Identification of Bifacial Components in Middle Paleolithic Techno-Complexes (Based on the Chagyrskaya Cave Assemblages)

Previously, occasional bifacial tools found in different industrial variants of the Altai Middle Paleolithic were not considered as cultural markers that could be used to differentiate the technological/cultural variants. They rather were a bright but situational manifestation of the typological variability, especially in the case of the Sibiryachikha assemblages. Purpose. The article discusses various research approaches used to determine and evaluate the bifacial component in the Middle Paleolithic lithic assemblages, namely attributive analysis with a set of specific attributes, scar-pattern analysis and experimental modelling. Results. As a result of recent studies at the site Chagyrskaya Cave, the key-site of Sibiryachikha, we found out that all the bifaces were made using plano-convex technology. In the Chagyrskaya Cave assemblage all stages of bifacial production have been noticed? including pre-forms, bifacial tools and tools made on bifacial thinning flakes, accompanied by numerous bifacial thinning flakes and bifacial thinning chips. Re-investigation of the Okladnikov assemblage should bring a new, previously unknown series of technical spalls related to the bifacial plano-convex technology. A similar situation is with Karabom complexes, where all bifacial tools are made using bi-convex bifacial technology. Thus, criteria for technological distinction of bifacial production are of special importance. Conclusion. Our experiments have shown that the proportion of chips associated with bifacial production is much higher than it can be determined while analyzing archaeological assemblages. Taking in account the new data on bifacial technologies in the region, we conclude that variability of Middle Paleolithic complexes has become more complex. To evaluate the bifacial component in Paleolithic assemblages, all stages of bifacial flaking should be documented, including bifacial pre-forms, technical spalls related to bifacial reduction sequence, chips, blanks which demonstrate bifacial flaking errors and tools made on bifacial thinning flakes and bifacial tools. A complete set of bifacial production is present at the Chagyrskaya Cave assemblage due to the fact that the cave was constantly visited and had a sufficiently long habitation cycle as a source of raw materials. In the assemblage, a complete sequence of lithic raw material exploitation was processed. Taking into account the fact that Chagyrskaya Cave and Okladnikov Cave are associated only with Neanderthal remains, it can be assumed that bifacial plano-convex technology in the Middle Paleolithic of Altai is linked to Neanderthal population in the region.

plano-convex, biconvex, Altai, Middle Paleolithic, Neanderthals, Chagyrskaya Cave, bifacial technology, plano-convex, bi-convex, cultural marker

1. Гиря Е. Ю. Технологический анализ каменных индустрий (Методика микро-макроанализа древних орудий труда. Ч. 2). СПб.: Изд-во ИИМК РАН, 1997. 198 c.

2. Демиденко Ю. Э. Сколы обработки орудий, как индикатор особенностей и интенсивности процессов кремнеобработки и жизнедеятельности коллективов неандертальцев на стоянках среднего палеолита в контексте вариабельности индустрий крымской микокской традиции // Археологический альманах. 2003. № 13. С. 128-157.

3. Деревянко А. П., Маркин С. В., Колобова К. А., Чабай В. П., Рудая Н. А., Виола Б., Бужилова А. П., Медникова М. Б., Васильев С. К., Зыкин В. С., Зыкина В. С., Зажигин В. С., Вольвах А. О., Робертс Р. Г., Якобс З., Бо Ли. Междисциплинарные исследования Чагырской пещеры - стоянки среднего палеолита Алтая. Новосибирск: Изд-во ИАЭТ СО РАН, 2018. 468 с.

4. Деревянко А. П., Шуньков М. В. Индустрии с листовидными бифасами в среднем палеолите Горного Алтая // Археология, этнография и антропология Евразии. 2002. № 1. С. 16-42.

5. Рыбин Е. П., Колобова К. А. Средний палеолит Алтая: вариабельность и эволюция // Stratum plus. 2009. № 1. С. 33-78.

6. Харевич В. М., Акимова Е. В., Стасюк И. В., Томилова Е. А. Технология производства пластин индустрии культурного слоя 19 стоянки Лиственка // Stratum plus. 2015. № 1. С. 321-331.

7. Чабай В. П. Средний палеолит Крыма. Симферополь: Шлях, 2004. 324 с.

8. Чабай В. П. Морфологические особенности двусторонних орудий крымского микока // Методы изучения каменных артефактов: Материалы междунар. конф. (Санкт-Петербург, 16-18 ноября 2015 г.). СПб., 2015. С. 138-143.

9. Шалагина А. В., Колобова К. А., Кривошапкин А. И. Анализ последовательности сколов как инструмент реконструкции процесса изготовления каменных артефактов // Stratum plus. 2019. № 1. 145-154.

10. Bosinski G. Die mittelpaläolithischen Funde im westlichen Mitteleuropa. Köln, Fundamenta, 1967, 205 р.

11. Chabai V. P. Kabazi II, Units IIA-III: Artifacts. In: The Middle Paleolithic of Western Crimea 1. Eds. A. E. Marks, V. P. Chabai. Liège, ERAUL, 1998, no. 84, p. 253-272.

12. Chabai V. P., Demidenko Yu. E. The Classification of Flint Artifacts. In: The Middle Paleolithic of Western Crimea 1. Eds. A. E. Marks, V. P. Chabai. Liège, ERAUL, 1998, no. 84, p. 31-51.

13. Chabai V. P., Marks A. E., Monigal K. Crimea in the Context of the Eastern European Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic. In: The Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Crimea. Eds. V. P. Chabai, K. Monigal and A. E. Marks. Liège, ERAUL, 2004, p. 419-460.

14. Debenath A., Dibble H. L. Handbook of Paleolithic Typology. Volume One: Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994, 202 p.

15. Jöris O. Out of the Cold. On Late Néandertal Population Dynamics in Central Europe. Notae Praehistoricae, 2002, no. 22, p. 33-45.

16. Jöris O. Zur chronostratigraphischen Stellung der spätmittelpaläolithischen Keilmessergruppen. Der Versuch einer kulturgeographischen Abgrenzung einer mittelpaläolithischen Formen-gruppe in ihrem europäischen Kontext. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission, 2004, no. 84, p. 49-153.

17. Jöris O. Bifacially Backed Knives (Keilmesser) in the Central European Middle Palaeolithic. In: Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-Making from Quarry to Discard. Eds. N. Goren-Inbar, G. Sharon. London, 2006, p. 287-310.

18. Kot M. A. The Earliest Middle Palaeolithic Bifacial Leafpoints in Central and Southern Europe. Technological Approach. PhD Thesis. Warsaw, 2013, 731 p.

19. Kot M. A. The Earliest Middle Palaeolithic Bifacial Leafpoints in Central and Southern Europe: Technological Approach. Quaternary International, 2014, no. 326-327, p. 381-397.

20. Krause J., Orlando L., Serre D., Viola B., Prüfer K., Richards M. P., Hublin J. J., Hänni C., Derevianko A. P., Pääbo S. Neanderthals in Central Asia and Siberia. Nature, 2007, no. 449, p. 902-904.

21. Monigal K. The Levantine Leptolithic: Blade Production from the Lower Paleolithic to the Down of the Upper Paleolithic. PhD Thesis. Dallas, Southern Methodist University, 2002. 307 p.

22. Prüfer K., Racimo F., Patterson N., Jay F., Sankararaman S., Sawyer S., Heinze A. The Complete Genome Sequence of a Neandertal from the Altai Mountains. Nature, 2014, no. 505, p. 43-49.

23. Pastoors A., Schäfer J. Analyse des états techniques de transformation, d’utilisation et états post dépositionelles illustrée par un outil bifacial de Salzgitter-Lebenstedt (FRG). Préhistoire Européenne, 1999, no. 14, p. 33-47.

24. Pastoors A. Standardization and Individuality in the Production Process of Bifacial Tools - Leaf-Shaped Scrapers from the Middle Paleolithic Open Air Site Sare Kaya I (Crimea). In: Neanderthals and Modern Humans - Discussing the Transition. Central and Eastern Europe from 50.000-30.000 B. P. Mettmann, Neanderthal Museum, 2000, p. 243-255.

25. Richter J. Une analyse standarisée des chaines opératoires sur les pièces foliacées du Paleolithique moyen tardi. In : Préhistoire et approche expérimentale. Eds. L. Bourgignon, I. Ortega, M.-C. Frèresautot. Montagnac, Editions Monique Mergoil., 2001, p. 77-78.

26. Richter J. Copies of Flakes: Operational Sequences of Foliate Pieces from Buran-Kaya III Level B1. In: The Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Crimea 3. Eds. V. P. Chabai, K. Monigal and A. E. Marks. Liège, ERAUL, 2004, no. 104, p. 233-247.

27. Veselsky A. P. Kabazi V: Production and Rejuvenation of Bifacial Tools. In: Kabazi V: Interstratification of Micoquian and Levallois Mousterian Camp Sites. Palaeolithic sites of Crimea. Eds. V. Chabai, Ju. Richter, Th. Uthmeier. Simferopol, Cologne, 2008, vol. 3, part 2, p. 455-479.

28. Uthmeier Th. Transformation Analysis and the Reconstruction of On-Site and Off-Site Activities: Methodological Remarks. In: The Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Crimea: The Paleolithic of Crimea III. Eds. V. P. Chabai, K. Monigal and A. E. Marks. Liège, ERAUL, 2004, no. 104, р. 175-191.

29. Uthmeier Th. The Transition from Middle - to Upper Palaeolithic at Buran Kaya III, Crimea (Ukraine): a case of conceptual continuity of lithic artefact manufacture?”. In: Flakes not Blades: The Role of Flake Production at the Onset of the Upper Palaeolithic. Wissenschaftliche Schriften des Neanderthal Museums 5. Eds. A. Pastoors, M. Peresani. Mettmann, 2012, p. 239-260.