The article presents geomorphological and stratigraphic descriptions of the Tinit-1 site (Dagestan) and detailed technical and typological characteristics of the finds from excavation 2, including repair data (two assemblies). The results of palynological analysis of culturecontaining sediments and their radiocarbon dating are also presented. The raw material base and economic type of parking are considered. According to the results of a comprehensive study of the industry, the monument is attributed to the end of the Middle - beginning of the Upper Paleolithic.

Keywords: Dagestan, boundary: Middle-Upper Paleolithic, archaeological horizon, primary splitting technique, repair, palynological analysis.

Introduction

Until recently, the territory of Dagestan remained one of the least studied Paleolithic parts of the Caucasus. Studies of the Stone Age began here in 1939, when M. Z. Panichkina discovered a series of flakes and plates of archaic appearance in the vicinity of the village of Gejuh, which, according to her definition, belong to the Paleolithic period (see: Kruglov, 1940). Next stage - 1950 - 1960-1950s-associated with the works of V. G. Kotovich. During his expeditions, which took place both in the mountainous and coastal regions of the republic, more than 30 sites and sites of various periods of the Stone Age were discovered. The absolute majority of these Paleolithic monuments were open localities, the materials of which were in a redeposited state and lay on the modern surface (Kotovich, 1964). Nevertheless, the discovered artefacts allowed researchers to make assumptions about the initial settlement of the Western Caspian region in the earliest periods of human history and about the continuous presence of ancient collectives throughout the middle and late Pleistocene. At the same time, creating a clear picture of the development of local Stone Age cultures in the context of their connections with the synchronous cultures of other regions of the Caucasus was difficult due to the uneven chronological and territorial distribution of archaeological material. Thus, knowledge about the early and Middle Paleolithic of the Caspian zone was based on an extensive and reliable source base, which included finds from a number of cave sites in Azerbaijan (Azykh, Taglar, Buzeir, etc.), as well as large series of artifacts from surface collections in the plain (Chumus-Inits) and mountain (Saga-puka, Kumral-kada Untsala-ava, etc.) in parts of Dagestan (Jafarov, 1999; Lubin, 1989; Kotovich, 1964). However, the Upper Paleolithic period was practically not represented in the materials of monuments of the Western Caspian region. For example, until recently, only a few open-type localities with very few Upper Paleolithic artifacts (Sagapuka et al.) were known in Dagestan (Kotovich, 1964). Materials of the multi-layered Chokhskaya site (Gunibsky district of the Republic of Dagestan), initially considered to be Upper Paleolithic-

They were later assigned to the Holocene stone industries (Amirkhanov, 1987). A unique mammoth bone bowl (?) discovered near the Belidzhi station (Derbent district of the Republic of Dagestan), which probably corresponds to the end of the Paleolithic era, unfortunately has no archaeological context and has now been lost (Kotovich, 1964).

Studies of Paleolithic sites on the territory of Dagestan, conducted in the last decade, have made it possible to radically change the ideas about the Stone Age of the region, in particular, to fill a gap in our knowledge of the late stages of the Paleolithic in this region of the Caucasus. The most significant results about the end of the Middle and beginning of the Upper Paleolithic were obtained in the study of the Tinit-1 site (Tabasaran district of the Republic of Dagestan).

Location and history of parking exploration

The Tinit-1 site (41°55'0 N, 48°02'0 E; elevation 724 m above sea level) is located in the middle reaches of the Rubas River, 0.5 km northwest of Tinit (Fig. 1, A) (Derevyanko et al., 2007). The site where the monument is located is a deeply embedded narrow valley of a stream (right tributary of the Rubas), on the sides of which there is a series of slightly pronounced terraced surfaces of different heights, sometimes merging with each other (Fig. 2). Inspection of the outcrops and the geological description of the area [Geologicheskaya Karta..., 1961] suggest the following structure. The basement of the terraced surfaces is composed of coastal-marine deposits of Akchagyl age (N ₂³_ak), represented mainly by clays and sandstones. Sea precipitation is blocked by heavy (up to 20 m)

Fig. 1. Map-diagram of the work area (A) and plan for the location of the excavation and pits (B) at the Tinit-1 site, a - settlements; b - Paleolithic sites; c - stream.

Fig. 2. Tinit-1 parking lot. View from the southwest.

It is a cover of slope sediments richly saturated with coarse-grained (blocky-gravelly) material, in which limestone deposits predominate and minor inclusions of flint are present. This thickness is overlain by a pack of loess-like loams (up to 15 m) with rare inclusions of crushed stone. The section is crowned with modern soil with a thickness of up to 0.5 m.

The first artifacts in the monument area were found on the slope of one of the high terraced surfaces on the left side of the stream. Here, the stream valley is developed in the thickness of proluvial-slope plume deposits, stretched along the north-western spurs of the Karasyrt ridge and gently descending to the river. The site on which the parking lot is located is an erosional remnant, separated from the main body of the foothill plume by the cut of a temporary watercourse. This incision interrupted the flow of coarse-grained sediments from the slopes of the ridge, which contributed to the continuous accumulation of loess-like loams; therefore, the loess-like member crowning the outlier has a large thickness (up to 12-15 m) and practically does not contain clastic material (Derevyanko et al., 2007).

In 2007-2010, an area of 86 ^m2 was excavated on the monument by a single excavation located on the left side of the stream on a flat area with maximum elevation marks (excavation 1; see Fig. 1, B). Deposits throughout the excavation were passed to a depth of 3 m, and on two test sites with a total area of 10 m2 m ² -to a depth of up to 5 m from the daytime surface (Anoikin, 2009). In the course of excavation 1, 9 lithological layers containing 11 horizons of archaeological material were identified. The total collection of stone artefacts formed in 2007-2010 totals 1,516 copies. [Derevyanko. Amirkhanov, Zenin et al., 2012; Anoikin, Borisov, 2010; Anoikin, 2009; Derevyanko, Anoikin, Borisov et al., 2008]. According to technical and typological characteristics, materials from archaeological horizons 1-4 were assigned to the Middle - Upper Paleolithic boundary, and assemblages from lower archaeological horizons (5-11) were assigned to the end of the Middle Paleolithic. This division of the collection was not contradicted by the results of studies using natural science methods, in particular, radiocarbon dating of culture-containing deposits.

Stratigraphy and planigraphy of the Tinit-1 site (excavation 2)*

In 2011, excavation ² with an area of 25 m2 was laid in 14 km north of excavation 1 (see Fig. 1, B). The thickness of loose sediments was revealed over the entire studied area to a depth of 4.0 - 4.2 m. During the work on excavation 2, six main lithological layers were identified, containing nine horizons of occurrence of archaeological material, which differ markedly by area of distribution, number and concentration of artifacts. According to the stratigraphic and archaeoplanigraphic situation, excavation 2 generally corresponds to excavation 1. The numbering of the lithological divisions and archaeological horizons of excavation 2 coincides with that of excavation 1. The main differences between the excavations are that in excavation 2 layer 2 is more powerful (it exceeds that in excavation 1 by more than 1 m) and is divided into four lithological divisions. the second-order horizon. In addition, excavation 2 is less than the total thickness of the exposed sediments, so it does not represent the lithological layers 8 and 9 and the associated archaeological horizons 10 and 11. Layers 6 and 7, identified earlier in Excavation 1, are combined into a single lithological unit (Fig. 6).

The stratigraphy of the section of excavation 2 (from top to bottom) is as follows (Anoikin et al., 2011) (Figs.:

^* The most complete results of Excavation 1 research have been published (Derevyanko et al., 2012).

3. Eastern wall of excavation 2 at the Tinit-1 site. View from the west.

4. Stratigraphic section of the western wall of excavation 2 at the Tinit-1 site.

According to the results of the planigraphy analysis of archaeological materials and stratigraphic study, the artifacts were located in situ and underwent minimal spatial movements in the post-sedimentation period. This is evidenced by the presence in one archaeological horizon of applicableobjects consisting of both multi-element glues (up to 28 elements) and single chips; the horizontal or close orientation of almost all finds; their simultaneous occurrence relative to the host geological bodies and a small vertical spread within the archaeological horizon.

In all the sediments that include cultural remains, there are scattered embers and primazki charcoal, and at the level of archaeological horizons 4 and 8 revealed several spots containing large pieces (up to 3 cm). In layer 4, at the level of archaeological horizon 4, several small isometric fragments of ochre-red color were found, similar to those found in the same layer in excavation 1 and previously identified by N. A. Kulik as a fine aggregate of iron hydroxides, probably with an admixture of clay minerals (Anoikin et al., 2009). Features of the material occurrence and its composition suggest that the debris as a natural brownish-orange paint (ochre) could have been brought to the parking lot by its inhabitants.

Vertebrate remains in excavation 2 were found only in layer 4 - two small (1-2 cm), heavily destroyed fragments of unidentifiable bones. The absence of faunal remains in other layers can be explained by the low sedimentation rate and destruction of bones and teeth on the day surface before burial, as well as by the impact of the aggressive chemical environment of the host sediments, which causes rapid destruction of osteological material.

Apparently, the "silent" palynological characterization of sediments is also due to the same reasons. Arid climatic regions are often dominated by alkaline substrates (Yapaskurt, 2008), which are harmful to plant pollen and spore fossils. For palynological analysis in 2010, 13 samples were selected from all lithological divisions of excavation 1, except layer 1. The samples were processed according to the method of V. P. Grichuk (Pollen Analysis, 1950) with the addition of hydrofluoric acid to remove silicates. The analysis revealed a low concentration of pollen and spores, in which the use of statistical data processing is impractical. Nevertheless, single pollen grains were found in 12 samples (Fig. 5). The most representative spectra were found in layer 4.Here, pollen grains of pine and birch were found. It should be noted that a broad-leaved forest dominated by Carpinus betulus currently grows in the vicinity of the parking lot. Fagus orientalis and Corylus avellana, which is adequately reflected in subrecent spore-pollen spects-

5. Spore-pollen diagrams of the Tinit-1 site deposits.

pax. The proportion of pine pollen in subfossilized samples is also significant, but does not exceed the proportion of broad-leaved species. Birch pollen was not detected in the subrecent spectra. This gives some reason to assume that layer 4 accumulated in colder climatic conditions than today. This assumption does not contradict the reconstruction of the natural conditions during the Khvalyn transgression and subsequent Atel regression (MIS 4 - 2), based on the study of the species composition of the malacofauna of the Caspian Sea (Yanina, 2012).

Absolute dating data

For the monument, a series of five uncalibrated radiocarbon dates was obtained from charcoal samples at the AMS Laboratory of the University of Arizona (Tucson, USA). Three dates were determined from samples from excavation 1: el. 2 (archaeological horizon 2) - 39,200 ± 740 BP (AA93693), el. 3 (archaeological horizon 3) - 43,900 ± 2,000 BP (AA93915) and el. 8 (archaeological horizon 10) -47,800 ± 1 500 hp (AA93695). For excavation 2, two open dates were obtained from samples taken from one large piece of charcoal from el. 6 (archaeological horizon 8): > 42,800 BP (AA93694) and > 43,900 BP (AA93915).

Thus, according to the results of absolute dating of kulyu-bearing deposits, the chronological framework of the Tinit-1 archaeological sites should be considered as follows: 50 000 - 37 000 5). This is not contradicted by the data of other natural science studies. Thus, the paleosoil lying in the section of excavation 2 at the el. 2 level is most likely correlated with the Hengelo interstadial (39-37 Ka BP).

Archaeological materials

All the items found during the work at the site are made of flint and silicified calcareous rocks, which are recorded in the bedrock at a distance of 1 - 2 km from the monument and can be traced in several outcrops (Anoikin et al., 2009). The raw materials used were reservoir flint, nodular flint, strongly silicified limestone of the outer part of the flint nodules, and weakly silicified limestone in the form of nodules and nodules. The listed material occurs in Upper Cretaceous (Danish stage) limestones (Cr _2d) in the form of lenses of various thickness and length, as well as nodules, on average no more than 0.3 m in diameter. In comparison with stratified flint, gelatinous flint is more qualitative and homogeneous, less fractured. The same applies to the nodules of silicified limestone: the material is less brittle and hard (up to 5 on the Mohs scale), which determines its greater suitability for systemic cleavage. Ancient man could also have used elements of flint raw materials found in detrital limestone fractions, which can be traced in a redeposited state in the immediate vicinity of the site, in scree and outcrops along the side of the paleodoline of the watercourse near which the monument is located.

Technical and typological analysis revealed a general correspondence of the stone blocks from excavation 2 to the previously obtained materials. This makes it possible to divide the collections into two groups, which differ both in the characteristics of the primary cleavage and in the tool set.

The first group (archaeological horizons 1-4). Includes 80 finds. The industry of these complexes is rather monotonous. The conditions of occurrence of artifacts suggest a relatively short time interval.

6. Stone artefacts from excavation 2 at the Tinit-1 site

(drawings by A.V. Abdulmanova). 1, 4, 5-archaeological horizon 3; 2-archaeological horizon 6; 3, 7-archaeological horizon 9,6-archaeological horizon 5. 1-levallois cleavage; 2 - mustier's point; 3 - scrabbler knife; 4, 5 - peaked edges with signs of retouching; 6-levallois point; 7 - the nucleus.

interval between the formation of archaeological horizons. Since the number of finds in a single archaeological complex is small and does not constitute a statistically representative sample, the materials of the group will be analyzed in aggregate. Primary cleavage is represented by the following categories: nuclei-3 specimens, nucleoid fragments-2, plates-7, lamellar flakes-5, flakes-27, technical chips-15, levallois chips-3 (Figs. 6, 7), fragments, fragments-18 specimens, including 7 blanks transformed by secondary energy. finishing in gun forms (Table 1).

All typologically expressed nuclei are focused on the production of elongated blanks. Two of them are made in the parallel splitting technique, and one is made in the unidirectional Levallois technique. All nuclei are monofrontal, and one can be attributed to end shapes. One of the cores bears traces of re-registration and transfer of the direction of chipping with the design of an additional impact pad. Two artifacts are included in the glues.

All cores were intended for the production of elongated workpieces, but the average lamellar index is only 21 % (plates and elongated technical chips are taken into account). At the same time, if we consider lamellar flakes as lamellar forms, Ilam increases to 29 %. The dimension of chips generally corresponds to the parameters of nuclei (nuclei - from 6.1 to 10.6 cm, average length 7.9 cm; chips - from 2.5 to 13.3 cm, average length 4.8 cm). Thus, workpieces from 2 to 6 cm in size make up 77 %, while larger items - only 7 %. The proportion of fragmented chips is only 26.3 %. More than half of the chips have signs of parallel cutting of the dorsal surface.-

Table 1. Significant categories of artifacts from excavation 2 in the Tinit-1 parking lot

surfaces (54.4 %), among them approximately 15 % - chips of its bipedal version. The proportions of chips with other types of cut do not have such significant values (Table 2). Rather high percentages of chips with natural dorsal surfaces (10.5 %) and chips with a gall crust on more than 5% of the area (20 %) indicate the decortication of part of the raw material in the habitat (materials of assembly 1). These data correspond to the proportion of natural impact sites of chipping - on average, 10.9 %. The main part consists of chips with smooth areas (65.2 %; Table 3). We can note a fairly large percentage of faceted (8.7 %) and polyhedral (8.7 %) sites, which are usually the result of retouching and fine-grained part-time processing of the frontal zone of the nucleus site and do not extend more than 0.5 cm deep. This technique is usually more typical for Late Paleolithic industries. In addition, the materials of archaeological horizons 1-4 indicate the widespread use of other methods of preliminary preparation of areas of the nucleus that are significant for controlling the process of splitting, for example, adjusting the "cornice". Its signs were traced on 28.3 % of chips, while some artifacts bear traces of several reduction techniques applied at once (Table 4). Note that in some cases the reduced surface was additionally sanded.

The results of the analysis of primary cleavage products are supplemented with data obtained by the remontage method. As a result of its application, several assemblies were performed on the materials of excavation 2.-

Table 2. Chips with a different dorsal surface cut from excavation 2 at the Tinit-1 site

Table 3. Chips with different impact pads from excavation 2 in the Tinit-1 parking lot

See Table 4. Chips with different nature of correction of impact pads from excavation 2 in the Tinit-1 parking lot

It is possible to represent both the entire primary splitting cycle and a single technological stage. The most significant gluings in this regard are made from artifacts of archaeological horizons 2 (assembly 1) and 4 (assembly 2). It should be noted that Assembly 1 includes 28 items, which make up more than 60 % of all finds from the archaeological horizon 2.

Build 1. Complex. It is an oval-shaped object, flattened in cross-section, and consists of 23 elements, including 18 chips, some of which are made up of several fragments, and a residual nucleus, also restored from three fragments (Figs. 7, 8). The chips are represented by target blanks (6 copies), technical chips of the initial design of the nucleus ("primary" and "secondary" flakes - 5 copies), edge technical chips (7 copies), of which two are longitudinal, the rest are transverse. In addition, most likely, five other items (three small "primary" chips and two fragments) are associated with Assembly 1 from similar raw materials, but not applied with other elements. The blank in assembly 1 is a large, oval-shaped, flattened nodule of flint rock (15.1 x 13.5 x 5.9 cm in size) with a lime crust 3-5 mm thick. At the initial stage of design, the nucleus underwent decortication on one side, on which the cleavage front was subsequently formed by removing the metal from the surface.

7. Planigraphy of artefacts included in assemblage 1 from archaeological horizon 2, excavation 2 at the Tinit-1 site, a-nucleus; b - plate; c - flake; d - fragment, fragment; e - flake that was not included in the assembly; d - fragment that was not included in the assembly. assembly; w - value of the depth of occurrence.

Figure 8. General view of the applied artifacts included in assembly 1 from the archaeological horizon 2, excavation 2 at the Tinit-1 site (drawings by A.V. Abdulmanova).

9. General view of the applied artifacts that are part of assembly 1 and reflect the initial stage of obtaining target blanks from the archaeological horizon 2, excavation 2 at the Tinit-1 site (drawings by A.V. Abdulmanova).

a series of chips in the longitudinal and transverse directions. At the next stage, an optimal frontal bulge was created with the help of technical edge chips made from the sides. After the organization of a narrow weakly convex impact site of the nucleus (no chips) Several target plate chips were removed, some of which, as a result of unsuccessful chipping (creases), acquired the proportions characteristic of flakes (Fig. 9). The stage of obtaining target blanks and splitting the nucleus as a whole was completed after the splitting point was transferred to the opposite edge and a short wide dihedral platform was formed on it, from which a large massive block was chipped. lamellar flake. Later, two small technical chips perpendicular to the main axis of cleavage were removed from the natural edge of the core. They are probably the result of an attempt to create a new convex front. The residual nucleus of the assembly is slightly worked along the perimeter of the initial blank (dimensions 12.1 x 10.4 x 3.1 cm); it is flat, with negatives of different sizes and multidirectional slightly extended shots. Thus, assembly 1 is a simple planar, possibly convergent, technique for splitting the nucleus in order to obtain flakes close to lamellar removals. Correction of the residual impact sites of chips is usually minimal, in some cases intense (multi-faceted), and the edge of the site bears traces of removing the "cornice"on some objects.

Build 2. It has a sub-triangular shape in plan and an angular shape in profile and cross-section (Figs. 9, 10). It consists of four elements - two target chips, a technical chip, and a residual nucleus. As a blank for the core, a nucleoid fragment or a nucleus of an older age with weakly radiated faces was used. The type of the "initial" nucleus is indeterminate, and it is possible that the nucleus was used to produce flakes using a simple planar technique. Despite the small number of elements, assembly 2 allows us to characterize all the stages of nuclear utilization. The initial splitting cycle included two stages: the design of the impact pad with a small series of small chips and the preparation of the front at the corner of the workpiece by removing one or two longitudinal technical chips (there are no chips at both stages in the assembly). Further, for the formation of a frontal bulge, a marginal longitudinal technical chip was made and the base of the nucleus was thinned using a series of small chips. After this operation, two target blanks were chipped sequentially from the frontal plane.

10. Planigraphy of artefacts included in Assemblage 2 from archaeological horizon 4, excavation 2 at the Tinit-1 site. Refer to Figure 7 for the technical description.

This was preceded by careful faceting of the edge of the impact pad of the nucleus. The resulting chips have convex faceted residual impact pads and a sub-parallel, slightly convergent dorsal surface cut. Technically, the target blanks are points and represent an elongated unidirectional levallois technique. Its typologically close analogies are traced to the stone industries of the Boker Takhtit (layer 2), Stranska Skala (layer III) sites, and others (Skrdla, 2003; Tostevin, 2000; Volkman, 1983). The residual nucleus is characterized as single-site, single-frontal with a slightly convex working surface. Thus, the assembly illustrates the Levallois cleavage technique in its late/transitional version, focused on obtaining elongated points. Weakly expressed "sharp" morphology indicates that the target blanks were most likely defective. Taking into account the obtained data, as well as the gluing materials from excavation 1 (six multi-element repairs from artefacts of archaeological horizons 2 and 4) [Anoikin and Slavinsky, 2010], it can be concluded that the methods of primary utilization of raw materials traced from the materials of the upper archaeological horizons are more typical for the transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic periods.

The tool set of the upper archaeological horizons collection (7 specimens, excluding non-retouched Levallois chips) is not impressive, although it makes up a significant part of the total number of artifacts of significant categories (11.3 %). Typologically expressed tools are not numerous and relate mainly to scraping or cutting tools: retouched pointers (see Figures 6, 4), one of which can be classified as convergent double scrapers by the nature of processing (see Figures 6, 5), as well as a scraper-knife, knife, atypical scraper and angle cutter. The collection includes a tronkirovanno-faceted product. The considered gun set as a whole does not differ significantly from the main collection of excavation 1 (31 retouched items). [Derevyanko et al., 2012]; its composition and representativeness, apparently, were largely determined by the types of economic activities of the inhabitants of the parking lot.

The data accumulated so far allow us to define the monument as a repeatedly visited short-term hunting (?) camp, where the primary butchering of animal carcasses took place, and stone production was associated with situational splitting, not aimed at mass production of blanks and the design of complex tool forms. This interpretation of the monument is in good agreement with such characteristics as the small number of artefacts within the archaeological horizon, their small distribution over the area, and their use for splitting the nebolyn-

11. General view of the applied artifacts that are part of assembly 2 from the archaeological horizon 4, excavation 2 at the Tinit-1 site (drawings by A.V. Abdulmanova).

the presence of a large number of nodules of similar raw materials (nodular flint in the archaeological horizon 2, silicified limestone in the archaeological horizon 4), the presence of local work sites, a large percentage of applied products, sometimes accounting for more than 90 % of the original raw material, a low percentage of typologically expressed tools and their functional uniformity, as well as a high saturation of deposits with small particles of wood coal in the absence of any hearth structures.

Thus, the artefacts from horizons 1-4 of the Tinit-1 site (taking into account the data from excavation 1 [Ibid.]) most closely correspond to the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic industries in terms of their technical and typological features. This is evidenced by the typological composition of the tools (scraper, chisel, tronkirovanno-faceted product), the nature of the primary splitting, including the methods of registration and disposal of cores, as well as signs of the use of Upper Paleolithic chipping technique-traces of the technological method of reducing the edge of the impact pad by casting with frequent subsequent grinding, which is clearly read on a number of chips. It is also worth noting that the inventory from the upper horizons of excavation 2 looks somewhat more archaic than similar complexes from excavation 1.

The second group (archaeological horizons 5 - 9). Includes 255 finds. The small number and monotony of the collection, as well as the conditions of occurrence of artifacts, suggest a relatively short time interval between the formation of cultural horizons. Materials from all lower horizons will be analyzed together. Primary cleavage is represented by the following categories: nuclei-4 specimens, nucleoid fragments-2, plates-13, lamellar flakes-25, flakes-90, technical chips-9, levallois chips-8 (see Figs. 6, 6), fragments, fragments - 104 specimens, including 9 blanks, converted with the help of secondary finishing into gun forms (see Table 1).

All typologically expressed nuclei are made in a parallel splitting technique and are focused on the production of elongated blanks. They are characterized by different degrees of harmony-from the initial stage of operation, when several chips are realized, to exhaustion. One core can be assigned to end forms, while the rest can be assigned to planar bifrontal variants with different fronts (one with conjugate and two with parallel ones) and the number of sites. Morphological features of the end nucleus suggest that the core was repeatedly re-formed, and the end splitting model was used only at the final stage of its operation. The largest and most flattened rectangular product is of the greatest interest (see Figs. 6, 7). Its last (in the technological sequence) convex front is completely covered with negatives of large, wide unidirectional plate removals, and the weakly convex counter-front bears traces of regular counter-plate chips oriented perpendicular to the direction of the last splitting cycle.

The lamellar index of the collection of archaeological horizons 5-9 is on average 17.2 % (together with plates and elongated technical chips), and taking into account lamellar flakes-31.0 %, and does not differ from the same indicator for the upper archaeological horizons (see Table 1). The dimension of chips also corresponds to the parameters of nuclei (nuclei-from 4.2 up to 8.6 cm, average length 6.3 cm; chips - from 1.5 to 11.4 cm, average length 3.3 cm), more than 75% are blanks from 2 to 6 cm in size (80 % of them are from 2 to 4 cm in size), the share of larger items is only 6% of the collection size. More than 40 % of chips are fragmented. Analysis of artefacts by the nature of dorsal surfaces showed that 59.3 % of chips have a parallel cut, including 11 % in the bipedal variant (see Table 2). Chips with other types of cut are not numerous. The proportion of chips with natural dorsal surfaces in the lower horizons is insignificant and significantly lower than in the upper horizons (2.8 %), which is probably due to a slightly different strategy for recycling raw materials (lack of local work sites, small percentage of decortication chips, etc.). The same pattern can be noted for chips with a gall crust on more than 5% of the area: their share reaches 5.5 %. These data are generally consistent with the results of analysis of residual impact sites of chipping: the share of natural on average accounts for 7.5 %. The main part consists of smooth sites (62.6 %), although the presence of point/linear and faceted variants is also noticeable (12.1 and 11.2%, respectively) (see Table 3). We can note a low proportion of chips with polyhedral sites - 3.7 %, although they are well represented in the archaeological horizons 1^4-. Chips with traces of "cornice" adjustment are recorded less frequently in the lower horizons than in the upper ones (11.2 %) (see Table 4). No artifacts with signs of additional grinding of the reduced surfaces were observed.

The tool kit in the collection of the lower archaeological horizons (9 copies, excluding the non-retouched Levallois chips) contains several bright shapes, but it accounts for only 6 % of the total number of artifacts of significant categories, which is significantly less than in the collection of the upper horizons. Typologically expressed tools are few and far between.

they mainly belong to pointed or cutting tools (fragmented Mousterian point (see Fig. 6, 2), Levallois point with traces of retouching, knife and scraper knife (see Fig. 6, 3)). The collection includes two recesses with retouched ankos. The Upper Paleolithic types of tools (scraper and tronked cleaver) are far from classical examples. Rare finds include a small, highly elongated pebble of sandy limestone, which was most likely used as a bump stone.

The gun set from the lower horizons generally does not differ from the main collection of excavation 1 (61 retouched items) [Ibid.]. Its composition and representativeness, apparently, were largely determined by the nature of economic activity in the parking lot. Findings from the lower horizons allow us to qualify the site as a repeatedly but briefly visited hunting (?) camp. It should be noted that the lower horizons differ from the upper horizons in terms of the composition of the collection and the planigraphic context of the finds. The differences are primarily determined by the materials of archaeological horizons 5-7 (the collections of horizons 8 and 9 are much smaller). Compared to the overlying ones, these three horizons have a much higher concentration of archaeological material, which is much more diverse in raw materials (stone material, including pebbles, is represented from all sources located around the monument), there are no applicating products of primary cleavage, a significant proportion is made up of small fragments, fragments and scales, which can be explained by more intensive activity for secondary processing. At the same time, the tool set corresponds to the activity associated with the primary butchering of animal carcasses, and a general analysis of the industry shows that stone production was mainly determined by situational splitting, and not by mass production of a series of artifacts. In our opinion, the differences noted above between the complexes of the upper and lower horizons can be explained by the longer settlement of the parking area during the periods corresponding to horizons 5-7. The nature of economic activity did not change during the entire period of operation of the parking lot.

Thus, a comprehensive analysis of archaeological materials from the lower horizons of the Tinit-1 site (taking into account the data from excavation 1 (Derevyanko et al., 2012)) suggests that these finds are more likely to correspond to the final period of the Middle Paleolithic in terms of their technical and typological characteristics. This is evidenced by the typological composition of the tool kit, which combines Levallois forms, products of the Upper Paleolithic group and specific "transitional" types of tools (tronkirovanno-faceted, high-shape scrapers, etc.), as well as the nature of primary splitting, reflecting the simultaneous use of several types of Levallois equipment and three-dimensional face splitting.

Discussion

A general analysis of the archaeological materials of the Tinit-1 site (excavations 1 and 2) shows that the site contains complexes of stone artifacts that culturally correspond to the industries of the Middle - Upper Paleolithic period and do not go beyond the interval of 50-35 thousand years AGO. The time frame of the industry is determined by a series of radiocarbon dates, which are not contradicted by data from other sources- scientific disciplines.

The Tinit-1 techno complex is characterized by a large number of the simplest forms of planar nuclei in general, as well as the presence in the lower horizons of expressive Levallois forms (for flakes and points) and end varieties of nuclei. At later stages, along with the Levallois technique, which underwent certain changes and focused on obtaining highly elongated pointed blanks, a parallel volumetric splitting technique was used to remove lamellar blanks with longitudinal and bipedal cutting of dorsal surfaces. In the tool kit of all archaeological horizons, products with cutting and scraping blades predominate, which is most likely due to the economic type of parking. It should be noted that there are no bifacial items among the tools, as well as objects with signs of double-sided processing, which is not typical for monuments in the Caucasus. In the lower horizons, the proportions of Levallois chips and products on them, as well as groups of gear-notched tools, are naturally significant. Tools of the Upper Paleolithic categories are featureless and are mainly represented by atypical forms of scrapers and incisors. The archaeological complexes of the lower horizons of the Tinit-1 site are most closely related to the inventory of the Levallois-Mousterian group of monuments of Eastern Europe, identified from the materials of sites in the Crimea and the Prut-Dniester region (Chabai, 2004). At the same time, high - shaped scrapers, tronkirovanno-faceted tools and a multi-faceted cross-cutter presented in archaeological horizons 4-6 allow us to distinguish a group of objects characteristic of many archaeological sites in the considered technocomplexes.-

plexes of the final Middle-early Upper Paleolithic in the industries of Western Asia (Zagros sites, Northwestern Tien Shan, etc.) (Krivoshapkin et al., 2012; Krivoshapkin and Kolobova, 2011; Dibble and Harold, 1984; SoleckiR.S., SoleckiR.L., 1970).

The comparative index of Middle and Upper Paleolithic industries calculated according to the method of V. P. Vishnyatsky [2002] for Tinita-1 technocomplexes is in the range from 0 to -1, which corresponds to the "Archaic Upper Paleolithic" and correlates with the indices of Bogunice, Early Emiran, and some other sites of Southern Siberia (Vishnyatsky, 2008). Probably, the value of the index could have been slightly higher, if not for such features of the parking lot as the poverty of the tool kit, the lack of osteological material. Thus, both technologically and chronologically, the Tinita-1 techno complexes correspond to the Middle - Upper Paleolithic boundary, and the materials of the lower archaeological horizons of the monument correspond to the final stage of the Middle Paleolithic in all their characteristics. This is generally consistent with data obtained for other Paleolithic sites in the Caucasus from the late Middle Paleolithic period. According to the latest estimates for the territory of Georgia (Sakadzhia, Ortvala, Bronzovaya Cave, Ortvale Klde, etc.) and the Krasnodar Territory (Mezmayskaya cave), the time of existence of such complexes immediately preceding the transition to the Upper Paleolithic is 44-37 thousand years. L. N. [Pinhasietal., 2012].

Materials from the upper horizons of the parking lot, especially horizon 2, which do not show even a single manifestation of the Levallois technique, can be attributed to transition industries. Among the reasons for this conclusion, we should first mention the signs of the use of primary splitting techniques and techniques close to the Upper Paleolithic, known from the transition from Middle to Upper Paleolithic industries of a number of sites in Europe and the Middle East (Stranska Skala, Boker Takhtit, etc.). Chronologically, the materials of the upper horizons of the Tinit-1 site also correspond to the time of the industry's existence They belong to the boundary between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic in the western and central parts of Eurasia (Derevyanko, 2011; Vishnyatsky, 2008).

Conclusion

Materials of the Tinit-1 parking lot allow us to trace the dynamics of the industry for more than 10 thousand years. They reflect gradual changes in the Levallois splitting technique, which has a long history of existence in this territory. The gradual transition to volumetric splitting based on changes in the late Levallois sharp-edge technique aimed at obtaining elongated convergent blanks was accompanied by an increasingly intensive use of specific methods of pre-preparation for the production of blanks, primarily techniques for adjusting the "cornice", including edge grinding. In addition, the industry gradually increased the number of nuclei for the production of plates of both planar and volumetric cleavage types, including their end varieties, the share of target plate blanks and Upper Paleolithic tool forms increased, while the specific weight of Middle Paleolithic types decreased slightly. At the same time, the general typological composition of the gun forms corresponded to only one function of parking (short-term hunting camp). Thus, we can assume that the process of transition to the Upper Paleolithic in Dagestan took quite a long time and smoothly with a developed local Levallois-mousterian industry, which could serve as a basis for it. Unfortunately, there are no stratified sites in the region today that can clearly trace the transition from the classical Middle Paleolithic sites of the region to their final manifestations, as well as monuments with clearly identifiable Early Upper Paleolithic assemblages. Therefore, it is impossible to completely exclude any external cultural influence that determined changes in the direction of the "Upper Paleolithic revolution" at the turn of 50 thousand years AGO or a sharp change in the cultural paradigm at a later time.

List of literature

Amirkhanov Kh. A. Chokhskoe poselenie: Chelovek i ego kul'tura v mesolite i neolite Gornogo Dagestan [Chokh settlement: A Man and his culture in the Mesolithic and Neolithic of Mountainous Dagestan].

Anoikin A. A. Drevneyshie chelovecheskie populyatsii na territorii Primorskogo Dagestana: razvitie material'noi kul'tury [Ancient human populations on the territory of Primorsky Dagestan: Development of Material Culture]. St. Petersburg: IIMK RAS Publishing House, 2009, pp. 50-58.

Anoikin A. A., Borisov M. A. Issledovaniya mnogolayonnoy paleoliticheskoy stoyki Tinit-1 (Yuzhny Dagestan) v 2010 godu [Studies of the multilayered Paleolithic site Tinit-1 (Southern Dagestan) in 2010]. Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredel'nykh territorii. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 2010, vol. XVI, pp. 4-8.

Anoikin, A. A., Borisov, M. A., Leshchinsky, S. V., and Zenin, I. V., Studies of the multilayer Paleolithic site Tinit-1 (Southern Dagestan) in 2009, Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredel'nykh territorii. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 2009, vol. XV, pp. 22-27.

Anoikin, A. A., Luneva, D. E., Akhteryakova, A.V., and Borisov, M. A., Studies of the multilayer Paleolithic site Tinit-1 (Southern Dagestan) in 2011, Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredel'nykh territorii. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 2011, vol. XVII, pp. 4-9.

Anoikin, A. A. and Slavyansky, V. S., Archaeological complexes of the multi-layer Tinit-1 site (Primorskiy Dagestan), Issledovaniya pervobytnoy arkheologii Evrazii. Makhachkala: Nauka DNTs Publ., 2010, pp. 125-138.

Vishnyatsky, L. B., Upper Paleolithic-Upper Pleistocene: Dynamics of Natural Events and Periodization of Archaeological Cultures, Proceedings of the International Conference, vol. To the 90th anniversary of A. N. Rogachev. St. Petersburg, 2002, pp. 42-45.

Vishnyatsky L. B. Cultural dynamics in the middle of the Late Pleistocene and causes of the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg State University, 2008. - 251 p.

Geological map of the USSR. 1: 200000. - Moscow: Gl. upr-nie geologii i kartografii, 1961. - 76 p., map.

Derevyanko A. N. The Upper Paleolithic in Africa and Eurasia and the formation of a modern anatomical type of man. Novosibirsk, IAET SB RAS Publ., 2011, 560 p. (in Russian)

Derevyanko A. N., Amirkhanov Kh.A., Zenin V. N., Anoikin A. A., Rybalko A. G. Problems of the paleolithic of Dagestan. Novosibirsk, IAET SB RAS Publ., 2012, 292 p. (in Russian)

Derevyanko, A. P., Anoikin, A. A., Borisov, M. A., Leshchinsky, S. V., and Zenin, I. V., Studies of the Tinit-1 paleolithic site (Southern Dagestan) in 2008, Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredel'nykh territorii. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 2008, vol. XIV, pp. 36-41.

Derevyanko A. N., Anoikin A. A., Slavinsky V. S., Borisov M. A., Kulik N. A. Tinit-1-a new multi-layered paleolithic site in the Rubas River valley / / Problems of Archeology, Ethnography, and Anthropology of Siberia and adjacent Territories. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 2007, vol. XIII, pp. 72-77.

Jafarov A. G. The Middle Paleolithic of Azerbaijan. -Baku:Elm, 1999. -228 p.

Krivoshapkin A. N., Kolobova K. A. Early manifestations of karenoid technology in the Obi-Rakhmat grotto industries / / Problems of Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Siberia and adjacent Territories. Novosibirsk, IAET SB RAS Publ., 2011, vol. XVII. - P. 58-61.

Krivoshapkin A. N., Kolobova K. A., Belousova N. E., Islamov U. I. Early technological innovations in the Paleolithic of Central Asia: karenoid technology in transition industries of Uzbekistan //Lead. Novosibirsk State University of Literature: History, Philology. -2012. - Vol. 11. - Issue 3: Archeology and Ethnography. - pp. 211-221.

Kotovich V. G. Kamenny vek Dagestana [The Stone Age of Dagestan]. - Makhachkala: Publishing House of Dat. fil. Academy OF Sciences OF THE USSR, 1964. - 226 p.

Kruglov A. P. Arkheologicheskie raboty na Severnom Kavkaze [Archaeological works in the North Caucasus].

Lyubin V. P. Paleolith of the Caucasus / / Paleolith of the Caucasus and Central Asia, Nauka Publ., 1989, pp. 9-142.

Pollen analysis, Moscow: Gos. izd-vo geol. lit., 1950, 571 p.

Tostevin G. This happened twice: interregional diffusion in Central Europe, Eastern Europe and the Levant in the period from 60 to 30 thousand years ago / / Stratum Plus. -2000. - N G-pp. 216-235.

Chabay V. N. The Middle Paleolithic of Crimea: stratigraphy, chronology, typological variability, East European context. Kiev: Shlyakh Publ., 2004, 324 p. (in Russian)

Yapaskurt O. V. Litologiya [Lithology], Moscow: Akademiya Publ., 2008, 336 p.

Dibble G., Harold L. The Mousterian Industry from Bisitun Cave (Iran) // Paleorient. - 1984. - N 10. - P. 23 - 34.

Pinhasi R., Nioradze M., Tushabramishvili N., Lordkipanidze D., Pleurdeau D., Moncel M. -H, Adler D.S., Stringer C, Higham T.F.G. New chronology for the Mddle Palaeolithic of the southern Caucasus suggests early demise of Neanderthals in this region // J. of Human Evolution. - 2012. -N63. -P. 770 - 780.

Solecki R.L. Solecki R.S., A new secondary flaking technique at the Nahrlbrahim Cave site, Eebanon // Bull, du Musee de Beyrouth. - 1970. - N 23. - P. 137 - 142.

Skrdla P. Comparison of Boker Tachtit and Stranska skala MP/UP Transitional Industries // J. of the Israel Prehistoric Society. -2003. -N33. -P. 37 - 73.

Volkman P. Boker Tachtit: core reconstructions // Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel. - 1983. -Vol. III. -P. 127 - 190.

Yanina T. Correlation of the Eate Pleistocene paleogeographical events of the Caspian Sea and Russian Plain // Quaternary International. - 2012. - N 271. - P. 120 - 129.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 18.01.13, in the final version-on 04.02.13.

Permanent link to this publication: