New insights into the Epipaleolithic of western Central Asia: The Tutkaulian complex

Abstract

Bracketed by the Zagros, Hindukush, Altai, and Himalaya Mountains, Central Asia was a likely a migration route for early people moving into North and East Asia. Because of its central geographic setting, the area also channeled cultural and technological influences and exchange between adjoining regions in early prehistory. In this paper we analyze techno-typological characteristics of stone tool assemblages assigned to Early and Late Epipaleolithic industries from two key archaeological sites in Tajikistan – Tutkaul and Obi-Kiik. We compare –these industries with preceding Upper Paleolithic assemblages from the same region, as well as with cultural entities from the Levant and Zagros which share technological traits. Our study reveals key similarities, suggesting that the Tutkaul and Obi-Kiik techno-complexes belong to a single Epipaleolithic culture – which we refer to as the Tutkaulian – split into a three-stage developmental sequence. We argue that the Tutkaulian, defined by bladelet-based primary reduction and an abundance of geometric microliths, with a chronological progression from trapeze-rectangle to lunate forms, has its origins in the local Upper Paleolithic culture (Kulbulakian) emerging through repeated episodes of cultural exchange with earlier or synchronous Levantine and Zagros industries.

Introduction

With the Eurasian interior hosting three different species of early modern humans during the Paleolithic (Neanderthal, Denisovan, and H. sapiens), recent scholarship suggests a crucial role for Central Asia in early human dispersals, interactions, and cultural exchanges (Prufer et al., 2014). To date, however, the Paleolithic archaeological record of much of Western Central Asia has been poorly understood or inaccessible to scholars (Dennell, 2009; Sharon, 2014), with the majority of artifact collections from the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene published during the 1970s only in Russian language. Recent publications concerning the Middle and Upper Paleolithic of this region (Kolobova, 2014; Krajcarz et al., 2016; Shalagina et al., 2015) have begun to shed light on the early material record of Central Asia, enabling comparisons with Upper and terminal Upper Paleolithic technocomplexes from the Near and Middle East (Ghasidian et al., 2017; Kolobova et al., 2016).

Nonetheless, most early studies of the technocomplexes of the Late Pleistocene – Early Holocene carried out in Central Asia during the 20th century suffer greatly from the absence of absolute dates. Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene sites in Central Asia, Siberia and Far East were first defined in an archaeological sense by A.P. Okladnikov. He followed the paradigm common in Europe at the time, wherein geometric microliths industries were described as “Mesolithic”. Most such Mesolithic sites have been found in the Caspian region and the Hissaro-Alay range, and Okladnikov associated these with geometric microliths assemblages known from Europe, Near East and Africa (Okladnikov, 1966). In this scheme, assemblages without geometric microliths from Hissaro-Alay, Tian-Shan, Pamir, Altai, Baikal region, Eastern Central Asia and Far East were described by Okladnikov using the term “Epipaleolithic” – the genesis of which he linked to the local development of Central and East Asian pebble-tool assemblages (Okladnikov, 1966).

Most scholars, using this scheme, have since classified all the Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene sites into supposedly synchronous (11-8 kyr.) Mesolithic and Epipaleolithic assemblages (Ranov 1988; Ranov and Karimova, 2005; Filimonova, 2007). The Mesolithic assemblages (Tutkaul, Darai-Shur, Obi-Kiik, Chil-Chor-Chashma) were characterized by geometric microliths with rectangular and lunate shapes, different styles of backed points. The primary flaking technique has been described as a combination of the “pebble” technique¹ and volumetric bladelet cores. Some scholars argue that the genesis of the Mesolithic was a result of direct migration from the Levant and Zagros (Ranov and Davis, 1979).

In contrast, the Epipaleolithic (Oshhona, Obishir-5, Obishir-1, Karatumshuk, Beshkent sites) was characterized by pebble and microblade knapping, with tool sets dominated by end-scrapers, notched bladelets, drills, small bifacial points. Researchers have traditionally accentuated the absence of geometric microliths in those complexes, and considered the Epipaleolithic to be the result of autochthonous development of regional Upper Paleolithic (Korobkova, 1989; Ranov and Davis, 1979; Ranov and Karimova, 2005).

In recent years, however, it has become clear that these industries referred to as “Mesolithic” and “Epipaleolithic” were not in fact synchronous, but rather followed a developmental sequence– with Mesolithic materials dating earlier (̴20 ka BP – 13 ka BP) and Epipaleolithic later (̴13–8 ka BP) (Shnaider and thesis, 2015). New data based on absolute dates from known sites – Istyksksya cave, Obishir-5, Obishir-1 sites (Shnaider et al., 2017; Shnaider et al., 2018), and new sites with “Epipaleolithic” characteristics – Aygirzhal and Alamishik-2 (Motuzaite Matuzeviciute et al., 2017) support this hypothesis. Only in one case – the stratigraphic sequence of the Istykskaya Cave – are the “Mesolithic” and “Epipaleolithic” techno-complexes both present. The stratigraphic context clearly demonstrates that “Mesolithic” layers located under the “Epipaleolithic” indicate their succession (Ranov and Khudjageldiev, 2005).

Here, we use the umbrella term “Epipaleolithic” to describe all assemblages from western Central Asia dating between the LGM and the Neolithic. Use of a single, common term for this period helps to underline similarities in cultural developments between Central Asia and the Levant/Zagros (Kolobova et al., 2016; Ghasidian et al., 2017; Ranov and Davis, 1979); a similar approach has recently been effectively applied to the characterization of late Stone Age cultures in Caucasus (Golovanova et al., 2014).

New Upper Paleolithic archaeological data from the western ranges of the Pamir and Tien Shan Mountains are important for the regional Epipaleolithic studies. Specifically, the recently identified Kulbulakian Upper Paleolithic lithic tradition (ca. 39–23 ka cal. BP) includes assemblages from Kulbulak (layers 2.1 and 2.2), Kyzyl-Alma-2, Dodekatym-2 and Shugnou sites. The defining characteristic of the Kulbulakian is the production of bladelets from carinated cores. The tool kits are dominated by geometric (scalene triangles) and non-geometric microliths (backed bladelets and micropoints) along with different varieties of end-scrapers. The Kulbulakian progressed through several stages before giving way to a regional Epipaleolithic tradition (Kolobova et al., 2016). On the basis of the available absolute dates the age of Kulbulakian is estimated to be ca. 39-20 kyrs BP (Vandenberge at al., 2014). This necessitates reassessment of the local Late Pleistocene – Early Holocene lithic industries. Building upon a reexamination of materials from the two most important Epipaleolithic sites in the region, Tutkaul and Obi-Kiik (Fig. 1), the present paper aims to characterize typo-technological variability in the Pleistocene –Early Holocene assemblages from western Central Asia, and thus revise the end of the Paleolithic in the region. We conducted a twofold approach, incorporating 1) the lithic analysis of key Epipaleolithic complexes; 2) and the nmMDS plot statistic approach to define a stage in Tutkaulian. We explore the implications of our results in the context of the emergence of the Epipaleolithic across the broader region of western Eurasia, and develop hypotheses for the origin of key technological changes identified in our study.