Psytuaje rockshelter – A new site documenting the final of the Epipalaeolithic in the north-central Caucasus, Russia

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 29 (2020) 102186

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jasrep

Psytuaje rockshelter – A new site documenting the final of the Epipalaeolithic in the north-central Caucasus, Russia

T

⁎

Ekaterina Doronichevaa, , Liubov Golovanovaa, Vladimir Doronicheva, Andrey Nedomolkinb, Ivan Shirobokovc, M. Steven Shackleyd, Alexey Petrove, Fedor Maksimove a

ANO Laboratory of Prehistory, 14 linia 3-11, 199034 St. Petersburg, Russia1 National Museum of Adygeya Republic, Sovetskaya str. 229, 385000 Maikop, Russia c Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography (the Kunstkamera), Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya Nab. 3, 199034 Saint-Petersburg, Russia d Geoarchaeological XRF Laboratory, 8100 Wyoming Blvd, NE, Suite M4-158, Albuquerque, NM 87113, USA e St. Petersburg State University, 41 Sredniy Prospect, St. Petersburg 199004, Russia

b

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Epipaleolithic Zayukovo (Baksan) obsidian source Provenancing Northern Caucasus Psytuaje rockshelter Sosruko rockshelter

In this paper, the authors report the discovery of a new site called Psytuaje rockshelter, located close to the town of Zayukovo in Kabardino-Balkaria Republic (Elbrus region, north-central Caucasus, Russia). The area is famous in that it is the only obsidian source known in the Northern Caucasus, called Zayukovo or Baksan. A single radiocarbon date initially defines the youngest age estimate (the beginning of the Holocene) for the archaeological material obtained in a test excavation dug in the rockshelter in 2018. The radiocarbon dating and archaeological comparison with other sites in this region suggest that Psytuaje rockshelter represents a new Epipalaeolithic site, which is likely dated to the final of this period correlating to the beginning of the Holocene. At present, only two other Epipalaeolithic sites (Sosruko and Badynoko rockshelters) are known in the region. Both are located on a small area of the Baksan River valley (a large tributary of the Terek River). Located in a valley of a small river of Fanduko (a tributary of the Baksan River) and in vicinity of the Zayukovo (Baksan) obsidian source, Psytuaje rockshelter has the potential to produce data on subsistence and cultural changes in Epipalaeolithic population of this region at the boundary of the Pleistocene and Holocene.

1. Introduction 1.1. Archaeological background Two recent palaeogenomic analyses (Jones et al., 2015; Fu et al., 2016) indicate that the first modern humans to appear in the Caucasus shared ancestry with the Upper Palaeolithic humans of Western Asia. The Caucasian Upper Palaeolithic population belonged to a distinct ancient clade which split from the European Upper Palaeolithic population about 45,000 years ago, shortly after expansion of modern humans into Europe. The results of this genetic research agree well with the archaeological data currently available from the Upper Palaeolithic sites in the Caucasus (Adler et al., 2008; Bar-Yosef et al., 2011; Golovanova and Doronichev, 2012; Golovanova et al., 2010; 2014; Pinhasi et al., 2014; Pleurdeau et al., 2016; Kandel et al., 2017). Modern archaeological data also show distinct regional peculiarities

and a specific pathway of Upper Palaeolithic development in the Caucasus. Based on the long and continuous stratigraphical sequences from Mezmaiskaya, Dzudzuana, and Satsurblia caves and Ortvale klde rockshelter, as well as data from other contemporaneous sites in the region, the Upper Palaeolithic of the Caucasus can now be subdivided into three major stages: (1) Early Upper Palaeolithic (EUP, ∼40/38–30 ka cal BP); (2) Late Upper Palaeolithic (LUP, ∼30–20 ka cal BP); and (3) Epipalaeolithic (EPP, ∼20–12/11 ka cal BP). The EUP industry appeared in the Caucasus as an already formed cultural tradition. The Caucasian EUP is more similar but not identical to the Early Ahmarian in the Levant than to either the Zagros Aurignacian or the Levantine Aurignacian. In both the Northern and Southern Caucasus, the EUP assemblages are characterized by a highly

⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E. Doronicheva), [email protected] (A. Nedomolkin), [email protected] (I. Shirobokov), [email protected] (M.S. Shackley), [email protected] (F. Maksimov). 1 [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.102186 Received 24 April 2019; Received in revised form 9 December 2019; Accepted 22 December 2019 2352-409X/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 29 (2020) 102186

E. Doronicheva, et al.

reported only at the final stage of the Epipalaeolithic. Also, in Crimea the oldest simple low trapezes are currently dated to ca. 14 ka cal BP, later than in the Epipalaeolithic of the Northern Caucasus, and the earliest appearance of horned trapezes in Crimea is dated to ca. 10 ka cal BP (Manko, 2010; Biagi, 2016), also later than in the Northern Caucasus. This pattern of spread of trapezes suggests influence of the Epipalaeolithic industry of the Northern Caucasus to the Epipalaeolithic industries of the Southern Caucasus and Crimea at the end of the Pleistocene–beginning of Holocene. Also, finds of a Hamburgian-type point in the Northern Caucasus and a Zarzian-type point in the Southern Caucasus suggest possible contacts between the Epipalaeolithic populations of the Caucasus and those in Europe and West Asia, beginning in the final stage of the Epipalaeolithic. However, at present we can only suggest the formation of two local variants within the Epipalaeolithic industry in the Caucasus—the Northern Caucasus variant (with trapezes and beads made from pierced shells of terrestrial molluscs), and the Southern Caucasus variant (with scalene triangles and stone pendants). How these probable cultural variants relate to the formation of cultural specificity in different regions of the Caucasus during the early Holocene (traditionally called “Mesolithic”) stage is an important goal of recent research. Earlier, Bader and Tsereteli (1989) proposed a cultural continuity from the final Upper Palaeolithic to Mesolithic in Georgia. In support of this hypothesis, recent genetic research (Jones et al., 2015) has implied there was genomic continuity between the final Pleistocene (Epipalaeolithic) and Early Holocene (Mesolithic) populations in the Caucasus. The Early Holocene (Mesolithic) industries of the Caucasus demonstrate notable changes in surviving strategies and bone artefacts after ca. 11 ka cal BP. For example, no clear evidence of deliberate fishing has been recorded thus far from the EUP, LUP, or Epipalaeolithic sites in the Caucasus. The only indications of the appearance of fishing in this region come from some old excavations of occupational levels dated to the Mesolithic (Early Holocene), including finds of fish bones (mostly Black Sea salmon) and tools traditionally associated with deliberate fishing (harpoons or barbed points made of bone, bone fishhooks, and fishing sinkers) (Lioubine, 1992). Also, a widespread exploitation of composite bone projectiles with grooves for microliths was thought to have occurred during the Mesolithic (Bader and Tsereteli, 1989), and only at the beginning of the Holocene stone pendants appear in some sites in the Northern Caucasus. The current data also suggest an intensification of cultural contacts between populations of the northern and southern slopes of the Caucasus during the Early Holocene. New and more detailed data from ongoing research can, in future, provide better knowledge of the Upper Palaeolithic of the Caucasus and its relationship to various Early Holocene entities in the region.

developed microblade (bladelet) technology. Numerous and variable backed or finely retouched tools made on bladelets and microbladelets are found in all EUP sites in the region. The specific regional features of the Caucasus’ EUP industry include Gravette and microgravette points with straight backs made by blunted retouch on bladelets and microbladelets, as well as needle-like retouched and symmetrical backed points. The Caucasian EUP industry demonstrates a wide assortment of bone tools, including characteristic double-pointed bone points with rounded cross-sections, as well as some EUP assemblages that have yielded rare personal ornaments, such as pendants or beads made from caprid teeth, stone, or shell, particularly cockleshells and marine gastropod shells. The LUP industry of the Caucasus demonstrates notable changes in the lithic assemblages and bone artefacts after 30 ka cal BP. The technological changes include the development of microblade technology towards the production of more numerous blades in some LUP sites, and towards making bladelets/microbladelets from carinated cores in others. We also see higher variability among stone points, with the addition of Font-Yves and Sakajia points in some sites; a higher diversity of personal ornaments (pendants and beads) made from bone, mammoth tusk and stone; and the first appearance of bone artefacts with fine geometric ornamentation. The LUP humans in the Caucasus were affected by one of the most extreme glacial events of the Pleistocene—the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). This deterioration of the natural environment during the LGM led to a decrease in the intensity of human occupation across the entire Caucasus. Recent genetic research (Jones et al., 2015) has detected a sharp genomic distinction in the Caucasian clade after the LGM, suggesting that the post-LGM population of the Caucasus emerged as a result of habitat restrictions during the glacial period, between 25 and 20 ka cal BP. After the LGM, a new Epipalaeolithic industry appeared in the Caucasus and lasted from approximately 20 to 12/11 ka cal BP. Recent research in Mezmaiskaya, Satsurblia, Dzudzuana, and other sites indicates that the Epipalaeolithic industries in the Northern and Southern Caucasus were built upon LUP industries that preceded the LGM. In both regions, Epipalaeolithic industries show further developments in microblade technology, and a continuation of the tradition of manufacturing Gravette, microgravette and Vachons backed points. When compared to Caucasian Upper Palaeolithic artefacts, typical Epipalaeolithic bone tools and personal ornaments have both common features—similar bone points, tooth pendants, and style of geometric ornamentation (Golovanova et al., 2010; 2014). The Caucasus Epipalaeolithic industry is characterized by a high percentage of microlithic tools among all retouched tools, with backed bladelets typically outnumbering bladelets with fine retouch. The most important tool groups are points and geometric microliths. The Epipalaeolithic industry of the Caucasus is characterized by a variety of Gravette, microgravette and Vachons points made on bladelets or micro-bladelets, and occasionally on small blades. Vachons points first appear in the LUP and became widespread in the region during the Epipalaeolithic. Also, many Epipalaeolithic assemblages in the Caucasus contain points with symmetrically retouched converging lateral sides, while some assemblages in the Southern Caucasus contain rare Sakajia points. The presence of rare shouldered points, including the specific Imeretian-type shouldered point (Golovanova et al., 2014), is an important innovation that characterises the Epipalaeolithic industry of the Caucasus. Like the Epipalaeolithic industries in the Near East, geometric microliths appeared early on in the Caucasian Epipalaeolithic and become especially widespread and variable between ca. 18/17.5 and 14 ka cal BP in both the Southern and Northern Caucasus. Furthermore, recent findings suggest that the Epipalaeolithic industries in the Southern and Northern Caucasus were characterised by marked differences in their respective traditions surrounding the manufacture of geometric microliths, as well as that the two regions were influenced by different Epipalaeolithic industries from neighbouring regions. For example, in the Southern Caucasus, trapezes are

1.2. Archaeological significance of the research area The Elbrus region, dividing the Greater Caucasus Mountains into the western (Black Sea basin) and eastern (Caspian Sea basin) parts and holding the main mountain passes between the Southern and Northern Caucasus, also comprises Zayukovo (Baksan) obsidian source (Shackley et al., 2018), which was actively exploited from the Middle Palaeolithic to historical times (e.g., Le Bourdonnec et al., 2012; Chataigner and Gratuze, 2014; Frahm et al., 2016; Pleurdeau et al., 2016; Tornero et al., 2016; Biagi et al., 2017; Tuboltsev, 2017; Biagi and Nisbet, 2018; Shackley et al., 2018; Doronicheva et al., 2017; 2019a; 2019b). In the Zayukovo (Baksan) obsidian source, obsidian is easy to access in the form of river-abraded boulders, pebbles or volcanic bombs in secondary contexts on high river terraces near the small town of Zayukovo (Kabardino-Balkaria Republic, Russia) in the Baksan River valley. It varies in form and colour. Trace element analyses indicate a single homogeneous composition of the Zayukovo (Baksan) obsidian (Shackley et al., 2018). In the Middle Palaeolithic, this obsidian was transported to Mezmaiskaya cave, located almost 250 km away from the source in the 2

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 29 (2020) 102186

E. Doronicheva, et al.

Fig. 1. Top: Simplified map of the Northern Caucasus region showing the location of Psytuaje rockshelter and other sites mentioned in the text. Numbers indicate: 1 – Psytuaje rockshelter, 2 – Sosruko rockshelter, 3 – Badynoko rockshelter, 4 – Mezmaiskaya cave, 5 – Kasojskaya cave. Bottom: Photo showing a view on Psytuaje rockshelter from the Fanduko River.

Table 1 Lithic assemblage composition (2018 test pit) and surface collection from Psytuaje Rockshelter. Layer

surface 1 2

Cores

– – 3

Shatters

– – 2

Blanks Technical flakes

Blades/bladelets

Laminar flakes

Flakes

2 – 4

3/2 1/0 3/2

1 – 4

4 1 4

Tools

Pebbles

Total

1 – 9

1 – –

14 2 31

Epipalaeolithic (16–12/11.5 ka; Golovanova et al., 2014) layers in Mezmaiskaya and Kasojskaya caves, in the North-western Caucasus (Fig. 1: top). Also, in the Epipalaeolithic layers in Sosruko Rockshelter, located about 25 km from the Zayukovo (Baksan) obsidian source, this

North-western Caucasus, and was intensively exploited in Saradj-Chuko grotto, located 7–8 km from the source (Doronicheva et al., 2019a). The Zayukovo (Baksan) obsidian is defined in the Upper Paleolithic layers 1A-1C in Mezmaiskaya cave, dated from 38 to 24 ka, and in the 3

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 29 (2020) 102186

E. Doronicheva, et al.

Fig. 2. A – Psytuaje Rockshelter. The plan. 1 – stones, 2 – drip line, 3 – depth marks, 4 – datum (0 zero point). B – Composite stratigraphic summary, transversal section A1B.

obsidian was one of the main raw materials, alongside a high-quality flint (Doronicheva et al., 2019a).

Rockshelter — that produced archaeological materials preliminary dated to the final of Pleistocene—beginning of Holocene.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Psytuaje rockshelter

In 2016–2018 we conducted systematic surveys in the Elbrus region with the aim to discover Stone Age sites. Our field surveys in 2016 discovered the first stratified Middle Palaeolithic site in the region. The site, called Saradj-Chuko Grotto, is located in the Saradj-Chuko (Fanduko) River valley (a tributary of the Baksan River), and approximately 6 km from known obsidian source localities in the Zayukovo (Baksan) obsidian area (see Doronicheva et al., 2017; 2019b). In 2017, L. Golovanova rediscovered Sosruko rockshelter that was excavated in the 1950s (Zamiatnin and Akritas, 1957), but the position of the site was lost before our work in this region, and resumed research of Epipalaeolithic and early Holocene occupational layers in this site. In 2018, our surveys resulted in the discovery of a new site — Psytuaje

Psytuaje Rockshelter is located ∼ 70 km north-east of the highest Caucasian volcanic mountain peak of Elbrus Mount (5642 m asl) and ∼ 8 km south from the town of Zayukovo in the Baksan river valley (Terek river basin; Fig. 1: bottom), about 20 km north-west of the city of Nalchik (the capital of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic, Russian Federation). The rockshelter is situated in a deep (up to 200 m), terraced and forested valley of the Fanduko (or Saradj-Chuko) River (a small tributary of Kishpek River – tributary of Baksan River), 18 m above the river, and about 2–3 km upstream the river from Saradj-Chuko grotto, in which our team excavated the Middle Palaeolithic occupation (Doronicheva et al., 2019a,b). The Fanduko river valley cuts through rhyolitic ignimbrites, 4

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 29 (2020) 102186

E. Doronicheva, et al.

Fig. 4. Flint (1–4, 6, 9, 10) and obsidian (5, 7, 8, 11) artefacts from layer 2 at Psytuaje Rockshelter.

Fig. 3. Psytuaje Rockshelter. Lithic artefacts from layer 2: 1–10 – tools, 11 – CTE, 12–13 – cores.

rhyolitic and liparitic tuffs deposited in the Lower Chegem Formation of predominantly Pliocene age and conglomerates, which are replaced by the Oligocene calcareous clays and marls downstream the river. These Lower Chegem Formation ranges from a few tens to almost 500 m thick and covers watersheds of local rivers, including the watersheds of Fanduko River. These Lower Chegem volcaniclastic deposits lie in the form of lava flows and sometimes include domeshaped structures, which represent extrusive domes (extrusions) of magmatic origin. Psytuaje Rockshelter is formed in rhyolitic ignimbrites and tuff of the Lower Chegem Formation. The rockshelter's vault and plan have a pronounced dome-like shape (Fig. 1: bottom; 2-A), which suggests that the rockshelter was formed as an extrusive dome. The rockshelter likely represented in the past a grotto, which was partially destroyed by later erosion. In the inner part of the rockshelter there are many blocks that cover the modern surface and indicate a partial and quite recent collapse of the vault of the rockshelter. In this paper, the authors report the primary information about this important locality.

Fig. 5. Radiocarbon curve for bone sample from layer 2 at Psytuaje Rockshelter.

2.2. Methods NPL-322 was used for 3D coordinate acquisition at the main datum. For the lithic analysis we use the E4 database software (available online: www.oldstoneage.com), with modifications. A statistical analysis of the materials was performed using software STATISTICA 12.0. The geochemical analysis of obsidian artefacts was done using the ThermoScientific Quant’X EDXRF spectrometer in the Geoarchaeological XRF Laboratory, Albuquerque, New Mexico (USA). Analytical methodology is available online at http://www.swxrflab.

Surveying was planed using the geological maps created by the A.P. Karpinsky Russian Geological Research Institute (VSEGEI, St. Petersburg). Coordinates were identified using a GPS navigating device Garmin eTrex–Vista. In 2018, a 1 × 1 m test excavation led by E. Doronicheva was undertaken in Psytuaje Rockshelter to examine the stratigraphy of the deposits. All material recovered in situ was pieceplotted in three dimensions, and a laser prism-based total station Nikon 5

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 29 (2020) 102186

E. Doronicheva, et al.

Layer 2, a 60 cm thick stratum, composed of sandy loam with some ignimbrite debris (Fig. 2-B). Layer 2 has yielded in situ archaeological material and several small unidentifiable animal bone fragments that concentrated within a level 20–40 cm below the surface (Figs. 3, 4; Table 1). Layer 3, grayish-greenish sandy loam, ∼20 cm thick on transversal profile A1B. Layer 4, brown-grey sandy loam, up to 40 cm thick. The lower layers 3 and 4 were archaeologically sterile strata in the test pit. The bedrock was not reached, because the test excavation was stopped at the depth of 1,4 m in Layer 4, when the need for larger and more controlled excavations became obvious. Layer 2 produced 31 artefacts made from gray and pink flint (24) and obsidian (7). The lithic assemblage includes 3 prismatic cores, 4 CTE, 8 flakes, 2 blades, 2 bladeletes, 2 shatters, and 10 tools. The flaking debris includes cores, shatters, CTE, and flakes. All cores (2 from flint, 1 from obsidian) are exhausted, the length of the biggest core does not exceed 3,5 cm. Core platforms are mainly prepared by one removal, and have almost straight (Figs. 3–12) or oblique platform angle(Figs. 313). Two artifacts (cortical flake and prismatic core) were refitted, indicating that the material was found in situ. Flakes with cortex predominate among flakes; this points to that the initial operations of core preparation were made on the site. Blades and bladeletes have small sizes (maximum width 15 mm), straight or slightly curved profiles, parallel edges and removals on the dorsal surface, and a triangular or trapezoidal cross-section (Figs. 3-4). The striking platforms on all blanks are mostly prepared by one removal, and platform edges bear traces of abrasive processing. The bulbs of percussion are smooth, small in size, and lack annular cracks or small scars. All these features suggest use of soft hammers or the hand pressure technique. Besides one end-scraper from obsidian, all tools are made from flint. The 10 tools include a Vachons point made on bladelet (Fig. 3–1). There are 3 straight truncations made on blade (Fig. 3–3), crested blade (Fig. 3–2), and bladelet (Figs. 3–4), and oblique truncation on blade (Figs. 3–5). One end-scraper is made on a large obsidian flake (Figs. 3–10; Figs. 4–7), and another end-scraper is made on a striking platform of flint flake with cortex (Figs. 3–9; 4–6). One blade (Figs. 3–6) and one bladelet (Figs. 3–8) have fine retouch (probably, resulted from use), and one flake has denticulate retouch (Figs. 3–7). Although the number of tools is small, the tool composition does not contradict the proposed final Epipalaeolithic age of layer 2.

Fig. 6. Ba/Rb (A) and Zr/Y (B) bivariate plots of the Psytuaje artefacts and Zayukovo source standards (see Shackley et al. 2018). Confidence ellipses at 95%.

net/analysis.htm and described in (Shackley 2005:193-195; 2011). The radiocarbon date was obtained in the Radiocarbon laboratory in St.-Petersburg State University, Russia using the OxCal 4.2 calibration program (IntCal 13 calibration curve available at https://c14.arch.ox. ac.uk). 3. Results 3.1. Artefact assemblage recovered from test excavation A small assemblage comprising of 47 stone artefacts and 13 bone fragments was collected in the rockshelter in 2018 (Table 1; Figs. 3, 4). No pottery was found. Fourteen artefacts were collected on the surface. Most of the surface-collected artefacts (9 pieces) are made from obsidian, and 4 artefacts are made from gray and pink flint. One pebble, with traces of splitting and a pitted surface – characteristic traces of use as a retoucher – is made of slate. Among surface finds there are 3 blades, 2 bladelets, 2 core trimming elements (CTE) or technical flakes, 4 flakes, one laminar flake, and one retoucher made on a pebble. Only one retouched tool found on surface is a fragment of an unfinished bifacial tool, possibly laurel leaf-like point made from obsidian. However, this tool is similar to bifacial points known from the Bronze Age sites in the Northern Caucasus and can be presumably dated to this period. In a test pit (1 × 1 m; see Fig. 2-B), beneath a modern soil (Layer 1) and 20 cm below the modern surface we excavated:

3.2. Radiocarbon dating One radiocarbon date on bone from layer 2 at Psytuaje Rockshelter was obtained in radiocarbon laboratory in St.-Petersburg State University. The date of 11340 ± 700 cal BP (LU-9216), using the OxCal 4.2 calibration program (IntCal 13 calibration curve available at https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk; Fig. 5), defines the minimum radiocarbon limit of layer 2 and consequently suggests the final Epipaleolithic age of the assemblage recovered in this layer. 3.3. Sourcing of obsidian and flint artefacts The results of XRF analyses of two of the seven obsidian artefacts

Table 2 Elemental concentrations for the two Psytuaje obsidian artefacts and USGS RGM-1 rhyolite standard. All measurements in parts per million (ppm). Source standard data from Shackley et al. (2018). Sample №

Site

Ti

Mn

Fe

Zn

Rb

Sr

Y

Zr

Nb

Ba

Pb

Th

Source

5 6 RGM1-S4

Psytuaje, ly. 2, #21 Psytuaje, ly. 2, # 24

897 880 1508

516 487 282

10127 9842 13201

107 79 45

301 302 150

54 54 109

25 30 26

74 82 214

14 12 8

181 204 815

51 48 18

20 22 11

Zayukovo Zayukovo standard

6

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 29 (2020) 102186

E. Doronicheva, et al.

microliths) that were found in layers 7.4 and 7.3 at Badynoko, and, like the assemblages from Badynoko, shows the predominance of oblique or straight truncations made on laminar blanks. The study of the Epipaleolithic in the Elbrus region is just beginning. At present, we can only note that the Epipalaeolithic assemblages of the region are similar to the Epipalaeolithic industry in the north-western Caucasus (Golovanova and Doronichev, 2018; Doronicheva et al., 2016, 2019a; Golovanova et al., 2019). The results of recent petroarchaeological research (Doronicheva et al., 2013; Doronicheva and Shackley, 2014) suggests that extensive Epipalaeolithic social and probably trade networks expanded from the northwestern Lesser Caucasus (the Chikiani obsidian area in southern Georgia) in the south to the northwestern Caucasus (Mezmaiskaya and other sites) in the north, and to the north-central Caucasus (Baksan or Zayukovo obsidian area) area in the east. It is also worth noting that obsidian studies indicate that contacts between the central and western parts of the Northern Caucasus became particularly active towards the end of the Epipalaeolithic (Doronicheva et al., 2019a). The main goal of future research is to determine the origin, chronology, and cultural specificity of the Epipalaeolithic in the Elbrus region, and as the result to obtain data that may allow a detail comparison of the region's Epipalaeolithic with Epipalaeolithic industries in other regions of the Caucasus, especially those that are known in the northwestern and southwestern Caucasus. Located in a valley of a small Fanduko river (tributary of Baksan river), Psytuaje rockshelter has potential to produce new data about subsistence and culture of the Epipalaeolithic population in the region at the edge of Pleistocene and Holocene. Although only a single usewear study is available at present for the Upper Palaeolithic–Epipalaeolithic sites in the Caucasus (see Aleksandrova and Leonova, 2017), the perfect preservation of flint and obsidian artefacts from Psytuaje rockshelter may allow in the future to apply usewear analysis to identify how the specific characteristics of the lithic industry recovered from this site were related with human use of the rockshelter in the end of the Epipalaeolithic.

found in situ in layer 2 (Table 2) indicate that all sampled obsidian artefacts were made from obsidian originating from the Zayukovo (Baksan) source (Fig. 6). This result strongly suggests that the local Zayukovo (Baksan) obsidian source was the only source of obsidian raw material for humans that inhabited Psytuaje rockshelter. However, the majority of lithic artefacts found in Psytuaje rockshelter are made from gray and pink flint. Although petroarchaeological analyses of these flint artefacts are not completed yet, they presumably originate from flint outcrops that we have discovered in valleys of the Baksan and Kamenka rivers (see Golovanova et al., 2019: Fig. 1), located approximately 10 km northwest and southeast from the site respectively. 4. Discussion and conclusions The currently available data concerning the end of the Epipalaeolithic (see Golovanova et al., 2014) in the central part of the Northern Caucasus (north-central Caucasus), including the Elbrus region, is very limited. Despite the abundance of sources of high-quality stone raw materials, such as obsidian and flint, the sites documenting the Epipalaeolithic and early Holocene human occupation are few in the region. These include Sosruko, Alebastroviy Zavod, and Badynoko rockshelters, located in a small area of the Baksan river valley, and Kala-Tiubiu rockshelter in Chegem river (Zamiatnin and Akritas, 1957; Zenin and Orlova, 2006; Seletsky et al., 2017; Doronicheva et al., 2019a). Sosruko, Alebastroviy Zavod and Kala-Tiubiu were excavated in the 1950s. The materials from Kala-Tiubiu and Alebastroviy Zavod were dated to Mesolithic. Only Sosruko and Badynoko rockshelters have yielded Epipalaeolithic assemblages. With addition to Psytuaje rockshelter, only three Epipaleolithic sites are known at present in this region. Sosruko and Badynoko rockshelters are located in the Baksan river valley, 10–15 km south-west from Psytuaje rockshelter. In the archaeological sequence of Badynoko researchers (Seletsky et al., 2017) defined three stages of cultural development:

Declaration of Competing Interest - early (layers 8 and 7.5; ∼18–15 ka), characterized by the presence of end-scrapers, burins, points, and rare bladelets with retouched truncation; - middle (layers 7.4 and 7.3; ∼15–9 ? ka), characterized by truncations on bladelets and micro-bladelets, bladelets with ventral retouch, geometric microliths (rectangles, trapezes, segments, and triangles), micro-endscrapers, awls, and notched tools; and - late (layers 7.2 and 7.1; ∼8,5–7 ka), dated to the Early Holocene and assigned to the Mesolithic.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Acknowledgements This research was supported by the Russian Science Foundation grant No. 17-78-20082, “Human-nature interaction in ancient in the Central Caucasus: dynamics of environmental change and technological innovations, and adaptations of subsistence strategies”. We are grateful to the National Museum and Management for Preservation of HistoryCultural Heritage of Kabardino-Balkaria Republic, and also Administration and local people from the Zayukovo village. The authors also thank three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments to our manuscript that helped to improve this paper.

In Sosruko rockshelter, the lithic assemblage from Layer 7 is yet undated, but is similar to the middle stage (Epipalaeolithic) in Badynoko rockshelter (Doronicheva et al., 2019a). The data reported above in this paper indicates that the radiocarbon date and archaeology of Psytuaje rockshelter also fit well with the middle stage (Epipalaeolithic) of the Badynoko sequence. Although, as noted above, the number of artefacts recovered from Layer 2 in Psytuaje rockshelter is small at present, the characteristics of laminar products (bladelets and blades) suggest use of the soft hammer percussion or the hand pressure technique. In Badynoko rockshelter, the flaking technology is generally characterized by production of laminar blanks from volumetric prismatic cores, as well as use of the pressure technique for producing small laminar blanks (< 12 mm in width) is also reported (Seletsky, 2016). Moreover, the results of a detailed morphometric analysis of bladelets and microbladelets from the Epipalaeolithic layers at Mezmaiskaya cave, in the northwestern Caucasus, suggest that the appearance of the pressure technique occurred towards the end of this period (Nedomolkin, 2017). The currently small set of retouched tools from the final Epipalaeolithic Layer 2 in Psytuaje rockshelter includes all tool types (with the exeption of geometric

References Adler, D.S., Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., Tushabramishvili, N., Boaretto, E., Mercier, N., Valladas, H., Rink, W.J., 2008. Dating the demise: Neandertal extinction and the establishment of modern humans in the southern Caucasus. J. Hum. Evol. 55, 1–17. Aleksandrova, O.I., Leonova, E.V., 2017. Reconstruction of Hunting Projectiles from the Late Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Cultures of the North Caucasus (based on the materials of Dvoinaya Cave). Stratum Plus, 1, (In Russian). pp. 255–270. Bader, N.O., Tsereteli, L.D., 1989. Mezolit Kavkaza (The Mezolithic of the Caucasus). In: Koltsov L.V. (ed.), Mezolit SSSR (The Mezolithic of the USSR). Series: Arkheologiya SSSR (The Archaeology of the USSR). Moscow: Nauka, (In Russian). pp. 93–129. Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., Mesheviliani, T., Jakeli, N., Bar-Oz, G., Boaretto, B., Goldberg, P., Eliso Kvavadze, E., Matskevich, Z., 2011. Dzudzuana: an Upper Palaeolithic cave site in the Caucasus foothills (Georgia). Antiquity 85, 331–349. Biagi, P., 2016. The Last Hunter-Gatherers of the Northern Coast of the Black Sea and their Role in the Mesolithic of Europe A View from Crimea. In: R. Krauss, H. Floss

7

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 29 (2020) 102186

E. Doronicheva, et al.

Currat, M., Lordkipanidze, D., Hofreiter, M., Manica, A., Pinhasi, R., Bradley, D., 2015. Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians. Nat. Commun. 6, 8912. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9912. Kandel, A.W., Gasparyan, B., Allué, E., Bigga, G., Bruch, A., Cullen, V.L., Frahm, E., Ghukasyan, R., Gruwier, B., Jabbour, F., Miller, C.E., Taller, A., Vardazaryan, V., Vasilyan, D., Weissbrod, L., 2017. The earliest evidence for Upper Paleolithic occupation in the Armenian Highlands at Aghitu-3 Cave. J. Hum. Evol. 110, 37–68. Le Bourdonnec, F.-X., Nomade, S., Poupeau, G., Guillou, H., Tushabramishvili, N., Moncel, M.-H., Pleurdeau, D., Agapishvili, T., Voinshet, P., Mgeladze, A., Lordkipanoidze, D., 2012. Multiple origins of Bondi Cave and Ortvale Klde (NW Georgia) obsidians and human mobility in Transcaucasia during the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic. J. Archaeol. Sci. 39, 1317–1330. Lioubine, V.P., 1992. Human adaptation in the mountain environments of the Caucasus during Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic. Preistoria Alpina 28, 207–219. Manko, V.A., 2010. Cases of Interstratifi cations in Unit III of Grot Skalisty and the Question of Origin of Crimean Final Palaeolithic. Stratum plus 1, 245–262 (In Russian). Nedomolkin, A.G., 2017. Influence of flaking technique on selection of blanks for main categories of retouched tools in the Upper Palaeolithic and Epipaleolithic of NorthWestern Caucasus (on the Mezmaiskaya cave materials). Izvestiya of Irkutsk state University. Series Geoarchaeology, Ecology, Anthropology 22. (In Russian). pp. 27–51. Pinhasi, R., Meshveliani, T., Matskevich, Z., Bar-Oz, G., Weissbrod, L., Miller, C.E., Wilkinson, K., Lordkipanidze, D., Jakeli, N., Kvavadze, E., Higham, T.F.G., BelferCohen, A., 2014. Satsurblia: New Insights of Human Response and Survival across the Last Glacial Maximum in the Southern Caucasus. PLoS One 9 (10), 1–16. Pleurdeau, D., Moncel, M.-H., Pinhasi, R., Yeshurun, R., Higham, T., Agapishvili, T., Bokeria, M., Muskhelishvili, A., Le Bourdonnec, F.-X., Nomade, S., Poupeau, G., Bocherens, H., Frouin, M., Genty, D., Pierre, M., Pons-Branchu, E., Lordkipanidze, D., Tushabramishvili, N., 2016. Bondi Cave and the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic transition in western Georgia (south Caucasus). Quat. Sci. Rev. 146, 77–98. Seletsky, M.V., 2016. Chipping technique in the production of bladelets and microbladelets in the Mesolithic of North-Western Caucasus (according to the materials of the Badynoko site (layer 7)). Proceedings of the 54th International Students Scientific Conference. Archaeology, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation: Novosibirsk State University, (In Russian). pp. 17–18. Seletsky, M.V., Shnaider, S.V., Zenin, V.N., Krivoshapkin, A.I., Kolobova, K.A., Alisher kyzy, S., 2017. Epipaleolititcheskiye kompleksi navesa Badynoko (Prielbrusiye) [Epipaleolithic complexes at Badynoko Rockshelter, Elbrus region]. Bulletin of Tomsk State University, (In Russian). №418, 147-162. DOI: 10.17223/15617793/ 418/19. Shackley, M.S., 2005. Obsidian: Geology and Archaeology in the North American Southwest. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Shackley, M.S., 2011. An Introduction to X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analysis in Archaeology. In: Shackley, M.S. (Ed.), X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry in Geoarchaeology. Springer, New York, pp. 7–44. Shackley, M.S., Doronicheva E.V., Doronichev V.B., Golovanova L.V., Nesmeyanov S.A., Voeykova O.A., Muriy A.A., 2018. The Zayukovo (Baksan) archaeological obsidian source, Greater Caucasus, Russia. IAOS Bulletin No. 60. pp. 11–23. Tornero, C., Balasse, M., B al asescu, A., Chataigner, C., Gasparyan, B., Montoya, C., 2016. The altitudinal mobility of wild sheep at the Epigravettian site of Kalavan 1 (Lesser Caucasus, Armenia): Evidence from a sequential isotopic analysis in tooth enamel. J. Hum. Evol. 97, 27–36. Tuboltsev, O. 2017. Obsidian Track. Wetland Archaeology and Prehistoric Networks in Europe. Abstracts of the Neenawa International Scientific Conference. September 15th–17th 2017, Kyiv-Kaniv, Ukraine. (In Russian). pp. 52–53. Zamiatnin, S.N., Akritas, P.G., 1957. Issledovanie po kamennomu veku v 1954-1955 gg. [Research on Stone Age in 1954-1955]. Scientific reports of the Kabardino-Balkarian scientific-research institute, Nalchik, T. XIII, (In Russian). pp. 471–475. Zenin, V.N., Orlova, L.A., 2006. Kamennyi vek Baksanskogo ushelia (hronologicheskiy aspekt) [The Stone Age of the Baksan gorge (a chronological aspect)]. XXIVth Krupnov's readings, Nalchik, (In Russian). pp. 54–57.

(eds.), Southeast Europe before Neolithisatin, Tubingen, pp. 113–129. Biagi, P., Nisbet, R., 2018. The Georgian Caucasus and its resources: the exploitation of the Mount Chikiani uplands during the metal ages. Antiquity 92 (362), 1–9. Biagi, P., Nisbet, R., Gratuze, B., 2017. Discovery of obsidian mines on Mount Chikiani in the Lesser Caucasus of Georgia. Antiquity 91 (357), 1–8. Chataigner, C., Gratuze, B., 2014. New data on the exploitation of obsidian in the southern Caucasus (Armenia, Georgia) and eastern Turkey. Part 1: source characterization. Archaeometry 56, 25–47. Doronicheva, E.V., Kulkova, M.A., Shackley, M.S., 2013. Exploitation of lithic raw material in the Northwestern Caucasus Upper Paleolithic. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 41 (2), 40–53 (In Russian). Doronicheva, E.V., Shackley, M.S., 2014. Obsidian exploitation strategies in the Middle and Upper Paleolithic of the Northern Caucasus: new data from Mezmaiskaya cave. PaleoAnthropology 565–585. Doronicheva, E.V., L.V. Golovanova, V.B. Doronichev, A.G. Nedomolkin. Central Caucasus in Paleolithic: the new data. 2016. Eurasia in the Cenozoic. Stratigraphy, paleoecology, cultures. Irkutsk: ISU Publishing House, vol. 5, (In Russian), pp. 94–101. Doronicheva, E.V., Golovanova, L.V., Doronichev, V.B., Nedomolkin, A.G., Shackley, M.S., 2017. The first Middle Paleolithic site exhibiting obsidian industry on the northern slopes of the Central Caucasus. Antiquity 91 (359), 1–6. Doronicheva, E.V., Golovanova, L.V., Doronichev, V.B., Shackley, S.M., Nedomolkin, A.G., 2019a. New data about exploitation of the Zayukovo(Baksan) obsidian source in Northern Caucasus during the Paleolithic. J. Archaeolog. Sci.: Rep. 23, 157–165. Doronicheva, E.V., Golovanova, L.V., Doronichev, V.B., Nedomolkin, A.G., Korzinova, A.S., Tselmovitch, V.A., Kulkova, M.A., Odinokova, E.V., Shirobokov, I.G., Ivanov, V.V., Nesmeyanov, S.A., Voeykova, O.A., Muriy, A.A., Tregub, T.F., Volkov, M.A., Shackley Spasovskiy, M.S., Yu, N., 2019b. The first laminar Mousterian obsidian industry in the north-central Caucasus, Russia (preliminary results of a multi-disciplinary research at Saradj-Chuko Grotto). Archaeol. Res. Asia (18), 82–99. Frahm, E., Feinberg, J.M., Schmidt-Magee, B.A., Wilkinson, K.N., Gasparyan, B., Yeritsyan, B., Adler, D.S., 2016. Middle Paleolithic toolstone procurement behaviors at Lusakert Cave 1, Hrazdan valley, Armenia. J. Hum. Evol. 91, 73–92. Fu, Q., Posth, C., Hajdinjak, M., Petr, M., Mallick, S., Fernandes, D., Furtwangler, A., Haak, W., Meyer, M., Mittnik, A., Nickel, B., Peltzer, A., Rohland, N., Slon, V., Talamo, S., Lazaridis, I., Lipson, M., Mathieson, I., Schiffels, S., Skoglund, P., Derevianko, A.P., Drozdov, N., Slavinsky, V., Tsybankov, A., Cremonesi, R.G., Mallegni, F., Gely, B., Vacca, E., Gonzalez Morales, M.R., Straus, L.G., NeugebauerMaresch, C., Teschler-Nicola, M., Constantin, S., Moldovan, O.T., Benazzi, S., Peresani, M., Coppola, D., Lari, M., Ricci, S., Ronchitelli, A., Valentin, F., Thevenet, C., Wehrberger, K., Grigorescu, D., Rougier, H., Crevecoeur, I., Flas, D., Semal, P., Mannino, M.A., Cupillard, C., Bocherens, H., Conard, N.J., Harvati, K., Moiseyev, V., Drucker, D.G., Svoboda, J., Richards, M.P., Caramelli, D., Pinhasi, R., Kelso, J., Patterson, N., Krause, J., Pääbo, S., Reich, D., 2016. The genetic history of Ice Age Europe. Nature 534, 200–205. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17993. Golovanova, L., Doronichev, V., 2012. The Early Upper Paleolithic of the Caucasus in the West Eurasian Context. In: Otte, M., Shidrang, S., Flas, D., (eds.), L’Aurignacien de la grotte Yafteh et son contexte (fouilles 2005–2008). The Aurignacian of Yafteh cave and its context (2005-2008 excavations), Liege, ERAUL 132, 1. pp. 37–160. Golovanova, L.V., V.B. Doronichev. 2018. Sosruko rockshelter in the Elbrus region. Eurasia in the Cenozoic. Stratigraphy, paleoecology, culture. Irkutsk: ISU Publishing House, 7. (In Russian). pp. 193–199. Golovanova, L.V., Doronichev, V.B., Cleghorn, N., 2010. The emergence of bone-working and ornamental art in the Caucasian Upper Palaeolithic. Antiquity 84 (324), 299–320. Golovanova, L.V., Doronichev, V.B., Cleghorn, N.E., Koulkova, M.A., Sapelko, T.V., Shackley, M.S., Spasovskiy, Yu.N., 2014. The Epipaleolithic of the Caucasus after the Last Glacial Maximum. Quat. Int. 337, 189–224. Golovanova, L.V., Doronichev, V.B., Doronicheva, E.V., 2019. New data on the Palaeolithic of the Elbrus region. Russian Archaeol. 2, 7–18 (In Russian). Jones, E.R., Gonzalez-Fortes, G., Connell, S., Siska, V., Eriksson, A., Martiniano, R., McLaughlin, R.L., Gallego Llorente, M., Cassidy, L.M., Gamba, C., Meshveliani, T., Bar-Yosef, O., MuËller, W., Belfer-Cohen, A., Matskevich, Z., Jakeli, N., Higham, T.,

8