Toward a New Outline of the Soviet Central Asian Paleolithic V

Home , Indian aurochs, Lake Issyk, Lower Paleolithic, Mousterian, Soanian, Upper Paleolithic

Bryn Mawr College Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College

Anthropology Faculty Research and Scholarship Anthropology

1979 Toward a New Outline of the Soviet Central Asian Paleolithic V. A. Ranov

Richard S. Davis Bryn Mawr College, [email protected]

Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy . Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.brynmawr.edu/anth_pubs Part of the Anthropology Commons

Citation Ranov, Vadim A. and Richard S. Davis. "Toward a New Outline of the Soviet Central Asian Paleolithic." Current Anthropology 20, no. 2 (1979): 249-270.

This paper is posted at Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College. http://repository.brynmawr.edu/anth_pubs/3

For more information, please contact [email protected]. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Vol. 20, No. 2, June 1979 ? 1979by The Wenner-GrenFoundation for Anthropological Research 0011-3204/79/2002-0004$02.25

Towarda New Outline of the Soviet CentralAsian Paleolithic'

by V. A. Ranov and R. S. Davis

SOVIET CENTRAL ASIA is a vast, extremelycontinental terri- (1953a) pioneeringeffort some 25 years ago. Movius's work tory,some 2,400,000km2 in all, consistingof the arid Turan was of great significancefor Old World prehistorians,par- depressionand a portionof the CentralAsiatic highlandsin- ticularlyfor the Middle Paleolithic. Good summarieshave cludingthe Pamir-Alai and Tien Shan ranges.It includesTurk- more recentlybeen publishedin Russian by Okladnikovand menistan,Uzbekistan, Tadzhikistan, Kirgiziya, and southern Ranov (1963), Okladnikov(1966a), and Ranov (1968). In Kazahstan; the northernportions of Afghanistanalso fall nat- the last 10-15 years,there has been an intensificationof Soviet urallyinto this area. The eastern,mountainous part has been CentralAsian Paleolithic studies. Since 1970,three monographs studiedmuch more thoroughlythan the westerndeserts. and morethan a hundredarticles have appearedin print. We wish to presenthere a brief summaryof the major The prevailingnotions in the West concerningthe Soviet resultsof the last 25 years of Paleolithicresearch in Soviet Central Asian Paleolithicseem to be that thereare no real Central Asia, with special attentionto the most important Lower Paleolithicsites (Klein 1966), that Middle Paleolithic problemsarchaeologists are facingthere. This is by no means sites reflectdiffusionary movements from southwestern Asia a comprehensivereview of the literatureor a lengthyanalysis (Chard 1974), as do Mesolithic sites, and that the Upper of data.2 Rather,it is an attemptto communicatesome of Paleolithic is barely represented(Movius 1953a). Indeed, themost significant features of the Soviet CentralAsian Paleo- similarviews have been held by some scholarsin the Soviet lithic, somethingwhich has not been done since Movius's Union. In contrast,we wish to establishthe followingmajor points: 1 This paper is the result of extendedcollaboration between the 1. Thereare unmistakableremains of Lower Paleolithiccul- authorsfrom May throughNovember 1977 in Tadzhikistan.Davis's turesin CentralAsia. Recent workat the sites of Karatau 1 visit to the Soviet Union was part of a programof exchangesbe- and Lakhuti 1 by Ranov and his geological co-workershas tween the National Academy of Science, U.S.A., and the Academv of Sciences,U.S.S.R. We wish to thank both institutionsfor mak- revealedpebble-tool and flakeindustries in situ in Middle and ing our cooperativework possible. UpperPleistocene paleosols which have been reliablydated by various means between130,000 and 200,000 B.P. 2 We are preparing a joint monograph which will include a years considerableamount of new data, a criticalreview of the literature, 2. Middle Paleolithic (Mousterian) sites are numerousin and many illustrations. Soviet CentralAsia, and theyexhibit great variability in terms of geographicallocation, stone tool typologyand technology, and preservationof features.Present are industrieswith and V. A. RANOVis Head of the Section of Archaeologyand Numis- withoutLevallois technique,pebble choppers and chopping matics, Institute of History, Tadzhik Academy of Sciences, tools, and Upper Paleolithicblade elements.Although some Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. (33 Lenin Prospekt,Du- industriesshare some featureswith the southwesternAsian shanbe 734025,U.S.S.R.). He is also Deputy Chiefof the South- Middle Paleolithic,it is not at all correctto conclude that ern Tadzhikistan ArchaeologicalExpedition. Born in 1924, he theydeveloped as the resultof simplediffusion. received the degree of Kandidat of Historical Sciences from the Tadzhik Academy of Sciences in 1963 and has been active 3. Upper Paleolithic sites are present,although in small in the archaeologyof Central Asia for 25 years. He is the au- numbers,and they are nowherefound in cave deposits.The thor of four monographsand more than 150 articles; a recent Upper Paleolithicassemblages contain many Mousterianele- work, with S. A. Nesmeyanov (in Russian), is The Paleolithic ments,and thereis no reasonto believe on the basis of stone and Stratigraphyof the Anthropogeneof Central Asia (Dus- hanbe: Donish, 1973). tool technologyand typologythat therewas a sharp or dis- R. S. DAVIS is Lecturerin the Departmentof Anthropologyat tinctbreak between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic. Bryn Mawr College (Bryn Mawr, Pa. 19010, U.S.A.). Born in 4. During the early Holocene, the Pamir uplands,4,000 m 1944, he was educated at Columbia University (B.A., 1966; and more in elevation,were inhabitedfor the firsttime by Ph.D., 1974). He has taught at the State Universityof New hunter-gathererpopulations. Also, it appears, there was an York at Cortland (1971-72), Ohio University(1972-74), and Case WesternReserve University(1974-78). His researchinter- expansionof populationsinto the arid Turan depression.The ests are the Old World Paleolithic, especially that of South- Holocene industriesmay be roughlydivided into two groups: westernand Central Asia, paleoecology,and stone tool technol- nongeometric(Epi-Paleolithic) and geometric(Mesolithic). ogy. His publicationsinclude "The Paleolithic," in The Archae- The latterhas analogieswith industries in southwesternAsia. ology of Afghanistan,edited by N. Hammond and R. Allchin (London: Academic Press, 1978). 5. CentralAsia should by no means be consideredan iso- The presentpaper was submittedin finalform 7 VII 78. lated area of Paleolithicdevelopment. It combineselements

Vol. 20 * No. 2 * June 1979 249 of the Asian chopper-chopping-tooltradition with Western to extendback in time to the late Pliocene (Dodonov and flakeand blade industries.This is truefor all periodsfrom the Pen'kov 1977, Dodonov, Melamed, and Nikiforova 1977). Lower Paleolithicthrough the Mesolithic.In general,this situ- Buried in these loess depositsis a series of paleosols.At the ation can be explainedby its geographicallocation, which is Chashmanigarlocality in southernTadzhikistan, 37 ancientsoil indeed centralto two if not threegeographic regions of Asia. horizonshave been identified.Above the Matuyama-Brunhes For the most part, researchon the Paleolithic in Soviet boundary,9-10 paleosols have been countedat fiveloess sec- CentralAsia may be characterizedas culture-historicalrecon- tions. Some geologistsjudge that soil formationtook place struction,the main goals being to locate and excavate sites in comparativelywarm, dry periods while loess was depos- fromthe full range of Paleolithictime, to order the sites ited underrelatively cool conditions(Grichuk and Lazarenko chronologically,and to comparelithic industries in an attempt 1970).3 This record of climatic oscillation,combined with to discovertraces of culturalcontact and patternsof change thermoluminescenceand paleomagneticdating, has provided of formthrough time. In part,this approach has been strongly forthe firsttime a real basis in Soviet CentralAsia forcorre- influencedby thenature of the available data. More than 90% lation with sequences in the rest of the world. As a result, of thePaleolithic sites are surfacefinds or foundin redeposited somegeologists have begunto use Alpineterminology (Wiirm, context.With one or two possible exceptions,there are no Riss, etc.), but forthe mostpart this systemof nomenclature knownliving floors in the open-airsites. Paleoclimaticrecon- has not gained generalacceptance. It is, however,difficult to structionis still in its infancy,and even the basic Quaternary overemphasizethe significanceof the recentwork in the loess, stratigraphyin manyareas is not well known.Systematic sur- and it seems certainthat it will radicallychange the picture vey forsites by randomsampling techniques is unknown,and of the Soviet Central Asian Pleistoceneas more analysis is no projects that could be describedas multistageproblem- completed. orientedresearch have been carriedout. Interdisciplinarystud- An importanttask for the futurewill be to correlatethe ies, particularlyinvolving geologists, palynologists, and archae- loess paleosols with the river-terracesystem so as to enable ologists,are increasinglyfrequent, and theircontinued develop- geologiststo tie in the Q1-Q4 systemwith the worldwidecli- mentwill be essentialfor furtheradvances in Soviet Central matic sequence. Much effortis currentlybeing expendedin Asian Paleolithicresearch. an attemptto understandthe originsof the loess that covers a vast area of southernSoviet Central Asia. In the West, loess is usuallydefined as an eolian deposit,but Soviet geol- QUATERNARY RESEARCH AND CHRONOLOGY ogistsare currentlydebating the meritsof eolian,alluvial, and colluvialtheories, with no consensusyet in sight.4 Geologicalwork in SovietCentral Asia has developedalongside The absolutedating of Soviet CentralAsian Quaternaryde- archaeologicalresearch. Soviet CentralAsia is well knownfor positsis poorlydeveloped. For the most part datinghas been its currenttectonic activity, and a large-scaleinternational relative,largely based on terrace correlation.Only one C14 efforthas made greatprogress toward understanding orogenic determinationof Pleistoceneage has been made,and it is not processeshere. In addition,a numberof Quarternarygeolo- acceptedby mostanalysts. Most recently,thermoluminescence gists have intensivelyworked on a reconstructionof Pleisto- and paleomagneticdating have been applied to the loess sec- cene events. tions with much success. The determinationshave been con- Untilrecently, Soviet geologistsin CentralAsia have almost sistentin termsof the internalstratigraphy, and on geological universallyused a fourfolddivision of the Quatemary (Q1, groundsthey seem to be reliable. The thermoluminescence Q2, Q3, and Q4) originatedand developedby Y. A. Skvortsov, methodallows the determinationof the absolute age of de- N. P. Kostenko,0. K. Chediya,and othersduring the late posits on the basis of the intensityof thermoluminescencein 1950s and early 1960s (Skvortsov1953, Kostenko 1958, Che- theirconstituent quartz grains,intensity increasing with age. diya and Vasil'ev 1960). These divisionsare based forthe most Loess depositsin Soviet CentralAsia have been dated between part on alluvial activityand river-terraceformation. Central 22,000 and 900,000 years B.P. by this method (Shelkoplyas to thisscheme is the comparisonof river-terracelevels remain- 1974,Lazarenko and Shelkoplyas1973). Paleomagneticdating ing along the sides of ancient river valleys in an attempt has been especiallyimportant for correlationof the paleosols to subdivide periods of Quaternarydeposition and erosion. in the loess. The Matuyama-Brunhesboundary (dated else- The ages of a given riverterrace and its eolian or colluvial whereat 690,000years) has been identifiedin the loess below cover are generallysupposed to be nearly the same. The the ninthor tenthpaleosol at fivesections. The Blake episode terracesare not proposedto have been caused by worldwide occurs above the fifthpaleosol and the Laschamp between climaticchanges. This schemehas had obvioussignificance for the firstand second.These eventshave been measuredin nine archaeologists,because the majorityof Middle, Upper, and loess sectionsin southernTadzhikistan (Dodonov and Pen'kov Epi-Paleolithic/Mesolithicsites are located on or in riverter- 1977). Futurework should provide the basis fora moredetailed races in alluvial,colluvial, or eolian contexts. measurementof Pleistocenegeomagnetic events in the loess. Recently,more detailed attention has been paid to the com- Up to thepresent time, paleontological studies have not been plexproblem of river-terracedevelopment, a multifacetedphe- of greatassistance for the datingof archaeologicalsites during nomenonwhich often combinestectonic, alluvial, colluvial, the Pleistocenein Soviet Central Asia. A brief characteriza- eolian,and climaticprocesses. It has become clear that a ter- tion of some paleontologicalfeatures of the Soviet Central race may contain several differentdepositional records and Asian Quaternaryfollows (see table 1): In contrastto the thereforemay be the compositeresult of depositionover a rich fauna of the Upper Pliocene (the Kuruksay complex, long periodof time.For this reasonthe Q1-Q4 schemeis now seen as severelyweakened as an instrumentfor establishing 3 One authority, the palynologist M. M. Pakhomov, has ad- relativechronology for vanced the followinginterpretation in discussion: The formation archaeologicalsites in Soviet Central of the soils in southern Soviet Central Asia should be correlated Asia. with stadial periods,because the interstadials,with their very dry The possibilityof correlatingclimatic oscillations of Soviet climates and sharp reductionin arboreal vegetation,provided the CentralAsia with otherparts of the worldhas recentlybeen basis for the formationof "warm" loesses. Pakhomov's hypothesis realized throughthe study of several thickloess deposits.A is based on comparisonwith glacial-pluvialarid zones. very thick mantle of loess blanketsa large portion of the 4 In the Soviet Union, loess is defined not genetically,but on the basis of the sedimentitself. Hence there can be, for example, Afghan-Tadzhikdepression. Some of thesedeposits range up to eolian loess, colluvial loess, and alluvial loess in the Soviet termi- 200 m in depthand are consideredby severalSoviet geologists nology.

250 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY whichis in part closely comparableto that of the Siwaliks Ranov and Davis: SOVIET CENTRAL ASIAN PALEOLITHIC in India), the Lower Pleistocene (Eopleistocene) fauna is muchmore poorly represented. In Tadzhikistan,near the vil- Upper Pleistocene,there are good faunal collectionsfrom the lage of Lakhuti,a sectionbelow the loess revealed caballine Mousteriancave sites of Aman Kutan (Lev 1956, Bibikova horse,big-horned deer, Megaloceros, remains of a large feline, 1958), Obi-Rakhmat(Suleymanov 1972), Ogzi-Kichik(Ranov, hyena,and rodents.The sectionis just below the Matuyama- Sharapov,and Nikonov 1973), and Teshik Tash (Gromova Brunhesboundary (Nikonov 1972). More ancient paleonto- 1949). They include both contemporaryforms-sheep, goat, logical finds,assigned to the Koshkurgancomplex (analogous bear, porcupine,and others-and extinctones such as woolly to the Tiraspol complexof Eastern Europe), are knownfrom rhinoceros,caballine horse, and cave lion.The UpperPaleolithic severallocalities of CentralAsia, but none have large collec- fauna, fromShugnou and Samarkand(Ranov, Nikonov,and tions.Included are the southernelephant, Etruscan rhinoceros, Pakhomov 1976, Lev 1964), includeshorse, aurochs,sheep, caballine horse, and Paracamelus (Nesmeyanov 1971). For goat, deer, camel, and marmot.In general,the fauna of the the Middle Pleistocenethere are some isolated finds,many Pleistoceneof CentralAsia bears manyresemblances to faunal not in good stratigraphicalcontext. The best, the Dzhergalan collectionsof similarages in Europe. complex,is fromthe easternend of Lake Issyk-Kul and is Pollen analysisof severalsections (from the loess and from dated to thevery end of the Middle Pleistocene(Aleshinskaya cave deposits) has shed muchlight on the changingnature of et al. 1971). Big-horneddeer, woolly rhinoceros,caballine Pleistocenevegetation and climate.In general terms,pollen horse,kulan, mammoth, and othersare represented.For the profileshave clearlydemonstrated a progressivedesiccation in

TABLE 1

DISTRIBUTION OF FAUNA IN SOVIET CENTRAL ASIAN PLIOCENE-QUATERNARY COMPLEXES

SOUTHERN CORRELATION COMPARABLE ABSOLUTE STANDARD TADZHIKISTAN WITH ALPINE EASTERN AGE CENTRAL STRATIGRAPHY STRATIGRAPHY EUROPEAN (IN MILLIONS ASIAN (DODONOV AND (DODONOV AND FAUNAL OF YEARS) STRATIGRAPHY PEN'KOV 1977) PEN'KOV 1977) FAUNAL COMPLEX COMPLEX

0.022 Dushanbe Dushanbe Wuirm Upper Paleolithic sites: Equus caballus,E. Mammoth or complex (Q3), complex (Q3) hemionisPall., Cervuselaphus, C. Upper Upper Pleistocene bactrianus,Camelus cf. knoblochi Paleolithic Nehring, Bos or Bison, Capra, Ovis, Marmotasp., Testudio(Ranov 1976) Mousterian sites: Capra sibiricaMayer, Ovis orientalisGmel., Cervuselaphus, Felis pardus,Equus caballus,E. hemionis, Coelodontaantiquitatis, Hystrix, Sus scrofa,Testudio horsfieldi, Ursus arctos L. (Ranov 1976) 0.I,aO .13b Riss/Wurm Dzhergalan: Equus caballusL., E. hemionis Pall., Cervussp., Mammuthussp., Coelodontaantiquitatis (Blum), Camelus 0. 2b Tashkent,Ilyak Ilyak complex Riss sp., Bison priscuslongicornis, Hazar complexes(Q2), (Q2) Mammuthustrogontherii (Pohl) Middle Pleistocene (Aleshinskayaet al. 1971) Vaksh complex Mindel Isolated finds,Tadzhik depression: Singil (?) (Q1) Palaeoloxodonsp., Marmotasp., Canis (Thos.) aureusfossilis (?), Bison sp., Equus sp., Bovinae (Nikonov 1972) 0. 69a Sokh (Nanay), Vaksh Kayrubak suite, Gunz Lakhuti: Equus caballus,Bovinae, Cervidae complexes(Qi), Eopleistocene (e.g. Megacerinae,e.g. Elaphinae), Felis Lower Pleistocene sp., Hyaenidae, Canidae, Microtussp., Ellobius sp. (Nikonov 1972) Donau/Gtinz Koshkurgan:Palaeoloxodon antiquxus, Tiraspol Paracamelusgigas, Equus sussenbornensis, E. caballuscf. mosbachensis,Dicerorhinus etruscus,D. kirchbergensis,Cervus elaphus (Nesmeyanov1971) 1.79-1. 95a Pliocene Kuruksaysuite, Kuruksay (Tadzhik depression):Primates Upper Pliocene (Cercopithecidae),Canidae, Ursidae, Hyaenidae (two species), Megantereoncf. megantereon,Homotherium, Archidiscodon gromovior Protelephasplanifrons, Equus e.g. stenonis,Dicerorhinus sp., Paracamelus cf. gigas,Axis, Bovinae, Sivatherium, Gazella (Procapra), G. subgutturosa,Aves, Equus cf. hidrantinus,Bison sp., Ovis ammonfossilis, Cervus bactrianus fossilis, C. cf. elaphus,Felidae (Nikonov 1972) Koktyurlyuk (Fergana Valley): Anancus arvernensis,Archidiscodon meridionalis, Elasmotheriumsp. (caucasicum?),Equus stenonis(Nesmeyanov 1971) a Paleomagnetic. b Thermoluminescence.

Vol. 20 * No. 2 June 1979 251 Central Asia throughoutthe Pleistocene,a process perhaps sibilityof post-mainWiurm Upper-Paleolithic-type industries, inducedby massivetectonic uplift, which has servedto block and theydo not specifyany strictsuccession of technological moist-aircirculation patterns from the south. For example, stages.In general,however, on the basis of the chronological duringthe Lower and the firsthalf of the Middle Pleistocene, data available it appears that Epi-Paleolithicassemblages for most of the mountainousand piedmontportions of Soviet the mostpart precededMesolithic ones. CentralAsia appear to have been forested(Nikonov and Pa- These definitions,of course,do not solve all terminological khomov1976). issues in CentralAsia, and theywill, no doubt,not be accepted In table 2 a generalscheme of Paleolithicand Quaternary by all. They are, however,clear and simple enoughand for events in Soviet Central Asia is presented.The table com- the most part can be applied unambiguouslyto the available pares the standardSoviet CentralAsian stratigraphicscheme data. Also, theymaintain some continuitywith past usage. (Q1-Q4), based primarilyon gross river-terracecorrelation, In bold outline,the schemewe use for the Soviet Central with a newerversion that incorporatesmore detailed river- Asian Paleolithicis as follows:Epi-Paleolithic and Mesolithic, terraceanalysis, the paleosols in the loess, and new age de- Holocene and Final Wiurm;Upper Paleolithic,second half of terminations. Wiurm;Middle Paleolithic,first half of Wiurmand (?)second half of Riss/Wiurm;Lower Paleolithic,first half of Riss/ Wiurmand second half of Riss. This outline is in general PERIODIZATION agreementwith the basic sequence in southwesternAsia and in Europe and shouldcontain no surprises.In termsof abso- In the Soviet Union the traditionaldivision of the Paleolithic lute dates,the Lower Paleolithicand Mesolithicindustries are is in two parts: Early (Drevnii) and Late (Pozdnii). The relativelysecure, but the chronologyof the Middle and Upper formerincludes the Lower and Middle Paleolithicof the stan- Paleolithicindustries is based on river-terracecorrelations and dard European division and the latter refersto the Upper artifacttypology alone. Up to this time thereare no sites in Paleolithic. (Some Soviet archaeologistsuse the three-stage Soviet CentralAsia in whichthe Lower Paleolithicis overlain Europeanscheme, but it has not yet come intogeneral usage.) by any later materialor the Middle Paleolithicis overlainby The divisionsare based primarilyon changesin tool typology Upper Paleolithicor Mesolithic (with the possible exception and technology,which in the past have been interpretedto of Obi-RakhmatCave). There are some multicomponentsites, signifyfundamental changes in economicand social life. Cur- but theseare only fromthe Upper Paleolithicand Mesolithic. rently,however, most Soviet archaeologistssee no such "stair- The locationsof the major sites are shownin figure1. step" leaps in culturalevolution during the Paleolithic.It has been traditionalin Soviet CentralAsia to use the term"Meso- lithic"for the periodfollowing the Upper Paleolithicand pre- LOWER PALEOLITHIC cedingthe Neolithic,a period regardedas coterminouswith the Holocene. Some authors,however, use the term "Epi- In 1953, A. P. Okladnikovfound a massivepebble tool with Paleolithic,"not as a substitutefor Mesolithic, but in addition a singleedge retouchedin a sectionof alluvial gravel about to it (Okladnikov 1966b, Rogachev 1966). In southwestern 25 m below the surface(Okladnikov 1966a). The sectionwas Asia and in North Africa,earlier investigatorsused Meso- located on the On-ArchaRiver in the Tien Shan Mountains lithic,but currentlymost use Epi-Paleolithic(Tixier 1963, near the town of Narin. This was the firstpebble tool as- Bar-Yosef 1970, Marks 1975) to designateassemblages with signed to the Lower Paleolithicin CentralAsia, and it was a microbladecomponent following the main Wurm. In the immediatelyinterpreted by Okladnikovas beingrepresentative Zagros the Zarzian is generallylabeled late Upper Paleolithic of the pebble-culturetradition of India and SoutheastAsia. (Hole and Flannery 1967) and the followingepoch Proto- During the subsequent 20 years, nine other surface sites Neolithicor Pre-PotteryNeolithic (Solecki 1963). Some ar- (yieldinga total of 14 tools) were foundin various regions chaeologists,for example, Robert Braidwood,have tendednot of CentralAsia and were interpretedto be Lower Paleolithic to use the traditionaldivisions of the Stone Age and have by severalinvestigators. Since none of thesefinds were in situ, instead used labels descriptiveof subsistencepattern. In Af- theycannot be regardedas bonafide. ghanistan,Davis (1978) has used Epi-Paleolithicto describe Betweenthe Vaksh and KafirniganRivers in southernTad- all assemblageswith microblade technique following the main zhikistan,in rivergravels lying 150 m above the presentlevel Wiirm and precedingthe nonceramic,food-producing Neo- of the stream,some pebble flakesand two choppingtools were lithic,while Ranov (1963) has consistentlyused Mesolithic found.The site was called Kukhi-Piyezafter a nearbymoun- for post-Wiirm,pre-Neolithic assemblages. How are we to tain. Geologistsinterpret the gravel deposit as belongingto resolvethis terminologicalconflict? the Mindel/Rissinterglacial (Ranov 1969). For Soviet Central Asia we propose the followingdefini- A real breakthroughwas made in 1972, when A. A. Laza- tions, which are based on technologyand subsistence:The renkodiscovered some stonetools in the sixthburied soil hori- Epi-Paleolithicand Mesolithic,like the Upper Paleolithic, zon in a massive loess deposit on the Yavanskii-Karatau are based on hunting,gathering, collecting. and/or fishing and mountainridge between Dushanbe and Nurek. This was the lack domesticatedplants or animals with the possible excep- firsttime that a collectionof Lower Paleolithictools had been tion of the dog. (It mustbe noted that in Soviet archaeology foundin situ in CentralAsia in a reliable context.(Indeed, the beginningof the Neolithicdoes not always signifythe be- forall of Asia in situLower Paleolithicsites are rare.) During ginningof food production.For example,Islamov [1975] as- the last fiveyears, seven Lower Paleolithiclocalities have been signshis cave site of Machay in southernUzbekistan to the found in the loess, and two of them have been excavated Mesolithic,although in the upper layer bones of domestic (Karatau 1 and Lakhuti 1). At Karatau 1 the Lower Paleo- sheep outnumberall other faunal remains.Also, across the lithicfinds came fromthe sixthpaleosol fromthe surface,at northernpart of the Soviet Union,especially in Siberia,"Neo- a depth of 64m (Lazarenko and Ranov 1977). (The total lithic" culturesare based on fishingand hunting.)Epi-Paleo- averagethickness of theloess at Karatau 1 is 110 m.) Thermo- lithicassemblages are post-mainWiurm with microblades (in- luminescencedating of the loess immediatelyabove and below cludingretouched microblades, truncated microblades, and!or the artifact-bearingsoil horizonhas produceddates of 194,000 backed microblades)but withoutgeometric microliths. Meso- ? 32,000 and 210,000? 36,000 years respectively.The paleolithicassemblages are post-Wuirm,pre-Neolithic cultures with sol varies between1.2 and 2.7 m in thicknessand lies witha geometricmicroliths. These definitionsdo not excludethe pos- slightdip to the south.A carbonatecrust was foundjust above

252 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 0 -,4 14 14

0 0 0

PA P-44 U .,. 0 4

z 0

0 biD b-0

00 0

0 0 0

0 t- >

P4 P4 P4 >11 1-4

z P4 P4 w

PA I;DAiO-j z Lddfl ;Dlpp!w 0

z cn oo -00 t- ocn

C) ON CN CN u

> C14 0 0 4 u cn 4) pq PA (n U cn 0 ;I 4) 0 z

cn A Z C) 4) (n 4 0 0 ce 0 0 c pq O

1-4 PA >1 4) 1-4 U')

04 0 gn4. biD -4 .,O 4) . 0= -4 4) -O PA z 10 bO > cn PO 0 0 0 cd > 0 5-4 C: C) u 0 0 -O C) u O ce 0 0 0W > cn biO 1.4 +J cn- z cn > 1.4 0 0 0 Ce 0 biD PQ 0 0 biD U I::$ L. 4-) 0 IM4 cd E 0

0PH EnEn' cn z z cn ce . 4 En H bID b.0 En v o Z X 0 W > W Z U ce cd ce cd Z -4 -0 E C) PA C) 0 0 -O v u 0 0> ICj cn -W -14 ce ce 0 0 1.2 1-4 >. 0 z rn OWU 0 z 0 cn >4 PH 0 z N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Nr

< S e * < ; ," '' d""\ ' N > p xf

4 X e E \ ~~~' 0 o 'A1

5~~~~~~~~~~~~

JO eas )ueds

' Cc CD11

\ , ~~~~~~~~ E. A'

* 5 = . r z lI

- a a l the C horizon,and above it the soil is a heavy russet color Ranovand Davis: SOVIET CENTRAL ASIAN PALEOLITHIC (B horizon).The paleosolis 1,100m above thepresent channel of the Vaksh and 1,700 m above sea level. shouldby no means be ruled out as an inhabitedarea during The archaeologicalmaterial at Karatau 1 was foundonly the Lower Pleistocene.Recently, several geologistshave con- in the lowerhalf of the paleosol. In all, about 200 pieces of cluded that therehas been a dramaticuplift in CentralAsia metamorphicriver pebbles and cobbles were recoveredin the duringthe Pleistocene-approximately4 km of vertical dis- excavation.There were no concentrationsof tools, and the placement(Gubin 1960, Chediya 1972). It is thoughtthat the pieces were foundin densitiesof no morethan three per hori- major portionof thisuplift occurred during the Middle Pleis- zontal square meter.From a detailedexamination of the ver- tocene. If this conclusionis correct,the Lower Pleistocene tical and horizontalorientations of all the artifacts,it was landscape would have been vastly differentfrom today's. It concludedthat they were redepositedsometime during the certainlywould have been more closelyconnected with South processof soil formationby a slow downslopemovement. No Asia, and mountainbarriers between Central and South Asia fauna was foundassociated with the artifacts,nor was any maynot have been greatenough to preventmovement of early hearthmaterial found. hominids.Relatively few Lower Pleistocenedeposits have been Basically, the findsat Karatau 1 can be describedas a located and surveyedfor culturalor fossilremains. The loess pebble culture,although the vast majorityof specimensare depositsprobably present the best opportunityfor discovery flakes.The main types of artifactare choppersand crude of Lower Pleistocenematerials. scrapersmade on pebble flakes with a high percentageof In culture-historicalterms, it is evidentthat no clear traces cortex.Most of the pieces are broken,and relativelyfew show of the Acheulean techno-complexhave been found in the signsof secondaryretouch. There does not appear to be any mountainousparts of Soviet CentralAsia. Bifacial tools have well-developedcore-preparation technique for the production been foundin centralKazakhstan and on the MangyshlakPen- of flakesand blades. Pebbles were fracturedby the Zitronor insula,but these surfacefinds may be Middle Paleolithicor quartierd'orange technique, a procedurewhich does not re- later (Medoyev 1970). It is certainlytoo early to conclude quirethe preparation of a strikingplatform. Slightly over 70% that the Lower Paleolithicpebble industriesof Soviet Cen- of the flakeshave pebble-cortexstriking platforms. The prod- tral Asia have any directconnection with the chopper-chop- ucts of thistechnique do indeed resembleorange sections and ping-tooltradition of South and SoutheastAsia, but in terms retain considerablecortex on their surfaces. No complete of gross typologicaland technologicalsimilarity the Soviet handaxeswere found, but thereare a fewbifacially retouched CentralAsian Lower Paleolithicappears to be closer to East fragments.5Also presentin small quantitiesare bifacial-re- Asia than to the West. It is importantto consideralso that touch flakes,the productsof bifacial manufacture.Further the generalabundance of metamorphicriver pebbles and cob- characteristicswhich distinguishthe Karatau 1 industryare bles and the comparativerarity of nodularand tabular flint thatthe majority of flakesshow signs of roughtrimming blows in Soviet CentralAsia may have played a significantrole in on theirdorsal faces and that a weakly expressedLevallois thespread and developmentof the Soviet CentralAsian pebble (or proto-Levallois)technique is discernibleon two or three industries.In fact,pebble tools in the formof choppersand flakes. choppingtools persistdown to the Gissar Neolithic. From a more recentpaleosol, the fifthfrom the top, dated It is not easy to visualize easy connectingroutes from by thermoluminescencebetween 130,000 and 150,000 years, Soviet CentralAsia to South Asia in the late Middle Pleisto- anotherpebble industrywas foundat the site of Lakhuti 1, cene exceptperhaps via easternIran. It is worthmentioning nearly250 km to the east. The site is located 12 km fromthe thatin northeasternand southeasternIran evidenceof pebble- village of Khovaling on the rightbank of the Obi-Mazar tool industriesdating from at least the Riss has recentlybeen River. The artifacthorizon lies 60-65 m above the present reported(Hume 1976, Ariai and Thibaultn.d.). Unfortunate- riverchannel and is coveredby 63 m of loess. One full season ly, both of thesediscoveries were made on the surface,which of excavationat Lakhuti 1 in 1976 uncoveredan area of makes a precise determinationof theirage difficult.To date 216 M2. The artifactshere were in greaterconcentration than thereis littleevidence of bifacialtechnique of Acheuleantra- at Karatau 1. Of the 452 pieces discovered,approximately ditioneast of the Euphrates.The significanceof thesetechno- halfhad signsof intentionalknapping. Because of thisgreater complexdistributions (chopper-chopping tool and corebiface) concentrationand the presence of some small quantitiesof is difficultto assess, and it has been the subject of a not very as yet unidentifiedanimal bone, it seems possible that the enlighteningdebate forthe last 100 years. No simpleecologi- originaldeposition of the culturalmaterials has not been much cal, biological,or culturalexplanation seems appropriate.The disturbed.It is importantto point out, however,that the presenceor absence of bifacialtechniques does not in any case artifactswere not foundin a single,thin horizontal layer, but strictlyfollow clear geographicalboundaries, as a large num- ratherwere distributedthroughout approximately a meter's ber of recentpublications have shown.More and more it ap- depthof the lowerhalf of the paleosol,as if in suspension. pears that thereis considerableinternal regional variation in Alongwith the predominantpebble techniqueat Lakhuti 1 many areas of the Old World in the frequencyof bifacial thereis a flake-coretechnique more developed than that at technique.That the presenceor absence of bifacialhandaxes Karatau 1. Simplesingle- and multiplatformpebble cores for does not necessarilysignify major differencesin traditionhas the productionof flakesare present.There are also traces of been well demonstratedby Isaac (1972). In short,we will not Levallois techniquefor flakes and blades. Several well-formed be surprisedto find concretetraces of bifacial industriesin choppers,some nosed,are present.A higherpercentage of re- Soviet CentralAsia in the futureand believe that the Lower touchedtools was foundat Lakhuti 1 thanat Karatau 1, with Paleolithichere will prove to have several technologicalvari- a predominanceof notchedand denticulatedtools. In general, ants. the appearanceof the Lakhuti 1 industryis more developed The evidenceof Levallois techniquein the Soviet Central thanthat of Karatau 1. Asian Lower Paleolithicis anotherindustrial feature which To date, investigationof the loess sectionsof Tadzhikistan may elicitdiscussion about culturalorigins and diffusion.It is has producedfinds only in the fifthand sixthpaleosols (Do- possiblethat the pebble and discoidalflaking technique which donov and Ranov 1977). It is hoped that futurework will also appears in the Soviet Central Asian Lower Paleolithic developedinto the Levallois technique.Well-developed Leval- lois techniquefor the productionof flakes,blades, and points 6 These may be also interpretedas fragmentsof discoidal cores. is presentat several Soviet CentralAsian Middle Paleolithic

Vol. 20 No.N 2 * June 1979 255 sites,and it is certainlypossible to thinkof it as developing Mousterianpopulation without strong internal segmentation. on a relativelylocal basis ratherthan as diffusedfrom some- Briefly,the main distinguishing features of the CentralAsian wherein the West. Mousterianvariants are as follows (for a full treatmentof this topic see Ranov 1968 and 1971): In the Levallois variant,single- and multiple-striking-plat- MIDDLE PALEOLITHIC formcores are widespread,well-formed blades withtriangular and subrectangularform are common,and completelyshaped The Mousterianis thebest studiedand themost widely known formaltool typesare veryfew; instead,simple edge-retouched portionof the Paleolithicsequence of Soviet Central Asia. pieces predominate. A. P. Okladnikov'sdiscovery of five culturallayers with a The Levallois-Mousterianfacies is similarin manyrespects childburial in Teshik Tash Cave in the late 1930s was widely to the Levallois, but platformand discoidal cores are found publicizedand analyzedin the West and is mentionedin prac- in approximatelyequal proportions.The blade indexand index ticallyevery basic textbookon Old Worldprehistory (Movius of facetingare approximatelyequal to those of the Levallois 1953b, Bordes 1955). Since that discovery,many more sites variant. Flake and blade blanks are predominantlyLeval- have been located and excavated,and a complexand varied loisian,but the numberof atypicaltypes is also large. Blades pictureof the Mousterianhas emerged.In a tallymade as of withmarginal retouch are the most commontool type. 1966, 78 Mousteriansites were recorded.Of these, 13 were The Typical (Mountain) Mousteriandiffers in the more in Turkmenistan,34 in Uzbekistan,20 in Tadzhikistan,and widespreadpresence of completelyformed formal tools of 11 in Kirgiziya.In all, therewere 5 cave sites and 13 large several distincttypes, many of which resemblethose found surfacecollections; the rest were small findspots with small in the tool kits of the classical Mousteriansites of Western collections(Ranov 1971). During the last ten years,the num- Europe. These includemany forms of scrapersand, to a lesser ber of sites has increased,but not greatly. extent,points and Mousterianpoints. Inasmuchas practicallyall of the knownMousterian sites Finally,the Mousterianof Soan traditionis a pebble-tool are dated to the firsthalf of the Wurm,there seems to be industrywith a highfrequency of choppersand choppingtools. a considerablehiatus-on the orderof 60,000 years-between Levallois techniqueis infrequent;well-made Mousterian points the Lower Paleolithicof Lakhuti 1 and the firstMousterian and scrapersare present,as well as a numberof simpleedge- sites in Central Asia. In general,Ranov considersthat the retouchedtools. Mousterianshould be characterizedas "developed"or "late," Possibly Kul'bulak could be consideredrepresentative of a an observationwhich applies to mostof the Middle Paleolithic fifthvariety whichwould be called denticulateMousterian. It in southwesternAsia and elsewhere.The explanationfor this is, however,the only site of this kind known from Central apparenthiatus may lie in the relativelysmall amount of Asia. surveyfor Lower Paleolithicsites that has takenplace. Also, The faunalremains associated with Mousterianvariants at a muchearlier beginning of the Wiurmwith a relativelyshort cave sites (table 1) do not permitplacing the sites in relative Riss/Wiurminterglacial may make the hiatus more apparent chronologicalorder. than real. It is, of course,difficult to explainthe originsof thesevari- Ranov (1968) has divided the known Middle Paleolithic ants. There is a significantdegree of regionalpatterning (see into fourtechnological variants or facies on the basis of arti- fig.2). The Mousterianof Soan traditionis isolatedalong the facttypology and technology:Levallois (Khodzhakent,Dzhar- Vaksh River in southernTadzhikistan, the Mountain Mous- Kutan, Obi-Rakhmat),Levallois-Mousterian (Kayrak-Kum, terianis locatedwithin the foldsand faultsof the Gissarrange Tossor,Fergana Valley sites),Typical (Mountain) Mousterian and its spurs,and the Levallois and Levallois-Mousterianare (Teshik Tash, Ogzi-Kichik),and Mousterianof Soan tradition concentratedin the Fergana Valley and the plains and foot- (Kara Bura, Ak Dzhar). It should be emphasizedthat we hills of the Tien Shan rangenear Tashkent.No cave or open- do not considerthese technologicalvariants representative of air site has been discoveredwith two or morevariants present. separate culturalgroups. As yet, thereare too few sites and This makesit difficultto see any evolutionarychanges through too little detailed examinationby uniformmethods to allow time or to discernif the variantsare roughlycontemporary. such a distinctionto be drawn. In fact, there is reason to As has been pointedout, virtuallyall of the Mousterianof believe,as Binford(1972) has suggested,that culturalgroups CentralAsia is considereddeveloped or late, and in general of the type knownfrom the Upper Paleolithicdid not exist mostinvestigators consider the variantsessentially contempo- duringthe Middle Paleolithic.This is also a lively topic of rary. debate in Soviet archaeologicalcircles. In the early 1950s In additionto the clearlyexpressed Mousterian traits, many Efimenkodescribed the Neanderthalsocial orderas consisting of the Middle Paleolithicsites also exhibitUpper Paleolithic of thehorde, without the familyor the tribe(Efimenko 1953). types (blades, burins,end scrapers,and piercers).This is es- As workcontinued in Europe and EuropeanRussia and many pecially true of Ogzi-Kichik,Semiganch, and Obi-Rakhmat. new Mousteriansites were discoveredand excavated,it ap- At the latter site, Suleymanov(1972) has made a detailed peared that Mousteriantechnology and settlementswere far quantitativeanalysis of the largest collectionof Mousterian morecomplex than had previouslybeen suspected.Particularly artifactsin Soviet CentralAsia (more than30,000 pieces) and influentialon Soviet scholarsin this regardwas the work of has concludedthat it is an ultra-finalMousterian, transitional F. Bordes in France. It was noted that most of the techno- to the UpperPaleolithic. This conclusionis generallyaccepted. logical characteristicsof the Upper Paleolithicwere already In thiscontext, we wouldlike to raise thepossibility that the presentin the developed Mousterian (Lyubin 1965). Later Mousterianof Soviet Central Asia may have persistedlater Grigor'evadvanced the term"pre-tribe" to describethe social thanin southwesternAsia or in Europe. This idea has already organizationof Mousteriantimes. According to this concept, been expressedby Grigor'evand Ranov (1973), but it is diffi- familyorganization existed as well as a larger,weakly ex- cult to verify.No Middle Paleolithicsites have been dated pressedsuperfamilial organization. This superfamilialorgani- by C14 with the singleexception of the upper layer at Ogzi- zation, however,was isomorphicwith particulartool-making Kichik (LE-1050, 15,700 B.P., Libby half-life),and this de- traditions(Grigor'ev 1968). Still later, some investigators terminationwas made on charcoaldust, which may have ad- beganto identifytrue cultures for the late Mousterian(Suley- verselyaffected the result. The generalpaucity of UpperPaleo- manov 1972,Lyubin 1977). Counteringthis trendis the posi- lithic sites and theirgenerally developed appearance may be tion of Formozov(1977), who arguesfor a single~,widespread interpretedto mean that they are relativelylate-younger 256 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY than 25,000 to 20,000 years. In any case, the transitionto Ranov and Davis: SOVIET CENTRAL ASIAN PALEOLITHIC the Upper Paleolithic is not yet calibratedaccurately and thereforeremains an open question. Shugnou,at an elevationof 2,000m, is one of the highest Upper Paleolithicsites in the Old World. Five culturallayers averaging20-40 cm thick were clearly visible in the 12-m- UPPER PALEOLITHIC thickloess-loam deposit of the 50-mterrace above theYakhsu. The uppermostlayer is consideredEpi-Paleolithic and the The Upper Paleolithic,a blade and end scraperindustry that lowerfour Upper Paleolithic. Each of thelayers has a different developedin the second half of the Wiirm,is representedby varietyof assemblage.Ranov excavated the site in 1968-70 excavations at only two stratifiedsites: Shugnou, in the and opened up 500m2 of deposits.The Epi-Paleolithiclayer Yakhsu River valley of Tadzhikistan(Ranov, Nikonov,and (Horizon 0) has microbladecores and microbladesand also Pakhomov 1976), and Samarkand,located within the city a largeseries of largecores and flakessimilar to the Markansu limitsof Samarkand,Uzbekistan (Lev 1964). Both are open- cultureof the Pamirs. Horizon 1 has a numberof longitudi- air sites and have several distinctoccupation horizons. There nally curvedmicroblades, tongue-shaped end scrapers,and a are approximately30 other surface localities scatteredover largenumber of carinatednucleoform scrapers of the typealso much of Soviet CentralAsia at whichsmall collectionshave foundat Samarkand.A singleradiocarbon determination (GIN- 590, + B.P.) been made and the tools ratherconditionally assigned to the 10,700 500 has been made. In Horizon 2 were UpperPaleolithic. The onlyother Upper Paleolithicsite in this founda large numberof large prismatic blades struckfrom cores by the crested-blade A generalregion is Kara Kamar in northernAfghanistan, dis- technique. highfrequency of Mousteriantypes such as large scrapersand covered by Coon in 1954 (Coon 1957, Davis 1978); these blades was also found. Also presentare many points with findshave been C14-datedto greaterthan 32,000 years. bluntededge retouchand end scraperson wide blades. Ranov In general,there was no great technologicalleap forward estimatesthis horizon to be on the orderof 25,000 years old, to the Upper Paleolithic.Many Mousterianelements remain: but Davis sees no basis for a greaterantiquity than 15,000- points,denticulates, side scrapers,and Levallois technique.It 20,000 years. The fauna includedhorse, aurochs, sheep, goat, is onlyat thevery end of the Upper Paleolithicthat prismatic and marmot(table 1). It is somewhatsurprising to findhorse blade techniqueappears, at Kodzha-Gorand ShugnouHori- at thisaltitude and in thismountainous landscape; usuallyit is zon 2. Also includedat the Samarkandsite are choppersand assumedto be a steppeform. It appears,however, that horses choppingtools. grazedalong the upland rivervalleys and plateaus duringthe

66 69 72 75 78

44 + 8 Alma Ata 0

{3TashkentO 'A

MiddlePaleolithic Variants Levalloi s A Levallois-Mousterian ; Mousterian Mousterianof Soan Tradition Cities 0 Landover 1000 meters

0 100 200

14 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~km

36-

I ...... X ...... $ ------A -u ------....A ---- 66 69 72 75 78

FIG. 2. Distributionof Middle Paleolithicvariants in Soviet CentralAsia. Levallois, 1, Obi-Rakhmat,2, Khodzhakent,3, Dzhar-Kutan; Levallois- Mousterian,4, Kayrak-Kum,5, Fergana Valley sites,6, Tossor; Typical (Mountain) Mousterian,7, Teshik Tash, 8, Semiganch,9, Ogzi-Kichik, 10, Kuturbulak,13, GeorgievskiyBugor, 14, Darra-i-Kur;Mousterian of Soan tradition,11, Kara Bura, 12, Ak Dzhar.

Vol. 20 * No. 2 * June1979 257 summerand that huntersintercepted them along theirmigra- faunaland floralcommunities. For the moment,however, hard toryroutes. supportingevidence for this hypothesis is not available. Ranov Horizons3 and 4 were stronglydisturbed by watererosion, does not considerclimatic change to have been a significant and the small size of the collectionof tools makes it difficult causal factor.Instead, he believes that many late Wiirmde- to characterizeas a whole. Levallois points and blades give positshave been eitherburied or erodedand that futurework a more Mousteriancharacter to these horizons,but, on the will demonstratecontinuity of occupation throughoutthe whole,Ranov considersthat they do not fall outsidethe limits Wiurm. of Upper Paleolithictechnology. Shugnouis one of the fewlocalities at whichpollen analysis has been carried out. Prior to the occupation of the site, EPI-PALEOLITHIC AND MESOLITHIC grasses predominated,but approximately25% of the pollen was arboreal.Juniper was predominant,with small quantities The environmentalchanges which followedthe main Wiurm of plantain,ash, and nut. Followingthis episode, loess was glaciationare poorlyknown in SovietCentral Asia. The extent, depositedon the 50-mterrace, and thepollen in thelower loess tempo,and degreeof oscillationof climaticamelioration can indicatesan increasein arborealvegetation; up to 50% of the only be approximated,and the chronologyof events is not pollen consistsof birch,alder, poplar,and willow.The paly- substantiallybased. The generalpicture at Shugnouseems to nologistM. M. Pakhomovconsiders conditions to have been be a reductionof forestcover and desiccationduring the early moisterand cooler than today's, probably correspondingto Holocene. In southernTurkmenistan, Lisitsyna (1970:56) re- a warminterval in the late Wiurm.The pollen fromHorizon 0 ports,the osteologicalremains found "do not exceedthe limits indicatesconditions similar to the contemporaryhot, dry cli- of animallife of thearid climateof the Caspian.This allowsus mate. to supposethat the climateof 10,000to 7,000 B.C. in thisarea The Samarkandsite is located in the centerof Samarkand differedlittle from that of the present."At the Mesolithicsite in the KomsomolLake. Three occupationlayers found in slope of Tutkaul,the palynologist Pakhomov has interpretedthe pol- (colluvial) depositshave been correlatedwith Upper Pleisto- len sectionto reflecta locallyarid climate in theearly Holocene cene terracesof the ZeravshanRiver. In all, over 7,000 arti- whichchanged to a semiaridclimate by the middleHolocene facts were recovered.All three layers are consideredto be (Pakhomov,Ranov, and Nikonov 1974). Climaticoscillations fromthe same period of time,and no significantdifferences of the type knownfrom northern Europe at the close of the betweenthe artifactassemblages have been found.The stone Pleistocenehave not yet been recognized.A few have argued tool industrycombines a numberof elements.Of Mousterian thattectonic uplift during the Holocene has been a significant type are flakesand blades, points and notchedtools, a high influenceon local climates.For example,Ranov and Sidorov percentageof core tools,and a large numberof choppersand (1974) have postulatedthat the eastern Pamirs have risen500- choppingtools. Upper Paleolithictypes includebladelets and 600 m duringthe Holocene and caused the earlyHolocene tree microblades,end scrapers,a largeseries of carinatedscrapers, cover to disappearover wide areas. This hypothesis,however, grattoirsa museau,and notchedtools. has been met by criticism(Agakhanyants 1965). The faunaincludes, in additionto camel,aurochs, and deer The Mesolithicand Epi-Paleolithicsignificantly differ from (table 1), humanskeletal fragments-portions of two jaws and the precedingPaleolithic in the distributionof humanpopula- two teeth-foundin 1962 and 1966. These have been carefully tions.For the firsttime, it seems,both veryhigh-altitude and examinedby Sovietphysical anthropologists and determinedto lowland regionswere occupied. Two sites, Osh Khona and be of completelymodern type (Ginzburg and Gokhman1974). Istik,have been excavatedin the easternPamirs at elevations In culture-historicalterms, the Samarkandsite is unique for exceeding4,000 m, and surveysconducted by Ranov have lo- Soviet Central Asia, and several investigatorshave claimed cated close to 50 surfacesites of Mesolithictypology. Because thatit has manysimilarities with sites much farther north and of the severityof winterin the Pamirs,it seems almost cer- east, in Siberia and in Mongolia (Lev 1964). There has been tain that this region was only seasonally occupied. In the much discussionabout the age of the site. Lev originallyas- westernTuran depression near the eastern shore of the Caspian signedit to the very beginningof the Upper Paleolithic,but Sea, a numberof well-knownMesolithic sites have been dis- morerecently several archaeologists and geologistshave inde- covered (e.g., Dam Dam Cheshme 1 and 2 and Dzhebel). pendentlyformed the opinionthat it is muchlater, somewhere They are located on the KrasnovodskPeninsula and in the between 20,000 and 15,000 years (Ranov and Nesmeyanov Bol'shoy Balkhan Mountainsadjacent to the ancientUzboy 1973). River bed. At the latterlocation, freshwater fish remains, the On the basis of the small amountof Upper Paleolithicma- firstknown archaeological fish bones in Central Asia, were terial,it is prematureto draw any firmculture-historical con- discovered.This may indicatea new typeof subsistenceecon- clusions.Ranov has concludedthat thereis no evidencethat omywhich has parallelsin otherparts of theOld Worldduring the UpperPaleolithic sites reflect any significantdiffusion from the earlyHolocene. outsideof CentralAsia and can be understoodas continuations Geographically,Mesolithic sites have been foundin concen- of the Mousterian.There is some reason to believe thatthere trationin threeregions: westernTurkmenistan, the Fergana are local variationsand parallel traditionswithin the Central basin, and southernTadzhikistan. This distributionis largely Asian UpperPaleolithic, but theirduration and fulldimensions a functionof the patternof archaeologicalsurvey and exca- are not well understood. vationand probablydoes not reflectthe actual distributionof The scarcityof Upper Paleolithicsites relativeto the Mid- Mesolithicand Epi-Paleolithicpopulations. dle Paleolithicand the Mesolithicin Soviet Central Asia is Typologically,the Mesolithicand Epi-Paleolithicof Central difficultto explain. No sites have been foundin caves, and Asia can be divided into the followinggroups: the small numberof stratifiedsites is puzzlingconsidering the 1. Mesolithicof westernTurkmenistan. This groupis char- amount of archaeologicalwork that has been done. Davis acterizedby a wide varietyof geometricmicroliths, e.g., tra- (1978) and others(Solecki 1963, Copeland 1975) have noted pezes, lunates,rectangles, and backed points.Flint is the pre- that in generalduring the main Wiirmthere is a markedde- dominantmaterial. The assemblagesfrom Dzhebel Cave, Dam cline or total absenceof Upper Paleolithicsites in manyareas Dam Cheshme 1 and 2, and the open-airsites of western of southwestemnand centralAsia. The apparentdepopulation Turkmenistanbear a strongresemblance to the Caspian Meso- may be perhapsexplained simply in termsof climaticchange, lithicof northernIran, specificallythe caves of Belt and Hotu whichresulted in a profoundalteration of the distributionof (Coon 1957). Many investigatorshave postulateda direct

