En las dos areas del litoral donde se hallan las regiones de ..... Vereshchagin (1959: ro8) se afirma que un ..... a una altura de 75 em. sabre la superficie actual ...
~Mfu"''~s
'A"'I'k; '\~-l\'5
f> ~ t.c.E,t_Q; .s ~ ) , (\c...,.
El hombre del Pleistoceno en el litoral oriental del Mar Negro Por
RicHARD
G. KLEIN*
!NTRODUCCION
Este articulo es un resumen y un analisis crltico de la informacion que suministra la ocupaci6n del Pleistoceno en la zona transcaucasica, conocida con el nombre de Litoral Oriental del Mar Negro. Esta region esta situada por entero en la Union Sovietica e incluida, en parte, en la Republica Socialista Federal Sovietica de Georgia. Sus caracterfsticas geograficas principales han sido descritas sucintamente por Berg {1950: 214-222). Su topograf!a consiste en una extensa serie de cerros de la porcion oriental de las montafias del Caucaso. E\ clima (segUn Berg 1950: 214) es: ahumedoJ con abundante precipitaci6n; de verano calido e invierno relativamente templado». En las cercanias de Sochi (43·35 N, 39,46 E) las temperaturas maximas en verano oscilan entre 24 o C y 28 o C, mientras que el termino medio de d1as con heladas por a:iio es solo de dieciseis. La precipitaci6n annal en Sochi da un promedio de I .410 mm., y, virtualmente, todas las zonas del litoral reciben como m1nimo rooo mm. anuales. En las dos areas del litoral donde se hallan
las regiones de las cuales nos ocuparemos sucintamente - la regi6n Sochi-KhostaAdler y la Republica Socialista Sovietica Autonoma de Abkhasia - los bosques estan formados principalmente por robles, que cubren los montes situados entre los 6oo y los I.ooo metros. Desde dicha zona basta los 1.200 m. se hallan las haY.as, y en elevaciones superiores aparecen abetos y pinabetos. La fauna de los bosques incluye pocas variantes: oso pardo (Ursus arctos subsp.), Iince (Felis ly111X orientalis), gato montes (Felis Silvestris), ciervo comun caucasiano (Cervus elephus m.aral), corzo (Capreolus pygargus y C. capreolus), jabal£ salvaje transilvanico (Sus scrofa attila) y chacal (Canis aureus). Por desgracia Ia informacion comparativa referente a los climas del Pleistoceno, las flores y las faunas, es muy escasa. La informaci6n que poseemos se presentara al estudiar cada uno de los yacimientos existentes. Todos los lugares mencionados en el texto figuran en el mapa anejo (fig. r).
• Agradecemos a los senores don Lorenzo Baques y don Miguel Llongueras Ia versi6n castellana y su revisi6n, respectivamente, del original ingles de este articulo. 10
g6
RICHARD G. KLEIN
(Shantser, 1939: 99-IOO). La maxima glaciaci6n del Caucaso, seg(In Shantser y Gromov, parece haber coincidido temporalmente con la maxima glaciacion de la llanura rusa o Dnestr ( = Elster sensu lato = aRiss»). En este caso el tercer nivel de terraza podria ser pre-Dnestr ( = apreRiss») y los niveles de terraza superiores o mas altos podrian ser mas antiguos. Esta evidencia, aparte de contradecir quiza lo que se deri va de Ia relacion entre los niveles de terraza y las faunas marinas, resulta algo sosJ:echosa, puesto que no se puede suponer a priori que las ultimas morrenas pertenezcan al pedodo Dnestr. AI menos en este caso podemos preguntarnos si la caracteristica del relieve en cuesti6n pertenece a una morrena terminal (ver Maruashvili y Changashvili, 1964). En el analisis final es cierto, por desgracia, que, seg6n la tipolog{a de Ia mayoda de los utensilios, debemos considerar que pueden pertenecer al pre-Pleistoceno Superior. Las localidades que, seg(tn Zamyatnin (1937, 1961), suministran utensilios achelenses, estan situadas en el mapa n. o I. Se pueden obtener detalles de los principales lugares donde se han descubierto dichos utensilios, consultando a Beregovaya (1960: 12-14), asi como de las publicaciones citadas de Zamyatnin. (Informacion relativamente detallada sobre Ia riqueza de las localidades - Y ashtukh - se puede hallar en Korobkov, 1964, 1965a, 1965b.) Actualmente, y a pesar de que Zamyatnin clasi:fica
todos estos lugares como achelenses, solamente cinco (Yashtukh, Kyurdere, Achigvari, Gali :y Chuburiskhindzhi) contenian hachas de mano. Los utensilios mas abundantes de estas localidades llamadas achelenses (incluyendo las que proporcionaron hachas de mano) fueron lascas clactonienses (con anchos y suaves filos y de seccion en angulo obtuso, prominentes bulbos de percusion, etc.). Por lo general las lascas clactonienses presentaban trazas de utilizacion y algunas veces fueron retocadas en forma de toscas puntas y raederas. En algunos yacimientos se hallaron incluso nucleos (a veces con senates de una utilizaci6n secundaria como herramientas). En ciertas localidades clasificadas como achelenses se hallaron utensilios achelenses mezclados con otros que podrian ser musterienses o posteriores, distinguiendose de los primeros por su tipolog{a, patina, etc. La mayoria de los utensilios hallados por Zamyatnin eran de pedernal. La figura 2, A y B, muestra hachas de mano achelenses procedentes de Yashtukh, la localidad mas estudiada y mejor conocida de todas las localidades del Paleolltico abkhasiano. Como conclusion, y de acuerdo con el reducido numero de hachas de mano, el Achelense abkhasiano, si se le puede denominar as{, presenta unas facies muy particulares en cuanto a su industria. A pesar de que su era geologica es insegura, se puede dar como probable que pertenece a un periodo anterior al Pleistocene superior.
OcuPACioN DEL PLEISTOCENo SuPERIOR
lntroducci6n
La ocupacion del Pleistoceno Superior en el litoral oriental del Mar Negro esta bien 9ocumentada, en especial en una serie
de cuevas de la region de Sochi-KhostaAdler, y en una escala men or en una serie de localidades de Abkhasia, que se hallan
•
[VMfu~,~s
'A,'/.1~; '\~-l\'5
B> A- Lc.£c...a: .t ~ ) , (\ t.-9-
El hombre del Pleistoceno en el litoral oriental del Mar Negro For
RICHARD
G. KLEIN*
!NTRODUCCION
Este articulo es un resumen y un analisis critico de la informacion que suministra la ocupaci6n del Pleistoceno en la zona transcaucasica, conocida con el nombre de Litoral Oriental del Mar Negro. Esta region esta situada por entero en la Uni6n Sovietica e incluida, en parte, en la Republica Socialista Federal Sovietica de Georgia. Sus caracteclsticas geogr!dicas principales han sido descritas sucintamente por Berg (1950 : 214-222). Su topografla consiste en una extensa serie de cerros de la porci6n oriental de las montaiias del Caucaso. El clima (segun Berg 1950: 214) es: uhumedoJ con abundante precipitaci6n; de verano calido e invierno relativamente templado». En las cercan{as de Sochi (43·35 N, 39,46 E) las temperaturas maximas en verano oscilan entre 24 o C y 28 o C, mientras que el termino medio de dias con heladas por aiio es s6lo de dieciseis. La precipitaci6n anual en Sochi da un promedio de I .410 mm., y, virtualmenteJ todas las zonas del litoral reciben como minimo Iooo mm. anuales. En las dos areas del litoral donde se hallan
las regiones de las cuales nos ocuparemos sucintamente -Ia region Sochi-KhostaAdler y la Republica Socialista Sovietica Aut6noma de Abkhasia - los bosques estan formados principalmente por robles, que cubren los montes situados entre los 6oo y los 1.000 metros. Desde dicha zona hasta los 1.200 m. se hallan las haY.as, y en elevaciones superiores aparecen abetos y pinabetos. La fauna de los bosques incluye pocas variantes : oso pardo (Ursus arctos subsp.), Iince (Felis lym"' orientalis), gato montes (Felis Silvestris), ciervo comun caucasiano (Cervus elephus m.aral), corzo (Capreolus pygargus y C. capreolus), jabal£ salvaje transilvanico (Sus scrofa attila) y chacal (Canis aureus). Por desgracia Ia informacion comparativa referente a los climas del Pleistoceno, las flores y las faunas, es muy escasa. La informaci6n que poseemos se presentara al estudiar cada uno de los yacimientos existentes. Todos los lugares mencionados en el texto figuran en el mapa anejo (fig. I).
• Agradecemos a los senores don Lorenzo Baques y don Miguel Llongueras la versi6n castellana y su revisi6n, respectivamente, del original ingJes de este artfcuJo. 10
94
RICHARD G. KLEIN
0CUPACION DEL PLEISTOCENO PRE-SUPERIOR
La {mica evidencia plausible de la ocupacion del Pleistoceno pre-Superior (=preEemiense= apre-Riss/Wiirm») en el litoral oriental del Mar Negro, procede de Abkhasia. En este Iugar, S. N~ Zamyatnin (1937, 1961) descubri6 e investig6, en los afios 1934-1938, una serie de localidades que clasific6 como achelenses. El estudio de estos yacimientos calificados como achelenses se interrumpio durante veinte aiios, pero recientemente se han estudiado de nuevo (Berdzenishvili 1960 ; Berdzenishvili y Gzelishvili 1961 ; Korobkov 1964, 1965 a, 1965 b). La informaci6n sobre el contexto geol6mco de los utensilios clasi:ficados como acheo lenses por Zamyatnin ha sido suministrada por Gromov (1936, 1948: 267-276), el propio Zamyatnin (1937, 1961) y Shantser (1939). La inmensa mayoria de estos utensilios se hallaron en la super:ficie de las terrazas ribera-estuario o en los depositos de las laderas de dichas terrazas. En algunas ocasiones una pieza fue extra{da directamente de Ia pared de una terraza de aluvi6n cortada a pico, pero nunca se han hallado en dichos lugares huesos, cenizas u otra indicacion de un horizonte de ocupaci6n. Sobre la base del actual conocimiento del terreno, Gromov (1936, 1948: 267-276) y Shantser (1939) establecieron que las terrazas que contienen utensilios y las terrazas con utensilios de arrastre de ~os nos · abkhasianos que fluyen bacia el Mar Negro, se hunden en las bocas de estos nos y tienen cinco niveles, como las terrazas que se hallan a lo largo del Iitoral abkhasiano. El primer nivel de terraza ( = inferior) se halla a una altura de 5-8 m. sobre el nivel del mar; el segundo, a 12-17 m. ; e1 tercero, a 30-40 m. ; el cuarto, a 6o-7o m., y el
quinto, a So-roo m. Tanto Gromov como Shantser afirman que los utensilios achelenses solo se hallan en terraza de aluvi6n cuando esta corresponde al quinto (80-110 metros) nivel de la terraza costera. Esta circunstancia ofrece la posibilidad de obtener, al menos, una edad geol6gica superior de los utensilios, fechando el aluvi6n en el cual se hallan los mismos. Sobre este punto Gromov (1948 : 272-273) a:firma que las faunas invertebradas ttpicas de la transgresion marina de Karangat, del Mar Negro, se han hallado en depositos del tercer ( = 30-40 m.) y quiza tambien del cuarto ( = 60-70 m.) nivel fie la terraza costera. Ya que generalmente se considera que Karangat pertenece al ultimo lnterglaciat• ( = Eemiense = aRiss-Wiirm»), ello implica que las terrazas de aluvion situadas en el tercer y quiza cuarto nivel de Ia terraza corresponden a Ia epoca del ultimo Interglaciar son mas recientes, esta conclusi6n permite indicar que el nivel de terraza asociado con el quinto nivel de terraza costera es mas antiguo que el ultimo Interglaciar. No obstante, Ia falta de claridad de los artlculos de Gromov y Shantser sobre ]a naturaleza de los niveles de terraza, as] como Ia informacion presen tada por Shantser (1939 : 99), que contradice aparentemente las afirmaciones de Gromov (1948) sobre las relaciones entre los niveles de terraza costeros y faunas invertebradas ma.rinas, hace diflcil aceptar una era geologica para cualquiera . de los depositos de aluvi6n que contienen utensilios achelenses. Otra complicaci6n se debe al hecho que las ·excavadores han clasificado como verdaderos objetos lo que eran ·simplemente trozos de materiales fragmentados o simplemente utilizados. AI contrario del nivel musteriense mas alto {3), el 5 suministr6 a ·Panichkina y Vekilova un numero relativamente .elevado de piezas bifaciales, que se describen en general como planas, aunque pueden ser discoides o sub0
11
EI. HOMBRE DEL PLEISTOCENO EN EI~ LITORAI~ ORIENTAL DEL MAR NEGRO
I03
2
3
6
7
Fig. 3· - z, 2, 3 y 4, instrumentos del nivel 5 (Musteriense) de la cueva Akhshtyr (segun Panichkina y Vekilova zg62: 41); s, 6, 7, 8, 9 y 10, instrumentos del nivel 5 (Musteriense) de la cueva Akhshtyr (seg6n Zam· · yatnin zg6z : 172, 174)~
RICHARD G. KLEIN
cuadrangulares (fig. 3, n. 4). Vekilova informa (xg66: 49) que en 1965 descubri6 un fragmento de punta de hoja bifacial. Zamyatnin {xg6x : 116) identific6 tambien un gran numero de puntas {fig. 3, numeros s-8) y raederas {fig. 3, n.• 9 y 10). Sus ilustraciones {1961 : 172-175) sugieren que ~entro de estas dos categodas !incluy6 piezas que {siguiendo las utiles definiciones de Bordes, 1961) quiza seria mejor clasificar como denticulados y cuchillos, en Iugar de puntas y raederas. Ademas, algunas de las puntas y raederas de Zamyatnin son posiblemente piezas utilizadas. Al igual que Panichkina y Vekilova, Zamyatnin hall6 una serie de utensilios bifaciales, uno de ~os cuales describi6 como una hacha de mano {figura 4, n. 0 I). El aspecto de un segundo objeto bifacial {fig. 4, n.0 2) motiv6 que Zamyatnin lo clasificara como un foliado fragmentario. Mientras Panichkina y Vekilova no hacen referenda a los materiales del nivel 5, Zamyatnin informa que, al igual que en el nivel 3, hal16 algunos utensilios de esquisto, ademas de los de pedernal. Las figuras y los datos descriptivos disdisponibles demuestran que el nivel 5 en conjunto, al igual que el 3, se caracteriza por un debitage levalloisiense. Una vez mas es imposible establecer e1 porcentaje de los fragmentos que presentan aristas facetadas. El nivel 5 en genera~, aparte de presentar algunas diferencias con el nivel 3, es muy parecido a este ultimo y posiblemente es t~bien Musteriense. AI menos en las excavaciones de Zatnyatnin se hallaron trazas de fuego en el nivel 5 con algunos huesos carbonizados. 0
Nivel sa (Musteriensef). - Panichkina y Vekilova {1962) clasifican el nivel 5o. como una unidad sedimentaria (de diferente color a Ia parte inferior del 5), mientras que Vekilova {xg66: 49) lo clasifica simplemente
como una unidad 9e contenido de utensilios. Esta autora informa que en 1965 dicho nivel suministr6. un nucleo discoide, una raedera doble, una especie de hacha, un bifacial tosco y varios fragmentos con retoque. A pesar de que la informaci6n sobre este particular es muy escasa, no parece existir ningnn inconveniente en clasificar dicho nivel como Musteriense.
