The article is devoted to one of the most pressing issues of modern Paleolithic studies - the problem of replacing Middle-Paleolithic cultures with Upper Paleolithic ones. Based on the materials of multi-layered sites in Altai, three lines of development of the Middle Paleolithic stone industries are distinguished: karakol, Karabomovskaya, and Sibiryachikhinskaya streets. For each of them, the primary splitting and technical and typological characteristics of gun sets, as well as the composition of non-utilitarian items, are analyzed in detail. Their sequential evolution in the Middle Paleolithic, features of the transition to Upper Paleolithic cultures are considered, and chronological intervals of these processes are determined. At the early stage of the Upper Paleolithic in Southern Siberia, two main cultural traditions are traced - the Karabomovskaya and Karakol'skaya, their main characteristics and the range of archaeological sites associated with them are highlighted. The specific features of the transition stage from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in the Altai monuments are determined: the long-term presence of Middle Paleolithic forms in the complexes and the convergent appearance and development of aurignacoid elements. The conclusion is made about the autochthonous evolutionary nature of transition processes in the Altai territory, as well as about their influence on the Upper Paleolithic industries of the adjacent territories of the South Siberian region. The anthropological context of the Middle Paleolithic and transitional periods of the Altai sites is considered in detail.

Keywords: transitional industries, early Upper Paleolithic, industrial tradition, evolution, primary cleavage, tool kit, Homo sapiens sapiens, H. sapiens neanderthalensis, H. sapiens altaiensis, Denisova cave.

Introduction

The discoveries of the last 30 years in the field of archeology, anthropology, and paleogenetics have made the problem of the formation of a modern physical and genetic type of man and the formation of the Upper Paleolithic culture one of the most controversial in interdisciplinary human sciences. The time of appearance of Homo sapiens sapiens is determined in the range of 200-150 thousand years ago. The earliest bone remains of a modern human of physical and genetic type were found in East Africa. But these discoveries did not solve the problem of the origin of H. sapiens sapiens and its spread around the globe, and further sharpened the discussion. There are two main points of view: monocentrists and supporters of multi-regional human evolution. First of all, researchers are faced with the question: why did the modern physical type of man appear at least 150 thousand years ago, and the Upper Paleolithic culture, which is attributed to H. sapiens sapiens, was formed 50-40 thousand years ago? If modern man appeared only in Africa, then how and when did he colonize other continents? If the Upper Paleolithic culture spread with modern man to other continents, then

page 2
what were its main characteristics and why did the Upper Paleolithic cultures appear almost simultaneously in the chronological range of 50 - 40 thousand years AGO in very remote regions of Eurasia, significantly differing in their main technical and typological characteristics? Moreover, between these regions there were long-distance areas where the Middle Paleolithic culture continued to exist. One of the main questions is: if H. sapiens sapiens spread only from Africa, what were the relationships of this new human species with populations that lived in the territories it inhabited for many tens or even hundreds of thousands of years? What was the material and spiritual culture of the modern man formed in Africa, and in what ways was it superior to the culture of his predecessor?

If the modern type of man was formed 200-150 thousand years AGO in Africa, then why did his entry into Eurasia begin so late-80-60 thousand years ago? Monocentrists, based on the study of DNA variability in modern humans (Forster, 2004; Relethford and Jorde, 1999), suggest that it was during this period that a "demographic explosion" occurred in Africa and as a result of a sharp population growth and lack of food resources, the migration wave "spilled out" to Eurasia. With all due respect to the data of genetic studies, it is impossible to believe in the infallibility of these conclusions without having any convincing archaeological and anthropological evidence. It should be borne in mind that with the average life expectancy at that time of about 25 years, the offspring in most cases remained without parents even at an immature age. With high postnatal and child mortality, as well as among adolescents due to their lack of parents, there is no reason to talk about a "demographic explosion". But even if we agree with the fact that 80-60 thousand years ago. In East Africa, there was a rapid population growth, which determined the need to search for new food resources and, accordingly, the settlement of new territories, the question arises: why were migration flows initially directed far to the east, up to Australia? According to archaeological data, man of the modern physical type settled Australia 50, and maybe 60 thousand years AGO, while in the territories adjacent to East Africa on the African continent itself, he appeared later: in South Africa, judging by anthropological finds, - about 40 thousand years ago,in Central and Western - apparently, the first time in the world. later than 30 thousand years AGO and only in the North - about 50 thousand years ago. How can we explain the fact that modern man first penetrated Australia, and then settled throughout the African continent?

According to monocentrists, the settlement of Australia came from Africa. But then how to explain the fact that Homo sapiens sapiens for 5 - 10 thousand years was able to overcome a huge distance (more than 10 thousand km), besides not leaving any traces on the path of its movement? In South, South-East, and East Asia, 80-30 thousand years AGO, when the autochthonous population was replaced by newcomers, a complete change in industry should have occurred, and in the case of acculturation, significant changes in the technical and typological characteristics of stone tools are also inevitable. But this is completely untraceable in this territory.

The lack of archaeological evidence has forced monocentrists to put forward a version of the southern migration flow to the east of Eurasia along the sea coast. Thus, S. Oppenheimer states: "... the actual colonization of Australia took place in the period 65 and 70 thousand years AGO, and the islands of Flora and even New Guinea were inhabited 75 thousand years ago" [2004, p.234]. The answer to the question of why archaeologists do not find confirmation of the reality of this migration flow is simple: "As the data from ocean level assessments at that time show, the coastal strip along which our possible ancestors wandered 80-60 thousand years AGO has long gone under water, and it is difficult for us to expect to find traces of ancient migrations that do not sinking to the bottom of the sea " [Ibid.]. This explanation is unacceptable, because at that time there was no such global decrease in the level of the World's oceans, in which the huge coastal territories from the west of the Hindustan Peninsula to Malaysia would have been freed from water so much that a migration wave could pass over the shelf without leaving any traces. The migration of ancient populations was not a relay race, but a slow process. Moreover, when developing new territories, people could not go only along a narrow coastal strip strictly from west to east. This process was multi-vector. A person could leave the coastal strip, especially along rivers flowing into the ocean, far to the north, where there were favorable ecological niches for life. And in this case, there must have been archaeological evidence of the spread of Homo sapiens sapiens to the east. There is only one possible way to explain the monocentric point of view on settling Australia from Africa and covering gigantic distances (more than 10 thousand km) in such a short period of time (5-10 thousand years).: it took place on charter flights. It remains only to find the airports of departure from Africa and landing in Australia. This is the only way to explain the lack of archaeological evidence for the global migration of modern physical and genetic humans from Africa to Australia.

Along with the monocentric hypothesis, there is another one-about interregional human evolution.-

page 3
ka. It has various aspects. My point of view on the problem of the origin of the modern physical type of man is that 200-100 thousand years AGO representatives of anthropological types with sapient features, who had a common ancestor, most likely Homo erectus, settled in vast territories of Africa and Eurasia. The ancestral forms of the sapient line of human development could differ from each other not only in their material culture, but also anthropologically. It is natural that different ecological living conditions and divergence led not only to the development of different adaptation strategies and, consequently, industry, but also to the formation of certain anthropological features. Apparently, this can explain the mosaic structure of the Middle Paleolithic industry and the sometimes significant differences in the constitution of representatives of different populations.

Currently, as a result of archaeological excavations in Africa and Eurasia, a large amount of factual material has been accumulated, which allows us to propose a hypothesis about three large geographical zones in which the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic took place in different ways 100 - 30 thousand years AGO, i.e., to outline three models of this process [Derevyanko, 2001, 2006, 2007, 2009]. The African zone of 70-30 thousand years AGO is characterized by mosaic industries of the final Middle Paleolithic, transition period, and early Upper Paleolithic (Howison's port, stilbay, daban, Ater, and sangoana, etc.). In them, plate-like technocomplexes, including tools of geometric shapes and non-utilitarian objects, are replacing more archaic ones with a significant impact on the population. including Middle Paleolithic elements. After 35-30 thousand years AGO, more "primitive" industries are observed in Africa. The Sino-Malay zone, which includes East and South-East Asia, is characterized by the dominance of up to 30 - 25 thousand BP tools on flakes and special billets. The Eurasian zone is perhaps the most extensive. In the Middle East, Western Europe, the Balkans, the Don, North and Central Asia in the period of 80 - 40 thousand years. Various industries have developed in the field of natural Sciences, but they are characterized by a certain standardization of technical and typological complexes based on plate splitting.

Let us consider the problem of transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic on the example of each zone, paying special attention to North, Central, East and South-East Asia. Two articles will be devoted to the Eurasian scenario in view of the extensive material accumulated as a result of field studies of localities in the chronological range of 100 - 30 thousand years AGO. In one, we will consider the transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic in Northern Asia, and in the other, in Central Asia, the Middle East, and Europe.

Transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic in Southern Siberia

The most studied area in Northern Asia is Southern Siberia, and especially Altai, where dozens of Middle Paleolithic, Transition Stage, and Early Upper Paleolithic sites have been discovered. Every year for almost 30 years, several expeditions have been exploring the Paleolithic sites in the caves of Denisova, Strashnaya, Okladnikov, Ust-Kanskaya, Kaminnaya, Chagyrskaya, Biika, Maloyalomanskaya, and Iskrinskaya in Altai, as well as the open-type monuments of Ust-Karakol, Anuy - 1-3, Kara-Bom, Kara-Tenesh, and Tyumechin -1-4, Uhlep-6, etc. 1). The localities are mainly located in the low - and mid - mountain regions at an altitude of 500-1100 m above sea level. All of them are multilayered and well stratified. The maximum thickness of loose sediments in the Denisova Cave is 14 m, and in open-type sites-up to 8 m. During excavations, up to 20 culture-containing horizons were recorded at certain locations, for example, in the Denisova Cave.

Of particular importance for solving the problem of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic are the results of the study of Middle Paleolithic monuments in the Altai Mountains. The initial settlement of this territory occurred no later than 800 thousand years ago (Derevyanko, Shunkov, Bolikhovskaya et al., 2005; Derevyanko, Shunkov, 2005a, b). Due to the small number and isolation of the population of the first migration wave from Africa due to biological reasons or as a result of the deterioration of natural and climatic conditions, probably after 500 years of migration, the population of the first migration wave from Africa In the Altai Mountains, man disappeared. Around 300 thousand years AGO, a new wave of archanthropes penetrated here with a completely different industry, which is characterized by the Levallois and parallel principles of primary splitting.

As a result of field research in the Altai region over the past almost 30 years, at nine cave sites and more than ten open-type sites, approx. 60 culture-bearing horizons belonging to the chronological range of 100-30 thousand years ago. They are filled to varying degrees with archaeological and paleontological material. The study of well-stratified multi-layered cave and open-type monuments located at a relatively short distance from each other, and therefore in the same natural and climatic conditions, makes it possible to make up for the gaps in sedimentation that exist at individual localities and to trace the dynamics of technical and typological changes in stone inventory over the past 70 thousand years. Perhaps, in Eurasia, it is difficult to find analogues of such a multidisciplinary study of human culture and its habitat, as in the territory of Gorny Altai. On archeolo-

page 4

1. Dislocation of Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Stage localities in Gorny Altai (according to Derevyanko, 2009).

Geologists, geomorphologists, paleontologists, geochronologists, paleobotanists, and other specialists from academic institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Russian universities work at these sites. On the basis of extensive materials obtained as a result of field and laboratory studies, it can be argued with good reason that the territory of Gorny Altai underwent the evolutionary development of the Middle Paleolithic industry without any noticeable influences associated with the infiltration of populations from neighboring regions with a different culture.

Evolution of the primary cleavage system during the transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic

Let us take a closer look at the dynamics of the industry at the Gorny Altai localities in the chronological interval of 100-30 thousand years ago. The most complete primary splitting can be traced in the Denisova Cave and in the open-type sites of Ust-Karakol-1 and Kara-Bom (Derevyanko, Petrin, Rybin, and Chevalkov, 1998; Derevyanko, Volkov, and Petrin,1998). 2002a, b; Derevyanko and Rybin, 2003; Derevyanko, Shunkov, Aghajanyan et al., 2003; Derevyanko and Volkov, 2004; Derevyanko and Shunkov, 2004, 2005a].

