ARCHAEOLOGY,ETHNOLOGY& ANTHROPOLOGYOF EURASIA

Archaeology Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 11–23

E-mail: Eurasia@archaeology.nsc.ru

Copyright © 2012, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2012.05.003

11

K.A. Kolobova1, A.I. Krivoshapkin1, K.K. Pavlenok1, D. Flas2, A.P. Derevianko1, and U.I Islamov3

1Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences,Akademika Lavrentieva 17, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia

E-mail: kolobovak@yandex.ru shapkin@archaeology.nsc.ru

derev@archaeology.nsc.ru2Department of Prehistory, University of Liège,

Place du XX Août 7, Bat. A1 4000, Liège, BelgiumE-mail: damien as@yahoo.com

3Institute of Archaeology, Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan,Akademika V. Abdullaeva 3, Samarkand, 140051, Uzbekistan

E-mail: utkur_islamov@mail.ru

THE DENTICULATE MOUSTERIAN AS A SUPPOSEDLY DISTINCT FACIES

IN WESTERN CENTRAL ASIA*

The Middle Paleolithic industry of Kulbulak – a key strati ed site in Uzbekistan – has been described as the Denticulate Mousterian. Our ndings suggest that this de nition is problematic because the principal diagnostic feature of this facies – the denticulate outline of tools – has resulted from natural processes. Accordingly, in our view, no such facies exists either at Kulbulak or in Western Central Asia at large.

Keywords: Middle Paleolithic, Denticulate Mousterian, taphonomic retouch, Western Central Asia.

Introduction

In the 1960s, François Bordes proposed a classi cation of Middle Paleolithic assemblages, speci cally those

of the French Mousterian (Bordes, 1961). His typology was based on a single type-list of cores and tools, known as Bordes’s type-list, and on uni ed typological and technological indices (Levallois index, blade index, side-scraper index, etc.). This typology was attractive since it provided the possibility for comparing industries widely separated in space. Bordes’ typology, originally meant to explain the Mousterian of Southern France, was applied to other regions of the Old World and has been successfully used by many archaeologists up to the present time. In certain cases, however, attempts at interpreting regional variation solely in terms of the European sequence are rather formal and can engender faulty interpretations.

PALEOENVIRONMENT. THE STONE AGE

*The study was conducted under the Federal Program, “Scienti c and Scienti c-Pedagogical Cadres of Innovational Russia” (State Contract No. 02.740.11.0353); the RAS Program, “The Culture of the Prehistoric Population of Northern Asia during the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition” (Project No. 28.1.9); and was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Project No. 11-06-12003 OFI-M).

Illustrations of lithic artifacts were made by N.V. Vavilina, artist at the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography SB RAS.

12 K.A. Kolobova et al. / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 11–23

In this study we address the idea of the Denticulate Mousterian in Uzbekistan using the assemblage from a key strati ed site – Kulbulak.

The Denticulate Mousterian

The Denticulate Mousterian as a separate Middle Paleolithic facies was first described by F. Bordes in his 1953 classification of the Mousterian industries of southwestern France. Later he gave a complete description of this facies and of ve other facies based on a statistical analysis of typological and technological features expressed as indices (Bordes, 1961). According to indices such as the Levallois index, facet index, side-scraper index, etc., Middle Paleolithic denticulate industries were both typologically and technologically non-Levallois, the striking platforms had few facets, there were not many side-scrapers, bifaces, and backed knives, and most tools were denticulate and notched (Bordes, 1961; Dibble, Rolland, 1992).

Bordes’ classi cation became quite popular, and the Denticulate Mousterian was frequently mentioned among the Middle Paleolithic industries of Eurasia including the former USSR. Thus in 1965, V.P. Lyubin suggested differentiating between the Denticulate and Typical Mousterian in the Caucasian Middle Paleolithic (1977). V.P. Grigoryev (1965) recognized the Microdenticulate variant of the Near Eastern Mousterian along with the Yabrudian, Acheulian-Levallois, Levallois, and Amudian versions. In 1966, I.I. Korobkov identi ed two different Mousterian industries – the Teyacian-Denticulate and Levallois-Mousterian – in the Sochi-Sukhumi Pontic region (Korobkov, Mansurov, 1972; Lyubin, 1977). In the same year, V.N. Gladilin revealed six technical variants in the Middle Paleolithic of the Russian Plain and the Crimea: Denticulate, Micro-Mousterian, Micro-Mousterian with Acheulian traditions, Mousterian with Acheulian traditions, Levallois-Mousterian, and Levallois-Mousterian with Acheulian traditions (Gladilin, 1966). In addition to F. Bordes’ characteristics of the Denticulate Mousterian, Gladilin turned to the dimensions of stone tools. He attributed assemblages with a low bifacial tool index and a domination of notch-denticulate implements to the Denticulate variant of the industry. According to Gladilin, assemblages of this sort comprise mostly large and medium-sized (over 5 cm) artifacts (1976).

Researchers involved in the Paleolithic studies in Western Central Asia were also affected by the fashion of the “Mousterian facies.” V.A. Ranov was the rst who made an attempt to classify the Middle Paleolithic assemblages in the region into facies. He suggested the following local groups: the Levallois, Levallois-Mousterian, Mousterian, and Mousterian-

Soanian (1968). Based on the lithic assemblage from the multilayered site of Kulbulak, M.R. Kasymov for the rst time proposed the existence of a speci c Denticulate

Mousterian in the region in general and in Uzbekistan in particular (Istoriya…, 1967; Ranov, Nesmeyanov, 1973). R.H. Suleimanov (1972) suggested his own classi cation of the local Mousterian. According to the researcher, two major groups can be distinguished: on the one hand, assemblages that are characterized by notch-denticulate tools, discoidal cores, side-scrapers, and planes, and on the other hand, assemblages of the Obi-Rahmat culture. Following M.R. Kasymov, R.H. Suleimanov considered the Kulbulak collection to be the standard denticulate assemblage. In his later works, Suleimanov writes about two developmental trends in the local Middle Paleolithic industry: the Levallois and Denticulate (Tashkenbaev, Suleimanov, 1980). T. Omanzhulov in his Candidate Dissertation on the Mousterian sites in the Tashkent oasis also divided them into two groups: Teyacian-Denticulate industries (including Kulbulak, Bozsu-1 and 2, Kukhisim, and Burguliuksai) and those attributable to the Obi-Rahmat culture. In the Zaravshan River valley, he also identi ed the variant of the Atypical Denticulate Mousterian represented by Kuturbulak and Zirabulak. The reason why Omanzhulov considers this variant “atypical” is that despite the predomination of denticulate-notched tools, these industries are based on blade and Levallois technology, which links them with the Obi-Rahmat culture, whereas typically Denticulate-Tayacian industries are based on the ake technique (Omanzhulov, 1984). Upon the analysis of the published data on the Middle Paleolithic assemblages of Western Central Asia, L.I. Kulakovskaya also has arrived at the conclusion that there were two variants: Typical Mousterian and Denticulate Mousterian (1990). The identi cation of the latter was primarily based on the Kulbulak materials.

Thus all the mentioned classi cations of the Middle Paleolithic industries in Western Central Asia necessarily include the Denticulate Mousterian that is identi ed on the basis of the archaeological materials from the reference site of Kulbulak in Uzbekistan. At other sites attributable to this variant artifacts are either exposed on the surface (Bozsu-1 and 2 and Burgulyuksai) or perhaps redeposited (Kukhisim, Kuturbulak and Zirabulak) (Fig. 1).

Middle Paleolithic assemblage from Kulbulak

History and problems of study

The Kulbulak multilayered open-air site (41°00 31 N; 70°00 22 E) is located on the southeastern face of the Chatkal Range in the Tashkent Province, Uzbekistan.

K.A. Kolobova et al. / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 11–23 13

It is situated on a long promontory on the right bank at the mouth of the Dzhar-sai, a tributary of the Kyzylalma River, which in its turn runs to the Akhangaran River. The site was discovered by O.M. Rostovtsev in 1962. The site was recurrently excavated over the period of 1963–1984. The thickness of the excavated Quaternary deposits reached 19 m (Kasymov, 1990) and the area (over ten excavation units) exceeded 600 m2. In the early 1990s, researchers made several attempts to resume excavations at the site. Mostly the Upper Paleolithic layers were examined; however, the initiated projects were not developed on a large scale (Novye issledovaniya…, 1995).

According to M.R. Kasymov, the principal researcher of Kulbulak in the 1960–1980s, the site contains 22 Lower Paleolithic layers, 24 Middle Paleolithic layers, and three Upper Paleolithic layers. Hence, the established cultural stratigraphy of the site illustrates all the stages of human settling of the northwestern branches of the Tien Shan range during the Paleolithic and demonstrates the gradual autochthonous development of the material culture (Kasymov, 1990). In particular, abundant archaeological materials recovered from the Middle Paleolithic layers allowed Kasymov to identify a local variant of the Middle Paleolithic – the Western Central Asian Denticulate Mousterian. This cultural de nition was based on the presence of numerous tools with serrated and notched edges in the relevant assemblages. Kasymov mentioned other features typical of this variant such as numerous thick spalls with the radial or convergent pattern of aking of the dorsal surfaces and

the presence of faceted striking platforms along with a few Levallois elements. The tool kit characteristic of this variant of the Denticulate Mousterian includes a great variety of tool types, mostly various denticulate implements (side-scrapers with serrated edge, notched and denticulate tools, Tayacian points) as well as about 40 other tool types (Ibid.).

Kasymov’s inference about evolutionary continuity of the Kulbulak lithic industries was primarily based on the intactness of the culture-bearing layers incorporated into lithological deposits that had been formed in the process of gentle sedimentation (Kasymov, 1972). However, V.A. Ranov and S.A. Nesmeyanov (1973) challenged Kasymov’s view on the Kulbulak sedimentation history. They interpreted layers 4–6 and possibly the lower layers as sediments of proluvial and mud ow origins. This inference was based on geomorphological and stratigraphic observations as well on the differences in the degree of surface preservation of the recovered artifacts (various degrees of patinization of artifacts within one layer and in different layers; roundness of artifacts). Ranov and Nesmeyanov argued that only the artifacts from the Upper Paleolithic strata were found in situ, while implements from at least upper Mousterian strata were redeposited from the stone-working workshops at the outcrops of the Paleogene sandstone located several kilometers north of Kulbulak: archaeological remains were periodically transported by mud ows running along the Djar-sai mouth. The bed of this spring bends sharply near the site, and, according to Ranov and Nesmeyanov, it was exactly that place

Fig. 1. Map showing the location of sites attributable to the Denticulate Mousterian in Western Central Asia (after (Kasymov, 1990; Omanzhulov, 1984)).

– sites with problematic stratigraphy; b –artifacts exposed on the surface.

b

14 K.A. Kolobova et al. / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 11–23

where pebbles, gravel, and transported artifacts might have accumulated. Disputes between the principal opponents in later years regarding the origin of the site’s habitation layer did not result in a consensus (Ranov, Nesmeyanov, 1973; Nesmeyanov, 1978; Kasymov, Tetyukhin, 1981; Kasymov, Godin, 1984; Ranov, 1988; Kasymov, 1990). In the early 1990s, the view of Ranov and Nesmeyanov was partially supported by the data obtained by N.K. Anisyutkin, who together with researchers from the Institute of Archaeology, Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan, excavated lithological strata 1–4 (nomenclature by M.P. Kasymov) in the southern portion of the site, over an area of 30 m2 (Novye issledovaniya…, 1995). Examined sediments contained both Upper Paleolithic (layers 1–2) and Middle Paleolithic (layers 3–4) artifacts. Anisyutkin inferred that the Upper Paleolithic deposits were relatively intact (with possible minor horizontal shifting within the site area). He also hypothesized the mudflow origin for layer 4, which contained archaeological materials naturally transported from the sites that were situated on the hills adjoining Kulbulak. Anisyutkin pointed to evidence of reutilization of older (rounded) artifacts by Upper Paleolithic humans. He put forward an assumption that sediments deformed to a certain degree (primarily due to the character of the mud ow) might also occur in the lower section (Ibid.).

In 2007, archaeological investigations at the site were resumed within the framework of the agreement of collaboration between the Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan (Samarkand, Uzbekistan), the Insti tute of Archaeology and Ethnography SB RAS (Novosibirsk, Russia), and the Royal Museums of Art and History (Brussels, Belgium). At that stage of studies, which lasted until 2010, the main objective was to verify the cultural-chronological range of the site that had been established by previous research. For that purpose it was necessary to develop a more detailed stratigraphy of the site, to obtain reference samples, and to assess the absolute chronology of the habitation layer. Excavations were conducted in three areas. In the rst area (6 m2 in size) adjoining the western wall of trench 3 by M.R. Kasymov, the upper portion of the Middle Paleolithic sediments (layer 3, according to the nomenclature of 2007, or layer 4, according to M.R. Kasymov) was excavated. The Upper Paleolithic sediments (layer 2, according to the nomenclature of 2007) were uncovered in the second area (21 m2) located north of Kasymov’s trench 3. The third excavation unit initially was established on the western wall of Kasymov’s trench 3. Because in the 1980s excavations were conducted in a stepwise fashion so that the excavation area decreased as the depth increased, in 2007–2010 layers undisturbed by previous works were excavated within a 6 m2 area in the northwestern

corner of Kasymov’s trench 3 (lithological layers 11–24 according to the 2007–2010 nomenclature). In the 1984 classi cation, they were attributed to the Acheulean.

Generally, the stratigraphic column of 2007–2010 (Kolobova et al., 2010) corresponds to the basic scheme of the 1960s–1980s. The observed discrepancies can be explained by the fact that Kasymov’s column represents a composite scheme of sediments revealed in different areas of the site. Accordingly, some lithological and archaeological layers included into it are not observable in the sections of 2007–2010. For instance, during the recent excavations, archaeological remains were found only in ten lithological layers (2, 3, 12–18, and 23). No artifacts were found in layers 4–11 (according to the results of clearing) and layers 19–22 (according to the results of excavations). However, since the excavation units of 2007–2010 (especially area 3) directly adjoin pit 3 of the 1980s, it can be stated that all sedimentation stages and human habitation periods recognized by Kasymov are represented in the new stratigraphic column.

Based on the results of geomorphological , sedimentological, and stratigraphic studies carried out in 2007–2010 (Kolobova et al., 2010), it can be inferred that the stratigraphy of the studied area re ects a rhythmic alternation of two major sedimentation cycles. One of them is characterized by a relatively slow accumulation of sediments of mostly eolian genesis that are modi ed by slope and subaquatic processes. The subaquatic character of the sediments is determined by the activity of an ascending spring of underground waters, a small brook owing out of it, and temporally existing dams. The second sedimentation cycle represents a fast (catastrophic) deposition resulting from mud ows that ran down along the beds of the Djar-sai and Kyzylalma-sai and swamped the site’s area.

Given the noted differences in the genesis of culture-bearing sediments, it can be inferred that the Upper Paleolithic materials associated with lithological layer 2 (cultural layers 2.1 and 2.2) occur in a relatively undisturbed context. Lithological layers 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17.2, and 18–23 also corresponded to the gentle sedimentation regime. Archaeological remains found in some of them (mostly in layers 16 and 23) suggest that these layers were relatively undisturbed. Planigraphic observations, the presence of small-sized implements, and refittable artifacts support this supposition. In the stratigraphic column of 2007–2010, lithological layers 3–8, 11, 14, 17.1 and 17.3 have an alluvial-proluvial (mudflow) origin. Correspondingly, archaeological remains show evidence of redeposition: the “suspended” position of artifacts in the layer, various degrees of artifact surface preservation, and the highly rounded nature of many artifacts.

In sum, the 2007–2010 excavations at Kulbulak unambiguously indicate Upper Paleolithic habitation

K.A. Kolobova et al. / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 11–23 15

(layer 2 of the 2007–2010 season and layers 1 and 2 of the 1994–1995 season) as well as occasional human presence during the earlier stages of the Paleolithic (layers 16 and 23). Most nds from other stratigraphic layers (primarily from the medial portion of the pro le containing Middle Paleolithic artifacts) were most likely transported to the site by mud ows.

Lithic industry of layer 3

In 2007–2010, most artifacts representing the Middle Paleolithic portion of the pro le were obtained from layer 3 (layer 4, according to M.R. Kasymov’s nomenclature). The lithic assemblage contains a considerable amount of tools shaped by retouch of various types that forms a primarily serrated contour. This observation corresponds to the inferences made by Kasymov, who de ned the whole Kulbulak Middle Paleolithic assemblage (including finds from the uppermost Mousterian strata) as the Denticulate variant of Western Central Asian Mousterian. Thus archaeological remains from layer 3 can be used for the veri cation of the cultural de nition of the Kulbulak Middle Paleolithic materials.

The collection of artifacts found in 2007–2010 totals 3271 specimens. Most finds (2410 specimens, 74 %) represent by-products including shatters (883 specimens, 27 %), unidenti able spall fragments (276 specimens, 8 %), and chips (1251 specimens, 38 %).

Primary reduction. Core-like forms number 97 (3 %). This category includes both typologically distinct (69 specimens) and unidentifiable exhausted (23 specimens) nuclei as well as core-like fragments (3 specimens) and core blanks (2 specimens).

Flakes were detached from primary and secondary (prepared on spalls) cores (43 specimens) with mostly small working surfaces. Blanks with proportions and morphological features of blades were removed from at cores with a single aking surface, from which parallel aking in the longitudinal (2 specimens) and transverse

(1 specimen) directions was executed, as well as from narrow-faced wedge-shaped cores (2 specimens).

The assemblage contains cores for small laminar blanks (11 specimens): narrow-faced (2 specimens), narrow-faced wedge-shaped and carinoid cores (with a single (3 specimens) and double (1 specimen) aking surfaces. Blades were also detached from single and double-platform parallel cores with varying convexity of the working surfaces. There is also a considerable amount of cores, from which both akes and blades (4 specimens) and blades and bladelets (6 specimens) were removed.

Spalls (764 specimens) constitute 23 % of the assemblage. They are represented by flakes (635 specimens, 83 % of all spalls), blades (42 specimens,

5 %), bladelets (6 specimens, 1 %), and technical spalls (81 specimens, 11 %). The category of technical spalls includes primary (24 specimens, 29.6%) and secondary (22 specimens, 27.2 %) decortication spalls; spalls of the éclait debordant type (13 specimens 16.0 %); semi-crested (11 specimens, 13.6 %) and crested (2 specimens, 2.5 %) spalls, partial tablets (5 specimens, 6.2 %); spalls of aking edge rejuvenations (3 specimens, 3,7 %) and a spall removing the core’s terminal base (1 specimen, 1,2%).

Generally, the lithic industry is characterized by rather rough preparation of the striking platform. Spalls mostly bear plain residual platforms that were prepared by a single blow. Dihedral (both symmetrical and asymmetrical) and polyhedral platforms are also represented. Linear and punctiform striking platforms like the faceted ones are actually absent. The maintenance of the required aking angle by preparing a cornice is observed only on some pieces. Judging by the absence of spalls with amorphous percussion bulb and the ledge on the ventral face, only hard hammers were used.

Analysis of the aking patterns on the dorsal faces has shown that primarily a parallel flaking technique was applied. Longitudinal aking was most common. The share of artifacts showing transverse, bi-directed and orthogonal aking is smaller. Spalls with a plain dorsal surface are numerous; some artifacts illustrating centripetal and convergent flaking patterns are also available.

Tool kit. There is a high probability that retouch on most artifacts is of natural origin. Their surfaces display features (erosion, ragged edges, roundness of various degrees) suggestive of heavy impact. Since the implements bearing facets of supposedly non-human origin were recovered from the lithological layer formed by mud ows, signs of spall destruction might have resulted from the active interaction of the artifacts with each other and with rock debris in the course of transportation to the place of deposition. Correspondingly, the artifacts were divided into two groups: (1) artifacts with intentional secondary working and (2) artifacts with edge destruction caused by natural processes. The attribution of artifacts to the rst group was based on the presence of features typical of intentional secondary working (Kolobova, 2006). The artifacts that most likely represent pseudo-tools and bear traces of taphonomic retouch were included into the second group. Such pseudo-retouch normally extends over the entire perimeter of the tool. It is alternate or discontinuous, steep or abrupt, and its multiple and irregular facets crush and deform the edges of the tools (Schelinsky, 1983). The presence of numerous features of this sort suggests the impact of geological processes on artifacts, i.e. the emergence of such “retouch” due to movement of geological (lithological) bodies (Gifford-

16 K.A. Kolobova et al. / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 11–23

Gonzalez et al., 1985). These are mainly mudflows, soli uction processes, subsiding, and pressure of rock debris (Schelinsky, 1983). As a result of the taphonomic impact, the spall edges, being the thinnest and most fragile, undergo considerable modi cation or become “retouched” (Dibble et al., 2006), while other parts of implements (striking platform, dorsal and ventral faces) normally display just signs of erosion and the implement on the whole becomes rounded. Because in contrast to the situation with trampling retouch (McBreartry et al., 1998), replicating experiments in the case of pseudo-tools is hardly possible, typological analysis and comparison with undoubtedly retouched pieces appear to be the only methods available.

Group of distinct tools. This group comprises 14 artifacts; most of them belong to the category of scraping tools. Single straight side-scrapers are represented by 4 specimens. One of them was fashioned on a thick blade with polyhedral cross-section and curved pro le. The working edge was prepared on the left longitudinal side of the blank and partially on the distal end. The retouch on the dorsal face is extensive, abrupt, continuous, heavily modifying, and scalar. It creates the serrated contour of the tool. The opposite side forms the back. The transverse breakage surface shows the facets of another morphology. The facets are steep in accordance with the breakage angle, discontinuous, and lightly modifying. This area probably was formed due to mechanical damage (Fig. 2, 3). The second tool was fashioned on a thick triangular spall that had removed a considerable part of the striking platform of the original core. The right longitudinal edge was modified into a cutting edge through invasive, heavily modifying, scalar retouch with facets of 4–6 mm in size on the dorsal surface. The resulting working edge is serrated (Fig. 2, 4). The third tool was made on an exfoliated pebble of effusive rock. Retouch is located on one of the long edges of the implement. The retouch is abrupt, regular, heavily modifying, large-faceted, and scalar (Fig. 2, 10). The fourth side-scraper was fashioned on a small rectangular, medial-distal fragment of a spall that removed the core’s base. The intentional secondary working included trimming of the left longitudinal edge by lateral, abrupt, continuous, heavily modifying, scalar retouch that formed a wavy working edge. Facets of discontinuous abrupt pseudo-retouch are visible on the dorsal surface. A convergent side-scraper was made on a medium-sized ake, subtriangular in shape and in cross-section. Retouch extends over the distal and longitudinal sides occupying 3/4 of the tool’s perimeter. The dorsal face of the left margin shows invasive, abrupt, continuous, heavily modifying stepped retouch that forms a wavy contour. The right margin bears scars of marginal, dorsal, continuous, moderately modifying, scalar retouch forming a straight edge (Fig. 2, 6).

A double longitudinal side-scraper was fashioned on an ovoid blade. Two working elements are located on the longitudinal sides of the blank. They are shaped by dorsal, invasive, abrupt, continuous, heavily modifying, and subparallel retouch forming a serrated edge. The distal end of the tool shows distinct traces of mechanical damage (Fig. 2, 7). A double biconvex side-scraper was fashioned on a foliate blade of medium size. The working element located on both longitudinal margins occupies 1/2 of the tool’s perimeter. The right margin was modi ed by dorsal, invasive, vertical, continuous, heavily modifying, scalar, and large-faceted retouch, while the left margin shows steep, continuous, heavily modifying, scalar, and large-faceted retouch on the dorsal face (Fig. 2, 8). A single biconvex transverse side-scraper was fashioned on a large and at ake of effusive rock. The residual striking platform and the proximal end of the right long edge bear facets of alternating, continuous, vertical, denticulate pseudo-retouch. The working element occupying half of the perimeter is located on the left longitudinal side and on the distal end of the blank. Secondary working was made on the dorsal face through invasive, abrupt, continuous, heavily modifying, scalar retouch (Fig. 2, 12).

End-scrapers are represented by 2 specimens. One of them (Fig. 2, 1) was made on a small trapezium-shaped ake with a longitudinal pattern of aking of the dorsal

surface. The working element on the distal end was prepared through marginal, vertical, continuous, heavily modifying, subparallel retouch forming the straight edge. In addition to the evidence of intentional working, both longitudinal sides bear facets of continuous, dorsal, abrupt pseudo-retouch. The second tool (Fig. 2, 2) was made on a large éclat débordant that removed the core’s base. The working edge was made through marginal, vertical, continuous, heavily modifying, subparallel retouch applied to the dorsal face. Both longitudinal margins of the tool are covered with facets of continuous, alternating, abrupt, denticulate pseudo-retouch. Lateral scrapers are represented by two specimens. One of them was fashioned on a small rectangular ake. The straight scraping edge was prepared on the left longitudinal side by dorsal, marginal, vertical, continuous, heavily modifying, scalar retouch forming a serrated contour. The opposing margin shows traces of dorsal, continuous, steep, heavily modifying pseudo-retouch forming a concave contour (Fig. 2, 9). The second end-scraper was fashioned on a small subrectangular flint with the proportions of a ake. The right longitudinal side of the tool demonstrates distinct facets of continuous, vertical, moderately modifying, scalar retouch applied to the dorsal face. The scraping edge was formed on the medial-distal part of the left long side on the ventral face of the blank. The working element was prepared through

K.A. Kolobova et al. / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 11–23 17

Fig. 2. Intentionally made artifacts from Kulbulak layer 3 (excavations of 2007–2010).

1

2 34

5

67

8

9

10 11

12

0 3 cm

18 K.A. Kolobova et al. / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 11–23

small-faceted, marginal, steep, continuous, heavily modifying, subparallel retouch (Fig. 2, 5).

A retouched laminar ake represents a rectangular medium-sized spall with propeller-like profile. The right longitudinal side shows intentional dorsal, marginal, vertical, continuous, moderately modifying, scalar retouch applied to the dorsal face and forming the serrated contour. The left long side bears the facets of continuous, abrupt, denticulate, moderately modifying pseudo-retouch. A retouched ake represents a trapezium-shaped, medium-sized spall with the longitudinal sides covered by facets of alternate retouch. The left side was modi ed by semiabrupt, continuous, moderately modifying, scalar, dorsal retouch forming a straight working edge with an even contour. The distal part of the right side shows traces of similar retouch applied to the ventral surface (Fig. 2, 11).

Group of tools with pseudo-retouch. Artifacts of this sort number 326 (199 int spalls and 127 effusive rock spalls) constituting nearly one half of spalls in the assemblage (47.7 %; technical spalls are excluded). In 33 mechanically damaged akes the destruction of the surface resembles retouch, making them look like tools.

“Backed knives” are represented by 2 specimens. Two elongated, medium-sized akes served as “blanks” for these pseudo-tools. The backing spalls are rectangular in one case and triangular in another. On one piece, mechanical damage of the edges occupies half of the perimeter; on the other piece, it is visible on 3/4 of the perimeter. The pseudo-retouch forming the “cutting edge” is located on one longitudinal side. On both pieces it is alternating, continuous, and denticulate. The artifacts differ in the angle of the retouch: in one case it is vertical and in another case it is abrupt (Fig. 3, 3).

“Teyacian points” are represented by 3 specimens. These are two flint flakes and one foliate flake of effusive rock. Two pieces show pseudo-retouch over 3/4 of the perimeter; on one piece, the pseudo-retouch extends over the entire perimeter. In two cases, the pseudo-retouch is discontinuous, abrupt, denticulate and applied to the dorsal face; in one case, it is alternating and continuous. It is noteworthy that these three pieces show various degrees of roundness (slight, moderate, and heavy, respectively) (Fig. 3, 4, 5). “End-scrapers” are represented by 5 specimens including four pieces with the ake proportions and one medial-distal blade fragment. On one piece, signs of “working” occupy less than half of the perimeter; on three pieces, they extend to 3/4 of the perimeter; and on one piece, they cover the entire perimeter. Pseudo-retouch signs are noted alternatively on the ventral and dorsal faces of four specimens and only on the dorsal surface of one piece. On four artifacts, mechanical damage continuously alters the morphology of the edges. Pseudo-retouch is

abrupt and vertical. One of the pieces has a damaged area representing a “working edge,” completely covered with dents. The “working edge” is straight on another piece. Two pieces show alternating serrated and straight areas over the edges (Fig. 3, 1, 2). “End-scrapers retouched over the perimeter” total 4 specimens, with the “scraping edge” over the entire perimeter. Three specimens show facets of pseudo-retouch alternatively on the dorsal and ventral faces (one of these even has small bifacial “worked” areas). On the forth piece, pseudo-retouch is visible only on the dorsal face. Morphological features of mechanical damage differ on these implements. In one case, the pseudo-retouch is discontinuous; in other cases, it is continuous. On one piece, facets form the serrated contour of the “working edge”; on another piece, even areas alternate with serrated ones; the contour of two pieces remains even. In all four casers, pseudo-retouch is vertical (Fig. 3, 6, 7). The working edge of a “lateral scraper” is present on the longitudinal side of a massive trapezium-shaped spall of effusive rock. The edge demonstrates facets of dorsal, continuous, abrupt, denticulate pseudo-retouch on the dorsal face.

“Single straight side-scrapers” are represented by 3 specimens. On two of them, facets of pseudo-retouch occupy 3/4 of the perimeter. The third piece has such facets only on one area of the longitudinal side. In two cases, negatives of mechanical fractures are present on the dorsal surface only; on one piece, such negatives are alternatively located on the dorsal and ventral surfaces. The morphological characteristics of pseudo-retouch are different on the pieces: one spall bears signs of denticulate, vertical pseudo-retouch; on another piece it is vertical but not denticulate; the third piece shows denticulate abrupt pseudo-retouch (Fig. 3, 8). “Single convex side-scrapers” include 3 specimens. One of them shows facets of pseudo-retouch over 1/4 of the perimeter, two other pieces bear such facets all over the margins. The pseudo-retouch is located differently: on the dorsal face, on the ventral face, and alternately on both faces. Two pieces show facets of abrupt pseudo-retouch; it is vertical on the third piece. The facets formed the serrated contour of the spurious working edge on two pieces; on one piece it remained even (Fig. 3, 9). A “single concave side-scraper” is detectable on a large, angular flake of effusive rock. One of its long edges bears distinct traces of mechanical damage in the form of deep facets of dorsal, continuous, abrupt, non-denticulate pseudo-retouch forming a spurious working edge. Two specimens represent “double longitudinal-transverse side-scrapers.” These are rectangular pieces of int and effusive rock. One of these pieces shows pseudo-retouch facets over half the perimeter; on another piece, they cover the entire perimeter. Mechanical damage forming a spurious working edge is most distinct at the distal ends of the spalls and one of the long sides. The dorsal

K.A. Kolobova et al. / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 11–23 19

Fig. 3. Implements with traces of taphonomic destruction from Kulbulak layer 3 (excavations of 2007–2010).

0 3 cm

12 3

45

6

7

89

10

11

12 13

20 K.A. Kolobova et al. / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 11–23

or alternating, continuous, vertical pseudo-retouch forms a serrated contour.

“Limace” is a massive, elongate, triangular, int ake bearing facets of dorsal, discontinuous, abrupt (vertical in some places), non-denticulate pseudo-retouch that considerably modi ed the original shape of the blank. The specimen is heavily rounded (Fig. 3, 10).

“Notched tools” include 7 specimens. Traces of mechanical damage occupy from one quarter to the entire perimeter of these artifacts. In two cases, only one surface bears signs of modi cation; the other ve specimens show pseudo-retouch alternately on two surfaces. On four pieces it is discontinuous and on three specimens it is continuous. The pseudo-retouch is abrupt and vertical. Mechanical damage heavily modi ed the original shape of ve spalls by adding serrated outlines. Two pieces demonstrate alternating areas of denticulate and non-denticulate pseudo-retouch. The main working elements – retouched notches – are noted on various planes (Fig. 3, 11–13).

Two “spur-like tools” represent rectangular and ovoid spalls of effusive rock. Mechanical damage signs are visible over 3/4 of the perimeter. In both cases, the spur is shaped through alternating, discontinuous, denticulate retouch. The only distinction is the degree of the facets’ inclination: on one piece the pseudo-retouch, is abrupt and it is vertical in another case.

Discussion

The lithic industry from layer 3 and from the other Middle Paleolithic layers incorporated into the sediments having proluvial and mud ow genesis demonstrate a rather high percentage of tools relative both to all artifacts and to spalls. In the collections of 2007–2010, they form 51 % of the spalls. As for the assemblages obtained in 1962–

1985, M.R. Kasymov also mentioned the considerable proportion of tools relative to all nds: it varies from 26 % in layer 9 to 58 % in layer 12b. In our view, this proportion, provided it does not indicate the site’s functional specialization (Rybin, Kolobova, 2005), is somewhat too high to regard these pieces as true tools.

As the analysis of both tools and pseudo-tools from Kulbulak layer 3 demonstrated, natural destruction relating to taphonomic conditions may be easily confused with retouch. Accordingly, the pieces may be taken for various kinds of tools, not only denticulate-notched but other ones as well. However some differences between the characteristics of intentional secondary treatment and pseudo-retouch have been revealed: (1) as opposed to intentional retouch, pseudo-retouch often forms a serrated working edge; (2) in most cases, pseudo-retouch alternatively occupies both the artifact’s planes; (3) in terms of inclination angle, pseudo-retouch is predominantly de ned as abrupt or vertical; (4) traces of destruction normally occupy more than half of the perimeter. However, in our view, these features concern not only pseudo-tools. Implements worked with heavily modifying, abrupt retouch forming a serrated contour can also be encountered among tools that have undergone intentional secondary treatment.

To assess the regularities causing pseudo-retouch, we analyzed different features of the pieces. First of all, the correlation between the degree of roundness and the degree of artifact modification by retouching was examined (Fig. 4). The analysis revealed a positive relationship between these two indicators.

Also, we studied the relationship between the degree of modi cation of the edges by retouch and types of contours (Fig. 5). As it turned out, the greater the modi cation, the more denticulate the outline becomes.

An examination of correlation between the edge contour, pseudo-retouch location, and the degree of

Fig. 4. Relationship between the degree of artifact modi cation by taphonomic “retouch” and the degree of roundness.a – unmodifying; b – slightly modifying; c – moderately modifying; d – heavily modifying.

bcd

K.A. Kolobova et al. / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 11–23 21

roundness has shown that a serrated edge dominates in artifacts of all categories of roundness. The only exclusion is the heavily rounded flint artifacts, among which a wavy edge is a little more common than a serrated one (Fig. 6).

The analysis of correlation between the edge contour formed by facets and their location on the artifact’s planes has revealed a predominance of alternating retouch in the category of spalls with a serrated edge. Calculations have shown that continuous pseudo-retouch dominates in all morphological groups of implements.

These observations, in our opinion, suggest that the modi cation of edges of pieces from Kulbulak layer 3 is natural because features of true tools cannot depend on post-depositional rounding, and the contour of the working edge cannot depend on retouch. In short, certain differences exist between true retouch and pseudo-retouch, suggesting that different approaches to pieces with intentionally and naturally modified edges are indicated.

Attention was also paid to various degrees of roundness demonstrated by artifacts. Two hypotheses

explaining this fact can be suggested: (1) different raw materials have different resistibility to geochemical and mechanical processes in the lithological layer; (2) the archaeological assemblage under study comprises artifacts of various ages. In order to verify the first supposition, the analysis of the primary reduction and tools from layer 3 was carried out with respect to the raw materials used – int or effusive rocks (Derevianko et al., 2008). The results unambiguously demonstrated that no relationship existed between the degree of roundedness and the raw material (Figs. 4–6), which, as we believe, suggests that the components of layer 3 are not of the same time period.

Conclusions

In the last decade, a tendency toward the revision of assemblages previously attributed to the Denticulate Mousterian or to the Teyacian has been becoming more clear (Kolesnik, 2003; Dibble et al., 2006). The reason is that Bordes’ idea of the Denticulate Mousterian, initially

Fig. 5. Relationship between types of contours formed by taphonomic “retouch” and the degree of modi cation.a – non-denticulate; b – denticulate irregular; c – denticulate.

bc

Fig. 6. Relationship between types of contours formed by taphonomic “retouch” and the degree of roundness.See Fig. 5 for conventions.

22 K.A. Kolobova et al. / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 11–23

elaborated with regard to southern France, became less and less clear as new regions were involved. Eventually the predominance of variously modi ed (and sometimes quite different) denticulate tools turned out to be the only feature shared by all Middle Paleolithic denticulate industries in various regions. Moreover the origin of retouch on such “tools” was often neglected, and new criteria for establishing Denticulate variants that had nothing in common with the classical characteristics of the Denticulate Mousterian appeared.

The results of our analysis of tools and pseudo-tools from Kulbulak layer 3 suggest that the principal indicator of the Denticulate Mousterian – the denticulate contour – results from natural processes related to transportation and accumulation of sill and proluvial deposits. In our view, this assemblage includes artifacts of various ages that were transported by mud ow during its movement toward the site. Accordingly, the site cannot be regarded as a model for establishing any cultural and technological variants of lithic industries.

Because the stratigraphic sequence within the excavated area at Kulbulak indicates several alternating phases of sill activity, all Middle Paleolithic assemblages of that site previously attributed to the Denticulate Mousterian should be regarded with caution. In our view, this facies did not exist there, and the entire assemblage from the middle layers can only be described as Middle Paleolithic. In fact, because Kulbulak is the key site, where the “Denticulate Mousterian” was rst diagnosed, our conclusion applies to entire southwestern Central Asia.

References

Bordes F. 1961Mousterian cultures in France. Science, vol. 134, No. 3482:

803–804.Dibble H., McPherron S., Chase P., Farrand W., Debénath A. 2006Taphonomy and the concept of Paleolithic cultures: The

case of the Tayacian from Fontéchevade. PaleoAnthropology, vol. 1: 1–21.

Dibble H., Rolland N. 1992On Assemblage variability in the Middle Palaeolithic of

Western Europe: History, perspectives and a new synthesis. In The Middle Palaeolithic: Adaptation, Behaviour and Variability, Dibble H.L., Mellars P. (eds.). Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Museum Press, pp. 1–28.

Derevianko A.P., Kolobova K.A., Flas D., Islamov U.I., Cauwe N., Coupe D., Zwins N., Pavlenok K.K., Mamirov T.B., Krakhmal K.A., Mukhtarov G.A. 2008Vozobnovleniye arkheologicheskikh rabot na mnogosloinoi

stoyanke Kulbulak. In Problemy arkheologii, etnografii i

antropologii Sibiri i sopredelnykh territorii: Materialy godovoi sessii Instituta arkheologii i etnogra i SO RAN, vol. 13, pt. 1. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN, pp. 83–89.

Gifford-Gonzalez D.P., Damrosch D.B., Damrosch D.R., Pryor J., Thunlen R. 1985The third dimension in site structure: An experiment in

trampling and vertical dispersal. American Antiquity, vol. 50: 803–818.

Gladilin V.N. 1966Razlichnye tipy kamennoi industrii v muste Russkoi

ravniny i Kryma i ikh mesto v rannem paleolite SSSR. In VII Mezhdunar. kongr. doistorikov: Tezisy dokladov. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 14–18.

Gladilin V.N. 1976Problemy rannego paleolita Vostochnoi Evropy. Kiev:

Naukova dumka.Grigoryev G.P. 1965Nachalo verkhnego paleolita i vozniknoveniye Homo

sapiens v Evrope i na Blizhnem Vostoke: Cand. Sc. (History) Dissertation. Leningrad.

Istoria Uzbekskoi SSR. 1967Vol. 1. Tashkent: Fan.Kasymov M.R. 1972Mnogosloinaya paleoliticheskaya stoyanka Kulbulak v

Uzbekistane (predvaritelnye itogi issledovanii). MIA, No. 185: 111–119.

Kasymov M.R. 1990Problemy paleolita Srednei Azii i Yuzhnogo Kazakhstana

(po materialam mnogosloinoi paleoliticheskoi stoianki Kul-bulak). D.Sc. (History) Dissertation. Novosibirsk.

Kasymov M.R., Godin M.H. 1984Vazhneishiye rezultaty issledovanii mnogosloinoi paleo-

liticheskoi stoyanki Kulbulak (po dannym raskopok 1980–1981 gg.). Istoriya materialnoi kultury Uzbekistana, iss. 19: 3–18.

Kasymov M.R., Tetyukhin G.F. 1981K voprosu ob arkheologo-geologicheskom vozraste

mnogosloinoi paleoliticheskoi stoianki Kulbulak. Istoriya materialnoi kultury Uzbekistana, iss. 16: 7–17.

Kolesnik A.V. 2003Srednii paleolit Donbassa. Donetsk: Lebed.Kolobova K.A. 2006Priemy oformleniya kamennykh orudii v paleoliticheskikh

kompleksakh Gornogo Altaya. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN.

Kolobova K.A., Flas D., Krivoshapkin A.I., Pavlenok K.K. 2010Novyi etap issledovaniya stoyanki Kulbulak (po materialam

raskopok 2009 g.). In Issledovania pervobytnoi arkheologii Evrazii. Makhachkala: Nauka DNC, pp. 177–190.

Korobkov I.I., Mansurov M.M. 1972K voprosu o tipologii teyako-zubchatykh industrii.

In Paleolit i neolit SSSR, vol. 7. Moscow: Izd. AN SSSR, pp. 55–67. (MIA; No. 185).

Kulakovskaya L.V. 1990Mustye Azii: Vzglyad iz Evropy. In Khronostratigra ya

paleolita Severnoi, Tsentralnoi i Vostochnoi Azii i Ameriki. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN, pp. 210–214.

Lyubin V.P. 1977Mustierskiye kultury Kavkaza. Leningrad: Nauka.

K.A. Kolobova et al. / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/1 (2012) 11–23 23

Brearty S., Bishop L., Plummer T., Dewar R., Conard N. 1998Tools underfoot: Human trampling as an agent of lithic

artifact edge modi cation. American Antiquity, vol. 63, No. 1: 108–129.

Nesmeyanov S.A. 1978K geologii otkrytykh stoyanok kamennogo veka Srednei

Azii. In Zhizn Zemli, vol. 13. Moscow: Izd. Mosk. Gos. Univ., pp. 103–111.

Novye issledovaniya paleolita v Akhangarone (Uzbekistan). 1995N.K. Anisyutkin, U.I . Islamov, K.A. Krakhmal,

B. Saifulaev, N.O. Khushvakov. St. Petersburg: IIMK RAN. (Arkheologicheskiye izyskaniya; vol. 28).

Omanzhulov T. 1984Mustierskiye pamyatniki Tashkentskogo oazisa. Cand.

Sc. (History) Dissertation. Leningrad. Ranov V.A. 1968O vozmozhnosti vydeleniya lokalnykh kultur v paleolite

Srednei Azii. Izvestiya AN TadzhSR. Otdeleniye obschestv. nauk, No. 3: 3–11.

Ranov V.A. 1988Kamennyi vek Yuzhnogo Tadzhikistana i Pamira.

D.Sc. (History) Dissertation. Novosibirsk.

Ranov V.A., Nesmeyanov S.A. 1973Paleolit i stratigra ya antropogena Srednei Azii. Dushanbe:

Donish.Rybin E.P., Kolobova K.A. 2005Struktura kamennykh industrii i funktsionalnye osobennosti

paleoliticheskikh pamyatnikov Gornogo Altaya. In Perekhod ot srednego k pozdnemu paleolitu v Evrazii: Gipotezy i fakty. Novosibirsk: Izd. IAE SO RAN, pp. 380–394.

Schelinsky V.E. 1983K izucheniyu tekhniki, tekhnologii izgotovleniya i funktsii

orudii musterskoi epokhi. In Tekhnologiya proizvodstva v epokhu paleolita. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 72–116.

Suleimanov R.H. 1972Statisticheskoye izucheniye kultury grota Obi-Rahmat.

Tashkent: Fan.Tashkenbaev N.H., Suleimanov R.H. 1980Drevniye paleoliticheskiye kultury doliny Zerafshana.

Tashkent: Fan.

Received April 15, 2011.