Selungur-main

Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Quaternary International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint
Middle Paleolithic variability in Central Asia: Lithic assemblage of Sel’Ungur
cave
Andrey Krivoshapkina,b,∗, Bence Violac, Temirlan Chargynovd, Maciej T. Krajcarze,
Magdalena Krajcarzf, Stanisław Fedorowiczg, Svetlana Shnaidera,h, Kseniya Kolobovaa,h,∗∗
a
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ac. Lavrentieva 17, 630090, Novosibirsk, Russia
Novosibirsk State University, Pirogova 1, 630090, Novosibirsk, Russia
c
Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, 19 Russell St., Toronto, ON M5S 2S2, Canada
d
Kyrgyz National University, Frunze 547, 720033, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
e
Institute of Geological Sciences, Polish Academy of Sciences, Twarda 51/55, 00-818, Warszawa, Poland
f
Institute of Archaeology, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Szosa Bydgoska 44/48, 87-100, Toruń, Poland
g
Institute of Geography, Department of Geomorphology and Quaternary Geology, University of Gdańsk, Jana Bażyńskiego 4, 80-952, Gdańsk, Poland
h
Altai State University, Lenina 61, 656049, Barnaul, Russia
b
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Sel’Ungur cave
Archaeology
Lower paleolithic
Middle paleolithic
Variability
Reassessment
Lithic assemblage
Techno-typological analysis
Since the beginning of 21st century, a new stage began in investigations of the Central Asian Palaeolithic. The
main concern is to re-study the key regional sites, applying modern excavation techniques and up-to-date laboratory methods (including chronometric dating) in order to clarify the rationale and chronology of the local
cultural sequences. This research allowed some crucial corrections about the chronological and cultural interpretations of the lithic industries in western Central Asia. This paper presents the first results obtained during our
reexcavation of Sel’Ungur cave – usually assumed to be one of the earliest Paleolithic sites in Central Asia,
described in the late 1980s as belonging to the early Acheulian technocomplex. Sel’Ungur cave is among the
most important pre-Upper Palaeolithic site for our understanding of the Pleistocene inhabitants of Central Asia,
as did not only yield rich lithic collections found stratified context but also numerous fossil faunal and even some
hominin remains. Re-started at 2014, the new excavations at the site have provided enough evidence to refuse an
Acheulian interpretation of site's assemblages. Based on detailed technological and typological analyses of the
new lithic collection we argue that Sel’Ungurian complex fits better into the early stage of the regional Middle
Paleolithic cultural variability. The previously available U-series date of around 126 ka (albeit without a reliable
stratigraphic and spatial context), the new TL date 112 ± 19 ka establishing the lower limit, paleontological
analyses of newly obtained material as well as the re-examination of the available information on macro- and
microfaunal remains excavated in the earlier excavations, as well as the re-study of the anthropological finds
support this assessment.
1. Introduction
Recently, the issue of the initial peopling of Central Asia arose
again, as new data became available on the chronology and material
culture of Paleolithic sites presumed to represent the Lower Paleolithic.
The key sites which are thought to evidence the initial peopling of
western Central Asia during the Lower Paleolithic were: pebble-tool
industries from loess sites situated in Afghan-Tajik Depression
(Tajikistan); the lower layers of Kulbulak (Uzbekistan); and the assemblage from Sel’Ungur cave (Kyrgyzstan) (Islamov and Krakhmal,
1995; Kasymov and Grechkina, 1994; Davis and Ranov, 1999;
Vishnyatsky, 1999).
The earliest archaeological localities in Central Asia are the Lower
Paleolithic sites in the Tajik Depression, an intermountain basin in
which up to 200 m thick loess cover was deposited in the course of the
Pleistocene. The Kul'dara cultural unit was the first to appear in the
∗
Corresponding author. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ac. Lavrentieva 17, 630090, Novosibirsk,
Russia.
∗∗
Corresponding author. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Lavrentieva Ave., 17, Novosibirsk, 630090,
Russia.
E-mail addresses: krivoshapkin@mail.ru (A. Krivoshapkin), kolobovak@yandex.ru (K. Kolobova).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2018.09.051
Received 19 February 2018; Received in revised form 8 August 2018; Accepted 30 September 2018
1040-6182/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Krivoshapkin, A., Quaternary International, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2018.09.051
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
A. Krivoshapkin et al.
Tajik Depression, with artifacts at Kul'dara deriving from pedocomplexes which predate the Brunhes/Matuyama boundary, and are thus
earlier than 780 ka (Ranov et al., 1995; Davis and Ranov, 1999). Similar, somewhat later industries were excavated at Lakhuti and Karatau. These sites were originally dated to 400-200 ka (Ranov and Davis,
1979), but more recent studies indicate an age closer to 400 to 600 ka
for some of the sites (Shackleton et al., 1995).
The archaeological complexes from the lowermost part of the
Kulbulak sequence (lower 22 layers) have been assigned to the
Acheulean based mostly on the results of paleomagnetic studies carried
out by H. Toichiev. It was claimed that Brunhes-Matuyama boundary
was identified in the lowest section of the site (Kasymov and Toichiev,
1981). The re-examination of Kulbulak in the last decade led us to refute both chronological and cultural interpretations accepted before
(Kolobova et al., 2018a). The new studies found no Acheulian features
of the assemblage and we interpreted the lower cultural layers of Kulbulak as belonging to a regional Middle Paleolithic blade assemblage,
the Obi-Rakhmatian.
The last significant site for the Central Asian Lower Paleolithic is
Sel’Ungur cave in the Fergana valley, of special importance because it is
the only one of these sites that is stratified. Excavations in the 1980s by
Utkur Islamov revealed a rich lithic assemblage associated with animal
and hominin fossils. The excavators described the lithic assemblage as
early Acheulian but also compared it to late Oldowan complexes
(Islamov, 1990; Islamov et al., 1988; Islamov and Krakhmal, 1995).
Currently it is the one of the most important sites in Central Asia the
revision of which can provide answers to challenging questions regarding the earliest stage of peopling and first inhabitants in the region.
100 m long) faces south-east and is at an altitude of about 1900 m
above sea level. In 1956, 1964 A. Okladnikov and colleagues dug several test pits in the cave (Zones 1–3 in Fig. 2) and found both faunal and
lithic remains (Viola and Krivoshapkin, 2014). In 1980 the site was
excavated under the direction of U. Islamov, who worked both inside
and outside the cave (Zones 4–7 in Fig. 2). Further excavations by Islamov and Krakhmal were undertaken in 1988–1990 (Zone 9 in Fig. 2.
Zones 8 and 10 are not documented in the plans published by Islamov &
Krakhmal).
Islamov and Krakhmal, described the Pleistocene strata as consisting of a series of loam and silt layers up to 8 m thick. The number of
in situ cultural horizons ranges from 2 to 13, depending on excavation
area location. All horizons were grouped into five major units which
Islamov called ‘cultural layers’, each separated by 40–100 cm thick
sterile horizons. At Sel’Ungur cave total of 1500 lithic artifacts have
been found during field seasons from 1980 to 1988, all defined as belonging to the Lower Paleolithic (Islamov and Krakhmal, 1995).
The chronology of the Sel’Ungur deposits is unclear. U. Godin (in
Islamov and Krakhmal, 1995) interpreted the deposits in the cave as
part of the Lower Pleistocene Sokh series; an unpublished Ar/Ar date of
1.4 MYA supposedly supports this estimate (Islamov, pers. comm.,
2004). According to Islamov and colleagues (Islamov et al., 1988a,b;
Velichko et al., 1990), the microfaunal evidence excludes a Late or
Middle Pleistocene age.
There are several arguments though that a Lower Pleistocene
chronostratigraphy for Sel’Ungur deposits is unlikely: a breccia or
speleothem (described as “travertine”) associated with the uppermost
cultural horizon gave a U/Th date of 126+-5 ka (Vishnyatsky, 1999);
the large mammal fauna shows elements that are more characteristic of
the Middle or Late Pleistocene; new studies of the microfauna found no
Early Pleistocene elements (Markova, 2013).
The lithic assemblage is dominated by short and massive flakes and
contains choppers, simple side-scrapers, notches and denticulate tools.
Islamov et al. (1988) initially interpreted the assemblage as Acheulean,
2. History of research
Sel’Ungur cave is located in the Sokh river valley of the Fergana
depression (Kyrgyzstan), near the present day town of Khaidarkan (39°
57′ 12″ N, 71° 19′ 31″ E) (Fig. 1). The large cave (34 m wide, 25 m high,
Fig. 1. Map showing the location of Sel’Ungur & other Middle Paleolithic sites.
2
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
A. Krivoshapkin et al.
Fig. 2. Plan of Sel’Ungur cave showing the location of excavation areas.
3. Materials and methods
arguing that the presence of a cleaver and a handaxe indicated affinities
with the South Asian Acheulean. Later, Islamov started to refer Sel’Ungur complex even to Oldowan industries with similarities to the
lower Oldowan layers of Ubeidiya (Islamov and Krakhmal, 1995).
Vishnyatsky (1999) assigned the Sel’Ungur assemblage to the Lower
Paleolithic pebble industries of Central Asia while Davis and Ranov
(1999) compared it to the pebble and flake industries also known from
Central Asian loess sites.
The site delivered over 4000 faunal remains obtained in a course of
1980s excavations. Species identification was published as a list, including Ovis ammon, Capra sibirica, Cervus cf. elaphus bactrianus, Equus
stenonis, Bos primigenius, “Dicerorhinus” kirchbergensis, Ursus spelaeus,
Crocuta crocuta and Panthera spelaea (Islamov et al., 1988a,b; Velichko
et al., 1990).
The human remains described consisted of six teeth and a juvenile
humeral shaft fragment (mistakenly reported as scapula by Davis and
Ranov, 1999), all deriving from cultural horizon 3 in excavation Zone 5.
Islamov et al. (1988a,b) and Zubov (2009) interpreted the teeth as
lower premolars and upper incisors of a local variant of Homo erectus
(”Ferganthropus” – name that was proposed by U. Islamov), but several
morphological details contradict this interpretation, and indicate that at
least five of the teeth do not represent hominins (Viola, 2009; Viola and
Krivoshapkin, 2014; contra Zubov, 2009). The juvenile humerus on the
other hand is clearly hominin. It preserves most of the shaft from the
distal epiphyseal line to the proximal part of the deltoid tuberosity, and
seems very long and gracile, though with very thick cortical bone. The
distal half of the shaft is triangular in cross section and flattened
mediolaterally, reminiscent of the morphology seen in Neanderthals,
but also other archaic hominins (Viola, pers. obs.).
A fragmentary hominin occipital, and several additional hominin
teeth were found in cultural horizon 2 of Zone 8 in 1988 (Islamov and
Krakhmal, 1995, p.68.), but sadly these specimens seem to have been
lost in the early 1990s.
Since the first publications describing the chronology and cultural
attribution of Sel’Ungur, Islamov's main conclusions have been criticized (Vishniatsky, 1996; Ranov and Dodonov, 1994; Dodonov, 2002).
3.1. Archaeological excavation
As the previous excavations at Sel’Ungur were not up to modern
standards, we started a re-excavation of the site in 2014 aimed at a
recovery of a well documented and stratigraphically constrained lithic
and faunal assemblage, as well as samples for dating, and other
geoarchaeological studies.
The excavations followed established standards of Palaeolithic excavations, piece plotting all objects and recording their detailed stratigraphic position. We excavated following stratigraphic units, lithic
and faunal remains > 2 cm were piece plotted individually, while
fragments smaller than this were collected in bulk for each decapage
and quarter m2.
The documentation process was digital, based on the protocols Viola
co-developed with P. Nigst for Willendorf and Grub-Kranawetberg (see,
Nigst et al., 2014; SI 2.1).
As the water available near the cave is contaminated with heavy
metals (Hg, As, Bi, Sb) from mining residues (UNEP/UNITAR, 2009),
sediments excavated from the cave were dry-sieved using a 2 mm sieve.
Keeping in mind a formidable size of the cave and a notable
thickness of its deposits several geophysical methods have been applied
to choose the most potentially informative areas to excavate. The application of electromotography and magnetometry methods helped to
preliminary evaluate a thickness of deposits at selected excavation area
– Zone 8 (Tsibizov et al., 2017).
3.2. Geological investigation
The lithostratigraphical description of sediments was based on
texture (grain size of matrix, presence, size and orientation of limestone
clasts) and sedimentary structures (presence, angle and dip of bedding
or lamination). In addition to this, the occurrence of characteristic nongeological material was noted, such as bones, coprolites and lithic assemblages.
3
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
A. Krivoshapkin et al.
Petrographic identification of raw material was used for pieces of
tools and cores larger than 2 cm. The non-destructive method using
microscopy of lithic surface in water immersion was applied
(Přichystal, 2013). The same method was used for alluvial gravel that
served as a source of Paleolithic raw material. The potential occurrence
of particular lithotypes in alluvia was also based on geological maps
(Igemberdiyev and Osmonbetov, 1980).
removed from deeper parts of the cave and deposited by mud flows or
debris flows. The relatively small thickness of the colluvial layers, the
low angle of inclination and the presence of intra-layer refittings indicate a short geological transport, presumably limited to several meters.
The TL age of layer 7 has been estimated to 112 ± 19 ka BP
(Table 1). The uncertainty of the calculation of equivalent dose is relatively high. It results from a relatively considerable variation in the
energy stored in the studied grains, what increased the uncertainty of
dating result up to 17%. Nevertheless, the achieved date strongly supports the Late Pleistocene chronology of all sediments bearing the
Middle Paleolithic material, which are situated above the dated strata.
3.3. Paleontological data
Remains of vertebrates were collected during excavation directly
from the sediment and after sieving with use of 2 mm mesh. Possible
specimens were identified to skeletal element and taxon. The bones
excavated during seasons 2014 and 2015 were identified using the
comparative collection of mammal bones of the Institute of
Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch RAS (Novosibirsk,
Russia). Remains collected during seasons 2016 and 2017 are stored in
State History Museum (Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan) and it was not yet possible
to identify these using a comparative collection. The whole assemblage
was a subject of taphonomic examination and studied for natural and
anthropic modifications.
4.2. Faunal remains
The identification and taphonomical analysis of the large mammals
remains collected from the Zone 8 during excavations 2015–2017 is
currently underway and at this moment only preliminary data can be
presented. Field observations show that the assemblage is dominated by
highly fragmented, unidentifiable remains. Until 2017, a total of 6112
bones and teeth was collected. Complete bones and teeth are rare in the
assemblage, and comprise 1% of the NISP. Herbivores are represented
mostly by argali (Ovis ammon) and Siberian ibex (Capra sibirica). Three
specimens with deciduous allowed the age estimation based on teeth
eruption, which is less than 24 months (Vigal and Machordom, 1985).
Single remains were attributed to steppe bison (Bison priscus), undetermined equids and cervids. Rhinoceratid remains were found in
2017 in Layer 6. Carnivore remains are rare, the identified remains
derive from large cats (Panthera cf. spelaea) and small canids.
The preservation of all paleontological material is very good. The
bone surfaces correspond to weathering stage 0/1 of Behrensmeyer
(1978), with no cracking or flaking, the edges of bones are sharp with
no traces of transportation or abrasion. The main factor responsible for
fragmentation of bones is still not clear. Though the spiral fractures and
oblique fractured angles of long bone shafts are common, no direct
traces of human activity, such as cut marks or percussion marks, were
found. The traces of carnivore modifications are also rare, only twelve
examples show bite marks and further seven were digested.
3.4. Lithic analysis
We analyzed all lithic assemblages found during the 2014–2016
seasons from the new excavations in Zone 8 of Sel’Ungur Cave. We
followed attribute analysis aimed at the reconstruction of raw material
exploitation in the pattern that was proposed by K. Monigal and V.
Chabay (Monigal, 2002; Chabai, 2006). Reconstruction of raw material
exploitation provides the identification of many technologically significant attributes.
3.5. Chronometric dating
A sediment sample of ca. 0.5 kg was taken from fresh wall of archaeological trench, from layer 7 in Zone 8, with restrictions applying
to TL sampling (Nelson et al., 2015, i.e., sampling under dark conditions, the external part of sediment removed and sample secured in a
nontransparent container). The TL dating was performed in the Institute of Geography, University of Gdańsk (Poland). The concentrations of radium, thorium and potassium isotopes were determined by
gamma spectrometry. In calculating the annual dose (dr), the sediment
moisture at 20% as well as cosmic ray corrections were taken into account. To determine the equivalent dose (de) the polymineral fraction
of 63–80 μm was separated on the mesh and later analyzed. The multiple aliquot method was used using irradiation with the doses of 100,
200, 300, 400 and 500 Gy. The TL age is the quotient of the equivalent
dose and the annual dose. The detailed description of the method used
is included in the paper by Fedorowicz (2006).
4.3. Archaeological assemblages
Between 2014 and 2017, we excavated 2.5 m2 in the entrance area
of the cave (Zone 8 of Islamov), with layers 4.4–6.2 containing cultural
horizons.
According to the results of preliminary petrographic analysis, approximately 20 types of raw material have been used to produce
Sel’Ungur assemblage; among these a mudstone of relatively good
quality and a radiolarite of good quality obtained from river beds are
the most numerous types. The assemblage includes also porphyritic and
aphanitic effusives, sandstones, silificied carbonate rocks, nodular
cherts, jasperoids and quartz. Raw material of poor quality, such as
tectonically brecciated chert and shale, can be found in close proximity
of the cave and even inside the cave, but the raw material of good
quality has been transported from some distance. Pebbles of mudstone
and porphyry were accessible from alluvial deposits in the direct
proximity of the cave (Fig. 4). Radiolarites and jasperoids are absent in
the riverine sediments near the cave, but could be found approximately
5 km away.
The total number of the lithic artifacts excavated in 2014–2016 is
2505; nearly half of them are debris and chips (Table 2).
Seven lithic assemblages (sets of artifacts found inside one sedimentary stratum) were analyzed. Based on our interpretation of site
formation processes artefacts included into layers 5.1 and 5.2 show
more or less “in situ” context while artifacts presented above are the
result of their re-deposition from the same “cultural layer” existed in
the back of the cave due to colluvial processes. That is why
4. Results
4.1. Stratigraphy and chronology
The two areas of excavation, Zone 5 and Zone 8, consist of different
sedimentary sequences, therefore we cannot correlate them lithostratigraphically at the moment. In Zone 5, the Pleistocene sequence
exhibits little lithological variability. The subdivision into layers is
possible due to slight differences in color, but the grain size distribution
of both loamy matrix and limestone clasts does not change from the
bottom to the top. Sediments are inclined towards the entrance and
contain numerous fine clay clasts and sparse limestone clasts. These
characteristics indicate a colluvial origin for the sediments, connected
to transport by water from the deeper parts of cave. In Zone 8, the
Pleistocene sequence comprises several series of different texture and
origin (Fig. 3). Paleolithic artifacts occur in colluvial sediments,
4
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
A. Krivoshapkin et al.
Fig. 3. Litho-stratigraphical profile of the sediments from Zone 8, Sel’Ungur Cave. Arrows mark the strata with Paleolithic artifacts.
archaeological remains found in upper layers cannot be described in
terms of “archaeological occupations” and, according to our opinion,
could be included into one unit. In general, the structure of the whole
complex is typical for a workshop because to the presence of cores,
bifacial pre-forms, raw material chunks, various core preparation
blanks, primary flakes and bifacial thinning flakes. The relatively high
number of tools, relatively low number of chips and high cores-to-tools
ratio could be indicative of the import of tools into the site.
The primary knapping process is represented by pre-cores, core
preparation blanks, cores, flakes and sporadic blades and bladelets. Pre5
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
A. Krivoshapkin et al.
Table 1
Results of TL dating of the sediment sample from Sel’Ungur Cave, layer 7.
lab. No.
Radionuclide concentration
−1
[Bq kg
226
UG-7091
]
232
Ra
20.6 ± 2.5
4
Th
41.2 ± 4.0
K
662 ± 60
Dose rate
Equivalent dose
TL age
dr
de
[ka]
[Gy/ka]
[Gy]
3.67 ± 0.36
411.0 ± 46.0
112 ± 19
Fig. 4. Accessibility of the main types of raw material in alluvial gravels of the northern part of Sokh-Obishir water drainage basin: a – porphyries, b – radiolarites
and jasperoids, c – mudstones. The watershed of the Sokh-Obishir basin is marked with a dashed line.
Table 2
Breakdown of the lithic assemblage from Sel’Ungur cave.
layer 6.2
layer 6.1
layer 5.2
layer 5.1
layer 4.7
layer 4.6
layer 4.4
TOTAL:
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Pre-cores
Cores
Pre-formes
Tools*
Flakes**
Blades**
Bladelets**
Chips***
Chunks
Unidentifiable debitage
–
2
–
–
22
–
–
21
10
–
–
3,64
–
–
40,00
–
–
38,18
18,18
–
1
–
–
1
31
–
–
13
9
–
1,82
–
–
1,82
56,36
–
–
23,64
16,36
–
–
3
–
24
261
2
–
310
61
3
–
0,45
–
3,61
39,31
0,30
–
46,69
9,19
0,45
2
1
5
114
467
8
5
617
239
9
0,14
0,07
0,34
7,77
31,83
0,55
0,34
42,06
16,29
0,61
1
1
–
7
47
–
–
45
18
1
0,83
0,83
–
5,83
39,17
–
–
37,50
15,00
0,83
–
1
–
7
51
–
–
28
17
–
–
0,96
–
6,73
49,04
–
–
26,92
16,35
–
–
–
–
7
24
–
–
6
3
–
–
–
–
17,50
60,00
–
–
15,00
7,50
–
4
8
5
160
903
10
5
1040
357
13
0,16
0,32
0,20
6,39
36,04
0,40
0,21
41,51
14,25
0,52
4
8
5
159
903
10
5
–
–
–
0,37
0,73
0,46
14,53
82,54
0,91
0,46
–
–
–
TOTAL
55
100,00
55,00
100,00
664
99,55
1467
100,00
120
100,00
104
100,00
40
100,00
2505
100,00
1094
100,00
*Tools - only the retouched tools have been included.
**To define blank's parameters and definition we follow after Debenath and Dibble, 1994.
***Chips - flakes which do not exceed 20 mm in maximal dimension.
6
Total, esse
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
A. Krivoshapkin et al.
Fig. 5. Cores from Sel’Ungur cave assemblages. 1, 3, 4, 7 - unidirectional/bidirectional cores; 2, 5 – radial cores; 6 – orthogonal core.
Table 3
Breakdown of the cores from Sel’Ungur cave.
CORES
layer 6.2
layer 5.2
layer 5.1
layer 4.7
layer 4.6
Bidirectional, rectangular, naturally convex back
Bidirectional, ovoid, naturally convex back
Unidirectional,rectangular, naturally convex back
Unidirectional, ovoid, flattened back
Orthogonal, ovoid, flattened back
Orthogonal, rectangular, naturally convex back
Radial, rectangular, naturally convex back
1
–
1
–
–
–
–
1
–
–
1
1
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
1
–
–
–
–
–
1
–
–
–
1
–
–
–
–
TOTAL:
2
3
1
1
1
7
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
A. Krivoshapkin et al.
Table 4
Sel’Ungur cave: composition of blank assemblage.
layer 6.2
layer 6.1
layer 5.2
layer 5.1
layer 4.7
layer 4.6
layer 4.4
TOTAL:
Total, esse
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Flakes
Flakes, cortical débordant
Flakes, lateral débordant
Flakes, crested débordant
Flakes, overpassed
Flakes, radial core débordant
Flakes, technical
Flakes, bifacial thinning
Flakes, primary
Flakes, natural
Blades
Bladelets
Unidentifiable debitage
9
0
2
–
–
–
–
–
2
–
–
–
–
69,23
0,00
15,38
–
–
–
–
–
15,38
–
–
–
–
14
0
2
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
87,50
0,00
12,50
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
95
8
12
–
–
3
4
3
8
0
2
0
3
68,84
5,80
8,70
–
–
2,17
2,90
2,17
5,80
0,00
1,45
0,00
2,17
310
7
22
4
2
15
8
4
24
1
6
5
9
74,34
1,68
5,28
0,96
0,48
3,60
1,92
0,96
5,76
0,24
1,44
1,20
2,16
27
0
1
1
–
–
–
–
1
–
–
–
1
87,10
0,00
3,23
3,23
–
–
–
–
3,23
–
–
–
3,23
32
1
1
–
–
1
–
1
1
–
–
–
–
86,49
2,70
2,70
–
–
2,70
–
2,70
2,70
–
–
–
–
15
0
2
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
88,24
0,00
11,76
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
502
16
42
5
2
19
12
8
36
1
8
5
13
75,15
2,40
6,29
0,75
0,30
2,84
1,80
1,20
5,39
0,15
1,20
0,75
1,95
502
16
42
5
2
19
12
8
36
1
7
5
–
76,64
2,44
6,41
0,76
0,31
2,90
1,83
1,22
5,50
0,15
1,07
0,76
–
TOTAL:
13
668
100,15
655
100,00
16
138
417
31
37
17
Fig. 6. Core preparation blanks from Sel’Ungur cave assemblages. 1–3, 7 - bifacial thinning flakes; 4, 6, 8, 10, 11 - radial débordant (core-edge) flakes; 9 - technical
flake.
8
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
A. Krivoshapkin et al.
that part of the decortication activity took place outside the cave
(Tables 4 and 5).
The frequency of core preparation flakes without primary blanks in
the assemblage is 16.03% (of total without debris and chips). The relatively high frequency of débordant (12.52%) and technical flakes
(1.83%) demonstrate that the active process of flaking had been done
inside the cave. The dominance of lateral débordant flakes and radial
débordant flakes without cortical surface shows the subsequent stages of
knapping following the decortication (Table 5). The cortex placement
demonstrates the high frequency of lateral and distal positions of the
cortical parts on the regular flakes and core preparation blanks, consistent with radial and orthogonal techniques (Table 6).
Among all blank types, unidirectional, orthogonal and radial scar
patterns predominate, which corresponds to the unidirectional, radial
and orthogonal cores in the collection (Table 7). Metrical parameters of
blanks with different scar patterns do not allow us to distinguish different stages of knapping, based on scar pattern. Levallois flakes or
points have not been found.
Metrical parameters demonstrate the prevalence of relatively short
and wide blanks with very wide striking platforms (Fig. 7: a, b, c).
The tool kit consists of 158 pieces (Table 8). Tools were made of all
blank types, except for bladelets and crested lateral flakes. In general,
we found no metrical or morphological differences between tools and
blanks without secondary treatment (Fig. 7: a, b, c).
The most vivid part of the tool kit consists of bifacial tools. One
complete (Fig. 8: 1), two incomplete bifacial tools (Fig. 8: 2) and three
bifacial pre-forms (Fig. 8: 3–5) have been found in the assemblage. The
complete bifacial tool – a semi-crescent scraper - was made of mudstone
of good quality in plano-convex technique, evidenced by clear differentiation of surfaces. Eight bifacial thinning flakes prove that at least
part of bifacial production took place at the cave. The most interesting
circumstance is a presence of tools, made of bifacial thinning flakes
(Fig. 6: 7).
Within the scraper group a new and unique type was identified that
we name ‘Sel’Ungur scraper’. Sel’Ungur scrapers were usually manufactured on short and wide flakes with a wide and thick striking platform. Both proximal and dorsal parts of the blank had been alternately
retouched. As a result, a «diamond shaped » longitudinal cross-section is
formed (Fig. 9; Fig. 10: 3, 4). Two variations in the secondary treatment
of Sel’Ungur scrapers are identified: with only one edge (distal or
proximal) retouched (Fig. 10: 1, 2, 5), and with both edges retouched
dorsally (Fig. 10: 6, 7). According to Islamov's illustrations, the Sel’Ungur scrapers were described by him as “pointe de Quinson” (Islamov
and Krakhmal, 1995).
Several Tayacian points (Debenath and Dibble, 1994) with convergent denticulate retouch, made of thick flakes were manufactured
from radiolarite of good quality (Fig. 11: 1–5).
Table 5
Sel’Ungur cave: cortex surface by blank types.
0%
1–25%
26–50%
51–75%
76–100%
TOTAL:
Flakes
Flakes, cortical
débordant
Flakes, lateral
débordant
Flakes, crested
débordant
Flakes, overpassed
Flakes, radial core
débordant
Flakes, technical
Flakes, bifacial
thinning
Flakes, primary
Flakes, natural
Blades
Bladelets
Unidentifiable
debitage
384
0
58
7
48
4
11
1
–
4
501
16
33
6
2
1
–
42
5
–
–
–
–
5
1
16
1
3
–
–
–
–
–
–
2
19
3
7
3
–
4
1
2
–
–
–
12
8
–
–
7
4
8
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
1
1
–
–
–
–
–
36
1
1
–
4
36
1
8
5
13
TOTAL:
%
468
70,06
78
11,68
61
9,13
15
2,25
46
6,89
668
100,00
cores and cores are 1.1% of the total assemblage, while the category of
blanks, including shaped in to tools, comprises 43.02% of all artifacts
and 98.45% of the inventory without debris and chips. The tool kit is
numerous – 14.53% (of the total without debris and chips). The primary
knapping was based on three reduction strategies: radial (Fig. 5: 2, 5),
unidirectional/bidirectional (Fig. 5: 1, 3, 4, 7) and orthogonal (Fig. 5: 6;
Table 3). We did not find any features of a blade reduction strategy. The
cores are small and most of them are exhausted (Fig. 5: 7).
We define a blank for each lithic artifact with apparent ventral and
dorsal surfaces with length or width ≥20 mm (Table 4). Core preparation blanks reflect the lateral treatment of the cores and are characterized by triangular or trapezoidal lateral steep cross sections
(Fig. 6). We divided core preparation blanks into several categories
based on metrical parameters and types of the dorsal scar patterns.
These include among others radial débordant flakes (Fig. 6: 4, 6, 8, 10,
11), technical flakes (Kantenabschläge) (Figs. 6 and 9) (Richter, 1997,
p.186–187) and bifacial thinning flakes (Fig. 6: 1–3, 7) (Table 4). The
frequency of blades and bladelets is 1.83% of the flakes and core preparation blanks (Table 4). No core preparation blanks made of blades or
bladelets have been found; there is no evidence for intentional blade or
bladelet production in the assemblage.
The small number of primary flakes (completely covered by cortex;
5.5%) coupled with relatively high amount of cortical flakes indicates
Table 6
Sel’Ungur cave: cortex placement by blank types.
Cortex
Lateral
Bi-Lateral
Proximal
Central
Distal
None
TOTAL:
Flakes
Flakes, cortical débordant
Flakes, lateral débordant
Flakes, crested débordant
Flakes, overpassed (flanc de nucleus)
Flakes, radial core débordant
Flakes, technical
Flakes, bifacial thinning
Flakes, primary
Flakes, natural
Blades
Bladelets
Unidentifiable debitage
2
4
–
–
–
1
2
–
36
1
1
–
4
49
12
–
–
–
2
–
–
–
–
–
1
–
2
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
11
–
1
–
–
–
1
–
–
–
–
–
1
9
–
3
–
–
–
1
–
–
–
–
–
–
44
–
5
–
1
1
5
–
–
–
–
–
–
384
–
33
5
1
15
3
8
–
–
7
4
8
501
16
42
5
2
19
12
8
36
1
8
5
13
TOTAL:
%
51
7,63
64
9,58
2
0,30
14
2,10
13
1,95
56
8,38
468
70,06
668
100,00
9
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
A. Krivoshapkin et al.
Table 7
Sel’Ungur cave: dorsal scar patterns, by blank types.
Cortex
Radial
Convergent
Unidirectional
Bidirectional
Bidirectional/
lateral
Orthogonal
Crossed
Crested
Plain
Unidentifiable
TOTAL:
Flakes
Flakes, cortical débordant
Flakes, lateral débordant
Flakes, crested débordant
Flakes, overpassed (flanc
de nucleus)
Flakes, radial core
débordant
Flakes, technical
Flakes, bifacial thinning
Flakes, primary
Flakes, natural
Blades
Bladelets
Unidentifiable debitage
28
4
2
–
–
45
–
–
–
18
1
1
–
–
132
11
15
1
1
12
–
1
–
–
10
–
1
–
–
68
–
14
1
1
37
–
2
1
–
–
–
1
1
–
48
–
3
–
–
103
–
2
1
–
501
16
42
5
2
–
3
2
3
–
–
4
4
–
1
2
19
5
–
36
1
1
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
1
1
–
–
7
4
1
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
1
–
–
–
–
–
–
2
1
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
1
–
–
–
–
–
1
–
6
–
–
–
3
2
–
–
–
–
–
–
9
12
8
36
1
8
5
13
TOTAL:
%
80
11,98
50
7,49
22
3,29
176
26,35
14
2,10
11
1,65
89
13,32
47
7,04
3
0,45
53
7,93
123
18,41
668
100,00
% esse
14,68
9,17
4,04
32,29
2,57
2,02
16,33
8,62
0,55
9,72
–
100,00
Fig. 7. a - Comparison of the dimensions (length and width) of the complete blanks from Sel’Ungur cave assemblages; b - Comparison of the dimensions (width and
thickness) of blanks from Sel’Ungur cave assemblages; c - Comparison of the dimensions (width and thickness) of blanks's striking platforms.
There are several other tool types more typical for the Middle
Paleolithic typology in the assemblage, including a series of Mousterian
tranchets (Debenath and Dibble, 1994) characterized by working edges
mostly similar to retouch-less splintered pieces (Fig. 11: 6–9). There are
also several convergent scrapers identified as well as a triple dejete
scraper (Fig. 11: 10, 11).
The Sel’Ungur scrapers, Tayacian points and Mousterian tranchets
have a high degree of metrical (Fig. 12) as well as morphological regularity, associated with exploitation of high quality raw material.
Transversal and diagonal side-scrapers are frequent in the tool kit.
Among the transversal scrapers with a high and steep working edge
(abrupt scrapers) there are several tools which were made of natural
shatters of tectonically brecciated chert. Single and double straight
scrapers, raclette, borers, notched, denticulate tools and retouched
flakes are also noted.
5. Discussion
Due to the colluvial character of sediments bearing the Paleolithic
artifacts, we have to assume that the inventories have been re-deposited
10
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
A. Krivoshapkin et al.
Table 8
Breakdown of the tool kit from Sel’Ungur cave.
Tool types
layer 6.1
layer 5.2
layer 5.1
layer 4.7
layer 4.6
layer 4.4
Total
Тауас point
Transversal scrapers:
transverse with a high steep working edge
transverse
diagonal
Selungurian type:
double-alternate
double-dorsal
single-on striking plarform
Side scrapers
single-straight
double-straight
Convergent scrapers
Dejete scraper
Bifacial scraper
Iincomplete bifasial scraper
Mousterian tranche
Raclette
Borers
Dentoculated tools
Notched tools
Retouched flakes
Unidentifiable tools
1
–
–
–
1
–
–
1
–
–
1
-
1
2
–
1
1
–
–
–
–
6
2
4
1
2
3
7
1
4
26
9
4
7
6
3
2
1
15
13
2
3
1
1
1
7
4
4
10
6
21
9
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
1
1
–
1
1
3
1
-
1
–
–
1
–
–
–
–
3
2
1
1
1
1
-
1
–
–
–
1
1
–
–
1
1
–
1
1
3
-
5
31
TOTAL:
3
24
113
7
7
7
158
26
6
1
1
2
10
4
6
14
9
33
10
Fig. 8. Bifacial tools and pre-forms from Sel’Ungur cave assemblages. 1 – Semi-crescent scraper; 2 – Incomplete leaf-shape bifacial tool; 3–5 – bifacial pre-forms.
11
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
A. Krivoshapkin et al.
parts of decortication process took place outside the cave.
Technological parameters such as core metrics, presence of primary
flakes, and lateral core preparation blanks and the totality of blanks,
presuppose a high core utilization degree. This was most probably related to the necessity of transport of a significant frequency of the raw
material from quite distant localities (5 km or more).
Based on characteristics of scar pattern, ventral angles between the
striking platform and the ventral surface, as well as cores utilized along
their short axis, we can assume that one of the major goals of primary
knapping was to manufacture short and wide blanks with very massive
striking platforms in frame of radial knapping.
The prevalence of blanks with rectangular/trapezoidal shapes, with
discordance between the longitudinal and technological axis mostly
corresponds to radial and orthogonal knapping. The predominance of
straight lateral profiles with feathering distal end profiles demonstrates
a sufficiently highly controlled knapping process. Ratios of the overhang trimming on striking platforms and types of striking platforms are
usual for non-Levallois Middle Paleolithic assemblages.
All stages of bifacial production are present in the assemblage (preforms, bifacial thinning flakes incomplete bifacial tools, and complete
bifacial tools). The typological structure of the blanks demonstrates the
predominance of flake core knapping in the assemblage. It is supported
by low frequency of the bifacial thinning flakes, pre-forms and bifaces
itself.
The relatively high frequency of tools in the assemblage is remarkable. Bearing in mind the relatively low frequency of chips, it
cannot be excluded that part of the tools could be transported from
different parts of cave or from outside the cave. Comparisons of the
tools and other blanks did not show any specific features of blanks used
for production of tools. The tool kit is characterized by the predominance of transversal and diagonal scrapers, including the
Sel’Ungur scrapers. Tayacian points, Mousterian tranchets, abrupt and
convergent scrapers have also been recorded. The high degree of regularity with regards to raw material and morpho-metrics of the
Sel’Ungur scrapers, Tayacian points and Mousterian tranchets attest to
intentional manufacture of blanks with required characteristics.
On the basis of techno-typological characteristics presented above,
the previous interpretation of Sel’Ungur assemblage as Acheulian or
even late Oldowan, as proposed by Islamov and Krakhmal (1995),
cannot be accepted. Sel’Ungur does not show any similarities to other
Lower Paleolithic techno-complexes known from western Central Asia
either. The Karatau culture (600-400 ka) and Kul'dara (850–950 ka)
assemblages, are characterized as pebble-tool industries occurring in
loess deposits (Davis and Ranov, 1999; Ranov and Schafer, 2000; Ranov
and Karimova, 2005), and clearly differ from Sel’Ungur.
Keeping in mind the not secure dated context of Sel’Ungur assemblage and in order to check the possibility of Upper Paleolithic interpretation we tried to find similarities with known regional Upper
Paleolithic assemblages (upper layers of Kulbulak, Dodecatym-2,
Shugnou, Samarkandkaya etc.; Vishnyatsky, 1999; Ranov et al., 2012;
Kolobova et al., 2014; Kolobova et al., 2018b) and did not find any.
Based on the technical and typological characteristics described
above, the Sel’Ungur assemblage from layers 4.4–6.2 should be considered as Middle Paleolithic. The most important arguments for this
are the: a) systematic core reduction; b) presence of plano-convex
technique; c) typologically definitive side-scrapers which predominate
in tool kit; and d) presence of highly standardized tool types.
It is worth to note that plano-convex bifacial tools identified in the
Sel’Ungur assemblage, are the very first ones found in western Central
Asia. Several bifaces from Sel’Ungur cave have been reported by
Islamov previously, but the published figures are insufficient to propose
a detailed classification (Islamov and Krakhmal, 1995; Vishnyatsky,
1999). Several bifaces from a stratified context were also known from
another “Acheulian” site, namely the lower layers of Kulbulak (excavations done in 1960–80), according to Kasymov. Unfortunately, all
those bifaces have been lost, and based on illustrations only (Kasymov
Fig. 9. Sel’Ungur scrapers from Sel’Ungur cave assemblages. 1 - Operation
chain of Sel’Ungur scraper production; 2 – Sel’Ungur type side-scraper.
and their spatial arrangement does not reflect the original structure of
the site. However, small vertical distances and techno-typological similarities between the lithic inventories from particular Paleolithic
layers allow us to suppose that the most or all of these inventories represent more or less the same original assemblage.
Pending the new absolute age determinations, we can only rely only
on the published U/Th date of 126 ± 5 ka (Vishnyatsky, 1999. P. 110).
However, according to the documentation accessible to us, this date
was received on sediments from the inner part of the cave, situated
quite far from Zone 8, and does not therefore correlate directly with the
archaeological assemblage. We also discount the unpublished Ar/Ar
date of 1.4 MYA due to lack of any stratigraphic and spatial context.
The new TL date 112 ± 19 ka marks the lower limit for the Middle
Paleolithic sequence. Although this date cannot be used to establish the
exact chronology of the archaeological assemblages, it narrows the
chronological range of the Paleolithic layers to the Upper Pleistocene.
Considering that the new studies of the microfauna found no Early
Pleistocene elements (Markova, 2013) and the large mammals consist
of Middle and Late Pleistocene taxa (some of them typical also for
Holocene), the period of Sel’Ungur cave occupation can be preliminary
estimated to be Late Pleistocene.
Based on the results of the analysis of cores and blanks it could be
argued that radial, orthogonal and unipolar knapping has been used in
Sel’Ungur cave. The small number of cores does not allow us to reconstruct the whole knapping sequence, but it is possible to reconstruct
the general features of the knapping processes.
Cores were manufactured on tested pebbles, and only one specimen
was produced of local tectonically brecciated chert. The profrequencys
of primary, technical and lateral flakes provide evidence for the incomplete core reduction sequence in the cave, and suggest that some
12
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
A. Krivoshapkin et al.
Fig. 10. Sel’Ungur scrapers. 1, 2, 5 - distally/proximally retouched Sel’Ungur scrapers with one working edge; 3, 4 – alternate Sel’Ungur scrapers; 6, 7 - dorsally
retouched with two working edges.
and Grechkina, 1994; Kolobova et al., 2018a) those bifaces can be described as biconvex forms.
Currently, it is not possible to find any analogies to the Sel’Ungur
assemblage in terms of technological or typological characteristics in
the Middle Paleolithic of western Central Asia. Up until now, several
Middle Palaeolithic techno-complexes have been identified in this region, including the Teshik-Tashian and Obi-Rakhmatian. The TeshikTashian variant of Middle Paleolithic (Teshik-Tash rockshelter, Katta
Sai-1 and -2, all in Uzbekistan) is characterized by flake Levallois
Preferential technique, with relatively recent chronology, around 38 ka
(Okladnikov, 1949; Krajcarz et al., 2016). No predecessors of this variant have been identified thus far. The Obi-Rakhmatian variant (ObiRakhmat rockshelter and Kulbulak - layer 23, Uzbekistan; Khudji and
Dzhar-Kutan - Tajikistan) is characterized by a developed blade technology with an insignificant frequency of Levallois Convergent unidirectional blade technique, and is dated back to 100-40 ka. To date,
Levantine Middle Paleolithic blade industries such as found at Hayonim
and Misliya Caves, Israel, are regarded as a likely source of this variant
(Shalagina et al., 2015; Krivoshapkin, 2012).
Several other techno-complexes, such as Kara-Bura, Ogzi-Kichik,
Tosor and Yutash-sai, had been previously associated with different
Middle Paleolithic variants, but this requires revision (Vishnyatsky,
1999; Zenin et al., 2004; Ranov and Karimova, 2005). For the assemblage from Anghilak Cave, associated with Neanderthals (Glantz et al.,
2003), it is not yet clear whether it represents a part of a known Middle
Paleolithic variant, or a separate variant (Glantz et al., 2003).
Looking at the broader geographical range, we have to mention the
technological and typological similarities between Sel’Ungur assemblage and the Middle Pleistocene complexes from Yarimburgaz cave
(Turkey). According to ESR results, the Yarimburgaz cave sequence is in
the chronological range of OIS 6 to OIS 9. The Yarimburgaz lithic assemblage containing 1675 artifacts is characterized by a reduction of
discoidal cores aimed at the manufacture of flakes. The most important
part of the tool kit consists of tools made on flakes, among which
13
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
A. Krivoshapkin et al.
Fig. 11. Tools from Sel’Ungur cave assemblages. 1–5 - Tayacian points; 6–9 - Mousterian tranchets; 10 - triple dejete scraper; 11 - convergent scraper.
denticulate tools and side-scrapers are the most numerous ones. Flake
tools exceed the pebble tools represented by choppers. In the assemblage of Yarimburgaz cave neither the Levallois technique, nor handaxes (bifaces), nor bifacial thinning flakes have been identified. The
principal investigator of the Yarimburgaz Cave, S. Kuhn, emphasized
that parameters of raw material used in the assemblage allowed the
manufacturing of bifaces. The absence of bifaces has been explained in
terms of extreme rarity of its discovering in such deep karstic cavity
(Kuhn et al., 1996).
In both Sel’Ungur and Yarimburgaz caves, the radial/discoidal
knapping aimed at manufacturing flakes predominates, with an absence
of Levallois technique. The most significant resemblance among tools is
obvious: denticulate tools from Yarimburgaz Cave are similar to
Tayacian points from Sel’Ungur Cave; the same is true for abrupt
scrapers as well. However, in Yarimburgaz Cave a significant amount of
pebble tools were identified, which are missing at Sel’Ungur Cave.
Another difference includes plano-convex bifaces from Sel’Ungur Cave,
absent at Yarimburgaz cave (Kuhn et al., 1996).
6. Conclusions
The new study of the lithic assemblages from Sel’Ungur cave provides important information on the Central Asian Lower and Middle
Paleolithic, but raises a lot of new questions. The most important result
is that the Sel’Ungur assemblage can be attributed neither to Oldowan
nor Acheulian complexes as it was claimed earlier by U. Islamov and his
colleagues. Hence, the only known indisputable stratified Lower
Paleolithic sites in Central Asia are Karatau and Kul'dara pebble-tool
techno-complexes.
Based on newly obtained data and preliminary re-examination of
available material from previous excavations (published illustrations
and lithics) it could be proposed that the Sel’Ungur lithic assemblage
stays detached from known local Middle Paleolithic variability. The
main specifics of Sel’Ungur site are as follows:
14
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
A. Krivoshapkin et al.
widht, mm
70
60
50
mousterian splintered pieces
40
Тауасpoints
Selungurian scrapers
30
20
lenght, mm
10
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Fig. 12. Comparison of the dimensions (length and width) of the complete Sel’Ungur scrapers, Tayacian points and Mousterian tranchets from Sel’Ungur cave
assemblages.
1. Absolute absence of Levallois technology. The primary knapping is
based on radial, orthogonal and unipolar knapping aimed to obtain
short and wide flakes.
2. Presence of plano-convex bifacial tools, accompanied with bifacial
thinning flakes and tools made on bifacial thinning flakes.
3. Presence of specific tool types unknown in other Central Asian
Paleolithic assemblages, for example transversal scrapers made on
thick blanks with alternatively worked edges, Tayacian points and
Mousterian tranchets.
Chabai, V.P., 2006. History and recearch methods of Crimea Middle Paleolithic typological variability. Archaeological Almanac 18, 5–46 (In Ukraine).
Davis, R., Ranov, V., 1999. Recent work on the paleolithic of Central Asia. Evol.
Anthropol. 8, 186–193.
Debenath, A., Dibble, H.L., 1994. Handbook of Paleolithic Typology. Volum One: Lower
and Middle Paleolithic of Europe. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Dodonov, А.E., 2002. Chetvertichnyj Period Srednej Аzii. Stratigrafiya, Korrelyatsiya,
Paleogeografiya. Geos, Moskva.
Fedorowicz, S., 2006. Methodological Aspects of Luminescence Dating of Central
Europe’s Neopleistocene Deposits. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, Gdańsk
156 p. (In Polish).
Glantz, M., Suleymanov, R., Hughes, P., Schauer, A., 2003. Anghilak cave, Uzbekistan:
documenting Neandertal occupation at the periphery. Antiquity 77 (N 295), 1–4.
Igemberdiyev, S.A., Osmonbetov, K.O. (Eds.), 1980. Geologicheskaya Karta Kirgizskoy
CCR 1:500 000. Ministerstvo Geologii CCCR – Akademiya Nauk Kirgizskoy SSR,
Leningrad.
Islamov, U.I., 1990. Sel’ongour, un nouveau site du paléolithique inférieur en Asie
Centrale. L’Anthropologie 94, 675–688.
Islamov, U.I., Krakhmal, K.A., 1995. Palaeoecology and Traces of Ancient Man in Central
Asia. Fan, Tashkent.
Islamov, U.I., Zubov, A.A., Kharitonov, V., 1988a. Paleoliticheskaya stoyanka Sel'Ungur v
Ferganskoy doline (the palaeolithic site of Sel’ungur in the Fergana valley). Vopr.
Antropol. 80, 38–49 (in Russian).
Islamov, U.I., Zubov, A.A., Kharitonov, V., 1988b. Paleoliticheskaya stoyanka Sel’ungur v
Ferganskoy doline (The palaeolithic site of Sel’ungur in the Fergana Valley). Vopr.
Antropol. 80, 38–49 (in Russian).
Kasymov, M.R., Grechkina, T.Y., 1994. Kulbulak (Uzbekistan) and its significance for the
paleolithic of Central Asia. In: Masson, V.M. (Ed.), New Archaeological Discoveries in
Asiatic Russia and Central Asia. Institute for the History of Material Culture, St
Petersburg, pp. 5–13.
Kasymov, M.R., Toichiev, H., 1981. Otchet O Rezul'tatakh Polevykh Issledovanij
Аkhangoranskogo Paleoliticheskogo Otryada V 1981 G. Tashkent. Unpublished (in
Russian).
Kolobova, K.A., Krivoshapkin, A.I., Pavlenok, K.K., 2014. Carinated pieces in paleolithic
assemblages of Central Asia. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 42 (4), 13–29.
Kolobova, K.A., Flas, D., Krivoshapkin, A.I., Pavlenok, K.K., Vandenberghe, D., Dapper,
M. De, 2018a. Reassessment of the lower paleolithic (Acheulean) presencein the
western Tien Shan. Archaeolog. Anthropolog. Sci. 10 (3), 615–630.
Kolobova, K., Krivoshapkin, A., Shnaider, S., 2018b. Early geometric microlith technology
in Central Asia. Archaeolog. Anthropolog. Sci 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12520-018-0613-y.
Krajcarz, M., Kot, M., Pavlenok, K., Fedorowicz, S., Krajcarz, M., Lazarev, S., Mroczek, P.,
Radzhabov, A., Shnaider, S., Szymanek, M., Szymczak, K., 2016. Middle Paleolithic
sites of Katta Sai in western Tian Shan piedmont, Central Asiatic loess zone:
geoarchaeological investigation of the site formation and the integrity of the lithic
assemblages. Quat. Int. 399, 136–150.
Krivoshapkin, A.I., 2012. Obirakhmatien Version of Middle to Upper Paleolithic
Transition. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch of the Russian
Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk (in Russian).
Kuhn, S.L., Arsebük, G., Howell, F.C., 1996. The Middle Pleistocene lithic assemblage
from Yarimburgaz cave, Turkey. Paleorient 22 (1), 31–49.
Markova, A., 2013. Small mammals from Acheulean cave site Sel'Ungur (the Fergana
valley, Uzbekistan). In: Neogene to Quaternary Geological Evolution of
Mediterranian, Paratethys and Black Sea, Proceedings of the 14th RCMNS Congress,
pp. 261.
Monigal, K., 2002. The Levantine Leptolithic: Blade Technology from the Lower
Paleolithic to the Dawn of the Upper Paleolithic Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation.
Thus, based on revealed techno-typological uniqueness combined
with new geological, sedimentological, and paleontological data the
Sel’Ungur assemblage could be preliminary defined as a peculiar
manifestation of western Central Asian Middle Paleolithic variability.
The origin and cultural meaning of such peculiarity is a matter of further investigations which demand, first of all, a significant increase in
lithic sample and detailed chronological binding.
Acknowledgements
We thank the organizers of the session and APA Congress 2016, in
particular Dr. Masami Izuho (Tokyo Metropolitan University) for the
invitation to participate in this special issue of Quaternary
International. We acknowledge the incredible contributions of Natalia
Vavilina (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, SB RAS,
Novosibirsk, Russia) in producing illustrations for this article.
The excavations at Sel’Ungur were supported by the Leakey
Foundation (general grant "Middle Pleistocene hominins in Central Asia
- Excavations at Sel'Ungur" to B. Viola and A. I. Krivoshapkin, Russian
Foundation for Basic Recearch project (RFBR) #18-09-00222, and the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (430-201600590 to B. Viola). We are thankful to the Russian Science Foundation
(RNF) for support of the lithic analysis of this research project under
grant #14-50-00036, “Multidisciplinary Research in Archaeology and
Ethnography of Northern and Central Asia”. Geological and paleontological investigations have been supported by Institute of Geological
Sciences, Polish Academy of Sciences, inner projects for 2016 and 2017.
Geophysical investigations have been supported by Russian Foundation
for Basic Recearch project (RFBR) project #17-29-04122.
References
Behrensmeyer, A.K., 1978. Taphonomic and ecological information from bone weathering. Paleobiology 4, 150–162.
15
Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
A. Krivoshapkin et al.
Southern Methodist University, USA.
Nelson, M.S., Gray, H.J., Johnson, J.A., Rittenour, T.M., Feathers, J.K., Mahan, S.A.,
2015. User guide for luminescence sampling in archaeological and geological contexts. Adv. Archaeol. Pract 3 (2), 166–177.
Nigst, P.R., Haesaerts, P., Damblon, F., Frank-Fellner, C., Mallol, C., Viola, B., Götzinger,
M., Niven, L., Trnka, G., Hublin, J.J., 2014. Early modern human settlement of
Europe north of the Alps occurred 43,500 years ago in a cold steppe-type environment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 14394–14399.
Okladnikov, A.P., 1949. Study of the Mousterian site and of the Neanderthal burial in
Teshik-Tash cave, southern Uzbekistan (Central Asia). In: Nesturkh, M.A.,
Gremyatskiy, M.F. (Eds.), Teshik-tash – Paleolithic Human. Moscow State Univ Press,
Moscow, pp. 7–85 (in Russian).
Přichystal, A., 2013. Lithic Raw Materials in Prehistoric Times of Eastern Central Europe.
Masaryk University, Brno.
Ranov, V.A., Carbonell, E., Rodriguez, X.P., 1995. Kuldara: earliest human occupation in
Central Asia in its Afro-Asian context. Curr. Anthropol. 36, 337–346.
Ranov, V.A., Davis, R.S., 1979. Toward a new outline of the Soviet Central Asian paleolithic. Curr. Anthropol. 20, 249–270.
Ranov, V.A., Dodonov, А.E., 1994. About the periodization and chronology of lower
paleolithic sites in Central Asia. In: To the Sources of Old Stone Age in Central Asia.
FAN, Tashkent, pp. 44–53 (in Russian).
Ranov, V.A., Karimova, G.R., 2005. Kamennyi Vek Afgano-tadzhikskoi Depressii (Stone
Age of the Afghan-tajik Depression). Devashtish Press, Dushanbe (in Russian).
Ranov, V.A., Kolobova, K.A., Krivoshapkin, A.I., 2012. The upper paleolithic assemblages
of Shugnou, Tajikistan. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 2, 2–24.
Ranov, V.A., Schafer, J., 2000. Loess paleolithic. In: Archeology, Ethnography and
Anthropology of Eurasia 2. pp. 20–32.
Richter, J., 1997. Sesselfelsgrotte III: der G-Schichten-Komplex der Sesselfelsgrotte: zum
Verständnis des Micoquien. Quartär-Bibliothek 7, 473.
Shackleton, N.J., An, Z., Dodonov, A.E., Gavin, J., Kukla, G.J., Ranov, V.A., Zhou, L.P.,
1995. Accumulation rate of loess in Tadjikistan and China: relationship with global
ice volume cycles. Quat. Proc. 4, 1–6.
Shalagina, A.V., Krivoshapkin, A.I., Kolobova, K.A., 2015. Truncated-faceted pieces in the
paleolithic of Northern Asia. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 43 (4), 33–45.
Tsibizov, L.V., Krivoshapkin, A.I., Osipova, P.S., Olenchenko, V.V., Grigorevskaya, A.V.,
Viola, B., Chargynov, T., Kolobova, K.A., Shnaider, S.V., 2017. Set of geophysical
techniques tryout in Sel'Ungur cave (Kyrgyzstan). In: Theory And Practice Of
Archaeological Research 4. pp. 169–177.
UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme), UNITAR (United Nations Institute of
Training and Research), 2009. Khaidarkan Mercury – Addressing Primary Mercury
Mining in Kyrgyzstan.
Velichko, A.A., Arslanov, H.A., Gerasimova, S.A., Islamov, U.I., Kremenetskii, K.V.,
Markova, A.K., Udartsev, V.P., Chikolini, N.I., 1990. Stratigraphy and paleoecology
of the lower palaeolithic site of Sel’ungur (Soviet Central Asia). In: Derevianko, A.P.
(Ed.), Chronostratigraphy of the Paleolithic in North, Central, East Asia and America.
Institute of History, Philology and Philosophy, SB USSR Academy of Sciences,
Novosibirsk, pp. 239–243.
Vigal, C.R., Machordom, A., 1985. Tooth eruption and replacement in the Spanish wild
goat. Acta Theriol. 30, 305–320.
Viola, B., 2009. New Hominid Remains from Central Asia and Siberia: the Easternmost
Neanderthals: Dis. Dr. Rer. Nat. Wien: Universität Wien, pp. 233.
Viola, B., Krivoshapkin, A.I., 2014. Sel’ungur – Middle Plistocene Hominins in Central
Asia? In: Derevyanko, A.P., Shunkov, M.V. (Eds.), Cultural developments in the
Eurasian Paleolithic and the Origin of Anatomically Modern Humans. Publishing
Department of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography SB RAS, Novosibirsk,
pp. 172–178.
Vishniatsky, L.B., 1996. Paleolit Srednei Asii I Kazakhstana. Evropeisky dom,
St.Petersburg (in Russian).
Vishnyatsky, L.B., 1999. The palaeolithic of Central Asia. J. World PreHistory 13, 69–122.
Zenin, A.N., Rybin, E.P., Chargynov, T.T., 2004. Skrebki v srednepaleoliticheskih kompleksah stoyanki YUtash-Saj. In: Derevianko, A.P., Nohrina, T.I. (Eds.), Arheologiya I
Paleoehkologiya Evrazii. Izdatel’stvo IAET SO RAN, Novosibirsk, pp. 117–137.
Zubov, A.A., 2009. Seliungur teeth revisited. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 37,
135–143.
Further reading
Ranov, V.A., Kolobova, K.A., Krivoshapkin, A.I., 2012. The Upper Paleolithic assemblages
of Shugnou, Tajikistan. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 40 (2), 2–24.
16