In the Denisova Cave, the oldest finds, probably dating back to the Late Assyrian-Early Middle Paleolithic, were recorded in the 22nd layer (282 ± 56 Ka BP (RTL-548)); the culture-bearing horizons from the 20th to the 12th are Middle Paleolithic; the 11th and 9th are Upper Paleolithic (Fig. 2The earliest layers 22 and 21, in which the Levallois technique is represented, have dates in the range 280-150 thousand years ago. There is still insufficient factual material to fully study the evolution of the Levallois split in the chronological range 280-100 thousand years ago, but the trend of evolutionary changes towards increasing "laminosity" can be traced definitely enough.

page 5

2. Geochronology, stratigraphy, and artifacts. The central hall of Denisova Cave (after Derevyanko, 2001).

page 6

3. Evolution of the technique of nuclear cleavage. "Line 1". Ust-Karakol-1 (according to Derevyanko and Volkov, 2004).

All Middle Paleolithic localities in Gorny Altai are characterized by the Levallois system of primary cleavage. On its basis, in the interval of 60-50 thousand years AGO, a pressing technique appeared and more and more nuclei for removing plates, and then microplates. But at the same time, despite the single Levallois basis, about 80 thousand years AGO or somewhat later, two slightly different systems of primary splitting were formed: the Karakol and Karabomov systems.

Studying the evolution of the technological process of preparation and cleavage of nuclei allowed P. V. Volkov to identify two "lines" of development in the Karakol system [Derevyanko, Volkov, Petrin, 2002a, b; Derevyanko, Volkov, 2004]. The first one can be traced to the location of Ust-Karakol-1, located 3 km from Denisova Cave. In the evolutionary development of the technological process from layer 18a to layer 9b, it is possible to observe the transition of the Levallois principle of cleavage to a lamellar one (Fig. 3). At the first and second stages (Fig.3, 7, 2), the goal is to obtain a relatively wide cleavage. Maintenance of the required shape of the main front of the nucleus is carried out by auxiliary removal from the lateral and distal parts. At the third stage (Fig. 3, 3), the nucleus takes on a more elongated sub-rectangular shape; at the fourth stage (Fig. 3, 4), the removal is also made from the side of its distal part. There is no special auxiliary shock pad yet, but the front is being transformed into a sub-rectangular shape. The process of splitting begins to acquire distinct signs of lamellar. At the fifth stage (Fig. 3, 5) auxiliary removals to maintain the shape of the main front are made exclusively from the distal part. An important feature of this stage of the observed technological evolution is the formation of a specially prepared auxiliary site at the base of the nucleus. The sub-rectangular front becomes more elongated. In the last two stages, the main withdrawals can be made repeatedly. The resulting chips acquire the characteristics of plates, and the nuclei acquire the characteristics of plate nuclei.

The second evolutionary "line" is traced at the Ust-Karakol-1 site in the culture-containing horizon 116 and co-exists with the third stage of "line 1". At the first stage, the primary cleavage is aimed at obtaining several elongated flakes (Fig. 4, 1). At all stages of the second "line", the necessary shape of the nucleus front is not maintained by auxiliary removals. No special auxiliary platforms are formed. In basic splitting, the force is applied at a point on the impact pad, which is usually the tile plane of the workpiece corrected by "animating" shots. At the second stage (Figs. 4, 2), there is a tendency for the main front to shift to one of the laterals. This may be explained by the fact that when the nucleus is depleted (Fig. 4, 2a), the prospect of its additional use opens up. The impact force is now applied in a new direction (Fig. 4, 2b). The rationality of continuing cleavage in the end zone of the nucleus becomes obvious. The gradual movement of end-to-end shots marks the third stage (Figs. 4, 3). The morphology of the nucleus is also changing: chips from the end face acquire distinctly lamellar characteristics. At the fourth stage (Fig. 4, 4), the spin technique is already applied. The shape of the nucleus after the continuer-

page 7

4. Evolution of the technique of nuclear cleavage. "Line 2". Ust-Karakol-1 (according to Derevyanko and Volkov, 2004).

a logical evolution becomes typical for end cores.

From the very bottom of the 11th layer in Ust-Karakol-1 and the 11th in Denisova Cave, end, wedge-shaped and prismatic nuclei are widely distributed, indicating lamellar and micro-cleavage, and the use of pressing techniques. Dates in the range from 50 ± 12 to 29 Ka BP were obtained for the 11-8th culture-bearing horizons of Ust-Karakol-1; for the lower part of layer 11 in Denisova Cave, the AMS date was obtained from the bone 48 650 + 2 380/ - 1 840 HP (KIA 25285 SP 553 / D19), for the middle part - open date > 37,235 bp (COAH-2504), and for the roof at contact with the 10th layer-29,200 ± 360 bp (AAA-3532).

It is obvious that the Karakol Upper Paleolithic variant of primary cleavage was formed in the Gorny Altai between 50 and 40 Ka BP, which is the result of the evolution of this technological process in the Middle Paleolithic in this territory.

A slightly different evolutionary system can be traced by the example of the primary cleavage in the final Middle - early Upper Paleolithic at the Kara-Bom site, located approximately 150 km from Denisova Cave, in the Ursul River basin, in the Elovskaya basin. Two culture-bearing horizons related to the end of the Middle Paleolithic and six Upper Paleolithic ones were identified here (Figure 5). Radiocarbon dates > 42 (AA-8873) and > 44 Ka BP (AA-8894) were obtained for the Upper - Middle Paleolithic layer; the EPR date was obtained for the layer separating the upper and lower Middle Paleolithic horizons. 62.2 thousand BP; for the lower, 6th Upper Paleolithic-43,200 ± 1,500 BP (GX-17597), and for the 5th - 43,300 ± 1,600 (GX-17596).

For the Middle Paleolithic horizons, the cores of the parallel splitting principle are most typical. There are relatively few nuclei for removing Levallois cusps (13%) [Derevyanko, Volkov, and Petrin, 2002a]. In the Lower Middle Paleolithic tool kit, plate tools account for 34%. The most common variant of the sequence of utilization of the Levallois nucleus consisted in using first the unipolar recurrent method, then, after re-forming the nucleus, the unipolar convergent method, and at the final stage, the unipolar parallel method (Fig. 6). At the initial stage, a central face was formed on the preform, and after its removal, a recurrent series of large plates was removed. At the middle stage of cleavage of the nucleus by convergent unidirectional and marginal cleavages, the necessary frontal bulge was achieved and up to three Levallois points and/or chips were removed. At the final stage, chipping was performed in a parallel system (Fig. 6, 2, 3).

The 5th and 6th horizons of the initial stage of the Upper Paleolithic are characterized by Levallois recurrent monofrontal two-site planar nuclei. These cores are rectangular in plan, their shock pads are inclined to the counter-front, the working plane bears the negatives of removing large elongated plates of regular shape. The cleavage system is close to the Middle Paleolithic. With the depletion of the nucleus and the inability to remove the plates from the wide working front, chipping was performed from the pointed lateral, as a result, a new working platform was formed at the end. &-

page 8

5. Geochronology, stratigraphy, and artifacts. Kara-Bom (from Derevyanko, 2001).

page 9

6. Scheme of technological evolution of nuclei. The Karabomov variant (based on Derevyanko and Volkov, 2004).

the feather was already a narrow, elongated plate. Highly worked nuclei of this group in some cases were re-formed into multi-facet incisors, which is a feature of the Karabomov Early Upper Paleolithic industry.

When comparing the primary splitting of the Karakol and Karabom types, the general direction of evolution from the Levallois tradition to the Upper Paleolithic is observed. The entire set of nuclei, preforms, and debitages demonstrates the transition from the Middle Paleolithic stone processing technique to the Upper Paleolithic one. Here we can clearly see a gradual reduction in the number of nuclei that were cleaved from wide fronts, and an equally stable increase in the number of nuclei that indicate lamellar removal from the end face. The period when both methods co-existed stands out well. The impact technique is replaced by a push-up: microplates are removed from the end and wedge-shaped cores.

The Karakol and Karabom early Upper Paleolithic traditions of primary stone splitting were formed in the same chronological interval, but the final product (plates) was obtained in different ways. In both cases, in the transition period from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic, the pressing technique began to be used [Ibid.], but the Karabomovsky version of technological evolution was developed in obtaining elongated regular plates from the end (Fig. 6, 3), and the Karakol version - microplates (see Fig. 3, 5).

Karakol line of Industry development (culture) in Altai

The transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in the Altai territory was considered in many works, not only by the primary cleavage, but also by the technical and typological characteristics of stone tools (Derevianko, Petrin, Rybin, and Chevalkov, 1998; Derevianko, Petrin, and Rybin, 2000; Derevianko, 2001; Derevianko, Markin, 2001). Shun'kov et al., 2001; Rybin, 2002; Derevyanko, Rybin, 2003; Derevyanko, Shunkov, Aghajanyan et al., 2003; Derevyanko, Shunkov, 2004, 2005a; Derevyanko, 2009]. The most widespread material of the Karakol industrial tradition, which belongs to the chronological interval of 100-30 thousand years AGO, was obtained in Denisova Cave, Ust-Karakol-1, and Anu-3, located within 3 km from each other (Derevyanko, 2009).

In Denisova Cave, the main stone inventory, which allows us to consider the dynamics of the development of the Middle Paleolithic industry in the chronological range of 90-50 thousand years AGO, was contained in horizons 18-12 of the central hall and 10, 9 of the pre-passage site. The industrial complex is represented by Middle Paleolithic artifacts with similar technical and typological parameters. The difference between the materials of cultural horizons in terms of the percentage of technological techniques and typological forms presented in them in primary and secondary stone processing is small and indicates not a change in the previously established cultural and historical unity, but the evolutionary development of the industry and the possible influence of new adaptation strategies due to the changing environmental situation.

According to all the main technical and typological indicators, the categories of stone tools (scrapers, scrapers, incisors, piercing points, serrated products), as well as the products of primary cleavage, have an evolutionary continuity from the lower culture-containing horizons to the upper ones (Figs. 7-10). In the Denisova Cave, the culture-containing horizons from 18 to 12 cover a period of approximately 40 thousand years, and during this time, the culture-containing horizons of the Denisova Cave cover a period of approximately 40 thousand years.-

page 10

Fig. 7. Scrapers. The central Hall of Denisova Cave (after Derevyanko, 2009).

From the bottom up, there is a trend towards an increase in the percentage of Upper Paleolithic tools.

A well-formed Upper Paleolithic industry can be traced in the 11th culture-bearing horizon of Denisova Cave, which is divided into five lithological layers (habitat levels). For them, several radiocarbon dates were obtained in the range of 50-30 thousand years ago.-

page 11

Figure 8. Scrapers. The central Hall of Denisova Cave (after Derevyanko, 2009).

Fig. 9. Incisors. The central Hall of Denisova Cave (after Derevyanko, 2009).

page 12

Figure 10. Dynamics of primary splitting. The central Hall of Denisova Cave (after Derevyanko, 2009).

page 13

11. Bone inventory of the early Upper Paleolithic period. The central hall of Denisova Cave (after Derevyanko and Shunkov, 2004). 1-5-needles with an eye; 6 -12-points-punctures.

12. Early Upper Paleolithic pendants made of animal teeth. The central hall of Denisova Cave (after Derevyanko and Shunkov, 2004).

However, the radial and Levallois principles of splitting are represented by a parallel technique, in single versions. Most of the chips are flakes with a parallel faceted dorsal and a smooth impact pad and plates. Technical indexes define the industry as non-faceted and non-plate; however, a small series of microplates is noted among the elongated plate chips.

A characteristic feature of this industry is the proportional ratio in the tool set of Middle and Upper Paleolithic forms. Mousterian pegs and scrapers account for 22% of retouched items. In the Middle Paleolithic group, scrapers traditionally predominate, mainly longitudinal single-edged ones. This group of tools is complemented by a small, but typologically sustained series of Levallois pointers. A significant proportion (25%) belongs to scalloped, notched and beak-shaped products. However, the most numerous group consists of Upper Paleolithic tools (30%). The typology of scrapers, incisors, punctures, retouched plates and microplates with a blunted edge is indisputably Upper Paleolithic. They make up the most expressive component of the industry. Another feature of this technocomplex is the presence of leaf-shaped bifaces (Derevyanko and Shunkov, 2002).

An important argument in favor of attributing the industry of the 11th layer of Denisova Cave to the early Upper Paleolithic is the accompanying bone tools and jewelry made of stone, bone, ostrich egg shell, mammoth tusk and animal teeth. The processed bone collection includes more than 60 items. These are miniature needles with an eye (Fig. 11, 7-5), including a flattened product with a broken tip, on both planes of which there are a number of point depressions (Fig. 11, 4); points-punctures from fragments of tubular bones of large mammals (Fig. 11, 6-12); pendants made of fox, bison and deer teeth with a biconically drilled hole (Fig. 12; 13, 1, 2, 4 - 7) 13, 3); penetrators made of hollow tubular bones, including those ornamented with symmetrically arranged rows of deep annular cuts 14); a fragment of a ring made of mammoth tusk and a ring made of the same material with a natural "ornament" around the outer diameter, a carefully polished surface and a biconically drilled hole (Fig. 15, 6); small flat beads made of fragments of tubular bones (Fig. 15, 2); blanks of beads (? 15, 7) - a fragment of a mammoth tusk with two wide holes drilled and a bridge cut out between them (Fig.

page 14

13. Early Upper Paleolithic pendants made of animal teeth. The central hall of Denisova Cave (after Derevyanko and Shunkov, 2004).

14. Bone ornamented pronizi of the early Upper Paleolithic stage. The central hall of Denisova Cave (after Derevyanko and Shunkov, 2004).

the bones are irregular-oval in shape with a carefully polished surface and a wide hole in the middle (Fig. 15, 1, 4, 5); thin-walled ringlet - a cross-section from the tubular bone of a large bird; a fragment of the rib of a large ungulate with three fan-shaped cuts (Fig. 15, 8); rods from the walls of the tubular bones of mammals, including medial fragments with a polished surface and distal with a flattened end; fragments of large mammalian bones with a drilled hole. 15, 3) made of a unique material for the Paleolithic Altai-the shell of an ostrich egg. Another notable component is jewelry made from ornamental stone and clam shells: fragmented pendants made of agalmatolite (Figs. 16, 8) and talc-steatite (Figs. 16, 6, 7) with a biconically drilled hole at one of the transverse edges of the product; talc beads (Figs. 16, 3), serpentine (figs. 16, 2) and clay shale (figs. 16, 1); ornaments made from the shells of the freshwater mollusk Corbicula tibetensis with drilled holes in the base.

15. Early Upper Paleolithic ornaments. The central hall of Denisova Cave (after Derevyanko and Shunkov, 2004). 1, 4, 5, 7-blanks of bone beads (?); 2 - a bead from a fragment of a tubular bone; 3 - a bead from an ostrich egg shell; 6 - a ring from a mammoth tusk; 8 - a fragment of a rib of a large mammal with cuts.

page 15

16. Decorations of the early Upper Paleolithic period. The central hall of Denisova Cave (after Derevyanko and Shunkov, 2004). 1-3-stone beads; 4, 5-jewelry made from clam shells; 6-8-stone pendants.

A completely new element that characterizes not only the level of spiritual culture of a person of the Upper Paleolithic, but also his production and technical capabilities, is a fragment of a bracelet made of dark green chloritolite, which is more than 30 thousand years old (Fig. 17) (Derevyanko, Shunkov, Volkov, 2008). It was studied by P. V. Volkov using the most advanced technique. At the first stage of manufacturing the bracelet, the initial pebble billet was given a flattened-spherical shape. For this purpose, grinding and subsequent polishing were performed. The workpiece was most likely processed on a hard, relatively large area and flat abrasive until the semi-finished product of the required shape was obtained. Then, a process hole was probably drilled in the center of one of the blank planes. The next operation was finishing-sanding and polishing the product. Polishing is quite high-quality, made using leather and hides of different degrees of dressing.

17. Fragment of the bracelet. The central Hall of Denisova Cave (based on Derevyanko, Shunkov, and Volkov, 2008). 1 - from the outside, 2-from the inside, 3-from the top, 4-from the bottom.

page 16

18. Geochronology, stratigraphy, and summary table of artifacts. Ust-Karakol-1 (according to Derevyanko, 2009).

page 17
As a result, the product has acquired a smooth, almost mirror-like surface. A detailed tracological and technological study of the bracelet showed that a person of the Early Upper Paleolithic era already possessed various stone processing techniques that were considered uncharacteristic of the Paleolithic. Grinding with various abrasives, polishing with leather and hide, as well as technologies unique for the Paleolithic period - high-speed machine drilling and boring with a rasp-type tool-were used.

Materials from the Denisova Cave pre-entry site demonstrate the same dynamics of the development of the Middle Paleolithic industry and its transition to the Upper Paleolithic one.

The consistent evolution of the Middle Paleolithic industry and its transition to the Upper Paleolithic are well complemented by the materials of the Ust-Karakol-1 open-type site located 3 km from Denisova Cave (Fig. The thickness of loose sediments here reaches 6.5 m. 20 main lithological layers and 20 levels of Paleolithic human habitation have been identified at the site [Derevyanko and Markin, 1992, 1998; Derevyanko, Shunkov, Postnov, Ulyanov, 1995; Archeologiya..., 1998; Derevyanko, Shunkov, Postnov, 1998; Derevyanko, 2001; Derevyanko,Shunkov, Postnov, Ulyanov, 1995; Archeologiya..., 1998; Derevyanko, Shunkov, Postnov, 1998; Derevyanko, 2001; Derevyanko, Shunkov, Aghajanyan et al., 2003; Derevyanko and Shunkov, 2004; Derevyanko, 2009].

Materials of Paleolithic localities in the valley of the Anuya river Denisova Cave, Anuya-3, Ust-Karakol-1, located in close proximity to each other, convincingly demonstrate the transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic. Upper Paleolithic tool types appear at these sites around 100-90 thousand years ago. In the future, their number is increasing and the technique of primary and secondary stone processing is being improved. The transition stage can be attributed to the chronological interval of 60-50 thousand years AGO, and the final formation of the Upper Paleolithic industry in the Anuya River basin - to 50-45 thousand years ago.

Karabomovskaya line of industry development (culture) in Altai

Another industrial variant of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic is represented on the multi-layered Kara-Bom monument. Analysis of the site materials indicates the evolutionary development of the industry from the Middle Paleolithic to the Upper Paleolithic (see Fig. 5) [Derevyanko, Petrin, Rybin, and Chevalkov, 1998; Derevyanko, Petrin, and Rybin, 2000; Rybin, 2002; Derevyanko and Rybin, 2003; Derevyanko and Shunkov, 2004; Rybin and Kolobova, 2004].

In the industries of the final stage of the Middle Paleolithic at the Kara-Bom site, the system of recurrent Levallois splitting with alternating methods of parallel and convergent splitting of billets was mainly used. Among the products of primary cleavage, a group of plates is distinguished, which accounts for 33% of all cleavages in the lower Middle Paleolithic horizon, and 46% in the upper one. Together, they form the most representative sample of elongated cleavages in the Altai Middle Paleolithic collections. The plates used as tool blanks are also unusually numerous: their share in the lower horizon reaches 34%. The most stable series is represented by Levallois spikelets without signs of systematic secondary processing. An equally significant component of the inventory is jagged and notched products (lower horizon - 32%, upper horizon - 52%), usually decorated with retouched anchos. The next most important group of Upper Paleolithic tools (16% and 21%, respectively) includes lateral, angular, and median incisors, retouched plates, and scrapers and punctures.

The technical features of the industry from the 5th and 6th Upper Paleolithic horizons are distinctly lamellar in nature. Most of the nuclei have parallel faceting and are designed to produce elongated chips, while some elements of the Levallois technique retain their significance. At the same time, there are new techniques aimed at chipping microplates, including from the end varieties of nuclei. The main product of splitting is large plates, on which more than half of the guns are decorated. In the inventory, a significant place is still occupied by notched products (28-35%). Relatively small series of Levallois peaked and scraper-shaped tools are presented. The tool kit is dominated by products of the Upper Paleolithic group (32-39%) - end and side scrapers, middle asymmetric and angular incisors, knives with a retouched edge, elongated tips, including those with a thin base on the ventral side, and plates with traces of regular retouching along the longitudinal edge. The deposits of the earliest Upper Paleolithic levels of the site are associated with flat elongated pebbles, one end of which bears traces of ochre-colored mineral dye, and three pendants with a drilled hole: one from the radius and two from animal teeth (Derevyanko and Rybin, 2003).

A comprehensive study of the stone industry in Gorny Altai suggests that at the final stage of the Middle Paleolithic (70-50 thousand years ago), two lines of development are planned: the Karabomovskaya and Ka-

page 18
Rakolskaya street. Both of them mature in the process of evolution of a single Middle Paleolithic culture, and on their basis 50-45 thousand years AGO, two variants of the Early Upper Paleolithic industry (culture?) were formed. The uniqueness of the multi-layered Middle Paleolithic localities of Gorny Altai, located at a relatively short distance from each other, lies precisely in the fact that they, like no other in Northern, Eastern and Central Asia, allow us to trace the evolution from Middle Paleolithic to Upper Paleolithic.

The origins of the Middle Paleolithic industry in Altai

The question of the origins of the Middle Paleolithic industry in Gorny Altai remains unclear. The Altai Late Assyrian-Early Middle Paleolithic industrial complexes have nothing in common with the Middle Pleistocene of East and Southeast Asia. They are Western in appearance. What is meant by this concept? The closest parallels to the Late Assyrian and Middle Paleolithic industrial complexes of Gorny Altai can be traced in the Middle East, and more precisely, in the Levant. Comparing industries located at a distance of several thousand kilometers from each other, according to indices, various technical and typological indicators, is a hopeless task. The following industrial traditions are distinguished on the Levant territory in the Middle and Late Pleistocene: Late Assel, Mugaran, Yabrudien, Hummali, and Moustye types C, D, and B. The Levalloisian and parallel principles of primary cleavage are most characteristic of the Gorny Altai in the Late Middle and early Upper Pleistocene. It is not entirely clear whether the second origin is related to the first, or whether they both developed simultaneously and independently.

In the Levant, the early Acheulean locality of Gesher Benot Yaakov with Levalloisian equipment and bifaces (Stekelis, 1960; Goren-Inbar, Zohar, and Ben-Ami, 1991; Goren-Inbar, 1992), and the late Acheulean site of Berehat Ram, one of the most informative sites in Eurasia (Goren-Inbar, 1985, 1992], which also presents the Levallois technique and bifaces in a developed form. It is very important that recent studies have significantly aged the chronological framework of the Mugharan tradition: layers Ed-Ea of the Tabun Cave are assigned to the interval of 385 - 240 thousand years AGO (Jelinek, 1992; Bar-Yosef, 1995; Schwarcz and Rink, 1998), and the Levallouamousterian industry of layer D is assigned to 263 - 244 thousand years ago. [Mercier, Valladas H., Valladas G, 1995]. The MSU Laboratory of Dosimetry, Environmental Radioactivity, and Radiothermoluminescence Analysis determined the dates for layer E of this cave. 260 ± 60; 270 ± 60; 340 ± 80; 410 ± 110; 480 ± 120 thousands of years ago [Laukhin, Ronen, Ranov et al., 2000], which is generally consistent with the previously obtained data.

