Until the 70s of the XX century, objects of karenoid appearance were interpreted as tools (scrapers or incisors), but in recent decades they have increasingly been considered as nuclei for producing plates with an indirect profile. Such products are a component of the "aurignacoid" industries of Eurasia. Until recently, the southeastern boundary of their distribution was considered to be the southern part of the Afghan-Tajik depression, but the materials obtained in the course of recent studies in western Central Asia allow us to move it to the northwestern edge of High Asia. In this area, karenoid products are most typical for complexes of the Kulbulak culture (from 35-30 thousand years AGO to 20 thousand years ago and possibly later). Comparison of these complexes with the conditionally synchronous Aurignacian industries of the Levant, Zagros, and Gorny Altai showed the presence of a common development trend with the Near and Middle Eastern industries with certain regional specifics.

Keywords: Upper Paleolithic, Western Central Asia, karenoid technology, aurignacoid industries.

Introduction

Karenoid technology, aimed at the production of plates with an indirect profile, is traditionally associated with the Upper and Epipaleolithic industries of Europe, the Middle East and the Middle East. According to well-established ideas, carenoid products (in significant quantities) are an obligatory, but not the only component of Aurignacian complexes (Lucas, 2006). They are quite widespread in Eurasia: in Western and Eastern Europe, the Near and Middle East, the Caucasus, and the Russian Plain (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 1999; Demidenko and Otte, 2001-2002; Le Brancicalens, 2005; Noiret, 2005; Golovanova and Dronichev, 2012). Until recently, the northeastern boundary of the distribution of karenoid products was the Altai Mountains (Derevyanko, 2001). However, isolated specimens have been recorded in the complexes of the Derbinsky Bay of the Krasnoyarsk Reservoir (Yenisei River) [Kharevich, Akimova, and Stasyuk, 2010]. The south-eastern boundary of the distribution of karenoid objects until recently was considered to be the-

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, project N 2013 - 220 - 04 - 129 "Ancient settlement of Siberia: formation and dynamics of cultures on the territory of Northern Asia", Altai State University and Russian Foundation for Basic Research (projects N 12 - 06 - 33041 mol_a_ved, N 13 - 06 - 12039 ofi_m) and RGNF (project N 12 - 31 - 01322-a2).

Fig. 1. Location of Upper Paleolithic monuments of the Pamir-Tien Shan.

The territory of the southern part of the Afghan-Tajik depression was not considered as such (Davis, 2004; Vinogradov, 2004). The results of archaeological work over the last decade in the foothills of the Western Pamir-Tien Shan (Figure 1) allow us to move this boundary up to the northwestern edge of High Asia. The expansion of the area of the Karenoid technology entails a rethinking of cultural processes in the territories of the Near, Middle East and western Central Asia in the Upper Paleolithic era.

Criteria for identifying carenoid products and some terminology issues

The use of the term "carene" has a long history. It was first applied by E. Piett and J. De La Porte in 1894 [Le Brun-Ricalens, 2005] to emphasize the specific D-shaped bend of the scraper profile. Due to the well-chosen analogy, as well as the fact that karenoid products turned out to be one of the main marking components of the Aurignacian complex, the term soon became generally accepted [Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot, 1954; Movius and Brooks, 1971; Perpere, 1972; Tixier and Inizan, 1981; Bergman, 1987, p. 16-156 Tixier, 1991; Hays and Lucas, 2000; Le Brun-Ricalens, 2005].

Objects of karenoid appearance were considered as tools from the moment of their initial definition until the 1970s, and their typological differentiation (scrapers or chisels) also meant mainly only tool activity (Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot, 1954; Movius and Brooks, 1971; Perpere, 1972). Later, attempts were made to distinguish nuclei and tools in the category of karenoid products. At the same time, the researchers noted that only trace analysis can provide an accurate definition [Goring-Morris, 1980; Bergman, 1987, p. 12; Belfer-Cohen, Grosman, 2007]. Moreover, as K. Bergman emphasized, it is impossible to identify unambiguous and clear criteria for interpreting karenoid products as tools or cores, since the cultural and adaptive contexts of individual complexes are of great importance (Bergman, 2003).

Differentiation of items of this morphology in most cases was determined by the type of blank. According to the dominant research paradigm, all carenoid products made from chips automatically fell into the category of tools [Bergman, 1987, p. 12; Belfer-Cohen and Grosman, 2007], and from individual raw materials they were recognized as nuclei for producing plates without emphasizing their typological specificity. The development and use in recent decades of excavation techniques that provide more thorough field research has led to the discovery of a significant number of small plate blanks with an indirect profile (including retouched ones) in complexes with carenoid objects. The application method showed that plates with a curved or twisted profile in most cases were obtained from carenoid products (Hays and Lucas, 2000; Le Brun-Ricalens, 2005; Belfer-Cohen and Grosman, 2007). Nesmot-

despite the fact that in 1978 it was proposed to use the term "karenoid nucleus" [Sachse-Kozlowska, 1982], researchers still prefer to keep the classical typological definitions in the description, however, putting a technological meaning in them [Hays, Lucas, 2000; Le Brun-Ricalens, 2005; Brou, Le Brun-Ricalens, 2006; Belfer-Cohen and Grosman, 2007; Dinnis, 2008].

Thus, typologically established variants of karenoid products (end scrapers, scrapers with a "spout" and "shoulders", busquet and vachon incisors, rabo scrapers) [Sonneville-Bordes and Perrot, 1954; Sachse-Kozlowska, 1982] are defined in most of the cases analyzed recently as a specific type of prismatic nuclei for the production of small-plate blanks [Lucas, 2006; Dinnis, 2008]. However, absolutely all karenoid objects should not be considered exclusively as nuclei. Undoubtedly, products of similar morphology were also used as tools (Le Brunricalens, 2005).

First of all, you need to decide on our approach to karenoid products. Objects of this morphological appearance in the considered industries of western Central Asia are interpreted as nuclei for the following reasons. First, a large number of small plates with an indirect profile were found in the materials of the cultural layers of the studied Upper Paleolithic sites, many of which were used as tool blanks. The origin of these chips is largely due to the splitting of carenoid products. Secondly, the tracer studies of karenoid products from the Kulbulak and Dodekin-2 sites have shown that there are no traces of their use as tools [Kolobova, Krivoshapkin, Flas et al., 2011; Kolobova, Krivoshapkin, Derevyanko, Islamov, 2011]. Third, in the Russian-language specialized literature, there is no established tradition of defining karenoid objects as tools (in contrast to the French-language and English-language scientific schools), which allows them to be interpreted as nuclei without replacing terms.

This approach is similar to the position of a number of researchers who consider karenoid products within the technological aspect [Bordes, 2006; Teyssandier, Bon, and Bordes, 2010], but remains controversial. Thus, A. Belfer-Cohen and L. Grossman believe that in this case, important information is lost, which can be obtained by dividing these objects into nuclei and tools. At the same time, it is recognized that no clear criteria for their differentiation have been developed [Belfer-Conen and Grosman, 2007]. In our opinion, in cases where there are macro-signs indicating the use of a carenoid object as a tool, it can be included in the tool set of the studied collection, thereby preserving all the recorded typological variability of the stone industry. This is consistent with the point of view of G. Lucas, who considers the majority of karenoid products to be nuclei, which, however, does not exclude their further utilization as tools [Lucas, 2006]. Of course, it is necessary to take into account additional factors associated with the carenoid technology, namely, the presence in collections of plates with an indirect profile and tools on them (Goring-Morris, 1980).

In our understanding, karenoid nuclei have the following characteristics::

1) the principle of splitting is three - dimensional (fig. 2);

2) the front of the core is curved in profile, which gives a keeled appearance to the product;

3) the area of the impact platform from which target withdrawals were made forms a clearly defined smooth arc in the plan;

4) the cores are designed exclusively for producing small plate blanks (up to and including 12 mm wide).

The karenoid technology is not univariate, but includes a number of varieties (splitting schemes) that are more or less characteristic of different geographical and cultural areas [Le Brun-Ricalens, 2005]. The cleavage variants of karenoid nuclei typical of the Upper Paleolithic industries of western Central Asia are described below.

As blanks for carenoid nuclei, both raw material samples and chips of various morphologies, usually massive in cross-section, were used. If the core that has the listed characteristics is made from the same raw material,

2. Characteristics of carenoid nuclei.

a - curvature of the split front in profile; b - the zone of plate removal in the plan forms an arc

3. Carenoid nuclei on chips of transverse (a) and longitudinal (b, ) orientation.

then it is defined as a simple karenoid. The cleavage core, in which the cleavage front is located between the ventral and dorsal planes of the product, and its ventral (in rare cases, dorsal) surface acts as a platform, is defined as a carenoid on a cleavage of a transverse orientation (Fig. 3, a). Nuclei with such characteristics are typologically closest to carenoid (nucleoid) scrapers, which are distinguished by the following characteristics:, according to tradition, in Western European and Middle Eastern complexes. If the cleavage front of a core made from a chip is oriented in such a way that one of the longitudinal or transverse faces serves as the impact site, and during the disposal process the useful volume of the nucleus is selected relatively parallel to the ventral and dorsal planes of the workpiece, then the core is defined as carenoid on the chip of the longitudinal orientation (Fig. Such nuclei are distinguished by the limited width of the front by the thickness of the workpiece, so the severity of the arc of the impact pad may not be so obvious. Karenoid incisors of the European and Middle Eastern classifications are most similar to these products.

Karenoid products in complexes of the Upper Paleolithic Kulbulak culture

Until recently, in accordance with the accepted paradigm, researchers of the Paleolithic of western Central Asia (Central Asia) considered a few Upper Paleolithic industries as separate complexes with mosaic characteristics that nevertheless have a local origin (Davis and Ranov, 1999). Common features of these industries were the archaic appearance, as a consequence of the" survival " of the Mousterian era and the long-term use of pebble splitting techniques, as well as the absence of micro - and small - plate splitting techniques [Ranov and Nesmeyanov, 1973; p. 17-19; Dzhurakulov, 1987, p. 124-125; Korobkova and Dzhurakulov, 2000; Schneider, 2000]. Ho Chi Minh City, 2013].

As a result, almost every Upper Paleolithic site in the region was considered as a separate cultural phenomenon (Abramova, 1984) (with the exception of the Samarkand group). As parallels, they discussed mainly Siberian Late Pleistocene sites, where the presence of a significant component of "archaic" tool types was also considered for a long time not in the adaptive and functional aspect, but as an indicator of cultural stasis, which led to the long-term existence of Middle Paleolithic life support strategies (Abramova, 1984; Korobkova and Dzhurakulov, 2000; Taimagambetov and Ozeryolev, 2008)..

The study of new (Dodecanese-2, Kyzyl-Alma-2) and previously known key (Kulbulak, Shugnou) Upper Paleolithic sites in western Central Asia created conditions for revising the picture of the origin and development of Upper Paleolithic industries in the region. On the basis of significant technological and technical-typological similarities in the primary splitting, composition of tools, and secondary processing of stone products of these groups, they were determined to belong to the same culture, called the Kulbulak culture (see Figure 1). In these complexes, splitting is focused on fine-plate chipping, which is carried out within the framework of two main techniques: prismatic monoplatform, which includes the karenoid splitting technology, and end-type. Their ratio changed directionally at different stages of the Kulbulak culture's existence. At the same time, the most striking and typical of it is the karenoid technology. The tool sets of the complexes contain specific types of tools: ventral and spiked scrapers, orthogonal chisel-shaped tools, dufour plates and blunted edges, micro-points (such as argenech), and non-equilateral triangular microliths.

In the course of its development, the Kulbulak culture has passed through several stages associated with the emergence, formation, flourishing and replacement of square technology. The early stage (Kyzyl-Alma-2, Kulbulak layer 2.2, Shugnou layers 2-4) is characterized by the predominance of planar mono - and bipolar parallel splitting. There is either a complete absence (Shugnou, layer 4) or the presence of a small number (Kyzyl-Alma-2, Kulbulak, layer 2.2, Shugnou, layers 2, 3) of karenoid nuclei for producing plates with an indirect profile. In the gun sets there are single plates with retouching and dufour plates. According to preliminary estimates, this stage can be dated in the range of 35-30 thousand years AGO (uncalibrated values).

The developed stage (layer 2.1 of Kulbulak, layer 1 of Shugnou, and layer 5 of Dodekatym-2) is characterized by the predominance of prismatic splitting to produce lamellar and fine-lamellar blanks. At the same time, among prismatic nuclei, the leading role is played by carenoid nuclei for the production of plates with an indirect profile. Plates, including those with an indirect profile, account for a significant proportion of chips. The gun sets contain retouched plates, dufour plates with a blunted edge, micro-points (such as argenech of the Middle East) and single triangular microliths. The industry is 25-30 thousand years old.

The final stage (layers 2-4 of the Doge-katym-2 site) is characterized by a decrease in the role of karenoid cleavage in industries. The carenoid nuclei are replaced by prismatic monoplatform nuclei for the production of straight-profile plates, which become dominant. Among the plates, the proportion of chips with an indirect profile is significant, but it decreases. The leading role in gun sets belongs to triangular microliths, plates with a blunted edge and micro-points with retouching (argenech). For the beginning of this stage, there are dates in the range of 23-21 thousand years AGO (uncalibrated values), and its end can be associated with a time much later than 20 thousand years ago.

Thus, the karenoid technology is a mandatory component of the Kulbulak culture complexes.

Karenoid nuclei in the industries of the studied monuments are divided into three types (Table 1): simple (on raw material parts), on chips of transverse orientation, which are typologically similar to karenoid scrapers, and on chips of longitudinal orientation, which are typologically similar to Vachon-type karenoid incisors (Arrighi et al., 2006; Dinnis, 2008). Their variations depending on the number of splitting fronts were identified. In addition to these types, not a single karenoid object of a different appearance was recorded in any complex. Based on the attribute analysis of these products, it was possible to restore the main stages of utilization of nuclei of this typological accessory.

Selection of the blank (raw material, shape). As the analysis shows, karenoid nuclei were formed mainly on high-quality raw materials. In the studied region, this is flint. At the Kulbulak and Shugnou sites, the tendency to prefer flint blanks for the production of carenoid cores is most pronounced. At the Kulbulak site, where flint and effusive raw materials were available, in layer 2.1 such nuclei make up 96.7 % (60 specimens). In the Shugnow culture layers, an increase in the proportion of flint cores within the karenoid cleavage from the bottom up along the section is recorded (28.5 % in layers 3, 2 and 78.5 % in layer 1). All karenoid products in the Dodekol-2 and Kyzyl-Alma-2 parking complexes are made from flint raw materials.

As blanks for carenoid nuclei in the industries under consideration, initially triangular in longitudinal cross-section flint sections or chips with narrow ends for the future organization of the fission front were preferred. In most cases, the front was triangular in shape. At the same time, its length usually exceeded its width. Only in the complexes of the developed stage of the Kulbulak culture (layer 1 of Shugnou, layer 5 of Dodekatym-2), an increase in the proportion of wide-frontal karenoid products with trapezoidal fronts is noted.

Design of the impact pad. It often depended on the selection of the blank. If the shock pad

Table 1. Composition of carenoid nuclei in Upper Paleolithic industries Western Pamir-Tien Shan

if the ventral plane of the chip protruded, then it was usually not corrected, and in the future the tablets were not removed. Only in a few cases was the impact pad modified with flat chips. On karenoid nuclei, on chips of longitudinal orientation and simple ones, correction of the impact pad is often recorded by removing tablets from the plane of both the front and counter-front (Fig. 4, d, e; 5, 1, 2), and the first technique is much more widespread (Fig. 5, b, 11; 6, 12; 7, 3). On the carenoid nuclei, the longitudinal orientation chips also show an initial adjustment of the impact pad plane by a series of chips (see Figs. 5, 4), which is generally typical for carenoid incisors (Le Brunricalens, 2005). The proportion of nuclei on which the removal of chips is recorded by adjusting the impact pads is shown in Table 2.

Initiation of splitting. At the narrow end of the blank, the edge was prepared by retouching or chipping (see Fig. 4, a), except in cases where the original shape of the blank met the necessary criteria. Splitting began with the implementation of an edge in one or more steps (see Fig. 4, b, c). This is evidenced by small costal and semi-costal chips. It is quite problematic to accurately determine whether they belong to carenoid nuclei, and not, for example, small end ones, without applying the application method. Therefore, the nuclei where the initial rib could not be removed, for example, due to defects that occurred during cleavage, are clear evidence (Figs. 8, 2, 3). In most cases, one front and one impact site were formed on the karenoid nuclei. However, almost every collection contains two-site nuclei (see Fig. 5, 3, 7, 9, 10).

Healing in the process of reduction. To create and maintain the required shape of the front and bulge of the impact pad, lateral and front-lateral chip removal systems were used (Fig. 9) of various modifications (see Fig. 6, 1, 5, 6, 8 - 12; 8, 1, 4 - 10). Lateral removal from the impact pads removed the angle between the front and the lateral of the nucleus, thereby creating conditions for the implementation of the prismatic splitting principle and limiting the probability of obtaining chips with twisted profiles. In several cases, lateral removal of massive chips led to the creation of products that are typologically similar to karenoid scrapers with a "stigma"or " shoulders". It is rather difficult to identify lateral technical chips that belong to the carenoid technological scheme, except in cases where the direction of the negatives of plate removals at the front does not coincide with the direction of removing the technical chip (see Fig. 6, 2 - 4, 7). Frontal-lateral adjustments are the most widely used technique in the design of karenoid nuclei (Table 2). It should be noted that most of the karenoid nuclei on longitudinal orientation chips also have negatives of lateral chips, similar to chips from nuclei of other modifications (see Fig. 7, 3, 6, 9, 10). To maintain the keeled shape of the nuclei (when using nuclei with triangular fronts in the plan) (Fig. 10), various techniques were used to correct their basal part (see Fig. 5, 5, 8; 6, 1, 9; 7, 3 - 5, 7, 8; 8, 4, 6). Most often, retouching and touch-up with chips were used.

Earlier it was noted that in most cases the triangular shape of the front of the carenoid nuclei is fixed in combination with its localization at the narrow end of the workpiece. In some industries of the Old World, this is evidence of the adaptation of the primary fission technology to the original form of stone raw materials (Zwyns and Flas, 2010). It should be noted that in the process of preparing for operation, the pre-cores (in most cases, angular nodules) underwent significant modifications, since they practically do not show the presence of primary surfaces. Thus, we can conclude that karenoid splitting in the industries under consideration is not inherently a consequence of technological adaptation to the form of stone raw materials.

4.The stage of initiation of cleavage of carenoid nuclei (a-c) and options for removing tablets from them (d-e), a - creating an edge; b - implementing an edge; c - continuing cleavage; d - removing from the front; e - from the counter-front.

5. Karenoid nuclei and technical chips from the Kulbulak culture industry. 1, 2, 4 - 6, 8 - layer 2.1 of the Kulbulak parking lot; 3-layer 1 of the Shugnou parking lot; 7-layer 4 of the Dodekatym-2 parking lot; 9, 11, 12-layer 5 of the Dodekatym-2 parking lot; 10-layers 2, 3 of the Shugnou parking lot

6. Karenoid nuclei and technical chips from the Kulbulak culture industries. 1-5, 9, 10-layer 2.1 of the Kulbulak parking lot; 6, 8, 12-layer 5 of the Dodekar-2 parking lot; 7, 11-layer 1 of the Shugnou parking lot.

7. Karenoid nuclei and technical chips from the Kulbulak culture industries. 1, 7-9-layer 2.1 of Kulbulak parking lot; 2-5-layer 1 of Shugnou parking lot; 6-Kyzyl-Alma-2 parking lot; 10-layers 2, 3 of Shugnou parking lot

8. Karenoid nuclei and technical chips from the Kulbulak culture industry. 1-4, 9-layer 2.1 of the Kulbulak parking lot; 5-layer 5 of the Dodekar-2 parking lot; 6, 7, 10-layer 1 of the Shugnou parking lot; 8-the Kyzyl-Alma-2 parking lot.

Table 2. Frequency of application of carenoid nuclei tweaks in the Western Pamir-Tien-Shan industries

Fig. 9. Variants of lateral adjustments of carenoid nuclei.

a - a single chip from the impact area; b-multiple chips from the impact area; c - a single chip from the basal part; d - multiple chips from the basal base; e - alternative chips from the impact area and basal part; f, g-chips from the counter-front.

10. Variants of adjustments to the basal part of the carenoid nuclei: (a ) single chipping from the base to the front; (b ) multiple chipping from the base to the front; (c) symmetrical chipping "from the edge" to the front; (d, e ) retouching and chipping of various modifications; (e ) chipping from the counter-front along the keel; (g ) a combination of chipping and retouching.

Termination of splitting. Most often, the disposal of nuclei of this type was stopped for no apparent reason. Among the diagnosed reasons for completing their operation, the formation of creases on the splitting front should be indicated. The only case where the karenoid nucleus was re-formed into a screblo after the termination of cleavage was noted (see Figs. 5, 12).

The results of observations showed that all carenoid nuclei in the studied industries belong to the same technological scheme. Differences in their morphology are largely due to the type of blank. Also, the use of certain touch-up techniques depended on its type and shape, but they are basically identical for all karenoid nucleoli. The limited number of variants of nuclei and their adjustments indicates both the technological unity of the studied complexes and the fact that the karenoid technology in them appears to us in an already established form with well-established technical techniques.

Targeted harvesting of karenoid technology in the Kulbulak culture complexes

In accordance with the definition, plates were removed from the carenoid nuclei. Measurements of the negatives of the last shots on the fronts of the nuclei showed that they were mainly small plate blanks with a length of 11 to 27 mm and a width of 3 to 9 mm (data excluding failed chips that do not correspond to the parameters of the plates). The extreme values of width fit in the range of 2 - 12 mm, and length - 8 - 56 mm. This indicates that both sufficiently large plates and extremely miniaturized microplates were removed from the nuclei of this type. Comparison of the sizes of the last plate chips from nuclei left at different stages of disposal did not show any significant differences, therefore, plates with the specified width and length were the main blanks obtained from nuclei of the type under consideration. The metric parameters of the blanks probably depended more on the initial size of the nuclei and the degree of their harmony. The number of removals from the carenoid nuclei is again impossible to reasonably speak about without the results of repair. However, the number of negatives of small-plate chips on the cleavage fronts may be indicative. It varies on average from four to five on the nuclei from layer 2.1 of Kulbulak to seven to eight on the nuclei from layer 5 of Dodecatym-2. Undoubtedly, this indicator largely depends on the availability and quality of raw stone, as well as the functional type of parking.

To clarify the role and place of the carenoid technology in primary cleavage at the studied sites, as well as its target orientation, an analysis of all detectable fine-plate cleavages in industries was carried out. A total of 2,813 plates were analyzed, in which, in addition to the usual characteristics, the profile type was determined. The analysis did not include chips from complexes containing less than 10 plates (Kyzyl-Alma-2; Shugnou, layers 4 and 0). The results are shown in Fig. 11.It turned out that the more carenoid nuclei in industries, the more numerous small-plate chips are in them. This is noted for the Kulbulak and Shugnou parking complexes. There was also a direct link between

11. Plates with different profile types in the industries of the Kulbulak culture, a - straight; b-curved; c-twisted.

karenoid cleavage nuclei and plates with a curved profile. The specific weight of the latter increases due to a decrease in the proportion of plates with a straight profile. The share of both carenoid nuclei (19% vs. 2.7%) and plates with a curved profile (by 8.9%, in layer 2.2 - 8.4%) increased compared to the complex of layer 2.2, while the share of plates with a straight profile decreased proportionally - by 8.5 %. The specific weight of plates with a twisted profile did not change and remained in the range of 20-22 %. Similar dynamics can be observed in the Shugnou site industries, where the proportion of carenoid nuclei in the layer 1 complex increased by 28.3% compared to the earlier one (Layers 2 and 3) (see Table). 1), plates with a curved profile - by 14.6, and with a straight one-by 17.1%. The specific weight of plates with a twisted profile increased by only 2.5 %.

These processes are typical for sites where the number of carenoid products increases from the bottom up along the section. For later Dodecatym-2 complexes, the opposite trend is observed: the proportion of karenoid nuclei decreases from 53.8% (layer 5) to 18.2% (layer 2), plates with a curved profile - from 66.6% to 23.9%, and with a straight one - significantly increases (Fig. At the same time, the number of plates with a twisted profile increases markedly, which cannot be attributed to carenoid cleavage, the specific gravity of which, as noted, has significantly decreased.

These data allow us to conclude that the karenoid technology undoubtedly played a major role in the primary cleavage of the industries under consideration. It was mainly aimed at the production of small-plate blanks with a curved profile. No significant effect of this technology on the number of plates with a twisted profile in the complexes was revealed. However, this does not mean that such plates were not removed from the carenoid nuclei.

In the studied complexes, the proportion of plates formed into tools is insignificant. The paper presents micro-points, retouched plates with blunted edges, retouched along the longitudinal edges and trimmed basal base, dufour plates and triangular microliths, and a segment. At the same time, in the tool sets, the proportion of plates formed into tools gradually increases from the bottom up along the sections. So, in the industry of layer 2.2 of the Kulbulak parking lot, it is 0.4 %, and in the complex of layer 2.1-2 %; in the industry of layers 2, 3 of Shugnou - 2.2 %, and in the complex of layer 1 - 3.1 %. In the materials of the Dodecano-2 site, the proportion of processed plates is already significantly higher - from 10.7% (layer 5) to 21.9% (layer 2). The number of plates with a blunted edge and triangular microliths is particularly increasing. It was not possible to identify a direct link between certain types of tools and karenoid cleavage. In the studied complexes, tools on plates with different profiles are presented in almost equal proportions. A small number of formed small-plate blanks, especially in the lowest stratigraphic units of Kulbulak and Shugnou, may indicate the frequent use of plates without processing. A significant proportion of tool-shaped plates in the Dodecanese-2 site complexes is consistent with the younger age of the latter.

Karenoid products in Paleolithic complexes of Western Central Asia

The distribution of karenoid objects in the western part of Central Asia is not limited to the complexes of the Kulbulak culture. Such products are found in almost all Upper Paleolithic industries in the territory under consideration. Thus, in the materials of the Samarkand site (Uzbekistan), an expressive group of "high-shaped scrapers" was identified (Korobkova and Jurakulov, 2000), which are similar in appearance to karenoid nuclei. Two complexes of the Kharkush monument (Tajikistan) have also been found to contain karenoid wares, and it is noted that their number increases from bottom to top along the section (Filimonova, 2007). Materials from the Ch. Valikhanov (Karasu) and Maibulak sites reveal a few but distinct series of karenoid nuclei (Taimagambetov and Kolerzhev, 2008). It can be concluded that in the western part of Central Asia, at the beginning and at the middle stage of the Upper Paleolithic, there was a single trend of development, expressed in the spread of small-plate industries with the presence of karenoid technologies (Kolobova, 2014).

Thus, until recently, the southeastern boundary of the distribution of karenoid products was the southern part of the Afghan-Tajik depression (the Kara-Qamar site) [Davis, 2004], but now this boundary has moved to the northwestern edge of High Asia (see Figure 1). It can be stated that on the adjacent territories of the Kara-Qamar region, the southern part of the Kara-Qamar region is located in the In the territories to the north and east of the studied area, the presence of carenoid objects in Stone Age complexes is not recorded.

Comparison of the most developed stage of the Kulbulak culture (with the largest share of karenoid products) with the Aurignacian Levant and Zagros showed their similarity in typological terms (the presence of identical karenoid products such as incisors

and scrapers, as well as certain types of tools from the Aurignacian set) and in terms of technology (similar design options for karenoid products). At the same time, significant differences are recorded. In the complexes of the Kulbulak culture, there are no buske incisors. While in the Levantine and Zagros industries, karenoid objects are dominated by chipped products, mostly such as scrapers with "shoulders" and "spouts" (Belfer-Cohen and Grosman, 2007), simple karenoid nuclei prevail in the Kulbulak industries. The most noticeable difference is recorded in the quantitative content of complexes: in the Levantine Aurignacian sensu stricto industries (for example, Kzar-Akil phase 5 [Bergman, 1987, p. 16-142]), the share of karenoid products is much more significant than in any Kulbulak factory. This applies not only to these items, but also to tools included in the Levantine Aurignacian set: dufour plates, el-wad points (argenech of the Middle East). In all cases, the number of products of these types in the Aurignacian complexes of the Near and Middle East [Ibid.; Belfer-Cohen, Grosman, 2007; L'aurignacien..., 2012, p. 27-39] is several times higher than in the Kulbulak complexes. These facts reflect the local variability of the latter in the framework of a single development trend with the Near and Middle Eastern industries.

Karenoid wares in the Paleolithic of Northeast Asia

In the context of identifying Upper Paleolithic industries with a significant component of karenoid technologies in the western part of Central Asia, the question of their comparison with complexes in Northeast Asia becomes relevant. On the territory of Gorny Altai, industries with a small but bright karenoid component and some categories of tools of the Aurignacian technocomplex are recorded at the Ust-Karakol-1, Anuy-2, and -3 sites (Derevyanko, 2001, 2009; Zwyns, 2012, p.201-213). In addition, single karenoid objects were found in the cultural layers of the Ush Lep-6 and Tytkesken-8 monuments (Kungurov and Tsyro, 2006, pp. 111-113). Taking into account the available dates of the Upper Paleolithic layers of these sites (from 35,100 ± 2,850 BP for layer 10 of Ust-Karakol-1 to 21,280 ± 440 BP for layer 10.1 of Anuya-2), we can conclude that the karenoid technology on the territory of Gorny Altai existed in the same time frame as in Western Siberia. parts of Central Asia [Prirodnaya sreda..., 2003, pp. 272, 309-310].

