Carinated technology in the upper palaeolithic of west Central Asia: convergent evolution or cultural transfer
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The article presents a study on the genesis of the Upper Paleolithic carinated technology in the Kulbulakian from western Central Asia. The initial manifestations of carinated technology in Central Asia are documented in the Middle Paleolithic Obirahmatian period. The formation of the Kulbulakian on the basis of the gradual development of Middle Paleolithic local complexes has previously been proposed (Kolobova et al., 2013). The studies conducted in recent years have demonstrated that in Kulbulakian, the carinated technology has reached a developed and stable form. This has prompted a re-evaluation of the question of its origin. A comprehensive comparative analysis of crenoid technology was conducted in the Kulbulakian and Obirahmatian. Scar pattern analysis was employed in order to reconstruct the carinated technology. Pearson and Spearman correlation tests were used to evaluate the interrelationship between bladelet collections of bladelets of disparate types and carinated cores. A principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) was employed to facilitate a comparative analysis of the Kulbulakian and Obirakhmatian complexes. Analysis of carinated cores from the Middle and Upper Paleolithic in western Central Asia has shown that the Kulbulakian Upper Paleolithic carinated technology manifested itself in the region in a highly standardized form. Two principal schemes for the production of curved bladelets are distinguished by the morphology of the core blanks used. The two reconstructed schemes adhere to a common concept, whereby a striking platform on the pre-core was either created or selected, a distinctive carinated convex front was designed, and target bladelets with a curved or twisted profile were produced from this front. The need for more intensive front and striking platform treatment was dependent on the core blank in question. In consequence, long and short sequences of carinated core reduction sequence are distinguished. The carinated cores of the Obirahmatian, both in terms of chronology and stratigraphy, display considerable variability. They represent one of the methods of obtaining blanks as part of the bladelet technological sequence.
Downloads
Metrics
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Кривошапкин А. И. Оби-Рахматский вариант перехода от среднего к верхнему палеолиту в Центральной Азии : дис. ... д-ра ист. наук. Новосибирск, 2012. 256 с.
Кривошапкин А. И., Колобова К. А., Белоусова Н. Е., Исламов У. И. Ранние технологические инновации в палеолите Средней Азии: кареноидная технология в переходных индустриях Узбекистана // Вестник Новосибирского государственного университета. Серия: История, филология. 2012. Т. 11, № 3. С. 211-221.
Ожерельев Д. В., Успенская О. И., Таймагамбетов Ж. К. Начальные этапы раннего верхнего палеолита в предгорьях северного Тянь-Шаня, Казахстан (по материалам многослойной стоянки Майбулак) // Stratum Plus. 2023. № 1. С. 129-152.
Aleo A., Duches R., Falcucci A., Rots V., Peresani M. Scraping hide in the early Upper Paleolithic: Insights into the life and function of the Protoaurignacian endscrapers at Fumane Cave // Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences. 2021. Vol. 13. Iss. 8. DOI:10.1007/ s12520-021-01367-4
Bonilauri S., Chevrier B., Asgari Khaneghah A., Abolfathi M., Ejlalipour R., Sadeghinegad R., Berillon G. Garm Roud 2, Iran: bladelet production and cultural features of a key Upper Palaeolithic site south of the Caspian Sea // Comptes Rendus Palevol. 2021. № 40 (20). P. 823837. DOI:10.5852/cr-palevol2021v20a40
Dinnis R. On the technology of late Aurignacian burin and scraper production, and the importance of the Paviland lithic assemblage and the Paviland burin // Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society. 2008. Vol. 29. P. 18-35.
Falcucci A., Conard N. J., Peresani M. A critical assessment of the Protoaurignacian lithic technology at Fumane Cave and its implications for the definition of the earliest Aurignacian // PLoS ONE. 2017. Vol. 12 (12). e0189241. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone. 0189241 (in French)
Hammer 0., Harper D. A. T., Ryan P. D. Past: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis // Palaeontologia Electronica. 2001. Vol. 4. P. 1-9.
Hays M. A., Lucas G. A Technological and Functional Analysis of Carinates from Le Flageolet I, Dordogne, France // Journal of Field Archaeology. 2000. Vol. 27 (4). P. 1-11.
Kolobova K., Krivoshapkin A. I., Derevianko A. P., Islamov U. I. The Upper Paleolithic site of Dodekatym-2 in Uzbekistan // Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia. 2011. Vol. 39. Iss. 4. P. 2-21.
Kolobova K., Flas D., Derevianko A. P., Pavlenok K., Islamov U. I., Krivoshapkin A. I. The Kulbulak Bladelet Tradition in The Upper Paleolithic of Central Asia // Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia. 2013. Vol. 41. Iss. 2. P. 2-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. aeae. 2013.11.002
Kolobova K. A., Krivoshapkin A. I., Pavlenok K. K. Carinated pieces in paleolithic assemblages of Central Asia // Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia. 2014. Vol. 42. Iss. 4. P. 13-29.
Kolobova K., Krivoshapkin A., Shnaider S. Early geometric microlith technology in Central Asia // Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences. 2019. Vol. 11. P. 1407-1419. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12520-018-0613-y.
Kunitake S., Taimagambetov Z. K. Bladelet industries of the Early Upper Palaeolithic in southern Kazakhstan: A detailed analysis of carinated bladelet cores excavated from the newly discovered Buiryokbastau-Bulak-1 site in the Karatau mountains // Quaternary International. 2021. Vol. 596 (4). P. 38-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. quaint. 2021.03.016.
Le Brun-Ricalens F. Chronique d'une reconnaissance attendee. Outils “carenes”, outils “nucleiformes”: nukleus a lamelles. Bilan apres un siecle de recherches typologiques, technologies et traceologies // Productons lamellaires attribuees a lAurignacien. Luxembourg: Musee national d» histoire d'art. 2005. P. 19-75 (in French).
Movius H. L. Jr., Brooks A. S. The Analysis of Certain Major Classes of Upper Palaeolithic Tools: Aurignacian Scrapers // Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. 1971. Vol. 37. P. 253-273.
Pelegrin J., Soressi M. Le Chatelperronien et ses rapports avec le Mousterien // Les Neandertaliens. Biologie et cultures. Paris: CTHS, 2007. P. 297-309 (in French).
Pesesse D., Michel A. Burin des Vachons: a technological reconstruction approach to understanding the recent Aurignacian in Northern Aquitaine and Charente // PALEO. 2006. Vol. 18. P. 143-160.
Ranov V. A., Kolobova K., Krivoshapkin A. I. The Upper Paleolithic Assemblages of Shugnou, Tajikistan // Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia. 2012. Vol. 40. Iss. 2 P. 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. aeae. 2012.08.002.
Richter T., Garrard A. N., Allock S., Maher L. A. Interaction before Agriculture: Exchanging Material and Sharing Knowledge in the Final Pleistocene Levant // Cambridge Archaeological Journal. 2011. Vol. 21. P. 95-114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774311000060.
Skrdla P Moravia at the onset of the Upper Paleolithic // The Dolni Vgstonice Studies. 2017. Vol. 23. 159 p.
Sonneville-Bordes D., Perrot J. Lexique typologique du Paleolithique superieur. Outillage lithique: I Grattoirs-II Outils solutreens // Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Fran^aise. 1954. Vol. 51. P. 327-335 (in French).