The Late Assyrian-Yabrudian industry of the Middle East does not fully correspond to the Early Middle Paleolithic industry of Gorny Altai, which is natural. These territories are separated by a huge distance, more than 5 thousand km, and during the advance of ancient populations from the Levant to the south of Siberia, perhaps over several tens of thousands of years, man had to overcome many different natural and landscape zones, which could not but affect the technical and typological characteristics of industrial complexes. At the current level of our knowledge, it is quite obvious that only the industries of the Middle East could have been the origins of the Early Middle Paleolithic industry of Gorny Altai.

Sibiryachikhinskaya line of industry development (culture) in Altai

In the Paleolithic period of Gorny Altai, the Okladnikov Cave industry remained a special feature for a considerable time (Derevyanko and Markin, 1992). It is fundamentally different from all the Middle Paleolithic industrial complexes of Altai: it is more moustyeroid, with a large number of convergent dejete-type scrapers. Chronological framework of culture-bearing horizons of Okladnikov Cave 45-40 thousand years ago. At this time, two variants of the Upper Paleolithic culture were already formed on the territory of Gorny Altai: Karakol and Karabomovskaya. The Okladnikov Cave was dominated by the mousterian industry with a small percentage of Upper Paleolithic tools. This phenomenon was tried to explain for various reasons, including the specialized use of the cave during hunting expeditions as a long-term parking lot, where animal carcasses were cut up. The possibility of simultaneous settlement in the Altai of a modern physical type of man (Karakol and Karabom culture) and Neanderthals, who owned the mousterian industry from the Okladnikov Cave (Derevyanko, 2007), was also not excluded, which was confirmed by the results of studying mitochondrial DNA from human bone remains found in this cave (Krause, Orlando, Serre et al., 2007].

In 2007, S. V. Markin discovered the Chagyr cave on the territory of Rudny Altai, and research in it was continued in 2008-2009. Found there

page 19

19. General plan of Okladnikov Cave (according to Derevyanko, 2007).

20. Stone tools from layer 7 of Okladnikov Cave (according to Derevyanko, 2009). 1, 5 - nuclei; 2-scrabbles; 3, 4-levallois points.

stone tools in all technical and typological indicators are similar to the industry from the Okladnikov cave. It became obvious that this industry is associated with the settlement of a small population of Neanderthals on the territory of Gorny Altai.

Okladnikov Cave is located in the low-mountain Altai belt at an altitude of 319 m above sea level. It is located on the outskirts of the village of Sibiryachikha in the Soloneshensky district of the Altai Territory, on the left bank of the river of the same name (left tributary of the Anuya), at an altitude of 14 m from the water's edge. The cave is a complex formation consisting of separate and interconnected cavities of various shapes (Figure 19). It combines a river-facing area under a cave canopy, a grotto, several galleries, as well as a number of small extensions - "halls" - removed from the entrances. The galleries are narrow and low, unsuitable, like the "halls", for permanent residence in them. Layers 7, 6, 3 - 1 are culture-containing. They are low-power, no more than 1 m.

All the archaeological material from the cultural horizons of the Okladnikov Cave is a homogeneous complex, which has significant differences from other Paleolithic sites in Gorny Altai. A special feature of the inventory is the small number of cores (0.4-1%), as well as edge and semi - edge chips (4.6-12.5%), which indicates that the primary splitting was carried out outside the cave (Fig. Billets were delivered to it, which here were transformed into the necessary tools of labor. This is confirmed by the presence of a large number of small retouching chips in the culture - containing horizons-from 31 to 44%. In the materials of all levels of habitat, a significant share is made up of tools corresponding to hunting camp sites where specialized tools of the same type were used for butchering and processing certain types of megafauna (Fig. 21). Indirect evidence that the culture-bearing horizons reflect the long-term use of the cave as a base site during hunting expeditions for meat harvesting is a large number of fragmented tools: in layer 7 - 42.1%, in layer 6-53.15%, in layer 3 - 50.3%, in layer 2-42.6%, in layer 1 - m - 43.7%. The economic activity of the primitive groups that inhabited the cave was associated with hunting, butchering and processing the carcasses of large animals, mainly horses, argali, rhinos, bison, and reindeer.

page 20

21. Plates (1-6) and scrapers (7-28) from Layer 3 of Okladnikov Cave (according to Derevyanko, 2009).

The tracological analysis carried out by N. A. Kononenko showed that most of the tools from layer 7 were used as scrapers and knives for working with soft materials (hides, meat, etc.). Individual products are functionally defined as scrapers and scrapers for working with hard materials. Among the toothed tools, there is a single double-edged saw, and the point of one Levallois point was used as a drill.

In the tool kit from layer 6, scrapers and knives, slightly fewer scrapers and scrapers, single saws and drills are identified by the traces of harmony. In the materials of layer 3, the marked trend of the functional distribution of tools remains.

In addition to hunting, the primitive population that lived during the accumulation of layer 7 was engaged in fishing. In this culture-containing horizon, a huge number of fish remains were found: ribs, pos-

page 21
wonka, scales, i.e. ichthyofauna played a significant role in nutrition.

The U - and 14C-dates of the cultural horizons are of particular importance for the interpretation of cave finds. The uranium values of 44,600 ± 3,300 and 44,800 ± 4,000 thousand bp obtained from samples from the 7th layer of Gallery 1 should be considered absolutely reliable. It was a narrow corridor (maximum width of 1 m), not adapted for habitation, which, judging by the preservation of loose sediments, did not experience any later anthropogenic impact at all: all the finds in it were in situ. These dates can be safely accepted as the base dates.

The most problematic age definitions are for crop-bearing horizons under the canopy. The range of dates for layer 3 obtained from animal bones is from > 16,210 to 43,700 BP. The wide open cavity under the canopy facing the Sibiryachikha River valley served as a shelter for domestic animals for decades: in spring and autumn - from bad weather, in summer-from heat. Undoubtedly, the penetration of the products of their vital activity into the thickness of loose sediments, as well as root bioturbation of shrubby vegetation, which affected almost all sediments, caused an increased content of young carbon in the organic material included in the sediments. Another confirmation of the impossibility of obtaining correct dates for crop-bearing horizons under the canopy are the results of dating paleoanthropological materials from the Okladnikov Cave. The uncalibrated date for the adult bone is 2,4260 ± 180 BP, and for the adolescent bone it is in the range from 29,990 ± 500 to 37,800 ± 450 [Ibid.]. From my point of view, all the cultural horizons of the cave belong to 45-40 thousand BP.

For a long time, the complex of Paleolithic finds from the Okladnikov Cave remained difficult to explain. While the Upper Paleolithic culture has already formed on a large territory of the Altai, the mousterian industry can be traced in the Okladnikov and Chagyrskaya caves. It can be assumed that Neanderthals were forced to leave the territories in South - West Asia around 60-50 thousand years AGO under the pressure of a wave of human migration of a modern physical and genetic type. Initially, they advanced into Central Asia (Uzbekistan - Teshik-Tash), and then 50-45 thousand years AGO penetrated into Southern Siberia.

Two lines of development that were outlined at the final stage of the Middle Paleolithic and during the transition period - the Karakol and Karabomovskaya-are well traced in the early and developed stages of the Upper Paleolithic, not only in the Altai, but also far beyond its borders. Describing the Early Upper Paleolithic localities that belong to one of the two lines of industrial development in Southern Siberia, we can already talk about two cultures - Karakol and Karabomovskaya.

At the same time, 45 - 40 thousand years AGO in the Altai region, a completely different musteroid Sibiryachikha industry can be traced in all technical and typological indicators, which is an additional argument in favor of the fact that all the evolutionary development of the industry of the final Middle Paleolithic in this territory is associated with the formation of the Upper Paleolithic culture here.

Karakol culture of the early Upper Paleolithic in Altai

The traditions laid down in the Karakol line of development at the transition stage from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic and at the earliest stage of the Upper, 50-40 thousand years AGO, when we can talk about culture, can be clearly traced at sites of the early and developed Upper Paleolithic, dating from 40-30 thousand years AGO. the cave (layers 9 of the central hall and 6, 5 of the pre-passage platform), at the locations of Anui-1, -2, Ushlep-6, in the Strashnaya cave, etc. In the central hall of the Denisova Cave, the formation of the upper part of the Neo-Pleistocene stratum of layer 9 occurred after a long sedimentation break observed in layer 10. The same break in sedimentation is observed at the boundary of layers 7 and 6 at the pre-emergence site. Despite a certain chronological gap between the industries of the early and developed Upper Paleolithic, an indissoluble line of further development of the Karakol Upper Paleolithic culture is clearly traced.

The collection from layer 9 includes nuclei and nucleoid shapes, plates, flakes, as well as eight items made of bone, animal teeth and mammoth tusk. In comparison with the underlying 11th horizon, the number of lamellar chips, including micro-lamellar ones, significantly increased in the 9th horizon. The tool kit includes sharp points, scrapers of various modifications, end scrapers, side scrapers, high-shaped karen type, chisel-shaped tools, punctures, incisors, retouched plates, microplates with a blunted edge, bifacial products, etc. A characteristic feature of the industry is the widespread use of plates as the basis for the manufacture of tools (approx. 45% of the tool kit). A special flavor is given by a series of microplates with a blunted edge, and

page 22
also products made from mammoth tusk and bone, teeth of other animals. Three needles were found, a fragment of the point-piercing, a pendant with a hole at the base, made of a deer tooth.

Each of the layers 6 and 5 on the pre-entry site, as well as the 9th layer in the central hall of the cave, belongs to the developed Paleolithic period and continues the traditions of the Karakol line of development. All nuclei exhibit a parallel splitting technique. Typologically expressed stone tools are formed on plates or plate chips. The number of micro-plates with a blunted edge, cutters and scrapers of various modifications, including high-shaped ones such as karen, is increasing. Bone inventory is represented by needles, a piercing tool and the base of the insert tool. The latest find indicates the manufacture and use of composite tools at this time. From jewelry found beads-rings from the shell of ostrich eggs.

The Karakol line of development is well traced in the multi-layered industry, with a clear stratigraphy of the Anui-2 locality (Derevyanko, Shunkov, Aghajanyan et al., 2003). It is located 70 m from Denisova Cave, on the right-bank slope of the Anuya River valley. Field studies at the site revealed 15 lithological layers and 12 culture-bearing horizons saturated with archaeological and paleontological material. All levels of the habitat are separated from each other by sterile layers. Bonfires of various structures and degrees of preservation have been identified in some horizons. The seven lower horizons were particularly saturated. The following geochronology was revealed at the Anui-2 locality: the 3rd culture - bearing horizon-21,280 ± 440 BP (SOAN-3007); the 4th - 21,502 ± 584 BP (GIN-1431); the 6th-23,431 ± 1547 Bp (GIN - 1430); the 8th-20 350 ± 290 (CO AN-2863), 22,610 ± 140 (CO AN-2862) and 24,205 ± 420 (CO AN-3006); 9th - 27,125 ± 580 (CO AN-2868); 12th - 26,810 ± 290 (CO AN-3005) and 27,930 ± 1,594 bp (EGAN-1,425).

In general, stone tools from the culture-containing horizons 6-12 represent a unique homogeneous industry that developed over 6-7 thousand years [Ibid.]. Its important features are the widespread use of the end cleavage principle and the presence of wedge-shaped cores for removing microplates; a relatively high percentage of tools made on plates; a small but typologically pronounced micro-equipment, which is supplemented by no less striking micro-cleavage patterns - small end, wedge-shaped and prismatic nuclei.

The Karakol industrial tradition includes the location of Anui-1, located 500 m from Denisova Cave (Derevyanko and Zenin, 1990). The primary cleavage is lamellar. The tool kit includes scrapers, scrapers, chisel-shaped, notched and notched products, incisors, plates and flakes with retouching.