The proportion and significance of the karenoid component in the complexes for the Upper Paleolithic levels of the Ust-Karakol-1 and Anui-2 sites were consecrated in a number of works (Derevyanko, 2001, 2009, p. 48; Otte and Derevyanko, 2001; Prirodnaya sreda..., 2003, p. 282-294, 311-329). In general, for these stone industries, the presence of single carenoid nuclei on individual raw materials (simple ones) and on chips of transverse orientation is noted. Only one carenoid incisor has been recorded [Prirodnaya sreda..., 2003, pp. 282-294; Zwyns, 2012, p. 237]. A series of nuclei is distinguished with a combination of carenoid and end splitting on two fronts, reflecting a change in the reduction sequence. The fact that carenoid nuclei in most cases demonstrate the removal of plates from the narrow end of the workpiece is considered as a technological adaptation to the shape of raw materials (small pebbles) [Zwyns, 2012, p. 237]. In the Altai complexes, karenoid objects are recorded in combination with dufour plates and microplates with a blunted edge (layer 9 Ust-Karayula-1, archaeological horizons 12 - 10 Anuya-2). Several classical Aurignacian plates have been identified in the Ust-Karakol-1 industry (layer 11) [Derevyanko, 2001; Prirodnaya Sreda..., 2003, pp. 282-294].

Comparing the karenoid component of the Kulbulak and Altai industries, it is necessary to note noticeable differences that manifest themselves both in the types of karenoid products, and in the methods of their preparation, part-time work and disposal. First of all, in the Altai complexes there are practically no karenoid nuclei on the longitudinal orientation chips (karenoid incisors), and in the Kulbulak complexes there are no two - site nuclei combining karenoid and end splitting [Prirodnaya Sreda..., 2003, p.282-294; Zwyns, 2012, p. 201-213]. Actually, the similarity lies in the very fact of the presence of karenoid technologies based on the utilization of nuclei on individual raw materials and on chips of transverse orientation. At the same time, in the Kulbulak industries of the developed and final stages, the share of the karenoid component is significantly higher. It can be concluded that both general manifestations and specific local variants of the karenoid technology can be traced in the territories of Altai and western Central Asia.

Due to the presence of the karenoid component in the Altai Upper Paleolithic complexes, several hypotheses have been made about migrations of carriers of "aurignacoid" technologies both from the Altai to Europe (Otte and Derevyanko, 2001) and from the Near and Middle East to the Altai (Ott and Kozlovsky, 2001; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 2013). The extension of the range of karenoid products from the Kara-Qamar site (Afghan-Tajik depression) to the northeast may serve as confirmation of the latter hypothesis. However, it should be noted that between the territories of the north-west

on the outskirts of High Asia and Gorny Altai, not a single monument with objects of the Aurignacian technocomplex, including karenoid products, has been found so far. Significant technological and typological differences between karenoid products from these territories are evident, despite the relative synchronicity of the complexes containing them. At the moment, the position of researchers who prove only the local and independent origin of the Upper Paleolithic complexes in the Altai seems more reasonable. Karenoid technology in the Altai industries is considered by them as the result of adaptation strategies of the ancient population [Derevyanko, 2009, p. 48]. In this regard, the explanation of the similarity of the Kulbulak complexes with the Altaic ones in line with the idea of convergent development is quite legitimate.

Conclusion

The identification of objects of Karenoid morphology (along with other technical and typological characteristics of industries) allows us to link the evolution of the Kulbulak culture complexes in the western part of Central Asia with the development of Upper Paleolithic industries in the Near and Middle East. It is obvious that the materials of the developed stage of this culture are very similar to the Near - and Middle-eastern Aurignacian ones. Accordingly, the question arises whether it is possible to classify the developed Kulbulak industries as the area of the Aurignacian technocomplex. As the results of our analysis have shown, only the use of carenoid technology is presentable in these industries from the basic components of Aurignacian techno-complexes, both in quantitative and qualitative terms. Aurignacian types of tools (for example, Dufour plates) are represented, but in small quantities and not in all Kulbulak complexes. Moreover, some significant components of the Aurignacian technocomplex are completely absent, such as bone products and jewelry, certain types of tools (busquet incisors, intercept plates, etc.). The absence of bone products, for example, could be explained by the peculiarity of bone preservation in the cultural layers of the Paleolithic in western Central Asia. A significant difference lies in the stable presence in the Kulbulak complexes of typologically pronounced tools that are not typical of the classical Aurignacian (primarily plates with a blunted edge), but are characteristic of the Zagrosian (Bordes and Shidrang, 2012).

Thus, it is quite obvious that the Kulbulak industries developed in the general trend of formation and evolution of "aurignacoid" techno-complexes of the Middle East. At the same time, the Kulbulak culture cannot be classified as Aurignac sensu stricto. In our opinion, we can talk either about fairly regular cultural interactions between the inhabitants of the compared regions, or about the general logic of consistent development of cultures of similar origin in similar ecological and landscape situations. In our interpretation of events, preference is given to the recognition of repetitive (multidirectional) cross-cultural interaction, which is due to the cultural and technological characteristics of the developed and late stages of the Kulbulak culture, similar to those of the Middle and Middle Eastern cultures. This phenomenon cannot, as it seems to us, be explained only by convergent development, but requires fairly regular cultural interactions (analogous to gene exchange between different subspecies of humans during the formation of a modern species). This assumption reflects a new vision of cultural dynamics in the Upper Paleolithic period in the studied area and is in line with fundamental changes in the ideas about the origin of man and his culture caused by the latest discoveries in the field of paleoanthropology and paleogenetics [Prufer et al., 2013]. Currently, the tree - like (branching) evolutionary scheme (which replaced the linear one at one time) is being replaced by a model that has so far received only the English name "braided stream" - "intertwined stream". It explains the origin of modern humanity by the constant interbreeding of many evolutionarily different populations, which provided the level of gene exchange necessary for the emergence of modern humanity in various regions of the Old World. The model of regular and multidirectional cross-cultural interaction proposed by us is an analog of this evolutionary hypothesis. It is intended to explain the dynamics of cultural changes in the Stone Age in western Central Asia, as a result of which similar "aurignacoid" technocomplexes emerged in a significant part of Eurasia (Near and Middle East, Caucasus, Central Asia, Europe).

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to N. V. Vavilina and A.V. Abdulmanova, artists of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineering of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, who prepared the illustrations.

List of literature

Abramova Z. A. Late Paleolithic of the Asian part of the USSR / / Paleolithic of the USSR. - Moscow: Nauka, 1984. - pp. 302-346. - (Archeology of the USSR from ancient times to the Middle Ages: in 20 volumes).

Vinogradov A.V. The mysterious Kara-Kamar //Archeology and paleoecology of Eurasia. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 2004, pp. 58-79.

Derevyanko A. P. Transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic and the problem of formation of Homo sapiens sapiens in East, Central and Northern Asia. Novosibirsk: IAET SB RAS Publ., 2009, 328 p. (in Russian)

Derevyanko A. N. Perekhod ot srednego k verkhnem paleolitu na Altae [Transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in the Altai]. - 2001. - N 3. - p. 70-103.

Dzhurakulov M. D. Samarkand site and problems of the Upper Paleolithic in Central Asia. Tashkent: FAN Publ., 1987, 172 p.

Kolobova K. A. The Upper Paleolithic of the western Pamir-Tien-Shan: Author's abstract of the dissertation of the Doctor of Historical Sciences. Novosibirsk, 2014, 38 p. (in Russian)

Kolobova K. A., Krivoshapkin A. N., Derevyanko A. P., Islamov U. I. Verkhnepaleoliticheskaya stoyanka Dodeka-tym-2 (Uzbekistan) // Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2011. - N 4. - p. 2-21.

Kolobova K. A., Krivoshapkin A. I., Flyas D., Pavlenok K. K., Islamov U. I. Karenoid products of the Kulbulak Paleolithic site: experience of technical and typological classification. Novosibirsk State University of Literature: History, Philology. 2011, vol. 10, Issue 7: Archeology and Ethnography, pp. 87-99.

Korobkova, G. F. and Dzhurakulov, M. D., The Samarkand site as an etalon of the Upper Paleolithic of Central Asia (specifics of splitting techniques and economic and production activities), Stratum plus, 2000, issue 1, pp. 385-462.

Kungurov A. L., Tsyro A. L. History of discovery and study of the Altai Paleolithic. Barnaul: Azbuka Publ., 2006, 144 p. (in Russian)

Kozlovsky Ya. K. Ott M., Transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in Northern Eurasia / / Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2001. - N 3. - p. 51-62.

Natural environment and people in the Paleolithic of Gorny Altai: Derevyanko A. P., Shunkov M. V., Agadzhanyan A. K., Baryshnikov G. F., Malaeva E. M., Ulyanov V. A., Kulik N. A., Postov A.V., Anoikin A. A. Habitat conditions in the vicinity of Denisova Cave. Novosibirsk: IAET SB RAS Publ., 2003, 448 p. (in Russian)

Ranov V. A., Nesmeyanov S. A. Paleolithic and stratigraphy of the anthropogene of Central Asia. - Dushanbe: Donish Publ., 1973. -161 p.

Taimagambetov Zh. K., Kolerelev D. V. Study of the stratified Maibulak site in Zhetysu (South-eastern Kazakhstan in 2004-2007) / / Miras. - 2008. - N 1. - pp. 70-85.

Filimonova T. G. Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic of the Afghan-Tajik depression: abstract of the dissertation of the Candidate of Historical Sciences. - Dushanbe, 2007. - 28 p.

Kharevich, V. M., Akimova, E. V., and Stasyuk, I. V., Stone industry of the Upper Paleolithic site of Derbina V, Vestn. Novosibirsk State University of Literature: History, Philology. 2010, vol. 8, Issue 5: Archeology and Ethnography, pp. 74-97.

Schneider, S. V. and Khoshimov, Kh.B., Paleolithic studies in the Western Pamir-Tien Shan: an overview of concepts, Vestn. Novosibirsk State University of Literature: History, Philology. 2013, vol. 12, Issue 7: Archeology and Ethnography, pp. 18-27.

Arrighi S., Borgia V., Moroni Lanfredini A., Ronchitelli A. Burins des Vachons en Italie: typologie, morphotechnique et traceologie // Burins prehistoiques: formes, fonctionnements, fonctions. - Luxembourg: Musee national d' histoire d'art, 2006. - P. 115 - 116.

Bar-Yosef O., Belfer-Cohen A. Following Pleistocene road signs of human dispersals across Eurasia // Quaternary International. - 2013. - Vol. 285. - P. 30 - 43.

Belfer-Cohen A., Bar-Yosef O. The Levantine Aurignation: 60 years of research // Dorothy Garrod and the Progress of the Paleolithic: Studies of Prehistoric Archeology of the Near East of Europe. - Oxword: Oxbow Books, 1999. -P. 118 - 134.

Belfer-Cohen A., Grosman L. Tools or Cores? Carinated Artifacts in Levantine Late Upper Paleolithic Assemblages and Why Does It Matter // Tools or Cores? The Identification and Study of Alternative Core Technology in Lithic Assemblages. -Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum Press, 2007. -P. 96 - 123.

Bergman C.A. Ksar Akil, Lebanon: a technological and typological analysis of the later Paleolithic levels of Ksar Akil. - Oxford: BAR, 1987. - Vol. II: Levels XIII-VI. - 329 p.

Bergman C.A. Twisted Debitage and the Levantine Aurignation Problem // A More than meet the Eyes. - Oxford: Oxford Books, 2003. - P. 185 - 196.

Bordes J. -G. News from the West: a reevaluation of the classical Aurignacian sequence of the Perigord // Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian. - Lisboa: Institute Portages de Arqueologia, 2006. - P. 147 - 172.

Bordes J-G., Shidrang S. The Baradostian sequence of Yaftech cave. A typo-technological analysis based on the Hole and Flannery collection // L'Aurignacien de la grotte Yafteh (fouilles 2005 - 2008) et son context = The Aurignation of Yaftech Cave (2005 - 2008 excavations) and its context / eds. M. Otte, G.S. Shidrang, D. Flas. - Liege: Universite de Liege, 2012. - P. 27 - 39. - (ERAUL; N 132).

Brou L., Le Brun-Ricalens F. Burins carenes et busques: des nucleus a lamelles. L'apport des remontages du gisement de Themes (Yonne, France) // Burins prehistoriques: formes, fonctionnements, fonctions. - Luxembourg: Musee national d' histoire d'art, 2006. - P. 225 - 241.

Davis R. Kara Kamar in Northern Afghanistan: aurignacian, aurignacoid, or just plain upper Paleolithic? // Archeology and Paleoecology of Eurasia. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 2004, pp. 211-217.

Davis R., Ranov V.A. Recent work on the Paleolithic of Central Asia // Evolutionary Anthropology. - 1999. - Vol. 8. -P. 186 - 193.

Demidenko Y.E., Otte M. Siuren-I (Crimea) in the context of an European Aurignacian // Prehistoire europeenne. - 2001 - 2002. - Vol. 16/17. - P. 133 - 146.

Dinnis R. On the technology of Late Aurignacian burin and scraper production, and the importance of the Paviland lithic assemblage and the Paviland burin // Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society. - 2008. - Vol. 29. - P. 18 - 35.

Golovanova L., Dronichev V. The Early Upper Paleolithic of the Cacasus in the West Eurasian Context // L'Aurignacien de la grotte Yafteh (fouilles 2005 - 2008) et son context = The Aurignation of Yaftech Cave (2005 - 2008 excavations) and its context / eds. M. Otte, G.S. Shidrang, D. Flas. - Liege: Universite de Liege, 2012. - P. 137 - 160. -(ERAUL; N 132).

Goring-Morris A.N. Upper Palaeolithic Sites from Wadi Fazael, Lower Jordan Valley // Paleorient. - 1980. - Vol. 6. -P. 173 - 191.

Hays M.A., Lucas G. A technological and functional analysis of carinates from Le Flageolet I, Dordogne, France // J. of Field Archaeology. - 2000. - Vol. 27, N 4. - P. 1 - 11.

L'Aurignacien de la grotte Yafteh (fouilles 2005 - 2008) et son contexte = The Aurignacian of Yafteh Cave (2005 - 2008 excavations) and its context / eds. M. Otte, G. S. Shidrang, D. Flas. - Liege: Universite de Liege, 2012. - 165 p. - (ERAUL; N 132).

Le Brun-Ricalens F. Chronique d'une reconnaissance attendee. Outils "carenes", outils "nucleiformes": nukleus a lamelles. Bilan apres un siecle de recherches typologiques, techno logues et traceologies // Productons lamellaires attribuees a PAurignacien. - Luxembourg: Musee national d' histoire d'art, 2005. - P. 19 - 75.

Lucas G. Re-evaluation of the principal criteria of the Aurignacian: the example from Grotte XVI (Cenac-et-Saint-Julien, Dordogne) // Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian. -Lisboa: Institute Portages de Arqueologia, 2006. - P. 173 - 187.

Movius H.L. Jr., Brooks A.S. The analysis of certain major classes of Upper Palaeolithic tools: Aurignacian scrapers // Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. - 1971. - Vol. 37. -P. 253 - 273.

Noiret P. The Aurignacian in Eastern Europe // Anatolia. -2005. - Vol. 29. - P. 39 - 56.

Otte M., Derevyanko A. The Aurignacian in Altai // Antiquity. - 2001. - N 75. - P. 44 - 48.

Perpere M. Remarques sur PAurignacien en Poitou-Charente // L'Anthropologic. - 1972. - Vol. 76. - P. 387 - 425.

Prufer K., Racimo F., Patterson N., Jay F., Sankararaman S., Sawyer S., Heinze A., Renaud G., Sudmant P.H., de Filippo C., Li H., Mallick S., Dannemann M., Fu Q., Kircher M., Kuhlwilm M., Lachmann M., Meyer M., Ongyerth M., Siebauer M., Theunert C., Tandon A., Moorjani P., Pickrell J., Mullikin J.C., Vohr S.H., Green R.E., Hellmann I., Johnson Ph.L.F., Blanche H., Cann H., Kitzman J.O., Shendure J., Eichler E.E., Lein E.S., Bakken Т. Е., Golovanova L.V., Doronichev V.B., Shunkov M.V., Derevianko A.P., Viola В., Slatkin M., Reich D., Kelso J., Paabo S. The complete genome sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains // Nature. -2013. - Vol. 505. - P. 43 - 49.

Sachse-Kozlowska E. Core exploitation process at the Aurignacian site Zwierzyniec I // Aurignacien et Gravettien en Europe. - Liege: Universite de Liege, 1982. - P. 325 - 338. - (ERAUL; N 13).

Sonneville-Bordes D., Perrot J. Lexique typologique du Paleolithique supeneur. Outillage lithique: I Grattoirs - II Outils solutreens // Bull, de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise. -1954. - Vol. 51. - P. 327 - 335.

Teyssandier N., Bon F., Bordes J. -G Within projectile range. Some thoughts on the appearance of the Aurignacian in Europe // J. of Anthropol. Res. - 2010. - Vol. 66. - P. 209 - 229.

Tixier J. Champ Parel, Corbiac-Vignoble 2 (CV2) // Gallia Informations: Aquitaine / eds. J-Ph. Rigaud, P. Garmy, B. Bizot, A. Collier. - P.: CNRS, 1991. - P. 8 - 10.

Tixier J., Inizan M. -L. Ksar'Aqil: Stratigraphie et ensembles lithiques dans le Paleolithique supeneur: Fouilles 1971 - 1975 // Prehistoire du Levant: Colloques Internationaux. - Lyon: CNRS, 1981. - P. 353 - 368.

Zwyns N. Laminar technology and the onset of the Upper Paleolithic in the Altai, Siberia. - Leiden: Leiden University Press, 2012. - 414 p.

Zwyns N., Flas D. Qu'en est-il a Pest? L'Aurignacien oriental // Les Aurignaciens / dir. M. Otte. - P.; Errance, 2010. - P. 271 - 295.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 11.08.14.

Permanent link to this publication: