Transcaucasia and Neolithic of South of Eastern Europe
The authors examine the development of Transcaucasian archaeological cultures during the Early Holocene and their relationship to the beginning of the Neolithic in the south of Eastern Europe. The authors describe the migration activity of carriers of the Kobuletian, Darkvetian, Edzanian and Tr...
Збережено в:
| Дата: | 2022 |
|---|---|
| Автори: | , |
| Формат: | Стаття |
| Мова: | English |
| Опубліковано: |
Інститут археології НАН України
2022
|
| Назва видання: | Археологія |
| Теми: | |
| Онлайн доступ: | http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/199491 |
| Теги: |
Додати тег
Немає тегів, Будьте першим, хто поставить тег для цього запису!
|
| Назва журналу: | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| Цитувати: | Transcaucasia and Neolithic of South of Eastern Europe / V.O. Manko, G.L. Chkhatarashvili // Археологія. — 2022. — № 2. — С. 19-52. — англ. |
Репозитарії
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine| id |
irk-123456789-199491 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
irk-123456789-1994912024-10-14T14:42:15Z Transcaucasia and Neolithic of South of Eastern Europe Manko, V.O. Chkhatarashvili, G.L. Статтi The authors examine the development of Transcaucasian archaeological cultures during the Early Holocene and their relationship to the beginning of the Neolithic in the south of Eastern Europe. The authors describe the migration activity of carriers of the Kobuletian, Darkvetian, Edzanian and Trialetian cultures. The role of migrants in the process of Neolithization of Eastern Europe is considered. The authors aim to show the relationship of the Kukrek, Hrebenyky, Matveev Kurgan, Shpan-Koba, Murzak-Koba cultures with the migratory activity of the Transcaucasian population. Початок голоцену був пов'язаний із серією міграцій населення Закавказзя на територію Східної Європи. Ми відзначаємо чотири масштабних міграції: носіїв кобулетської, триалетської, даркветської та едзанської культур. Походження кобулетської культури пов'язане із Середнім Сходом. Кам'яна індустрія характеризується наявністю техніки ручного відтиску, заснованої на використанні конічних та олівцеподібних нуклеусів, а також застосуванням пластинок із притупленими краями. Культура сформувалася на початку пребореалу. Розселення носіїв кобулетської культури призвело до появи кукрецької й донецької культур на території Гірського Криму та степової зони Північно-Західного Причорномор'я. Триалетська культура походить зі Східної Анатолії та Південного Прикаспію. Культура характеризується використанням технології ударного розщеплення й розщеплення за допомогою посередника. Мікролітичні комплекси характеризуються наявністю асиметричних трикутників і сегментів. Міграція на територію Гірського Криму та порогів Дніпра почалася на межі плейстоцену-голоцену й призвела до появи шпан-кобинської культури, що існувала до кінця бореалу. Не виключено, що мурзак-кобинська культура Криму з'явилася внаслідок розвитку триалетських традицій шпан-кобинської культури. Даркветська культура є автохтонною культурою Закавказзя. Кам'яна індустрія характеризується використанням ручного відтиску й наявністю сплощених нуклеусів. Мікролітичні комплекси представлені в основному трапеціями, які виготовлялися з відтискних пластин. Переселення носіїв даркветської культури в середині бореалу призвело до появи матвієвокурганської, гребениківської та буго-дністерської культур Північно-Західного Причорномор'я і Приазов'я. Поява едзанської культури пов'язана з фінальним плейстоценом, а її формування — з епіпалеолітичними культурами Близького Сходу. Розщеплення нуклеусів здійснювалося ударним методом. Мікролітичні комплекси характеризує наявність сегментів із гелуанською ретушшю, низьких трапецій, асиметричних трикутників. Міграція носіїв культури почалася на межі бореалу-атлантикуму та призвела до появи платовоставської та сіроглазівської культур на Нижньому Дону та в Північному Прикаспії. Міграції закавказького населення в ранньому голоцені стали передумовою подальшої неолітизації Східної Європи. 2022 Article Transcaucasia and Neolithic of South of Eastern Europe / V.O. Manko, G.L. Chkhatarashvili // Археологія. — 2022. — № 2. — С. 19-52. — англ. 0235-3490 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/arheologia2022.02.019 http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/199491 903’1(479.2+ 4-11)”634” en Археологія Інститут археології НАН України |
| institution |
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| collection |
DSpace DC |
| language |
English |
| topic |
Статтi Статтi |
| spellingShingle |
Статтi Статтi Manko, V.O. Chkhatarashvili, G.L. Transcaucasia and Neolithic of South of Eastern Europe Археологія |
| description |
The authors examine the development of Transcaucasian
archaeological cultures during the Early Holocene
and their relationship to the beginning of the Neolithic
in the south of Eastern Europe. The authors describe
the migration activity of carriers of the Kobuletian,
Darkvetian, Edzanian and Trialetian cultures. The role
of migrants in the process of Neolithization of Eastern
Europe is considered. The authors aim to show the relationship
of the Kukrek, Hrebenyky, Matveev Kurgan,
Shpan-Koba, Murzak-Koba cultures with the migratory
activity of the Transcaucasian population. |
| format |
Article |
| author |
Manko, V.O. Chkhatarashvili, G.L. |
| author_facet |
Manko, V.O. Chkhatarashvili, G.L. |
| author_sort |
Manko, V.O. |
| title |
Transcaucasia and Neolithic of South of Eastern Europe |
| title_short |
Transcaucasia and Neolithic of South of Eastern Europe |
| title_full |
Transcaucasia and Neolithic of South of Eastern Europe |
| title_fullStr |
Transcaucasia and Neolithic of South of Eastern Europe |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Transcaucasia and Neolithic of South of Eastern Europe |
| title_sort |
transcaucasia and neolithic of south of eastern europe |
| publisher |
Інститут археології НАН України |
| publishDate |
2022 |
| topic_facet |
Статтi |
| url |
http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/199491 |
| citation_txt |
Transcaucasia and Neolithic of South of Eastern Europe / V.O. Manko, G.L. Chkhatarashvili // Археологія. — 2022. — № 2. — С. 19-52. — англ. |
| series |
Археологія |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT mankovo transcaucasiaandneolithicofsouthofeasterneurope AT chkhatarashviligl transcaucasiaandneolithicofsouthofeasterneurope |
| first_indexed |
2024-10-10T04:01:47Z |
| last_indexed |
2024-10-15T04:01:56Z |
| _version_ |
1812951116543950848 |
| fulltext |
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 2 19
© V. O. MANKO, G. L. CHKHATARASHVILI* 2022
TRANSCAUCASIA AND NEOLITHIC OF SOUTH
OF EASTERN EUROPE
https://doi.org/10.15407/arheologia2022.02.019УДК 903’1(479.2+ 4-11)”634”
The authors examine the development of Transcauca-
sian archaeological cultures during the Early Holocene
and their relationship to the beginning of the Neolithic
in the south of Eastern Europe. The authors describe
the migration activity of carriers of the Kobuletian,
Darkvetian, Edzanian and Trialetian cultures. The role
of migrants in the process of Neolithization of Eastern
Europe is considered. The authors aim to show the re-
lationship of the Kukrek, Hrebenyky, Matveev Kurgan,
Shpan-Koba, Murzak-Koba cultures with the migratory
activity of the Transcaucasian population.
Key words: Transcaucasia, Early Holocene, migra-
tions, Neolithization, criteria of migration, pressure
flaking, backed bladelets, trapezes, lunates, triangles.
Introduction
The current state of the study of the Neolithic of
Eastern Europe is far from ideal. At present, the
theory of the Balkan-Danube origin (Залізняк
1998; Котова 2002) of the Eastern European Ne-
olithic dominates. This situation has become pos-
sible as a result of the improper research method-
ology. Specialists, as a rule, discuss the Neolithic,
which has been already formed. However, the Ne-
olithization process is not rapid, the transition to
the Neolithic takes a long time. If we ignore this
fact, we will simply leave outside the research all
the events that had led to the transition of the Ne-
olithic way of life. Taking into account only the
migration activity of the carriers of the already
formed Neolithic traditions, we will never under-
stand what was going on at the beginning of the
Holocene. Separately should be noted the migra-
tion of the carriers of the Criș culture, who moved
into the basins of the Dnister and the Southern Buh
at the beginning of the 6th millennium BC. Howev-
er, the Neolithic had been already developing by
that time for at least half a millennium. The migra-
tion of the Criș culture population could not have
led to the Neolithic in the south of Eastern Europe.
The development of the Matveev Kurgan and Ra-
kushechnyi Yar cultures begins at the Boreal-At-
lantic boundary, the Buh-Dnister culture begins its
development in the second quarter of the 7th mil-
lennium BC, the Donetsk culture — in the third
quarter of the 7th millennium BC, the Sursk сulture
— in the late 7th millennium BC. The Neolithic in
the north of the Caspian Sea is also very old, its
development began according to the different data
at the beginning or in the middle of the 7th millen-
nium BC. Stone industries, which characterize the
above cultural phenomena are very specific, their
origin cannot be associated with the Balkan-Dnis-
ter region. The only exception is the stone indus-
try of the Buh-Dnister culture, materials of which
contain imports of the Criș culture. Nevertheless,
even these materials, as has been already men-
tioned, are very late.
The Neolithic of the south of Eastern Europe
demonstrates a rather stable development, when
population movements were slow, related to ad-
jacent territories. It was a diffusion of the popu-
lation connected with the movement in the north-
ern direction. The carriers of the Neolithic tradi-
tions thus pulled the autochthonous population of
the forest-steppe and forest zones into the new in-
formation system within which the Neolithic in-
novations were spread. Although the first impulse
of the Neolithization could not have been associ-
ated with such movements. The Neolithic emerges
at the beginning of the Holocene in the Near and
Middle East. The spread of the Neolithic traditions
had to be associated with the movement of popu-
lations from regions that were as close as possible
to the centers of the Neolithization. Transcaucasia
was just one of such regions. The purpose of the
article is to show how the carriers of the Transcau-
casian archaeological cultures were related to the
* MANKO Valerii Oleksandrovych — PhD in History, Senior
Research Fellow, Department of Archaeology of the Crimea
and North-Western Black Sea, Institute of Archaeology of
the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, ORСID:
0000-0002-2990-7234, valery_manko@yahoo.com
CHKHATARASHVILI Guram Leonidovych — PhD in
History, Research Fellow, Department of Stone Age Fund, the
Archaeological Museum of Adjara (Batumi, Georgia). ORСID:
0000-0002-0568-9797, gurami.chxa87@yahoo.com
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 220
centers of the Neolithization and how their migra-
tion to the south of Eastern Europe had led to the
beginning of the Neolithic.
Theoretical foundations and methods
The theoretical basis of our study is the idea of
understanding the Neolithic as an epoch of forma-
tion of global information networks, within which
innovations created in the Near and Middle East
were disseminated. Neolithic researchers list such
innovations and interpret the Neolithic as a sum of
such innovations. There is no need to list mentioned
definitions of the Neolithic, as they are well known.
We will mention only one of the modern definitions
of this period, authored by L. L. Zalizniak: “The Ne-
olithic is the epoch of the birth and spread of a pro-
ductive economy (farming, cattle-breeding), the ar-
chaeological criterion of which is clay pottery. The
transition to a productive economy led to a radical
change in human history, for which it was called
the Neolithic Revolution. This important event di-
vides history into two great epochs — of the appro-
priating and producing economy” (translation —
V. O. Manko) (Залізняк та ін. 2005).
This definition repeats the tradition of describ-
ing the Neolithic as a sum of attributes. What is the
disadvantage of such a definition of the Neolithic?
The Neolithic is not defined as an epoch; research-
ers only list the regional features of this chronolog-
ical period. L. L. Zalizniak’s definition describes
the peculiarities of the Neolithic of the Mountain
Crimea, the steppe, and the forest-steppe zones
of Ukraine. Even the North of Ukraine cannot be
squeezed into this definition. Farming of the Ne-
olithic in the forest zone has never been studied.
Many signs of the mentioned epoch may be enu-
merated, but such an enumeration will always re-
flect regional peculiarities and nothing more. Pot-
tery cannot be a sign of the Neolithic, as the Neo-
lithic had existed for two and a half thousand years
without pottery. We cannot list among the signs of
this period different techniques of knapping, be-
cause this account would also reflect regional pecu-
liarities. Even G. Childe did not avoid this mistake
when he listed the signs of the Neolithic Revolution
(Манько 2013a). The signs such as the formation of
trading networks and weaving were on the same list.
Naturally, such features cannot be grouped together,
because they reflect completely different hierarchi-
cal structures. G. Childe mentions both pottery and
farming, as well as the development of religious and
magical ideas. However, the researcher understood
perfectly that the characteristics he listed hadn’t
arisen simultaneously and were not common to all
groups of the Neolithic population. Even farming
and cattle-breeding, which researchers perceive as
an indisputable feature of the Neolithic, were not a
necessary element. The development of the Pre-Pot-
tery Neolithic A (PPNA) perfectly demonstrates the
absence of this “obligatory”. If in the Sultanian, As-
wadian, Mureybetian cultures we see elements of
farming, the Nemrikian culture demonstrates the
presence of a developed hunting economy without
any elements of farming and cattle-breeding. Sure,
these branches of farming did appear in Nemriki-
an culture, although it happened already outside
the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A. The thing that united
different cultures of the first Neolithic phenome-
non into one area was the presence of common ele-
ments of material culture. The El-Khiam were com-
mon cultural elements of the material culture of the
PPNA. It can also be noted the presence of common
burial rites, common traditions of house-building,
and common magical-religious beliefs. The latter is
perfectly illustrated by the Göbekli Tepe temple, ac-
tively visited by the population of both the Near and
the Middle East.
As we can see, the PPNA is a global information-
al unity that has been steadily developing for more
than a thousand years. The presence of stable cultural
ties, the exchange of innovative technologies of stone
knapping and farming led to the emergence of the
first in the history of mankind Cultural-Historical Re-
gion (CHR). Such areas created all prerequisites for
the unification of material and spiritual culture over
vast areas. Does it mean that such unification had tak-
en place in reality? No, it doesn’t. Complete unifica-
tion had never come. The population of the separate
regions, carriers of different archaeological cultures
chose different innovative packages.
We should keep in mind that the tradition of pot-
tery manufacturing didn't arise in the Neolithic. The
population of the Far East invented ceramics in the
Late Palaeolithic. What happened to this cultural tra-
dition? This tradition disappears along with the pop-
ulation that created it. The CHR of the Neolithic
had provided continuity. The disappearance of one
or even several cultures that make up the CHR does
not lead to the disappearance of the cultural traditions
created within that or another archaeological culture.
The information network is never destroyed. Howev-
er, even if its destruction occurs, a new global infor-
mation network emerges on its place.
The mechanism of the CHR creation is insep-
arably connected with migrations of big or small
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 2 21
M’lefaatian sites
Kobuletian sites
Kukrekian sites
M’lefaatian migration
Kobuletian migration
Kukrekian migration
Fig. 1. Early Holocene sites with backed bladelets.
M’lefaatian (Kozłowski, Aurenche 2005): 1 — Ali Kosh; 2 — Chagha Sefid; 3 — Sabz; 4 — Tepe Guran; 5 — Sarab; 6 — Ganj
Dareh; 7 — Asiab; 8 — Karim Shahir; 9 — Jarmo; 10 — M’lefaat; 11 — Hajji Firuz. Kobuletian (Gabunia 1976; Nebieridze
1978): 12 — Bavra, Bavra 1, Bavra 2, Bavra-Ablari; 13 — Kobuleti, Khutsubani, Kvirike; 14 — Anaseuli 1; 15 — Darkvety
(layer V); 16 — Sosruko (layer M2, M1). Kukrek: 17 — Triitsia Cape; 18 — Shan-Koba (layer IV); 19 — Kukrek; 20 —
Vyshenne 1; 21 — Ivanivka; 22 — Frontove I-IV; 23 — Myrne; 24 — Trapivka; 25 — Kamiana Mohyla 1; 26 — Abuzova Balka;
27 — Konetspol; 28 — Varvarivka; 29 — Frumushykha; 30 — Kizlevyi; 31 — Ihren 8; 32 — Dobrianka 1, 2, 3.
people groups, which bring innovation technolo-
gies to new territories. There are other ways of the
CHR creation, but we have discussed only migra-
tions yet, because only migrations led to appear-
ance of the Neolithic in south of East Europe.
The criteria of migration in archaeology were
indicated by L. S. Klein (Клейн 1999, c. 52-71)
that are the following: the complex similarity (co-
incidence in the main typological characteristics);
the spontaneity, abrupt change of cultures at the
final point of migration; the possibility of joining
migration activity in time and space.
Based on the theoretical constructions of
L. S. Klein, we have been able to study the patterns
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 222
of industries distribution with various microlithic
complexes; evaluate the migration activity of their
carriers; find out the possibility of the participation
of migrants in the Neolithization of Transcaucasia
and Eastern Europe.
We observed four migrations, which connect-
ed Transcaucasia and Eastern Europe. These are:
1. The migration of carriers of the M’lefaat
culture of the Middle East (Hole, Flannary, Neely
1969; Hole 1977, 1983; Dittermore 1983; Howe
1983). Trascaucasia was a transitional region,
where Kobuletian culture (Манько, Чхатарашвили
2020a; Chkhatarashvili, Manko 2020; Chkhata-
rashvili et al. 2020) appeared at the beginning of
the Holocene. The result of migration was the ap-
pearance of the Kukrek culture (Векилова 1951;
Яневич 1984, 1987; Манько 2013b) of the Ukrain-
ian steppe zone and the Mountainous Crimea.
2. The migration of carriers of Trialetian
culture of Western Turkey (Rosenberg 1994) and
Transcaucasia (Meshveliani et al. 2007), which
led to appearance of the Shpan-Koba culture
(Яневич 1993) of the Mountainous Crimea and
rapids of the Dnipro River.
3. The migration of carriers of the Darkve-
ty culture of Transcaucasia (Nebieridze 1978;
Манько, Чхатарашвили 2020b), which led to ap-
pearance of the Matveev Kurgan (Крижевская
1992) and Hrebenyky cultures (Залізняк 1998) of
the Lower Don and south of Ukraine.
4. The migration of carriers of the Edzani
culture (Gabunia 1976, 2001; Manko, Chkhata-
rashvili 2020) of Transcaucasia, which led to ap-
pearance of the Platovskii Stav (Казакова 1973)
and Seroglazovka cultures (Мелентьев 1975) of
the Lower Don and Lower Volga basins.
All these migrations had begun in Pre-Neolith-
ic times and led to the appearance of the Neolithic
in three of four occasions.
Waves of migrations from Transcaucasia
to the south of Eastern Europe
M’lefaatian migration.
M’lefaatian migration in Transcaucasia
(fig. 1). The M’lefaatian appears in Iran and Iraq
at the end of the Pleistocene (Table 1). If we dis-
regard the anomalous dates, the appearance of this
culture is associated with the Allerød-Dryas III
boundary. The main sites of this culture are: M’le-
faat (Dittermore 1983), Karim Shakhir (Howe
1983), Jarmo (Hole 1983), Ganj Dareh, Asiab
(Kozłowski 1999), Sefid (Hole 1977), Ali Kosh
(Hole, Flannary, Neely 1969), Chagha Sefid (Hole
1977), Hajji Firuz (Kozłowski 1999), etc.
The main features of this culture are the following:
1. The use of hand pressure technique for ob-
taining blades, bladelets, and microblades.
2. The use of conic and bullet-like cores
(fig. 2: 1—7).
3. The main type of microliths are backed
bladelets and microblades (fig. 2: 8—21).
4. The use of burins of various types: angle
burins, angle bilateral burins, burins on truncated
faceted blades, bilateral burins on truncated facet-
ed blades, dihedral burins (fig. 2: 22—34).
5. The use of round and oval scrapers. The pres-
ence of end-scrapers in complexes (fig. 2: 35—42).
6. The presence of notched and denticulated
blades (fig. 2: 1—9), blades with fine retouch, per-
forators, chisels.
7. The presence of woodworking tools with
invasive flake retouching of ventral surfaces of
blades (fig. 3: 10—16).
8. Sporadic use of microburin technique
(fig. 3: 17—22).
9. The presence of asymmetric triangles in
early complexes (fig. 3: 23—33).
10. The presence of Kashkashok side-blow
blade-flakes (fig. 3: 34—36).
11. The presence of grooved tools.
The origin of the M’lefaatian is attributed to
the Zarzian culture, but this conclusion should
be treated with great caution. We attribute the
origin of the M’lefaatian to the Epipalaeolithic
of Afghanistan (Meadow 1989), where the tra-
dition of using of pressure technique emerged
as early as the Late Pleistocene. The earliest
M’lefaatian sites are dated in frames of Younger
Dryas (Table 1: 1—3).
The first migration was fixated at the very be-
ginning of Holocene, when there was observed
the appearance of the so-called Kobuleti culture
in Western Transcaucasia and Central Cauca-
sus. The main sites of this culture are Kobuleti
(Gogitidze 1977; 2008; Chkhatarashvili, Manko
2020a; Chkhatarashvili et al. 2020), Anaseuli 1
and II (Nebieridze 1972), Darkvety (layer 5) (Ne-
bieridze 1978), Bavra, Bavra 1 and II (Gabunia
2001; Gabunia, Tsereteli 2003), Bavra-Ablari
(Varoutsikos et al. 2017), Kvirike, Khutsubani
(Gogitidze 2008), Sosruko (layers M1 and M2)
(Замятнин, Акритас 1957; Леонова 2021), etc.
Kobuletian flint and obsidian complexes
demonstrate full similarity with the M’lefaatian.
Both cultures developed synchronically during the
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 2 23
Table 1. Radiocarbon dates.
№ DATE (BP
UNCAL)
Lab. index Sample Site Context Publication
Earliest M’lefaatian dates
1 10850±200 Gd-4465 charcoal M’lefaat M’lefaatian Kozłowski 1994
2 10890±140 Gd-6150 charcoal M’lefaat M’lefaatian Kozłowski 1994
3 10425±145 UCLA-305 ? Chagha Sefid M’lefaatian Hole 1977
Kobuleti culture
4 9960±140 LU-9477 bone Sosruko Layer 4 Golovanova et al. 2020
5 9945±35 IGANams-7988 bone Sosruko Layer M2 Леонова 2021
6 8670±30 BETA -393559 bone Bavra Ablari Level 4 Varoutsikos, et al. 2017
7 9420 ± 40 BETA -363172 charcoal Bavra Ablari Level 4 Varoutsikos, et al. 2017
8 9410 ± 40 Poz-61370 charcoal Bavra Ablari Level 4 Varoutsikos, et al. 2017
9 9530 ± 40 Poz-66742 charcoal Bavra Ablari Level 4 Varoutsikos, et al. 2017
10 10250 ± 50 Poz-61367 tooth Bavra Ablari Level 5 Varoutsikos, et al. 2017
11 9700 ±140 ? ? Bavra Culture level Varoutsikos, et al. 2017
12 9720±45 OS-90615 charcoal Anaseuli 1 Culture level Мешвелиани 2013
13 9540±40 OS-78999 charcoal Anaseuli 1 Culture level Мешвелиани 2013
14 8260±35 OS-78998 charcoal Anaseuli 1 Culture level Мешвелиани 2013
15 8050±35 OS-78997 charcoal Anaseuli 1 Culture level Мешвелиани 2013
16 6840±35 OS-72158 charcoal Anaseuli 1 Culture level Мешвелиани 2013
17 8670±100 SPb-3084 charcoal Kobuleti Level 2 Manko, Ckhatarashvili 2020
M’lefaatian complexes without geometrics
18 8850±210 S-1174 charcoal Ali Kosh Ali Kosh phase Hole 1977
19 8490±90 Beta-118723 charcoal Ali Kosh Ali Kosh phase Zeder, Hesse 2000
Secondary appearance of geometrics
20 7655±75 GrN-6353 pottery Jarmo Pottery Neolithic Berger, Protsch 1973
21 7410±35 Tka-13814 bone Mushki Pottery Neolithic Nishiaki 2018
Near and Middle East complexes with Kashkashok side-blow blade-flakes
22 7770±150 Beta-8240 charcoal Gritille Phase B, PPNB Stein 1992
23 7880±110 TK-859 ? Kashkashok 2 Level 3, Proto-Hassuna Matsutani 1991
24 7730±90 TK-803 ? Kashkashok 2 Level 3, Proto-Hassuna Matsutani 1991
25 7490±110 TK-860 ? Kashkashok 2 Level 3, Proto-Hassuna Matsutani 1991
26 7720±50 GrN-24248 charcoal Sabi Abyad* Op. III, level 2, Pre-Halaf Akkermans, Verhoeven 2000
27 6930±45 GrN-26924 charcoal Sabi Abyad* Op. II, level 2, Pre-Halaf Akkermans, Verhoeven 2000
28 8155±45 GrN-8261 ? Bouqras Level 4, Late PPNB Bernbeck 1991
29 7465±45 GrN-10589 ? Bouqras Level 3-4, Proto-Hassuna Bernbeck 1991
30 7269±86 P-455 charcoal Hajji Firuz Layer D5, Late M’lefaatian Chataigner 1995
Çayönü tools in the Transcaucasia
31 7915±25 PLD-30829 charcoal Lernagog 1 Pre-pottery Neolithic Arimura et al. 2018
32 7855±30 PLD-30831 charcoal Lernagog 1 Pre-pottery Neolithic Arimura et al. 2018
33 7440±25 UCIAMS-40181 ? Areni 1 Pre-pottery Neolithic Petosyan at al. 2021
34 8080±90 GrN-8819 charcoal Ҫayӧnü Large room building phase Çambel 1980
Beginning of pottery making in the M’lefaatian culture
35 7820±190 I-1494 charcoal Ali Kosh Pottery Neolithic Hole 1987
36 7220±160 I-1495 charcoal Ali Kosh Pottery Neolithic Hole 1987
Kukrek culture
37 9740±60 Ki-6304 bone Vyshenne 1 Culture layer Zaitseva et al., 2000
38 9680±70 Ki-6264 bone Vyshenne 1 Culture layer Zaitseva et al., 2000
The appearance of extended burials (M’lefaatian and Eastern Europe)
39 8040±90 UCLA-297 charcoal Chaga Sefid Mohammad Jaffar phase Hole 1987
40 7955±50 OXA-6199 human bone Mar’ivka Pre-pottery Neolithic Telegin et al. 2002
Donetsk culture
41 7345±60 Кі-6056 human bone Klishnia 3 Grave 1 Manko, 2003
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 224
№ DATE (BP
UNCAL)
Lab. index Sample Site Context Publication
Donetsk culture
42 7405±70 Кі-6057 human bone Klishnia 3 Grave 1 Manko, 2003
43 6700±130 Ki-9436 pottery Zelena Hornytsia 1 Culture layer Manko, 2003
44 6510±120 Ki-9435 pottery Zelena Hornytsia 5 Culture layer Manko, 2003
45 6455±120 Ki-9434 pottery Zelena Hornytsia 6 Culture layer Manko, 2003
46 7080±90 Ki-11635 pottery Velyka Pererva I Culture layer Manko, 2003
Trialetian culture
47 10800±220 Beta-46649 charcoal Hallan Ҫemi Pre-pottery Neolithic Rosenberg 1994
48 9535±75 OxA-12878 charcoal Hallan Ҫemi Pre-pottery Neolithic Rosenberg 1994
49 10400±60 RTT-4703 bone Kotias Klde Culture layer Meshveliani et al. 2007
50 9270±60 RTT-4698 bone Kotias Klde Culture layer Meshveliani et al. 2007
Shpan-Koba culture
51 9575±45 GrA-50244 bone Shan-Koba Layer 4.4 Benecke 2006
52 9940±50 KIA-3688 bone Shpan-Koba Layer 3.6 Яневич 2004
53 10210±80 KIA-3687 bone Shpan-Koba Layer 3.5 Яневич 2004
54 9930±60 Ki-5824 bone Shpan-Koba Layer 3.4 Яневич 2004
55 9890±80 KIA-3685 bone Shpan-Koba Layer 3.2 Яневич 2004
56 9760±60 KIA-3684 bone Shpan-Koba Layer 3.2 Яневич 2004
57 9730±50 Ki-5823 bone Shpan-Koba Layer 2.5 Яневич 2004
58 9790±50 KIA-3683 bone Shpan-Koba Слой 2.4 Яневич 2004
59 10060±105 OxA-3807 human bone Vasylivka 3 Cemetery Zaitseva at al. 2000
60 9980±100 OxA-3808 human bone Vasylivka 3 Cemetery Zaitseva at al. 2000
61 10080±100 OxA-3809 human bone Vasylivka 3 Cemetery Zaitseva at al. 2000
Caucasian Epipalaeolithic with trapezes
62 12 953±150 SPb-1215 ? Mesmayskaia Layer 1-3 Голованова и др. 2021
63 13 820±200 LU-9901 ? Mesmayskaia Layer 1-3 Голованова и др. 2021
64 11 200±110 Ki-14280 ? Satanay Layer 2b Голованова и др. 2021
65 10 020±160 GIN-14706 ? Dvoynaia Layer 6 Голованова и др. 2021
66 11 830±160 GIN-14703 ? Dvoynaia Layer 6 Голованова и др. 2021
67 11 720±320 LU-10114 ? Psituaghe Layer 2 Голованова и др. 2021
68 14 640±350 U2AM-630 ? Apiancha Layer 4 Голованова и др. 2021
69 14 490±70 OxA-27498 ? Satsurblia Layer B Голованова и др. 2021
Darkvetian culture
70 8170±25 IGANams-987b ? Sosruko Layer M1 Леонова 2021
71 8940±30 IGANams-7987a ? Sosruko Layer M1 Леонова 2021
72 8780±170 LU-9167 ? Sosruko Layer 4 Golovamova et al. 2020
The earliest Eastern European sites with trapezes on pressing blades
73 7075±45 GrA-50242 bone Shan-Koba Layer 3.3 Benecke 2006
74 8210±80 Ki-15178 bone Razdorskaia 2 Culture Layer Горелик и др. 2014
75 7505±210 GrN-7199 bone Matveyev
Kurgan 1
Culture Layer Крижевская 1992
76 7515±120 Bln-588 bone Soroki 1 Layer 3 Маркевич 1974
77 7420±80 Bln-587 bone Soroki 1 Layer 2 Маркевич 1974
The appearance of trapezes on pressing blades in Eastern Transcaucasia and Middle East
78 7500 ± 30 BP IAAA-160722 ? Damjili Cave Unit 5 Nishiaki et al. 2019
Near East sites related with Edzani culture origin
79 12200±150 OxA-2137 ? Nahal Sekher 23 Late Ramonien Grosman 2013
80 12610±130 OxA-892 ? Neve David Geometric Kebara Kaufman 1988
81 13400±180 OxA-859 ? Neve David Geometric Kebara Kaufman 1988
82 12840±140 OxA-1772 charcoal Jilat 22. Phase C Geometric Kebara Housley 1994
83 13040±180 OxA-1771 charcoal Jilat 22. Phase C Geometric Kebara Housley 1994
European sites related with Helwan retouch lunates
84 8125±120; Le-6869 bone Rassypnaia 6 Platovskii Stav culture Цыбрий 2008
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 2 25
№ DATE (BP
UNCAL)
Lab. index Sample Site Context Publication
European sites related with Helwan retouch lunates
85 7130±170 Le-6226 charcoal Kremenaia 2 Platovskii Stav culture Цыбрий 2008
86 7440±160 Le-6956 charcoal Kremenaia 3 Platovskii Stav culture Цыбрий 2008
87 7060±190 Le-6871 charcoal Kremenaia 3 Platovskii Stav culture Цыбрий 2008
88 7255±95 Кі-7663 bone Kairshak 5A Seroglasovo culture Комаров 2002
89 7950±90 Ki-14133 pottery Kairshak 3 Seroglasovo culture Выборнов 2008
90 7560±90 Ki-14500 pottery Kugat 4 Seroglasovo culture Выборнов 2008
91 7680±100 Ki-14501 pottery Kugat 4 Seroglasovo culture Выборнов 2008
early Holocene and transformed in other culture
phenomenon after the Event.
Most ancient sites of the Kobuletian are: Sosru-
ko (layers M1(4) and M2) (Table 1: 4—5), Darkve-
ty (layer 5), cluster of sites near Bavra (Table 1:
6—11) and lower layers of Anaseuli 1 (Table 1:
12—16). This phase of development can be char-
acterized by the presence in complexes of archa-
ic geometrics (lunates, trapezes, triangles), which
demonstrate contacts with carriers of the Zarzian.
Later lunates and trapezes of the early M’lefaatian
and early Kobuletian disappeared with the disap-
pearance of the Zarzian (Table 1: 17—19).
We observe the full absence of lunates and tra-
pezes in the M’lefaatian and Kobuletian complexes
during the 9—8th millennium BC (cal). The site of
Jarmo (Hole 1983) gives us an excellent picture of
the secondary appearance of geometric microliths
in the M’lefaatian complexes. This event occurs to-
gether with the appearance of pottery and cannot
be dated by the time earlier than the beginning of
the Atlantic (Table 1: 20). Secondary appearance
of geometric microliths was a global process. The
traces of this process can be observed in materials
of Mushiki in Fars (Nishiaki 2018) (Table 1: 21).
Approximately at the same time in the M’lefaat
complexes the so-called “Kashkashok side-blow
blade-flakes” appear. The same processes are seen in
Western Georgia. The materials of the Kobuleti site,
dated by the beginning of the Boreal, demonstrate
the absence of geometric microliths. The Kash-
kashok side-blow blade-flakes appear in the materi-
als of the Kvirike and Khutsubani sites. These sites
are associated with the beginning of the Atlantic.
The dates of these sites are not available, but the pal-
ynological columns from the Khutsubani show us a
very warm and humid climate. This circumstance re-
liably considers the later age of the sites in contrast
to the arid boreal climate of the Kobuleti.
The time of presence of the Kashkashok side-
blow blade-flakes in the Kobuletian complexes
characterized dates of the Near and Middle East
complexes in frames of the end of the Boreal and
the beginning of the Atlantic (Table 1: 22—30).
The abovementioned blade-flakes are associat-
ed with a specific method of blade segmentation,
when a wooden hummer is struck on the dorsal
side of the plate on a stone anvil. This technique
of blade segmentation was used to obtain narrow
blade segments. The place of the chipping was re-
touched. As a result, “cores” remained after the
blade processing was completed. Such “cores”,
similar to trapezes with semi-step ventral retouch-
ing, were found in the Eastern Ukraine in layer 1 of
Sabivka 1. This complex contains undoubted signs
of the Kukrek culture: bullet-like cores, points
with microburin spalls, bilateral truncated facet-
ted burins and etc. The appearance of the Kash-
kashok side-blow blade-flakes technology is asso-
ciated with the pre-pottery stage of the Kukrek de-
velopment, so, once again, there can be observed
the process of parallel development of the M’le-
faatian, Kobuletian and the Kukrek.
The appearance of pottery in the M’lefaatian
and in Kobuletian occurred at the same time at the
beginning of the Atlantic (Table 1: 20—21). The
ancient pottery of Jarmo (layers 4 and 3) (Hole
1983) and Mushki (Nishiaki 2018) is connected
with the first half of the 7th millennium BC (cal).
The appearance of pottery at the Kobuleti site
is observed in the complexes of two circular dwell-
ings, which overlapped the Boreal layer. We have
not obtained absolute dates so far, because the
dwellings were excavated in the summer-autumn
of 2021. Nevertheless, we have markers in the
complexes that indicate the age of the dwellings.
These markers are the findings of Çayönü tools
— bladelets with two partly backed edges, which
were found in Çayönü Tepesi (Ozdogan 1994; Ca-
neva et al. 1994) at first. Such tools appeared in the
10th millennium BC (cal) and disappeared in the
7th millennium BC (cal).
Here should be noted the time when the Çayönü
tools appeared in Transcaucasia. At present, there
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 226
Fig. 2. M’lefaatian (A), Kobuletian (B) and Kukrek (C): 1—7 — bullet-shaped and conic cores; 8—21 — backed bladelets; 22—
34 — burins; 35—42 — scrapers. 1—2 — Karim Shakhir (Howe 1983); 3, 11—13, 25—27, 30—31, 37, 40 — Kobuleti; 4 —
Sosruko (Golovanova et al. 2020); 5, 14—15 — Kvirike; 6—7 — Kukrek (Vekilova 1966); 8—10 — Ganj Dareh (Nishiaki 2016);
16—18, 28, 32—34 — Dobrianka 1 (Zaliznyak et al. 2013); 19—21 — Triitsia Cape (Яневич 2017); 22—24, 28, 35—36 — Jarmo
(Hole 1983); 38—42 — Dobrianka III (Zaliznyak et al. 2013).
1 2
3
4 5
6 7
8 9 10
11 12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19 20 21
22 23
24
25 26
27
28
29
30 31
32 33 34
35
36
37 38 39
40 41 42
CBA
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 2 27
can be named several dated complexes with these
tools: Kmlo (Arimura, Chataigner, Gasparyan
2009; Arimura, Gasparyan, Chataigner 2012), Ler-
nagog 1 and Areni 1 (Arimura et al. 2018). The site
of Kmlo, unfortunately, has been excavated not
carefully enough. As a result, we have a huge range
of dates throughout the Early and Middle Holocene.
Such wide dating should be used with the utmost
caution. The dates of the Lernagog 1 and Areni 2
(Table 1: 31—33) sites that are associated with the
beginning of the Atlantic, show us a compact series.
We have every reason to consider these dates as the
time reflecting of the Çayönü tools manufacturing
in Transcaucasia. Unfortunately, the obtained set of
dates is presented in the publications only in graphic
representation. Only two dates of Areni 2 are pub-
lished in a traditional form and shown in Table 1. It
can be seen that the dates of the mentioned sites cor-
respond to the Large-room building subphase of the
Çayönü (Table 1: 34).
It is extremely important to note that the speci-
fied subphase of the Çayönü is not connected with
pottery. So, it can be suggested that the pottery and
Çayönü tools appear in the materials of the Kobu-
leti culture as a result of co-existence of different
systems of cultural interaction at the beginning of
the Atlantic.
The starting point of pottery making correlat-
ed with appearance of grooved tools in Kobule-
tian pottery. These tools are absolute analogies of
grooved tools of the M’lefaatian sites of Ali Kosh
and Sabz (Hole, Flannary, Neely 1969; Nishiaki,
Darabi 2018). Most numerous findings of grooved
tools are connected with layers of Mohammed Jaf-
far (Hole, Flannary, Neely 1969) phase, which is
dated in frames of the beginning of the Atlantic
(Table 1: 35—36).
To sum up, the parallel development of the
M’lefaatian and Kobuletian demonstrate full ac-
cordance with L. S. Klein (Клейн 1999) criteria
of migration.
1. Complex similarity (coincidence in the
main typological characteristics). We described its
criteria and indicated ten features, which proved
the similarity of two cultures. It should be added
that the cultures demonstrate not only similarity,
but also synchronicity of development. Some el-
ements of material culture appear or disappear at
the same time.
2. Spontaneity, abrupt change of cultures at
the final point of migration. We haven’t found the
predecessors of the Kobuletian in the territory of
Transcaucasia. Any archaeological culture doesn’t
contain elements of similarity with the Kobuletian,
which appears in a ready-made form and suddenly.
3. The possibility of joining migration ac-
tivity in time and space. The M’lefaatian appeared
at the end of the Allerød or at the beginning of the
Dryas III. The Kobuletian appeared at the very begin-
ning of the Preboreal. The distance between the start
and end points of migration is no more than 500 km.
Thus, here is a proven fact of migration of the
M’lefaatian carriers to Transcaucasia.
Kobuletian migration to the south of Eastern
Europe.
The analysis of the Early Holocene materials in
the territory of the south of Eastern Europe shows
us that Transcaucasia was not the final point of mi-
gration of the M’lefaatian carriers. At the begin-
ning of the Holocene, there can be noted the ap-
pearance of the Kukrek culture in the Mountainous
Crimea and in the steppe zone of Ukraine. When
evaluating the coincidence in the main typologi-
cal characteristics of the M’lefaatian, Kobuletian
and Kukrek, there might well be used the list of
ten points written above. The presence of a large
series of the so-called Kukrek-type inserts is one
of the features of the Kukrekian. Nevertheless,
the use of similar implements for woodworking is
also recorded in the M’lefaatian and Kobuletian,
only to a lesser extent. Probably the usage of the
Kukrek-type inserts was the result of the migrants’
adaptation to the conditions of the Crimean Moun-
tains, where the most ancient Kukrek culture sites
(Vyshenne 1, Ivanivka, Kukrek) (Векилова 1951;
Яневич 1987) were recorded (Table 1: 37—38).
Preboreal sites of the Kobuletian and M’le-
faatian are connected with the presence of Trial-
etian artefacts. The Kukrek culture is not an ex-
ception. The Trialetian artefacts are present in the
Vyshenne 1 site complex. This is a fragment of
an asymmetric triangle and a scalene resembling
a triangle. The classic Trialetian triangle is pres-
ent in the Ivanivka complex. The Kukrekian com-
plexes with the Trialetian features occur in the
steppe zone of Ukraine too. The Trialetian trian-
gles are found in the Dobrianka (Залізняк та ін.
2013) cluster complexes. The dating of the Prebo-
real-Boreal boundary corresponds to these finds.
There can be observed the evidence of availability
of Zarzian artefacts in the early Kukrek. The Abu-
zova Balka complex has a series of low symmet-
rical lunates. Thus, it can be seen that in the ear-
ly M’lefaatian, Kobuletian and Kukrek complex-
es there is the same evidence of cultural contacts
with the Zarzian and Trialetian carriers. This cir-
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 228
1
2 3
4
5
6
7 8 9
10 11 12
13 14
15
16
17
18
19
20 21
22
23
24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
34 35
36
A B C
Fig. 3. M’lefaatian (A), Kobuletian (B) and Kukrek (C): 1—9 — notched blades; 10—16 — woodworking tools (blades with
ventral retouch of utilization); 23—33 — trialetian microliths; 34—36 — cores of kashkashok side-blow blade-flakes. 1—3, 10—
11, 17—18 — Jarmo (Hole 1983); 4—7, 12, 19 — Kobuleti; 20—22, 29—33 — Dobrianka 1 (Zaliznyak et al. 2013); 23—25 —
Karim Shakhir (Howe 1983); 26—28 — Bavra (Gabunia 1976); 35 — Kvirike; 36 — Sabivka 1 (upper level).
cumstance is an additional evidence for the migra-
tion of the M’lefaatian population.
The disappearance of the Zarzian and Trialetian
features in the Boreal times is observed. All these
features are absent in the Kukrekian Boreal com-
plexes of Kamiana Mohyla 1 (Даниленко1986),
Myrne (Станко 1982) and Ihren 8 (Телегин 1985)
sites. Thus, we have proofs of parallel develop-
ment of three cultures in the Boreal times too.
The Preboreal-Boreal boundary was marked
by an important event. It can be noticed the
parallel appearance of extended burials in the
M’lefaatian and Kukrek complexes. Unfortu-
nately, there is no evidences about the buri-
al rites of the Kobuletian carriers, because at
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 2 29
present the Kobuletian cemeteries have not
been found yet.
The appearance of extended burials at the Ali
Kosh and Chagha Sefid (Hole, Flannary, Neely
1969) sites in the layers associated with the Mo-
hammad Jaffar phase (Boreal-Atlantic boundary,
Table 1: 39) can be noticed. The appearance of the
early Mariupol type burials (Mar’ivka, Vasyliv-
ka 2, Osypivka, Table 1: 40) occurs at the begin-
ning of the Atlantic. Thus, the parallels can be seen
in the development of the two cultures, which ev-
idences that the connection of migrants with the
Motherland persists after two thousand years after
the initial migration.
As in the Kobuletian, M’lefaatian and Kukrek
assemblages are related with findings of grooved
tools known as “chovnyky” in Ukrainian histo-
riography. The appearance of grooved tools took
place in the pre-pottery stage of development
of the Kukrek culture in complexes of Ihren 8,
Kamiana Mohyla 1, Sursk Island 5(III), Popіv
Mys. Pottery sites of the Kukrek is linked with the
grooved tools findings too (island sites of the Dni-
pro River rapids, sites of Zelena Hornytsia claster
at the Siverskyi Donets) (Тубольцев 2013).
The grooved tools from Zelena Hornytsia
claster of sites demonstrate full similarity with
such tools from pottery objects of the Kobuleti and
with Mohammad Jaffar phase layers of Ali Kosh
and Sabz in the Middle East.
Kobuletian Historic-Cultural Region.
As we can see, the initial migration of the M’le-
faatian carriers led to the creation of a stable cul-
tural unity, which developed in the 9—7th mil-
lennia BC. The synchronous development of the
M’lefaatian, Kobuletian and Kukrek is an indica-
tor of the fact that stable cultural ties between the
regions of the Middle East, Western Transcaucasia
and South-Eastern Europe had been preserved for
three millennia.
What mechanisms ensured these cultural links?
We can only speculate on how this unity was main-
tained. It is possible that the initial migration only
opened the way for further migrations of the M’le-
faatian carriers. It is quite possible that reverse mi-
grations had taken place. Scenarios when the in-
habitants of the Middle East or Transcaucasia vis-
ited remote regions of Eastern Europe cannot also
be ruled out. This topic should be the subject of
a separate scholarly study. In any case, we must
state the existence of the Kobuletian Historic-Cul-
tural Region (KHCR), which was a global infor-
mational unity that ensured the penetration of in-
novative technologies from the Middle eastern re-
gion into Transcaucasia and Eastern Europe. The
area of distribution of the Kobuletian was a kind of
bridge, a transit territory through which innovative
technologies reached Eastern Europe. Our choice
of the name of the KHCR is based on this fact.
What are the main characteristics of the KHCR?
1. This HCR appeared as the result of migration.
2. Migrations in other regions had not led to
appearance of informational network, in frames of
which new technologies were distributed.
3. All parts of the KHCR demonstrate the
tendency of parallel development.
4. The existence of the KHCR was the con-
dition of the Neolithization process of Transcauca-
sia and south of Eastern Europe. Only global in-
formational network provided the appearance of
new methods of stone knapping, stone tools mak-
ing and changes in husbandry.
5. The existence of the HCR does not ex-
clude the possibility of the formation of temporal
networks outside of the HCR. The KHCR creates
synthetic cultural traditions with the Zarzian, Tri-
aletian, late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) etc.
at different periods of its existence. Such networks
are temporary and disappear along with the disap-
pearance of the cultural phenomena that took part
in the formation of temporal networks.
6. Two ways of the HCR creating are known:
integrationist and expansionist. The KHCR shows
us the expansionist type of the HCR creation, asso-
ciated with the formation of networks by carriers
of the same cultural tradition during the penetra-
tion on new territories.
7. The destruction of the KHCR at the end
of the 7th millennium BC had not led to the com-
plete disappearance of cultural traditions. Individ-
ual parts of the KHCR are integrated into new cul-
tural phenomena. In particular, the late carriers of
the Kukrek cultural traditions are integrated into
the new HCR known to us as the “Dnipro-Donets
Historic-Cultural Region” (DDHCR).
8. The KHCR became the basis for the cre-
ation of several Neolithic archaeological cul-
tures. These are the M’lefaatian of the Middle
East, Çatalhöyük (a component), Odisha culture
of Transcaucasia, Sursk and Donets cultures of
Ukraine (Table 1: 41—46).
Trialetian migration.
Trialetian culture and Transcaucasia (fig. 4).
The term “Trialetian” appeared in 1975, when
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 230
Trialetian sites
Transcaucasian Trialetian sites
Shpankobian sites
Trialetian migrations
Transcaucasian Trialetian migration
Spankobian migration
Fig. 4. Early Holocene sites with asymmetric triangles.
Trialetian, Caspian and Anatolian variants: 1 — Komishan; 2 — Hotu; 3 — Belt; 4 — Ali Tappeh; 5 — Dam-Dam Cheshme I
and II; 6 — Djebel; 7 — Kailu; 8 — Hodje-su; 9 — Nevali Cori; 10 — Hallan Çemi; 11 — Demirkoy; 12 — Kortic Tepe; 13 —
Hasankeyf Höyük; 14 — Gusir Höyük; Trialetian, Transcaucasian variant: 15 — Chokh; 16 — Zurtaketi; 17 — Kotias Klde;
Mixed Trialetian and Kobuletian complexes: 18 — Bavra; 19 — Darkvety (layer V); Shpan-Koba: 20 — Shpan-Koba; 21 —
Fatma-Koba (layer III); 22 — Shan-Koba (layer IV); 23 — Su-At 3; 24 — Frontove 3; 25 — Vasylivka 1 and 3.
N. Gabunia published materials of the Edzani
and Zurtaketi sites in Georgia (Gabunia 1976).
Most common features of the Trialetian culture
are the following:
1. The usage of methods of direct and indi-
rect percussion in cores reduction strategy.
2. The presence of asymmetric triangles
(fig. 5: 1—9).
3. The presence of bitroncated facetted
blades with backed edges (fig. 5: 10, 31—32, 42).
4. The presence of asymmetric lunates
(fig. 5: 11—13, 41).
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 2 31
Fig. 5. Trialetian (A) and Shpan-Koba (B): 1—20 — Kotias Klde (Meshveliani et al. 2007); 21—27 — Shan-Koba (layer 5)
(after D. Yu. Nuzhnyj); 30—41, 43—44, 47—50 — Shan-Koba (layer 4) (after D. Yu. Nuzhnyj); 28—29, 42, 46 — Vasylivka 3
(Nuzhnyj 2007); 45 — Vasylivka 1 (Nuzhnyj 2007).
1—9 — asymmetric triangles; 10, 31—32, 42 — bi-truncated facetted blade with backed edge; 11—13, 41 — asymmetric lunates;
14—16, 33—40 — bladelets with bipolar abrupt retouch; 17—18, 43—46 — truncated facetted blades; 19—21, 47 — symmetric
triangles; 48—50 — microburins.
1
2 3
4
5 6 7
8
9
10 11 12
13
14
15 16
17
18
19 20 21 A B
22 23
24 25 26 27
28 29
30
31 32
33 34 35 36 37
38 39 40 41
42
43
44
45 46
47
48 49
50
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 232
5. The presence of bladelets with bipolar
abrupt retouch (fig. 5: 14—16, 33—40).
6. The presence of truncated facetted blades
(fig. 5: 17—18, 43—46).
7. The presence of symmetric triangles
(fig. 5: 19—21, 47).
8. The usage of microburin technique (fig. 5:
48—50).
In 1999, S. Kozłowski described the Triale-
tian and compiled a list of the most important sites
(Kozłowski 1999, p. 140). He associated with Tri-
aletian culture the sites of Edzani (Georgia), Hal-
lan Çemi (Turkey) (Rosenberg 1994), Belt, Hotu
(Coon 1951, 1952), Ali Tappeh (Iran) (McBur-
ney, Payne 2014), Dam-Dam Cheshme 2 (Turk-
menistan) (Марков 1966), Chokh (Dagestan, Rus-
sia) (Амирханов 1987). S. Kozłowski described
the most important features of the Trialetian. The
blade detachment connected with methods of indi-
rect percussion and with usage of conic and sub-
conic cores. The main features of retouched instru-
ments are the presence of big end-scrapers, dentic-
ulated pieces, truncated blades, retouched blades,
perforators, backed blades, asymmetric triangles,
lunates and trapezes.
Not all the Trialetian features are equivalent. In
our opinion, the main is the presence of asymmet-
ric triangles, most of which differ from similar tri-
angles of the Zarzian complexes in size.
The new Trialetian sites became known after
the publication of S. Kozłowski.
In 2007, materials from the Kotias Klde site in
Georgia were published (Meshveliani et al. 2007).
The excavations showed that the use of indirect
percussion is not a necessary characteristic of the
Trialetian.
In 2016, materials from the Komishan site
in Iran were published (Jayez, Vahdati Nasab
2016). The authors proposed to consider the
Mesolithic of the South Caspian Sea outside the
Trialetian framework. Perhaps, the authors are
right. Nevertheless, the origin of the Mesolithic
of the South Caspian and the Trialetian is relat-
ed to the Zarzian. If there are differences, they
are insignificant.
We should pay attention to the presence of the
Trialetian artefacts in the complex of Darkvety
(layer 5) (Nebieridze 1978; Korobkova 1996).
We cannot agree that the Edzani site in Georgia
relates to the Trialetian. We are confident that the
site materials reflect a more ancient cultural phe-
nomenon, as we will write about below. For the
moment it should be noted that the publications
of the staging materials often do not reflect the
specifics of the typology of the geometrical com-
plex. Only the primary publication of M. Gabunia
(1976) is correct.
The list of the Trialetian sites by S. Kozłowski
does not include Zurtaketi in Georgia. The Trial-
etian chronology shows that this industry devel-
oped between the Dryas III and the beginning of
the Atlantic (Table 1: 47—50). The Late Trialetian
represented materials of Dam-Dam Cheshme 2
and Chokh. The Late Trialetian and Chokh that are
connected with the use of pressing technique of
blades detachment. Nevertheless, the use of press-
ing technique is not a staged feature of the indus-
try. The same characteristics are found in the Final
Pleistocene Komishan complex.
The relative chronology of the Trialetian (af-
ter Kozłowski 1999, p. 141) was founded on the
geometric microliths typology. S. Kozłowski is
sure that the oldest complexes are associated with
asymmetric triangles and segments, the further de-
velopment of the industry correlates with the ap-
pearance of low long symmetric trapezes, and at
a later stage the dimensions of the trapezoids be-
come smaller.
Unfortunately, only one full-fledged Triale-
tian complex is known in Transcaucasia. This is
the Kotias Klde site. The Zurtaketi complex is un-
representative, and the connection between Edzani
and the Trialetian is doubtful.
The Kotias Klde site (Meshveliani et al.
2007) is situated in Western Georgia in karstic
cave on limestone Mandaeti plateau on the
Kvirila River. The Trialetian complex was re-
vealed in stratigraphic layer B (grey clay in-
terspersed with limestone fragments). About
5000 artefacts of flint and obsidian were found,
512 tools among them.
The flint-knapping technology consisted of
22 cores. There are one-platform prismatic cores,
two-platform cores with opposite platforms, and
multiplatform cores. Typology of cores is like ty-
pology of Halan Ҫemi complex (Table 1: 47—48,
which is contemporary with Kotias Klde (Table 1:
49—50). It is even more surprising that the con-
clusions about the knapping methods turned out to
be different for Halan Ҫemi and for Kotias Klde, as
we have already written above.
Microlithic complex of the Kotias Klde is
the most interesting. There are 13 backed blade-
lets, 45 truncations and 46 geometric microliths.
Backed bladelets have bipolar retouch on edg-
es. Truncated facetted bladelets have bipolar re-
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 2 33
touch on edges and on truncated parts of blade-
lets. A lot of geometric microliths are asym-
metric triangles with bipolar or single abrupt
retouched sides. There are two symmetric trian-
gles, elongated trapeze and asymmetric lunate.
The fabrication of geometric microliths relat-
ed to the usage of microburin technique. There
are three microburins in the complex. The age
of the complex is indicated within the end of the
Dryas III and Preboreal.
Consequently, the Trialetian culture appeared
in Eastern Anatolia, South Caspian and in Western
Transcaucasia at the end of the Pleistocene.
The only Trialetian burial found at the Kotias
Klde should also be mentioned. The extended bur-
ial of a man connected with the Trialetian layer is
dated in frames of the very beginning of the Prebo-
real (Jones et al. 2015).
Trialetian migration to the south of East
Europe.
The beginning of the Preboreal connected with
appearance of the Shpan-Koba culture (Яневич
1993) in the Mountainous Crimea and at the Dni-
pro River rapids. The main sites of the Shpan-Ko-
ba culture are Shpan-Koba, Shan-Koba (layer IV),
Ala-Chuck, Su-At 3 (the Crimea) and Vasylivka 1
and 3 cemeteries (the Dnipro River rapids).
The Shpan-Koba site in the Crimea has got the
oldest radiocarbon dates. The most ancient com-
plex of the mentioned site appeared in a fringe of
the Dryas III — Preboreal, other dates are con-
nected with the Preboreal. Flint complexes of
the Shpan-Koba (layers 1—4, 1—5, 2—1, 2—2,
2—3, 2—4, 2—5) and Shan-Koba (layer IV) are
the most representative and well dated (Table 1:
51—58). The typological analysis of these com-
plexes demonstrates the full similarity with the
Trialetian complexes of Transcaucasia. The pres-
ence of asymmetric triangles with traces of mi-
croburin spalls, truncated facetted blades, blade-
lets with abrupt bipolar retouch can be observed.
They see less diagnostic Trialetian features in
these complexes: the presence of asymmetric lu-
nates and microburins.
The findings in burial complexes of Vasyliv-
ka 1 and 3 cemeteries give us an opportunity to
detect correlation of microliths of the Trialetian
types with the types of burials. Vasylivka 3 cem-
etery (Столяр 1959а) (Table 1: 59—61) is con-
nected with two types of burials. These are flexed
and extended burials, which have similar radi-
ocarbon dates in frames of the Early Preboreal.
Vasylivka 1 cemetery (Столяр 1959b) is connect-
ed only with flexed burials. All findings of the Tri-
aletian microliths (Нужний 2007, с. 144) corre-
lated only with flexed burials of both cemeteries.
Large number of such microliths was found in
people’s bones. Only three microliths were found
in areas of extended burials, but only one of those
microliths was not connected with bone’s damag-
es. In this occasion authors correlate the usage of
the Trialetian microliths with carriers of extend-
ed burials tradition. This fact is not unexpectable,
because an extended burial was found at the area
of Kotias Klde.
The authors have no idea, who had left flexed
burials in the Dnipro River rapids area. Maybe,
carriers of the Shan-Koba or Osokorivka cultures
are connected with this tradition. The indication of
this fact is a task for the future studies.
The main types of the Vasylivka cemeteries mi-
croliths are the following: asymmetric triangles
with microburin spalls or their parts, asymmet-
ric triangles, truncated facetted blades, blades and
bladelets with abrupt bipolar retouch. It should be
noted that full similarity of the Dnipro rapids, the
Crimean Mountains and Western Transcaucasia
complexes is a real fact.
The radiocarbon dates of the Shpan-Koba com-
plexes show the long-term existence of the culture
in the Mountainous Crimea since the beginning of
the Preboreal to the end of the Boreal and episodic
appearance in the Dnipro rapids. The appearance
of the Murzak-Koba culture in the Crimea may be
the result of the beginning of the pressure flaking
usage, since the style of microliths production was
changed. This hypothesis hasn’t got proofs yet.
The Trialetian migration was one of the possi-
ble ways of the future appearance of the Neolith-
ic in Eastern Europe, which was not realized. If
the Kobuletian migration led to formation of the
first Neolithic cultures in the Atlantic, the devel-
opment of the Shpan-Koba culture was stopped on
the pre-pottery phase. It’s a big surprise, because
the Trialetian cultures of the West and East Caspi-
an reached the Neolithic phase. In our opinion, this
occasion was possible in the Caspian region, as the
relations with carriers of the other culture were ab-
sent in this region.
Darkvetian migration.
Darkvetian culture and Transcaucasia (fig. 6).
The Early Holocene sites with trapezes in West-
ern Transcaucasia the authors called the “Darkvety
culture”. The main sites of this culture are Darkve-
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 234
M’lefaatian sites
Darkvetian sites
Hrebenyky sites
Darkvetian diffusion
Darkvetian migration
Hrebenyky migration
Fig. 6. Holocene sites with trapezes.
M’lefaatian: 1 — Djarmo (layers 1—3); 2 — Ali Kosh (Mohammad Jaffar phase), Chagha Sefid (Mohammad Jaffar phase); 3 —
Sabz; 4 — Sarab; 5 — Jari B; 6 — Mushiki.
Darkvety: 7 — Darkvety (layer IV); 8 — Jvartskhma; 9 — Melouri ; 10 — Pirveli Gali; 11 — Zemo Lemsa; 12 — Apiancha.
Matveyev Kurgan and Hrebenyky cultures: 13 — Frontove 4; 14 — Murzak-Koba (layer III); 15 — Fatma-Koba (layers IV—
III); 16 — Shan-Koba (layer III); 17 — Tuba 5; 18 — Myrne; 19 — Kamiana Mohyla 3; 20 — Hrebenyky; 21 — Hirzhove; 22
— Kazanka; 23 — Matveyev Kurgan 1, 2; 24 — Razdorskaya 2; 25 — Soroki 1, 2.
ty (layer IV) (Nebieridze 1978), Jvartskhma
(Манько, Чхатарашвили 2020b), Melouri, Pirveli
Gali (Kalandadze 1986), Zemo Lemsa (Воронов
1984), Sosruko (layer 4) (Golovanova at al. 2020;
Манько, Чхатарашвили 2021), Apiancha (lay-
er 1) (Церетели и др. 1982).
The main features of the Darkvety stone indus-
try are the following:
1. The presence of pressure flaking based on
flat monofrontal and prismatic cores usage (fig. 7).
2. The aim of pressure flaking is the obtain-
ing of blades and bladelets.
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 2 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
A
B
10
9
8
7
Fig. 7. Darkvetian (A) and Matveyev Kurgan cultures (B). Cores.
1—4 — Jvartskhma; 5—6 — Sosruko (layer M-1) (Golovanova et al. 2020); 7—8 — Tuba 5 (Теліженко 2005); 9—10 —
Matveyev Kurgan (Крижневская 1992).
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 236
3. The presence of low symmetric trapezes
or trapezes-rectangles with abrupt retouch on sides
(fig. 8: 1—19, 22—25, 27—43).
4. The presence of lunates with Helwan re-
touch in early complexes (fig. 8: 20, 26).
5. The presence of truncated facetted blades,
which were used like blanks for trapezes manu-
facturing.
6. The presence of end-scrapers on blades,
oval and round scrapers on flakes, angle burins,
notched bladelets.
7. The presence of polished tools (fig. 8: 21, 44).
The origin of the Darkvety culture is connected
with the Transcaucasian Epipalaeolithic. The tradi-
tion of trapezes with two retouched sides usage is
observed in the South Caucasian Final Pleistocene
of Apiancha (layer 2); complexes with trapezes
are known in the Final Palaeolithic complexes of
the Northern Caucasus (Mesmayskaia, layer 1—3;
Satanay; Dvoynaia, layers 4—6; Psytuaje, layer 2)
(Table 1: 62—67) (Голованова и др. 2021). How-
ever, complexes with trapezes are absent in neigh-
boring regions of the Middle East after the disap-
pearance of the Zarzian culture.
Perhaps, the Darkvety culture has got deeper
roots. The archaic feature of the Darkvety micro-
lithic complexes is the presence of trapezes-rec-
tangles with three sides with abrupt retouch. This
type of trapezes is the ancient type of geometric
microliths of the Transcaucasia. The trapezes with
three retouched sides are known in complexes of
Apiancha (layers 5 and 4; Table 1: 68) and Satsur-
bliya (layer B; Table 1: 69). In L. Golovanova’s
and other researchers’ opinion the origin of this
type of trapezes is connected with the Geometric
Kebaran (Голованова и др. 2021, с. 95-96).
The oldest complex of the Darkvety culture is Sos-
ruko (layer M1(4)) (Manko, Chkhatarashvili 2021).
This complex contains of flat one-platform monof-
rontal cores for obtaining blades and bladelets with
hand pressing methods and low symmetric trapezes
on pressed blades. Radiocarbon dates in frames of the
beginning of the Boreal is associated with this com-
plex (Table 1: 70—72). Probably, the appearance of
the Darkvety complex in the Central Caucasus is con-
nected with themovement of carriers' traditions of the
Epipalaeolithic of the Northern Caucasus and with
contacts of carriers of the Kobuleti culture, the peo-
ples of which used the pressure flaking.
During the Boreal the carriers of the Darkve-
ty culture inhabited the territory mountain systems
in Guria (Jvartskhma) and Imeretia (Darkvety, lay-
er 4). The pressure flaking was not good developed
in the Boreal time. The co-existence of traditions of
direct percussion and hand pressing techniques can
be observed. All these complexes consist of arte-
facts, which have got the Kobuletian origin. These
are bilateral angle burins and conic cores. The
proofs of contacts of the Kobuletian and Darkve-
ty cultures carriers in the Kobuletian complexes are
fixated. The series of symmetric trapezes was found
at the site Anaseuli I (Korobkova 1996).
The beginning of the Darkvety culture develop-
ment, the appearance of axes and chisels from soft
kinds of stone are also marked (fig. 8: 21).
Further development of the Darkvety culture
had been connected with complexes of Melouri,
Pirveli Gali and Zemo Lemsa in Abkhazia. This
phase was characterized with the domination of
the pressure flaking technique. Complexes of this
phase can be dated in frames of the beginning of
the Atlantic (7th millennium BC). Trapezes with
flat invasive retouch are absent in complexes of
this phase. The latter fact is a proof for the dating
not later then the end of the 7th millennium BC,
when the described type of trapezes appeared and
became the leading type in the Neolithic complex-
es of the Transcaucasia.
Migration of carriers of the Darkvety cul-
ture in the south of Eastern Europe.
The co-existence with neighboring culture hab-
itation groups (the Kobuletian, Late Trialetian,
Edzanian cultures) had taken place during the Bo-
real since the appearance of the Darkvety culture.
This situation stimulated the migration process-
es. The main way of the migration related to the
Crimea, Lower Don River basin, North Azov Sea
region. The first appearance of the Darkvety car-
riers is observed in the Crimea, where complexes
Frontove 4 (Манько 2013b), Murzak-Koba (lay-
er III), Fatma-Koba (layers IV—III), Shan-Ko-
ba (layer III) (Бибиков, Станко, Коен 1994),
Frontove 1 (Manko 2013b) marked this process.
These complexes are mixed with materials of the
Murzak-Koba culture, however, clear Darkve-
ty complexes in sublayers of the Murzak-Koba
and Fatma-Koba are recorded too (Манько 2018,
2019). The earliest stage of the Darkvety migra-
tion is dated in frames of the second half of the Bo-
real (Table 1: 73).
The Sea of Azov hadn’t appeared during this time
yet. A large number of the Crimean rivers related to
the Lower Don basin and were the good ways in the
Lower Don area (Razdorskaia 2, Цыбрий 2008).
First Darkvety complexes were fixated in this region
at the end of the 8th millennium BC on a fringe of
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 2 37
Fig. 8. Darkvety (A) and Matveyev Kurgan cultures (B): 1—19, 22—25, 27—43 — trapezes; 20, 26 — lunates; 21, 44 — polished tools.
1—4 — Jvartskhma; 5—15, 21 — Melouri (Kalandadze 1986); 16—18 — Pirveli Gali (Kalandadze 1986); 19—20 — Zemo Lemsa (Воронов
1984); 22—26, 44 — Rozdorska 2 (Цыбрий 2008); 27—37 — Tuba 5 (Теліженко 2005); 38—43 — Matveyev Kurgan (Крижневская 1992).
1 2
3
4 5 6
7 8 9
10 11 12
13 14 15
16 17 18
19 20
21
A
22 23 24
25 26
27 28 29
30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41
42 43
44 B
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 238
the Boreal and Atlantic periods (Table 1: 74). Fur-
ther movement of the Darkvety population led to in-
habitation of the areas of the Siverskyi Donets ba-
sin (Tuba 5) (Теліженко 2005) and the North of the
Sea of Azov basin (Matveev Kurgan 1 (Table 1: 75)
and II, Kamiana Mohyla III) (Крижевская 1992;
Тубольцев 1995). This cluster of complexes was
named the “Matveev Kurgan culture”. All complex-
es of this culture contain series of prismatic and flat
monofrontal cores from pressed blades and blade-
lets, symmetric trapezes and trapezes with three re-
touched sides. The complex of Razdorskaia 2 is con-
nected with the presence of a small number of lunates
with Helwan retouch. The microliths, which were
made from soft kinds of stone, are found too.
The tradition of clustering complexes with tra-
pezes from pressed blades and bladelets led to the
usage of titles the “Hrebenyky culture” and the
“Buh-Dnister culture”, when the North-Western
Black Sea, Buh, Dnister and Lower Danube basins
sites are under discussion. This occasion, in our
opinion, mark the process of creation of unneces-
sary terms. In reality, the Hrebenyky and the ear-
ly Buh-Dnister complexes are full copies of com-
plexes of the Darkvety and the Matveev Kurgan
cultures. The Hrebenyky sites marked the move-
ment of the Darkvety inhabitants in the second half
of the 7th millennium BC (Table 1: 76—77).
The Darkvety migration had led to the speed
process of the Neolithization of the Mountinous
Crimea and the steppe zone of the south of Eastern
Europe. This process is related to creation of the
Hrebenyky Cultural-Historical Region, which is
connected with Transcaucasia and Eastern Europe
and made conditions for the distribution of the Ne-
olithic innovations in husbandry.
Darkvety culture diffusion in areas of the
Middle East.
We have already written that the carriers of the
Kobuletian and the Darkvety cultures came into
contact over a long period of co-existence. We can
trace this process outside of the Transcaucasia as
well. The emergence of the tradition of geometric
microlithic production in the Middle East in the
early Atlantic can be observed too. However, the
direct connection between the carriers of the two
cultures cannot be considered, since the appear-
ance of trapezes is accompanied by the appearance
of lunates. It can be mentioned only about the indi-
rect influence of the carriers of the Darkvety indus-
try on the development of the M’lefaatian culture.
The mechanism of this indirect influence can be
identified. Understanding such a mechanism be-
comes possible by analyzing the materials of the
Armenian sites Lernagog 1, Areni 1 (with lunates
only) and II (Petrosyan et al. 2021) and Azerbaija-
nian site Damjili Cave (Nishiaki et al. 2019).
The Armenian sites are connected with presence
of lunates in complexes. Materials of the Damji-
li Cave characterized the presence of trapezes and
lunates. The analysis of microliths of the Damji-
li Cave show us the uniting of two technologies of
microliths production. The lunates of the Damjili
Cave demonstrate the similarity with lunates of the
Armenian sites. These are symmetric lunates with
bipolar retouch on arches. The trapezes of the Dam-
jili Cave demonstrate similarity with the Darkvety
microliths. These trapezes are symmetric with low
or semi-high proportions, made without the usage
of microboring technique. There is a trapeze with
three retouched sides. This fact makes it possible
to formulate a hypothesis about the formation of a
mixed cultural tradition in the Transcaucasia. This
tradition could arise based on the interaction of the
Darkvety and Lernagog industries. The carriers of
this tradition could have influenced the change in
the appearance of the M’lefaatian culture.
The data of absolute chronology show that our
hypothesis may be correct. The Transcaucasian sites
have radiocarbon dates within the very beginning of
the Atlantiс (Table 1: 31—33, 78). The appearance of
trapezes and lunates in the M’lefaatian complexes is
associated with the Atlantic time too. The Jarmo and
Mushiki complexes are especially important for us.
The appearance of microliths in Jarmo is connected
with pottery complexes (Table 1: 20). The complex of
the Mushiki is well dated in frames of the middle of
the 7th millennium BC (Table 1: 21). These dating has
good corresponding pottery complex date of Jarmo.
The thoughts expressed are only a hypothesis
that needs to be tested further. Nevertheless, only
the presence of mediated connections with the
Middle East can explain the rapid Neolithization
of the carriers of the Darkvety traditions both in
the Transcaucasia and Eastern Europe.
Edzanian migration (fig. 9).
Edzani complex and the origin and devel-
opment of the Edzani culture.
For a long time, wrong interpretation of this
complex hindered the solution of one of the most
difficult issues of the Transcaucasian archaeolo-
gy — search for the origin of local Neolithic cul-
tures. M. K. Gabunia investigated the Edzani site
in 1962—64 (Gabunia 1976). The site was found
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 2 39
Near Eastern Epipalaeolithic sites
Edzanian sites
Platovskii Stav and Seroglasovo cultures
Near Eastern Epipalaeolithic migration
Edzanian migration
Platovskii Stav culture migration
Fig. 9. Final Pleistocene and Holocene sites with Helwan retouch lunates.
Ramonien and Geometric Kebara: 1 — Har Harif K-V; 2 — Ein Quadis 2; 3 — Nahal Sekher 23; 4 — Wadi el-Jilat; 5 —
Karaneh 4 (layer D).
Edzanian: 6 — Edzani; 7 — Gumurishi, Chkhortoli; 8 — Kistriki; 9 — Nighnaia Shilovka; 10 — Satanai, Chagai, Dvoinaia; 11
— Ovechka, Khadjokh.
Platovskii Stav and Seroglazovo cultures: 12 — Frontove 1 (layer III—I); 13 — Rassypnaia 6; 14 — Khutor Kurganni; 15 —
Tsiganitsa; 16 — Tu-Buzgu-Khuduk 1; 17 — Kharba; 18 — Kugat 4; 19 — Kairshak 1, 3; 20 — Seroglazovo; 21 — Kulagaysi;
22 — Dghangar; 23 — Varfolomiivka (layer III); 24 — Zhukovska 1, 2; 25 — Dolzhyk, Murzina Balka; 26 — Platovskii Stav;
27 — Zimovniki 1.1; 28 — Kreminna 2, 3.
in Eastern Georgia under a basalt canopy, situ-
ated 23—25 m above the left bank of the Ktsia-
Khrami River. The height above the sea level is
1600 m. The cultural layer was found in dark
brown soil deposits. The thickness of the cultur-
al layer was 10—40 cm.
Initially, the researcher had assumed a Pleisto-
cene age, but later it was assumed that the site was
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 240
of the Mesolithic age. The materials were attributed
to the Early Holocene Trialetien archaeological cul-
ture (Gabunia 1976, 2001; Бадер, Церетели 1989).
This conclusion was speculative in fact. One of the
arguments in favor of the Mesolithic age was the
presence of geometric microliths. M. K. Gabunia
considered that trapezes and lunates had just ap-
peared in the Mesolithic. At present, it is well
known that this is not the case and that their appear-
ance relates to the Final Pleistocene.
The main features of the Edzanian complex are:
1. The usage of direct percussion methods
of core reduction (fig. 10). The usage of two- and
one-platform monofrontal flat cores, which char-
acterize two stages of core reduction. The presence
of conic cores. This type of cores may relate to in-
direct percussion methods.
2. Geometric microliths are a major part of
the complex of hunting weapons. These are asym-
metric triangles (fig. 11: 8—11), lunates with
abrupt retouched arches and lunates with Helwan
retouched arches (fig. 11: 1—7, 22—33), long tra-
pezes with two or three retouched sides (fig. 11:
12—14, 45—47).
3. Nongeometric microliths (fig. 11: 34—
39) include bladelets with abrupt retouch, truncat-
ed facetted blades with abrupt retouch on edges.
4. The presence of tanged points (fig. 11:
13—16, 44).
5. Two main types of scrapers (fig. 11: 17—
18, 48, 50): end scraper on blades and oval or
round scrapers on flakes.
6. Two main types of burins (fig. 11: 19—21,
49, 51): angle burins on broken blades and burins
on truncated facetted blades.
7. The presence of notched blades, perfora-
tors and chisels.
8. The microburin technique using (fig. 11:
40—43).
The geometric complex is unique and unparal-
leled in other Transcaucasian Epipalaeolithic com-
plexes. The combination of asymmetrical trian-
gles, elongated trapezes and lunates with Helwan
retouch is found nowhere else. This circumstance
allows considering that the Edzani complex relates
to a specific type of stone industry, characterizing
a separate archaeological culture.
When M. K. Gabunia published the Edzani
complex, she pointed out that many types of tools
have analogies in the Epipalaeolithic complexes
of the Near and Middle East (Gabunia 1976). This
conclusion was correct. Lunates with Helwan re-
touch, elongated trapezes and asymmetric trian-
gles have counterparts in Ramonien, Geometric
Kebaran and Early Natufian cultures.
The Late Ramonien culture in the Near East
territory has got a big similarity with Edzani. A
complex similarity between the two industries is
visible. The best-known complexes of the Late Ra-
monien industry are Nahal Sekher 23, Har Harif
K-V, Ein Qadis 2 (Goring-Morris 1987, р. 204-
256), which existed in the Belling or Dryas II (Ta-
ble 1: 79). All the above complexes contain a se-
ries of the so-called Ramonien points, which re-
semble asymmetrical Edzani triangles. Common
components are lunates with Helwan retouch and
archbacked blades. There are series of microburins
in complexes too. In addition, parallels in the core
reduction system are observed. Especially interest-
ing for us are the complexes, where two-platform
monofrontal flat cores, one-platform monofrontal
flat cores and one-platform conic cores were re-
vealed. As we can see, the core reduction system in
the two industries is almost identical. It is difficult
to imagine what prompted the late Ramonien car-
riers to migrate to the Transcaucasia, but the simi-
larities are so striking that they cannot be ignored.
There are also undoubted similarities between
the Edzani culture and the Geometric Kebara com-
plexes. We use the publication of assemblages of
the Nahal Sekher 22, Shunera 1, III, XII B, Azariq
II, XVI, XVIII (Goring-Morris 1987), Neve David
(Yeshurun et al. 2015). The mentioned complex-
es existed at about the same time as the late Ra-
monien complexes (Table 1: 80—81). The latter
contain a series of elongated trapezes with three
retouched sides, as well as a series of asymmetric
trapezes with the same characteristics. The Kha-
raneh Geometric Kebara complex (layer D) (Mu-
heisen 1988) should also be mentioned. The elon-
gated trapezes of the Kharaneh D form the basis
of the geometric complex of the site, resembling
Edzani trapezes stylistically and repeating their
proportions.
An important problem is the presence of
tanged points in the Edzani complex. We usu-
ally associate such points with the PPNB. How-
ever, the Edzani tanged points are not associat-
ed with the Neolithic. The shape of the points
and the characteristics of their blades show that
they could not be associated with the navyform
cores of the PPNB. Tanged points first appear at
the Wadi el-Jilat 22 site in Jordan (Garrard, Byrd
1992). The shape of these points resembles that
of Edzani points. Thus, this element comes from
the Near East too.
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 2 41
1
2 3
4 5
6 7
A B 12
11
10
9
8
Fig. 10. Edzanian (A) and Late Ramonien (B). Cores.
1—7 — Edzani (Gabunia 1976); 8—10 — Har Harif K-V (Gorring-Morris 1987); 11—12 — Ein Qadis 2 (Gorring-Morris 1987).
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 242
Fig. 11. Edzanian (A), Late Ramonien and Geometric Kebaran (B): 1—7, 22—33 — lunates; 8—11 — asymmetric triangles; 34—
39 — ramonien points; 12—14, 45—47 — trapezes; 13—16, 44 — tanged points; 17—18, 48, 50 — scrapers; 19—21, 49, 51 —
burins; 40—43 — microburins.
1—21 — Edzani (Gabunia 1976); 22—25 — Ein Qadis 2; 26—27, 48—51 — Har Harif K-V; 28—43 — Nahal Sekher 23
(Gorring-Morris 1987); 44 — Wadi el-Jilat (Garrad, Byrd 1992); 45—47 — Karaneh 4 (layer D) (Muheisen 1988).
1 2
3 4
5
6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13 14
15
16
17
18 19
20 21
A
B 50 51
48
49
44
45 46
47
43424140
34 35 36 37 38
39
33323130
29282726
25242322
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 2 43
The presence of parallels between the Edzani
industry and the Geometric Kebara and late Ra-
monien complexes shows a deep connection be-
tween the Epipalaeolithic of the Transcaucasia
and the Near East. It would be tempting to link
the Edzani and Natufien industries. It is with the
Natufien we associate lunates with Helwan re-
touch. However, this type of tool is the only ele-
ment of similarity. It seems that the influence of
the Natufien on the formation of the Edzani in-
dustry is indirect, the result of interaction with
the late Ramonien.
Development of the Edzanian culture.
The Edzani culture continues to exist in the Ear-
ly Holocene. We are dealing with a rather rare phe-
nomenon when a synthetic archaeological culture,
which emerged because of migration, does not dis-
appear with the disappearance of those archaeo-
logical cultures that took part in its formation.
The Gumurishi (fig. 12: 1—6; fig. 13: 1—25)
and Chkhortoli sites (Kalandadze 1986) are asso-
ciated with the early Holocene times.
The typology of these complexes demonstrates
a full similarity with the Edzani, but the appear-
ance of pressed flaking methods is a proof of the
Holocene age.
The development of the Edzani culture in
Transcaucasia ends in the 6th millennium BC
only. The most recent monuments are associat-
ed with the appearance of pottery. These sites
are Kistrik (Лукин 1950), Nizhnyaia Shilovka
(Solovʹev 1967), Ovechka (Каменецкий 2001)
and etc. Even in the most recent sites of the Edza-
ni culture a stable combination of two types of
geometric microliths can be observed. The com-
plexes contain trapezes with three retouched
sides and lunates with Helwan retouch. An inno-
vative feature of the complexes is the use of dor-
sal flat invasive retouch for the design of geomet-
ric microliths.
Thus, the Edzani culture was a very stable cul-
tural phenomenon, emerging in the Final Pleisto-
cene and surviving until the mid-Atlantic. At the
same time, the significance of the Edzani culture
goes far beyond the Transcaucasus, as we record
the spread of the Edzani population on the Lower
Don and Lower Volga basins.
The migratory activity of the Edzani culture
carriers.
At the Boreal-Atlantic boundary, the Edzani
population exhibits extraordinary migratory activ-
ity. The first path relates to the development of the
Lower Don and Manych basins. The second route
relates to migration to the territory of the North
Caspian Region. The Manych Passage, which at
that time connected the Black Sea and the Caspi-
an Sea, was used to penetrate the North Caspian.
The sites with Helwan retouch lunates were called
the Platovskii Stav culture in the basin of the right
bank of the Kuban, in the Lower Don basin and in
the lower basin of the Siverskyi Donets. We will de-
scribe materials from the most informative sites only.
The ancient site with the Helwan retouch lunates
in Eastern Europe is Rassypnaia 6 (Цыбрий 2008)
in the basin of the left bank of the Manych River.
The site has a radiocarbon date in frames of the very
beginning of the Atlantic (Table 1: 84). The Rassyp-
naia 6 site is characterized by tongue-shaped and
cylindrical cores, lunates with Helwan retouch, lu-
nates with abrupt retouched arches, trapezes with
three retouched sides. Some trapezes have notches
on low bases. The Rassypnaia site complex repeats
all the basic types of cores and tools of the Early
Holocene Edzani culture of the Transcaucasia. The
geographical location of the site is approximately at
the fork of two roads, at the crossroads to the Don
and to the North Caspian Sea.
In the basin of the Lower Don and Siver-
skyi Donets there are the Platovskii Stav sites
Kremennaia 2 and 3 (Цыбрий 2008) (fig. 12:
7—11; fig. 13: 26—52), Platovskii Stav (Казакова
1973), Murzina Balka (Бритюк 2006), Dowzhyk
(Горелик, Шестаков, Викулина 2005), Zimovni-
ki I.1 (Горелик 1984). Judging by the available
dates (Table 1: 85—87), the Platovskii Stav cul-
ture existed at the beginning of the Atlantic in the
frames of the 7th millennium BC. It appears that
this culture was displaced from the Lower Don and
the Siverskyi Donets region by the carriers of the
Lower Don culture.
Only the complex of Zimovniki 1.1 site is as-
sociated with pottery production. There is no evi-
dence of cattle-breeding or farming. The migration
of people from the Transcaucasia seems to have
been linked to the desire to continue the traditional
way of life, based on hunting and gathering.
A second group of migrants travelled along the
Manych River to the North Caspian Sea region.
There are many sites with Helwan retouch lunates
in the North Caspian Sea region. We will mention
only the most informative sites, the complexes of
which have been reliably dated.
There is a problem with the interpretation of
complexes with Helwan retouch lunates in the
North Caspian region. Here, sites of the Serogla-
zovo culture (Мелентьев 1975), sites of Khar-
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 244
Fig. 12. Edzanian (A) and Platovskii Stav cultures (B). Cores.
1—6 — Gumurishi (Kalandadze 1986); 7—11 — Kreminna 2 (Цыбрий 2008).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11A B
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 2 45
Fig. 13. Edzanian (A) and Platovskii Stav cultures (B): 1—10, 26—37 — lunates; 11—14, 16—21, 38—47 — trapezes; 15 — a
triangle; 22 — a tanged point; 23—24, 51—52 — scrapers; 23, 49—50 — burins.
1—25 — Gumurishi (Kalandadze 1986); 26—52 — Kreminna 2 and 3 (Цыбрий 2008).
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14
15
16 17 18
19
20 21
22 23
24A 25 B
51 52
504948
474644 4543
424140
3938
37
36
35343332
26 27
28 29
30 31
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 246
ba-type (Выборнов 2008), Istai and Zhe-Kalgan
types (Васильев и др. 1988) are distinguished,
which are considered “mesolithic”, as they are not
connected with the production of pottery. Many
authors write about several cultures within the
Neolithic, i.e., they divide sites with similar flint
complexes and sites with pottery. The tendency to-
wards fragmentation of the cultural phenomenon
appears to be entirely unjustified.
In our opinion, the presence of sites with and
without pottery is due to the function of the sites.
The radiocarbon dates indicate that sites with
ceramics have older dates than the “pre-pot-
tery sites” (Kairshak 5A, Table 1: 88) (Комаров
2002). For this reason, we use the term the “Se-
roglazovo culture” for all sites with Helwan re-
touch lunates.
The most ancient site of the Seroglazovo cul-
ture of the North Caspian is Kairshak 3 (Выборнов
2008) (Table 1: 89). There is a series of absolute
dates within the very beginning of the Atlantic.
The complex has conical and tongue-shaped cores,
end- and round-scrapers, perforators, lunates with
Helwan retouch, trapezes with three or two re-
touched sides. As we can see, all the main compo-
nents of the Edzani industry are also traced in the
North Caspian Region.
Very informative is the Kugat 4 complex
(Козин, Комаров 1989), dated from the mid
7th millennium BC (Table 1: 90—91) and Kair-
shak 1 (Выборнов 2008). Here, together with the
traditional lunates with Helwan and symmetric tra-
pezes with retouched low base we found asymmet-
ric triangles.
Thus, we state the fact that a giant Histor-
ical-Cultural Region (HCR) was formed as a
result of population migrations from the Tran-
scaucasia in the 7th — first half of the 6th mil-
lennia BC. This HCR was the result of migra-
tions along the mountain passes of the Caucasus
and major waterways (Don, Siverskyi Donets,
Kuban, Manych, Volga). At the end of the 7th
millennium BC, this HCR covered the territo-
ries of Western Transcaucasia and the Caucasus,
the Lower Don and the Siverskyi Donets basins,
the Kalmyk and the Northern Caspian area. The
population of those regions had common ele-
ments of material culture.
Conclusion
To summarize, four main events, connected
with migratory activity of the Trascaucasian in-
habitants, had taken place in the Early Holocene.
Only one of these migrations hadn’t led to the ap-
pearance of the Neolithic cultures in Eastern Eu-
rope (Trialetian). The result of three other migra-
tions was the development of first Neolithic cul-
tures in the south of Eastern Europe. However, the
development of the Trialetian culture had led to
appearance of the Chokh Neolithic culture in the
Western Caspian region.
All migration activities didn’t have Neolithic
features at the beginning of population movement
process. Migrations were not the reasons of Neoli-
thization, but prerequisites of this action. Migration
activity had led to the creation of Historical-Cul-
tural regions, in which boarders of the informative
continuity emerged. This continuity provided a con-
stant flow of new information to the regions that the
migrators were mastering. This reality formed a cul-
tural and perhaps linguistic continuity within which
the Neolithic innovations could spread.
This occasion must explain to us that the Ne-
olithization process was not the result of migra-
tion, diffusion or the result of cultural exchange.
This process was indicated with preliminary result
of inhabitation of carriers of similar traditions on
the boundaries of some neighboring regions. Its in-
habitation created a zone, which we can name the
“Oikumene”. This zone may be characterized like
an area, which was a contact for the whole peo-
ple, which had a similarity in origin, in elements of
the language. Peopling of this zone was a player in
sustainable unity, in frames of which movements
were multidirectional.
Our main conclusion is the following: one-vec-
tor migrations can not lead to the new quality of
life, can not lead to the Neolithization. Only mul-
tivector replacement of people must lead to the be-
ginning of the Neolithic way of life. The begin-
ning of the Neolithic in Eastern Europe cannot be
the result of one migration process. The sums of
a large number of migrations can create the back-
ground to the constant flow of information about
the new achievements of the Neolithic Revolution
and their integration among the new settlers.
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 2 47
Амирханов, Х. А. 1987. Чохское поселение, человек и
его культура в мезолите и неолите горного Дагестана.
Москва: Наука.
Бадер, Н. О., Церетели, Л. Д. 1989. Мезолит Кавказа. В:
Кольцов, Л. В. (отв. ред.). Мезолит СССР. Москва: Наука.
Бибиков, С. Н., Станко, В. Н., Коен, В. Ю. 1994. Финальный
палеолит и мезолит Горного Крыма. Одесса: ОНУ.
Бритюк, А. А. 2006. Неолитические стоянки Мурзина
Балка 1 и 2 и Барагуста. В: Синюк, А. Т. (ред.) Археологи-
ческие памятники Восточной Европы. Воронеж: Изд-во
ВГПУ, с. 21-34.
Васильев, И. В., Выборнов, А. А., Комаров, А. Н. 1988.
Мезолитические стоянки Северного Прикаспия. В: Мер-
перт, Н. Я. (ред.) Археологические культуры Северного
Прикаспия. Куйбышев: Куйбышевский государственный
педагогический институт, с. 3-41.
Векилова, Е. А. 1951. Эпипалеолитическая стоянка
Кукрек в Крыму. Краткие сообщения Института исто-
рии материальной культуры, 36, с. 87-95.
Воронов, Ю. Н. 1984. Памятники каменного века Во-
енно-Сухумской дороги. Тбилиси: Мецниереба.
Выборнов, А. А. 2008. Неолит Волго-Камья. Самара:
Самарский государственный педагогический университет.
Голованова, Л. В., Дороничев, В. Б., Дороничева, Е. В.,
Недомолкин, А. Г. 2021. Геометрические микролиты в
верхнем палеолите Кавказа и сопредельных территорий.
Известия Иркутского государственного университе-
та. Серия Геоархеология. Этнология. Антропология, 38,
с. 78-111. https://doi.org/10.26516/2227-2380.2021.38.78
Горелик, А., Шестаков, И., Викулина, В. 2005.
Материалы неолитической стоянки Должик. В: Отро-
щенко, В. В. (ред.). Материалы конференции археологов
и краеведов. Луганск: Луганский краеведческий музей,
с. 112-118.
Горелик, А. Ф. 1984. Исследование мезолитических
комплексов стоянки Зимовники в северо-восточной час-
ти бассейна Азова. Советская археология, 2, с. 115-133.
Горелик, А. Ф., Цыбрий, А. В., Цыбрий, В. В. 2014.
О чем поведали череп тура, топор и женские статуэтки?
(К проблеме начальной неолитизации Нижнего Подонья).
Stratum plus, 2, с. 247-282.
Даниленко, В. М. 1986. Кам'яна могила. Київ: Наукова думка.
Залізняк, Л. Л. 1998. Передісторія України Х—V тис.
до н.е. Київ: Бібліотека українця.
Залізняк, Л. Л., Моця, О. П., Зубар, В. М., Буня-
тян, К. П., Отрощенко, В. В., Терпиловський, Р. В. 2005.
Археологія України. Київ: Либідь.
Залізняк, Л. Л., Товкайло, М. Т., Манько, В. О., Соро-
кун, А. А. 2013. Стоянки біля хутора Добрянка та пробле-
ма неолітизації Буго-Дніпровського межиріччя. Кам'яна
доба України, 15, с. 194-257.
Замятнин, С. Н., Акритас, П. Г. 1957. Археологичес-
кие исследования 1957 года в Баксанском ущелье. Ученые
записки Кабардино-Балкарского научно-исследователь-
ского института, XIII. Нальчик: Кабардино-Балкарское
книжное издательство, с. 471–473.
Казакова, Л. М. 1973. Новые мезолитические место-
нахождения на Нижнем Дону. В: Кияшко, В. Я. (ред.) Ар-
хеологические раскопки на Дону. Ростов-на-Дону, с. 3-18.
Каменецкий, И. С. 2001. Неолит юга Европейской
равнины. Swiatowit, 3(44), c. 41-90.
Клейн, Л. С. 1999. Миграция: археологические при-
знаки. Stratum plus, 1, с. 52-71.
Козин, Е. В., Комаров, А. М. 1989. Ранненеолитические
стоянки в южноуральских песках. В: Мерперт, М. (ред.) Нео-
лит и энеолит Северного Прикаспия. Самара: Куйбышевский
государственный педагогический институт, с. 3-18.
Комаров, А. М. 2002. Проблемы периодиза-
ции и хронологии мезолита Северного Прикаспия. В:
Выборнов, А. А. (ред.) Исторические исследования. Са-
мара: Куйбышевский государственный педагогический
институт, с. 3-10.
Котова, Н. С. 2002. Неолитизация Украины. Луганск:
Шлях.
Крижевская, Л. Я. 1992. Начало неолита в степях
Северного Причерноморья. Санкт-Петербург: Санкт-
Петербургский университет.
Леонова, Е. В. 2021. Грот Сосруко: ревизия мате-
риалов из раскопок С. Н. Замятнина и радиоуглерод-
ная хронология верхних слоев каменного века. Camera
Praehistorica, 1, с. 101-119.
Лукин, А. Л. 1950. Неолитическое селище Кистрик
близ Гудаут. Советская археология, XII, с. 247-286.
Манько, В. О., Чхатарашвілі, Г. Л. 2020a. Кам'яна інду-
стрія стоянки Кобулеті. Археологія і давня історія України,
4 (37), с. 94-106. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2990-7234
Манько, В. А., Чхатарашвили, Г. Л. 2020b. Ранне-
голоценовая стоянка Джварцхма в Западной Грузии.
Revista Arheologică, 16(1), с. 63-77. https://doi.org/10.5281/
zenodo.4058041
Манько, В. А., Чхатарашвили, Г. Л. 2021. Стоян-
ка Сосруко: проблемы интерпретации каменных комп-
лексов. Camera Praehistorica, 2, с. 36-57. http://doi.
org/10.31250/2658-3828-2021-2-36-57
Манько, В. О. 2013a. Iдеї Г. Чайлда та їх застосування для
вивчення неолiту Cхiдної Європи. Археологiя, 1, c. 16-32.
Манько, В. О. 2013b. Фінальний палеоліт — неоліт
Криму: культурно-історичний процес. Київ: Видавни-
цтво Філюка.
Манько, В. О. 2019. Поширення трапецій на відтис-
кних пластинах на півдні Східної Європи та процес не-
олітизації. В: Чабай, В. П. (відп. ред.) І Всеукраїнський
археологічний з'їзд: матеріали роботи. Київ: ІА НАНУ,
с. 159–170.
Манько, В. О. 2018. Гребениківська культурно-істо-
рична область. В: Сминтина, О. П. (ред.) Археологія, ет-
нологія та охорона культурної спадщини Південно-Схід-
ної Європи. Одеса: ОНУ, 2018, с. 70-92.
Маркевич, В. И. 1974. Буго-Днестровская культура
на территории Молдавии. Кишинев: Штиница.
Марков, Г. Е. 1966. Грот Дам-Дам-Чешме 2 в Восточ-
ном Прикаспии. Советская Археология, 2, с. 104-125.
Мелентьев, А. Н. 1975. Памятники сероглазовской
культуры. Краткие сообщения Института Археологии,
141, с. 112-117.
Мешвелиани, Т. 2013. К вопросу о возникновении не-
олита в Западной Грузии. Археология, этнография и ан-
тропология Евразии, 2(54), с. 61-72.
Нужний, Д. Ю. 2007. Розвиток мікролітичної техніки
в кам'яному віці. Київ: Видавництво КНТ.
Станко, В. Н. 1982. Мирное. Проблема мезолита сте-
пей Северного Причерноморья. Київ: Наукова думка.
Столяр, А. Д. 1959a. Первый Васильевский мезоли-
тический могильник. Археологический сборник, 1. Ленин-
град: Издательство Государственного Эрмитажа, c. 78-158.
Столяр, А. Д. 1959b. Разведка 3-го Васильевского мо-
гильника и изучение отдельных погребений в районе с.
Васильевки. Археологический сборник, 1. Ленинград: Из-
дательство Государственного Эрмитажа, c. 159-165.
Телегин, Д. Я. 1985. Памятники эпохи мезолита на
территории Украинской СССР. Киев: Наукова думка.
Теліженко, С. А. 2005. Туба-5, Туба-6 — неолітичні пам›ятки
в Середньому Подінців'ї. Кам'яна доба України, 7, с. 133-142.
Тубольцев, О. В. 2013. Типи знарядь з некрем'яних
порід на поселеннях сурскої культури. В: Тощев, Г. М.
та ін. (ред.). Північне Приазов'я в епоху кам'яного віку —
енеоліту. Матеріали міжнародної наукової конференції.
Мелітопіль: Музей Кам'яної Могили, с. 194-200.
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 248
Тубольцев, О. В. 1995. Новое неолитическое по-
селение Каменная Могила 3. Старожитності
Причорномор'я, 1, с. 1-6.
Церетели, Л. В., Клопотовская, Н. Б., Куренкова, Е. И.
1982. Многослойный памятник Апианча (Абхазия). Четвер-
тичная система Грузии. Тбилиси: Мецниерба, с. 199-212.
Цыбрий, В. В. 2008. Неолит Нижнего Дона и Севе-
ро-Восточного Приазовья. Ростов-на-Дону: Издатель-
ство Северо-Кавказского научного центра высшей школы
Южного федерального университета.
Яневич, А. А. 1984. Кукрекская стоянка Ивановка в Вос-
точном Крыму. В: Телегин, Д. Я. (ред.). Материалы каменного
века на территории Украины. Киев: Наукова думка, с. 69-73.
Яневич, О. О. 1987. Етапи розвитку культури Кукрек в
Криму. Археологія, 58, с. 7-18.
Яневич, О. О. 1993. Шпанська мезолітична культура.
Археологія, 1, с. 3-15.
Яневич, О. О. 2004. Таш-аїрська неолітична культура
Гірського Криму (сучасний стан дослідження). Кам'яна
доба України, 5, с. 169-191.
Яневич, О.О. 2017. Мис Трійці 1 — кукрецька
пам’ятка на Південному березі Криму. Кам'яна доба
України. 17-18, с. 175 -187.
Akkermans, Peter M.M.G., Verhoeven, M. 2006. Tell Sabi
Abyad II – The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Settlement. Leiden &
Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut.
Arimura, M., Chataigner, C., Gasparyan, B. 2009. Kmlo 2.
An Early Holocene Site in Armenia. NEO-LITHICS, 2, p. 17-19.
Arimura, M., Gasparyan, B., Chataigner, C. 2012.
Prehistoric Sites in Northwest Armenia: Kmlo-2 and
Tsaghkahovit. In: Curtis, J. L et al. (eds.). Proceedings of the
7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient
Near East 12 April – 16 April 2010, 3. London: British
Museum and UCL, p. 135-149.
Arimura, M., Petrossyan, A., Arakelyan, D., Nahapetyan, S.,
Gasparyan, B. 2018. A Preliminary Report on the 2015 and 2017
Field Seasons at the Lernagog-1 Site in Armenia. Armenian
Journal of Near Eastern Studies, XII (1), p. 1-18.
Benecke, N. 2006. Zur Datierung der Faunensequenz am
Abri San-Koba (Krim, Ukraine). Beitrage zur Archäozoologie
und Prähistorischen Anthropologie, 5, 2006, S. 12-15.
Berger, R., Protsch, R. 1973. The Domestication of Plants
and Animals in Europe and the Near East. Orientalia, Nova
seria, vol. 42, p. 214-227.
Bernbeck, R. 1991. Die Auflösung der häuslichen
Produktionsweise. Berlin: Freie Univ.
Çambel, H. 1980. Chronologie et organisation de Г espace
à Çayônii. In: Sanville, P. (ed.). Préhistoire du Levant. Paris:
CNRS, p. 531-553.
Caneva, I., Conti, A. M., Lemorini, C., Zampetti, D. 1994.
The Lithic Production at Çayönü: a Preliminary Overview of
the Aceramic Sequence. In: Gebel, H. G., Kozlowski, S. K.
(eds.). Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile
Crescent. Berlin: Ex Oriente, p. 253-266.
Chataigner, C. 1995. La Transcaucasie au Néolithique et
au Chalcolithique. Oxford: BAR International Series.
Chkhatarashvili, G., Manko, V. 2020. Kobuleti Site: The
Evidence of Early Holocene Occupation in Western Georgia.
Documenta Praehistorica, XLVII, p. 28-35.
Ckhatarashvili, G., Manko, V., Kakhidze, A., Esakiya, K.,
Chichinadze, M., Kulkova, M., Streltcov, M. 2020. South-
East Black Sea Coast in Early Holocene Period (According
to Interdisciplinary Archaeological Investigations in Kobuleti
Site). Sprawozdania Archeologiczne, 72(2), p. 213-230.
Coon, C. S. 1951. Cave Explorations in Iran 1949.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Coon, C. S. 1952. Excavations in Hotu Cave, Iran,
1951: a Preliminary Report. Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society, 96(3), p. 231-249.
Dittermore, M. 1983. The Soundings at M’lefaat. In:
Braidwood, L. S., Braidwood, R. J., Howe, B., Reed, C. A.,
Watson, P. J. (eds.). Prehistoric Archaeology along The Zagros
Flanks. Chicago: Chicago University Press, p. 671-692.
Gabunia, M. 1976. Trialetian Mesolithic Culture. Tbilisi:
Metsniereba.
Gabunia, M. 2001. Javakhetian Mesolithic Culture.
Javakheti. History and Archaeology, I, p. 136-165.
Gabunia, M., Tsereteli, L. 2003. Mesolithic Cultures of
Caucasus. Journal of the Centre for Archaeological Studies,
12, p. 5-12 (in Georgian).
Garrard, A. N., Byrd, B. F. 1992. New Dimensions to
the Epipalaeolithic of the Wadi el-Jilat in Central Jordan.
Paléorient, 18(1), p. 47-62.
Gogitidze, S. 1977. The Neolithic Culture of the South-
Eastern Black Sea Littoral. Tbilisi: Metsniereba (in Georgian).
Gogitidze, S. 2008. The Archaeological Sites of the Stone
Age in the Kintrishi Valley. Batumi: Batumi University.
Golovanova, L. V., Doronichev, V. B., Doronicheva, E. V.,
Tregub, T. F., Volkov, M. A., Spasovskiy, Y. N.,
Petrov, A. Yu., Maksimov, F. E., Nedomolkin, A. G.
2020. Dynamique du climat et du peuplement du Caucase
Nord-Central au tournant du Pléistocène et de l’Holocène.
L’anthropologie, 124(2), p. 1-20.
Goring-Morris, A. N. 1987. At the Edge. Terminal
Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherers in the Negev and Sinai.
Oxford: BAR International.
Grosman, L. 2013 The Natufian Chronological Scheme.
New Insights and Their Implications. In: Bar-Yosef, O.,
Valla, F. (eds.). The Natufian Foragers in the Levant. Terminal
Pleistocene Social Changes in Western Asia. Michigan: Ann
Arbor, p. 622-637.
Hole, F. 1977. Studies in the Archeological History of the Deh
Luran plain: the Excavation of Chagha Sefid. Michigan: Ann Arbor.
Hole, F. 1983. The Jarmo Chipped Stone. In:
Braidwood, R. J., Braidwood, L. S., Howe, B., Reed, C. A.,
Watson, P. J. (eds.). Prehistoric Archaeology Along the Zagros
Flanks. Chicago: Chicago University Press, p. 233-284.
Hole, F. 1987. Chronologies in the Iranian Neolithic.
Auranche, O. (ed.). Chronologies in the Near East. Oxford:
BAR International Series.
Hole, F., Flannary, K. V., Neely, J. A. 1969. Prehistory
and Human Ecology of Deh Luran Plain. An Early Village
Sequence from Khuzistan, Iran. Michigan: Ann Arbor.
Housley, R. A. 1994. Eastern Mediterranean Chronologies:
The Oxford AMS Contribution. Radiocarbon, 36, p. 55-73.
Howe, B. 1983. Karim Shahir. In: Braidwood, R. J.,
Braidwood, L. S., Howe, B., Reed, C. A., Watson, P. J. (eds.).
Prehistoric Archaeology Along the Zagros Flanks. Chicago:
Chicago University Press, p. 23-154.
Jayez, M., Vahdati Nasab, H. 2016. A Separation: Caspian
Mesolithic vs Trialetian Lithic Industry. A Research on the
Excavated Site of Komishan, Southeast of the Caspian Sea,
Iran. Paléorient, 42(1), p. 75-94.
Jones, E. R., Gonzalez-Fortes, G., Connell, S.,
Siska, V., Eriksson, A., Martiniano, R., McLaughlin, R. L.,
Liorete, M., G., Cassidy, L. M., Gamba, C., Meshveliani, T.,
Bar-Yosef, O., Müllen, W., Belfer-Cohen, A., Matskevich, Z.,
Jakeli, N., Higman, T.F.G., Currat, M., Lordkipanidze, D.,
Hofreiten, M., Manica, A., Pinhasi, R., Bredly, D. C. 2015.
Upper Palaeolithic Genomes Reveal Deep Roots of Modern
Eurasians. Nature Communications, 6, p. 1-8.
Kalandadze, K. 1986. Neolithic Culture of Western
Georgia in a Light of New Discoveries. Tbilisi: Metsniereba. (In
Georgian).
Kaufman, D. 1988. New Radiocarbon Dates for the
Geometric Kebaran. Paléorient 14(1), p. 107-109.
Korobkova, G. F. 1996. The Neolithic Chipped
Stone Industries of the South Caucasus. In: Gebel, H. G.,
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 2 49
Kozlowski, S. K. (eds.). Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of
the Fertile Crescent, and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent
Regions. Berlin: Ex Oriente, p. 57-90.
Kozłowski, S. K. 1994. Radiocarbon Dates from Aceramic
Iraq. Radiocarbon, 36, p. 255-264.
Kozłowski, S. K. 1999. The Eastern Wing of Fertile
Crescent: Late Prehistory of Great Mesopotamian Lithic
Industries. Oxford: BAR International Series.
Kozlowski, S.K., Aurenche, O. 2005. Territories, Boundaries
and Cultures in the Neolithic Near East. Oxford: BAR International.
Manko, V., Chkhatarashvili, G. 2021. Final Pleistocene
— Early Holocene Edzani Culture on Caucasus and
Transcaucasia and Problems of Neolithization of East Europe.
Sprawozdania Archeologiczne, forthcoming.
Matsutani, T. 1991. Excavation Report on Kashkashok II.
Institute of Oriental Culture.
McBurney, C. B. M., Payne, R. 2014. The Cave of Ali
Tappeh and the Epi-Palaeolithic in N.E. Iran. Proceedings of
the Prehistoric Society, 34, p. 385-413.
Meadow, R. H. 1989. Prehistoric Wild Sheep and
Sheep Domestication on the Eastern Margin of the Middle
East. In: Crabtree, P., Campana, D., Ryan, K. (eds.). Early
Animal Domestication and Its Cultural Context. Philadelphia:
University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology,
University of Pennsylvania, p. 24-36.
Meshveliani, T., Bar-Oz, G., Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-
Cohen, A., Boareto, E., Jakeli, N., Koridze, E., Matskevich, Z.
2007. Mesolithic Hunters at Kotias Klde in Western Georgia:
Preliminary Results. Paleorient, 33(2), p. 47-58.
Muheisen, M. 1988. La Gisement de Karanekh IV. Note
Summaire Sur la phase D. Paléorient, 14, p. 265-269.
Nebieridze, L. 1972. The Neolithic of Western
Transcaucasia. Tbilisi: Metsniereba (in Georgian).
Nebieridze, L. 1978. Multilayer RockShelter Darkveti.
Tbilisi: Metsniereba (in Georgian).
Nishiaki, Y., Zeynalov, A., Mansrov, M, Akashi, C.,
Arai, S., Shimogama, K., Guliyev, F. 2019. The Mesolithic-
Neolithic Interface in the Southern Caucasus: 2016—
2017 Excavations at Damjili Cave, West Azerbaijan.
Archaeological Research in Asia, 19, p. 1-16.
Nishiaki, Y., Darabi, H. 2018. The Earliest Neolithic
Lithic Industries of the Central Zagros: New Evidence from
East Chia Sabz, Western Iran. Archaeological Research in
Asia, 16, p. 46-57.
Ozdogan, M. 1994. Çayönü: The Chipped Stone Industry
of the Pottery Neolithic Layers. Gebel, H. G., Kozlowski, S. K.
(eds.). Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile
Crescent. Berlin: Ex Oriente, p. 267-278.
Petrosyan, A., Arimura, M., Nahapetyan, S., Arakelyan, D.,
Gasparyan, B. 2021. A Step Forward to the Neolithization: Early
Holocene Sites of the Republic of Armenia. In: Avetisyan, P.,
Bobokhyan, A. (eds.). Archaeology of Armenia in Regional Context.
Yerevan: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnografy, p. 1-18.
Rosenberg, M. 1994. A Preliminary Description of
the Lithic Industry from Hallan Cemi. In: Gebel, H. G.,
Kozlowski, S. K. (eds.). Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries
of the Fertile Crescent. Berlin: Ex Oriente, p. 223-238.
Solovʹev, L. N. 1967. Neolithic Sites of Black Sea Cost of
Caucasus, Nizhneshilovskoe and Kistrik. Tbilisi: Metsnierba.
(In Georgian).
Stein, G. J. 1992. Archaeological Survey at Sürük Mevkii:
a Ceramic Neolithic Site in the Euphrates River Valley,
Southeastern Turkey. Anatolica, 18, p. 19-32.
Telegin, D., Potekhina, I., Lillie, M., Kovaliukh, M.
2002. The Chronology of the Mariupol-type Cemeteries of
Ukraine Re-visited. Antiquity, 76(292), p. 356-363. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X0009044X
Varoutsikos, B., Mgeladze, A., Chahoud, J., Gabunia, M.,
Agapishvili, T., Martin, L., Chataigner, C. 2017. From the
Mesolithic to the Chalcolithic in the South Caucasus: New
Data from the Bavra Ablari Rock Shelter. In: Batmaz, A.,
Bedianashvili, G., Michalewicz, A., Robinson, A. (eds.). Context
and Connection: Essays on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near
East in Honour of Antonio Sagona. Leuven: Peeters, p. 233-255.
Yeshurun, R. Kaufman, D. Shtober-Zisu, N. Gershtein, E.
Riemer, Y. Rosen, A. M., Nadel, D. 2015. Renewed Fieldwork
at the Geometric Kebaran Site of Neve David, Mount Carmel.
Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society, 45, p. 31-54.
Zaitseva, G. I., Timofeev, V. I., Zagorska, N. N.,
Kovaliukh, N. N. 2000. Radiocarbon Dates of the Mesolithic Sites
of Eastern Europe. Radiocarbon and Archaeology, I, p. 33-52.
Zeder, M., Hesse, B. 2000. The Initial Domestication of Goats
(Capra hircus) in the Zagros Mountains 10,000 Years Ago. Science,
New Series, vol. 287, 5461 (Mar. 24, 2000), p. 2254-2257.
Валерiй О. Манько 1, ҐГурам Л. Чхатарашвiлi 2
1 Кандидат історичних наук, старший науковий співробітник відділу археології Криму та Північно-Західного Причорномор'я,
Інститут археології НАН України.
2 PhD in History, науковий співробітник відділу фондів кам'яної доби, Археологічний музей Аджарії.
ЗАКАВКАЗЗЯ ТА НЕОЛIТ СХIДНОЇ ЄВРОПИ
Початок голоцену був пов'язаний із серією міграцій населення Закавказзя на територію Східної Європи. Ми відзначаємо
чотири масштабних міграції: носіїв кобулетської, триалетської, даркветської та едзанської культур.
Походження кобулетської культури пов'язане із Середнім Сходом. Кам'яна індустрія характеризується наявністю техніки
ручного відтиску, заснованої на використанні конічних та олівцеподібних нуклеусів, а також застосуванням пластинок із
притупленими краями. Культура сформувалася на початку пребореалу. Розселення носіїв кобулетської культури призвело
до появи кукрецької й донецької культур на території Гірського Криму та степової зони Північно-Західного Причорномор'я.
Триалетська культура походить зі Східної Анатолії та Південного Прикаспію. Культура характеризується використанням
технології ударного розщеплення й розщеплення за допомогою посередника. Мікролітичні комплекси характеризуються на-
явністю асиметричних трикутників і сегментів. Міграція на територію Гірського Криму та порогів Дніпра почалася на межі
плейстоцену-голоцену й призвела до появи шпан-кобинської культури, що існувала до кінця бореалу. Не виключено, що
мурзак-кобинська культура Криму з'явилася внаслідок розвитку триалетських традицій шпан-кобинської культури.
Даркветська культура є автохтонною культурою Закавказзя. Кам'яна індустрія характеризується використанням
ручного відтиску й наявністю сплощених нуклеусів. Мікролітичні комплекси представлені в основному трапеціями, які
виготовлялися з відтискних пластин.
Переселення носіїв даркветської культури в середині бореалу призвело до появи матвієвокурганської, гребеників-
ської та буго-дністерської культур Північно-Західного Причорномор'я і Приазов'я.
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 250
Поява едзанської культури пов'язана з фінальним плейстоценом, а її формування — з епіпалеолітичними культурами Близь-
кого Сходу. Розщеплення нуклеусів здійснювалося ударним методом. Мікролітичні комплекси характеризує наявність сегмен-
тів із гелуанською ретушшю, низьких трапецій, асиметричних трикутників. Міграція носіїв культури почалася на межі бореалу-
атлантикуму та призвела до появи платовоставської та сіроглазівської культур на Нижньому Дону та в Північному Прикаспії.
Міграції закавказького населення в ранньому голоцені стали передумовою подальшої неолітизації Східної Європи.
Ключові слова: Закавказзя, ранній голоцен, міграції, неолітизація, критерії міграції, відтискна техніка
розщеплення, пластинки з притупленми краями, трапеції, сегменти, трикутники.
References
Amirhanov, H.A. 1987. Chohskoe poselenie, chelovek i ego kultura v mezolite i neolite gornogo Dagestana. Moskva: Nauka.
Bader, N. O., Tsereteli, L. D. 1989. Mezolit Kavkaza. In: Koltsov, L. V. (exec. ed.). Mezolit SSSR. Moskva: Nauka.
Bibikov, S. N., Stanko, V. N., Koen, V. Iu. 1994. Finalnyi paleolit i mezolit Gornogo Kryma. Odessa: ONU.
Britiuk, A. A. 2006. Neoliticheskie stoianki Murzina Balka 1 i 2 i Baragusta. In: Siniuk, A. T. (ed.) Arkheologicheskie pamiat-
niki Vostochnoi Evropy. Voronezh: Izd-vo VGPU, p. 21-34.
Vasilev, I. V., Vybornov, A. A., Komarov, A. N. 1988. Mezoliticheskie stoianki Severnogo Prikaspiia. In: Merpert, N. Ia. (ed.) Ark-
heologicheskie kultury Severnogo Prikaspiia. Kuibyshev: Kuibyshevskii gosudarstvennyi pedagogicheskii institut, p. 3-41.
Vekilova, E. A. 1951. Epipaleoliticheskaia stoianka Kukrek v Krymu. Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta istorii materialnoi kultury, 36, p. 87-95.
Voronov, Iu. N. 1984. Pamiatniki kamennogo veka Voenno-Sukhumskoi dorogi. Tbilisi: Metsniereba.
Vybornov, A. A. 2008. Neolit Volgo-Kamia. Samara: Samarskii gosudarstvennyi pedagogicheskii universitet.
Golovanova, L. V., Doronichev, V. B., Doronicheva, E. V., Nedomolkin, A. G. 2021. Geometric Microliths in the Upper Paleo-
lithic of the Caucasus and Adjacent Territories. Izvestiia Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia Geoarkheologi-
ia. Etnologiia. Antropologiia, 38, p. 78-111. https://doi.org/10.26516/2227-2380.2021.38.78
Gorelik, A., Shestakov, I., Vikulina, V. 2005. Materialy neoliticheskoi stoianki Dolzhik. In: Otroshchenko, V. V. (ed.). Materialy
konferentsii arkheologov i kraevedov. Lugansk: Luganskii kraevedcheskii muzei, p. 112-118.
Gorelik, A.F. 1984. Exploration of Mesolithic Complexes of Zimovniki I Site North-East of Azov Sea. Sovetskaya arheologiya,
2, s. 115 -133. (In Russian)
Gorelik, A.F., Tsyibriy, A.V., Tsyibriy, V.V. 2014. What did the Skull of Aurochs, an Axe and Female Statuettes Tell Us about?
(On the problem of the initial neolithisation on the Lower Don). Stratum plus, 2, s. 247 -282. (In Russian)
Danylenko, V. M. 1986. Kamiana mohyla. Kyiv: Naukova dumka.
Zalіzniak, L.L. 1998. The prehistory of Ukraine in the X-V millennia BC. Kyiv: Bіblіoteka ukraincja. (In Ukrainian)
Zalizniak, L.L., Motsia, O.P., Zubar, V.M., Buniatian, K.P., Otroshchenko, V.V., Terpylovskyi, R.V. 2005. The archaeology of
Ukraine. Kyiv: Lybid. (In Ukrainian)
Zalizniak, L.L., Tovkailo, M.T., Manko, V.O., Sorokun, A.A. 2013. Sites in the Vicinity of the Dobryanka Hamlet and Issue of
Bug-Dniester Interfluvial Neolithization. Kamiana doba Ukrainy, 15. Kyiv: Shliakh, s. 194 -257. (In Ukrainian)
Zamiatnin, S. N., Akritas, P. G. 1957. Arkheologicheskie issledovaniia 1957 goda v Baksanskom ushchele. Uchenye zapiski Kab-
ardino-Balkarskogo nauchno-issledovatelskogo instituta, XIII. Nalchik: Kabardino-Balkarskoe knizhnoe izdatelstvo, p. 471–473.
Kazakova, L. M. 1973. Novye mezoliticheskie mestonakhozhdeniia na Nizhnem Donu. In: Kiiashko, V. Ia. (ed.) Arkheologich-
eskie raskopki na Donu. Rostov-na-Donu, p. 3-18.
Kamenetskii, I. S. 2001. Neolit iuga Evropeiskoi ravniny. Swiatowit, 3(44), p. 41-90.
Klejn, L.S. 1999. Migration: Archaeological hallmarks. Stratum plus, 1, p. 52-71. (In Russian).
Kozin, E. V., Komarov, A. M. 1989. Ranneneoliticheskie stoianki v iuzhnouralskikh peskakh. In: Merpert, M. (ed.) Neolit i ene-
olit Severnogo Prikaspiia. Samara: Kuibyshevskii gosudarstvennyi pedagogicheskii institut, p. 3-18.
Komarov, A. M. 2002. Problemy periodizatsii i khronologii mezolita Severnogo Prikaspiia. In: Vybornov, A. A. (ed.) Istorich-
eskie issledovaniia. Samara: Kuibyshevskii gosudarstvennyi pedagogicheskii institut, p. 3-10.
Kotova, N.S. 2002. The Neolithization of Ukraine. Shliakh: Lugansk. (In Russian).
Krizhevskaia, L. Ia. 1992. Nachalo neolita v stepiakh Severnogo Prichernomoria. Sankt-Peterburg: Sankt-Peterburgskii universitet.
Leonova, E.V. 2021. Sosruco Rockshelter: Revision of Materials of the Excavation by S.N. Zamiatnin and the Upper Horizons
Radiocarbon Chronology. Camera Praehistorica, 1, p. 101 -119. (In Russian).
Lukin, A. L. 1950. Neoliticheskoe selishche Kistrik bliz Gudaut. Sovetskaia arkheologiia, XII, p. 247-286.
Manko, V. O., Chkhatarashvili, H. L. 2020a. The Stone Industry of Kobuleti Site. Arkheolohiia i davnia istoriia Ukrainy, 4 (37),
s. 94 -106. (In Ukrainian). http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2990-7234
Manko, V. A., Chkhatarashvili, G. L. 2020b. Rannegolotsenovaia stoianka Dzhvartskhma v Zapadnoi Gruzii. Revista Arheolog-
ică, 16(1), p. 63-77. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4058041
Manko., V.A. Chkhatarashvili, G.L. 2021. Sosruko site: Problems of Interpreting of the Chipped Stone Assemblages. Camera
Praehistorica, 2, p. 36 -57. (In Russian) http://doi.org/10.31250/2658-3828-2021-2-36-57
Manko, V.O. 2013a. G. Childe's Ideas and their Application for Eastern Europe Neolithic Studies. Arkheolohiia, 1, c. 16 -32. (In Ukrainian)
Manko, V.O. 2013b. The Final Palaeolithic and Neolithic of Crimea. Kyiv: Vydavnytstvo Filiuka.
Manko, V.O. Grebeniky Cultural and Historical Region. 2018. O.P. Smyntyna (red.) Arkheolohiia, etnolohiia ta okhorona kul-
turnoi spadshchyny Pivdenno-Skhidnoi Yevropy. Odesa: ONU, 2018, s. 70-92. (In Ukrainian).
Manko, V. O., Chkhatarashvili, H. L. 2020b. Zakhidna Hruziia yak tranzytna terytoriia na shliakhu mihratsii protoneolitychnoho nase-
lennia u Skhidnu Yevropu, Arkheolohiia i davnia istoriia Ukrainy, 4 (37), p. 329-339. https://doi.org/10.37445/adiu.2020.04.27
Markevich, V. I. 1974. Bugo-Dnestrovskaia kultura na territorii Moldavii. Kishinev: Shtinitsa.
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 2 51
Markov, G. E. 1966. Grot Dam-Dam-Cheshme 2 v Vostochnom Prikaspii. Sovetskaia Arkheologiia, 2, p. 104-125.
Melentev, A. N. 1975. Pamiatniki seroglazovskoi kultury. Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta Arkheologii, 141, p. 112-117.
Meshveliani, T. 2013. K voprosu o vozniknovenii neolita v Zapadnoi Gruzii. Arkheologiia, etnografiia i antropologiia Evrazii,
2(54), p. 61-72.
Nuzhnyi, D. Yu. 2007. Rozvytok mikrolitychnoi tekhniky v kamianomu vitsi. Kyiv: Vydavnytstvo KNT.
Stanko, V. N. 1982. Mirnoe. Problema mezolita stepei Severnogo Prichernomoria. Kyiv: Naukova dumka.
Stoliar, A. D. 1959a. Pervyi Vasilevskii mezoliticheskii mogilnik. Arkheologicheskii sbornik, 1. Leningrad: Izdatelstvo Gosu-
darstvennogo Ermitazha, p. 78-158.
Stoliar, A. D. 1959b. Razvedka 3-go Vasilevskogo mogilnika i izuchenie otdelnykh pogrebenii v raione s. Vasilevki. Arkheolog-
icheskii sbornik, 1. Leningrad: Izdatelstvo Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha, p. 159-165.
Telegin, D. Ia. 1985. Pamiatniki epokhi mezolita na territorii Ukrainskoi SSSR. Kyiv: Naukova dumka.
Telizhenko, S.A. 2005. Tuba 5 and Tuba 6, Neolithic sites in Middle Don area. Kamiana doba Ukrainy, 7, s.133-142. (In Ukrainian).
Tuboltsev, O. V. 2013. Typy znariad z nekremianykh porid na poselenniakh surskoi kultury. In: Toshchev, H. M. et al. (eds.).
Pivnichne Pryazovia v epokhu kamianoho viku — eneolitu. Materialy mizhnarodnoi naukovoi konferentsii. Melitopil:
Muzei Kam’ianoi Mohyly, p. 194-200.
Tuboltsev, O. V. 1995. Novoe neoliticheskoe poselenie Kamennaia Mogila 3. Starozhitnostі Prichornomoria, 1, p. 1-6.
Tsereteli, L. V., Klopotovskaia, N. B., Kurenkova, E. I. 1982. Mnogosloinyi pamiatnik Apiancha (Abkhaziia). Chetvertichnaia
sistema Gruzii. Tbilisi: Metsnierba, p. 199-212.
Tsyibrii, V.V. 2008. The Neolithic of Lower Don and Northern-Western Azov basin.
Yanevich, A. A. 1984. Kukrekskaia stoianka Ivanovka v Vostochnom Krymu. In: Telegin, D. Ia. (ed.). Materialy kamennogo
veka na territorii Ukrainy. Kyiv: Naukova dumka, p. 69-73.
Yanevych, O. O. 1987. Etapy rozvytku kultury Kukrek v Krymu. Arheologia, 58, p. 7-18.
Yanevych, O. O. 1993. Shpanska Mesolithic Culture. Arheologia, 1, p. 3-15.
Yanevych, O. O. 2004. The Tash-Air Neolithic Culture of Mountinous Crimea. Kamiana doba Ukrainy, 5, p. 169-191.
Yanevych, O.O. 2017. Troitsa Cape 1 — Kukrek site on the South Coast of the Black Sea. Kamiana doba Ukrainy, 17-18, p. 175 -187.
Akkermans, Peter M.M.G., Verhoeven, M. 2006. Tell Sabi Abyad II – The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Settlement. Leiden & Istan-
bul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut.
Arimura, M., Chataigner, C., Gasparyan, B. 2009. Kmlo 2. An Early Holocene Site in Armenia. NEO-LITHICS, 2, p. 17-19.
Arimura, M., Gasparyan, B., Chataigner, C. 2012. Prehistoric Sites in Northwest Armenia: Kmlo-2 and Tsaghkahovit. In: Cur-
tis, J. L et al. (eds.). Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East 12 April
– 16 April 2010, 3. London: British Museum and UCL, p. 135-149.
Arimura, M., Petrossyan, A., Arakelyan, D., Nahapetyan, S., Gasparyan, B. 2018. A Preliminary Report on the 2015 and 2017
Field Seasons at the Lernagog-1 site in Armenia. Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies, XII (1), p. 1-18.
Benecke, N. 2006. Zur Datierung der Faunensequenz am Abri San-Koba (Krim, Ukraine). Beitrage zur Archäozoologie und
Prähistorischen Anthropologie, 5, 2006, S. 12-15.
Berger, R., Protsch, R. 1973. The Domestication of Plants and Animals in Europe and the Near East. Orientalia, Nova seria,
vol. 42, p. 214-227.
Bernbeck, R. 1991. Die Auflösung der häuslichen Produktionsweise. Berlin: Freie Univ.
Çambel, H. 1980. Chronologie et organisation de Г espace à Çayônii. In: Sanville, P. (ed.). Préhistoire du Levant. Paris: CNRS, p. 531-553.
Caneva, I., Conti, A. M., Lemorini, C., Zampetti, D. 1994. The Lithic Production at Çayönü: a Preliminary Overview of the Ac-
eramic Sequence. In: Gebel, H. G., Kozlowski, S. K. (eds.). Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent.
Berlin: Ex Oriente, p. 253-266.
Chataigner, C. 1995. La Transcaucasie au Néolithique et au Chalcolithique. Oxford: BAR International Series.
Chkhatarashvili, G., Manko, V. 2020. Kobuleti Site: The Evidence of Early Holocene Occupation in Western Georgia. Docu-
menta Praehistorica, XLVII, p. 28-35.
Ckhatarashvili, G., Manko, V., Kakhidze, A., Esakiya, K., Chichinadze, M., Kulkova, M., Streltcov, M. 2020. South-East
Black Sea Coast in Early Holocene Period (According to Interdisciplinary Archaeological Investigations in Kobuleti Site).
Sprawozdania Archeologiczne, 72(2), p. 213-230.
Coon, C. S. 1951. Cave Explorations in Iran 1949. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Coon, C. S. 1952. Excavations in Hotu Cave, Iran, 1951: A Preliminary Report. Proceedings of the American Philosophical So-
ciety, 96(3), p. 231-249.
Dittermore, M. 1983. The Soundings at M’lefaat. In: Braidwood, L. S., Braidwood, R. J., Howe, B., Reed, C. A., Watson, P. J.
(eds.). Prehistoric Archaeology along The Zagros Flanks. Chicago: Chicago University Press, p. 671-692.
Gabunia, M. 1976. Trialetian Mesolithic Culture. Tbilisi: Metsniereba.
Gabunia, M. 2001. Javakhetian Mesolithic Culture. Javakheti. History and Archaeology, I, p. 136-165.
Gabunia, M., Tsereteli, L. 2003. Mesolithic Cultures of Caucasus. Journal of the Centre for Archaeological Studies, 12, p. 5-12 (in Georgian).
Garrard, A. N., Byrd, B. F. 1992. New Dimensions to the Epipalaeolithic of the Wadi el-Jilat in Central Jordan. Paléorient, 18(1), p. 47-62.
Gogitidze, S. 1977. The Neolithic culture of the South-Eastern Black Sea Littoral. Tbilisi: Metsniereba (in Georgian).
Gogitidze, S. 2008. The Archaeological Sites of the Stone Age in the Kintrishi Valley. Batumi: Batumi University.
Golovanova, L. V., Doronichev, V. B., Doronicheva, E. V., Tregub, T. F., Volkov, M. A., Spasovskiy, Y. N., Petrov, A. Yu.,
Maksimov, F. E., Nedomolkin, A. G. 2020. Dynamique du climat et du peuplement du Caucase Nord-Central au tournant
du Pléistocène et de l’Holocène. L’anthropologie, 124(2), p. 1-20.
Goring-Morris, A. N. 1987. At the Edge. Terminal Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherers in the Negev and Sinai. Oxford: BAR International.
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2022, № 252
Grosman, L. 2013 The Natufian Chronological Scheme. New Insights and Their Implications. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Valla, F. (eds.). The
Natufian Foragers in the Levant. Terminal Pleistocene Social Changes in Western Asia. Michigan: Ann Arbor, p. 622-637.
Hole, F. 1977. Studies in the Archeological History of the Deh Luran plain: the Excavation of Chagha Sefid. Michigan: Ann Arbor.
Hole, F. 1983. The Jarmo Chipped Stone. In: Braidwood, R. J., Braidwood, L. S., Howe, B., Reed, C. A., Watson, P. J. (eds.).
Prehistoric Archaeology Along the Zagros Flanks. Chicago: Chicago University Press, p. 233-284.
Hole, F. 1987. Chronologies in the Iranian Neolithic. Auranche, O. (ed.). Chronologies in the Near East. Oxford: BAR International Series.
Hole, F., Flannary, K. V., Neely, J. A. 1969. Prehistory and Human Ecology of Deh Luran Plain. An Early Village Sequence
from Khuzistan, Iran. Michigan: Ann Arbor.
Housley, R. A. 1994. Eastern Mediterranean Chronologies: The Oxford AMS Contribution. Radiocarbon, 36, p. 55-73.
Howe, B. 1983. Karim Shahir. In: Braidwood, R. J., Braidwood, L. S., Howe, B., Reed, C. A., Watson, P. J. (eds.). Prehistoric
Archaeology Along the Zagros Flanks. Chicago: Chicago University Press, p. 23-154.
Jayez, M., Vahdati Nasab, H. 2016. A Separation: Caspian Mesolithic vs Trialetian Lithic Industry. A Research on the Excavated
Site of Komishan, Southeast of the Caspian Sea, Iran. Paléorient, 42(1), p. 75-94.
Jones, E. R., Gonzalez-Fortes, G., Connell, S., Siska, V., Eriksson, A., Martiniano, R., McLaughlin, R. L., Liorete, M., G.,
Cassidy, L. M., Gamba, C., Meshveliani, T., Bar-Yosef, O., Müllen, W., Belfer-Cohen, A., Matskevich, Z., Jakeli, N.,
Higman, T.F.G., Currat, M., Lordkipanidze, D., Hofreiten, M., Manica, A., Pinhasi, R., Bredly, D. C. 2015. Upper
Palaeolithic Genomes Reveal Deep Roots of Modern Eurasians. Nature Communications, 6, p. 1-8.
Kalandadze, K. 1986. Neolithic Culture of Western Georgia in a light of new discoveries. Tbilisi: Metsniereba. (In Georgian).
Kaufman, D. 1988. New Radiocarbon Dates for the Geometric Kebaran. Paléorient 14(1), p. 107-109.
Korobkova, G. F. 1996. The Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the South Caucasus. In: Gebel, H. G., Kozlowski, S. K. (eds.). Neolithic
Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, and Their Contemporaries in Adjacent Regions. Berlin: Ex Oriente, p. 57-90.
Kozłowski, S. K. 1994. Radiocarbon Dates from Aceramic Iraq. Radiocarbon, 36, p. 255-264.
Kozłowski, S. K. 1999. The Eastern Wing of Fertile Crescent: Late Prehistory of Great Mesopotamian Lithic Industries. Oxford:
BAR International Series.
Manko, V.O. 2019. The dissemination of Trapezes on Pressing Blades in Southern Eastern Europe and the Neolithization Process.
V.P. Chabai (red.) I Vseukrainskyi arkheolohichnyi zizd: materialy roboty. Kyiv: IA NANU, s. 159–170. (In Ukrainian).
Manko, V.O. Grebeniky Cultural and Historical Region. 2018. O.P. Smyntyna (red.) Arkheolohiia, etnolohiia ta okhorona
kulturnoi spadshchyny Pivdenno-Skhidnoi Yevropy. Odesa: ONU, 2018, s. 70 -92. (In Ukrainian)
Matsutani, T. 1991. Excavation Report on Kashkashok II. Institute of Oriental Culture.
McBurney, C. B. M., Payne, R. 2014. The Cave of Ali Tappeh and the Epi-Palaeolithic in N.E. Iran. Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society, 34, p. 385-413.
Meadow, R. H. 1989. Prehistoric Wild Sheep and Sheep Domestication on the Eastern Margin of the Middle East. In: Crabtree, P.,
Campana, D., Ryan, K. (eds.). Early Animal Domestication and Its Cultural Context. Philadelphia: University Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, p. 24-36.
Meshveliani, T., Bar-Oz, G., Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., Boareto, E., Jakeli, N., Koridze, E., Matskevich, Z. 2007.
Mesolithic Hunters at Kotias Klde in Western Georgia: Preliminary Results. Paleorient, 33(2), p. 47-58.
Muheisen, M. 1988. La Gisement de Karanekh IV. Note Summaire Sur la phase D. Paléorient, 14, p. 265-269.
Nebieridze, L. 1972. The Neolithic of Western Transcaucasia. Tbilisi: Metsniereba (in Georgian).
Nebieridze, L. 1978. Multilayer RockShelter Darkveti. Tbilisi: Metsniereba (in Georgian).
Nishiaki, Y., Zeynalov, A., Mansrov, M, Akashi, C., Arai, S., Shimogama, K., Guliyev, F. 2019. The Mesolithic-Neolithic Interface in
the Southern Caucasus: 2016—2017 Excavations at Damjili Cave, West Azerbaijan. Archaeological Research in Asia, 19, p. 1-16.
Ozdogan, M. 1994. Çayönü: The Chipped Stone Industry of the Pottery Neolithic layers. Gebel, H. G., Kozlowski, S. K. (eds.).
Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent. Berlin: Ex Oriente, p. 267-278.
Petrosyan, A., Arimura, M., Nahapetyan, S., Arakelyan, D., Gasparyan, B. 2021. A Step Forward to the Neolithization: Early
Holocene Sites of the Republic of Armenia. In: Avetisyan, P., Bobokhyan, A. (eds.). Archaeology of Armenia in Regional
Context. Yerevan: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnografy, p. 1-18.
Rosenberg, M. 1994. A Preliminary Description of the Lithic Industry from Hallan Cemi. In: Gebel, H. G., Kozlowski, S. K.
(eds.). Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent. Berlin: Ex Oriente, p. 223-238.
Solovʹev, L. N. 1967. Neolithic Sites of Black Sea Cost of Caucasus, Nizhneshilovskoe and Kistrik. Tbilisi: Metsnierba. (In Georgian).
Stein, G. J. 1992. Archaeological Survey at Sürük Mevkii: a Ceramic Neolithic Site in the Euphrates River Valley, Southeastern
Turkey. Anatolica, 18, p. 19-32.
Telegin, D., Potekhina, I., Lillie, M., Kovaliukh, M. 2002. The Chronology of the Mariupol-type Cemeteries of Ukraine Re-
visited. Antiquity, 76(292), p. 356-363. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X0009044X
Varoutsikos, B., Mgeladze, A., Chahoud, J., Gabunia, M., Agapishvili, T., Martin, L., Chataigner, C. 2017. From the Mesolithic
to the Chalcolithic in the South Caucasus: New Data from the Bavra Ablari Rock Shelter. In: Batmaz, A., Bedianashvili, G.,
Michalewicz, A., Robinson, A. (eds.). Context and Connection: Essays on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in
Honour of Antonio Sagona. Leuven: Peeters, p. 233-255.
Yeshurun, R. Kaufman, D. Shtober-Zisu, N. Gershtein, E. Riemer, Y. Rosen, A. M., Nadel, D. 2015. Renewed Fieldwork at the
Geometric Kebaran Site of Neve David, Mount Carmel. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society, 45, p. 31-54.
Zaitseva, G. I., Timofeev, V. I., Zagorska, N. N., Kovaliukh, N. N. 2000. Radiocarbon Dates of the Mesolithic Sites of Eastern
Europe. Radiocarbon and Archaeology, I, p. 33-52.
Zeder, M., Hesse, B. 2000. The Initial Domestication of Goats (Capra hircus) in the Zagros Mountains 10,000 Years Ago.
Science, New Series, vol. 287, 5461 (Mar. 24, 2000), p. 2254-2257.
|