Another important complex of the final stage of the Middle Paleolithic, the transition period from Middle to Upper, and the early stage of the Upper Paleolithic is the Tyumechinsky complex (Shunkov, 1990). It includes the localities Tyumechin-1, -2, and -4 located on the right bank of the Ursul River. This section of the valley is located at an absolute altitude of 1000 - 1200 m. Archaeological material has been redeposited at the Tyumechin-1 and -2 localities. According to its technical and typological characteristics, it belongs to the final stage of the Middle Paleolithic (Derevyanko, Aghajanyan, and Baryshnikov et al., 1998). Archaeological material was recorded under more precise stratigraphic conditions at the Tyumechin-4 locality, located 2 km east of Tyumechin-1, at the outlet of the Ursul River Valley of its right tributary, the Tyumechin River (Shunkov, 1990; Shunkov, Nikolaev, and Krivoshapkin, 1993; Shunkov, Nikolaev, and Fedeneva et al., 1998). It lies in the precipitation of the final stage of Karginsky warming. Approximate age of Tyumechin's location-4 30 - 35 thousands of years. This industry has some distinctive features, but generally belongs to the Karakol culture. This is most clearly determined primarily by the morphology of scrapers, incisors, serrated-notched and bifacial tools.

Karakol culture includes such places of the steppe Altai as the Strashnaya cave and the Ushlep-6 site. Unfortunately, the Strashnaya cave, which has cultural layers of up to 10 m, has not been fully explored to date (Okladnikov, Muratov, Ovodov, and Frydenberg, 1972; Derevianko and Zenin, 1997). It shows a good stratigraphic sequence. Analysis of archaeological materials by habitat horizons indicates their clear temporal differentiation: lithological layers 3, 4 belong to the Upper Paleolithic, and 5 - 10 - to the Middle One. This will allow us to further trace the dynamics of Paleolithic industries within a large chronological interval (Zenin and Ulyanov, 2007). Two culture-bearing horizons of lithological layer 3 and culture-bearing layer 4 belong to the early stage of the Upper Paleolithic. An open date of > 37,360 ± 430 BP was obtained for layer 3 (Derevianko and Zenin, 1997). It is very likely that the age of the 4th culture-containing horizon is more than 40 thousand years.

The Ushlep-6 multi-layer parking lot is located 200 m from the north-eastern outskirts of Novotroitskiy village in Gornaya Shoriya. This location is being investigated-

page 23
The study identifies eight culture-bearing horizons related to the final stage of the Middle Paleolithic, and several stages of development of the Upper Paleolithic industry (Kungurov, 1998; Kungurov, Markin, and Semibratov, 2003; Baryshnikov, Kungurov, Markin, and Semibratov, 2005). From my point of view, the culture - containing layers 8 - 6 belong to the Early Upper Paleolithic, and 5 - 3-to the developed one. This conclusion is in good agreement with the data of layered cave localities and open-type sites in the Anuya River basin.

In the earliest culture-bearing horizon 8, more than 4,500 artifacts, poorly defined foci, bone remains of mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, bison, horse, and red deer were found. Dates > 42,000 (SOAN-5045) and 39,800 ± 1100 BP (SOAN-5498) were obtained from the animal bone (Baryshnikov, Kungurov, Markin, Semibratov, 2005).

Primary cleavage in materials from horizon 8 is mainly represented by one - and two-site nuclei designed for removing plates, lamellar flakes and flakes. The most striking and numerous are the end nuclei. They are small in size, some heavily crafted. Their unary platforms are flat or have an acute angle with the working face, but they are always chipped or faceted. Plates and microplates were removed from the end nuclei. There are no Levallois-type nuclei at the Ushlep-6 locality and no Levallois cleavage was found.

The weapon set from the 8th layer is very diverse. Scrapers are made of special blanks or large flakes. A variety of scrapers are available. The end ones are made on flakes, plates or lamellar chips. Their working blade is decorated with edge multi-facet cool or semi-cool retouching. There are scrapers with a "spout". High-form scrapers of the karene type are decorated with small plate shots with additional shallow or medium-steep retouching. A small number of side double scrapers were found, with one side partially retouched. Incisors are represented by dihedral asymmetric, angular, including double ones. A large group consists of awl-shaped and notched products, punctures. They are made of flakes and lamellar chips. There is a leaf-shaped symmetrical biface, decorated with small chips and deep multi-facet retouching, and several fragments of bifacial tools.

Six bone items were found in layer 8. Two of them are made of mammoth tusk, three are made of diaphysis tubes of large ungulates, and one is made of bison rib. The most expressive is the bison rib insert tool. The point, shoulder blade, or tip of a hoe is also made of bone. Archaeological materials from the overlying layers of the Ushlep-6 site reflect the further evolutionary development of the Upper Paleolithic industry.

Strashnaya Cave and Ushlep-6 are located at a considerable distance from the locations in the Anuya River basin, where the evolution of the Karakol industrial tradition is most clearly traced. Remoteness, as well as a slightly different habitat (more settled landscapes) caused some differences in the technical and typological characteristics of stone tools. But in general, these localities can be attributed to the Karakol culture.

Karabomovskaya culture at the early and Middle stages of the Upper Paleolithic in Southern Siberia

The Karabom culture of the early Upper Paleolithic is continued in the upper-level industries of the Kara-Bom locality. Dates of 32,200 ± 600 (GIN-5934) and 33,800 ± 600 BP (GIN-5935) were obtained for the second culture-containing horizon; 30,990 ± 460 (GX-17593 - AMC) for the third; and 33,780 ± 570 (GX-17594-AMC), 34,180 ± 640 (GX-17795-AMC) and 38,080 ± 910 hp (GX-17592-AMC).

The primary splitting technique is mainly represented by Upper Paleolithic variants. The Levallois principle of cleavage exists as an element of preparation of the cleavage front, and the nuclei for removing the points completely disappear. The most typical nuclei are those of the parallel splitting principle with an additional removal front at the ends, as well as end and protoclinic ones.

Blanks for tools were plates, their fragments, microplates, lamellar flakes. The tool kit contains a lot of notched products, the proportion of which exceeds the indicators of the 5th and 6th habitat levels. The typological appearance, the design of the working blade on the longitudinal edges, anchos made with steep or semi-steep retouching, and some other elements bring these tools closer to the Middle Paleolithic. Continuity with the industries of the final Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic can be traced by the technical and typological characteristics of knives, points, scrapers, notched products, incisors, retouched plates, scrapers, scraper knives and some other tools.

Knives were made on large plates or special blanks. Almost all of them are combined tools: a knife-scraper, a knife-cutter, a knife-dredged tool. Obushok made out-

page 24
This is usually done with a cool retouch. Scrapers belong mainly to the 4th horizon. All were processed from the dorsal. In two cases, incisor removals are timed to the blade of the scraper. Scrapers were formed on plates and plate chips. The most typical ones are the end ones that are processed with a steep or semi-steep parallel retouch. There are scrapers with two working edges: oval-shaped distal, formed by a semi-circular scaly or parallel retouch, and longitudinal, formed by a scaly semicircle, and closer to the distal-flat retouch. Scrapers have direct analogies in the inventory from Horizons 5 and 6.

At the Kara-Bom locality, all levels of habitat are characterized by sharp points. They were issued on elongated plates. Convergence of the sides was achieved by semi-circular and steep scaly retouching, the intensity of which increased at the tip, especially carefully processed. Elongated points with a refined base have a special specificity. Similar tools were found at other Paleolithic sites of the Karabom tradition, in particular at the Kara-Tenesh site, in the Yaloman cave. Such points can be distinguished into a special Karabom type. Incisors are represented by angular, median, cut-angle, multi-facet varieties. On plates with incisive chips, retouching is often observed along the edge. Most of the combined tools have additional tool chips. In general, the industry from the culture-containing horizons 4-1 of the Kara-Bom locality has the same basic technical and typological characteristics as the technocomplexes of the lower habitat levels.

The Kara-Tenesh site, Maloyalomanskuyu caves, Biyke caves, etc. should be attributed to the Karabomov Early Upper Paleolithic culture in the territory of Gorny Altai. Kara-Tenesh is located in Chemalsky district on the left bank of the Nizhny Kuyusu River, 19 km from its confluence with the Katun River. The site is located on an erosional remnant of a deluvial slope plume at the northern end of the Bel tract, at an altitude of 860 m above sea level (Petrin, Nikolaev, Chevalkov, and Anufrieva, 1995; Archeologiya..., 1998; Derevyanko, Petrin, and Krivoshapkin, Nikolaev, 1999). Layer 3 was cultured, for which the following dates were obtained from bone: 28,875 ± 625 BP (COAN-2134), 31,400 ± 410 (COAN-2486), 34,760 ± 1,240 (COAN-2135), 42,165 ± 4,170 BP (COAN-2485), The obvious plate-like nature of the industry, the predominance of Upper Paleolithic tool types with an expressive group of scrapers and the preservation of a certain Levallois element in the primary splitting technique allow us to say with confidence that the site belongs to the early stage of the Upper Paleolithic and is included in the range of sites of the Karabomov industrial tradition.

In terms of technical and typological characteristics of inventory and raw materials, the Biikinsky complex, discovered 15 km from Kara-Tenesh, is close to the Karabom industry. The Biyke-1 cave and Biyke II grotto are located on the right slope of the Biyke River Valley, a right tributary of the Katun River, at an altitude of 720-730 m above sea level. Stone tools in the cave were found in four horizons (Petrin and Nokhrina, 2001). Unfortunately, there is no clear stratigraphy: cultural remains were partially disturbed by later inclusions of the Afanasiev and Scythian periods. In the Biikinsky complex, primary cleavage is represented by nuclei of the Levallois tradition and for removing plates, both large and small. Among the tools, large plates with retouching, toothed scrapers, knives with an edge, scrapers, bifacial tips, including those with a base cast, and chisels predominate (Petrin, Nokhrina, Dergacheva, Nikolaev, 2000).

In the valley of the Katun River, a Paleolithic location of the Karabom type was studied in the Maloyalomansky cave, located on the left bank of the Maly Yaloman River, 12 km from its confluence with the Katun. The cave rises 27 m above the level of the Maly Yaloman river and 300 m above the level of the Katun River. Two lower horizons, the 3rd and 4th, were culturally significant. For the upper part of the 3rd, the date 33,350 ± 1,145 BP (SOAN-2550) was obtained.

Human visits to the cave probably began around 40 thousand years AGO, when it was not yet filled with loose sediments. In the most remote part of the cave, there is an abundance of torn-off plant dust directly on the basement, i.e. grass was brought into the cave before sedimentation began. In layer 3, the remains of bonfires located at different levels were found. Samples were taken from the torn interlayer for spore-pollen and paleocarpological analysis. In the samples, there are clumps of pollen stuck together, as is the case when burying flowering plants, but not a single seed is found. Apparently, the grass was brought to the cave in June, when the plants are already blooming, but the seeds have not yet formed.

The collection of stone tools is small - 67 copies. Primary cleavage is indicated by tiles with negatives of small shoots in the parallel direction, as well as vertical chips from plate-type nuclei. The tool kit consists of spiky tips with a ventral sub-cast of the proximal part, toothed-notched tools, scrapers, and retouched plates. A pendant made of maral fang with cuts was also found.

The considered localities of the Karabomovskaya tradition of Gorny Altai, attributed to the early stage of the Upper Paleolithic-40-30 thousand years AGO, combine

page 25
there are many diagnostic technical and typological indicators. The primary splitting technique is predominantly parallel and sub-parallel. The Levallois principle of cleavage plays a subordinate role, often existing only as an element of core preparation. There are end elongated nuclei and tile ones for removing two or three large plates, as well as wedge-shaped ones. End and wedge-shaped nuclei are the final stage of the technological chain of utilization of the planar nucleus of the parallel splitting principle. The lamellar index of the industry is high - not less than 30.

Secondary processing is characterized by a wide range of spin retouching, as well as common and modifying, flake and parallel. The technique of incisive chipping is presented in a variety of variants, often there is deliberate fragmentation of chipping (mainly large plates) and ventral undergrowth of the bases at the tips, which is one of the features of the Karabomov tradition.

In other large geographical regions of Southern Siberia: Tuva, Pribaikalye, and Zabaikalye - the problem of transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic is studied differently. S. N. Astakhov identified Late Ashelian, Middle and Upper Paleolithic localities in Tuva. The difficulty of their interpretation lies in the fact that the vast majority of them relate to localities with a surface occurrence of the cultural horizon (Astakhov, 2008). Continuity between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic of Tuva could not be traced. According to S. N. Astakhov, this is due both to the difficulty of identifying transition zones only on the basis of technical and typological analysis, and to the possibility of population outflow to more favorable habitat areas due to climate deterioration [Ibid., p. 119].

In the Baikal region, ancient Paleolithic localities located on watershed surfaces that received the conditional name "mountains" (Mount Dolgaya, Mount Glinyanaya, Mount Olonskaya, Mount Krivolukskaya, etc.) are considered to be the earliest time. They were previously assigned to the Middle Pleistocene (Medvedev, 1975, 2001; Medvedev, Alaev, Sokolsky, 1978; Medvedev, Alaev, Sokolsky, 1978)., Vorobyova, 1998]. The primary cleavage was associated with pebble nuclei and splitting without preparing the impact pad, the radial principle was used, and elements of the Levallois technique can also be traced. Tools are represented by choppers, choppers, scrapers of various modifications. Negative chips are strongly and moderately corroded. All ancient localities with a superficial cultural horizon.

The earliest archaeological material in stratified conditions belongs to the Kazantsev interstadial. On Mount Igetey, the Georgievsky locality in the Igeteysky pedocomplex, longitudinal scrapers (déjeté) points made of quartzite pebbles were found. Some small Paleolithic finds in the Baikal region are associated with deposits of the early Wurm.

One of the most interesting stratified localities of the earliest Upper Paleolithic is Makarovo-4, located in the valley of the upper reaches of the Lena River. Radiometric data for culture-containing sediments of the site were obtained for dates > 38 Ka BP (AA-8879) and > 39 Ka BP (AA-8880) [Goebel and Aksenov, 1995], which corresponds to the first half of the Karginsky warming (isotope stage 3). G. I. Medvedev refers the location of Makarovo-4, or"The Makarov Paleolithic layer "refers to the chronological interval of 70-60 thousand years AGO and defines the industry as a North Asian "peregordien" (Medvedev, 2001). The age of this location, which is important for understanding the process, certainly needs to be clarified. Perhaps the site is several thousand years older than radiometric dates. However, there are no sufficient grounds for the aging of this industry to 70-60 thousand years ago. And it is very important to note that in the Baikal region there are no known earlier well-stratified Paleolithic sites, the industries of which could be the origins of Makarovskaya.

Another locality, Kistinevo - 9, has been discovered on the upper Lena River, where the culture-bearing horizon with the Makarovsky complex is located in clearer stratigraphic conditions, but there are no absolute dates for it yet (Aksenov, 1998). The Makarovsky plast industry stands apart, and it is possible that it could have been the basis for the formation of Selemdzhinsky culture in the Far East.

In the Baikal region, a number of localities have been identified that date from 35 to 30 thousand years ago: Bratskoe - > 31 thousand years AGO (GIN-8481), Mamony-2 - 31 400 ± 150 bp (GIN-8480) [Vorobyova, Generalov, Zagrafsky, 1998] and others. Unfortunately, for many Paleolithic sites in the Baikal region that date back to this time, there is no sufficiently complete description of stratigraphic conditions and analysis of materials.

In Transbaikalia, the sites of the final Middle Paleolithic and early Upper Stage are known. The most studied Late-Middle Paleolithic sites are located in the Ona River Valley in two districts. The first is associated with Mount Hengarekte, on the slopes of which there is a large amount of good quality material that served as the raw material for making tools. In this area, seven sites were identified, united into three locations: Hangar-Tyn Skalnaya, Hangar-Tyn-2

page 26
and Barun-Alan. All of them have a surface occurrence of Paleolithic finds. Most of the sites should be attributed to workshops (Tashak, 2002a-V. 2003a, b, 2004, 2005). Primary cleavage at these localities is mainly represented by Levallois nuclei for removing plates and flakes. To a lesser extent, the radial chipping principle was used. In the tool kit, the most numerous scrapers are: longitudinal and transverse, treated with marginal dorsal and ventral medium - and large-facet retouching; transverse, designed at the long distal end of wide and short flakes; with a straight blade. Chopping tools, including chopping tools, were also found. V. I. Tashak, who studied these objects, believes that the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in the territory of Western Transbaikalia is "not observed" (2005, p.404).

At a distance of approx. 20 km from the parking lots in the area of Mount Hengarekte, on the left bank of the river. The Khotyk locality with complex stratigraphy is also being investigated. Ten stratigraphic divisions and six different time levels of artefacts were identified (Lbova, Volkov, Bazarov, and Namsaraev, 2003). The earliest ones are the third and sixth. The fourth and sixth levels contain a relatively small amount of material. Among the nuclei, orthogonal, disco - prominent ones predominate, and in the fourth level-Levallois ones. Tools of labor do not constitute representative series. Among them are scrapers, scalloped and beak-shaped products, as well as flakes with retouching.

The most informative is the third level, where 415 artifacts were found. Primary cleavage is characterized by the Levallois principle; planar nuclei, monofrontal two-site and single frontal ones are found. The tool set is represented by sharp points and points, knives, scrapers, scrapers, punctures, serrated and notched products, combined chisel-shaped and beak-shaped tools, retouched plate chips and flakes. Non-utilitarian objects are important for the interpretation of this culture-bearing horizon: a fragment of a bird's tubular bone with a subquadrate hole (according to L. V. Lbova, this is a whistle-decoy (Lbova, Rezanov, Kalmykov et al., 2003)); an agalmatolite plate with a side drilled hole; two fragments of a black stone ring; a talc pebble with a biconical opening. For the sixth lithological horizon, where the third culture-containing level is recorded, dates of 34,000 ± 6,000 BP (GIN SB RAS-244) and 28,770 ± 275 (SOAN-5082) were obtained. Lbova, who conducted field research at the Khotyk site, attributes this level to the Early Middle Karginian period and believes that its age may be about 40-45 thousand years. It defines this layer in the cultural-chronological division as the "transition" from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic or the beginning of the Upper One (Lbova, 2002). From my point of view, there are no known localities on the territory of Transbaikalia that could undoubtedly be attributed to the origins of the Upper Paleolithic. And, apparently, the third level should be dated in the range of 39-38 thousand years ago.

Early Upper Paleolithic complexes of Transbaikalia are technically and typologically close to the Karabomov industrial tradition. L. V. Lbova identifies the transition stage from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in this territory and assigns Kamenka A, C, the third culture-containing horizon of Varvarina Gora, and the third level of Khotyk to it.

Among the Early Upper Paleolithic sites of Transbaikalia, Podzvonkaya is of particular interest. It is located in the east of the Kyakhtinsky district of the Republic of Buryatia. Field studies during 1991-2000 established that the locality is multi-layered and occupies a significant area (Tashak, 1996, 2002a). A detailed and thorough study of the cultural horizons revealed very important details of the structure of the ancient settlement (Tashak, 2003a). In the third cultural horizon, foci of complex construction were found. The combination of design features, cleaning of hearths, rituals that accompanied this process, and other valuable observations made during the excavations indicate the presence of a hearth cult and a special attitude to fire (Tashak, 2003a, 2005).

All the most ancient sites of Transbaikalia, in the chronological interval 43-35 thousand years AGO, belong to the earliest stage of the Upper Paleolithic. Dates from 40,500 ± 3,800 BP (AA-26743) to 30,220 ± 270 BP (SOAN-3354) were obtained for the Kamenka site (Lbova, 2000, 2002). Based on the bone from the focus of the third cultural horizon, the Podzvonkaya was dated to 38,900 ± 3,300 BP (AA-26741). There is an earlier date-43,900 ± 3,000 years AGO (SOAN-4445). V. I. Tashak believes that the site functioned approx. 40 thousand years ago [2003a].

Radial, orthogonal, and Levallois nuclei are preserved as relict forms in the primary cleavage of the Early Upper Paleolithic sites of Transbaikalia. But their number is insignificant, and they are not present at all locations. The most common nuclei are parallel cleavage, one - and two-site ones with a predominance of monofrontal ones; planar, prismatic, etc.

page 27
subprismatic images with negatives of counter-images (Lbova, Volkov, Bazarov, Namsaraev, 2003). End cores were found in the second cultural horizon of the Varvarina Gora localities (dates from 35 to 30 thousand years AGO), Kamenka A, and Khotyk. The early stage of the Upper Paleolithic is characterized by the use of plates and plate chips as blanks.

The vast majority of tools are etched on large and medium-sized elongated chips, which are serially represented with sharp tips and incisors, end scrapers and punctures, chisel-shaped products and retouched plates. A characteristic component of these complexes is a set of non-utilitarian objects, including pendants, beads, and pierces made from tubular bird bones, ostrich eggshells, and soft ornamental stone [Ibid.; Tashak, 20026], as well as a unique sculptural image of a bear's head carved by the Paleolithic inhabitants of Tolbaga from the tooth-like process of the cervical vertebra of a woolly rhinoceros [Konstantinov, Sumarokov, Filippov, Ermolova, 1983]. It should be noted that some handicrafts, as well as personal ornaments of the Karabom tradition, were found in a similar planigraphic context near hearths or other household objects. Undoubtedly, in the chronological interval of 43-35 thousand years AGO, the Upper Paleolithic culture spread in Transbaikalia.

The considered localities of Southern Siberia allow us to conclude that the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in this territory begins to be traced after 50 thousand years AGO, and in the period 45-35 thousand years AGO, we already record mainly the Upper Paleolithic industry. In Tuva, the Baikal Region, and the Trans-Baikal Region, reliable evidence of the transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic has not yet been obtained. It is possible that a Middle Paleolithic culture of the same type as in Gorny Altai will be discovered in these regions. It is obvious that by 40 thousand years AGO the Upper Paleolithic industry had spread over the entire territory of Southern Siberia. It cannot be ruled out that its origins may have been in the Early Paleolithic of Altai.

Discussion

Summing up the results of the study of Paleolithic monuments in Southern Siberia, it should be noted that in the Altai territory, during the evolutionary development of the Middle Paleolithic industry since 60 thousand years AGO, an increase in the number of Upper Paleolithic tools (scrapers, incisors, tools designed on plates) is observed and, accordingly, an increase in the proportion of cores for plate splitting, end, wedge-shaped and other nuclei for removing plates, the number of nuclei of the Levallois and radial splitting principles is reduced. On the territory of Gorny Altai in the transition period from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic, two lines of development, industrial traditions are distinguished - the Karabomovskaya and Karakolskaya, which are preserved at the early stage of the Upper Paleolithic. What these traditions have in common is that the Levalloisian and radial principles of primary cleavage are still represented to a small extent at sites dating back 40-50 thousand years, and various modifications of the scrapers and some other elements typical of the final stage of the Middle Paleolithic are found in the tool kit. But at the same time, the Upper Paleolithic technical and typological characteristics of the Karabomovskaya and Karakol lines of development acquire significant differences. Further study of the Early Upper Paleolithic sites will allow us to speak not about different industrial lines of development, but about two cultures.

In the Karakol industrial tradition, the techniques of serial removal of elongated blanks from prismatic, cone-shaped, wedge-shaped, and end nuclei are beginning to be widely used in primary cleavage, along with the technique of parallel reduction of Levallois and simple site nuclei. The pressing technique of removing microplates with a soft bump is widespread in the transition period and at the earliest stage of the Upper Paleolithic. In the tool kit, there are more and more, if not the overwhelming majority, tools of the Upper Paleolithic group: end scrapers on plates, various incisors, tools on plates, etc. There are also products of Aurignacian types: high-shaped scrapers of the Karenet type, decorated with microplate removals, multi-facet cutters, microplates with a blunted edge. The Karakol line of development is characterized by bilaterally processed tools, among which leaf-shaped bifaces are the most expressive. It is important to note that at the sites of this industrial tradition, especially in the Denisova Cave, bone tools and ornaments are widely distributed, which find close analogues in the materials of Aurignacian monuments of Western Europe and the Middle East: pendants made of animal teeth, bone piers with symmetrical rows of deep cuts, clam shells with artificial holes, as well as soft wood pendants. ornamental stone. A set of individual ornaments and bone tools from Denisova Cave are the most representative and ancient in the Paleolithic of North, Central and East Asia.

All researchers who have directly studied collections from Paleolithic sites

page 28
M. V. Anikovich, who supports this point of view, believes that "the sudden and very early (about 50 thousand years ago) appearance of a highly developed industry and a set of jewelry remains inexplicable here" [2010, p. 21]. Moreover, for some researchers who recognize the evolution of the Middle Paleolithic industry into the Upper Paleolithic, the appearance of a whole complex of bone tools and ornaments in the 11th layer of the Denisova Cave "looks more like a certain revolutionary leap, and not as the result of gradual development" (Anikovich, Anisyutkin, Vishnyatsky, 2007, p.288).

Doubts could be justified if we assume that all the stone ornaments and bone products from the 11th layer of the Denisova cave belong to the short-term stage-about 50 thousand years ago. But the thickness of this layer is more than 1 m, it has five layers, and the process of its formation was very long-approx. 6-8 thousand years. It is also important that bone products are preserved in caves, as a rule, much better than in open-type parking lots.

Bone tools and ornaments from the Early Upper Paleolithic sites were found in the Altai not only in the 11th layer of Denisova Cave, but also on its pre-passage site, in the Maloyalomanskaya and Ust-Kanskaya caves, in the open-type sites of Kara-Bom, Ust - Karakol, and Ush-6; in Transbaikalia, in the open-type sites of Kara-Bom, Ust-Karakol, and Ush-6. Podzvonkaya, Khotyk, Kamenka, VarvarinaGora (Derevyanko and Rybin, 2003). In the Upper Paleolithic open-type localities, such finds are not numerous, but they are available. Bone for making tools and jewelry began to be used on the territory of Southern Siberia ca. 50 thousand years ago, but it is impossible to say how massively because of the poor preservation of this material. Undoubtedly, the technology of bone processing appeared here convergently, because within a radius of several thousand kilometers there are no known Paleolithic sites dating back 50-35 thousand years AGO, where bone tools and jewelry were found.

Data on geochronology and chronostratigraphy of layered Altai complexes indicate the parallel existence of two types of industry during at least the first half of the Upper Pleistocene. We have no reason to attribute this to the coexistence of two separate groups of primitive populations. Differences in industrial traditions are most likely due to different combinations of natural and climatic, industrial and economic, raw materials and other factors that required the development of different adaptation strategies. The fact that the development of the industry took place within a single ethno-cultural space is confirmed by the following circumstance: each of the two variants of the early Upper Paleolithic period was not necessarily directly related to the Middle Paleolithic period that was closer to it in terms of territory. For example, if the stone industries of the lower cultural layers of the Ust-Karakol-1 and Anuy-3 sites belonged to the Karabomov variant of the Middle Paleolithic, then at the early stage of the Upper Paleolithic, industrial chains should have logically continued the Karabomov technical tradition, but the further development of the technological process at these multi-layered sites went along the Karakol line. Such deviations were possible only within the framework of a single cultural field [Derevyanko and Shunkov, 2004, p. 32].

In the chronological interval of 50-35 thousand years AGO, there is a general trend in the vast territory of Eurasia towards progressive modification of methods and methods of manufacturing plates and microplates and standardization of their forms. If we consider this process as a consequence of migrations only, then we will have to admit that ancient populations were in constant motion. This is particularly true of the Aurignacian problem. The appearance of Karenoid and some other forms of stone tools, similar in type to Aurignacian, in the Altai during 45-38 thousand years AGO is the result of the development of local industry, and no traces of migration from the west to the Altai or from the Altai to the west can be traced. There are many examples of convergence. Only convergence can explain the appearance of bifacially processed tools such as hand chops ca. 1 million years AGO in East, Southeast, and probably South Asia. Tools of geometric shapes (trapezoids, segments) were first recorded in South Africa in the Howison's port industry about 80-70 thousand years ago. They were also common in the final stage of the Paleolithic in the Mediterranean. Almost at the same time, trapezoid and segmented tools are known in the Korean Peninsula and southern Japan. All this is the result of convergence. It is possible that elements of the Levallois split system also appeared independently in various regions of Africa and Eurasia.

Considering the industry of the transition stage from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic and the early Upper Paleolithic in the Altai, it is necessary to note the long - term preservation of the Levallois system in the primary cleavage, and some Middle Paleolithic types of scrapers and other products in the tool kit. I am convinced that in those territories where the evolutionary transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic took place on an autochthonous basis, the long-term existence of a number of elements of the Middle Paleolithic era should be traced in the early Upper Paleolithic.-

page 29
industries. This is a natural process of inertia in the development of human culture, especially since some types of stone tools of the Middle Paleolithic were quite effective and could retain their significance for a long time, because they were well adapted to this ecological niche. A revolutionary change of the Middle Paleolithic industry to the Upper Paleolithic one is possible only if the autochthonous population is replaced by newcomers. In the process of acculturation, innovations in the primary splitting and design of tools could not immediately replace the old Middle Paleolithic techniques in stone processing. The specific features of the transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic and the early Upper Paleolithic stage in the Altai region are that, on the one hand, some Middle Paleolithic elements remain in the industry for a long time, and on the other hand, Aurignacian - type tools appear convergently. This specificity is not observed in the adjacent territories, which once again confirms the autochthonous nature of the evolutionary transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic in the Altai.

List of literature

Paleoecology of the Pleistocene and Stone Age Cultures of Northern Asia and adjacent Territories. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 1998, vol. 2, pp. 6-9.

Anikovich M. V. Adaptatsiya k prirodnymi usloviyam i sotsiokul'turnaya adaptatsiya v verkhne paleolite Vostochnoy Evropy [Adaptation to natural conditions and socio - cultural adaptation in the Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Europe]. Adaptatsiya narodov i kul'tury k izmeneniy prirodnoy sredy, sotsial'nykh i tekhnogennym transformatsiam [Adaptation of peoples and cultures to changes in the natural environment,social and technogenic transformations], Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2010, pp. 18-26.

Anikovich M. V., Anisyutkin N. K., Vishnyatsky L. B. Nodal problems of transition to the Upper Paleolithic in Eurasia. Saint Petersburg: Nestor - Istoriya Publ., 2007, 355 p. (in Russian)

Derevyanko A. P., Agadzhanyan A. K., Baryshnikov G. F., Dergacheva M. I., Dupal T. A., Malaeva E. M., Markin S. V., Molodin V. I., Nikolaev S. V., Orlova L. A., Petril V. T., Postnov A.V. Archeology, geology and paleogeography of the Pleistocene and Holocene of the Altai Mountains. A. Ulyanov, I. N. Fedeneva, I. V. Foronova, M. V. Shunkov. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 1998, 176 p.

Astakhov S. N. Paleolithic monuments of Tuva. Saint Petersburg: Nestor - Istoriya Publ., 2008, 180 p. (in Russian)

Baryshnikov G. Ya., Kungurov A. L., Markin M. M., Semibratov V. I. Paleolith Of Gornaya Shoria. Barnaul: Alt. State University, 2005, 277 p. (in Russian)

Vorob'eva G. A., Generalov A. G., Zagrafsky S. I. Paleolithic objects of the 30th millennium in the south of Central Siberia / / Paleoecology of the Pleistocene and Stone Age cultures of Northern Asia and adjacent territories. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 1998, vol. 2, pp. 46-54.

Derevyanko A. P. Perekhod ot srednego k verkhnem paleolitu na Altae [Transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in the Altai]. - 2001. - N 3 (7). - p. 70-103.

Derevyanko A. P. Migrations, convergence, acculturation in the Early Paleolithic of Eurasia // Ethnocultural Interaction in Eurasia, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 2006, book 1, pp. 25-47.

Derevyanko A. P. On the problem of Neanderthal habitat in Central Asia and Siberia. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 2007, 72 p. (in Russian) (in Russian and English).

Derevyanko A. P. Transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic and the problem of formation of Homo sapiens sapiens in East, Central and Northern Asia. Novosibirsk: IAET SB RAS Publ., 2009, 328 p. (in Russian)

Derevyanko, A. P. and Volkov, P. V., Evolution of stone splitting in the transition period from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in Gorny Altai, in Archeology, Ethnography, and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2004. - N 2 (18). - p. 21-35.

Derevyanko A. P., Volkov P. V., Petrin V. T. Origin of microplate stone splitting technique. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 2002a, 169 p. (in Russian)

Derevyanko A. P., Volkov P. V., Petrin V. T. Problema genezisa mikroplastinchatoi tekhniki v Severnoi Azii [The problem of the genesis of microplate technology in Northern Asia]. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 2002, pp. 59-60.

Derevyanko A. P., Zenin A. N. Paleolithic location of Anui-1 / / Complex studies of paleolithic objects of the Anui River basin. Novosibirsk: IFiF SB AS USSR, 1990, pp. 31-42.

Derevyanko A. P., Markin S. V. Mousse of Gorny Altai. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1992, 223 p. (in Russian)

Derevyanko, A. P. and Markin, S. V., Paleolith of the North-West of the Altai-Sayan Mountains, RA, No. 4, 1998, pp. 17-34.

Derevyanko, A. P., Petrin, V. T., Krivoshapkin, A. A., and Nikolaev, S. V., Industry of the Kara-Tenesh parking lot, Gumanitarnye nauki v Sibiri. Ser. Archeology and ethnography. -1999. - N3. - p. 3-13.

Derevyanko, A. P., Petrin, V. T., and Rybin, E. P., Character of the transition from the Mousterian to the Late Paleolithic in the Altai (based on the materials of the Kara-Bom site), in Archeology, Ethnography, and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2000. - N 2. - p. 33-52.

Derevyanko, A. P., Petrin, V. T., Rybin, E. P., and Chevalkov, L. M., Dynamics of evolutionary changes in the stone industry of the multilayer Kara-Bom site, Problemy paleoekologii, geologii i arkheologii paleolita Altay. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 1998, pp. 173-204.

Derevyanko A. P., Rybin E. P. The oldest manifestation of the symbolic activity of paleolithic man in the Altai Mountains //Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2003. - N 3 (15). - p. 27-50.

Derevyanko, A. P. and Shunkov, M. V., Industries with leaf-shaped bifaces in the Middle Paleolithic of Gorny Altai, in Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2002. - N 1 (9). - p. 16-42.

Derevyanko A. P., Shunkov M. V. Stanovlenie verkhnepaleoliticheskikh traditsii na Altae [Formation of Upper Paleolithic traditions in the Altai]. - 2004. - N 3 (19). - p. 12-40.

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

page 30
Derevyanko A. P., Shunkov M. V. Rannepaleoliticheskaya stoyanka Karama na Altae: pervye rezul'taty issledovaniy [Early Paleolithic Karama site in Altai: first results of research]. - 2005b. - N 3 (23). - p. 52-69.

Derevyanko A. P., Shunkov M. V., Agadzhanyan A. K., Baryshnikov G. F., Malaeva E. M., Ulyanov V. A., Kulik N. A., Postnov A.V., Anoikin A. A. Natural environment and man in the Paleolithic of Gorny Altai: Habitat conditions in the vicinity of Denisova Cave. Novosibirsk: IAET SB RAS Publ., 2003, 447 p. (in Russian)

Derevyanko A. P., Shunkov M. V., Bolikhovskaya N. S., Zykin V. S., Zykina V. S., Kulik N. V., Ulyanov V. A., Chirkin K. And the site of the Early Paleolithic Karama in the Altai. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 2005, 88 p. (in Russian)

Derevyanko A. P., Shunkov M. V., Volkov I. V. Paleolithic bracelet from Denisova cave / / Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2008. - N 2 (34). - p. 13-25.

Derevyanko, A. P., Shunkov, M. V., and Postnov, A.V., Paleolithic studies at the mouth of the Karakol River, in Paleoecology of the Pleistocene and Stone Age Cultures of Northern Asia and Adjacent Territories. simp. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 1998, vol. 1, pp. 162-173.

Derevyanko, A. P., Shunkov, M. V., Postnov, A.V., and Ulyanov, V. A., A new stage in studying the Paleolithic site of Ust-Karakol-1 in the north-west of Gorny Altai, Obozrenie rezul'tatov polevykh i laboratornykh issledovaniy arkheologov i antropologov Sibiri i Dalnego Vostoka v 1993 godu. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 1995, pp. 71-79.

Zenin A. N., Ulyanov V. A. Stratigraphic studies in the Strashnaya Cave / / Problems of Archeology, Ethnography, and Anthropology of Siberia and adjacent Territories. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 2007, vol. 13, pp. 105-109.

Konstantinov, M. V., Sumarokov, V. B., Filippov, A. K., and Ermolova, N. M., The Oldest Sculpture in Siberia, KSIA, 1983, No. 173, pp. 78-81.

Kungurov A. L. The fifth cultural layer of the Paleolithic settlement Ushlep-6 / / Problems of Archeology, Ethnography, and Anthropology of Siberia and adjacent Territories. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 1998, vol. 4, pp. 119-124.

Kungurov, A. L., Markin, M. M., and Semibratov, V. P., The eighth cultural layer of the Ush-lep-6 multilayered Paleolithic site, Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredel'nykh territorii. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 2003, vol. 9, part 1, pp. 159-162.

Laukhin S. A., Ronen A., Ranov V. A., Pospelova G. A., Burdukevich Ya. M., Sharonova Z. V., Volgina V. A., Kulikov O. A., Vlasov V. K., Tsatskin A. New data on the Paleolithic geochronology of the Southern Levant (Near East). Geological correlation. 2000, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 82-95.

Lbova L. V. Paleolith of the northern zone of Western Transbaikalia. Ulan-Ude: BSC SB RAS Publishing House, 2000, 240 p.

Lbova L. V. K probleme perekhoda ot srednego k verkhnem paleolitu (materialy Zapadnogo Zabaikalya) [On the problem of transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic (materials of Western Transbaikalia)]. - 2002. - N 1 (9). - p. 59-75.

Lbova L. V., Volkov P. V., Bazarov B. A., Namsaraev D. V. Geoarchaeological complexes of the Paleolithic epoch of Western Transbaikalia. Ulan-Ude: BSC SB RAS Publ., 2003, pp. 30-61.

Lbova L. V., Rezanov I. N., Kalmykov N. P., Kolomiets L. V., Dergacheva M. I., Fedeneva I. K., Vashukevich N. V., Volkov P. V., Savinova V. V., Bazarov B. A., Namsaraev D. V. Natural environment and man in the Neo-Pleistocene (Western Transbaikalia and South-Eastern Baikal region). Ulan-Ude: BSC SB RAS Publishing House, 2003, 208 p.

Medvedev G. N. Locality of the Early Paleolithic in the Southern Angara region / / Ancient history of the peoples of the South of Eastern Siberia. Irkutsk: Publishing House of Irkut State University, 1975, issue 3, pp. 5-30.

Medvedev, G. N., On geostratigraphy of ensembles of Aeolian-corroded artifacts of Baikal Siberia, Sovremennye problemy evraziyskogo paleolitovedeniya. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 2001, pp. 267-272.

Medvedev G. N., Alaev S. N., Sokolsky A. A. On the topography of Early Paleolithic localities on high terraces of the southern Angara region // Ancient history of the peoples of the South of Eastern Siberia. Irkutsk: Publishing House of the Irkutsk State University, 1978, Issue 4, pp. 5-30.

Medvedev, G. N. and Vorobyeva, G. A., On the problem of grouping geoarchaeological objects of the Baikal-Yenisei Siberia, in Paleoecology of the Pleistocene and Stone Age Cultures of Northern Asia and Adjacent Territories. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 1998, pp. 148-159.

Okladnikov A. P., Muratov V. M., Ovodov N. D., Fridenberg E. O. Strashnaya Cave - a new monument of the Paleolithic of Altai / / Materials of the zonal meeting of archaeologists and ethnographers. Novosibirsk, December 1-3. 1971: tez. dokl. i soobshch. Tomsk: Publishing House of the Tomsk State University, 1972, pp. 3-4.

Oppenheimer S. Exile from Eden: Chronicle of the Demographic Explosion, Moscow: EKSMO, 2004, 637 p.

Petrin V. T., Nikolaev S. V., Chevalkov L. M., Anufrieva R. D. Pamyatnik epokhi paleolita Kara-Tenesh (Kara-Tamysh) [Monument of the Paleolithic Era Kara-Tenesh (Kara-Tamysh)]. Obozrenie rezul'tatov polevykh i laboratornykh issledovaniy arkheologov i antropologov Sibiri i Dalnego Vostoka v 1993 godu. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 1995, pp. 86-88.

Petrin V. T., Nokhrina T. I. Complexes of stone inventory of the Biike-1 cave / / Preservation and study of the cultural heritage of the Altai Territory. Barnaul: Alt State University Publ., 2001. 12. - p. 208-211.

Petrin V. T., Nokhrina T. I., Dergacheva M. I., Nikolaev S. V. Biikinsky cave complex in the Middle Katun / / Preservation and study of the cultural heritage of Altai. Barnaul: Alt. State University Publ., 2000, issue 11, pp. 77-79.

Rybin, E. P., Behavioral strategies and mobility systems of the ancient man at the turn of the Middle and Upper Paleolithic of the Altai Mountains (Kara-Bom site), Problemy kamennogo veka Srednoi i Tsentral'noi Azii. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 2002, pp. 183-188.

Rybin, E. P. and Kolobova, K. A., Structure of stone monuments and functional features of Paleolithic monuments in Gorny Altai, in Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2004. - N 4 (20). - p. 20-34.

Tashak V. I. Paleolithic settlement of Podzvonkaya / / New Paleolithic monuments of Transbaikalia. - Chita: Publishing House of Chita State University. Pedagogical Institute, 1996, pp. 48-69.

page 31
Tashak V. I. Podzvonkaya: Paleolithic materials of the Lower Complex (Republic of Buryatia) / / Archeology and Cultural Anthropology of the Far East and Central Asia. Vladivostok: Publishing House of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2002a, pp. 25-33.

Tashak V. I. Processing of ostrich egg shells in the Upper Paleolithic of Transbaikalia // History and culture of East Asia. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 2002b. - Vol. 2. - pp. 159-164.

Tashak V. I. "Rocky" sites of the Stone Age of Western Transbaikalia-analogues of cave sites // The World of Central Asia. Ulan-Ude: BSC SB RAS Publishing House, 2002, vol. 1, pp. 57-60.

Tashak V. I. Foci of the paleolithic settlement of Podzvonkaya as a source for studying the spiritual culture of the ancient population of Transbaikalia //Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2003a. - N 3 (15). - p. 70-78.

Tashak V. I. Srednyj palaeolit stojanok doliny Alana (Zapadnoe Zabaikalie) [Middle Paleolithic sites of the Alana Valley (Western Transbaikalia)]. simp. "Ancient Cultures of Asia and America". Ulan-Ude: BSC SB RAS Publishing House, 20036, pp. 24-26.

Tashak V. I. Arkheologicheskie pamyatniki srednego paleolita Zapadnogo Zabaikal'ya [Archaeological sites of the Middle Paleolithic of Western Transbaikalia]. Irkutsk: Publishing House of Irkutsk State Technical University. un-ta, 2004, pp. 103-111.

Tashak V. I. Development of the Middle Paleolithic industries of Western Transbaikalia // Transition from the Middle to Late Paleolithic in Eurasia: Hypotheses and facts. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 2005, pp. 393-404.

Shunkov M. V. Mousterian monuments of intermountain basins of the Central Altai. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1990, 158 p. (in Russian)

Shunkov M. V., Nikolaev S. V., Krivoshapkin A. I. Pozdnepaleoliticheskaya stoyanka Tyumechin-4 v Gornom Altae [Late Paleolithic site Tyumechin-4 in Gorny Altai]. Okhrana i izuchenie kul'turnogo nasledeniya Altay: tez. nauch. - prakt konf. - Barnaul: Izd. Alt State University, 1993, part 1, pp. 73-75.

Shunkov M. V., Nikolaev S. V., Fedeneva I. N., Krivoshapkin A. I., Petrin V. T., Dergacheva M. I. Geologiya, paleogeografiya i arkheologiya palaeoliticheskogo mestorozhdeniya Tyumechin-4 [Geology, paleogeography and archeology of the Paleolithic Tyumechin-4 locality]. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 1998, pp. 259-282.

Bar-Yosef O. The Tow and Middle Paleolithic in the Mediterranean Pevant: Chronology and cultural entities // Man and Environment in the Paleolithic. - Piege: Universite de Piege, 1995. - P. 247 - 263. - (Etudes et recherches archeologiques de P'Universite de Piege; N 62).

Derevianko A.P., Markin S.V., Shun'kov M.V., Petrin V.T., Otte M., Sekiya A. Paleolithic of the Altai. - Brussels: Richard Piu Foundation, European Institute of Chinese Studies, 2001. - 311 p.

Derevianko A.P., Zenin A.N. The Mousterian to Upper Paleolithic transition through the example of the Altai cave and open air site // Suyanggae and Her Neighbours: The 2nd Intern. Symp. - Chungju, 1997. - P. 241 - 254.

Forster P. Ice Ages and the mitochondrial DNA chronology of human dispersals: a review // Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Pond. B. Biol. Sci. - 2004. - Vol. 359 (1442). - P. 255 - 264.

Goebel T., Aksenov M. Accelerator radiocarbon dating of the initial Upper Paleolithic in Southeast Siberia // Antiquity. - 1995. - Vol. 69, N 263. - P. 349 - 357.

Goren-Inbar N. The lithic assemblages of Berekhat Ram Acheulian site, Golan Heights // Paleorient. - 1985. - Vol. 11 (1). - P. 7 - 28.

Goren-Inbar N. The Acheulian site of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov: An African or Asian entity? // The Evolution and Dispersal of Modern Humans in Asia. - Tokyo: Hokusen-Sha, 1992. - P. 67 - 82.

Goren-Inbar N., Zohar I., Ben-Ami D. A new look at old cleavers, Gesher Benot Ya'aqov // J. of the Israel Prehistoric Society. - 1991. - Vol. 24. - P. 7 - 33.

Jelinek A.J. Problems in the chronology of the Middle Paleolithis and the first appearance of early modern Homo sapiens in Southwest Asia // The Evolution and Dispersal of Modern Humans in Asia. - Tokyo: Hokusensha, 1992. - P. 253 - 275.

Krause J., Orlando L., Serre D., Viola B., Priifer K., Richards M.P., Hublin J.J., Hanni C., Derevianko A.P., Paabo C. Neanderthals in Central Asia and Siberia // Nature. - 2007. - Vol. 449. - P. 902 - 904.

Mercier N., Valladas H., Valladas G. Flint thermo-luminescence dates from the CFR laboratory at GIF: contributions to the study of the chronology of the Middle Palaeolithic // Quaternary Science Reviews (Quaternary Geochronology). - 1995. - Vol. 14. - P. 351 - 364.

Mercier N., Valladas H., Valladas G., Reyss J.-L., Jelinek A., Meignen L., Joron J.-L. TP-dates of burnt flints from Jelinek's excavations at Tabun and their implications // J. of Archaeological Science. - 1995. - Vol. 22. - P. 495 - 509.

Relethford J.H., Jorde L.B. Genetic evidence for larger African population size during recent human evolution //Am. J. of Phys. Anthropology. - 1999. - Vol. 108. - P. 251 - 260.

Schwarcz H.P., Rink W.J. Progress in ESP and U-Series Chronology of the Pevantine Paleolithic // Neanderthal and Modern Humans in Western Asia. - N.Y: Plenum Press, 1998. - P. 57 - 68.

Stekelis M. The Paleolithic Deposits of Jisr Banat Yaqub // Bull, of the Research Council of Israel. - 1960. - Vol. 69. - P. 61 - 87.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 05.04.10.

page 32

Permanent link to this publication: