The Lower Paleolithic in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus: A Reappraisal of the Data and New Approaches.

Abstract

A reappraisal of the artifacts and chronological evidence for the earliest occupation failed to recognize any loca-tion in Eastern Europe with solid evidence for a Lower Paleolithic occupation. Human occupations reported by various researchers at Gerasimovka, Bogatiry, and Kinjal are concluded to be “possibilith” locations rather than unquestionable artifact assemblages. Currently, only Treugol’naya Cave has reliably dated evidence for human settlement in Eastern Europe, from the beginning through the middle of the Middle Pleistocene. In Eastern Eu-rope, three assemblages from Khryashchy and Mikhailovskoe, and possibly Pogreby and Dubossary, appear to be the only locations that tentatively can be compared (despite problems with these materials) with Treugol’naya. All these Lower Paleolithic occupations yielded the Pre-Mousterian or Tayacian small tool industries with some pebble tools, but without Acheulian bifaces and Levallois technique. These data suggest that Eastern Europe lies outside the distribution range of the Acheulian techno-complex demarcated by the “Movius Line.” Additionally, data now available show that large-scale human colonization of Eastern Europe began with the spread of leaf point assemblages at the end of the Middle Pleistocene. It can be suggested that these lithic assemblages were produced by the first Neanderthal populations to appear in Eastern Europe; and, these assemblages may have developed from the Upper Acheulian or the earlier Middle Paleolithic leaf point industries in Central Europe.In the Southern Caucasus, the available chronological data indicate that the Acheulian complex has a later tempo-ral appearance here compared to the Upper Acheulian or Acheulo-Yabrudian in Western Asia. Two main Upper Acheulian industrial variants currently can be recognized in the Southern Caucasus. The first, called the Kudarian by the author (from the caves of Kudaro I, Kudaro III, and Azykh), is characterized by lithics made from mostly siliceous rocks, rare Acheulian bifaces, and non-Levallois flaking technique. The second variant is characterized by lithics made from volcanic rocks, numerous Acheulian bifaces, and often more laminar or Levallois debitage. It can be suggested that there are independent origins for these Southern Caucasus Upper Acheulian industrial variants. Possible roots of the Acheulian assemblages of Kudarian variant might be in the local earlier Lower Paleolithic small tool assemblages (with some pebble tools but without Acheulian bifaces). The other Caucasus variant of the Upper Acheulian appears to be related to the Levantine Upper Acheulian. Conclusions that are more precise require additional analysis and new finds.