258 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY migrationfrom northern Iran (or an even earlier migration Ranov and Davis: SOVIET CENTRAL ASTAN PALEOLITHIC fromthe Zagrosduring Zarzian times) along the easternshore of the Caspian all the way to the southernUrals (Matyushin the cave site of Tashkumirin the FerganaValley have similar 1976). The chronologicalscheme adopted for these sites corre- assemblages. sponds directlyto that knownfrom northern Iran (Markov 3. Epi-Paleolithicof the mountainouspart of CentralAsia. 1966,Korobkova 1976). Okladnikov (1966b) has referredto this as the Mountain 2. Mesolithicof southernTadzhikistan. Here also thereis Mesolithic.It is characterizedby the complete absence of a widespreadappearance of geometricmicroliths which have geometricmicroliths and the extremerarity of backed ele- counterpartsin southwesternAsia, the closest being the re- ments.There is a wide rangeof typologicaland technological centfinds of Vinogradovalong the left bank of theAmu Darya variationin the Epi-Paleolithic.In the Pamirs, in the Mar- in northernAfghanistan (A. V. Vinogradov,personal commu- kansu culture,well knownfrom Osh Khona and fromseveral nication,1977). Some of the southernTadzhikistan Mesolithic surfacecollections, pebble tools predominateover flintflake sites, for example,Tutkaul Layer 2a and Darai-Shur,have and blade tools,the latterhaving strong resemblances to Altai a pebble-toolcomponent in their assemblages. In general, and southernSiberian cultures (Ranov 1972). The site of Obi- backed blades or microbladesare rare. shir in the Fergana Valley is characterizedby a technique On the basis of the presentevidence in southernTadzhiki- forpreparing thin blades along withend scrapersand pebble stan along the Vaksh River, it is possible to postulatethree choppers(Islamov 1972). chronologicalstages of the Mesolithic.The firstis exemplified Table 3 gives some indicationof the presenceor absence of by Tutkaul Layer 3, where togetherwith carinatedscrapers varioustool classes and technologicalfeatures at a numberof and circularscrapers are foundgeometric rectangles of Natu- CentralAsian Mesolithicand Epi-Paleolithicsites. fiantype. The second stage is knownfrom Tutkaul Layer 2a, For the Mesolithicand Epi-Paleolithicthere is a small series whichhas a large numberof geometriclunates and various of C14 dates. For Osh Khona in the Pamirs,there are three kinds of backed points on small bladelets with convex and determinations(7,095 ? 120, 7,380? 150, and 9,530? 130 straightbacked edges. These geometricimplements are found B.P.), forAk Tangi one (8,785 ? 130 B.P.), and for the cave togetherwith large blades, platformcores large flakes,and of Machay one (7,550 ? 110 B.P.). The NeolithicLayer 2 of choppers,the latterin low percentage.The thirdstage is rep- Tutkaulhas a determinationof 8,020 + 170 B.P., and thislayer resentedby A. Yusopov's recentexcavation of the shelterof directlyoverlies the MesolithicLayer 2a. On the basis of the Darai-Shur, where geometricforms (triangles,lunates, and Layer 2 C14 determinationand comparativetypology, Ranov backed points) are combinedwith choppers,chopping tools, has dated Layer 2a to 7000-8000 B.c. Layer 3 at Tutkaul is pebble cores,knives on primaryflakes, and large scrapers.At foundin alluvial sand at an elevationof 37 m above the pres- Darai-Shurthe pebble-and-flakecomponent predominates over ent level of the Vaksh River, and geologistshave dated this the geometric.Possibly this thirdstage is not confinedto the depositto the earlyHolocene, possibly 10,000-11,000 B.C. Afghan-Tadzhikdepression, as Istik in the easternPamirs and The culture-historicalpicture of the Central Asian Meso-

TABLE 3

EPI-PALEOLITHIC AND MESOLITHIC SITES IN SOVIET CENTRAL ASIA: MAJOR TOOL CLASSES

NOTCHED OR MICRO- GEO- END DEN- PIECES CORE PEBBLE BLADE MICRO- METRIC BACKED SCRAP- TICU- ES- SCRAP- REGION AND SITE TOOLS CORES BLADES TOOLS POINTSa BLADES ERS LATES QUILLEES ERS BURINS WesternTurkmenistan Dzhebel . .X X X X X X Dam Dam Cheshme 1 X X X X X Dam Dam Cheshme2 X X X X X X X X X (X) SouthernTadzhikistan Tutkaul 2a ...... X X XX X (X) X X Tutkaul3 x...... X X X Obi Kiik x x x x (X) Chil' Chor Chashma...... X X (X) X Bishkentskaya...... XX (X) Markoni-Mor...... X x x x x X Shugnou0 ...... X X X Shugnou I ...... (X) (X) X X X X Shugnou2 ...... (X) (X) X (X) X X (X) Sayed3 ...... xx X Darai-Shur...... X X X X X X X (X) X Fergana Valley-Tashkent Tashkumir X X X ObishirI ...... X X X X X X X Obishir5 ...... x x x x x X X Kushlish X X X Ak Tangi XX X EasternPamirs OshKhona ...... (X) x x x X Istik...... X X X X X NorthernAfghanistan Aq Kupruk2 ...... X X X X X x Darra-i-Kalon ...... X X X X X X Amu Darya sites ...... X X XX X X X X X

NOTE: X, present;XX, abundant;(X), rare a Includingbacked points Vol. 20 * 2 No. * June1979 259 lithic and Epi-Paleolithicis as yet far from clear. For the system,but as a well-basedand informedadvance in real moment,we offerthe followinggeneral summation: The Epi- knowledge.Second, the understandingof the dynamics of Paleolithicdeveloped locally out of thepreceding Upper Paleo- river-terraceformation in Central Asia has grown consider- lithic,and severallocal variantswere formed,including some ably. Nesmeyanov(1977) summarizesmuch informationon witha predominanceof pebble tools. This local development the terracesin the mountainousregion of Central Asia and was complicatedby thearrival of populationsfrom the Iranian offersa reliablerelative chronology of archaeologicalsites lo- plateau witha geometric-microlithand backed-bladetradition. cated on and in the terraces.Particularly important has been In the arid, previouslyuninhabited desert regionsalong the the detailedexamination of the variouslyaged structuralcom- Amu Darya and Turan depression,where thereis an abun- ponentsof river terraces (alluvial, colluvial,and eolian de- dance of flint,the geometricmicrolithic tradition fully pre- posits). dominated,but in theloessic foothillsof the Gissarrange there The Aman Kutan Mousteriansite was once consideredthe appeareda combinationof geometricelements and locallyper- oldestindication of humanactivity in CentralAsia. It is now sistingEpi-Paleolithic ones. dated to the firsthalf of the Wiirm,and sites morethan three timesits age, extendingback into the Riss, are known.This fact certainlywidens the knownrange for Lower Paleolithic CONCLUSION populations,and it may be expectedthat they penetrated even farthernorth. The purposeof thispaper has been to acquaint readersin the Concerningthe long-standingquestion of the existencein West withthe wealth of materialfrom the Paleolithicof Soviet Asia of two major Lower Paleolithictool-making traditions, CentralAsia. Many of the ideas and some of the materials chopper-choppingtool and core biface, the presentevidence presentedhere have not been previouslypublished and are the fromCentral Asia offerssome new information.The pebble- resultof the joint workof the authors.We hope thatwe have tool industriesfrom the loess localitiesof southernTadzhiki- been able to communicatethe significantfeatures of the So- stan could be characterizedas part of the chopper-chopping- viet CentralAsian Paleolithicand have createda framework tool tradition,but there are also some traces of bifacial whichwill be useful for otherprehistorians working in Asia. workmanship.Superficial resemblances between this material Soviet Central Asia, in comparisonwith many regionsof and the Soan industriesof Pakistan have been noted, but southwesternAsia (e.g., Afghanistan,Iraq, Iran, northeastern no detailedcomparative work has been undertaken.The geo- China, northeasternIndia, and Turkey), has been relatively graphicalisolation of Soviet Central Asia from South and well workedin the fieldsof Paleolithicarchaeology, geomor- SoutheastAsia makes it difficultto trace a directhistorical phology,geology, and paleoenvironmentalstudies, although it connectionexcept perhapsvia easternIran and Baluchistan. mustbe obvious to the readerthat manybasic problemslack Reliable informationfrom Afghanistan is lackingin this re- clear resolution.Perhaps the most intensivework has been gard,and the workso far in easternIran is not sufficientto carriedout in southernTadzhikistan, where the longestand demonstrateany connection.For the moment,we can only most varied Paleolithic-to-Neolithicsequence has been recon- suggestthat the pebble-toolindustries of CentralAsia devel- structedin the contextof extremelyvaried environments from oped independentlyof those of South Asia, an example of thehigh Pamirs to thearid lowlandriver valleys leading to the parallelevolution. The handaxeindustries of centralKazakh- Amu Darya. stan,if theyare trulyLower Paleolithic,are an isolatedexam- The materialsfrom Soviet Central Asia do not fit neatly ple of bifacial techniquefar removed from sites in south- intoprehistoric outlines known from southwestern Asia, South westernAsia and the Caucasus. It would seem,therefore, that Asia, Siberia,and Mongolia.The regionshares many techno- a clear dividingline between ancient technologicalcultural logicaltraditions with all theseothers but mustbe regardedas traditionscannot be drawnthrough Central Asia, if indeed it havingits own character.Although we have used an essentially can be drawnanywhere. West Asian/Europeanterminology to describethe Soviet Cen- Pebble tool technologypersists from the Lower Paleolithic tral Asian materials,we do not wish to leave the impression throughthe Neolithicin CentralAsia. Unfortunately,our out- that the Paleolithicrecord here is just a distortedreflection line of CentralAsia prehistorycan give no satisfactoryexpla- of the West. In fact,on the basis of what is knownat the nationof the means of thispersistence. We cannotdetermine presenttime, we considerCentral Asia to be a relativelyau- whethera pebble-tooltradition existed side by side withthe tonomoussphere in whichpebble-tool, Levallois, and micro- core, flake,and blade varietiesof the Soviet Central Asian blade traditionsdeveloped many characteristicsof theirown Middle Paleolithicor whetherpebble tools were simplyvari- throughtime and perhapsaffected technological traditions in ants of the core,flake, and blade tradition.It is also puzzling surroundingareas. Okladnikov(1962) has alreadyraised this thatthe geometricMesolithic industry from Tutkaul Layer 2a idea in termsof the spreadof the Levallois techniqueinto the is followedby a relativelyarchaic-looking pebble-tool industry desertsof Mongolia. in Layer 2, the Gissar Neolithic.Although there are several Geologically,two new developmentshave had real signifi- Mesolithicindustries with pebble tools, it is difficultto trace cance forPaleolithic archaeology in Soviet CentralAsia. First, a smoothtechnological transition into the Gissar Neolithic.In the long-prevailingnotion of the impossibilityof correlating contrast,the lithicsof the DzheitunNeolithic in the northern the basic eventsof the Quaternaryhere withthose of Europe foothillsof the Kopet Dagh do exhibita technologicalcon- and the rest of the world has been successfullychallenged. tinuityfrom the Mesolithicof the Bol'shoyBalkhan Mountains The traditionalpoint of view has been that eventsin Europe of the easternCaspian (Islamov 1975). have been essentiallycontrolled by climaticoscillations and The past 25 years have demonstratedwithout a doubt that that in Soviet CentralAsia theyhave been the resultof tec- the Mousterianindustries are much more varied than first tonicactivity; hence the difficultyof synchronization(Skvort- appeared.Much more fieldworkand analysisis needed before sov 1953, Nesmeyanov1971). The analysisof the deep loess theircomplete distribution and characterwill be known.An- sectionsin southernTadzhikistan by a wide varietyof meth- otherincomplete portion of our outlineis the Upper Paleo- ods has now provideda firmbasis for worldwidecorrelation. lithic.From all appearances,the two knownstratified sites are Dodonov and Pen'kov (1977) providean excellentsummary late ratherthan earlyUpper Paleolithic.This raises the ques- of this work. The recent adoption of the European Alpine tion of wherethe early Upper Paleolithicis in Soviet Central glacial terminologyby some geologistshere should therefore Asia. There are at least three (nonexclusive)possible expla- be interpretednot as a casual attemptto impose a foreign nations: (1) that thereare no early Upper Paleolithicsites

260 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY >1 CL 4) C:) > C) 0 C) 0 CL)x C14 Le) CV) co CV) 0

cn tn i-;

co < co co 0 Ne co CL: co C. Ne 0 cm Ne co ed co LLJ Co W C7 co co co C3 C) U) tn LLJ 0 C3 C) C) C) M C) 1.0tn cd LLJ (D 1-d' Lo CI4 14-4 41 +1 0 +1 +I +1 C) Lo (D C) CD C) LO CD CD 40) r- CIO CD CD C - CD C) tn0 0 CD cm 0 tn cn cn A 7

C',co tn

0 co co Co>co C)

E E C- O W 0 CD coi

tn cn C.J

tn J

2 co cn < 0 0 0 W C, a, 0 co ? U) co Cj E E co +j 0 0 0 C/) C/) b-0 tn

cm ------L) M CD -0 LL- C',0 C', CD- 0

C3 coC,) W C', _0 " = +j -m CD Fm R FoV CL, co cn tn Cd-4 0 T 0 1:1. FEq Ff']R] 0 = ce cn

CL)

co co LA- CL) 7:5 06 E 0 CD 0 0 Lu 0 0 C,) CL) C,) CL) co co co tn L-Li -i -i 0 co CL, C,) co CL) CL) U) W - 0 C, 0 0 0 0 -0 C,) 0 -0 C, CL) = W C/) -a a) cm CL) 0 co CL) a) Cl- 4.3 a- co CI4 LO CD CD CD L) m C) CV) r- CV) CD CD CI4 C=) Z3 co CL)x Al (at least between25,000 and 15,000 B.C.) because of the cli- me to examinethe collectionsand to visitkey Paleolithicsites matic deteriorationof the main Wiurm;(2) that the Mous- in Tadzhikistan during the fall of 1977. The stratigraphic terianpersisted longer in CentralAsia than in the West and situationsare clear,and the potentialfor revealing additional that a culturalsequence analogous to thatof the West simply datable collectionsand even undisturbedremains is high. does not existthere; and (3) that the earlyUpper Paleolithic The methodof dating loess by thermoluminescenceis un- materialis presentbut has not yet been found.Davis favors knownto me. I should like to see a fullerdescription of the the firstexplanation and Ranov the third.The thirdlevel at methodand the means by whichit was calibrated.The range Kara Kamar in northernAfghanistan is the onlyknown early of dates ascribedby the methodis 22,000-900,000years. What Upper Paleolithicsite (greater than 32,000 years) in close is thefull potential range? What is thebasis forascribing to the proximityto Soviet Central Asia, althoughisolated surface soils the equivalent paleomagnetic"events"? The basis for findsof some similarmaterials have been foundin southern generatingthe sequence is difficultto understand:are "soils" Tadzhikistan.The extentof the climaticdeterioration of the labeled as eventson the basis of loess dates above and below, main Wiurmand' its effecton the distributionof faunal and or have thesesoils been independentlydated (and, if so, how), floralcommunities is not well known,and it is, therefore,diffi- the loess dates being in perfectconformity? (I have been in- cult to confirmthe first explanation at thepresent time (Davis formedrecently by mycolleague R. Powersthat P. P. Okladni- n.d.). kov reportsUlalinka in the Altai to have been dated by The Mesolithicand Epi-Paleolithicassemblages present sev- associationwith the Olduvai event circa 1,900,000years ago. eral challengingproblems. We considerthat the microlithic I presumethat the basis forthis and the CentralAsian correla- Epi-Paleolithicindustries in CentralAsia are local in originbut tionsare relatedsomehow.) thatthe geometricMesolithic cultures have a genesisin south- Ranov and Davis make the key point that thelocal Central westernAsia. Chronologically,on the basis of C14 dates from Asian Lower Paleolithichas a distinctivecharacter. Further- northernAfghanistan and Tadzhikistan,the Epi-Paleolithicis more,the probabilitythat Levallois techniquesare developed earlierthan the Mesolithic,although it is not at all clear that indigenouslyhas importantimplications. This and thepresence we are dealingwith evolutionary stages. Several attempts have of several Middle Paleolithic manifestationsreferred to as been made to classifylocal variantsof the Mesolithicand Epi- Mousterianvariants highlight the failureof our earlierdiffu- Paleolithic,but few detailed comparativestudies have been sionarymodels to explainlocal Asian developmentseffectively. published. Recently, for example, the 35,000-year-oldremains at In conclusion,we would like to make the followingpoints: Ezhantsy on the Aldan indicatea local evolutionof the Le- 1. There is no cause to changethe long-standingidea that valloistechnique associated with people hunting the "mammoth Soviet CentralAsia is located at the junctionof threegreat fauna." They had developed an assemblage of generalized Paleolithic regions: southwesternAsia, South Asia, and Si- bifaces,without projectiles, wedge-shaped cores made on bi- beria-Mongolia.Only in southwesternAsia does the Paleolithic faces for microbladeproduction, and "archaic" burins. The and Epi-Paleolithicsequence correspondclosely to that of antiquityand contentsof this Siberian Paleolithic manifestation Europe; theother two regions have theirown unique sequences. are highlysuggestive in termsof the antecedentsfor some 2. In CentralAsia, thereare severalsites whichmay be de- earlyNew Worldmigrants. Again, our diffusionarymodels and scribedin termsof southwesternAsian-European terminology tendency to extend European technologicaldevelopmental withoutexaggeration or misrepresentation.In general,these sequences fail to portrayaccurately the events; a model of sites are not greatlydifferent from sites knownin the West. local continuityis more appropriate.The latter does not Anothergroup of sites,however, does not fall into traditional excludediffusion or extraregionalcontacts. Westerndescriptive categories, but representsa long develop- A monographon the Karatau 1, Lakhuti, and otherearly mentof the pebble-tooltechnique characteristic of the Paleo- remainsfrom Soviet CentralAsia is eagerlyawaited. The joint lithicof easternAsia. effortsof Ranov and Davis in this study and theirplanned 3. It is possible to considerthat the Soviet CentralAsian joint fieldworkin Tadzhikistanwill continueto keep us well pebble-tooltradition developed and changedin appearancebe- informedabout thisimportant area. cause of the influenceof Westerntraditions emanating peri- odically from southwesternAsia. Certainly many Middle, Upper, and Mesolithicsites combinepebble tool technology byMIKLOs GABORI withflake and blade technique.Although it is naive to speak HungarianAcademy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary. 10 xii 78 of "blendingof traditions"and "influences,"it is evidentthat Ez a munka minden idok eddigi legkitiino'bbosszefoglalasa throughoutthe CentralAsian Paleolithicvarious combinations Szovjet-K6zepazsia paleolitikumarol.Vilagos, rendkiviilat- of thesetechnologies were manifest.The mechanismsthat cre- gondolt, az uj eredmenyekkelteljes, komplex kepet ad a ated such circumstancesremain to be explained(fig. 3). kutatas helyzeter8l,fuiggo' problemairol es tovabbi iranyairol. 4. In CentralAsia the appearanceof geometricmicroliths Ennel jobb szintezisa k6vetkezo'evtizedekben nem fog sziiletni may be provisionallyaccounted for by diffusion.The diffusion err81a hatalmasteruletrol. Reszletesebb, bo'vebb talan igen- of Levallois techniqueis less evident,and it may well have obsszegez8bbazonban nem. Aki a teruiletnagysagat, tagoltsagat, had an independentorigin in CentralAsia. sajatos viszonyaitvagy az ittfolyo kutatas gyakorlati nehezse- geit es a problemakbonyolultsagat ismeri, az 6tszaz szoban csak dicserhetnea tanulmanyt-de elsosorbanazt az oriasi munkat,amely egy ilyenr6vid szintezis mogott all. Comments A tanulmanyegeszevel, alapjaiban egyetertek.Ha alabbiak- ban megismegjegyzest fuzok hozza, csupanazert teszem,mert byJEAN S. AIGNER haromszordolgoztam hosszabb ideig Szovjet-K6zepazsiaban, Departmentof Anthropology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, es az itt k6z6ltleleteken kiviil-eppen Ranov szivessegebol-a Alaska 99701, U.S.A. 30 xi 78 lelohelyeknagy reszet a helyszinen,asatason is lathattam. Ranov and Davis provide us with an extremelytimely and Megjegyzeseimtavirati stilusban a k6vetkezok: usefulsummary of materialsand several alternativeinterpre- Karatau I sztratigrafiaihelyzete nem egeszen egyertelmui. tive frameworksfor the Paleolithic of Soviet Central Asia. Kronol6giailag nem volt biztos a legjobb losz-geologusok The remainsfrom Karatau 1 and Lakhutiare amongthe most szamara sem, akik az 1977. evi szovjet INQUA-szipoziumon significantreported in the last decade. Ranov kindlyallowed lattak (I. K. Ivanova, J.Fink es masok). A lelohelyenketsegte-

262 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY lenul athalmozodasvan. Az ipar also paleolitikusjellegii, de a Ranovand Davis: SOVIET CENTRAL ASIAN PALEOLITHIC biztosabbdatalast megfiiggoben tartanam. LakhutiI ennelbiztosan fiatalabb. Fel kell figyelniazonban fennmaradnak,eppugy, mint pl Sziberiaban. Ezzel kapcso- arra,hogy itt a fosszilistalajzonak helyenkent6sszefutnak. A latban kerdesesmarad szamomraSzamarkand ipara. Az ott chopperek,chopping-toolok mellett hatarozott koizepso-paleolit talalhato ((chopperek))talan nem is tovabbelesek,hanem tipusok,igy levallois hegyek vannak. Lehetseges ez egyRiss-nel minthavalamilyen mas, uj szerszamfajtakvolnanak. Mintha regibbido'szakban? (Ranov visszakerdezheti:es Vertesz6ll8- egykesobbi kor szerszamainak az elo'futarailennenek. Szerintem s6n,ahol az also-paleolitikumbanmousterien tipusok vannak? Ranov datalasa k6zelithetimeg a valosagot, de talan egy A kiadas alatt levo' monografiaszerint ugyanis a k6zepso- kulonleges((epipaleolitikumra)) is gondolhatunk.Ogzi-Kicsik paleolit tipusok aranya lenyegesenmagasabb, mint az also- lelohely fejlett mousterienjepedig, az utobbi evek egyik paleolit tipuscsoporte,es az ipar technologiaiparameterek legnagyobbfeltarasa, meg t6bb szot erdemeltvolna. tekintetebenegeszen k6zel all Tatahoz, melyeta K6zep-europai A felso'-paleolitikumelneptelenedesenek oka valoban bizony- kronologiaszerint a Wtirm1-re datalunk (Mrs. V. Dobosi talan. Nem kellazonban okvetlenUil kontinuitast produkalnunk eredmenye). ahhoz,hogy egy teriilet valoban kozponti jelento'segive valjon. A thermoluminiszcenciases a paleomagnesesvizsgalatok Europa sok reszen,sokkal siiruibbtelepuiles mellett sincs teljes eredmenyeima meg nem eleg biztosak. A thorium-uranium kulturalisfolyamatossag. m6dszersem: ugyanazona lelo'helyenori'si id8elter'seketad. Az epipaleolitikum-mezolitikumszamos erdekeskerdest vet Az also- es kozeps8-paleolitikumk6zott-lenyeges idobeli fel. Kulonosen ertekesa C-14 datumokegyiittes k6zlese. (A hiatus ellenere-nem erezhetotore"s. Meg kevesbbea koze'pso- ((Gissar))kultura orosz kiejtese helyett, Angol szovegben, helye- es felso'-paleolitikumkozott. Jol mutatjak ezt Obi Rakhmat sebb lett volna a nemzetkozileghasznalt elnevezest hasznalni.) felso'szintjei, Kulbulak valoban specialis ipara-es a tanul- Reszletkerdesekhelyett nehany altalanos eszrevetel: manybannem emlitett Kuturbulak ipara. Ezekben igenmagas A paleolitikumimmar hagyomanyossa valt szovjetfelosztasa a volgyelt,sot t6bbszor6senv6lgyelt eszkozok aranya, ami a helyetthelyesebb lenne atterniaz europai,harom fokozatra. felso-paleolitikumfele mutat. Nem itt keresendo'az egyelo6re Azt hiszem,ezt sem elvi,elmeleti, sem mas okok nem akadaly- hianyzokorai felso-paleolitikum? oznak, hanem csupan sz6hasznalat, megszokas. Ugyanugy A paleoklimatol'giai-paleontologiaimegfigyelesek hiany- hatraltatjaaz egymaskozti megertest,mint a geologiaiQl-Q4 ossaganak, helyesebbenbizonytalansaganak ket okara gon- rendszerhasznalata. A ket szerzo'azonban lathatoantorekszik, dolhatunk:(1) ez a teriilettavol esik a periglacialis6vezettol, tartalmilaghasznalja is a harmasbeosztast. Fenti szempontbol ezert a stadialisokes interszakaszokalig mutatkoznak;(2) a is lenyegesnek,szinte donto'nekvelem a tanulmanyket felis- terszinmagassagi,6kologiai elteresek, egymas kozvetlen k6zelebe mereset:(1) Azt,hogy ezekre az iparokraaz eur6painevezektan eso helyekkoz6tt is, rendkiviilnagyok, ami a faunatmindig csak lazan, vagy egyaltalannem alkalmazhato (ezek szerint ((kiegyenlitheti)).Talan ezertnem ad a faunameg barlangokban tehatmegis vannak regionalis-lokaliskulturacsoportok!). (2) A sem biztos kronologiat?Nagyon egyszeriisitve:egy hidegjelzo K6z'p-Azsiai geokronologiaibeosztas szinkronizalhato,be- ragcsalonem okvetlenuil hidegjelzo egy alacsony fekvesii helyen helyettesithetoa K6zep-Europai, un alpi glaciologiai tago- sem, merta baglyokaz egeszenk6zeli, 3.000 m-es regiobolis lassal. Mindketteny lenyeges elorelepes a szovjetkutatasban -, lehozhattak.Vagy forditva:Kozep-Europaban egy ((Hystrix- bar az elo'zmenyeimar tapa sztalhatokvoltak. horizontot))ismeruink, amely a R/W vegenekmeleg periodusa, A munkal6nyeget 6sszegezo 6t pont es a konkluzio'onmaga- ez a nlunk biztoskorjelzo faj ma is ott el Kze'p-Azsiaban. ban is mutatja,hogy a paleolitikumkutatfasban milyen mertekui A fauna sokkal homogenebb,es ((maibb)) karakterti,mint vaItozasokt6rtentek Szovjet-Kozepazsiaban. Szeretnem emel- Europaban. (Egyebkent,annak ellenere,hogy Ranov es Davis lett fe]hivinia figyelmetcsupan arra, hogy hany lelohelyet faciologiai tagolas'at elfogadjuk, a K6zep-Azsiai iparok is ismertiink25 evvel ezelott,es h"anyatismerunk ma! Ehhez az homog6nebbek,mint Europaban.) arfanyhoznem kell kommentiar.Ezt eredmenyeziaz, ha egy A nevezektanbanfeltiinik, hogy a k6zepso'-paleolitikumideje teriiletnekalland6, saj"at specialistiaja van, es nemcsak alkalmi, a R/W m'asodikfele-W elso fele. Ezek szerintmegis ilyen kikiild6ttexpedicio, esetleg egyetlen kutato dolgozik ott. Kulon sok'aig elt tovabb a k6zepso`-paIeoIitikum,mint ahogy arra kiemelendo,hogy ezen a nagy es nehez f6ldrajzitertileten 25 gondoltunk?Szinte az osszes lelohelyeta W elso' felerelehet evig a szo szoros ertelmebenkemeny pionir-munka folyt. Ma datalni-a franciabeosztas szerint.Ez az ((AltwUrm))-korai is. Meg szebb eredmenytehat, hogy a terepmunkamellett ezt wurmiido'szak Gross ertelmeben. a kutatfasttudom"anyosan is az itt lathato,nemzetk6zi szintre Az, hogy a k6zepso'-paleolitikumbanmeg nem leteznek hoztiak. kulturcsoportok:szerintem teljesen tarthatatlan.Teruiletileg, [This workseems the best and most comprehensivesummary kronologiailag,faciologiailag hatfarozottan elkuilonitheto' csopor- everwritten on theSoviet Central Asian Palaeolithic. This clear, tok vannak.Tarthatalan az is, hogya neandervolgyiek(helye- well-consideredstudy gives a complexview of thestate, current sen a Palaeoanthropusok,akiknek donto tobbsegeaz ember- problems,and furtherdirections of research,including the tanilag specializaltformahoz tartozik es ma mar hatart sem latest results.No bettersynthesis on thisvast territorycan be vonnak koztuk es a Homo sapiensfossilis kozott) hord'akban expected in the coming decades; we may see more detailed eltek. Minden arra mutat, hogy az ember, aki az anthro- ones, but none more comprehensive.Those who are aware of pologiailag kifinomodottfajtahoz tartozott,akinek a szer- the extentand the naturalcircumstances of this territoryand szamkeszleterendkiviil kifinomodott, aki gyakranmar ero'sen thedifficulties of fieldresearch here can onlypraise, not criticize, specializaltvadaszatot folytatett: legalabbis torzs elotti, ha nem in effortbehind such a short meg fejletebbformaciokban elt. A kulturcsoportokpedig eleg 500 words-praise the enormous elesen korulhatarolhat6k:tulajdonkeppen kiil6nfele ethniku- synthesis. mokat fednek,mar a k6zepso-paleolitikumban.Csak ezzel On the whole,I can agree withthe main ideas of thisstudy. magyarazhato,hogy ugyanazona lel6helyen,gyors egym-asu- If I feelobliged to make some comments,it is because I have tanban, lenyegtelenkorkul6nbseggel es azonos miliobenkui- had considerablepersonal experiencewith the topic. I have l6nf6leiparok-csoportok valtogatj'ak egym-ast. A K6zep-Azsiai spent threerelatively long periods doing fieldworkin Soviet koze6pso-paleolitikumszinten kul6nb6zo csoportokat tartalmaz, Central Asia. Besides the findspublished here, I have seen es teruletimegoszlas is van. A mousterientovabbelese toibb, mostof thesites, many of themduring their excavation through mint val6szinui.Az is tovatbbeleseuropai fogalmak szerint, ha the courtesyof Ranov. My telegraphesecomments are the (csak))25-20.000 eves lelohelyrolvan sz6. following: A kozepso-paleolittipusok Kozep-Azsiaban valoban sokaig The stratigraphicposition and chronologyof Karatau 1 are

Vol. 20 * No. 2 * June1979 263 not quite unambiguousfor me or forthe loess-geologistswho timehere, as in Siberia.In connectionwith this, the assemblage visitedthe sitein thecourse of the 1977 INQUA Symposiumin of Samarkandseems problematic. The "choppers"found there the U.S.S.R. (e.g., I. K. Ivanova, J. Fink, and others).The may representnot a survival,but a new tool typeheralding a layersare disturbedby redeposition.The characterof the finds later era. The dating given by Ranov may approach reality, is Lower Palaeolithic,but I would leave more exact dating but herewe may also thinkof a special "Epi-Palaeolithic."The open. developed Mousterianof Ogzi-Kichikcould have been given Lakhuti 1 is definitelyyounger. In any case, we must here even more space, this site being one of the most extensive take into account the occasional convergenceof paleosols. excavationsof recentyears. Besides choppers-choppingtools, thereare Middle Paleolithic The cause of the depopulationin the Upper Palaeolithicis types,e.g., Levallois points. Their presence is at leastsurprising. reallyuncertain, but we need not demonstratecontinuity to (On theother hand, Ranov can ask about theMousterian types verifythe centralrole of a territory.In manyparts of Europe, in the Lower Palaeolithicof Verteszollos;V. Dobosi reports moredensely populated, complete continuity is lacking. Middle Palaeolithictypes more frequentthan Lower and the Several interestingproblems emerge with regard to the technologicalparameters close to thoseof Tata, dated WiirmI.) Epi-Palaeolithicand Mesolithic.The C'4 dates publishedhere The results of thermoluminescenceand palaeomagnetic are especiallyvaluable. (By the way, in an English text it datingare stillnot absolutelyreliable. Using thorium-uranium would be moreappropriate to adopt the spelling"Hissar" for dating,we have had to recognizethat samplesfrom the same thiswell-known culture instead of the Russian spelling.) site showhuge differencesin age. Beyond these mattersof detail, I would add some general In spiteof the important time gap betweenthe Lower and the comments: Middle Palaeolithic,no actual break can be perceivedeither Instead of the traditionalRussian division, it would be hereor betweenthe Middle and the Upper Palaeolithic,as is convenientto use the three-stageEuropean systemfor the evident in the upper layers of Obi Rakhmat and the really Palaeolithic.I believe this would have no theoreticalor other special finds of Kul'bulak and Kuturbulak (the latter not difficulties,being a question of terminologyand convention. includedin the text).Here theproportion of toolswith concave The traditionalscheme hinders common understanding as does scrapingedges (oftenrepeated on the same blade) is veryhigh, the Q1-Q4 systemin geology.The authorsseem to have the pointingtowards the Upper Palaeolithic.Perhaps the missing same aim. From this point of view, I would emphasizetwo earlyUpper Palaeolithic should be soughthere. statementsof thisstudy: (1) European terminologycan hardly Concerningthe scanty,or, better,uncertain palaeoclimatic be applied to Central Asian findcomplexes (underlining the and palaeontologicobservations, I can thinkof two reasons: existence of separate cultural groups!). (2) Central Asian (1) the distanceof the area fromthe periglacialzone, causing geochronologycan be correlatedwith the Central European stadials and interstadialsto be littlefelt, and (2) great differ- (= Alpine) system. Both of these statementsindicate real ences of altitudeand ecology,even betweensites close to each progressin Russian research,though signs of such progress other. Perhaps this latter is the reason fauna offersno firm wereapparent earlier. chronology,even in caves. To oversimplify,a cold-indicator The five-pointsummary of the essenceof the studyand the rodent does not necessarilymean chilly weather at a low- conclusionsin themselvesshow the dimensionsof the changes altitudesite, because an owl could have broughtit therefrom in researchon the Soviet CentralAsian Palaeolithic.Besides the neighbouringmountain, at an altitudeof 3,000 m. On the these, I would like to call attentiononly to the numberof other hand, in the Central European chronologywe have a known sites 25 years ago and now. The differenceneeds no definite"Hystrix horizon," signifying a warm period of the furthercomment. This progressis theachievement of sustained Late Riss/Wurm,characterized by thepresence of thisanimal, expertfieldwork in contrastto casual expeditions.It shouldbe whichin recenttimes is foundin CentralAsia. The fauna in emphasizedthat in this vast and difficultterritory what has general is much more homogeneousand "modern" than in been goingon forthe past 25 yearsis real "pioneering."Under Europe. (Incidentally,while the faciologicaldissection by these circumstances,it is even morelaudable to have reached Ranov and Davis is correct,this is trueof the findcomplexes, thishigh level of scientificresearch.] too.) It is notablethat the Middle Palaeolithiccovers the second half of the Riss/Wiirmand the firsthalf of the Wurm. In byALEXANDER GALLUS CentralEuropean terms,this means a relativelylong survival. 2 Patterson St., Nunawading, Victoria 3131, Australia. Almostall the sites are dated to the firsthalf of the Wurmin 14 xii 78 the Frenchsystem, Gross's "Altwiirm." This annotatedbibliography on SovietCentral Asia is welcome The assumptionthat culturalgroups did not exist in the fromthe point of view of internationalcommunication. In the Middle Palaeolithic is untenable. Definite groups can be followingI restrictmyself to a few commentsabout the separated geographically,chronologically, and faciologically. prehistoryof thearea, whichI see differentlyfrom the authors. Also untenableis the view that the Neanderthals(or, rather, 1. I am uneasy about the introductioninto prehistoric Palaeoanthropes,most of whom belong to anthropologically analysisof present-daypolitical boundaries. With conceptions specializedraces and who are no longerbarred from the genus like "Soviet CentralAsia" we arriveat an anachronisticand Homo sapiensfossilis) lived in "hordes." These refinedmen, artificialtruncation of the real past historicallandscape. This with their refinedtool kit, may have lived by specialized restrictedconcept has influencedthe authorsin that they do huntingand had a social patternat least on the thresholdof a not take fullyinto considerationthe Eurasian extentof the tribalsystem, if not more developed. Culturalgroups can be historicallandscape in question. The archaeologicalmaterial clearlydefined: by the Middle Palaeolithicthey may already could have been moresatisfactorily treated as organicallypart representethnic groups. This is the only explanationfor the of a uniformlystructured geographical unit, one whoseecologi- presenceof differentgroups, "industries,"at the same site, cal and geopoliticalcharacteristics are easy to trace.The Lower underthe same naturalcircumstances, one afteranother. The Danube cannot be separated from"Central Asia," and the CentralAsian Middle Palaeolithicalso involvesdifferent cul- Great HungarianPlain is the westernmostextension of the turalgroups with a definiteregional distribution. The survival steppe-belt.The CarpathianBasin was always distinguished of theMousterian is highlyprobable. A Mousteriansite 25,000- by incursionsfrom "Central Asia," the last kingdomof clear- 20,000 years old alreadymeans survivalin CentralEuropean ly Central Asian originhere being that of the Hungarians terms. (Magyars). Middle Palaeolithictool typeswere in fact in use fora long 2. Pebble-tooltraditions are many. The technologybehind

264 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY choppersand choppingtools is so simple that it could have Ranov and Davis: SOVIET CENTRAL ASIAN PALEOLITHIC arisen independentlyin several regions.It is dangerousto dismemberintegrated industries into abstract "elements" raw-materialshape shouldbe takenonly as a possibleencourag- which"combine." It is unnecessaryto invokehere an "Asian ing factorfor the spread of pebble industries,not as a causal chopper-chopping-tooltradition" and a "more Westernflake factorfor the paucityof bifaces.Simply, while it is difficultto and blade tradition"in orderto put themtogether again fora make pebble tools if thereare no pebbles, the availabilityof pseudo-understandingof what has been dissected. pebbles does not mean thatpebble tools mustbe produced. Instead of "Soan," I would look towardsVertesszollos and Giventhe descriptionsof theMousterian industries in Soviet Buda (Kretzoiand Vertes1965). CentralAsia, I can findno compellingreason to believe that 3. The prehistoryof "Central Asia" cannotfully be under- they are all "developed or late" as suggested. Certainly, stood withoutconsidering the human situationin the Car- contraryto the impressiongiven, this is not true in south- pathianBasin and vice versa.Apparently Vertes could not pub- westernAsia. The problemwould seem to lie in what is con- lish his account of an evolutionof "Zitron" (quartierd'orange) sidered"developed." In the Levant, the Early Mousterianis or "Epichopper" culturesin the Carpathian Basin (Ga'bori- uranium-series-datedto the earlyLast Glacial,on the orderof Cs'ank et al. 1968:267 n. 82). We do have, however,G'abori- 80,000 B.P. ? 10,000 (H. Schwarcz,personal communication). Csank's excellent"horizontal" analysis of European Middle It is, in fact,this Levantine Early Mousterianwhich exhibits Paleolithicpebble technology,including the "Mousteriensur the highestproportional occurrence of elongatedblanks and of galets," "Moustgriensur quartzite,""Pontinian," featuresof "Upper Paleolithic" tools of all the knownLevantine Mous- the Charentian,the key CarpathianBasin sites of trd, Tata, terianassemblage types (Marks and Crew 1973,Jelinek 1975, and the Szelim Cave, and finallysites like Mixnitz,Krapina, Crew 1976). Therefore,the presenceof "Upper Paleolithic" and othersin the southwesternAlps and in Croatia (Ga'bori- tools in Mousteriancontext might be used to date Mousterian Cs'anket al. 1968:115-96,245-77). These approachesbring us assemblages relativelyonly when there is an established closerto an understandingof the presenceand survivalof the stratigraphicsequence. Since such is lackingin Soviet Central pebble technologyin the greaterarea under discussionthan Asia, developmentaljudgments based on traditionalideas of the conceptof a "Mousterianof Soan tradition." tool "evolution"seem premature. 4. It is apposite to my approach that the "Central Asian" In theLevant, the Late Acheuleancontains all thesetypologi- Middle Paleolithic is amenable in its three other types or cal and technologicalcharacteristics of the Early Levantine facies to a descriptionin Bordesian (Western European) Mousterian,and it would be quite illogical to thinkof the terms.The closenessof the typologiesat both ends of the Mousterian as developng out of a radically un-Mousterian greaterarea and the clear territorialseparation of the typesin base. The suggestionthat the "hiatus" betweenthe Lower and "Central Asia" solidifyBordes's (Bordes and de Sonneville- Middle Paleolithicmay be moreapparent than real because of Bordes 1970) opinion that we are dealinghere with different a possible briefRiss/Wuirm interglacial misses the point. The culturesand traditionsof toolmakingwhich influencedeach Mousteriantechno-complex is not a temporalor climaticunit, othervery little. but an archaeologicalunit, defined by technologicaland typo- 5. Teshik Tash has been classifiedby Bordes (1955) as a logical criteria. particularfacies of the Quina type. Hangar (1953: 50, 76) The rarityof Upper Paleolithicsites in Soviet CentralAsia conceptualizesan extended"East-European-Caucasian-Asian" and theirextreme paucity in caves do parallel the traditional landscapeas I do, and his paper shouldnot have been omitted. view for much of southwesternAsia. This situation in the QuotingD. N. Lev, Hangar (pp. 70-71) sees in the site of Levant, however,is mainly the result of biased sampling, Aman Kutan similaritieswith the lower levels of Kiik-Koba resultingfrom the traditionalprimacy of cave excavations.In (the Crimea) and definesit as "Pramousterien."He also those regionswhere systematic survey has been undertaken, mentionsMiddle Paleolithicsites on the easternshores of the such as the CentralNegev (Marks 1976, 1977) and the Sinai Caspian, where the authors indicate only Upper Paleolithic (Bar-Yosefand Phillips 1977), Upper Paleolithicsites are at ones. leastas commonas Middle Paleolithicones. For theLevant, the 6. The overallpattern of settlementsfrom the Middle and paucity of Upper Paleolithic as compared to Mousterian Upper Paleolithic in our extended Eurasian space strongly depositsin caves may relateto a shifttoward increasing mobil- contradictssuggestions of a transformation(physical and ity (Marks and Freidel 1977), resultingin a preponderanceof cultural)of Homo (sapiens) neanderthalensisinto H. sapiens ephemeralopen-air sites, which are not easilyfound and which sapiens.Middle Paleolithicman seemsto be autochthonousfor are moresubject to erosionthan cave occupationsor the more a long time(preserving pebble technologyin particularareas), permanentlyoccupied open sites which characterize the whereasthe Aurignacianis clearlyan intruderfrom along an Levantine Mousterian (e.g., Na'ame, Rosh Ein Mor, Nahal axis betweenthe Mediterraneanand Australia (Gallus 1969). Divshon). Thus, I must agree with Ranov that futurework should resultin the discoveryof moreUpper Paleolithicsites. In short, the present evidence from the southernLevant suggestsa significantshift in settlementpattern and resulting byANTHONY E. MARKS site locations and types fromthe Mousterian to the Upper Departmentof Anthropology,Southern Methodist University, Paleolithicand not a changein total population. Dallas, Tex. 75275, U.S.A. 18 xii 78 It is always a pleasureto see the resultsof Soviet Paleolithic studiesprinted in Englishand particularlyso whenthey result fromjoint Russian and Americanefforts. Although there are a by G. C. MOHAPATRA numberof referencesto and comparisonswith the Paleolithic Departmentof AncientIndian History,Culture and Archaeol- of the Near East whichmight be questioned,I will limitmy ogy,Panjab University,Chandigarh 160014, India. 10 xii 78 commentsto two periods,the Middle and Upper Paleolithic. This reviewarticle on SovietCentral Asia is especiallywelcome These commentsare meantnot to denigrateRanov and Davis's in view of the dearthof informationpublished in English. usefulcontribution, but to point out areas whereadditional Most of the Soviet CentralAsian lithicsites are located in thoughtsmay be useful. the area which is part of the great Asiatic mountainbelt It is particularlypleasing to see raw-materialtype used as a comprisedof the Pamir,the Hindu Kush, the Karakorum,and possibleexplanation for the tendency toward pebble-tool forms. the Himalaya. There is plentyof stratigraphicand structural Too rarelyhave such relationshipsbeen considered.However, evidencethat geotectonic changes occurring in one part of this Vol. 20 * No. 2 * June1979 265 belt had repercussionson otherparts. As regardspalaeoenvi- the many idiosyncrasiesand departures,Soviet archaeologists ronment,a uniformpattern is observedall overthis belt during mightas well considerfirst designating their local culturesin the Pleistoceneglaciations, the spread of loess, and the post- termsof phases of the Quaternary(i.e., Ql, Q2, Q3, Q4), espe- glacial desiccation.Even today,the subsistence pattern of man ciallywhen thermoluminescence and palaeomagneticdates are in this mountainousregion is astonishinglyuniform despite available, leavingaside detailedcomparison with the areas to racial diversity. the east or westuntil sufficient data are accumulated. In thelight of this,the less emphasisis placed on conclusions such as that the area "combineselements of Asian chopper- choppingtool tradition with Western flake and blade industries" byHALLAM L. MOVIUS, JR. the better.Nevertheless, chopper-chopping tools and flakeand Peabody Museum, Harvard University,Cambridge, Mass. blade industriesare no longerconsidered exclusive to Southeast 02138, U.S.A. 18 xii 78 Asia and WesternEurope respectively,nor is thereany reason Ranov and Davis's paper is themost important and substantive to assume theirdiffusion from there only. Instead, emphasis contributionto our knowledgeof thisimportant area that has has now shiftedto intensivearea studiesbased upon bothpast appeared in recentyears. It is only to be regrettedthat more and presentgeo-environmental homogeneity. illustrationsdo not accompanythe text.This is about all one To my mind thereis a close resemblancebetween Soviet can say in commentingon thisstraightforward and verywell- CentralAsian and northwesternSub-Himalayan lithic develop- organizedsummary of what is currentlyknown concerning ments.Both show a dominanceof pebble artifactsthroughout Palaeolithicmaterials and sitesin Soviet CentralAsia. the Palaeolithicand later culturesterminating with the Late Holocene Neolithic.Although the tools fromKaratau 1 are few,typologically and technicallymost of themare virtually byIAN S. ZEILER indistinguishable,but forthe raw material,from those of the Laboratoiredu Quaternaire,Universite de BordeauxI, 33405 Early Soan. The otherLower Palaeolithic industry in the Sub- Talence,France. 11 xii 78 Himalaya, the Acheulian,however, so far has no parallel in A comprehensivesurvey of the CentralAsian Palaeolithichas Soviet CentralAsia. RecentlyI had occasionto conductV. A. certainlybeen longoverdue. Ranov and Davis have rendereda Ranov to some Acheuliansites I discoveredin the Siwalik serviceto prehistoriansconcerned with Asia by updatingby FrontalRange betweenthe riversBeas and Ghaggar.Combin- 25 yearsour knowledgeof a crucialpart of the Asian Palaeo- ing my observationswith those of De Terra and Paterson lithic.I findit difficultto commentcritically on theirinterpre- (1939) and Graziosi(1964), it appearsthat the Acheulian in the tations of the findings,as neitherdetailed descriptionsnor Soan culturearea (i.e., the northwesternSub-Himalaya) had a illustrationsof the variousindustries are provided.They state veryrestricted distribution. Its sites are fewerand are mostly in a footnotethat theyintend to publisha morecomplete ver- locatedin hillyand thicklyvegetated tracts, unlike those of the sionof thisarticle in thefuture. I feelit necessaryto state,how- Soanian, whichare situatedon terracesof open valleys (Mo- everthat if articles like thisone are to be ofgenuine value to the hapatra1978a). Possiblythe two cultures remained independent archaeologicalcommunity and not simplyto serve as bibliogra- ofeach other,being the work of two separate species of hominids phical notes to inaccessiblereferences, they must include more (Mohapatra 1975). If the hope of the authors of finding data in formsdirectly usable by readers.Commenting on (or Acheulianindustries in Soviet CentralAsia shouldmaterialise, readingin a journal) an articlesuch as this is tantamountto it willvery probably present a picturenot muchdifferent from acceptingthe writtenword as the absolute truth,not to be what is now emergingin the northwesternSub-Himalayan questioned.This should in no way be construedas an attack region. on the analyticalcompetence of Ranov and Davis. Rather,it The Levallois flakesand notched,denticulated, and bifacial is intendedas a more generalcriticism of limitationson the tools fromLakhuti 1 appear to resemblethe Late Soan in- size of articles(particularly archaeological ones) whichseverely dustry.Some idea of the dimensionsof thesetools wouldhave limittheir utility. I shall leave criticalcomment to thosewith been usefulfor such comparisons. firsthandknowledge of the materialsdiscussed and address Broadly speaking,the Middle Palaeolithic Mousterian in myselfto some terminologicalbreaches of thepeace. Soviet CentralAsia seemsto be the firstvigourous Pleistocene I oftenwonder if the designation"Mousterian" has some lithicindustry. It is interestingto note thatas in the Late and intensesubconscious meaning to many prehistorians-ifper- Final Soan, completelyshaped formaltool typesare veryfew haps they feel it rendersan industryrespectable. One en- in this industry.I thinkit is only the authors'enthusiasm to counters,not infrequently,references to "Mousterian"indus- place thisarea in a transcontinentallithic context that has led triesor to the "Mousteroid" natureof this or that industry, them to trace an Upper Palaeolithic culturein this region. rangingfrom Siberia down to southernAfrica and back up Afterall, themere presence of blades and blade-toolsis not the again to the westernUnited States. Davis (1978), in a recent sole criterionfor the Upper Palaeolithicif the termis used in publicationconcerning Afghanistan, has himselfrecommended thesense it has in WesternEurope. In thiscontext, the industry that the term"Mousterian" be avoided and the designation foundat theKomsomol Park in Samarkandis veryinteresting, "Middle Palaeolithic" be used unless "some directrelation to and I am inclinedto agreewith Ranov "that thereis no evidence the type site in southernFrance" can be demonstrated.Since thatthe Upper Palaeolithic sites reflect any significantdiffusion I assume he extendsthis idea to Central Asia, I believe the fromoutside of Central Asia and can be understoodas continua- followingis addressedto Ranov. tions of the Mousterian."Because of this,the second of the I findit strangethat, whereas the authorsexpress the wish authors' three possible explanationsfor the absence of the to avoid givingthe impressionthat the Palaeolithicof Central Early Upper Palaeolithicassumes significance.An analogous Asia is "just a distortedreflection of the West," and in fact situationmay be suspectedin the Sub-Himalayanlithic com- considerCentral Asia a "relativelyautonomous sphere," they plex,where the Final Soan, whichhas close similaritieswith the should insist upon using terminologywhich is specifically Mousterian of the Soan traditionof Soviet Central Asia, relatedto the industriesof Europe, at the limitincluding the probablytelescoped far into the Holocene (Mopahatra 1978b). Middle East, and in fact using it awkwardlyin some cases. I Taking intoconsideration the C14dates, the Epi-Palaeolithic wonder,for example, if it is possible(terminologically speaking) and the Mesolithicare difficultto separate fromeach other, to distinguishbetween two of Ranov's "Mousterian"variants, but thereis no doubt that Soviet CentralAsia had another the "Levallois" and the "Levallois-Mousterian."For his Typi- vigourouslithic phase duringthe Early Holocene. In view of cal (Mountain) "Mousterian,"are we to read "Typical Mous-

266 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY terian" in the sense that Frangois Bordes would use it to Ranov and Davis: SOVIET CENTRAL ASIAN PALEOLITHIC describe(among others) Levels 28-31 at Combe Grenal,or are we to understandRanov to mean thatthese sites are "typically particularlyone colored by Western renditionsof culture Mousterian"when he says of theirtools that theyare "com- history,and looking as closely as possible at what is going pletelyformed formal tools ... manyof whichresemble those on locally. found in the tool kits of the classical Mousterian sites of In doingAsian Paleolithicarchaeology, one is faced witha WesternEurope"? Bordes (1977) has recentlydealt with the dilemma: how to avoid particularismwithout being swept problemsinvolved in using,even in Europe, the term"Mous- away in the currentof traditionalWestern cultural historical terian."He furtherpoints out thateven theescape of usingthe models and methods.For example,even the Lower, Middle, term"Mousteroid" has its drawbacks,since it does not always and Upper Paleolithictrinity is arguablyout of place in many have its originaltime sense,having been used among other parts of Asia. On the otherhand, however,Bordes's typology thingsto describesome recent Tasmanian implements. I wonder forLower and Middle Paleolithicstone tools is widelyused in why,in this age of regionalpride and separatism,the authors WesternAsian Middle Paleolithiccontexts. Clearly, the results couldn'thave comeup withsome Tadzhik- or Uzbek-sounding of area studiesultimately have to be comparedand integrated. Middle Palaeolithicvariants. What needs to be developed,of course,is a data languageall Some other terminologicalpoints: (1) What preciselyis can understandand use. Even moreimportant is the develop- meant by "bifacial techniqueof Acheulean tradition"?Al- mentof some unanimityin goals and in theory. thoughone mightbe able to picture what the authors are Both Gallus and Mohapatra make the importantpoint that tryingto say, would theyconsider including Solutrean laurel it is overlysimplistic and leads to no good end to dissector to leaves in this "tradition"?(2) Is therea differencebetween attemptto isolate Asian chopper-chopping-tooltradition ele- "bladelets" and "microblades"? (3) Instead of "grattoird mentsfrom Western blade-and-flake ones. It was certainlyfar museau," why not use the perfectlyacceptable term "nosed frommy intentionto create the impressionthat the Lower end-scraper"?(4) It is impossiblefor blades to be "struck Paleolithicof CentralAsia was some kind of whimsicalblend from cores by the crested-bladetechnique": crestingis a of East and West. It's utterlyfantastic, I think,to conceiveof methodof corepreparation, not of blade removal. two homogeneouscultural historical spheres which somehow The above commentsare not meant to taint an otherwise maintainedtheir boundaries over hundredsof millenniaand laudable effortby Ranov and Davis in presentingthe first also producedby diffusionsome hybrid cultures at theirpoints comprehensivesynthesis of the CentralAsian Palaeolithicfor of intersection.Mohapatra's notionthat the Soan and Acheu- 25 years,and I look forwardto the extendedversion of their lean in the northwesternSub-Himalaya may have been the paper. products of two differentspecies of hominidsand Gallus's interpretationthat species differencesunderlay cultural differ- ences betweenMiddle and Upper Paleolithic,however, seem to me to be going too far in the directionof biologicaldeter- minism.The idea of species-specificcultural behavior within Reply the genusHomo is a dubiousproposition. The problemof the apparentreduction in numberof Upper byR. S. DAVIS Paleolithicsites is touchedon by G'abori,Marks, and Mohapa- BrynMawr, Pa., U.S.A. 26 I 79 tra. Marks is certainlycorrect to point out that systematic I would like to thankall of the people who respondedto our surveyingmight alter our perceptionsof the extentof Upper articleand who sharedour interestin improvingand refining Paleolithicpopulations and that a shiftin settlement-subsis- the interpretationsof Palaeolithic archaeology in Soviet tence systemcould make Upper Paleolithicvisibility low. It CentralAsia. It is clear to me that thisarea of studywill not still impressesme, however,that aftermore than 25 years of advance withoutincreased exchange of information,construc- surveyand excavationKara Kamar remainsthe only bona fide tive criticism,and freshformulations by a wide spectrumof early Upper Paleolithicsite in this whole area of the world. participants. The Uzbek findsat Kuturbulakand Kul'bulak mentionedby Gallus questions our use of "Soviet Central Asia" as a G'abori have been describedas Upper Paleolithic by their meaningfulregion for Paleolithic analysis and suggeststhat we excavators,Tashkenbaev (1975) and Kasimov (1972) respec- increaseour Eurasian scope with referenceto the Carpathian tively,but moredetailed and completestratigraphical, chrono- Basin in particular.We have used the termfollowing Movius's metric,and typologicalassessment is required. They are, (1953b) original article. Geographicallythe region is often however,potentially very importantsites. The persistent- called "Middle Asia" (SrednyayaAziya). While we like to Mousteriantheory also has its merits,as notedby G'aboriand thinkin Eurasian terms,it seemsmore pressing at thistime to Mohapatra, but until the chronologicalpicture is clearerwe establishlocal sequencesof adaptationand changerather than can't make much moreof it. I don't quite agree with G'abori to look forcontinentwide culture history. It is also important concerningthe minimaleffect of stadials and interstadialson that almost all of Soviet Central Asia is a middle-latitude the environmentin CentralAsia. Certainly,the palynological desertand steppe,well south of thebelt of Eurasian grasslands recordin theZagros, an area also farfrom the periglacial zone, Gallus refersto. showsmajor vegetational changes during the last glacialperiod. I get the definitefeeling from reading the commentsof I have also maintainedthat therewas a significantclimatic Aigner,G'abori, Mohapatra, and Zeiler that they would con- deteriorationduring the main Wurmin the southernAfghan- sider some kind of localized regional approach, avoiding Tadzhikdepression which may have contributedto a redistribu- Europeocentricterminology and concepts, the soundest re- tion of Upper Paleolithicpopulations (Davis n.d.). It is clear searchstrategy for Soviet CentralAsia. I couldn'tagree more. fromthe loess sectionsthat climatic change was strongenough Marks's commentsabout the LevantineEarly Mousterianare to regulatepedogenetic processes. particularlycompelling and welltaken in thisregard. Obviously, Aigner'sand G'abori'sobservations and questionsabout the it is a bad strategyto overanticipatethe characterof the Lower Paleolithic chronologyraise several importantissues. archaeologicalrecord covering an extremelywide area by The Tadzhik Lower Paleolithicchronology is based on paleo- usingsome simpleunilineal-progress-oriented scheme of evolu- magnetism,stratigraphy, and thermoluminescencedating. The tion. It seems to me that progressin the fieldof Asian Paleo- most importantpaleomagnetic datum is the Matuyama- lithicstudies depends on our avoidinga broad-brushapproach, Brunhesboundary, which is well establishedat fivelocalities,

Vol. 20 * No. 2 * June1979 267 whereit is foundunder the ninthor tenthburied soil complex. CHEDIYA, 0. K. 1972. Yug SredneyAzii v noveyshuyuepokhu goro- and Laschamp eventshave been tentativelyidenti- obrazovaniya(The south of Central Asia in the recent epoch of The Blake mountainformation). Frunze: Ilim. fied on the basis of theirstratigraphic position in the loess CHEDIYA, 0. K., and B. A. VASIL'EV. 1960. 0 kharakterei vozracte section and by thermoluminescencedating of loess samples. drevnegooledeneniya severnogo sklona khrebta Petra I (About Thermoluminescencedating has been developedin the Soviet the characterand age of the ancient glaciation of the northern He has estimated slope of Peter I). Trudy TadzhikskogoGos. Universiteta5 (28): Union by V. N. Shelkoplyasamong others. 101-17. thepotential range of his methodbetween 10,000 and 1,500,000 COON,C. S. 1957. The sevencaves. New York: Knopf. years.It is importantto pointout thatthe thermoluminescence COPELAND, L. 1975. "The Middle and Upper Paleolithic industries methodof dating loess sedimentsis still in its experimental of the Lebanon and Syria in the lightof recentresearch," in Prob- stages and these initialdeterminations may be revisedin the lemsin prehistory:North Africa and theLevant. Edited by F. Wen- dorfand A. Marks, pp. 317-50. Dallas: SouthernMethodist Uni- future.Gabori's cautiousappraisal of the thermoluminescence versityPress. dates, therefore,is warranted,but I would add that those CREW, H. 1976. "The Mousterian site of Rosh Ein Mor," in Pre- producedso farare internallyconsistent and do not contradict historyand paleoenvironmentsin the centralNegev, Israel. Vol. 1. paleomagneticand stratigraphicevidence. My overall The Avdat/Aqevarea, pt. 1. Edited by A. Marks, pp. 75-117. the Dallas: SouthernMethodist University Press. [AEMI impressionis that if thereis goingto be furtherrevision of the DAVIS, R. S. 1978. "The Paleolithicof Afghanistan,"in The archaeol- Lower Paleolithicchronology, it will be towardeven greater ogy of Afghanistan.Edited by N. Hammond and R. Allchin,pp. antiquity. 37-70. London: Academic Press. questionsand observationsare much --. n.d. Pleistocenearcheology in the southernAfghan-Tadzhik Zeiler's terminological depression(in Russian). Proceedingsof theInternational Union of appreciated.My intentionin using the phrase "bifacial tech- GeologicalSciences/UNESCO Symposiumon the Neogene/Quater- nique of Acheuliantradition" was merelyto distinguishthe naryboundary, D?tshanbe, Tadzhikistan, 1977. In press. Lower Paleolithicbifacial techniques common in pebble indus- DE TERRA, H., and T. T. PATERSON. 1939. Studies on theIce Age in in the Acheulean India and associatedhuman cultures. Washington: Carnegie Insti- tries fromthose associated with handaxes tution. [GCM] techno-complex.I have used "microblade" in the sense of DODONOV, A. E., Y. R. MELAMED, and K. V. NIKIFOROVA. Editors. Tixier's(1963:38-39) lamelle. "Bladelet," mentionedin connec- 1977. Guidebook,International Symposium on the Neogene-Quater- tion with Tutkaul, Layer 2a, referssimply to a small blade naryBoundary. Moscow: Nauka. DODONOV, A. E., and A. V. PEN'KOV. 1977. Nekotoryedannye po whichwas subsequentlybacked. stratigrafiivodopazdel'nykh lessov Tadzhikskoy depressii (Some It is importantto keep in mindthat we have seen only the data about the stratigraphyof the watershedloesses of the Tad- minutestportion of the total spatial and temporalvariability zhik depression).Byulleten' Kommissii po IzucheniyuChetvertich- of the Stone Age of CentralAsia or, for that matter,of Asia nogoPerioda 47:67-76. DODONOV, A. E., and V. A. RANOV. 1977. "I primi insediamenti as a whole.We mustnot condensesuch an enormouspanorama umani," in Enciclopediadella scienza e della technicaMondadori. of human developmentand experiencedown to the alleged Edited by ArnoldoMondadori, pp. 232-40. Milano: EST. sharingor nonsharingof a few mental templatesabout how EFIMENKO, P. P. 1953. Pervobytnoyeobshchestvo (Primitive society). stone tools should be chipped.An importantmessage coming Kiev: Academyof Sciences, UkrainianSSR. is manyunexpected aspects FORMOZOV,A. A. 1977. Problemyetnokul'turnoy istorii kamennogo fromthe loess of CentralAsia that veka na territoriievropeyskoy chasti SSSR (Problems of ethno- of the hominidexperience in Asia are stillwaiting to be found. cultural history of the Stone Age of the European part of the Our expectationsabout thispast must not cut us offfrom it. U.S.S.R.) Moscow: Nauka. GABORI-CSANK,V., I. DIENES, M. KRETZOI, P. KRIVAN, E. KROIOPP, [Theresponse of V. A. Ranovhad not arrived by press time and will and J. STIEBER. 1968. La station du Paleolithic moyend'Erd- in Hongrie.Budapest: Akademiai Kiad6. [AG] appear theSeptember Issue.-EDITOR.] GALLUS, A. 1969. Commenton: Neanderthalman and Homo sapiens in Centraland Eastern Europe, by Jan Jelinek.CURRENT ANTHRO- POLOGY 10: 492-93. [AG] GINZBURG, V. A., and I. I. GOKHMAN. 1974. "Kostnye ostatkichelo- veka iz Samarkandskoypaleoliticheskoy stoyanki" (Human skele- ReferencesCited tal remainsfrom the Samarkand Paleolithic site), in Problemy etnicheskoyantropologii i morfologiicheloveka (Problems of ethnic AGAKHANYANTS,0. E. 1965. Osnovnyeproblemy fizicheskov geografii anthropologyand human morphology).Leningrad: Nauka. Pamira (Basic problemsof the physicalgeography of the Pamirs). GRAZIOSI, P. 1964. Prehistoricresearch in northwesternPunjab. Sci- Pt. 1. Dushanbe: Academyof Sciences,Tadzhik SSR. entificReports of the Italian Expeditionsto the Karakorum (K2) ALESHINSKAYA, Z. V., et al. 1971. Razreznoveyshikh otlozhzeniy Issyk- and the Hindu Kush. Leiden. [GCM] Kul'skoyvpadiny (The sectionof the latest sedimentsof the Issik- GRICHUK, M. P., and A. A. LAZARENKO. 1970. "O perspektivakh Kul basin). Moscow: Moscow State University. ispol'zovaniya dannykh sporovo-pyl'tsevogoanaliza dlya vyyas- ARIAI, A., and CL. THIBAULT. n.d. Nouvelles precisionsa propos de neniya stratigrafiii genezisa lessov Pri-Tashkentskogorayona" l'outillagepaleolithique ancien surgalets du Khorassan (Iran). MS. (On the prospectsof using spore-pollendata analysisfor the eluci- BAR-YOSEF, 0. 1970. The Epi-Paleolithiccultures of Palestine. Un- dation of the stratigraphyand the genesisof the loesses of the Pri- published Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Tashkent rayon). TrudyMezhdunarodnogo Simpoziuma po Litologii Israel. i GenezisyLessovykh Porod (Worksof the InternationalSymposium BAR-YOSEF, O., and J. PHILLIPS. 1977. Prehistoricinvestigations in on the Lithologyand Genesi; of Loess Types), vol. 1. Tashkent: GebelMaghara, northernSinai. Jerusalem:Institute of Archaeol- Fan. ogy, Hebrew University. [AEM] GRIGOR'EV, G. P. 1968. Nachalo verkhnegopaleolita i proiskhozdeniye BIBIKOVA, V. I. 1958. Nekotoryezamechaniya po faune iz must'ers- Homo sapiens (The beginningof the Upper Paleolithic and the koy peshcheryAman Kutan I (Some observationson the fauna originof Homo sapiens). Leningrad:Nauka. fromthe Mousterian cave Aman Kutan I). SovetskayaArkheolo- GRIGOR'EV, G. P., and V. A. RANOV. 1973. "O kharakterepaleolita giya,no. 3, pp. 230-32. Sredney Azii" (On the character of the Paleolithic of Central BINFORD, L. R. 1972. "Contemporarymodel building: Paradigms and Asia). Tezisy dokladovsessii posvyashchennoy((Itogam Polevykh the currentstate of Paleolithicresearch," in Models in archaeology. ArkheologicheskikhIssledovaniy 1972 goda v SSSR)) (Abstracts of Edited by D. Clarke,pp. 109-66. London: Methuen. papers fromthe symposium"The Latest Results of Field Archaeo- BORDES, F. 1955. L'industriemousterienne de Teshik-Tash: Affini- logical Investigationsin the U.S.S.R., 1972"). Tashkent. tes et age probable.L'Anthropologie 59:354-56. GROMOVA, V. I. 1949. "Pleystotsenovayafauna mlekopitayushchikh --. 1977. "Time and space limitsof the Mousterian," in Stone iz grota Teshik-Tash, Yuzhnyy Uzbekistan" (Pleistocene mam- toolsas culturalmarkers: Change, evolution and complexity.Edited malian fauna fromthe cave of Teshik-Tash,southern Uzbekistan), by R. V. S. Wright,pp. 37-39. Canberra: AustralianInstitute of in Tesizik-Tash.Moscow: Moscow State University. AboriginalStudies. [ISZ] GUBIN, I. E. 1960. Zakonomernostiseysmicheskikh proyavleniy na BORDES, F., and D. DE SONNEVILLE-BORDES. 1970. The significance territoriiTadzhikistana (The regularitiesof seismicmanifestations of variability in Palaeolithic assemblages.World Archaeology2: in the territoryof Tadzhikistan). Moscow: Nauka. 61-73. [AGi HANGAR,F. 1953. Stand der Palaolithforschungim Schwarzmeerraum CHARD, C. 1974. NortheastAsia in prehistory.Madison: University und in Mittelasien.Mitteilungen der AnthropologischenGesellschaft of WisconsinPress. in Wien 72: 50-82. [AG]

268 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY HOLE, F., and K. FLANNERY.1967. The prehistoryof southwestern Ranov and Davis: SOVIET CENTRAL ASIAN PALEOLITHIC Iran: A preliminaryreport. Proceedingsof the PrehistoricSociety 33:147-206. pt. 2, and the Har Harif. Dallas: Department of Anthropology, HUME,G. W. 1976. The Ladizian: An industryof the Asian chopper- SouthernMethodist University. [AEM] choppingtool complexin Iranian Baluchistan. Dor- Philadelphia: MATYUSHIN, G. N. 1976. Mezolit yuzhnogoUrala (The Me;olithic rance. of the southernUrals). Moscow: Nauka. ISAAC,G. LL. 1972. in human behavior: Models in "Early phases MEDOYEV, A. G. 1970. Arealy paleoliticheskikhkul'tur in in Edited Kazakhistana Lower Paleolithic archaeology," Models archaeology. (Areas of Paleolithic culturesof Kazakhstan). Alma-Ata: Nauka by D. Clarke,pp. 167-99. London: Methuen. Kazakhskoy SSR. ISLAMOV, U. I. 1972. Mezoliticheskiyepamyatniki Ferganskoy doliny MOHAPATRA, G. C. 1975. Acheulian element in Soan culture-area. of (Mesolithic sites the Fergana Valley). Istoriya Material'noy KokogakuZasshi 60:4-18. Kul'turyUzbekistana 9:21-29. [GCM] -. 1978a. Acheulian fromthe Siwalik Frontal Range of the Peshchera Tashkent: -. 1975. Machay (Machay Cave). Fan. Punjab Sub-Himalaya. Paper presentedat the Xth International JELINEK, A. J. 1975. "A preliminaryreport on some Lower and Congressof Anthropological and EthnologicalSciences, New Delhi, Middle Paleolithicindustries from the Tabun Cave, Mount Carmel December 10-16. [GCM] (Israel)," in Problemsin prehistory:North Africa and theLevant. - . 1978b.Sub-Himalayan lithic industries of Final Pleistocene. Edited by F. Wendorfand A. Marks, pp. 297-316. Dallas: South- Paper presentedat the Xth InternationalCongress of Anthropo- ern MethodistUniversity Press. [AEM] logical and Ethnological Sciences, New Delhi, December 10-16. KASIMOV, M. R. 1972. Mnogosloynayapaleoliticheskaya stoyanka [GCM] Kul'bulak v Uzbekistane (Predvaritel'nye itogi issledovaniy). Movius, H. L., JR. 1953a. Paleolithicand Mesolithicsites in Soviet (Kul'bulak, a many-layeredPaleolithic site in Uzbekistan [Pre- Central Asia. Proceedingsof the American PhilosophicalSociety liminaryresults of the investigation].)Materialy i Issledovaniya 97:383-421. po ArkheologiiUSSR 185:111-19. . 1953b. The Mousterian cave of Teshik-Tash, southeastern KLEIN, RICHARD G. 1966. "Chellean and Acheuleanon the territory Uzbekistan,Central Asia. Bulletinof the AmericanSchool of Pre- of the Soviet Union: A criticalreview of the evidenceas presented historicResearch 17:11-71. in the literature,"in Recentstudies in paleoanthropology.Edited NESMEYANOV, S. A. 1971. Kolichstvennayaotsenka noveyshikh dvi- by J. D. Clark and F. C. Howell, pp. 1-45. AmericanAnthropol- sheniyi neotektonicheskoyerayonirovaniye gornoy oblasti (Quantita- ogist 68 (2), pt. 2. tive estimationof recentmovement and neo-tectonicland division KOROBKOVA, G. F. 1976. Turkmeniyav epokhumezolita (Turkmeniya of mountainareas). Moscow: Nedra. in the Mesolithicepoch). Ashkhabad: Ilim. --. 1977. Korrelyatsiyakontinental'nykh tolshch (Correlation of KOSTENKO, N. P. 1958. Geomorfologicheskiyanaliz rechnykhdolin continentalsediments). Moscow: Nedra. gornykh stran (Geomorphologicalanalysis of river valleys of NIKONOV, A. A. 1972. K obosnovaniyu stratigrafiiverkhne-plio- mountainous countries). Byulleten' Kommissii po Izucheniyu tsenovykhi chetvertichnykhotlozheniy Afgano-Tadzhikskoy de- ChetvertichnogoPerioda 22. pressii (Toward the substantiationof the stratigraphyof the Up- KRETZOI,M., and L. VERTES. 1965. Upper Biharian (Intermindel) per Pliocene and Quaternarvdeposits of the Afghan-Tadzhikde- pebble-industryoccupation site in western Hungary. CURRENT pression). Byulleten'Kommissii po IzucheniyuChetvertichnogo Pe- ANTHROPOLOGY6:74-87. rioda 39:31-49. LAZARENKO,A. A., and V. N. SHELKOPLYAS.1973. "Pervye opre- NIKONOV,A. A., and M. M. PAKHOMOV.1976. Stratigrafiyai paleo- deleniyavozrasta sredneaziatskikhlessov termolyuministsentnym geografiva Antropogena gornogo Badakhshana (Tadzhikskaya metodom" (The firstdetermination of the age of the Central SSR, Afghanistan)(Stratigraphy and paleogeographyof the An- Asian loesses by the thermoluminescencemethod), in Stratigrafiya, thropogeneof mountainBadakhshan [Tadzhik SSR and Afghanis- paleogeografiyai litogenez antropogena Evrazii (Stratigraphy,paleo- tan]). Byulleten'Kommissii po IzucheniyuChietvertichnogo Perioda geography,and lithogenesisof the Eurasian Anthropogene).Mos- 46:73-89. cow. OKLADNIKOV, A. P. 1962. Novoye y izucheniidrevneyshikh kul'tur LAZARENKO, A. A., and V. A. RANOV. 1977. Karatau I - Drevneyshiy Mongolii (po rabotam 1960 g.)" (News of the study of the oldest paleoliticheskiypamyatnikh v lessakh SredneyAzii (Karatau 1: culturesof Mongolia [fromthe work of 1960]). SovetskayaEtno- The oldest Paleolithic site in the loesses of Central Asia). Byulle- grafiya,no. 1, pp. 86-87. ten' Kommissiipo IzucheniyuChetvertichnogo Perioda 47:45-57. . 1966a. "Paleolit i mezolit Sredney Aziy (Paleolithic and LEV, D. N. 1956. Drevnyypaleolit v Aman-Kutane (Issledovaniya Mesolithicof CentralAsia), in SrednyayaAziya v epokhuKamnya 1953-1954 g.) (The Early Paleolithic in Aman-Kutan [Investi- i Bronzi (Central Asia in the epochs of Stone and Bronze). Edited gations 1953-1954]). Trudy SamarkandskogoGos. Universiteta, by V. M. Masson, pp. 11-75. Moscow: Nauka. no. 61, pp. 19-27. --. 1966b."K voprosuo mezolitei epipaleoliteaziatskoy chasti 1964. Poselenive drevnekamennogoveka v Samarkande SSSR (Sibir i Srednyaya Aziya)" (Toward the question of the (Issledovaniya 1958-1960 g.) (The settlementof the Early Stone Mesolithic and Epi-Paleolithicof the Asian part of the U.S.S.R. Age in Samarkand [Investigations 1958-1960]). Trudy Samar- [Siberia and Central Asia]), in U istokovdrevnikh kul'tur (Epokha kandskogoGos. Universiteta,no. 135, pp. 5-109. mezolita)(On the sourcesof ancient culture [The Mesolithicepoch]), LISITSYNA,G. N. 1970. "Kul'turnye rasteniyablizhnego Vostoka i p. 215. Materialy i Issledovaniyapo ArkheologiiSSR 126. Yuga SredneyAzii v VII-V tysyachletiyakhdo N.E." (Domesti- OKLADNIKOV, A. P., and V. A. RANOV. 1963. "Kamennyyvek" (The cated plants of the Near East and Central Asia in the 7th-5th Stone Age), in Istoriya tadzhikskogonaroda (History of the Tad- mi]lenniaB.C.). SovetskayaArkheologiya, no. 3, p. 56. zhik people), vol. 1. Moscow: Nauka, VostochnoyLiteratury. LYUBIN,V. P. 1965. K voprosyo metodikeizucheniya nizhnepaleo- PAKHOMOV,M. M., V. A. RANOV, and A. A. NIKONOV.1974. Neko- liticheskikhkamennykh orudiy (Toward the question of methods toryedannye po paleogeograficheskoyobstanovke neoliticheskoy of studyof Lower Paleolithicstone tools). Paleolit i neolitSSSR 5. stoyankeTutkaul (Some data on the paleogeographicsituation of (M.I.A. SSSR, no. 139.) Leningrad:Nauka. the Neolithic site of Tutkaul). SovetskayaArkheologiya, no. 4, pp. 245-49. . 1977. Must'erskiye kavkaza culturesof kul'tury (Mousterian RANOV, V. A. 1963. Kamennyyvek Tadzhikistana (The Stone Age the Caucasus). Leningrad: Nauka. of Tadzhikistan). Abstractof dissertationfor the degreeof Kandi- MARKOV,G. E. 1966. Grot Dam-Dam-Cheshme 2 v vostochnom dat of Historical Sciences, Academy of Sciences, Tadzhik SSR Prikaspii(The cave of Dam-Dam-Cheshme2 in the easternCaspi- Dushanbe, Tadzhikistan. an). SovetskayaArkheologiya, no. 2, pp. 104-23. --. 1968. Izucheniyekamennogo veka SredneyAzii za dvadtsat' MARKS,A. E. 1975. "An outlineof prehistoricoccurrences and chro- let (1945-1965) (Twenty years of study of the Stone Age of Cen- nology in the Central Negev," in Problemsin prehistory:North tral Asia [1945-1965]). Material'naya Kul'tura Tadzhikistana1: Africaand theLevant. Edited by F. Wendorfand A. Marks. Dallas: 5-32. SouthernMethodist University Press. --. 1969. Kukhi-Piyez- Novyy punkt nakhodok nizhnepaleo- Editor. 1976. Prehistoryand paleoenvironmentsin thecentral liticheskikhgalechnykh orudiy v Sredney Azii (K voprosu o Negev.Israel. Vol. 1. The Avdat/Aqevarea, pt. 1. Dallas: Southern pervonachal'nomZaselenii Sibiri) (Kukhi-Piyez: A new Lower MethodistUniversity Press. [AEM] Paleolithic pebble tool site in Central Asia [Toward the question --. Editor. 1977. Prehistoryand paleoenvironmentsin thecentral of the initial population of Siberia]). Paper presentedat the con- Negev,Israel. Vol. 2. The Avdat/Aqevarea, pt. 2, and the Har ference"Etnogenez Narodov SevernoyAzii" (Ethnogenesisof the Harif. Dallas: Departmentof Anthropology,Southern Methodist peoples of northernAsia), Novosibirsk. University. [AEM] --. 1971. K izucheniyu must'erskoykul'tury v Sredney Asii MARKS,A. E., and H. CREW. 1972. Rosh F, Mor, an open-air (Toward the study of the Mousterian culture in Central Asia). Mousterian site in the central Negev. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Materialyi Issledovaniyapo ArkheologiiSSR 173:209-32. 13:591-93. [AEM] --. 1972. Le peuplementprehistorique de la Haute-Asie (d'apres MARKS,A. E., and D. FREIDEL. 1977. "Prehistoricsettlement pat- l'example de l'Asie Centralesovietique). L'Anthropologie76:5-20. terns in the Avdat/Aqev area," in Prehzistoryand paleoenviron- -. 1976. "The Paleolithic industriesof Central Asia: A revi- mentsin the centralNegev, Israel. Vol. 2. The Avdat/Aqevarea, sion."Le Pal eolithiqueinferieur et moyenen Inde, en Asie Centrale,

Vol. 20 * No. 2 * June1979 269 en Chine et dans le Sud-est Asiatique. Colloque VII, IX Congress SHELKOPLYAS, V. N. 1974. "Opredeleniyevozrasta lessovykhporod" UISPP, Nice. Edited by A. K. Ghosh,pp. 91-129. (Determinationof the age of loess types),in GeokhranologiyaSSSR, RANOV, V. A., and S. A. NESMEYANOV. 1973. Paleolit i stratigrafiya vol. 3. Leningrad. antropogenaSredney Azii (Paleolithic and stratigraphyof the An- SKVORTSOV,Y. A. 1953. "Yunye tektonicheskiyedvizheniya Tyan'- thropogeneof CentralAsia). Dushanbe: Donish. Shanya i geneziyelessa Pri-Tashkentskogorayona" (Young tec- RANOV, V. A., A. A. NIKONOV, and M. M. PAKHOMOV. 1976. Lyudi tonic movementsof the Tian Shan and the genesisof the loess of kamennogoveka na podstupakhk Pamiru (Stone Age peoples on the Pri-Tashkentrayon). Trudy VsesoyuznogoRabochego Sovesh- the approaches to the Pamir). Acta ArchiaeologicaCarpathica chaniyapo ItogamIzucheniya Chetvertichnogo Perioda 1948 (Works 16:5-20. of the All-UnionConference on the Results of the Investigation RANOV,V. A., S. SHARONOV,and A. A. NIKONOV.1973. Fauna mleko- of the QuaternaryPeriod, 1948). Tashkent: AN UzbekskayaSSR. pitayushchikh,arkheologiya i geologiya stoyanki Ogzi-Kichik SOLECKI,R. 1963. Prehistoryin the Shanidar Valley, northernIraq. (yushnyy Tadzhikistan) (Mammalian fauna, archaeology, and Science 139:179-93. geologyof the Ogzi-Kichiksite [SouthernTadzhikistan]). Doklady SULEYMANOV, R. X. 1972. Statisticheskoyeizucheniye kul'tury grota AN TadzhikskayaSSR 16 (7):60-63. Obi-Rakhmat(Statistical study of the cultureof the cave of Obi- RANOV, V. A., and L. F. SIDOROV. 1974. "The Pamirs as man's habi- Rakhmat). Tashkent: Fan. tat," in The countriesand peoplesof the East. Edited by V. Maretin TASHKENBAEV,N. K. 1975. Ob issledovaniipaleoliticheskoy stoyanki and B. A. Valskaya, pp. 148-77. Moscow: Nauka. Kuturbulak (About the investigationsof the Paleolithic site of ROGACHEV,A. N. 1966. Nekotoryevoprosy izucheniya Epipaleolita Kuturbulak). IstoriyaMaterial'noy Kul'tury Uzbekistana 12:5-15. VostochnoyEvropy (Some questions about the investigationof TIXIER, J. 1963. Typologiede l'Epipaleolithiquedu Maghreb. (M&- the Epi-Paleolithicof Eastern Europe). Materialyi Issledovaniya moiresdu Centrede RecherchesAnthropologiques, Prehistoriques po ArkeologiiSSSR 126:10-13. et Ethnographiques.)Paris: Arts et Metiers Graphiques.

Prizes shouldfollow exactly the proceduresoutlined in the formsfor submissionand postage. * The Royal AnthropologicalInstitute of Great Britain and Ireland announcesa biennialprize of ?250 foran outstanding Serials filmon any branchof anthropologyor on archaeology.The firstsuch prize will be awardedin 1980for a filmfirst shown on a The maidenissue of the Associationof ThirdWorld Anthro- or afterMarch 1, 1976.Both specialistacademic films and films pologistsResearch Bulletin, a biannualpublication dedicated to intendedfor the generalpublic are eligible.The judges, to be researchon Asia, Africa,and Latin America,contains news appointedby the Institute,will give greaterweight to content items,announcements, research reports, recent publications, a than to technicalexpertise. The prize will be awarded to the draftof the Constitutionand By-Laws of the Associationof individualfilm maker, not to the organizationhe or she works Third World Anthropologists,and a partial list of founding for (if any). The competitionis international,but eitherthe membersof theorganization. The editorialboard of thebulletin commentaryor subtitlesmust be in Englishor fulltranscripts is composed of Mario D. Zamora (College of William and in Englishmust be made available. Films must be submitted Mary), Editor; Enya Flores-Meiser(Ball State University), in the formof 16mmcombined optical prints.They must in Associate Editor for Asia; Louis Noisin (College of William principlebe available fornoncommercial educational use. No and Mary), Associate Editor for Africa; and Emilio Moran award need be made if the judges do not considerthe quality (Indiana University),Associate Editor for Latin America. of the filmssubmitted sufficiently high. The 1978-79Executive Committee of the Associationincludes The closingdate for entriesis March 1, 1980. Submission Mario D. Zamora,Enya Flores-Meiser,Stefan Goodwin (Mor- formswith full rules and conditionsare available freefrom the gan State University),Betty Keat (Morgan State University), RAI, 56 Queen Anne St., London WIM 9LA, England. Forms and Crispina MacDonald (Howard University).For further shouldbe read carefully.On no accountshall films be submitted information,write Mario D. Zamora, Departmentof Anthro- unless accompanied by properlycompleted forms. To save pology, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg,Va. themselvespossible troubleand loss, entrantsfrom overseas 23185,U.S.A.

270 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY