Индустрии среднего палеолита в Приморском Дагестане во время Marine Izotope Stage 5: региональный контекст

Abstract

Purpose. The article discusses the development of Middle Paleolithic assemblages in Caucasus during MIS5. The majority of Middle Paleolithic Caucasus archaeological sites are located in Southern Caucasus and along the Black Sea coast. In Northeastern Caucasus only a few exposed lithic assemblages were reported that demonstrate technical and typological characteristics typical for the Middle Paleolithic. During the last decade more than 20 Paleolithic sites including several multilayered occupations in the Darvagchai and Rubas River basins have been discovered. The assemblages from Coastal Dagestan sites like Rubas-1 (layer 3), Darvagchai-zaliv-1 (complex 2), Chumus-Inic, Rubas-2–5 etc. should be associated with the Middle Paleolithic. Cultural bearing layers of the majority of the sites had been included in the pebble glomeration, dated to Late Khazar time (0,2–0,1 Ma). The total number of artifacts in these assemblages is ~ 1700 items. Most of them (~ 1400 items) were found in the stratified sediments (Rubas-1 (layer 3), Darvagchai-zaliv-1 (complex 2), etc.). Results. The techniques of parallel unifacial, radial and Levallois flaking are typical for the Middle Paleolithic complexes of Coastal Dagestan. Generally, these assemblages can be characterized as non-Levallois and non-laminar (Ilam ~ 10), with the limited presence of Levallois technique and low faceting indices (IL and IF < 20). However, Levallois technique produced both elongated blanks, including points, and flakes. Narrow-faced cores were rarely used. Flakes were used as tool-blanks. Such tools as side-scrapers, denticulate, notched tools and perforators dominate in the tool kits. Levallois and Mousterian points were rare. There are many rough end-scrapers and knifes found, but Upper Paleolithic types of tools, such as burins, borers, etc., are sporadic. Limaces were rare. Truncated-faceted tools with base rejuvenation and bifaces typical for different Caucasus Middle Paleolithic assemblages have not been identified. Coastal Dagestan Middle Paleolithic sites demonstrate significant differences with synchronous Caucasus assemblages (Kudaro I Cave (layers 4–3), Kudaro III Cave (layers 4–3), Cona Cave (layer 5) in South Ossetia; Djurchula Cave, Copi I Cave in Georgia; Myshtulagty-lagat Cave (layers 14–12) in North Ossetia; Erevanskaya Cave (layers 7–5А), Hovk-I Cave (layers 12–8) in Armenia; Azih Cave (layer III) in Azerbaijan). Conclusion. Comparison of Coastal Dagestan sites with other Caucasus Middle Paleolithic sites has revealed significant differences between them. However, during the early stages of occupations, Dagestan Middle Paleolithic sites share some similarities with the Zagros-Taurus Middle Paleolithic (together with South Caucasus sites). We conclude that the Dagestan Middle Paleolithic assemblages investigated represent a local variant of the Middle Eastern Middle Paleolithic.