Niveles 6 y 7. - Pese a que Zamyatnin hall6 algunos utensilios en la parte superior del nivel 6, no se dispone de informaci6n descriptiva ni de ilustraciones. Los utensilios procedentes del nivel 7 hallados por Panichkina y Vekilova, consisten simplemente en lo que denominaron una hacha de mano (fig. 4, n.0 3), una raedera y un fragmento de pedernal, lo que representa muy pocas piezas para clasificar sus afinidades industriales. Restos humanos.- De acuerdo con Vekilova (1966: 48 ; cf. Ivanova, 1965 : xog), las excavaciones de los niveles 3a y 3, suministraron en 1961 un molar segundo superior derecho humano y tres metatarsos tambien humanos. Segnn Panichkina y Vekilova (1962) el nivel 3a conten1a una mezcla de utensilios del Paleolltico Superior y del Musteriense, pero Vekilova afirma que todos los restos humanos son Musterienses. Aiiade ademas que el antrop6logo A. A. Zubov tuvo dificultad en hallar las correspondencias con las partes anat6micas del hombre actual.
Cueva Navalishino (Navalishinskaya peshclwra) Situaci6n, Descrjpcipn general, Exca'Vaci.ones y Estratigraj{a.
La cueva Navalishino esta situada en el margen izquierdo del r1o Kudapesta, aproxi-
EI~
HOMBRE DEL PLEISTOCENO EN EL LITORAL ORIENTAL DEL MAR NEGRO
105
~.
,·
2
2
I
l
,(
t' (
i
Fig. 4, - I y 2, piezas bifaciales del nivel 5 (Musteriense) de Ia cueva de Akhshtyr (seg6n Zamyatnin Ig6I 173, 174); 3, bifacial del nivel 7 de Ia cueva de Akbshtyr (seg6n Panichkina y Vekilova 1g62: 43).
;
ro6
RICHARD G. KLEIN
madamente a 12 ki16metros del Mar Negro. La cueva tiene dos entradas, una a 2,5 m. de altura, cerrada por un talud, y otra abierta, de 4 m. de altura por 5 m. de ancbura. Ambas entra~as estan orientadas aproximadamente bacia e1 Este. Los corredores tienen unos 30 m. de longitud aproximadamente. En dicbo Iugar S. N. Zamyatnin hall6, durante el aiio 1936 (1940, 1961 : roo-ro4), materiales culturales del Pleistocene en una area de 22 m. cuadrados. En el aiio 1965 V. P. Lyubin (1966) prosigui6 la investigaci6n, pero s6lo suministr6 una breve informaci6n preliminar de sus hallazgos, sin incluir ninguna referencia de los metros cuadrados excavados, .ni del Iugar donoe desarroll6 su trabajo. Las excavaciones de Zamyatnin se centraron principalmente alrededor de la entrada abierta, excavando ademas una pequefia zona situada unos 15m. bacia el interior de la cueva. No intent6 excavar en la p~rte mas profunda ~e la caverna, ya que el suelo rocoso de la misma no estaba cubierto ,de sedimentos. De acuerdo con sus excavaciones prineipales, presentamo$ a continU:aci6n la estratigraf1a de la cueva (de arriba abajo) : I) Arcilla amarilla con gran mezcla heterogenea de restos culturales. Este nivel precede de la limpieza de la cueva por los babitantes de la regi6n para la construcci6n de uria iglesia, los cuales mezclaron los sedimentos. Restos de arcilla que ahara forman el nivel I, fueron · hallados en- paredes, en lo mas profunda de la cueva a un metro de altura. Espesor. total de este nivel : o,gso,5o metros. 2) Arcilla pardo-negruzca con cascotes, que conten1a huesos de animates y utensilios clasificados como del Paleolltico Superior. Su espesor oscilaba entre o,5o-o,go metros. 3) ArciHa parda con tres 'capas de carbon, que conten{a buesos de animales y uten-
silios clasificados como musterienses. Su espesor oscilaba entre o,7o-r,1o metros. El espesor naximo de los dep6sitos liallados por Zamyatnin cerca de la boca de la cueva fue de 2,5 m. La cata situada a 15 m. de la boca no suministr6 utensilios, pero en Ia capa de arcilla parda situada de o,2o a o,Bo-r m. de profundidad se hal16 una acumulaci6n de · huesos de oso situados inme4iatamente debajo de una capa de carb6n. Bajo esta capa, la arcilla parda era mas clara y los buesos se badan mas escasos, y finalmente estos dos indicios desapareclan en la parte inferior del agujero (a 2 m. de la superficie). En las paredes . situadas cerca de la cata se hallaron trozos de sedimentos a una altura de 75 em. sabre la superficie actual, indicando todo ello que algunos dep6sitos hab{an sido levantados, tanto en la parte central de la cueva como en la parte . mas profunda de la misma. Lyubin no proporciona informacion sobre la estratigrafla hallada en sus excavaciones, excepto la indicaci6n de que los niveles del PaleoHtico Superior y del Musteriense contenfan gran cantidad de cascotes, hecho que, por otra parte, tambien not6 Zamyatnin.
Fauna. - En la tabla 2 se detalla la fauna descubier~a por Zamyatnin en la cueva de Navalishino. En la actualidad no se tienen datos de los huesos hallados por Lyubin. Utensilios y caracter!sticas deZ Nivel 2 (PaleoUtico SuPerior).- SegU.n Zamyatnin el nivel 2 conten{a muy pocos utensilios, que consistfan en raspadores y hojas retocadas, algunas hojas y unos pocos buriles, piezas esquirladas, nucleos prismaticos y hojas no retocadas. Las ilustraciones revelan, sin lugar a dudas, la naturaleza del conjunto, que pertenece al Paleolltico Superior (Zamyatnin 1961 : 166), pero no per·
EL. HOMBRE DEL PLEISTOCENO EN EL LITORAL ORIENTAL DEL MAR NEGRO
107
TABI.A II
FaU1za de la cueva N avalishi11o (Segtln Zamyatnin 1961 : 102} Nivel 3 Musteriense
1
Cricetus cricetus, hamster ordinaria .. . Spalax, rat6n-topo ................ . Rodentia no determinada .......... . Canis lupus, lobo ................. . UYsus spelaeus, oso de las cavemas.. Meles meles, tej6n ................ . Carnivora no detertninada ......... . A lees maciJlis, alee ................ . Capya sp., cabra .................. . Aves no determinadas ............. . Mollusca A nado1da . ............... . Helix ............................ .
Nivel :z Pnleol. sup.
Nlvel I mezclado
1/I
2/ I/1 1/1
229/7
120/7
Estado actual
LE LE
1/I
165/s
E
2/ 1/I I/1
LE
1/1
1/1
1/l I
Nota. - Para el significado de los simbolos convencionales ver las notas de Ja tabla I.
l
I l J l
mite hacer una clasificaci6n exacta de sus afinidades. Los distintos hogares con restos de carb6n fueron hallados por Zamyatnin. Lyubin (1966: 52) informa que hal16, ademas de las seiialadas, gran cantidad de piezas con muescas· y denticulados pertenecientes al Paleolitico Superior. Este investigador propone la cuesti6n de si la cueva Navalishino podrla contener una industria del Paleolitico Superior que se derivara directamente de los adenticulados musterienses». No obstante, si sus denticula~os (sobre los cuales no disponemos de ilustraci6n) presentan retoques irregulares y alternos, al igual que algunos utensilios del Paleolltico Superior descubiertos por Zamyatnin pertenecientes a la cueva Navalishino, es posible, al menos, que no sean utensilios (denticulados), sino mas bien piezas rotas.
que hall6 un conjunto de puntas, raederas, utensilios bifaciales, esquirlas, hojas y nucleos que, en conjunto, son similares a los utensilios musterienses hallados en Ia cueva Akhstyr. Lyubin (1966 : 52) dice. que eJ conjunto musteriense procedente. de sus excavaciones era similar al que hall6 en la cueva Vorontsovo, que clasific6 como «Musteriense denticuJadOD (ver maS adelante). Zamyatnin hal16 trazas de fuego en el nivel 3, individualizando tres ahogares», que contenlan restos de carb6n, huesos calcinados y piezas quemadas. ·La parte inferior de los mismos descansa ~~hre el suelo de roca.
Utensilios y caracterlsticas del Nivel 3 ( M usteriense). - La informaci6n disponible sobre los utensilios del nivel 3 no es suficiente para clasificarlos como musterienses. Zamyatnin (1961: 103) dice simplemente
Si.tuacion~
Cueva Vorontsovo (Vorontsovskaya pes he hera) Descripcion general, Exc;a-vaciones y
Estratigrafla.
La cueva Vorontsovo esta situada en el margen derecho del rlo Khosta, a 14 Km., aproximadamente. d~ S: "hi. La boca de la
108
RICHARD G. KLEIN
cueva se halla orientada al este y situada a una altura de 100-120 m. sabre el rio. Sus corredores tienen una longitud de mas de 70 m., y estan abiertos en piedra caliza. El Iugar fue investigado por primera vez en 1940 por D. A. Krajnov (1947 : 31, 34}, quien excav6 una cata de 3 x 2 m. en los depositos de la entrada. Obtuvo tres estratos distintos de sedimentaci6n, que conten{an cada uno restos de utensilios y fauna musterienses. En I965 V. P. Lyubin (Ig66} prosigui6 la excavaci6n, y en una area de 5 m. cuadrados encontr6 una estratigrafia mas compleja que la hallada por Krajnov. En la parte superior habia un nivel humedo (I}, de o,1-0,4 m. de espesor, que supuso de origen holocenico. Debajo de este habia una serie de margas, de I-I, I m. de espesor, con seis horizontes culturales musterienses (2, 2a, 2b, 2c 3 y 4}. Las margas eran de color parduzco; los niveles 2, 2a, 2b y 2c ten{an un ~inte gris-ver~oso, y el 3 un tint~ rojizo. Los 2, 2a, 2b, 2c y 3 conten{an cantidades variables de pequeiios guijarros y trozos de piedra caliza, mientras que el 4 se distinguia de los demas horizontes superiores por su estructura informe, mayor densidad y color mas oscuro. Debajo de este se hallaron arenas gruesas, arenas normales y margas. El conjunto comprend1a los niveles 5, 6 y 7, . con un espesor total de o,3-0,5 m. Las arenas parecen tener aparentemente un origen subacuoso y fueron esteriles, a excepci6n de los pocos utensilios hallados en la parte superior del nivel 5, cerca de su interfase con el 4· Debajo- del 7, y a una profundidad de 1,8 m. de la superfide, se hallaba el suelo de roca virgen de Ia cueva.
Utensilios. - Krajnov (I947} casi no ha informaci6n alguna sobre los utensilios descubiertos durante sus excavaciones; s6lo indic6 que Ia mayoria pertesu~inistrado
necian al Musteriense y que eran puntas y raederas y, en la parte inferior, bifaciales. Lyubin (Ig66} notific6 que ha116 I.I76 utensilios de piedra en los niveles musterienses. Se caracterizaban por sus pequeiias dimensiones y por la abundancia de denticulados. Las raederas y las puntas eran raras; sin embargo, se hallaron tipos de utensilios del Paleolltico Superior. La mayoria de instrumentos eran fragmentos y hojas, no hallandose casi ninguna pieza entera. El debitage levalloisiense no era muy importante. Lyubin no ha suministrado informacion sabre las diferencias existentes entre los conjuntos de los ~iferentes niveles, a excepci6n de Ia tendencia de los ni veles inferiores en presentar mayor cantidad de utensilios. Sugiere que, en general, la mayoria de los conjuntos de Vorontsovo ~e pueden clasificar como «inusterienses denticulados de pequeiios utensilios». Sin embargo, · a pesar de que no disponemos 9e ilustraciones sobrt: estos utensilios, la descripci6n de los retoques de los ~ismos, que son, en general, discontinues y alternos, plantea el interrogante (al igual que en las cuevas Akhshtyr y Navalishino) de si sus denticulados lo son en realidad o .se trata mas bien de piezas rotas. Es interesante destacar que una serie de huesos de oso y ~e ~anes, descubiertos durante las excavaciones de Lyubin, fueron clasificados por este autor, en el momento de su hallazgo, como utensilios. Fauna. - Krajnov (I947) no menciona ningnn resto de fauna, a excepci6n del oso de las cavernas, a pesar de que hab{an otras especies presentes. Lyubin hall6 (Ig66) 1.500 huesos determinados, de los cuales un go % perteneclan a osos de las cavernas. Se puede aceptar Ia presencia 9e osos al igual que de seres humanos en la cueva de Vorontsovo durante los tiempos pasados, puesto que las paredes estan muy pulidas,
EL HOMBRE DEL PLEISTOCENO EN Er~ UTORAL ORIENTAL DEL MAR NEGRO
posiblemente a causa del contitiuo paso de los animales.
Cue·l.'a J(lzosta I (K!wstinskaya peshchera I) La cueva Khosta esta situada en el margen derecho del rio Khosta, aproximadamente a 7 Km. ~e su nacimiento. Tiene dos entradas situadas a una altura de 300 m. sobre del rio, y posee una serie de corredores que penetran muy bacia el interior del macizo de roca caliza. En 1936 S. N. Zamyatnin (rg6r : g8-roo) excav6 dos catas en la cueva; la primera (r x 1,5 m.), situada a ro m. de la entrada principal, y Ia segunda, a 13 m. El estudio del lugar fue reempren~ido en 1961 por I. I. Korobkov (rg62), quien exca~6 una area de I ,5 x 2 m., situada a unos 15 ~· de Ia entrada principal. Korobkov descubri6 uuos sedimentos de 2,5 m. de espesor sin llegar a la rqca virgen. La estratigraf1a fue la siguiente (de arriba abajo) : 1) Arcilla hfuneda negra (o,1o-o,2o m. de espesor). 2) Arcilla rojo-parda (o,ro-o,3o m.). 3) Arcilla pardo-oscura (o,2o-o,4o m. de espesor), con una intensa capa carbonosa en su base. 4) Arcilla parda (o,rs-o,3o m. de espesor), con una capa carbonosa en su parte inferior. 5) Arcilla negra (coloraci6n causada por el carb6n) {o,1o-o,2o m. de espesor), tambien con una capa inferior carbonosa. 6) Arcilla parda con gran cantidad de arena fina (1,3 m. de espesor). En este nivel de arcilla habfa tres capas carbonosas ·difereutes. 7) Marga amarillo-parda sin arena (0,30 metros de espesor).
109
tos culturales. En la parte ~nferior del nivel 6 hall6 un instrumento que clasific6 como musteriense. En el mismo nivel y algo mas arriba se hallaron seis instrumentos (cuatro de basalto y dos de pedernal) y varios huesos de oso de las cavernas, ciervo y aurochs o bi~onte. T.os instrumentos parecen pertenecer al Musteriense. Otras seis piezas halladas en la parte superior del nivel6 fueron cla.si:ficadas tambien como musterienses. El nivel 5 suministr6 un fragmento ade apariencia musteriense» y una hoja con dorso cortante. Aparentemente los niveles superiores s6lo suministraron rnateriales que se supusieron pertenecian al periodo post-Pieistoceno El corte presentado pQr Zamyatnin (1961 : roo) poco se parece al de Korobkov, aunque la maxi~a profundi9ad alcanzada fue ligeramcnte inferior a los 2 metros Zamyatnin, por otra parte, descubri6 menos utensilios que Korobkov y no dio informaci6n sobre los mismos.
Cueva
K~sta II
(Khostinskaya .pes hc1z,era I I)
La cueva Khosta II esta situada a un kil6metro de la cueva Khosta I, siguiendo la direcci6n de la corriente, en el margen derecho del mismo rlo. La boca de la cueva se loealiza a 150 m. sobre el rio y esta abierta bacia el este. Las galerlas de la cueva penetran unos 70 m. en el macizo de piedra cal.iza. En este Iugar se han efectuado tres campaiias ~e excavaci6n: la primera fue realizada, en 1936, por M. Z. Panichkina (Zamyatnin, rg6r : roo), qui en hall6 huesos de oso de las cavernas y piezas musterienses dentro de una pequeiia cata; Ia segunda fue dirigida, en 1940, por D. A. Krajnov (1947 : 31), que excav6 una cata de 5 x 1 Korobkov inform6 que cada nivel (but 7 ?- metro a 10 m. de Ia entrada y hall6 tres RGK) contenia una pequeiia cantidad de res- o cuatro horizontes culturales con huesos II
IIO
RICHARD G. KLEIN
de oso y utensilios musterienses, y ·la tercera fue efectuada, en I96I, por I. I. Korobkov (I962), quien excav6 una cata de I ,5 x 2 m. en el interior de la cueva, a mas de 15 m. de su boca, y hall6 de o,So a I ,25 m. de dep6sitos indeterminados con tres niveles culturales paleollticos. S6lo las excavaciones de Korobkov han suministrado algunas descripciones detalladas. La descripci6n de la estratigraffa seg6n este autor puede resumirse de esta manera (de arriba abajo) :
trumento de hueso y tres objetos de pedernal (una hoja con dorso, una esquirla y un raspador parecido al instrumento. Ademas de los utensilios, Korobkov descubri6 en sus excavaciones gran cantidad de huesos ; todos los clasificables perteneclan al oso de las cavernas. Algunos de estos huesos presentaban seiiales de haber sido cortados con utensilios de piedra ; todo ello atestigua los variados caminos por los que debieron llegar dichos huesos ala cueva.
I) Marga pulverulenta gris, de 5 a i em. de espesor. 2) Marga parda-oscura. La parte superior de esta capa de margas era algo mas arenisca, mientras que la inferior era mas arcillosa. Se hacfa mas oscura en las partes profundas. Las condiciones de iluminaci6n en el interior de la cueva impidieron a Korobkov realizar correctas subdivisiones geol6gicas del estrato, pero en los niveles inferiores subsiguientes se hallaron utensilios que se clasificaron como neoHticos, del Paleolltico Superior y musterienses, respectivamente. El espesor era de o, 70 a o,go m. 3) Inmediatamente debajo del nivel 2, descansando en ellecho de roca, se ha116 una marga amarilla que conten{a utensilios musterienses. El espesor vatiaba de o,I a 0,4 m.
Cueva Ats (Atsinskaya peshchera)
Se recogieron once utensilios en el niYel 3· Eran de basalto y pedernal, e inclu1an (Seg(tn Korobkov, 1962 : 45) tres raederas, siete piezas rotas y un fragmento de pedernal. Los supuestos utensilios musterienses de Ia segunda cata, hallados cerca de la base del nivel 2, eran todos de pedernal. En total se hallaron 14 e inclu1ait (segun Korobkov) un pequeiio nucleo discoide, siete raederas y seis fragmentos. Las piezas halladas en la parte media del nivel 2, clasificadas como del Paleolftico Superior, fueron s61o cuatro : un ins-
La cueva Ats se halla situada en las estribaciones superiores del rlo Ats, afl.uente del Sochi. Es el unico abrigo, de entre los lugares reseiiados, del litoral oriental del Mar Negro. Tiene, aproximadamente, 30 m. le anchura por I5 de profundidad (como maximo) y 2-3 m. de altura. Su boca esta orientada al este-sudeste y se abre a una altura de Ioo-120 m. sobre el margen derecho del rio Ats. En 1940 D. A. Krajnov (1947 : 30-3I) excav6 una area de 2 x 2 m. en los dep6sitos del abrigo, hallando la roca virgen a una profundidad de I ,So. m. De acuerdo con este autor, la estratigraffa, de arriba abajo, fue la siguiente : I) Nivel humedo con cer,mica; 5.;,1o em. de espesor. 2) Marga amarilla-parduzca con arena (espesor maximo: 20 em.). En este nivel se hallaron huesos de· animales y utensilios de pedernal que, segun Krajnov, ten{an una ((apariencia azilio-tardenoisiense,,. 3) Marga amarilla con arena (espesor maximo, 30 em.), separada del 2 por un nivel de piedras calizas desprendidas. La marga conten{a gran cantidad de huesos de animales, carb6n y utensilios de piedras que, seg-Un Krajnov, pertenecfan al PaleoHtico .Superior. 4) Marga gris claro, con arena £ina y grandes rocas. Espesor, 25 em. En este nivel
EL HOMBRE DEL PLEISTOCENO EN EL LITORAL ORIENTAL DEL MAR NEGRO
se hall6 un segundo hogar (I 5 em. de espesor) y mas utensilios del PaleoHtico Superior. 5) Marga densa amarillo-parduzca con arena (40 em. de espesor). La arena aumentaba con la profund~dad. La marga contenfa, segt'tn Krajnov, otra serie de huesos de animales con utensilios de pedemal del PaleoHtico Superior. 6) Marga amarilla, con gran cantidad de arcilla (20-30 em. de espesor). En este nivel se descubrieron huesos de animales (en especial de oso) y utensilios, seg{tn Krajnov, musterienses. 7) Pequeiia capa de arena, s\n utensilios ni huesos. No se ha publicado mas informaci6n de la cueva Ats, a excepci6n de una breve referenda de Lyubin (rg66: 51) sobre la presencia en ella de ~:denticulados musterienses».
*** Ademas de los hallazgos in situ (cuevas) de la regi6n ~ochi-Khosta-Adler, Panichkina (1940) seiialo una serie de !ocalidades de superficie del Musteriense o del Paleolltico Superior. A pesar de que sobre elias hay muy poca informaci6n disponible, las estudiaremos para completar el panorama que estamos presentando de esta zona. Abkhasia
En el Htoral abkhasiano existen una serie de localidades musterienses y del Paleolltico Superior que se hallan en circunstancias parecidas a las estaciones abkhasianas consi~eradas anteriormente. En otras palabras, se han hallado utensilios musterienses y del Paleolltico Superior en diferentes puntos situados sobre o debajo (la mayona sobre) de las terrazas de los rios que :fluyen bacia el Mar Negro. Disponemos de suficientes ilustraciones (ver especial-
III
mente Zamyatnin, 1961) para asegurar que estos utensilios pertenecen al Musteriense y al Paleolitico Superior. Sin embargo, es desgraciadamente cierto que en ning6n caso se ha hallado un lugar. con un contexto primario (por ejemplo, ocupaci6n). En muchos casos los utensilios clasificados como mus· terienses y del PaleoHtico Superior se han diferenciado de otros considerados mas antiguos o posteriores, encontrados en el mismo Iugar, solo por la tipologla, patina, etc. Se puede hallar una descripcion de estos utensilios consultando a Zamyatnin (1937, rg6r), Solov'ev (1949 : 13) ; Korobkov (r965a, rg65h) y Beregovaya (rg6o: 35-36). Gromov (1948 : 269) y Shantser (1939 : 99) han sefialado (ver tambien Gromov y Shantser, 1959: r8) que los utensilios musterienses, cuando se hallan en terrazas de aluvion, solo se localizan en las que correspondeD al tercer nivel de terraza de Ia costa abkhasiana. Se recordara de la pri~era argumentacion que la era geologica de estos niveles de terraza es incierta; por consiguiente, es imposible definir por el momento la edad de los utensilios musterienses con solo la referencia de los suelos geol6gicos. Los utensilios clasificados como del PaleoHtico Superior no se pueden asociar claramente con ninguna terraza de aluvi6n, ni podemos reconstruir sus condiciones geologicas que permitan, en el presente, 9eterminar su edad. Es necesario, en conclusion, mencionar dos .excepciones relativamente pequeiias para generalizar que los lugares de ocupaci6n del periodo pleistocenico estan ausentes de Abkhasia : los abrigos de Bzyb', situados aproximadamente a ro Km. al Este de Kolkhida, y la Cueva Kva-Chara (cuya exacta localizaci6n nos es desconccida). El abrigo Bzyb', situado sobre el rio del mismo nombre, es, segnn Zamyatnin (r96r : 92), un amplio abrigo con gran profusion de
II2
RICHARD G. KLEIN
depositos. En 1935 el propio Zamyatnin excav6 una cata de r x 1 m. en dicho abrigo, sin llegar a alcanzar los niveles inferiores. A una profundidad de 15-20 em. de la superficie hall6 piezas (una de pedernal y la otra de piedra calcarea silicica) que crey6 que perteneclan al Musteriense. Nose posee mas informaci6n sobre dicho Iugar.
La cueva Kva-Chara fue excavada, en 1958, por Berdzenishvili y Gzelishvili (1g6r : 22). En ella hallaron un horizonte cultural con huesos de ani males (U rsus spelaeus, Capra severtz, y Ovis sp.}, carb6n y utensilios de pedernal pertenecientes al Paleolitico Superior. No se posee informaci6n posterior sobre este Iugar.
RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES
La precedente discusi6n sobre la ocupaci6n del Pleistoceno en el Litoral Oriental del Mar Negro ha puesto en evidencia la presencia en dicha zona de una serie ae localidades con materiales pertenecientes al Achelense, Musteriense y Paleolltico Superior. Las unicas Iocalidades clasificadas como achelenses que se han podido fechar se hallan en ellitoral abkhasiano, y aun asi existen algunas dudas, ya que las hachas son muy raras (lo mas frecuente es hallar lascas de tipo clactoniense). En l,a actualidad se ~esconocen lugares de ocupacion aachelense», y cuando se hallan i nstrumentos, estos carecen de una informacion consistente, hacienda dif1cil su dataci6n en el Pleistocene de Abkhasia. Por todo ello, es imposible en la actualidad establecer la era de estos utensilios con una base geol6gica exacta. · Sin embargo, es posible al menos establecer una fecha del Pleistocene Superior (pre-Eemiense o crpre-Riss/Wiirm») en las areas que abarca el achelense (especialmente en Europa Occidental y .Africa), ya que las mismas se pueden datar facilmente con ayuda de la Geologia. Tambien se conocen localidades pertenecientes al Musteriense y al Paleolltico Superior en una parte del litoral abkhasiano. Por desgracia, estas se hallan en las mismas condiciones que las achelenses de la misma regi6n, esto es, siempre en la superficie
y nunca en circunstancias en que los restos sugieran un lugar ~e ocupaci6n. Tampoco se pueden datar basandose en niveles geo16gicos. Se han hallado localidades musterienses y del Paleolltico Superior mucho mas interesantes, en una serie de cuevas situadas cerca de Sochi, Khosta y Adler. Estas incluyen la cueva Akhshtyr Navalishino, Vorontsovo, I y II de Khosta y cueva Ats. De todas elias la cueva Akhshtyr es Ia mas importante, y ha suministrado dos ( quiza mas) niveles musterienses, un horizonte del Paleolitico Superior (el suelo del cuat se ha datado con el Cr4, obteniendose una fecha de I 7.500 a. ] . C., que corresponde al Paleolitico Transcaucasico) y restos humanos, parcial o totalmente asociadas con el Musteriense. Desgraciadamente, los restos, muy fragmentarios, consisten en piezas poco diagnosticables, tales como un molar superior y tres metatarsos. Tal como se ha dicho, no se ha podido hallar la correspondencia de estos restos con partes anat6micas del hombre actual. Entre los conjuntos' musterienses de las diferentes estaciones existen claras diferencias tipol6gicas (por ejemplo, Ia frecuencia de las raederas, puntas y bifaciales) y tecno16gicas (por ejemplo, la frecuencia de la talla: tevalloisiense). Por desgracia, estas diferencias aun no se han estudiado y contado esta-
EL HOMBRE DEL PI4EISTOCENO EN EL LITORAL ORIENTAL DEL MAR NEGRO
dlsticamente. El Musteriense- al menos el del nivel 3 de la cueva Akhshtyr, nivel 3 de la cueva Navalishino, niveles 2, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3 y 4 de la cueva Vorontsovo Y., quizas, el nivel 6 de la cueva Ats- se caracteriza, principalmente, por un elevado porcentaje de denticulados, si hacemos caso a Lyubin (rg66: 51) en cuanto a la presencia de adenticulados musterienses» en el litoral oriental del Mar Negro. Seg6n nuestra opini6n, la mayor dificultad en aceptar la presencia de tal tipo de Musteriense en estos lugares es que aun no se ha demostrado satisfactoriamente que los denticulados no sean pseudoinstrumentos procedentes de un fen6meno geol6gico (por ejemplo, a causa de los osos, ya que sabemos que habitaron las cuevas en cuesti6n). Si los adenticulados musterienses» de las cuevas de la regi6n de SochiKhosta-Adler son genuinos, pueden presentar un interesante contraste con el Musteriense de la Rusia europea (el area situada al norte y oeste del Caucaso}, donde las industrias asignables al Musteriense de denticulados estan ausentes, con una posible, pero dudosa excepci6n, en Crimea (nivel 6 de Kiik-Koba}. Lyubin (rg66 : 51} afirma, sin embargo, que se han hallado conjuntos caracterizados por un alto porcentaje de denticulados en otras zonas transcaucasicas (por ejemplo, en areas situadas al este y sur dellitoral oriental del Mar Negro). El PaleoHtico ~uperior esta menos representado que el Musteriense en la regi6n Sochi-Khosta-Adler, y s6lo ha sido posible la dataci6n del nivel 2 de la cueva Akhshtyr (parte inferior), nivel 2 de la cueva Navalishino y quiza los niveles 3, 4a, 4b y 5 de la cueva Ats. El pequeiio numero de ejemplos y Ia escasa informaci6n descriptiva no permiten seiialar detalladamente las afinidades de los conjuntos del Paleolltico Superior de estos lugares. Es interesante notar, sin embargo, que Lyubin (1966} hall6
II3
una gran proporci6n de denticulados en el Paleolltico Superior de Ia cueva Vorontsovo. Estos le sirvieron como base para sugerir que el Paleolitico Superior de este Iugar pue~e derivar del Musteriense de denticulados local. En ninguna de las cuevas de la regi6n de Sochi-Khosta-Adler hay horizontes musterienses o del Paleolitico Superior que sean fechables o que esten situados en capas geo16gicas. Desde luego, los mismos conjuntos de utensilios sugieren una fecha del Paleolitico Superior, tanto mas cuanto coujuntos similares (es decir, musterienses y del Paleolltico Superior) ~e Europa y sudoeste de Asia {de la que el litoral oriental del Mar Negroes su llmite superior) han demostrado pertenecer al Pleistoceno Superior. Mas exactamente, la mayoria del Musteriense ha demostrado pertenecer a la primera parte de Ja ultima glaciaci6n {Wiirm sensu lato) y el Paleolltico Superior a la ultima parte. No hay, pues, ninguna raz6n para sospechar que las localidades musterienses y del PaleoHtico Superior del litoral oriental del Mar Negro presenten una excepci6n a esta generalizaci6n. Una confirmaci6n, al menos para el periodo final de la ultima Glaciaci6n del Paleolltico Superior, puede hallarse en la fecha proporcionada por el C14, de 17.500 antes de J. C., que ya se ha citado con anterioridad al comentar la cueva de Akhshtyr. La fauna de los niveles musterienses y del Paleolltico Superior de las cuevas en cuesti6n, de acuerdo con lo que se conoce (principalmente en las cuevas Akhshtyr y Navalishino), es interesante por la ausencia de las especies llamadas de clima fdo (por ejemp~o, zorro artico) y de las grandes especies de la estepa (en especial mamuts y rinocerontes), tan caracterlsticas de la llanura rusa en la ultima glaciaci6n, en el area situada en el norte y a lo largo del Caucaso.
II4
RICHARD G. KLEIN
Sin embargo, nose puede considerar que la ausencia de estos animates tenga un significado geologico en el litoral oriental del Mar Negro, ya que nose tiene la evidencia dellugar donde estuvieron presentes en esta area; el aspecto general de la fauna de los niveles musterienses y del PaleoHtico Superior de las cuevas dellitoral no contradice de ninguna manera la determinacion de una fecha de PaleoHtico Superior en dichos niveles. El elemento faumstico mas importante que contienen es el oso de las cavernas, y ha · de notarse que hay informacion que sugiere que los restos de este animal se de-
rivan tanto de las actividades de la caza practicada por seres humano como de la habitacion actual de las cuevas por los osos, posiblemente en las intermitentes ausencias de los hombres. En conclusion, esta claro, de acuerdo con la precedente exposicion, que hay una informacion importante e interesante que se deriva del estudio de Ia ocupacion del Pleistocene en ellitoral oriental del Mar Negro. Es ~e esperar que .este tema se amplie en el futuro con una investigacion complementaria y con publicaciones mas completas de los resultados obtenidos.
BIBLIOGRAF:tA CITADA Nue-vos datos sobre el Paleolftico de A bkhasia (en ruso), Trudy Abkhazsgogo Instituta Yazika, Literatury i Istorii, 30. BERDZENISUVILI, N. Z., y GZELISHVILI, A. (1g61), Nue7Jos datos sobre el Paleol!tico de Abkhasta (en ruso), Trudy Komissii po izucheniyu chetvertichnogo perioda, 18 : 12o-121. BEREGOVAYA, N. A. (1g6o), Localidades paleolfticas th la URSS (en ruso), Materialy i isslerdovaniya po arkheologii SSSR, 8r. BERG, L. S. (1950), Natural Regions of the URSS (traducido del ruso por Olga Adler Titelbaum), Nueva York, The Macmillan Co. BoBRINS"KIJ, N. A.; KuZNETsov, B. A., y KuzvAKIN, A. P. (1944), tndice de mam!feros de la URSS (en ruso), Moscu, Savetskaya nauka. BORDES, F. {Ig6r), Typologie du Patiolithique ancien et moyen, Burdeos, Publications de l'lnstitut de Prehistoire de l'Universite de Bordeaux, Mem. n.0 I. CHERDYNTSEV, V. V. i ALEKSEEV, V. A. i KIND, N. V.; FOROVA, V. S.; ZAVEL'SKIJ, F. S.; SULERZHITSKIJ, L. D., y CHURIKOVA, 1. V. (rg6s), Fechas de radiocarbono sepn el Laboratorio del Instituto Geol6gico (GIN) de la Acadenda de Ciencias de la URSS (en ruso), Geokhimiya (r2) : 14Io-1422. GROMov, V. I. (1936), Algunos resultados de las in1Jestigaciones de campo en 1935, en las regiones de Suk·humi, Pyatigor'e y Rosto'V (en ruso), Trudy Sovetskoj Sektsii mezhdunarodnoj Assotsiatsii po izucheniyu chetvertichnogo perioda, 2 : 15-19. BERDZENISHVILI, N. Z. (1g6o),
Bases paleontol6gicas y arqueol6gicas de la estratigrafia de los depositos continentales del perlodo Cuaternario del territorlo de la URSS (en ruso), Trudy Instituta Geologicheskikh nauk AN SSSR 64, Geologicheskaya seriya, 10. GROMov, V. I., y SHANTSER, E. V. (rgs8), 1'he geological age of the Paleolithic in the URSS (traducci6n publicada por el Instituto Americana de Geologia), Izvestiya AN SSSR (5):
GROMOV, V. I. (1948),
16-24.
La edad geol6gica del hombre f6sil (en ruso), Moscu, Nauka. KLEIN, R. G. (1g66), The Mousterian of Europea'' Russia. Conferencia no publicada. Universidad de Chicago. KOROBKOV~ I. I. (1g62), ln7Jestigaciones sobre Ia exploraci6n de las cue7Jas de Khosta de u;6c (en ruso), Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Arkheologii, 92 : 44-50. - (r¢4.), Nue-v
\~.
U.Ll.·
INTRODUCTION !>.J:PT. OF ,\.\TIIiWPOLoGk' Ui\1\". OF Cli!C.\GO . This paper is intc~ccr&H· 1 ttf 0 ~7e a summary and critical analysis of information available on Pleistocene occupation of the portion of the Transcaucasus known as the Eastern Black Sea Littoral. This region lies entirely within the Soviet Union and includes parts of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic and of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic. Its major geographic features have been briefly described by Berg: (195'0:214-222). Topographically it consists largely of foothills of the western portion of the Caucasus Mountains. The climate (following Berg 19!0:214} is "humid, with abundant precipitation, a hot summer, and a relatively warm winter." In the vicinity of Sochi (43.35N, 39.46E) summer highs run between 24°C and 28°C while the mean number of days per year with frost is only sixteen. Annual precipitation at Sochi averages 1410 mm. and virtually all portions of the littoral receive at least 1000 mm. per year. In the two areas of the littoral in which the sites to be discussed shortly are concentrated, the Sochi-Khosta-Adler region and the Abkhazian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic {a subdivision of the Georgian SSR), forests consisting principally of oak cover the hills up to elevations of 600-1000 m. From 600-1000 m. up to 1200 m. beech forests are found; higher yet appear firs and spruces. The fauna of the forests· includes a small variety of brown bear (Ursus arctos subsp.), lynx (Felis~ orientalis), wild cat (Felis silvestris), Caucasian red deer (Cervus elaphus maral), roebuck (Capreolus pygargus and~ capreolus), Transylvanian wild boar (Sus scrofa attila), and jackal (Canis aureus}. Unfortunately, comparative data on Pleistocene climates, floras, and faunas are very sparse. The available information will be presented in the discussions of the sites which have yielded it. All sites mentioned in the text are located on Map 1. PRE-UPPER PLEISTOCENE OCCUPATION The only plausible evidence for pre-Upper Pleistocene (=pre-Eemian = "pre-Riss/Wllrm"} occupation of the Eastern Black Sea Littoral comes
l .. '
. ..~
-2-
from Abkhazia. Here in the years 1934-1938, S. N. Zamyatnin {1937, 1961) discovered and investigated a series of localities which he labeled Acheulean. Study of these so-called Acheulean localities was allowed to lapse for twenty years, but very recently has been renewed (Berdzenishvili 1960; Berdzenishvili and Gzelishvili 1961; Korobkov 1964, 1965a, 1965b). Information on the geological contexts of artifacts called Acheulean by Zam¥atnin has been provided by Gromov (1936, 1948: 267-276), Zamyatnin himself (1937, 1961), and Shantser (1939). The overwhelming majority of these artifacts were found on the surfaces of riverine-estuarine terraces or in slope deposits resting on these terraces. On occasion a piece was pulled directly from the wall of a cutting through the alluvium of a terrace, but never was there found any bone, ash, or other indication of an occupation horizon. On the basis of actual field observations, Gromov (1936, 1948: 267-276), and Shantser (1939) established that the artifact-containing and artifact-bearing terraces on the Abkhazian rivers flowing into the Black Sea merge at the mouths of these rivers with various of a series of five terrace-levels found all along the Abkhazian littoral. The first (=lowermost) terrace-level occurs at a height of 5-8 m. above sea-level, the second at 12-17 m., the third at 3040 m., the fourth at 60-70 m., and the fifth at 80-110 m. Both Gromov and Shantser state that Acheulean artifacts, when actually found in terrace alluvium, occur only in that of terraces merging with the fifth (= 80-110 m.) coastal terrace-level. This circumstance opens up the possiblity of obtaining at least an upper geological age on the artifacts by dating the alluvium in which they are contained. In this regard, Gromov (1948:272-273) states that invertebrate faunas typical of the Karangat marine transgression of the Black Sea have been found in deposits at the base of the third (=3040 m.) and perhaps also of the fourth (=60-70 m.) coastal terracelevels. Since the Karangat is g~erally thought to be of Last Interglacial (~Eemian =''Riss/WUrm") age, the implication would be that the alluvium of terraces merging with the third and perhaps fourth terracelevels is of Last Interglacial age or more recent, while the conclusion could be drawn that river-terrace fills associated with the fifth
1 I ... i
.
'
I·~
l
I I
l I
I
-3-
coastal terrace-level are older than the Last Interglacial. However, the general lack of clarity in Gromov's and Shantser's papers on the nature of the terrace-levels as well as some information presented by Shantser (1939:99) which seemingly contradicts statements made by Gromov (1948) about the relationships between particular coastal terrace-levels and marine invertebrate faunas makes it difficult to accept a geological age as established for any of the alluvial deposits containing Acheulean artifacts. A further complication is introduced by the fact that end-moraines of the "maximum" glaciation of the Caucasus have in three instances been reported to overlie river terraces supposedly corresponding to the third (=30-40 m.) terrace-level of the littoral (Shantser 1939:99-100). The maximum glaciation of the Caucasus is assumed by both Shantser and Gromov to have coincided temporally with the maximum or Dn~~r (=Elster sensu lata= "Riss") glaciation·1 of the Russian Plain. The third terrace-lev a would then be pre-Dnekr (="pre-Riss") and higher terrace levels would be even older. This bit of evidence, besides perhaps contradicting that derived from the relationship between terracelevels and marine faunas, is rendered suspect by the fact that it certainly may not be presumed a priori that the end-moraines are of Dneltr age (in one case there even some question whether the relief feature in question is an end-moraine--see Maruashvili and Changashvili 1964). In the final analysis, it is unfortunately true that it is in large part to the typology of the artifacts that we must turn for the suggestion of their pre-Upper Pleistocene age. The localities which Zamyatnin (1937, 1961) states supplied Acheulean artifacts are located on Map 1. Details on most of these points of artifact recovery may be obtained from Beregovaya (1960: 12-14) as well as from the cited publications of Zamyatnin. (Relatively detailed information on the richest of the localities -- Yashtukh may be found in Korobkov 1964, 1965a, l965b.) Actually, although Zamyatnin called all these points Acheulean, only five (Yashtukh, Kyurdere, Achigvari, Gali, and Chuburiskhindzhi) yielded handaxes. The most abundant artifacts from these so-called Acheulean localities (including ones providing handaxes) were flakes of Clactonian type (with broad, smooth butts generally at obtuse angles to the ventral
is
'
l
I
..l I
-7-
·
imate height of a Mzymta terrace, though this has not been reliably correlated with any Black Sea terrace. Gromov (1948:261) has attempted a tentative climatological interpretation of variations in the sediments of Akhshtyr• Cave. (The interpretation is based largely on the quantity and quality of the rubble found in each bed.) Unfortunately, the profile on which the interpretation depends differs substantially from those of Zamyatnin and of Panichkina and Vekilova in matters of the texture, color, and thickness of the various strata. It is impossible with any assurance to place the cultural remains recovered by the excavators into Gromov•s profile. As a consequence his conclusions about climate during various phases of sediment accumulation have virtually no significance in the context of the present discussion. It should be pointed out, however, that even the limited sedimentological information supplied by Panichkina and Vekilova suggests that relatively sophisticated sediment analysis (according to techniques such as those used by Laville 1964) might provide valuable data about past environments in the vicinity of Akhshtyr• Cave. A similar conclusion has been reached by I. K.Ivanova(l965:109). fauna. - The fauna recovered from the Pleistocene levels of Akhshtyr' Cave during Zamyatnin•s work, as determined by Vera Gromova, is ilsted in Table l. Almost no information is available on the fauna from the Panichkina/Vekilova excavations. [Level 3a of the latter excavations is said by Ivanova (1965:109) to have provided saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica). The only other form specifically mentioned to have been derived from these excavations is cave bear (Panichkina and Vekiiova 1962:39).] Based on his redetermination of Zamyatnin•s faunal remains, Vereshchagin (1959:109) has supplied a table which differs from Table 1 botn in terms of the species listed and the number of bones assigned to each. Insofar as the present writer had no way of determining which set of identifications (Gromova•s or Vereshchagin•s) was more reliable, a decision was reached to present Gromova•s since they were available with a finer stratigraphic breakdown than that provided by Vereshchagin. (In particular Vereshchagin combined Zamyatnin•s two Mousterian horizons-- "3" and 11 5".) However, it is worthwhile to consider briefly
-5•
-1
j j
'
80 sq. m., principally on a rather flat platform in front of the cave between its entrance and the slope to the river below. (Zamyatnin's excavations also took in a small part of the deposits directly in the entrance. He further dug two 1.5 x 2m. test pits in the corridor of the cave, one at roughly 20m. from the mouth, the other at roughly 32m.) In 1961, M. z. Panichkina and E. A. Vekilova (1962) renewed investigation of the site. Further work was carried out in 1965 by Vekilova (1966). The combined excavations of Panichkina and Vekilova and of Vekilova alone covered an area of about 40 sq. m. located inside the entrance of the cave immediately adjacent to the major excavation of Zamyatnin. In addition Panichkina and Vekilova sunk a test pit (1.5 x 2m.) in the depth of the cave, 21m. from the entrance. Three different profiles of the deposits uncovered during the excavations are av~able. Two of them, those of Zamyatnin (1961: 106, 108} and of Panichkina and Vekilova (1962:38-39; see also Vekilova 1966:48), differ principally in that the second is more detailed. The third, that of V. I. Gromov (1948:259-260), based on a visit he made to the site during Zamyatnin's excavations, differs to a considerable extent from the other two. The profile presented immediately be1ow is a composite of Zamyatnin's and of Panichkina's and Vekilova's (in particular, the thicknesses for the individual beds are taken from Zamyatnin as none are supplied by Panichkina and Vekilova) (from the top down}: 1. An ashy stratum characterized principally by potsherds of Middle Age and modern origin and by bones of domestic animals. \Average thickness 1.30 m.) 2. A brown clay with a great quantity of limestone rubble. ine clay was divided into two separate strata by a level of large ~imestone slabs occurring in its midst. Above the siabs were found Neolithic cultural materials {ceramics, artifacts of stone and bone, and faunal remains.) Beneath the slabs occurred two thick and well-expressed, intensely black seams of charcoal with the clay underneath them strongly annealed by fire. In deposits beneath the slabs were found a few flint artifacts assigned to the Upper Paleolithic. {The overall thickness of "2" was from 0.60 to 1.0 m. 3a. A brown-yellow clay not mentioned by Zamyatnin, but uncovered during Panichkina's and Vekilova's work. The clay of"3a" was considerably denser than that of "2" and contained a notably smaller amount of rubble. In"3a"was found a mixed collection of Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic artifacts.
r--. )' J
•
;
-6-
3. A dense yellow clay with a small quantity of limestone rubble and with large fragments of stalactites in the upper portion. When removed, the dense clay disintegrated into angular lumps whose surfaces were covered by a black film. "3" provided numerous Mousterian artifacts and animal bones (these latter darkcolored like the clay-lumps.) (Total thickness 0.40-0.50 m.) 4. A violet-brown lumpy clay said by Zamyatnin to be sterile, but yielding Mousterian artifacts (without associated animal bones) from its very upper part in Panichkina's and Vekilova's excavations. According to Vekilova (1966:48) "4" contained calcareous crusts. (Overall thickness 0.30 to 0.40 m.) 4a. A sterile seam of grey clay not noted by Zamyatnin, but found in Panichkina's and Vekilova's excavations. 5. A greyish-green clay with a large quantity of rusty and white spots. (The white ones at least would seem to ha.ve been formed from the distintegration of b~e.) This bed contained a relat·ively large amount of Mousteria'n artifacts and a small quantity of recoverable bone. like "4~ "5" is said by Vekilova {1966: 48) to have contained calcareous crusts. The lower part of the bed was colored ochreous-yellow and was given the designation ''Sa" by Panichkina and Vekilova. {Overall thickness 0.30 to 0.60 m.) 6. A grey-green clay with pebbles of shale and crystalline rocks. Occasional Mousterian artifacts were found in the top of "6" by Zamyatnin, though not by Panichkina and Vekilova. (Total thickness 0.20 m.) 7. Ochreous red and yellow clay with pebbles of shale and crystalline rocks. "7 11 was thought by Zamytanin to be sterile, but its uppermost part provided a few flints and animal bones in Panichkina's and Vekilova's excavations. (Overall thickness 0.20 m.) Level 7 lay directly on the bedrock. However, both "7 11 and 11 6 11 occurred only near the mouth of the cave on depressed sections of the rock floor. In the depth of the corridor level 5 was lowermost. The maximum thickness of deposits found by both Zamyatnin and by Panichkina and Vekilova was in the vicinity of 5 m. Zamyatnin (1961:108) believed levels 6 and 7 to be of alluvial origin, that is, to have developed as a result of periodic flooding by the Mzymta at a time when its bed more nearly coincided with the cave floor. If "6" and 11 7" could be shown to be alluvial in origin, then the possibility would be held out of establishing a link between them and a given terrace of the Mzymta and in turn a link between the latter and a Black Sea marine terrace. However, Gromov (1948:258) considers it quite possible that the sediments of "6 11 and 11 7 11 arrived in the site not through flooding, but rather along karst passages from above. At the same time he does state that the cave is at the approx-
-4-
surfaces, prominent bulbs of percussion, etc.) Frequently the Clactonian-type flakes bore traces of utilization and sometimes they were retouched to crude points and sidescrapers. In some number were also found cores (sometimes with traces of secondary utilization as tools.) At several sites so-called Acheulean artifacts were foun~ mixed with ones thought to be Mousterian and/or later and were distinguished from these on the basis of typology, patination, etc. Most of the artifacts found by Zamyatnin were of flint. Figure 1 illustrates so-called Acheulean handaxes from Yashtukh, the best-reported and best-known of the Abkhazian Paleolithic localities. In conclusion, in view of the very small number of handaxes, the Abkhazian Acheuleah, if it may be called such, certainly represents a peculiar facies of the Acheulean. Although its geological age remains uncertain, a time preceding the Upper Pleistocene is at least a possibility.
.I
UPPER PLEISTOCENE OCCUPATION Introduction Upper Pleistocene occupation of the Eastern Black Sea Littoral is well-documented, especially at a series of cave sites in the Sochi-Khosta-Adler region, and to a lesser extent at a series of localities in Abkhazia found in roughly the same circumstances as the so-called Acheulean localities there. The sites in the vicinity of Sochi and Khosta will be considered first. They are discussed roughly in the order in which information is available on them. For their locations see Map 1. Akhshtyr• Cave (Akhshtyrskaya peshchera) Location, History of Investigation, Excavations, and Stratigraphy. - Akhshtyr• Cave is located on the right bank of the Mzymta River, opposite the village of Akhshtyr•, 15 km. northeast of Adler. The cave is of mixed tectonic and solution origin and currently has a corridor extending approximately 150 m. back into the rock. The entrance, opening south, reaches 4.5 m. in height and 2m. in width. i t is roughly 120m. above the Mzymta and at present is only accessible from above. Excavations at Akhshtyr• Cave were first undertaken in 1936-38 by S. N. Zamyatnin {1940, 1961) who opened up an area of more than
_ _ _ _ _ _.....;__ _ _ _ _ _ , ___ ___.....i;l - - · -
••
,
_ _ _. . _ _ #
--.
--·~· ·---~
TABLE 1 Mammalian Fauna of Akhshtyr• Cave (After Zamyatnin 1961:111-112) Leve 1 5 Level 3 Boundary Level 2 Boundary of upper ("Lower ("Upper of level5 (Upper Maust." Maust."' 2 and 3 Paleol.) and lower "2" Chi rop te ra, ba.Ts -----1I 1 ---Cr1cetus cricetus, Ord1nary 1I 1 ----Hamster Canis luQus, Wolf 8/l l/1 ---Vulpes vulpes, Old World Red l/1 3/2 2/ 6/ -Fox Ursus spelaeus, Cave Bear 543/11 1196/16 1751/17 1107 -Ursus cf. arctos, Brown Bear? 6/ ---Martes sp., Beech Martin ? l/l l/1 ---Felis sp., Wild Cat ? 1I 1 1/l --Cervus eurtceros, Giant Deer 3/ ---2/ Cervus elaphus Red Deer 5/ l/1 11/1 6/1 Alces machlis, Elk 1 + 2?/ ----1I 1 Capreolus capreolus, Roebuck 2/ ---212 Bos sp., Wild Cattle l/1 4/l 6/l -lI 1 Ovis sp., Sheep 2/1 51 --Ca(!ra sp., Goat 31 813 ---Caprov1nae -31 11 -Sus scrofa ferus, Wild Boar 21 2/ 1/l 1I 1 --
--
--
1/l
--
--
-LE
--E
--
--
--
E
--
Aves non determinata
Present Status
31
21
---LE
--
I
(X)
I
E LE
--
--
---
-
Notes: (1) -/-=number of bones/ number of individuals; (2) E =extinct; LE =locally extinct (i.e., no longer living in the vicinity of the site, but surviving elsewhere); no cipher= still living in the vicinity of the site (Distributional information after Bobrinskij et al. 1944)
lI
-9some of the major qualitative differences between Gromova's and Vereshchagin's results. Vereshchagin (1959:109) states specifically that according to the state of their preservation, the remains determined by Gromova as Ovis sp. in level 5 (Mousterian} were almost certainly derived from higher-lying levels and probably belonged to a domestic animal. Further, Vereshchagin's table presents the bat as Rhinolophus ferrum-eguinum, the marten as Martes cf. foina, the wild cat as Felis silvestris, the elk as Alces alces, the wild bovine as Bison priscus, and the wild goat as Capra caucasica. No mention is made of Caprovinae (indeterminable as to genera). In Vereshchagin's account (1959: 108), it is stated that a bird bone found in one or the other of the Mousterian levels (5 ?--RGK) belonged to an eagle of some kind. Bones of Astur gentilis (Goshawk), of Pica pica (Magpie), and of smail passerines were found in the Upper Paleolithic level {= lower part of "2".} Both Vereshchagin {1959:106-107) and Zamyatnin (1961: 117) point out the interesting fact that cave bear remains found in the interior of the cave (in test pits which yielded only isolated flints and virtually no other indications of human habitation) inciuded many more whole long bones than those remains found in and about the mouth (i.e., in the main excavation and thus in at least geological association with numerous artifacts, hearths, etc.) This suggests that at least a portion of the cave bear in the cultural horizons was derived from the hunting activities of human beings. Artifacts and Features of the Pleistocene Horizons.- Information on the artifacts from the Pleistocene horizons of Akhshtyr' Cave is relatively sparse. For the 1965 work data are available oniy on materials from levels 4, 5, and Sa on which apparently that year's efforts were concentrated (Vekilova 1966). Lower part of level 2 (Upper Paleolithic)- Relatively few artifacts were found in the lower part of stratum 2. The same sorts of tools were recovered in 1936-38 by Zamyatnin (1961:113-114) and in 1961 by Panichkina and Vekilova (1962:39). These consisted principally of truncated blades, backed blades and bladelets, endscrapers, and burins. A small quantity of prismatic cores and unretouched blades was also discovered. There seems no question as to the
-10. \
t
\ j
appropriateness of the term Upper Paleolithic to cover these materials; however, the small sample size as well as the small quantity of descriptive data available make a more detailed estimate of their affinities impossible. Charcoal, presumably from one of the hearth seams of the level in question, has provided a radiocarbon date of 19,500+500 B. P. (GIN-92b, Cherdyntsev et al. 1965:1416) -- a date well within the time-range established elsewhere for the Upper Paleolithic. Level 3a {Mixed Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic).- No descriptions are available of the cultural remains found in level 3a. Level 3 (Mousterian).- Most numerous among the tools isolated by Panichkina and Vekilova (1962:39) from their excavations of level 3 in 1961 were ones called sidescrapers. However, both the descriptions and limited illustrations available suggest that many {if not most) of these,with their irregularly and frequently alternatingly retouched edges, might be better classified as denticulates{in the sense of Bordes 1961:36). [In fact, Lyubin {1966:51) has referred to the presence of "Denticulate Mousterian" in Akhshtyr• Cave.] Data on hand, however, do not allow elimlination of the possibility that the "sidescrapers" in large part received their retouch as a result of having been crushed, or perhaps in some cases utilized. [See Bordes {1961:45-46) for descriptions of retouch caused by crushing and utilization.] As such they would best be placed in pseudo-tool and tool-of-fortune categories. Panichkina and Vekilova further report the recovery of a number of "points~ Available information suggests that those which are not denticulates, pseudo-tools {=crushed pieces), or tools-of-fortune (=utilized pieces) might better be classified as sidescrapers {again following the ever more widely accepted criteria formulated by Bordes 1961). Panichkina and Vekilova note that bifacial tools are absent from ievel 3 except perhaps for some crude bifacially worked pieces very closely resembling the discoid cores found. Among the tools found by Zamyatnin (1961:114) were principally ones he too called sidescrapers and points. As in the case of the sidescrapers and points of Panichkina and Vekilova many of Zamyatnin•s bear what appears to be denticulate or possibly "natural" or in some
-11. \
'
I I
l i
i
l
•
I
l l
cases utilization retouch (Fig. 1,#1 and 2), though others seem to be perfectly good, non-denticulate tools (Fig. 1, #3 and 4). The scant descriptive data and few figures on hand suggest that Levallois d~bitage may have played a fairly prominent part in the level 3 assemblage. Currently available information allows no statement about the extent to which faceted butts were characteristic. In overview there seems no reason to deny the application of the term Mousterian to the Level 3 assemblage. It is interesting to note that in addition to flint artifacts, at least Zamyatnin found a small number of shale pieces . Three well-defined hearth spots were uncovered in Zamyatnin's excavations. These contained ash, bits of charcoal, charred bone, and burned flints. No mention of hearths was made by Panichkina and Vekilova. Level 4 (Mousterian).- Only Panichkina and Vekilova (1962:39) and Vekilova (1966) report finding artifacts in level 4 and then apparently only near its interface with "3". The artifacts reportedly resemble those from "3." Level 5 (Mousterian).- In both the Zamyatnin and Panichkina/ Vekilova excavations, level 5 proved to be the richest Pleistocene cultural horizon. Panichkina and Vekilova (1962:39) state that, as in level 3, the most numerous sorts of tools found in their work in "5" were sidescrapers (Fig. 2, #1), while a large series of points (Fig. 2, #2,3) was also recovered. At least the illustrations on hand once again raise the question of whether the excavators have not labelled as true tools at least some objects which are no more than crushea or utilized pieces. Unlike the higher-lying Mousterian level (=3), "5" provided Panichkina and Vekilova with a relatively large number of bifacially worked objects. These are described as in general rather flat and either discoid or subquadrangular in shape (Fig.2, #4). In addition, Vekilova (1966:49) reports the recovery in 1965 of a fragment of a bifacial leaf point. Zamyatnin (1961:116) also identified a large number of so-called points (Fig.3, #1-4) and sidescrapers (Fig. 3-#5,6) in the assemblage he collected. His illustrations (1961 :172-175) suggest that within these two categories he placed pieces which (once again following the useful definitions presented by Bordes 1961) might better be assigned
r! l
r
•
.
•
l 1 I
l. I
'
1
J ~
-12to denticulates and perhaps to choppers as well as to points and sidescrapers. Further, some of Zamyatnin's points and sidescrapers are quite possibly crushed or utilized pieces. Like Panichkina and Vekilova, Zamyatnin found a series of bifacial tools, one of which he described as a handaxe in shale (Fig. 4, #1). The appearance of a second bifacial object {Fig. 4, #2) caused Zamyatnin to call it a fragmentary foliate. While Panichkina and VekiloPa make no reference to the raw material of level 5, Zamyatnin notes that, as in level 3, he found some shale artifacts in addition to the more numerous flint ones. The descriptive data and available figures imply that the assemblage from level 5, like that from "3" is characterized by the prominence of Levallois d~bitage. Once more it is impossible to make any statement about the percentage of flakes present with faceted butts. In overview, Level 5, though perhaps presenting some differences from level 3, is like the latter, rather clearly referable to the Mousterian. In Zamyatnin's excavations at least, traces of fire in level 5 were found in the form of a hearth-spot containing lumps of charred bone. Level Sa {Mousterian ?).- Level Sa, though distinguished as a sedimentary unit (=distinctly colored lower part of "5'') by Panichkina and Vekilova (1962},is only distinguished as an artifact-containing unit oy Vekilova (1966:49). She states that ~in 1965 it provided a discoid core, a multiplatformed core, a double sidescraper, an hachereau-like tool, a crude biface, and several flakes with retouch. Although data on these finds are very limited, there seems no reason to the present writer why they may not be called Mousterian. Levels 6 and 7.- Although Zamyatnin reports having found a few artifacts in the top of "6'', no descriptive:information or illustrations of these are available. Artifact~ from level 7, found only by Panichkina and Vekilova, consisted simply of a so-called handaxe of shale {Fig. 5), a sidescraper, and a fragment of flint-- obviously too few pieces for any assessment of industrial affinities. Human Remains.- According to Vekilova (1966:48; cf. Ivanova 1965: 109), excavations -in levels Ja and 3 in 1961 provided one human second
)/
li . I
l
I I
·I
l
.,
p
~:
.
,
-13-
upper right molar and three human metatarsals. Level 3a is stated by Panichkina and Vekilova (1962) to have contained a mixed assemblage of Upper Paleolithic and Mousterian artifacts (Level 3 being pure Mousterian), but Vekilova (1966) says all the human remains belong to the Mousterian. She further reports that the physical anthropologist A. A. Zubov found them indistingusihable from the correspondjng parts of anatomically modern man. Navalishino Cave (Navalishinskaya peshchera) Location, General Description, Excavations, and Stratigraphy.Navalishino Cave is situated on the left bank of the Kudapesta River, approximately 12 km. from the Black Sea. The cave has two entrances, one 2.5 m. high and sealed by talus at the time of excavation, and the other 4 m. high by 5 m. wide and open. Both entrances face roughly east. Corridors of the cave penetrate the limestone bedrock for a distance of approximately 30 m. Pleistocene cultural materials were discovered at the site in 1936 by S. N. Zamyatnin (1940, 1961:100-104) who excavated a total of about 22 sq. m. in the same year. In 1965 investigation was renewed by V. P. Lyubin (1966) who to date has supplied only the briefest preliminary information on his findings, including no word as to how many square meters he opened up or the location of his excavation within the cave. Zamyatnin•s excavations were conducted principally in and around the open entrance, though he dug one test pit in friable deposits at a distance of approximately 15 m. from the entrance. In the deepest parts of the cave he attempted no excavations as the rock floor was almost devoid of covering sediments. The stratigraphy he found in his principal excavations is presented immediately below (from top to bottom): (1) A yellow clay with a wide range of cultural materials mixed up helter-skelter. This bed had its origin when local inhabitants cleaned out the depth of the cave for a church and dumped the sediments they removed on the surface of the forward part. (Remnants of the clay now forming level 1 were found on the walls in the depth of the cave up to a height of one meter.) {Total thickness of 11 1 11 0.35-0.50 m.) (2) A black-brown clay with rubble and containing animal bones and flint artifacts assigned to the Upper Paleolithic. (Overall thickness 0.50-0.90 m.) (3) A rubbly, brown clay including three distinct charcoal seams and providing animal bones and artifacts called Mousterian (Genera 1 thickness 0. 70-1.10 m.)
, \
AKHSHTYR' CAVE {SUPPLEMENT) p. 190/ Excavations at Akhshtyr' Cave were first undertaken in 1936-38 by s. N. Zamyatnin (1940, 1961} who opened up an area of more than 80 sq. m., principally on a rather flat platform in front of the cave between its entrance and the slope to the river below. (Zamyatnin's excavations also took in a small part of the deposits directly in the entrance. He further dug two 1.5 x 2 m. test pits in the corridor of the cave, one roughly 20 m. from the mouth, the other roughly 32 m.} In 1961, f'L Z. Panichkina and E. A. Veldlova (1962) rene\'led investigation of the site. Further work was carried out in 1962, 1963, and 1965 by Vekilova (1966, 1967). The 1961-65 excavations uncovered an area of 40 sq. m. located inside the entrance of the cave directly adjacent to the major excavations of Zamyatnin. In addition, Panichkina and Vekilova sunk a test pit (1.5 x 2m.) in the depth of the cave 21 m. from the entrance. p. 191/
2. A brown clay with a great quantity of limestone rubble. The clay was divided into two separate strata by a level of large limestone slabs occurring in its midst. The entire bed ·is believed to be of Upper Pleistocene age. Beneath the slabs occurred two thick and wellexpressed, intensely black seams of charcoal with the clay underneath them strongly annealed by fire. In deposits beneath the slabs were found a few flint artifacts assigned to the Upper Paleolithic. (The overall thickness of "2" was from 0.60 to 1.0 m.) 3a. A brown-yellow clay not mentioned by Zamyatnin, but uncovered during Panichkina's and Vekilova's work. The clay of "3a" was considerably denser than that of "2'' and contained a notably smaller amount of rubble. "3a" provided a small collection of Mousterian artifacts. 4. A violet-brown lumpy clay said by Zamyatnin to be sterile, but yeilding Mousterian artifacts (without associated animal bones) from its very upper part in Panichkina's and Vekilova's excavations. These artifacts are believed to be derived from the immediately higher-lying horizon (3). According to Vekilova (1966:48), "4" contained calcareous crusts. (Overall thickness 0.30 to 0.40 m.) 7. Ochreous red and yellow clay with pebbles of shale and crystalline rocks; archeologically sterile. (Overall thickness 0.20 m.).
-·
..
AKHSHTYR CAVE(SUPPLEMENT -- 2) p. 197/ Level 3a (Mousterian): According to Vekilova {1967:82) this horizon contained typical side-scrapers, Mousterian points, and denticulates as well as a series of Upper Paleolithic-type artifacts -- a prismatic ore, end-scrapers, and blades. Previously {Vekilova 1966), this level was referred to as "Mixed Upper Paleolithic and Mousterian." 1
Level 4 (~1ousterian)--SHOULO BE OMITEO SINCE THE ARTIFACTS IN 4 are believed derived from 3. p. 198 Level S (Mousterian): In both the Zamyatnin and Panichkina/Vekilova excavations, level S proved to be the richest Pleistocene cultural horizon. Panichkina and Vekilova (1962:39) state that, as in level 3, the most numerous sorts of tools found in their work in "S were sidescrapers (fig. 2#1), while a large series of points {Fig.2#2,3) was also recovered. At least the illustrations on hand once again raise the question of ~1hether the excavators have not labelled as true tools at least some objects which are no more than crushed or utilized pieces Un1 i ke t he h i g he r- 1y i ng 11 o us t e r i an 1eve 1 ( .. 3 5 " pr o vi de d Pa ni c h k i na and Vekilova with a relatively large number of bifacially worked objects. These ~e described as in general rather flat and either discoid or subquadrangular in shape (Fig.2#4). In addition, Vekilova (1966:49) reports the recovery in 1965 of a fragment of a bifacial leaf point. Level Sa (Mousterian): Level Sa provided 2 cores, several sidescrapers, some retouched flakes, debris, an hachereau-like tool, and at least one crude biface. Human Remains-- According to Vekilova {1966:48, 1967:84), excavations in;levels 3a and 3 in 1961 provided one human second upper left molar and three human metatarsa~s. Both levels 3 a and 3 are assigned to the Mousterian. Vekilova reports that the physical anthropologist A.A. Zubov found the human remains indistinguishable from the corresponding parts of anatomically modern man. 11
11
11
11
11
)
,
General Evaluation of the Mousterian Artifacts: Vekilova (1967:84) states that all four Housterian horizons (3a,3,5,5a) were characterized by the prominence of the Levallois technique and by a large number of denticulates with coarse alternating retouch. The possibility that these are crushed tools (pseudo-tools) seems very high.
.
•
(1) Navalishino Cave {Navalishenskaya peshchera) Location, General Description, Excavations, and Stratigraphy . Navalishino Cave is situated on the left bank of the Kudapesta River, approximately 12 km. from the Black Sea. The cave has two entrances, one 2.5 m. high and sealed by talus at the time of excavation, and the other 4 m. high by 5 m. wide and open. Both entrances face roughly east. Corrdiors of the cave penetrate the limestone bedrock for a distance of approximately 30 m. Pleistocene cultural materials were discovered at the site in 1936 by S. N. Zamyatnin (1940,1961:100-104} who excavated a total of about 22 sq. m. in around the open entrance (Fig. 1 = from Lyubin and Shchelinskij 1967:74}, though one test pit was dug in the friable deposits at a distance of ca. 15 m. from the entrance. No excavations were attempted in the deepest parts of the cave since the rockfloor was almost devoid of covering sediments. In 1965, excavations were renewed by V. P. Lyubin and V. E. Shchelinskij {1967; see also Lyubin 1966} who opened up 5.5 sq. m. immediately adjacent to Zamyatnin's earlier excavation (Fig. 1). Lyubin and Shchelinskij uncovered approximately the same sequence of deposits as Zamyatnin, but described them in greater detail as follows(from top to bottom-- see Fig. 1):
Numerical Designation of Zamyatnin
Numerical Designation of Lyubin a nd Shc he ltn skij.
Thickness
Hi a b1e , pa 1e-ye 11 ow- br 0\'1 n
1
2
Description
1
la
loam with rubble., Derived from inside the cave in the recent past (Remnants of the loam now forming the bed were found on the walls in the depth of the cave upto a height of 1 m.} Contains mixed cultural remains of the Upper Paleolithic and Mousterian 0.15-0.6( Brownish-grey loam with rubble. Contains Upper Paleolithic materials. Upto 0.5 Dark-brown loam with rubble. Contains Upper Paleolitfi~c materials.Upto0.45n
, Navalishino Cave ( 2 ) 2
.. 3
3
4£
Greenish-grey, yellowish loam Contains Upper Paleolithic materials. Yellowish-green loam with rubble. Contains Mousterian materials. light-brown reddish loam with rubble. Contains Mousterian materials.
0.05-0.2m.
0.15-0.4 m
O.l5-0.47m
5.
Dark-brown reddish loam with rubble. Contains Mousterian materials 0.05-0.20
6
Sterile, yellow loam (=weathered surface of underlying limestone)
0.02-0.1 m
Lyubin and Shchelinskij note that in all the beds but No. 2 there was an extraordinary amount of limestone rubble. The rubble became progressively less angular and more friable with depth until in bed 5 it could be easily crumbled by finger pressure. The deposits also tended to become more compact (less ~ndy, more clayey) with depth. At the base of each of the .. Mousterian horizons .. (beds 3,4, and 5) occurred a distinct btilack layer, deriving its color from concentrations of decayed as charcoal ,/other organic matter, and manganese compounds. Manganese compounds also occured in the cleavage planes of the lumps of loam making up beds 2 thru 5. Lyubin and Shchelinskij believe that the high proportion of rubble in beds 3-5 reflects in part the deposition of these beds under cold (Mid-WUrm) conditions and in part the peculiar features of the cave, in particular the heavily cracked quality of the surrounding limestone and the structure of the cave allowing the deep penetration of outside air. The pit which Zamyatnin dug 15 m. from the mouth of the cave provided no artifacts, but in brown clay at a depth of 0.20 m. to 0.80-1.00 m. was found an accumulation of cave bear bones and immediately under them a thin charcoal seam. Benearth thi~ seam the brown clay lightened in color and bones became rarer, finally disappearing altogether near the bottom of the pit (ca. 2m. from the surface). On the walls near the pit were found patches of sediments upto a height of 75 em. above the present-day surface, indicating that some of the deposits were removed from the central as well as from the deepest parts of the cave.
~
Navalishino Cave (3) Fauna. Table 1 presents the fauna recovered from Navalishino Cave.
'r
TABLE 1 --FAUNA OF NAVALISHINO CAVE (from Zamyatnin 1961:102 and Lyubin and Shchelinskij 1967:77). Reworked surface level 163/10
Levels 1,1a,2 Levels 3,4,5 Present (Upper Paleo- (Mousterian) Status ithic) E 287/18 423/19 2/l 1/1 l/1
Ursus spelaeus,Cave Bear Canis lupus, Wolf Vulpes vulpes, Ordinary Fox ----Meles meles, Badger 2/ l/1 Carnivora indeterminata LE 1/1 Alces machlis, ELK {Moose} ----1/1 l/1 caera sp., Goat CPleetus-ericetus, Ordinary LE l/1 2/ Hamster LE l/1 Spalax sp., Mole Rat Rodentia non determinata 1/1 l/1 l/1 Aves non determinata Mollusca Anadonta ----1 ----Helix ----1 ----NOTES: {1) -/-=number of bones/number of individuals; (2) E= extinct; LE =Locally extinct (i.e. no longer living in the vicinity of the site, but surviving elsewhere); no cipher= still living in the vicinity of the site {Distributional data from Bobrinskij et al. 1944). Artifacts and Features: Levels 1, la, and 2 (Upper Paleolithic). Levels 1, la, and 2, lumped as one by Zamyatnin, provided him with relatively few artifacts. These included principally end-scrapers and retouched blades as well as a few burins, pilces esquill,es, prismatic cores, and a number of unretouched blades. The illustrations (Zamyatnin 1961:166) reveal beyond doubt the Upper Paleolithic nature of the assemblage, but do not allow a closer assessment of its affinities. Three distinct hearth spots with charcoal were found by Zamyatnin. [yubin and Shchelinskij (1967:79} also recovered only a small no. of artifacts from the Upper Paleolithic horizons. These included a blade core, several unretouched blades, some edn-scrapers, some backed bladelets, and two fragments of bone points. Many of the stone artifacts were characterized by irregular, alternating retouch (also seen on some of the pieces gathered by Zamyatnin). Lyubin believes these are denticulates, but in view of their appearance it seems more likely that they are crushed pieces, perhaps receiving their retouch as a result of tramp· ling by cave bears. Artifacts and Features: levels 3,4, and 5 (Mousterian). In his discussion of the Mousterian artifacts from Navalishino cave, Zamya~n notes (1961:103) simply that he recovered an assemblage of points,
1'
\
Navalishino Cave (4) side-scrapers, bifacially worked tools, flakes, blades and cores which overall resembled the Mousterian artifacts he found in Akhshtyr' Cave. Lyubin and Shchelinskij (1967:76 ff.) present more detailed information on the very small collection of artifacts they obtained from levels 3,4, and 5. Much of this information is summarized in Table 2 (Note; the illustrations of the artifacts in Lyubin and Shchelinskij 1967:78 do not seem to bear out the strongly Levallois character suggested by the table.) TABLE 2 -- Artifacts from the Navalishino Cave Mousterian Horizons (from Lyubin and Shchelinskij 1967:77) HORIZONS 3 4 5 TOTAL Cores (all said to be Levallois) 2 l 1 4 5 8 1 14 Levallois blanks 2 2 4 Non-Levallois blanks 3 Retouch chips -- 3 3 3 115 Fragments and Splinters 17 14 5 36 Strongly retouched pieces 6 6 1 13 Weakly retouched pieces 11 Raw material for artifact manufacture consisted of immediately available siliceous limestone and reddish flint and of non-locally available red and bluish-grey flint. The artifacts tend to be very small (Fig. 2 =from Lyubin and Shchelnskij 1967). Retouch tends to be irregular and alternating, giving retouched edges a highly uneven appearance. Lyubin is inclined to call all pieces bearing such retouch "denticulates" and has labelled the entire industry a va r i an t o f t he " Den t i c u1a t e f·1 o us t e r i a n • .. Bu t t he c ha r a c t e r o f t he retouch suggests that the pieces on which it was found were crushed, perhaps by the bears who possibly made even more use of the cave than people. Evidence for fire in horizons 3,4, and 5.is present in the form of charcoal and ash, particularly concentrated in the earlier-mentioned layers at the base of each horizon.
,,
-14-
I
I
The maximum thickness of deposits encountered by Zamyatnin near the mouth of the cave was 2.5 m. The pit dug 15 m. from the mouth yielded no artifacts, but in brown clay at a depth of 0.20 m. to 0.80-1.00 m. was found an accumulation of cave bear bones and immediately under them a thin charcoal seam. Beneath this seam the brown clay lightened in color and bones became rarer, finally disappearing altogether near the bottom of the pit (ca. 2m. from the surface.) On the walls near the pit were found patches of sediments up to a height of 75 em. above the present-day surface, indicating that some deposits were removed from the central as well as from the deepest parts of the cave. Lyubin (1966) has provided no information on the stratigraphy found in his excavations except to note that the Upper Paleolithic and Mousterian levels contained a large quantity of rubble, a fact reported also by Zamyatnin (see above). Fauna.- Table 2 presents the fauna recovered from Navalishino Cave by Zamyatnin. No data are yet available on the bones found by Lyubin. Artifacts and Features: Level 2 (Upper Paleolithic).- Level 2 provided Zamyatnin with relatively few artifacts. These included principally endscrapers and retouched blades as well as a few burins, pi~ces esquill~es, prismatic cores and a number of unretouched blades. The illustrations (Zamyatnin 1961:166) reveal beyond doubt the Upper Paleolithic nature of the assemblage, but do not allow a closer assessment of its affinities. Three distinct hearth spots with charcoal were found by Zamyatnin. Lyubin (1966:52) reports he found a large series of notches and denticulates among the Upper Paleolithic pieces he recovered. He raises the question of whether Navalishino Cave might noTcontain an Upper Paleolithic industry derived directly from 11 Denticulate Mousterian.11 However, if his denticulates (for which no illustrations are yet available) bear irregular, alternating retouch like some of the Navalishino Upper Paleolithic artifacts illustrated by Zamyatnin, it is at least possible that they are not tools (=denticulates) _at all, but crushed pieces. Artifacts and Features: Level 3 (Mousterian).- Information available on the artifacts from Level 3 is barely enough to substantiate their Mousterian label. Zamyatnin (1961 :103) notes simply that he found
.
.. ...
TABLE 2 Fauna of Navalishino Cave (After Zamyatnin 1961 :102) Level 3 Mousterian Cricetus cricetus, Ordinary Hamster S~alax sp., Mole Rat Rodentia non determinata 1/1 Canis lu~us, Wolf 165/8 Drs us s~e1 aeus, Cave Bear Meles meles, Badger Carnivora non determinata Alces machlis, Elk 1/1 Ca~ra s p. ' Goat Aves no n d e t e rm i na t a Mollusca Anadonta Helix
Level 2 Upper Paleo. 1/l
Level 1 Mixed 2/
l/l l/l 229/7
171 l/1 1/1 1I 1
120/7 2/
Present Status LE LE
E
LE I _,
U1
1
I
1
Notes: (1) -/- =number of bones/ number of individuals; (2) E = extinct; LE = locally extinct (i.e. no longer living in the vicinity of the site, but surviving elsewhere); no cipher= still living in the vicinity of the site (Distributional data from Bobrinskij et al. 1944}.
.
..
I.
I
..
-16an assemblage of points, sidescrapers, bifacially worked tools, flakes, blades, and cores which overall resembled the Mousterian artifacts he found in Akhshtyr• Cave. Lyubin (1966:52) states that the Mousterian assemblage derived from his excavations was quite similar to the one nound in Vorontsovo Cave which he has preliminarily designated as "Denticulate Mousterian." {see below.) Zamyatnin,at least,found traces of fire in level 3, localized in three separate"hearth seams•• containing charcoal, charred bones, and burned flints. The bottommost seam lay immediately on the rock floor. Vorontsovo Cave {Vorontsovskaya peshchera) Location, GenePal Description, Excavatiohs 1 and Stratigraphy.Vorontsovo Cave is located on the right slope of the Khosta River approximately 14 km. from Sochi. The mouth of the cave exits to the east at a height of 100-120 m. above the river. Its corridors pass more than 70 m. into the surrounding limestone. The site was first investigated in 1940 by D. A. Krajnov {1947:31, 34) who sunk a 3 m. x 2 m. test pit into deposits just inside the entrance. He reports three sedimentologically distinct strata, each of which contained Mousterian artifacts and faunal remains (principally cave bear). In 1965,excavation was renvewed by V.P. Lyubin {1966) who, in a 5 sq. m. excavation, found a somewhat more complex stratigraphy than Krajnov. On top was a humic level (="1"), 0.1-0.4 m. thick, and believed to be of Holocene origin. Below it occurred a series of loams, l.0-1.1 m. thick, with six Mousterian cultural horizons, 2, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, and 4. The loams were generally brown, though levels 2, 2a, 2b, and 2c also possessed a grey-greenish tint and level 3 · a reddish tint. "2," "2a," "2b," "2c," and "3" contained variable amounts of small pebbles and limestone rubble, while "4" was generally distinguished from all the higher-lying horizons in having a lumpy structure, greater density and darker color. Below it were found fine gravels, sands, loams, and travertines, the ensemble comprising levels 5, 6, and 7 with an overall thickness of 0.3-0.5 m. The gravels, sands, etc. are apparently of subaqueous origin and were sterile except for a very few artifacts from the top of "5" near its interface with "4 11 • Below "7" at a depth of ca. 1.8 m. from the surface was the rock floor of the cave.
...
'
I
I
,
I
I I I
I
I
.
-17-
Artifacts.- Krajnov (1947) has supplied virtually no information on the artifacts gathered during his work except to say they appeared by and large to be Mousterian and included points, sidescrapers, and at least in the bottommost level bifaces. Lyubin (1966) reports that he found 1176 stone artifacts in the Mousterian levels of his excavation. He states these were characterized by small dimensions and an abundance of denticulates and notches. Sidescrapers and points were~A\~ile some Upper Paleolithic types of tools ~ were present. Blanks for tools were most frequently fragments of flakes and blades rather than whole specimens. Levallois d~bitage was not prominent. Lyubin has not yet provided any data on differences among the assemblages of the various levels beyond noting a tendency for the lowermost levels to contain somewhat larger artifacts and also more Levallois blanks. He suggests that the Vorontsovo assemblages in general might be called "Denticulate Mousterian with small tools." However, though no illustrations of his artifacts are yet available, his description of the retouch on them as frequently discontinuous and alternating raises the question (as in the cases of Akhshtyr' and Navalishino Caves) of whether his denticulates might not in reality be largely crushed pieces. It is interesting to note that a series of cave bear bones and canines uncovered in Lyubin's excavations appeared to him to be worked and to represent artifacts. Fauna.- Krajnov (1947) mentions no form among the faunal remains he found but cave bear, though he notes other species were present. Lyubin (1966) states he found ca. 1500 determinable bones, more than 90% of which belonged to cave bear. Evidence that bears as well as human beings occupied Vorontsovo Cave in the past may be seen in the polishing of the walls, presumably having resulted from the repeated passage of the animals. Khosta Cave I (Khostinskaya peshchera I) Khosta Cave I is situated on the right bank of the Khosta River approximately 7 km. from its mouth. The cave has two entrances at a height of roughly 300 m. above the river and possesses a series of corridors penetrating deeply into the limestone bedrock. In 1936, OJ S. N. Zamy~nin (1961:98-100) dug two test pits in the cave, the first
l. ,,
.
(
I I
I! I! I I
l. 1I I
· t
i
I
I
'
:
-18-
(1 m. x 1.5 m.) at a distance of 10m. from the main entrance and the second (1 m. x 2m.) at a distance of 13m. Testing of the site was renewed in 1961 by I. I. Korobkov (1962) who excavated a 1.5 x 2m. pit 15 m. from the major entrance. Korobkov uncovered a 2.5 m. thickness of sediments without striking rock-bottom. His stratigraphy was as follows {from top to bottom): (1} A black humic clay (0.10-0.20 m. thick) (2} A red-brown clay (0.1-0.3 m. thick) (3) A dark-brown clay (0.20-0.40 m. thick) with an intensively carbonaceous seam at its base. (4) A brown clay (0.15-0.3 m. thick) underlain by a carbonaceous seam. (?)A black clay (coloration from charcoal) (0.1-0.2 m. thick}, also underlain by a carbonaceous seam. (6) A brown clay with a large quantity of fine rubble (1.3 m. thick). Included in the clay were three distinct carbonaceous seams. (7} A yellow-brown loam without rubble (0.3 m. exposed.) Korobkov reports that each level (but 7 ?--RGK) contained a small quantity of cultural remains. The very bottom of level 6 provided one tool judged to be Mousterian. Somewhat higher in the same level were found six artifacts (four of andesite-basalt, two of flint ) and some bones of cave bear, deer, and aurochs or bison. The stones are said to be Mousterian. Six further pieces obtained from the top part of level 6 were also assigned to the Mousterian. Level 5 yielded one flake "of Mousterian appearance'' and a backed bladelet. The higherlying levels apparently only supplied materials thought to be of postPleistocene age. The profile presented by Zamyatnin (1961:100) roughly resembles Korobkov's, though the total depth penetrated was slightly under 2m. Zamyatnin found even fewer artifacts than Korobkov and supplied no information on them. Khosta Cave II (Khostinskaya peshchera II) Khosta Cave II is located one kilometer downstream from Khosta Cave I on the right bank of the Khosta River. The mouth of the cave is situated 150m. above the river and opens east. Galleries of the cave penetrate some 70 m. into the limestone massif in which it is found.
1 .
j
I
-19-
.-
Three sets of excavations have been conducted at the site: the first in 1936 by M. Z. Panichkina (Zamyatnin 1961 :100) who found cave bear bones and Mousterian flints in a small test pit; the second in 1940 by D. A. Krajnov (1947:31) who dug a 5 m. x lm. pit 10m. from the entrance and found three/four cultural horizons with cave bear bones and Mousterian artifacts; and the third in 1961 by I. I. Korobkov (1962) who placed a 1.5 x 2m. pit in the interior of the cave more than 15m. from its mouth and found 0.80-1.25 m. of loose deposits with three Paleolithic cultural levels. Only Korobkov's excavations have been described in any detail whatsoever. The stratigraphy he uncovered was as follows (from top to bottom): (1) A friable, powdery grey sandy loam, 5 to 7 em. thick. (2) A dark, brown loam with abundant rubble. Near the top of this bed the loam tended to be more sandy, near the bottom more clayey. It grew darker with depth. Light conditions in the cave prohibited Korobkov from making finer geological subdivisions of the stratum, but at succeedingly lower levels within it were found artifacts labeled Neolithic, Upper Paleolithic, and Mousterian respectively. Overall thickness was 0.7 to 0.9 m. (3) Immediately below''2" and lying on the rock floor was a yellow loam with Mousterian artifacts. It varied in thickness from 0.1 to 0.4 m. Eleven artifacts were collected in level 3. These were made of andesite-basalt and flint and included (according to Korobkov 1962:45} three sidescrapers, seven flakes, and a flint fragment. The second set of supposed Mousterian artifacts, found near the base of level 2, were all of flint. They totaled fourteen and included (after Korobkov} a miniature discoid core, seven sidescrapers, and six flakes and fragments. The pieces found in the midst of level 2 and assigned to the Upper Paleolithic numbered only four: a bone tool and three flint objects (a backed bladelet, a notch, and an endscraper-like tool.) Besides artifacts, Korobkov's excavations uncovered a large quantity of bones; at least all the determinable examples were found to belong to cave bear. Some of the bear bones bore traces of cutting by stone tools, others of gnawing, testifying to the very different routes by which they may have reached the cave. Ats Cave (Atsinskaya peshchera) Ats Cave is found in the upper reaches of the Ats River, a trib-
-20-
..
I
I
.
utary of the Sochi. Alone of the Eastern Black Sea Littoral sites so far discussed, it is a shelter (as opposed to a corridor cave.) It is approximately 30m. wide, 15m. deep {at maximum), and 2-3m. high. Its mouth faces ESE and lies at a height of 100-120 m. above the right bank of the Ats. In 1940 D. A. Krajnov (1947:30-31) dug a 2m. x 2 m. pit in the deposits of the shelter, reaching the rock floor at a depth of 1.8 m. and exposing the following stratigraphy {from top to bottom): {1) A humic level with ceramics, etc. (Thickness 5-10 em.) {2) A dark-grey loam with fine rubble {thickness 20-25 em.) In this level were found animal bones and flint artifacts said by Krajnov to be of "Azilian-Tardenosian appearance." (3) A brownish-yellow loam with rubble (thickness up to 30 em.), separated from "2" by a level of large limestone slabs. The loam contained a large quantity of animal bones, charcoal, and stone tools assigned by Krajnov to the Upper Paleolithic. (4a) A dark-grey loam including a 7 em. thick seam filled with charcoal, ash, etc. (Overall thickness of 11 4a 11 , 20-25 em.) In the loam was found a large number of animal bones and stone tools also assigned by Krajnov to the Upper Paleolithic. (4b) A light-grey loam with fine rubble and rare large rocks (thickness 25 em.) In this level were found a second "hearthseam" (15 em. thick) and more artifacts called Upper Paleolithic. (5) A dense, brownish-yellow loam with rubble (thickness 40 em.) The rubble increases in size with depth. The loam contained yet another series of animal bones and flint artifacts attributed by Krajnov to the Upper Paleolithic. (6) A yellow-rustyish loam with large rubble (thickness 20-30 em.) In this level were discovered animal bones (largely of cave bear) and artifacts labeled Mousterian by Krajnov. (7) A thin seam of sand with no artifacts or bones. No further information on Ats Cave has been published beyond a brief reference by Lyubin (1966:51} to the presence of "Benticulate Mousterian~ in it. * * * * * * * In addition to the in situ (cave-site) occurrences in the SochiKhosta-Adler region, a series of surface Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic localities there have been reported by Panichkina (1940). Since only very limited information is available on these and since they in no way expand or fill out the picture presented by the~ situ occurrences, there is no reason to consider them here.
.
i I
I
-21Abkhazia The Abkhazian littoral has provided a number of so-called Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic localities occurring in roughly the same circumstances as the Abkhazian "Acheulean" sites considered previously. In other words, presumed Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic artifacts have been found at several points lying in or on (mostly on) terraces of rivers flowing into the Black Sea. Sufficient illustrations of these artifacts are available (see especially Zamyatnin 1961) to confirm the applicability of the terms Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic to them. It is unfortunately true, however, that in not one case has a terr~ce fill provided an actual primary context (i.e. occupation) site. In_many cases artifacts called Mousterian and/or Upper Paleolithic have been distinguished from others believed to be earlier or later at the same locality simply on the basis of typology, patination, etc. More detailed information on the artifacts in question may be found in Zamyatnin (1937, 1961), Solov'ev (1949:13), Korobkov (1965a, 1965b}, and Beregovaya (1960:35-36). Gromov (1948:269) and Shantser (1939:99) (see also Gromov and Shantser 1958:18) have rep~ed that Mousterian aritfacts, when actually found in terrace alluvium, occur only in that of terraces corresponding to the third terrace-level of the Abkhazian coast. It will be remembered from the earlier discussion that the geological age of this terrace-level is questionable; consequently, it is impossible at present to ascertain the age of the Mousterian artifacts on geological grounds alone. So-called Upper Paleolithic artifacts are not clearly associated with the alluvium of any terrace and in no case do their geological conditions of occurrence presently allow determination of their age. In conclusion, it is necessary to mention two relatively minor exceptions to the generalization that Pleistocene-age occupation sites are absent from Abkhazia. These are Bzyb' shelter, located approximately 10 km. east of Kolkhida and Kva-Chara Cave {exact location unknown to the present writer.) The Bzyb'shelter, situated on the river of the same name, is said by Zamyatnin (1961 :92) to be a vast shelter with a great depth of deposits. In 1935, Zamyatnin sunk a 1 m. x 1 m. test pit in the shelter without striking bottom. At a depth of 15-20 em. from the surface he found two flakes (one flint, one siliceous limestone)
.
.
-22which he believed to be Mousterian. No further information about the site is available. Kva-Chara Cave was investigated in 1958 by Berdzenishvili and Gzelishvili (1961:22). In it they found a cultural horizon with animal bones (Ursus spelaeus, Capra severtz, and Ovis sp.), charcoal, and flint artifacts called Upper Paleolithic. Further information on this site is also lacking. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The preceding discussion of Pleistocene occupation of the Eastern Black Sea Littoral has documented the occurrence there of a series of localities yielding artifactual materials belonging to the Acheulean, Mousterian, and Upper Paleolithic. So-called Acheulean localities have been found to date only in the Abkhazian portion of the littoral and are perhaps somewhat questionably referable to the Acheulean since handaxes from them are rare (Most frequently found are Clactonian-type flakes.) No actual "Acheulean" occupation sites are known and the conditions of occurrence of relevant artifacts in combination with a general lack of clear and consistent information on the dating of Pleistocene relief features in Abkhazia makes it impossible at present to establish the geological age of these artifacts on a strictly geological basis. However, a pre-Upper Pleistocene (=pre-Eemian = "preRiss/Wurm") date is at least possible in view of current notions on the time-span of the Acheulean in areas {especially Western Europe and Africa) where it can be reliably dated geologically. Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic localities are also known on the Abkhazian portion of the littoral. Unfortunately, they generally occur in circumstances like those offthe Acheulean in the region--that is, principally on the' surface and never in circumstances suggesting the remnants of an occupation site. They too are currently undatable on purely geological grounds. Much more interesting Mousterian/Upper Paleolithic sites have been found in a series of caves in the general vicinity of Sochi, Khosta, and Adler. These include Akhshtyr• Cave, Navalishino Cave, Vorontsovo Cave, Khosta Caves I and II, and Ats Cave. Of these Akhshtyr• Cave is clearly the most important, having provided two (and perhaps more)
1. . .
, I I
.
.'
-23distinct Mousterian levels, an Upper Paleolithic horizon (on which there is the sole c14 date for the Transcaucasian Paleolithic, ca. 17,500 B. C.), and human remains, partially or perhaps totally associated with Mousterian. (The remains are unfortunately very fragmentary, consisting of such relatively undiagnostic pieces as an upper molar and three metatarsals. They are said to be indistinguishable from the corresponding parts of anatomically modern man.) Among the Mousterian assemblages from the different sites there clearly exist differences in typology (e.g., in the frequencies of sidescrapers, points, and bifaces) and in technology (e.g. in the frequency of Levallois blanks.) Unfortunately, these differences have yet to be quantified in print. Much of the Mousterian -- at h ' least that from Akhs~yr• Cave-level 3, Navalishino Cave-level 3, Vorontsovo Cave-levels 2, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, and 4, and perhaps Ats Cavelevel 6 -- is characterized by a high perc~age of denticulates leading Lyubin (1966:51) to speak of the presence of 11 Denticulate Mousterian11 on the Eastern Black Sea Littoral. In the present writer~ opi nion, a major difficulty involved in accepting the presence of such a kind of Mousterian here is that it has yet to be satisfactorily demonstrated that the denticulates are not pseudo-tools having resulted from geological crushing or trampling (for example by cave bears, known to have int~ively inhabited the caves in question.) If the 11 Denticulate Mousterian 11 from the caves of the Sochi-Khosta-Adler region is genuine, however, it would present an interesting contrast with the Mousterian of European Russia (the area immediately to the north and west of the Caucasus) where, with one possible, but doubtful exception in the Crimea (Kiik-Koba-level 6)1 ind~tries assignable to a Denticulate Mousterian are absent (see Klein 1966). Lyubin (1966:51) states, however, that assemblages characterized by very high percentages of denticulate tools have been found in other portions of the Transcaucasus {i.e., in areas immediately to the east and south of the Eastern Black Sea Littoral). The Upper Paleolithic is less frequently represented in the SochiKhosta-Adler region than the Mousterian, having been reliably found to date only in Akhshtyr• Cave-level 2 (lower part), Navalishino Cavelevel 2, and perhaps Ats Cave-levels 3, 4a, 4b, and 5. Small sample
. ..
.•
-24sizes and/or sparse descriptive information allow no detailed assessment of the affinities of the Upper Paleolithic assemblages from these sites. It is interesting to note, however, that Lyubin {1966) found a large proportion of denticulates and notches in the Upper Paleolithic of Vorontsovo Cave on the basis of which he has suggested that the Upper Paleolithic of this site may be derived from the ~ocal Denticulate Mousterian. In none of the caves of the Sochi-Khosta-Adler region are the Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic horizons at present datable on purely geological grounds. The artifact assemblages themselves, of course, suggest very strongly an Upper Pleistocene age, insofar as similar {i.e. Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic)assemblages in Europe and Southwest Asia (of which the Eastern Black Sea Littoral is a northern outlier) have been repeatedly shown to belong to the Upper Pleistocene. More exactly the bulk of the Mousterian has been demonstrated to date from the earlier part of the Last {=WUrm sensu lato) Glaciation, the Upper Paleolithic from the later. There is no reason to suspect that the Eastern Black Sea Littoral Mousterian/Upper Paleolithic sites present an exception to this generalization. (Support for at least the later Last Glacial age of the Upper Paleolithic of the littoral may be found in the previously cited c14 date of ca. 17,500 B. C. from Akhshtyr• Cave.) The fauna from the Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic levels of the caves in question, insofar as it is known (principally from Akhshtyr• and Navalishino Caves), is interesting for the absence of so-called cold loving species (e.g. arctic fox) and of large steppe spe~s {especially mammoth and rhinoceros) so characteristic for the Last Glacial on the Russian Plain, the area just to the north across the Caucasus. However, the absence of these beasts may not be seen to have any geochronological significance for the Eastern Black Sea Littoral~ since we have no evidence they were ever present·in the area; the general aspect of the fauna from the Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic levels of the caves of the littoral in no way contradicts an Upper Pleistocene age determination for these levels. The most important faunal element they contain is cave bear, and it should be noted that there are data to suggest that the remains of this animal were derived both from the hunting activittes of human beings and
.
..-.
'
I
i' ;
..
-25-
from actual habitation of the caves by bears (presumably in the intermittent absences of people.) In conclusion, it is clear from the preceeding discussion that there is both interesting and important information to be derived from the study of Pleistocene occupation of the Eastern Black Sea Littoral. It is to be hoped this subject will be further elucidated in the future by additional field investigation and more complete publication of results.
..
-26-
'
I~·. •.
REFERENCES CITIID
i
lj
J-1
I
I I
BERDZENISVILI, N. Z. 1960 "New data on the Paleolithic of Abkhazia (in Russian). Instituta yazika, literatury i istorii 30.
Trudy Abkhazskogo
BERDZENISHVILI, N. Z. and I. A. GZF..LISINILI 1961 New data on the Paleolithic of Abkhazia (in Russian). izucheniyu chetvertichnogo perioda 18:120-121.
Trudy Komissii po
BEREC,OVAYA, N. A. 1960 Paleolithic localities of the USSR (in Russian). t--laterialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR 81. BERG, L. S. 1950 Natural Regions of the USSR (translated from the Russian by Olga Adler Tit~lbatnn). New York, The Macmillan Co. BOBRINSKIJ, N. A., B. A. k'UZNETSOV, and A. P. KUZYAKIN 1944 Index of manunals of the USSR (in Russian). ~1osc0\\', Sovctskaya nauka. BORDES, F. 1961 Typologie du Pal~olithique ancien et moyen. Bordeaux, Publications de l'Institut de Pr~histoire de l'Universire de Bordeaux, Memoire No. 1. V. V., V. A. ALEKSEEV, N. V. KIND, V. S. FOROVA, F. S. ZAVEL'SKIJ, L. D. SULERZHITSKIJ, and I. V. ClR.JRIKOVA 1965 Radiocarbon dates of the laboratory of the Geological Institute (GIN) of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (in Russian). Geokhimiya (12):1410-1422.
GIER11Th1'fSEV,
GRQ\IOV, V. I. . h. 1936 Some results of field investigations in 1935 in the regions of Suk,llmi, Pyatigor'e and Rostov (in Russian). Trudy Sovetskoj Sektsii mezhcfunarodnoj Assotsiatsii po izucheniyu chetvertichnogo perioda 2:15-19. 1948
The paleontological and archeological basis of the stratigraphy of the continental deposits of the Quaternary period on the territory of the USSR (in Russian). Trudy Instituta geologicheskikh nauk AN SSSR 64, geologicheskaya seriya 10.
GRQ\iOV, V. I • and E. V. SHANI'SER 1958 The geological age of the Paleolithic in the USSR (translation published the the American Geological Institute). Izvestiya AN SSSR (5):16-24. IVANOVA, I. K. 1965 Th~ geological age of fossil man (in Russian). lvloscO\v, Nauka. KLEIN, R. G. 1966 The Mousterian of European Russia. University of Chicago.
!
I l
l
I
Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, The
KORORKOV, I. I. 1962 Exploratory research in the Khosta Caves in 1961 (in Russian). soobshcheniya Instituta arkheologii 92:44-50.
Kratkie
-27·.
,I I
I
•.
1964
A new find of a handaxe at Yashtukh (in Russian). Instituta arkheologii 101:77-80.
Kratkie soobshcheniya
196Sa
The cores of Yashtukh (in Russian). Materialy.i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR 131:76-110.
196Sb
New Paleolithic finds at Yashtukh (according to the results of the 1961 research) (in Russian). Sovetskaya arkheologiya (3):91-99 •
.IP'
o /
--.--- --. __ _, ::_- ·---~ = ADLER
.,
c
-......... ·..,_
.~.~
--·-.....
- ·/ ·--........
--- -=---
_- - - --SEA - _=-.:-_~ -~ - --=-- -- _ ==-~ _~:~~--:~-~-~--~=- ~i~;_--~--~-=-~-;~~ ~-~~~~ ~-=-
~~~:- --~ BLACK
IS'
-?
Ac2igvari
/
\
Gall~ D 0 tit 0
- - --- ---- -- -- -
---=---: --=---=-- - --:..-=--
-- ~--~-==~:;_~- - ~- -:~- ;_~=~--~ --~ =-=.-- ~--;_:--~--~~=~~-::- -.
-
0
t~iskhindzhi
EASTERN BLACK SEA LITTORAL : Acheulean localities ( o ); Mousterianl isolated occurrences ( o ), occupat ion sites (•); Upper Paleolithic, isola te d occu rren ces(*), occupat1on sites ( • ). (Base map after Beregovaya 1960: Map 3 and Figure Ill.)
