The article summarizes data on technical changes that occurred at the turn of the Middle and Upper Paleolithic periods in the Levant. As a kind of corridor between Africa and Eurasia, the Levant plays a key role in the discussion about the origin of modern physical man. To discuss the dynamics of technical changes at the initial stage of the Upper Paleolithic, we draw on the results of recent excavations and technological studies based on the concept of "operational chains", as well as new radiocarbon dates. The composition of the Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic flint industries in Lebanon, Turkey, and Israel is considered in detail. It is established that the essence of the transition to the Upper Paleolithic in this region was the synthesis of technological innovations that appeared in some local groups of the Middle and early Upper Paleolithic epoch. If, as many researchers believe, there was a diffusion, then it was just an incentive for further changes. The studied material allows us to reject simplified theories that assign migration and subsequent acculturation a crucial role in this process.

Key words: Levant, "transition", flint technology, late Middle Paleolithic, early Upper Paleolithic.

Under the influence of the results of paleogenetic studies, the model of settlement from Africa and the related theory of diffusionism concerning the spread of modern anthropological man are becoming increasingly important for studying the problem of the origin of Upper Paleolithic technocomplexes. However, in the light of the scientific knowledge accumulated over the past decades, the processes related to the late Middle Paleolithic - early Upper Paleolithic boundary appear much more complex than previously thought. During this period, the population migrated both within and between continents; these movements undoubtedly caused the observed diversity of cultural traditions, in particular the unexpected emergence of radically different technologies (for example, the abrupt replacement of Middle Paleolithic industries by Upper Paleolithic ones in the North and South Caucasus). Some archaeological materials indicate indisputable technological changes. Recently, more attention has been paid to the differences that emerged during the so-called transition period in different territories. The results of recent excavations, the development of technological research based on the methods of "operational chains", repair and radiometric dating, allowed us to get a more accurate idea of the scale of variability in different regions at the time described.

Taking into account the new data, we can assume that the Upper Paleolithic cultures were formed according to the same scenario. This is probably

page 12

1. Elongated convergent Levallois cleavages. Kebara, layer XI (Middle Paleolithic).

2. Levallois unidirectional nuclei with convex lateral edges. Kebara, layers XI-VII (Middle Paleolithic).

The assumption applies to events that occurred not only in all regions of Eurasia, but also within any major region. There is no doubt that we need to study changes in each individual region in order to better understand this phenomenon.

For many years, researchers have been actively discussing the problem of interpreting the processes characteristic of the Late Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic periods in the Levant (Azoury, 1986; Bar-Yosef, 1998, 2000, 2002; Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2009; Copeland, 1975; Garrod, 1951, 1955; Kuhn, 2003, 2004; Kuhn et al, 2009; Marks, 1983, 1988, 1990, 2003; Tostevin, 2000, 2003]. The phenomena observed in this region, which is located at the crossroads between Africa and Eurasia, have always been given great importance when discussing the problems of the emergence of Upper Paleolithic cultures in Eurasia and the relationship between Neanderthals and modern anthropological people. The presence in the Kebara Cave of only the Upper Paleolithic plate industry of the early Achmarian, dating from about 43-42 thousand years AGO [Bar-Yosef et al., 1996; Rebollo et al., 2011], suggests that Upper Paleolithic cultures appeared in this region earlier than anywhere else [Bar-Yosef, 2000]. Thus, the Levant materials offer an opportunity to determine the range of human technical skills at the dawn of the Upper Paleolithic and discuss the specifics of the processes that represent this period.

Late Middle Paleolithic

The results of our study of the sequence of development of the Kebara Cave industry and its comparison with other main complexes of the late Middle Paleolithic of the Levant (Amud, Tor-Faraj, Bezez, Keue, Tabun cave sites, and Umm el-Tlel open-type sites [Bar-Yosef and Meignen, 1992; Meignen and Bar-Yosef, 1991 1992, et al.] and Hummal, layer 5 (Hauck, 2011)) allow us to identify the following main features of this Paleolithic stage:

The production of convergent and pointed Levallois blanks of rather elongated proportions is very important (for example, the length/ width ratio of Levallois chips from the Kebara layer IX-X bundle is 1.7 - 1.8, from the XI bundle-2, from the Hummal layer 5 (horizons A1 and A2) - 1.8 - 2.3 (Fig. 1);

dominance of the Levallois recurrent unidirectional splitting method, often in its convergent version;

the presence of nuclei with a specific morphology (very convex laterals of Levallois nuclei [Meignen, 1996]) (Fig. 2), exploitation of the surface of these nuclei without intermediate stages of rearrangement;

cleavage of the nucleoli was performed on the widest plane (debitage facial), and the following methods were used:

page 13
the technique of a solid bump, the blow was applied to a place slightly removed from the edge of the impact pad;

the main categories of tool kit are non-retouched Levallois chips (often with convergent edges), retouched Mousterian-type items (scrapers, retouched pegs), and Upper Paleolithic types of tools are rare.

All the complexes were part of the large Levalloise technocomplex, whose traditions are characterized by an efficient system for the disposal of nuclei. This system assumed a simple preparation of nuclei, which included careful faceting of the impact pad; continuity of the process of disposal of nuclei, combining the removal of elongated, naturally crusted edge chips and sequential splitting (a recurrent method implemented as part of the splitting of several consecutive surfaces); production of relatively elongated convergent chips (or even plates) (see Figure 1). In the late Middle Paleolithic period of 70-45 KA BP, the Levallois complex was widespread; it is recorded in all ecological zones of the Levant - the Mediterranean coastal and arid continental. Probably, this stable technical system has found its manifestation in vast spaces (Hovers, 1998). There is no doubt that it was flexible, as evidenced by examples of variability in the tactics of nuclear splitting (in particular, in Umm al-Tlel, Kebar, and Amud).

Thus, a set of technical techniques determines the basis on which subsequent Upper Paleolithic industries were formed, regardless of whether the origin of Upper Paleolithic cultures was based on the evolution of local industries or the imposition of traditions of the alien population on the original technical basis.

In the late Upper Paleolithic, the Levant was dominated by the Levallois technology, in contrast to the territory of Western Europe (especially Southwestern France during marine isotope Stage 3 (MIS-3)), where several technical systems were represented (Delagnes and Meignen, 2006). The predominant use of the unidirectional Levallois method could have contributed to the emergence of mass production of plates in the Levant. The production of elongated convergent Levallois cleavages in the Levantine Middle Paleolithic was more important than in the Western European one. The production of sharp cleavages at the end of the Middle Paleolithic looks particularly important in the light of the prevalence of convergent points and plates (Fig. 3), which are most often associated with the Initial Upper Paleolithic as defined by S. Kuhn (Kuhn, 2004).

The initial stage of the Upper Paleolithic

Complexes representing this stage were previously called transition industries, but today this term is widely out of use. We also do not use the term "Emiran", because during the excavations of the Emireh cave, conducted in the middle of the XX century, stratigraphic observations and taphonomic information were not recorded with due care, and therefore assemblages of the monument cannot be considered as a reliable basis for determining a specific industry.

The identification of an "intermediate" phase in the Levant Paleolithic, which corresponds to both Middle and Upper Paleolithic features, has not been objected to by experts for a long time (Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2007), although its chronological boundaries are still being discussed. In Kebar, the so-called transition period is not represented, however, there is evidence of a small stratigraphic gap between the layers of layers XII-V, which corresponds to-

3. Elongated convergent chips. Ksar-Akil, layer XXIV (early Upper Paleolithic).

page 14

4. Prismatic unidirectional nucleus (1); subprismatic bipedal nucleus (2); relatively flat unidirectional convergent nucleus (3). Xar-Akil, layer XXIV (early Upper Paleolithic).

groups IV-III with fully formed Upper Paleolithic assemblages (early Achmarian settlement dating from about 43-42 Ka BP) [Bar-Yosef et al., 1996; Rebollo et al., 2011]. In order to test the two hypotheses of the emergence of a new technology - on a local basis or as a result of diffusion, through cultural contacts or even migrations - it is necessary to analyze assemblages of other sites. It is important to identify a continuous sequence of changes (it is not necessary that it will be demonstrated by a practically unbroken sequence of complexes from sediments of a single site [Marks, 2003, p. 260]). Currently, the best" candidate " for this role is the deposits in the Ksar-Akil rock shelter: during its excavations, a long archaeological sequence of changing complexes was traced, including assemblages of both the final Middle Paleolithic and very early stages of the Upper Paleolithic.

As we noted in previous articles, in the so-called transition complexes (they are also complexes of the initial stage of the Upper Paleolithic) Xar-Aquila (layers XXV-XXI) some sub-triangular plates and elongated cusps that are morphologically similar to the Levallois products were obtained using the Levallois convergent unidirectional scheme (Meignen and Bar-Yosef, 2002, 2004). However, most of these products are made using the method of bulk cleavage of nuclei, which is represented as prismatic or prismatic unidirectional convergent or, more rarely, bipedal nuclei (Fig. 4, 1, 2). This means that most of the chipping was carried out using a strategy for disposing of non-Levallois plate cores.

Relatively flat unidirectional convergent nuclei were found in the Xar-Aquila layer XXIV, which split not only on a wide plane, but also on a narrow lateral. For them, a change in the orientation of the impact site (this was not observed in Levallois unidirectional Kebara nuclei) (Figs. 4, 5), a change in the angle between the impact site and the cleavage front provided a more intensive reduction in the thickness of the nucleus. Such technical innovations determined the change of the Levallois scheme of core utilization to a volumetric one.

Many convergent chips that had a faceted impact pad were chipped using the hard bump technique by an impact applied in a zone far from the edge of the impact pad (Bergman and Ohnuma, 1987) (see Fig. 3). In materials from layers XXV-XXI of the initial stage of the Upper Paleolithic, the Upper Paleolithic layer was formed in the Upper Paleolithic zone. Ohnuma and S. A. Bergman noted signs of the use of the soft chipper technique (point and linear impact pads), as well as the method of removing the cornice of the impact pad using an abrasive (Ohnuma and Bergman, 1990). However, such features were not found in the Yuchagizli Cave complexes ,an early Upper Paleolithic site located in Turkey; here, the appearance of the soft bump technique was reflected in Layer E, which is already attributed to the Early Ahmarian (Kuhn, 2004). Retouched tools of mainly Upper Paleolithic types (including end scrapers and incisors), as well as specific tools of the Chanfresne type-"cultural markers" recorded only in the Northern Levant - were found in the layers of the initial stage of the Upper Paleolithic of Ksar-Akila (Azoury, 1986; Bergman and Ohnuma, 1987; Ohnuma and Bergman, 1990)..

Materials from the Levantine sites of Yuchagizli, Tor Sadaf, Umm al-Tlel, where layers are preserved

page 15
Early Upper Paleolithic studies were published (Kuhn, 2004; Kuhn et al., 2009; Fox, 2003; Boeda and Bonilauri, 2006; Bourguignon, 1998). A detailed study of the stages of production of elongated chips (plates and points), traced by these complexes, reveals a tendency to replace the Levallois technology with mass production of plates, mainly Upper Paleolithic types of tools (end scrapers and incisors). Scrapers and toothed tools in assemblages are quite numerous. The presence of Upper Paleolithic tool types on plates in the complex should be considered as a basis for its attribution to the initial stage of the Upper Paleolithic.

Two specific types of tools are associated with the initial stage of the Upper Paleolithic: Emyrean points, found in both the Mediterranean and Arid zones, and tools of the Chanfresne type, known mainly from materials from caves in the Northern Levant. The well-known Boker-Takhtit site complexes (Marks and Kaufman, 1983), which are always mentioned in the discussion of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic, should be considered as special. In contrast to E. Marx (materials from level 1 of the Boker-Takhtite belong to the end of the Middle Paleolithic, which is characterized by the Levallois splitting technology), in the course of technological studies in this layer, we have identified features of the Upper Paleolithic tradition of bulk splitting: utilization of nuclei from the narrow side, maintenance of the bulge of the working front by removing rib plates, systematic faceting of impact pads and the use of the hard bump technique; in some cases, the impact was applied along the edge of the pad (Meignen, 1996). The tool set includes numerous Upper Paleolithic types of tools, including Emyrean points. Thus, despite the early dates (47-46 thousand liters.[Marks, 1983]), level 1 of the Boker-Takhtite represents the industry of the initial stage of the Upper Paleolithic, which lacks the Levallois component sensu stricto and is dominated by products of the bipedal system of bulk cleavage. Taking into account the presence of Emirean cusps in the collections, it can be concluded that the Boker-Takhtite level 1 complexes belonging to the initial stage of the Upper Paleolithic of the Southern Levant differ from the Northern Levantine complexes of the same stage in Yuchagizli and Ksar-Akil (Sarel and Ronen, 2003). However, other industries of this period in the Southern Levant, such as Tor Sadafa (Jordan) [Fox, 2003], do not have the same features as the Boker-Takhtit level 1 assemblage. For example, the elongated subtriangular billets found in Sadaf Tor A and B were obtained in the framework of a unidirectional convergent splitting system. Such a system underlies the complexes of the initial stage of the Upper Paleolithic of the Northern Levant. Therefore, the observed technical differences are not exclusively regional, contrasting the complexes of the Northern and Southern Levant; probably, the assemblage of the Boker-Takhti level 1, despite its expressiveness, should be considered as a separate phenomenon that is not characteristic of the initial Upper Paleolithic of the entire Levant.

Thus, the definition of "the initial stage of the Upper Paleolithic" refers to complexes characterized by a truly Upper Paleolithic set of retouched tools (incisors, end scrapers and plates with traces of retouching), which can be combined with products of the Middle Paleolithic types (scrapers and wide peaked tools). These complexes reflect the predominance of lamellar cleavage at the nuclei, which was performed within the framework of the Levallois and / or lamellar (bulk) concepts. Most of them consist mainly of wide plates (with convergent longitudinal sides), not always with a stable morphology, with faceted impact pads; they most often demonstrate the use of the hard bump technique. Sometimes plates were obtained by plate splitting (Umm el-Tlel site, layers III2a', II base' (Boeda and Bonilauri, 2006)).

Early Upper Paleolithic industries were widespread throughout the Levant (e.g., Boker-Takhtit, levels 1-4; Ksar-Akil, layers XXIV-XXI; Tor Sadaf, layers A and B; Yuchagizli, layers I-F; "Transitional Paleolithic" layers in Umm al-Tlel). Moreover, the layers of some sites that are characterized by good preservation of organic materials contain bone tools and jewelry (Yuchagizli and Ksar-Akil [Kuhn et al., 2001, 2009]), which suggests the existence of a developed tradition of jewelry making, which was continued in the subsequent Akhmarian.

Inevitably, questions arise: what are the relationships between all the industries of the initial stage of the Upper Paleolithic, should they be considered as a single thing or separately? The unity of these complexes is manifested in the focus on the production of plates (regardless of the splitting strategy used) and in the increasing role in the tool kit of such types as end scrapers and cutters made on elongated blanks. This technocomplex also demonstrates internal variability, which is determined by the degree of application of the Levallois splitting method and the representation of the Middle Paleolithic types of tools; the frequency of using hard and soft chippers, as well as striking the edge of the impact platform; the presence or absence of a high-speed impact device.-

page 16
the use of retouched points, deliberate production of records.

Internal variations are traced at the level of sites, in particular in the El Koum basin (Boeda and Bonilauri, 2006), as well as stratigraphic divisions of the Umm el Tlel, Yuchagizli, Boker-Takhtit, and Ksar-Akil sites. Whether these variations reflect a diachronic trend is not easy to understand, given the unreliability of dates for these monuments. There are few dates available today: for the Boker-Takhti level 1, it is estimated at about 47-46 Ka BP ([Marks, 1983], it should be taken into account that they were published quite a long time ago and reflected the limit of the radiocarbon method); for the Yuchagizli layers I-F, it is estimated at between 41.4 and 35.0 Ka BP (some of them These dates are considered problematic and probably correspond to too young an age (Kuhn et al., 2009); for the "transitional Paleolithic", Umm al-Tlel is between 36.0 and 34.5 Ka BP (Boeda et al., 1996). Determining the age of the "transition layers" of the Ksar-Akil (Mellars and Tixier, 1989) should not be taken into account at present, since it was made on the basis of the reconstructed sedimentation rate. Considering all the data, we can assume that the initial stage of the Upper Paleolithic lasted in the Levant for about 10 thousand years. radiocarbon years, and consider this technological system as having existed for a long time, even if it did not manifest itself simultaneously in the entire region.

The emergence of some innovations (for example, the development of the soft bump technique and the impact on the edge of the impact platform), which is reflected in the industries associated with the section of a single multi-layer parking lot (Ksar-Akil [Bergman, Ohnuma 1987], Yuchagizli [Kuhn, 2004], Tor Sadaf [Fox, 2003]), probably demonstrates the evolution of technology, at least within a particular monument. However, if we take into account only well-documented and dated sites, then attempts to identify a general evolutionary sequence within the community of the initial stage of the Upper Paleolithic seem premature, and we disagree with M. Anikovich [Anikovich, Anisyutkin, Vishnyatsky, 2007]. Perhaps the situation described above is the result of the appearance of Upper Paleolithic features at different times and in different territories. Evidence shows that changes in the strategies of nuclear disposal or cleavage techniques in the region under consideration did not appear suddenly and not simultaneously everywhere. Moreover, it is very likely that a global linear chronological sequence cannot be justified. In the Early Upper Paleolithic industries, a long period of time was observed. various systems for producing elongated chips (Levallois and plate-based solid chipping techniques) were observed in different proportions, but there is no evidence of synchronous changes in the entire region. For example, the level 1 complex of the Boker-Takhtit site, if we accept its radiocarbon dates of 47-46 thousand years AGO, is the oldest industry of the initial stage of the Upper Paleolithic of the Levant. However, according to our research, it does not show signs of using the Levallois technology in its exact meaning. At the same time, layers III2a' and II base' ("transitional Paleolithic") of Umm al-Tlel, dated to 36,000 ± 2,500 BP and 34,530 ± 890 BP (Boeda et al., 1996), contain a Levallois component, which indicates the production of elongated triangular chips. When studying the stratigraphy of Umm el-Tlel, Boeda and Bonilauri (2006) identified a series of successively occurring assemblages between 42.5 and 35.0 Ka BP, which were regarded as different facies within the "transitional Paleolithic". These episodes are characterized by the dominance of plate splitting, which is aimed at the production of Upper Paleolithic tools -end scrapers, incisors, and retouched plates. However, these lamellar cleavage strategies have either pronounced Levallois features or a mixed character, in which the Levallois technology coexists with the non-Levallois one. A sign of changes in technology is the evidence recorded in some facies for the production of lamellae using various reduction methods that are part of lamellar cleavage. This indicates the complexity of changes that occurred over a relatively short period in a small region (the El Koum basin).

Thus, changes in technology did not occur simultaneously in different locations (Kozlowski, 1990). It is established that Upper Paleolithic types of tools, especially end scrapers and chisels made on elongated blanks, prevailed in almost all complexes of the initial stage of the Upper Paleolithic, even in the earliest ones, while in the final industries of the Middle Paleolithic there are very few of them. There is an obvious discrepancy between the specific features of cleavage strategies (obtaining elongated convergent blanks using various cleavage methods that were still in the state of development) and the nature of the tool kit, whose morphological and functional changes occurred sharply and rapidly in the initial period of the Upper Paleolithic.

The deliberate production of convergent plate chips seems to be a continuation of the trend that was already evident at the late stage of the Middle Paleolithic, and the Upper Paleolithic types of tools on elongated blanks in the previous period were

page 17
rare and scattered. At the same time, the presence of tools with converging edges in complexes of both the late Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic periods indicates the preservation of the general basis of the tool set.

Analysis of the methods of cleavage production and methods of nuclear cleavage makes it possible to establish links between the late Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic periods of the Levant.

Late Middle Paleolithic stage: exclusively Levalloisian scheme of core utilization, aimed at producing relatively elongated convergent cleavages, including cusps; continuous process of unidirectional cleavage of the core, not associated with specific adjustment of the nucleus at each stage of reduction. Splitting of the core was performed on a wide plane, the technique of a solid bump was used, the blow was applied to a point far from the edge of the impact pad.

Early Upper Paleolithic period: the Levallois method of core utilization for producing elongated products, usually with convergent edges, was combined with the method of bulk exploitation of nuclei, mainly unidirectional, which increased its role during the continuous splitting process. The complexes reflect cleavage on the widest face of the nucleus (debitagefacial) or on a narrow plane (debitage frontal). In all industries, for a long time, the technique of a solid bump was dominant, the blow was applied to a place that is far from the impact site. Methods of producing elongated chips and the predominance of Upper Paleolithic tool types on plate blanks distinguish complexes of the early Upper Paleolithic from collections of later periods.

The relative homogeneity of the Upper Paleolithic initial stage industries allows us to separate this technological community from the "early Upper Paleolithic" complexes , a term that we propose to retain for the earliest fully formed Upper Paleolithic complexes (Meignen, 2006).

Early Upper Paleolithic period

Industries of this period are characterized by a tool kit consisting mainly of Upper Paleolithic types (including pointed plates and plates), and the use of the plate method for obtaining thin plates and plates from prismatic nuclei, as well as the soft (organic or stone) bump technique, which was struck along the edge of the impact pad treated with an abrasive. Early Upper Paleolithic complexes indicate a gradual cessation of faceting of sites, which are mainly represented in dotted or linear variants. It is not known whether this transition from a hard to a soft chipping board and to the impact on the edge of the impact pad was sudden, or whether it was the result of evolutionary development (see discussion: [Ohnuma and Bergman, 1990; Marks, 2003, p. 260; Kuhn, 2004]). But in any case, these innovations, together with the careful design of the nuclei, became part of the process of standardizing the production of plates and plates during the development of the Upper Paleolithic (Meignen and Bar-Yosef, 2004). In the Levant, fully formed Upper Paleolithic industries belong to the Early Achmarian; they are found in Kebar, members of layers IV-III (43-42 Ka [Bar - Yosef et al., 1996]), Ksar-Akil, and layers XX-XIV [Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 1996]. 2003], Boker A [Monigal, 2003] (ca. 38 Ka BP [Marks, 1983]), Tor Sadafe [Fox, 2003], Yuchagizli, layers A-D [Kuhn, 2004] (34-29 Ka BP [Kuhn et al., 2009]). These collections are obviously the result of the direction of development of complexes of the initial stage of the Upper Paleolithic. Such a long-term sequence of development, accompanied by the appearance of a new cleavage technique and the disappearance of the Levallois technology, is demonstrated, for example, by the deposits of the Yuchagizli cave site in Turkey [Kuhn, 2004; Kuhn et al., 2009], the Ksar-Akil layered site in Lebanon [Ohnuma and Bergman, 1990], and the Tor-Sadaf site in Jordan [Fox, 2003].

The transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic in the Levant, according to some scientists, was relatively rapid (over several thousand years) due to the rapid acculturation of the previous population by newcomers [Bar-Yosef, 1998, 2000, 2002; Tostevin, 2000, 2003]. At the recent symposium "Dynamics of changes and the emergence of innovations in the culture of the Ancient Stone Age" (Nanterre, France, 2011), S. Kuhn demonstrated in his report that the sequence of cultural development traced in the deposits of the Yuchagizli Cave, which are characterized by good preservation of the remains, allows "documenting both continuity and change, stability, stability and stability of the Ancient Stone Age". so is instability, ranging from the initial Upper Paleolithic to the Achmarian, depending on which aspect of the available evidence is analyzed." For 12 thousand years, important changes have taken place, which were reflected in the redistribution of the role of representatives of large and small fauna in the human diet, in stone technology, and in the appearance of jewelry. Only a few of these phenomena appear to be related, and none of them directly correlates with the cultural shift that has taken place

page 18
(oral report by S. Kuhn, 2011, also see [Kuhn et al., 2004]). Materials from various clearly stratified sites indicate that technological changes did not occur synchronously in different parts of the Levant and were prolonged in the life of each site. A long-term existence of a technology with internal evolution is possible [Kuhn, 2003, p. 66]. In the same vein, Boeda and Bonilauri (2006) developed the idea of an "intermediate Paleolithic" (35.0 - 42.5 years old), during which four different industrial facies could have formed on the basis of several complexes that were in the process of transformation and co - existed in a limited space-the El Koum basin, which is located in the southern part of the country. Palmyra (Umm al-Tlel, layers III2b' and II base'), Kualta, Jerf Ayla, Awina (item 203).

In conclusion, it can be assumed that the technical knowledge acquired by people at the late Middle Paleolithic stage created the basis for the development of local Upper Paleolithic plate production (the initial period of the Upper Paleolithic and Achmarian), since the Middle Paleolithic technology was already close to later (Upper Paleolithic) variants. Small changes in the design of the impact pads on the nuclei may have given an impetus to the formation of a new geometry of the nuclei, which allowed for serial cleavage of plates. E. Marks attributed these plate complexes to the "leptolytic line of development" and left aside the "Levantine Aurignacian" (Marks, 2003), "which has nothing to do with the local transition from Middle to Upper Paleolithic" (Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris, 2009).

The processes underlying the development of an exclusively lamellar Upper Paleolithic tool kit in a given territory could have been due either to the spread of new technological features that may have appeared within a certain local group in the Levant, judging by the cultural sequence of the Ksar-Akil, or to the borrowing of cultural achievements in the form of such morphologically new tools as end scrapers and incisors on plates. These innovations have been embraced by local industries. Probably, the Upper Paleolithic features (in the field of stone production, they are represented by the dominant system for producing plates and plates, a clear trend towards standardization of chipped blanks, and numerous Upper Paleolithic types of tools on plates) appeared not only in all regions, but also in all parts of one region (meaning the Levant).

The few radiocarbon dates available to us indicate that the Upper Paleolithic traditions in Kebara were fully formed around 43-42 thousand years AGO in the course of internal evolution, while the Ahmarian traditions presented at the Umm al-Tlel site were most likely the result of the spread of the population to inland areas.

It is quite possible that, at least in some regions, an external influence (population migration or the spread of ideas)may occur it stimulated the appearance of Upper Paleolithic features. Meanwhile, the repertoire of technical knowledge in the Middle Paleolithic and the initial period of the Upper Paleolithic allows us to agree with the hypothesis of the development of the Upper Paleolithic of the Levant on a local basis. Moreover, there is still no convincing archaeological evidence of external influence.

According to many scientists, the possibility of cultural borrowing is not excluded, which should be considered more as an incentive to develop a synthesis of existing technologies with introduced ideas, and not as a catastrophe caused by the invasion of new populations and subsequent acculturation. This more balanced picture suggests some reassessment of the genetic evidence on which the simplified view of the catastrophic displacement of the former population was based (Kuhn, Brantingham, Kerry, 2004).

List of literature

Anikovich M. V., Anisyutkin N. K., Vishnyatsky L. B.

Key problems of transition to the Upper Paleolithic in Eurasia. Saint Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriya Publ., 2007, 335 p. (in Russian)

Azoury I. Ksar Akil, Lebanon: A technological and typological analysis of the Transitional and Early Upper Paleolithic levels of Ksar Akil and Abu Halka. - Oxford: BAR International Series, 1986. Vol. 1. - 244 p.; Vol. 2. - 469 p.

Bar-Yosef O. On the nature of transitions: The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution // Cambridge Archaeological Journal. - 1998. - Vol. 8, N 2. - P. 141 - 163.

Bar-Yosef O. The Middle and Upper Paleolithic in Southwest Asia and neighboring regions // The Geography of Neandertals and Modern Humans in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean / eds. About Bar-Yosef, D. Pilbeam. - Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 2000. -P. 107 - 156.

Bar-Yosef O. The Upper Paleolithic Revolution // Annual Review of Anthropology. - 2002. - Vol. 31. - P. 363 - 393.

Bar-Yosef O., Arnold M., Mercier N., Belfer-Cohen A., Goldberg P., Housley R., Laville H., Meignen L., Vogel J.C., Vandermeersch B. The dating of the Upper Palaeolithic layers in Kebara Cave, Mt Carmel // J. of Archaeological Science. -1996. - Vol. 23. - P. 297 - 306.

Bar-Yosef O., Meignen L. Insights into Levantine Middle Paleolithic Cultural Variability // The Middle Palaeolithic:

page 19
Adaptation, Behavior and Variability / eds. A. Dibble, P. Mellars. - Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1992. -P. 163 - 182.

Belfer-Cohen A., Go ring-Morris A.N. Current issues in Levantine Upper Palaeolithic research // More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East / eds. N. Goring-Morris, A. Belfer-Cohen. - Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2003. -P. 1 - 12.

Belfer-Cohen A., Goring-Morris A.N. From the Beginning: Levantine Upper Palaeolithic Cultural Continuity // Rethinking the human revolution / eds. P. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef, C. Stringer. - Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, 2007. -P. 199 - 206.

Belfer-Cohen A., Goring-Morris AN. The shift from the Middle Palaeolithic to the Upper Palaeolithic: Levantine perspectives // The Mediterranean from 50,000 to 25,000 BP: Turning Points and New Directions / eds. M. Camps, C. Szmidt. -Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2009. -P. 87 - 97.

Bergman C., Ohnuma K. The Upper Paleolithic sequence of Ksar Akil, Lebanon // Berytus. - 1987. - Vol. XXXV -P. 13 - 40.

Boeda E., Bonilauri S. The Intermediate Paleolithic. The first bladelet production 40 000 years ago // Anthropologic. -2006. - Vol. XLIV, N 1. - P. 75 - 92.

Boeda E., Connant J., Dessort D., Muhesen S., Mercier N., Valladas H., Tisnerat N. Bitumen as a hafting material on Middle Palaeolithic artifacts // Nature. - 1996. -Vol. 380. - P. 336 - 338.

Bourguignon L. Les industries du Paleolithique Intermediaire d'Umm el Tlel. Nouveaux elements pour le passage entre Paleolithique moyen et superieur dans le Bassin d'El Khowm // Prehistoire d'Anatolie. Genese de Deux Mondes / ed. M. Otte. -Liege: ERAUL, 1998. -P. 709 - 730.

Brantingham P.J., Krivoshapkin A., Jinzeng L., Tserendagva Y. The Initial Upper Paleolithic in Northeast Asia. Current Anthropology, 2001. - Vol. 42, N 5. - P. 735 - 747.

Copeland L. The Mddle and Upper Paleolithic of Lebanon and Syria, in the light of recent research // Problems in Prehistory of North-Africa and Levant / eds. F. Wendorf, A. Marks. -Dallas: SMUPress, 1975. - P. 317 - 350.

Delagnes A., Meignen L. Diversity of lithic production systems during the Middle Paleolithic in France: are there any chronological trends? // Transitions before the Transition: Evolution and stability in the Middle Paleolithic and Mddle Stone Age / eds. E. Hovers, S. Kuhn. - N. Y.; Boston; Dordrecht; L.; M.: Springer, 2006. - P. 85 - 108.

Fox J. The Tor Sadaf lithic assemblages: A technological study of the Early Upper Palaeolithic in the Wadi al-Hasa // More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East / eds. N. Goring-Morris, A. Belfer-Cohen. - Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2003. -P. 81 - 94.

Garrod D. A transitional industry from the base of the Upper Paleolithic in Palestine and Syria // J. of Royal Anthropological Institute. - 1951. -Vol. 81. -P. 121 - 129.

Garrod D. The Mugharet el-Emireh in Lower Galilee: Type-station of the Emiran industry // J. of Royal Anthropological Institute. - 1955. - Vol. 85. - P. 144 - 162.

Hauck T. The Mousterian sequence of Hummal and its tentative placement in the Levantine Middle Paleolithic. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic in the Middle East and Neighbouring Regions / eds. J. -M. Le Tensorer, R. Jagher, M. Otte. - Liege: ERAUL, 2011. -P. 309 - 323.

Hovers E. The lithic assemblages of Amud Cave: Implications for understanding the end of the Mousterian in the Levant // Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia / eds. T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, О Bar-Yosef. - N. Y.: Plenum Press, 1998. -P. 143 - 163.

Kozlowski J. A multiaspectual approach to the origin of the Upper Paleolithic in Europe // The Emergence of Modern Humans: An Archaeological Perspective / ed. P. Mellars. - Ithaca; N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1990. - P. 419 - 437.

Kuhn S. In what sense is the Levantine Initial Upper Paleolithic a "transitional" industry // The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Techno-complexes Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural implications / eds. F. d'Errico, J. Zilhao. - Lisbon: Institute Portugues deArqueologia, 2003. -P. 61 - 70.

Kuhn S. From Initial Upper Paleolithic to Ahmarian at Ucagizli Cave, Turkey // Anthropologie. - 2004. - Vol. XLII, N 3. -P. 275 - 288.

Kuhn S., Brantingham P. J., Kerry K. The Early Upper Paleolithic and the origins of modern human behavior // The Early Upper Paleolithic beyond Western Europe / eds. P.J. Brantingham, S. Kuhn, K. Kerry. - L.: University of California Press, 2004. - P. 242 - 248.

Kuhn S., Stiner M., Reese D., Gulec E. Ornaments of the earliest Upper Paleolithic: New insights from the Levant // Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. - 2001. - Vol. 98, N13. - P. 7641 - 7646.

Kuhn S.L., Stiner M.C., Gulec E., Ozer I., Yilmaz H., Baykara I., Acikkol A., Goldberg P., Martinez Molina K., Unay E. The early Upper Paleolithic occupations at Ucagizli Cave (Hatay, Turkey) // J. of Human Evolution. - 2009. -Vol. 56. - P. 87 - 113.

Marks A. The sites of Boker and Boker Tachtit: A brief introduction // Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the central Negev, Israel / ed. A.E. Marks. - Dallas: Southern Methodist University-Press, 1983. - P. 15 - 36.

Marks A. The Mddle to Upper Paleolithic transition in the Southern Levant: technological change as an adaptation to increasing mobility. L'Homme de Neandertal: la Mutation / ed. M. Otte. - Liege: ERAUL, 1988. -P. 109 - 124.

Marks A. The Mddle and Upper Palaeolithic of the Near East and the Nile Valley: The problem of cultural transformations // The Emergence of Modern Humans An Archaeological Perspective / ed. P. Mellars. - Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990. - P. 56 - 90.

Marks A. Reflections on Levantine Upper Palaeolithic studies: Past and present // More than Meets the Eye. Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East / eds. N. Goring-Morris, A. Belfer-Cohen. - Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2003. - P. 249 - 264.

Marks A., Kaufman D. Boker Tachtit: The artifacts // Prehistory and Palaeoenvironment in the Central Negev, Israel / ed. A. Marks. - Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1983. - P. 69 - 126.

Meignen L. Les premices du Paleolithique superieur au Proche Orient // The Last Neandertals. The First Anatomically Modern Humans Cultural Change and Human Evolution. The Crisis at 40 000 BP / eds. E. Carbonell, M. Vaquero. - Barcelone: Universitat Rovira i Virgili, 1996. - P. 107 - 128.

Meignen L. From the Late Mddle Paleolithic to the Early Upper Paleolithic, between the Adriatic and the Caspian Sea:

page 20
Continuity or discontinuity? An introduction // Anthropologic -2006. - Vol. XLIV, N 1. - P. 1 - 7.

Meignen L., Bar-Yosef O. Les outillages lithiques mousteriens de Kebara (fouilles 1982 - 1985): premiers resultats // Le squelette mousterien de Kebara 2 / eds. O. Bar-Yosef, B.Vandermeersch. - P.: Editions du CNRS, 1991. - P. 49 - 75.

Meignen L., Bar-Yosef O. Middle Palaeolithic variability in Kebara Cave (Mount Carmel, Israel) // The Evolution and Dispersal of Modern Humans in Asia / eds. T. Akazawa, K. Aoki, T. Kimura. - Tokyo: Hokusen-Sha, 1992. -P. 129 - 148.

Meignen L., Bar-Yosef O. The lithic industries of the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic of the Levant: Continuity or break? // Archeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia. -2002. - Vol. 3. - P. 12 - 21.

Meignen L., Bar-Yosef O. Reflexions sur la fin du Paleolithique moyen et les debuts du Paleolithique superieur au Proche-Orient // Actes du XIV Congres UISPP, section 5, Le Paleolithique moyen. - Liege: Archaeopress, 2004. -P. 235 - 246.

Mellars P., Tixier J. Radiocarbon-accelerator dating of Ksar'Aqil (Lebanon) and the chronology of the Upper Palaeolithic sequence in the Mddle East // Antiquity. - 1989. -Vol. 63, N241. - P. 761 - 768.

Monigal K. Technology, economy and mobility at the beginning of the Levantine Upper Palaeolithic // More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East / eds. N. Goring-Morris, A. Belfer-Cohen. - Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2003. -P. 118 - 133.

Ohnuma K., Bergman C.A. A technological analysis of the Upper Paleolithic levels (XXV-VI) of Ksar-Akil, Lebanon // The Emergence of Modern Humans -An Archaeological Perspective / ed. P. Mellars. - Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990. -P. 91 - 138.

Rebollo N.R., Weiner S., Brock F., Meignen L., Goldberg P., Belfer-Cohen A., Bar-Yosef O., Boaretto E. New radiocarbon dating of the transition from the Mddle to the Upper Paleolithic in Kebara Cave, Israel // J. of Archaeological Science. -2011. -Vol. 38. -P. 2424 - 2433.

Sarel J., Ronen A. The Mddle/Upper Palaeolithic transition in Northern and Southern Israel: A technological comparison // More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East / eds. N. Goring-Morris, A. Belfer-Cohen. -Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2003. -P. 68 - 79.

Tostevin G.B. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition from the Levant to Central Europe: In situ development or diffusion? Neanderthals and modern humans: Discussing the transition Central and Eastern Europe from 50,000 - 30,000 BP / eds. G.C. Weniger, J. Orschiedt. - Dusseldorf: Neanderthal Museum, 2000. - P. 90 - 109.

Tostevin G.B. A quest for antecedents: A comparaison of the terminal Middle Palaeolithic and Early Upper Palaeolithic of the Levant // More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East / eds. N. Goring-Morris, A. Belfer-Cohen. - Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2003. - P. 54 - 67.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 10.02.12. The final version was published on 10.05.12.

page 21

Permanent link to this publication: