimean Middle Paleolithic Prior to the collapse of Soviet Union, no absolute dates had been obtained for the Crimean Middle Paleolithic, excluding two radiocarbon dates older than 45,000 BP for Zaskalnaya VI, layer II (Kiev lab), and older than 50,000 BP for Zaskalnaya V, layer II (Novosibirsk lab), and attempts to obtain U-series dates for Kabazi I (31–33,000 BP) and Starosele (31,000 BP, 41,000 BP, and 110,000 BP) by the founder of the method, V.V. Cherdyntsev in the late 1950s. Pollen data was analyzed only for sediments at Kiik-Koba in the 1960s and Zaskanaya V in the 1980s. Geological studies were very general and did not allow specialists to propose real internal sediment geochronology for the Crimean sites, or such proposals were completely wrong, such as the Last Glacial Maximum for the Proto-Aurignacian/Micoquian of Kiik-Koba-type industry and the Evolved Aurignacian at Siuren I. The situation for determining Middle Paleolithic geochronology in Crimea has changed dramatically over the last two decades. Well more than 100 absolute dates using AMS/C14, ESR, U-series and TL-dating methods have been obtained. Geological, pollen, fauna, small mammal, and malacofauna studies have also added significant results for determination of Crimean Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper

C

C

1770

Paleolithic geochronology. All such geochronological data were analyzed and synthesized by Chabai in the mid-2000s and the most recent version (Chabai et al. 2008) is presented in Table 1. The three Crimean Middle Paleolithic industries are viewed as only geochronologically dated to the Upper Pleistocene: MIS 5-3, c. 120–30,000 BP. The Denticulate Mousterian in the Kiik-Koba, lower layer is dated only to the Lower Pleniglacial/MIS 4 (c. 70–60,000 BP) on the basis of geochronological data from Starosele, particularly level 3. The only Middle Paleolithic industry that covers the whole period between c. 120 and 30,000 BP is the Crimean Micoquian Tradition with three industry types–Ak-Kaya, Starosele, and Kiik-Koba. Moreover, not counting the possibly brief “Denticulate Mousterian episode” during the Lower Pleniglacial in Crimea, the Micoquian, beginning in the Last Interglacial and ending during the Hosselo Stadial before the Hengelo Interstadial, was the only representative of Middle Paleolithic industries in Crimea. It was only around 45,000 BP, during the Hosselo Stadial that, in addition to the Micoquian, the LevalloisMousterian appeared in Crimea. Both of these industries apparently survived until the Denekamp Interstadial (c. 30–28,000 BP) when Early Upper Paleolithic industries appeared in Crimea. New dating results and/or industrial attributions for the EUP industries at Siuren I and Buran-Kaya III allow the present author to propose an older time period for the last Middle Paleolithic industries in Crimea (see the entry on ▶ Crimean Late Middle Paleolithic to Early Upper Paleolithic Transition in this encyclopedia). Crimean Middle Paleolithic Industrial Variability The presence of three Middle Paleolithic industries in Crimea – Denticulate Mousterian, Micoquian, and Levallois-Mousterian – has been addressed through the application of two different approaches: cultural and noncultural. In general, the Denticulate Mousterian and LevalloisMousterian and their very basic interpretations do not vary much between the two approaches. However, interpretations of the Micoquian


industry are too different, depending on the approach, and will be discussed below. The Crimean Denticulate Mousterian (Kiik-Koba grotto, lower layer and Starosele site, level 3) can be described as follows (Demidenko 2003-2004; see also artifact illustrations in Fig. 2 of Demidenko’s entry on ▶ KiikKoba Grotto: Significance for Paleolithic Studies in East Europe and the Former Soviet Union, and in Fig. 3 of Demidenko’s entry on ▶ Starosele Middle Paleolithic Site with Hominin Remains in this encyclopedia. Technologically, primary flaking processes are based on reduction of both unsystematic globular multiplatform and primitive parallel single-platform cores with transverse, shortened metric proportions, with almost no striking platform preparation. Most of the products are small shortened pieces with massive thick butts usually with a very pronounced cone and bulb indicating hard hammer percussion. Blades are fairly uncommon and are usually, like most of the flakes, very irregular in shape and dorsal scar patterns, indicating their removal from the same cores with no specific blade production. The tool kit is characterized by the absence of bifacial tools, dominance (more than half of all formal tools) of both pieces with marginal and/or irregular retouch and denticulates and notched pieces, and a very low representation of points. The very minor presence of convergent forms among side-scrapers, a combination of simple side-scrapers with either retouched notched pieces or “Clactonian” ones, and the presence of side-scrapers and denticulates with ventral and/or alternate retouch are also worth noting. Many denticulates and notched pieces are set apart by one feature: a “Clactonian notch” was first created and then a single-blow notch was additionally retouched. Very specific is the occurrence of “combined tools” as side-scrapers + denticulatesnotches and end-scrapers or perforators + denticulates-notches. Since the 1970s (Gladilin 1976), similarities between the Kiik-Koba lower layer assemblage and “Tayacian” complexes in Moldova have been noted. Such a relationship is still considered as probable (Demidenko 2003-2004). The Crimean Levallois-Mousterian, often also termed the Western Crimean Mousterian after the


1771

C

Crimean Middle Paleolithic, Table 1 Geochronology of the Crimean Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic (After Chabai in Chabai et al. 2008: Tables 18-2 & 18-3) MIS Stage 3

Geochronology Vegetation Sites, levels Vytachiv, vt3b, South-boreal Buran Kaya III, B (Denekamp Int.) forest-steppe

Siuren I, Fb2 Siuren I, Ga Siuren I, Н

AMS/C14 OxA-6674, 28.52 0.46 OxA-6673, 28.84 0.46 ОхА-5155, 29.95 0.7 ОхА-5154, 28.45 0.6 ОхА-8249, 28.2 0.44

Industries, U-series types Micoquian, Kiik-Koba type

ESR

Evolved Aurignacian ProtoAurignacian/ Micoquian, Kiik-Koba type Micoquian, Ak-Kaya type Micoquian, Starosele type

Kabazi V, II/4A & II/7 Prolom II, II Zaskalnaya V, I

Kabazi V, III/1 Kabazi V, III/1A

Vytachiv, vt2, (Huneborg Stadial)

Boreal xeric grassland

Kabazi ІІ, А3А, А3В, А3С, А4 Kabazi ІІ, ІІ/1А Zaskalnaya VI, II

Zaskalnaya V, II Kabazi V, III/2 & III/2A Prolom I, upper layer

Kiik-Koba, upper layer

Ki-10617, 28.1 0.35 Ki-10891, 28.85 0.4 Ki-10744, 30.08 0.35 30.0–26.0 OxA-X-213480.0

Denticulate Mousterian Micoquian, type?

74.0–85.0 54.0 3.0

Kabazi II, III/2A SubPryluki, pl1b2-b1, Boreal/ south-boreal Kabazi II, III/3 stage 5b (Rederstall Stadial) forest-steppe Pryluki, pl1b1, (Bro¨rup Int.) Tyasmin, ts, (Herning Stadial) Kaydaky, kd3b2+c, (Eemian Intergl.)

Industries, U-series types

Kabazi II, II/8С, IIA/1 Boreal xeric Kabazi V, forest-steppe IV/1-IV/3 Kabazi II, IIA/2 Chokurcha I, IV-I, IV-M

Chokurcha I, IV-O OxA-10877, >45.4 Zaskalnaya V, IV GrA-13916, >46.0 Zaskalnaya VI, IV Ki-10611, >47.0 Vytachiv, vt1b1, South-boreal Kabazi II, IIA/ (Moershoofd forest-steppe 4B – IIA/4 Int.) Uday,ud, Boreal Kabazi II, Pryluki, pl3, forest-steppe III/1A–III/1 (Ognon Stad. & Int.) Starosele, 3

SubPryluki, pl1b2, stage 5a (Rederstall Stadial)

Substage 5c Substage 5d

ESR

82.0 10.0

Micoquian, Ak-Kaya type

South-boreal Zaskalnaya V, forest-steppe V–VI ???

South-boreal Kabazi II, V/3-VI/ forest/forest- 17 steppe

location of its most typical assemblages in that part of Crimea, is best represented by finds from Kabazi II, Units II and IIA; Kabazi V, Subunit III/3 and Unit IV; Karabi Tamchin, layers II/2 and III; and Shaitan-Koba grotto

(see in Marks & Chabai 1998; Chabai 2004; Chabai et al. 2008). According to Chabai, the Crimean Levallois-Mousterian is subdivided into two stages – early (Hosselo StadialHuneborg Interstadial) and late (Huneborg

C

1774


Crimean Middle Paleolithic, Fig. 2 Crimean LevalloisMousterian/Western Crimean Mousterian industry from Unit II of Kabazi II site. Flint artifacts: 1 Levallois core; 2–3 bidirectional cores with finely prepared striking platforms; 4–5 cores of parallel volumetric method (Modified after Chabai 2004)

Stadial-Denekamp Interstadial) – based on technological changes through time. The stages are best represented by assemblages from Kabazi II, the key Middle Paleolithic site for Eastern Europe as a whole, where the early stage is represented by levels IIA/2 to II/7 and the late stage by levels II/6 to II/1A. The early stage features technological coexistence of Levallois

reduction with finely prepared main and lateral supplementary core striking platforms (Fig. 2: 1–3), and parallel volumetric method (Fig. 2: 4–5), while the late stage is characterized only by the parallel volumetric method. The early stage assemblages thus contain both Levallois and laminar products, and the late stage shows a dominance of blades. Blades commonly form


1775

C

Crimean Middle Paleolithic, Fig. 3 Crimean LevalloisMousterian/Western Crimean Mousterian industry from Unit II of Kabazi II site. Flint artifacts: 1–2 simple lateral side-scrapers on Levallois flakes; 3 simple lateral sidescraper on a blade; 4, 6 double side-scrapers on blades; 5 double sidescrapers, bi-truncated faceted; 7–8 points; 9–10 obliquely backed blades (Modified after Chabai 2004)

a high percentage in both stages (15–35 % within debitage products). Typologically, both early and late stages of the Levallois-Mousterian are rather similar given the absence of bifacial tools and dominance of simple (Fig. 3: 1–3) and double (Fig. 3: 4–6) side-scrapers (together they generally account for more than 50 % of formal tools) and about equal percentages of convergent sidescrapers and points (Fig. 3: 7–8) most of which were produced on elongated flakes and blades.

C

The only significant typological difference between the two stages is the presence of obliquely backed blades (Fig. 3: 9–10). At the same time, the technological evolution of Levallois-Mousterian almost toward the Upper Paleolithic reduction method was not accompanied by typological changes, such that Upper Paleolithic tool types did not appear during the late stage of the Levallois-Mousterian in Crimea (Chabai 2004). Thus, the Crimean

C

1776

Levallois-Mousterian did not evolve into a typologically Initial Upper Paleolithic industry but remained in the framework of the Middle Paleolithic. Yu.G. Kolosov (1972), after studies of Bonch-Osmolowski’s 1920s materials from Shaitan-Koba, suggested movement of Levallois-Mousterian groups from the Balkans into Crimea. Today, the commonly accepted hypothesis is to see the appearance of LevalloisMousterian groups in Crimea as a result of migration from the Dniester River region in Western Ukraine and Moldova (Molodova I & V sites, Buteshty grotto) (Chabai 2004; see in Chabai et al. 2006). Recently, significant technological similarities have been shown between the latest Levantine Mousterian assemblages in the Near East and early stage assemblages of the Crimean Levallois-Mousterian (Demidenko 2011). Moreover, the timing of the disappearance of latest Levantine Mousterian assemblages in the Near East fully coincides with the appearance of the first Levallois-Mousterian assemblages in Crimea around 45,000 BP. Kolosov’s (early 1970s) hypothesis of a Balkan origin thus deserves more attention and reexamination, keeping in mind the possibility for Near Eastern Latest Neanderthal migrations to the south of Eastern Europe via the Balkans. The Crimean Micoquian assemblages, or Middle Paleolithic assemblages with bifacial “plano-convex” tools, are the most well-known Crimean Middle Paleolithic industry for both ex-Soviet Union and foreign Paleolithic archaeologists. Their fame is connected to both abundant tools including nicely produced bifacial ones and Neanderthal bone remains found at Kiik-Koba grotto, Zaskalnaya VI buried rockshelter, and below Zaskalnaya V buried rockshelter. The cultural approach was first applied to Crimean Middle Paleolithic assemblages with bifacial tools in the 1970s by V.N. Gladilin (1976). After all the Middle Paleolithic culture identifications in Crimea in the 1970s–1980s, three cultures with bifacial tools were identified: Ak-Kaya (sites of Ak-Kaya III; Zaskalnaya III, V, and VI; Sary-Kaya I; Krasnaya Balka; Prolom II), Kiik-Koba (Kiik-Koba, upper layer; Prolom I), and Starosele


(Starosele, the 1950s excavation finds; Kabazi V, 1980s Units I–III; GABO, Kabazi II, the 1980s excavation Units I and III) (Kolosov et al. 1993). The three cultures are technologically similar with use of a combination of radial, discoidal, multiplatform, and parallel reduction techniques but no Levallois methods, and no careful main and/or lateral supplementary core platform preparation. Faceting indices are thus either low or medium, less than 45 % for the IFl index and less than 30 % for the IFst index. Blade indices are also not particularly high, varying between 5 % and 20 %, with the highest rates for the Starosele culture, in which, however, blades are mainly the result of bifacial tool reduction. There are some typological differences between the three cultures. The Ak-Kaya industry type/culture contains a high percentage of bifacial tools (c. 20–30 %) with many and various so-called backed knives, a medium range of convergent types among unifacial tools, mainly side-scrapers, relatively rare points among unifacial tools, and a considerable number of simple side-scraper types (from c. 40 %) (Figs. 4–7). The Kiik-Koba industry type/culture shows a medium amount of bifacial tools (around 15 %) with a rarity of backed knives among them, an abundance of points among unifacial (c. 40 %) and bifacial (c. 50 %) tools, a rather low frequency of simple side-scraper types (c. 20–30 %) among unifacial tools, as well as mostly small (less than 5 cm long) bifacial and unifacial tools; this industry is often related to the Micro-Mousterian (see artifact illustrations in Fig. 3 of Demidenko’s entry on ▶ Kiik-Koba Grotto: Significance for Paleolithic Studies in East Europe and the Former Soviet Union). The Starosele industry type/culture was thought to be distinguished by a low presence of bifacial tools (c. 5–10 %) with the almost exclusive occurrence of leaf-shaped and crescent points among them, a medium to high frequency of points (c. 20 %) and convergent side-scrapers (c. 40 %) within unifacial tools, while simple side-scraper types are subordinate (see artifact illustrations in Fig. 4 of Demidenko’s entry on ▶ Starosele Middle Paleolithic Site with Hominin Remains). So-called Upper Paleolithic tools and denticulates/notches occur irregularly in insignificant numbers in these


1777

C

Crimean Middle Paleolithic, Fig. 4 Crimean Micoquian Tradition industry of Ak-Kaya type. Flint artifacts: 1 bifacial leaf point; 2 bifacial sidescraper. 1–2 Zaskalnaya V buried rockshelter (Modified after Chabai 2004)

industry types. So, the typological variations for the three industries served to isolate the three distinct Middle Paleolithic cultures in the Crimea and are still in use by some East European colleagues. However, when the new stage of Crimean Paleolithic studies began in the early 1990s, the basic typological uniqueness of the three cultures together was well established; when one ignores differences in typological indices, the cultures all have principally the same tool types. After a complex synthesis of various anthropogenic and natural factors to understand and

C

interpret the sites, all Crimean Middle Paleolithic industries with bifacial tools are now considered within the framework of the Crimean Micoquian Tradition (Chabai et al. 2000). The tradition envelopes the three known industries (Ak-Kaya “e´talon like,” Kiik-Koba, and Starosele) through a “uniformity in diversity” methodological approach. Along with this, the industrial variability of the Crimean Micoquian Tradition is not limited to these three industry types. At least two more typologically transitional industry types are also included: so-called Ak-Kaya-“genuine”

C

1778


Crimean Middle Paleolithic, Fig. 5 Crimean Micoquian Tradition industry of Ak-Kaya type. Flint artifacts: 1–2 bifacial semi- and sub-crescent points; 3 bifacial leaf point; 4 subtriangular point; 5 semi-trapezoidal point. 1, 3–5 Chokurcha I site; 2 Zaskalnaya V buried rockshelter (modified after Chabai 2004)

and Ak-Kaya-Starosele based on Chabai’s analyses of Zaskalnaya V and VI, and Prolom II (Chabai et al. 2000). The 1990s–2000s research indeed showed a very mosaic typological variability of the Crimean Micoquian Tradition and its Neanderthal site system that “erases” typological “index borders” between the traditionally defined cultures. Instead, a large group of assemblages with more or less “smooth and continual” typological variation and their site complex and

variable settlement types appears. Also, although proposed by “culture archaeologists” (e.g., Stepanchuk in Kolosov et al. 1993), a strict subdivision of Crimean territory into the western region with Starosele culture and the eastern region with Ak-Kaya and Kiik-Koba cultures is no longer supported after identification of the all three industry types in both regions (Chabai et al. 2000; Demidenko 2000). An important method for analysis of Crimean Micoquian


1779

C

Crimean Middle Paleolithic, Fig. 6 Crimean Micoquian Tradition industry of Ak-Kaya type. Flint artifacts: 1–5 bifacial side-scrapers; 6 transversal oblique side-scraper; 7, 9 double side-scrapers; 8 transversal side-scraper (6–9 side-scrapers on bifacial tool debitage pieces). 1–4 Zaskalnaya V buried rockshelter; 5, 7–9 Chokurcha I site; 6 Kabazi II site (Modified after Chabai 2004)

typological variability was introduced by Chabai when he proposed to subdivide tools into three broad groups: (1) simple types of unifacial tools – simple, transverse, and double sidescrapers; (2) convergent types of unifacial tools – convergent side-scrapers and points; and (3) identifiable bifacial tools (Chabai et al. 2000: Table 10). The reason for such a method for typological structure was that the tool classes and types both constitute the main body of any

C

Crimean Micoquian tool-kit and can be readily identified by any archaeologist; old collections can also be analyzed in this way using old publications. As a result, five industry types are structured as follows (Chabai et al. 2000: Table 10). Ak-Kaya “e´talon-like”-type indices are as follows: simple unifacial tools – 52.5–58 %; convergent unifacial tools – 21.3–23.8 %; and bifacial tools – 23.6–28.7 %. Ak-Kaya-“genuine”-type indices are characterized as follows:

C

1780


Crimean Middle Paleolithic, Fig. 7 Crimean Micoquian Tradition industry of Ak-Kaya type. Flint artifacts: 1–2 bifacial sub-crescent points; 3–5 simple lateral side-scrapers on bifacial tool treatment flakes; 6–7 retouched pieces on bifacial tool treatment flakes. 1–2 Zaskalnaya V buried rockshelter; 3–7 Chokurcha I site (Modified after Chabai 2004)

simple unifacial tools – 41–57.5 %; convergent unifacial tools – 16–35 %; and bifacial tools – 16–27 %. The Ak-kaya-Starosele type has the following indices: simple unifacial tools – 43–52 %; convergent unifacial tools – 37–43 %; and bifacial tools – 9–17 %. Starosele-type indices have the following indices: simple unifacial tools – 44.3–48.1 %; convergent unifacial tools – 38.9–43.4 %; and bifacial tools – 12.2–13.3 %. The Kiik-Koba type has the following indices:

simple unifacial tools – 21.5–37 %; convergent unifacial tools – 51.9–56.2 %; bifacial tools – 11.1–14.3 %. These index variations show certain index overlap between the industry types. Adding new assemblages (e.g., Kiik-Koba-type assemblages from Siuren I and Buran-Kaya III – Demidenko 2000, 2004; Chabai 2004; see in Chabai et al. 2004), typological variability in the Crimean Micoquian Tradition becomes more evident as variations of the three tool groups have


the following index deviations: simple unifacial tools – 21.5–58 %; convergent unifacial tools – 16–63.8 %; and bifacial tools – 9–28.7 %. Extreme ranges of the three tool groups vary within intervals between 2.7 and 4 times. Such high Crimean Micoquian Tradition typological variability is caused by diversity in site function related to use of different flint reduction methods and primary and secondary fauna exploitation (see in Chabai & Monigal 1999; Chabai et al. 2000; Chabai 2004; see in Chabai et al. 2006). The Crimean Micoquian Tradition industrial flint treatment (Demidenko 2003: 130-1) was based on systematical and intensive production and reuse of bifacial tools through typical Micoquian “plano-convex” technique (Figs. 4; 5: 1–3; 6: 1–5; 7: 1–2). Primary flaking processes are characterized by a significant prevalence of bifacial tool treatment debitage over core reduction debitage in any given assemblage. Thus, one of the most typical Crimean Micoquian Tradition technological features is a minor role of core reduction. As a result, most of debitage blanks for unifacial tool production were products of bifacial tool reduction and multiple rejuvenations (Figs. 6: 6–9; 7: 3–7). Unifacial tools (usually produced on short flakes that are very different from Crimean Levallois-Mousterian unifacial tools) are characterized by various convergent forms with many points among them (Fig. 5: 4–5). The Crimean Micoquian Tradition third characteristic feature is almost exclusive use of high quality flints for flint treatment processes and shares of low quality flints or cherts are usually extraordinarily rare. Namely, the three fundamental parameters of the Crimean Micoquian make it distinct from other East European Micoquian industries (see Gladilin 1976) why its assemblages have been grouped under the name of Crimean Micoquian Tradition (Chabai et al. 2000; Demidenko 2003). Another feature of the Crimean Micoquian Tradition is its chronology, which covers the entire Middle Paleolithic Upper Pleistocene period (c. 120,000 to c. 30–28,000 BP). Taken together, chronological and industrial aspects show that the Crimean Micoquian Tradition, lasting for 90,000 years, preserved its industrial

1781

C

parameters with no change. Such persistence is significant. First, the tradition’s lithic technology was very conservative but also capable of meeting needs in the changing Crimean Upper Pleistocene paleoenvironments. Also, according to natural science and especially pollen data for Crimean sites (see in Chabai & Monigal 1999; Chabai et al. 2005), Crimean Micoquian Neanderthals were living in variable landscapes forming two basic groups during this long period. The Last Interglacial and different interstadials are characterized by varying south-boreal forests/ forest-steppes. On the other hand, stadials are known through boreal/south-boreal forest-steppe, a boreal forest-steppe, a boreal xeric foreststeppe, and boreal xeric grassland. It should also be remembered that the ungulate species hunted remained about the same during this period: Equus hidruntinus and Saiga tatarica. Second, the conservative nature of the Crimean Micoquian Tradition is shown by the fact that no techno-typological changes occurred even when the tradition coexisted with other industries, whether Middle Paleolithic (Levallois-Mousterian) or Early Upper Paleolithic (“Eastern Szeletian” and Proto-Aurignacian) in Crimea (Chabai 2004; Demidenko 2000, 2004, 2008). Indeed, there is no evidence for Micoquian borrowing of any traits from other industries. Thus, it is possible to postulate universal characteristics of the Crimean Micoquian Tradition enabling Neanderthal survival for 90,000 years in Crimea. Further studies of the Crimean Middle Paleolithic industrial and chronological variability will certainly bring to light new and new interesting aspects.

Cross-References ▶ Crimean Late Middle Paleolithic to Early Upper Paleolithic Transition ▶ Kiik-Koba Grotto: Significance for Paleolithic Studies in East Europe and the Former Soviet Union ▶ Starosele Middle Paleolithic Site with Hominin Remains

C

C

1782

Crimean Upper Paleolithic

References

Symposium (8–10 May 2008) (ERAUL 126): 151-67. Lie`ge: Universite´ de Lie`ge. DEMIDENKO, Y.E. (ed.) 2004. Buran-Kaya III rock-shelter, layer B - the etalon find complex for Kiik-Koba type industry of Crimean Micoquian tradition. Complex analysis of flint artifacts. Kiev, Simferopol: Shlyakh (in Russian). DEMIDENKO, Y.E., M. OTTE & P. NOIRET. (ed.) 2012. Siuren I rock-shelter. From late Middle Paleolithic and early Upper Paleolithic to Epi-Paleolithic in Crimea, Volume 4 (ERAUL 129). Lie`ge: Universite´ de Lie`ge. GLADILIN, V.N. 1976. The problems of the early Paleolithic of eastern Europe. Kiev: Naukova Dumka (in Russian). KOLOSOV, Y.G. 1972. Shaitan-Koba, the Mousterian site in the Crimea. Kiev: Naukova Dumka (in Russian). KOLOSOV, Y.G., V.N. STEPANCHUK & V.P. CHABAI. 1993. The early Paleolithic of the Crimea. Kiev: Naukova Dumka (in Russian). MARKS, A.E. & V.P. CHABAI. (ed.) 1998. The Middle Paleolithic of western Crimea, Volume 1 (ERAUL 84). Lie`ge: Universite´ de Lie`ge.

BONCH-OSMOLOWSKI, G.A. 1940. Kiik-Koba grotto (Paleolithic of the Crimea Series 1). Moscow: Vypusk 1 (in Russian). CHABAI, V.P. 2004. The Middle Paleolithic of Crimea: stratigraphy, chronology, typological variability & eastern European context. Simferopol: Shlyakh (in Russian). CHABAI, V.P. & K. MONIGAL. (ed.) 1999. The Middle Paleolithic of western Crimea, Volume 2 (ERAUL 87). Lie`ge: Universite´ de Lie`ge. CHABAI, V.P., Y.E. DEMIDENKO & A.I. YEVTUSHENKO. 2000. Paleolithic of the Crimea: methods of investigations and conceptual approaches. Simferopol; Kiev. CHABAI, V.P., K. MONIGAL & A.E. MARKS. (ed.) 2004. The Middle Paleolithic and early Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Crimea, Volume 3 (ERAUL 104). Lie`ge: Universite´ de Lie`ge. CHABAI, V.P., J. RICHTER & T. UTHMEIER. (ed.) 2005. Kabazi II: Last interglacial occupation, environment & subsistence, in Palaeolithic sites of Crimea, Volume 1. Simferopol; Cologne: Shlyakh. - 2006. Kabazi II: the 70 000 years since the last interglacial, in Palaeolithic sites of Crimea, Volume 2. Simferopol, Cologne: Shlyakh. - 2007. Kabazi V: interstratification of Micoquian and Levallois-Mousterian camp sites, in Palaeolithic sites of Crimea, Volume 3, Part 1. Simferopol, Cologne: Shlyakh. - 2008. Kabazi V: interstratification of Micoquian and Levallois-Mousterian camp sites, in Palaeolithic sites of Crimea, Volume 3, Part 2. Simferopol, Cologne: Shlyakh. DEMIDENKO, Y.E. 2000. "Crimean enigma" – Middle Paleolithic artifacts within early Aurignacian of Krems-Dufour complexes at Siuren I: alternative hypothesis for solution of the problem. Stratum plus 1: 97-124 (in Russian). - 2003. Tool treatment pieces as indicators of peculiarities and intensity of Neanderthals flint working processes and life activities at Middle Paleolithic sites in the context of Crimean Micoquian tradition industrial variability. Archeological Almanac (Donetsk) 13: 12857 (in Russian). - 2003-2004. Problems of epochal and industrial attribution for Kiik-Koba grotto, lower layer type complexes in the Crimea. Stratum plus 1: 271-300 (in Russian). - 2008. The early and Mid-Upper Palaeolithic of the North Black Sea region: an overview. Quarta¨r 55: 99-114. - 2011. The late Middle Palaeolithhic and early Upper Palaeolithic of the northeastern and eastern edges of the Great Mediterranean (south of eastern Europe and Levant): any archaeological similarities?, in J.-M. Le Tensorer, R. Jagher & M. Otte (ed.) The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic in the Middle East and neighbouring regions. Proceedings of the Basel

Crimean Upper Paleolithic Yuri E. Demidenko Crimean Branch, Institute of Archaeology, National Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Simferopol, Crimea, Ukraine

Introduction The first Crimean Upper Paleolithic (UP) sites in situ and stratified rockshelters of Siuren I and Kachinski (second ridge of the Crimean Mountains, western Crimea) were discovered and excavated by Konstantin S. Merejkowski in 1879–1880. Both Middle and Upper Paleolithic sites were first discovered in the late nineteenth century in the Crimea, but today they differ in numbers of sites and find spots (around 30 for the UP and more than 100 for the MP) (Kolosov et al. 1990a, b; Chabai 2004). The key difference in these sites, however, is relative amount of relevant data at these different sites and their scientific value for the analysis of variability in Crimean Paleolithic industries and chronology. The MP is thus represented by about 30 stratified sites with abundant lithic artifacts and fauna,