Data on raw stone deposits discovered and studied by the authors and methods of their transportation to sites in the Upper Paleolithic of the Northwestern Caucasus are published. The study of obsidian objects suggests that obsidian moved from remote areas of the Central and Southern Caucasus, which confirms interregional contacts in the Upper Paleolithic.

Key words: raw stone, Upper Paleolithic, North-West Caucasus, mobility.

Introduction

Today, much attention is paid to the study of the use of raw stone materials in the Paleolithic. The study of strategies for the utilization of raw materials, their sources, and transportation provides new data on fission technology (Roebroeks, Kolen, and Rensink, 1988; Rolland, Dibble, 1990; Turq, 1992; Nekhoroshoe, 1999; Andrefsky, 2009), habitat area (Hovers, 1990; Golovanova, Doronichev, 2005), and mobility [Geneste, 1985; Kuhn, 2004; Feblot-Augustins, 2009] of the Paleolithic population in different regions.

The extraction of raw materials is included in the basic life support strategies [Binford, 1979] and reflects the areas of resource development necessary for the existence of the collective [Roebroeks, Kolen, Rensink, 1988]. Most researchers believe that mobility depends on the distribution of resources in the environment (Kelly, 1983; Binford, 2001; Sealy, 2006). The type of mobility and settlement of people was determined, among other things, by the availability of raw materials [Kolesnik, 2003; Stepanchuk, 2006].

In the Middle Paleolithic, the distances to raw material sources usually did not exceed 100 km in Western Europe (Geneste, 1988), 200-300 km in Central and Eastern Europe (Rensink, Kolen, and Spieksma, 1991), and in the North Caucasus (Doronicheva and Kulkova, 2011). Such movements are no longer unusual in the Upper Paleolithic (Masson, 1981; Monet-White, 1991; Feblot-Augustins, 2009). More mobile groups of Upper Paleolithic Homo sapiens actively developed new territories and landscapes.

^* This work was supported by grants from the National Geographic Society, USA (Young Explorers Grant N 8300-07), a field grant from the Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology of the University of Pennsylvania (2011), USA, and the Russian Humanities Research Foundation (grant N 12-01-00348a).

History of the Upper Paleolithic of the Northwestern Caucasus

The first Upper Paleolithic sites in the North-West Caucasus were discovered in the 1950s and 1960s by V. P. Lyubin, A. A. Formozov, and P. A. Kropotkin. At the Outlet. During these years, attempts were made to create a chronological scale (Formozov, 1965) and to understand the cultural identity of the Upper Paleolithic of this region (Bader, 1984). The 1970s - 1980s were characterized by interdisciplinary studies of stratified archaeological sites, relative dating and interpretation of the main complexes (Amirkhanov, 1986). Since the mid-1980s, the Upper Paleolithic of the Caucasus has been reinterpreted (Meshveliani, 1986; Lubin, 1989; Amirkhanov, 1994). Studies of the last 10-15 years have largely changed the understanding of the chronology and cultural identity of the Upper Paleolithic epoch of the Northwestern Caucasus (Golovanova, Doronichev, Cleghorn, 2010; Golovanova et al., 2012). Currently, the main attention is paid to the excavation of stratified monuments using modern methods, absolute dating, and natural science research are carried out [Blazhko, 2009; Leonova, Ageeva, and Alexandrova, 2011].

The appearance of Late Paleolithic industries in the Northwestern Caucasus is based on a series of radiocarbon dates obtained for the 1C layer of the Mezmay Cave, 36-33 Ka BP (CalPal-2007-Hulu calibrated values are from ~40 to ~37 Ka BP) [Golovanova, Doronichev, Cleghorn, 2010]. The most complete Upper Paleolithic column from the early stages (layer 1C) to the Epipaleolithic (layer 1-3) has been identified on this site. The section clearly shows the episode corresponding to the maximum of the last glaciation. It is in good agreement with the results obtained at other sites (Golovanova et al., 2012). Based on the data of paleogeography, relative and absolute chronology, we can speak of two major stages in the Upper Paleolithic of the region: from -40 to -20 thousand years AGO (early Upper Paleolithic) and from -17 to 10 thousand years ago (Epipaleolithic), separated by the maximum period of the last glaciation.

For most of the Upper Paleolithic sites of the North-West Caucasus, only preliminary data on the use of raw stone are available. It is known that the widespread use of high-quality mineral flint is a characteristic feature of Upper Paleolithic sites (Amirkhanov, 1986). Stone raw materials used in the Paleolithic sites of the Northwestern Caucasus were not the subject of special research until recently (Doronicheva and Kulkova, 2011). Perhaps the only work that published the results of studying obsidian products (Guba canopy-1) was an article by V. V. Nasedkin and A. A. Formozov [1965]. As a rule, archaeologists were limited to visual definitions of stone raw materials. Therefore, the objectives of our research were to conduct special explorations in order to search for indigenous deposits of raw materials, select series of samples from them and archaeological collections, petrographic and chemical analyses to determine the relationship between these deposits and Paleolithic sites. An important aspect of our work was also the study of the stone inventory of the main monuments of the Upper Paleolithic of the region using a single method of analysis, comparing the ways of using different types of raw materials in Late Paleolithic industries. As a result of the study, it is expected to answer as many important questions as possible: why did ancient people use some rocks and did not use others, what role did the location of raw material sources play in choosing a parking place, how raw materials were transported, what distances could human groups travel, and what connections could exist between them in the Late Paleolithic era?

Research methodology

When working with archaeological materials, we used the modern methodology used by petroarchaeologists to study stone raw materials [Masson, 1979,1981; Gregoire, 2001]. First, the main visually distinguishable varieties of raw materials were identified in archaeological collections (with the naked eye, using a magnifying glass and binocular microscope) and their main differences (texture, macro inclusions) were highlighted. Then, sections were made from samples of these rocks, petrographic characteristics of each of them were established, and raw materials in archaeological collections and studied indigenous deposits were compared.

Special exploration works were carried out to search for flint deposits in 2007 - 2011. Petrographic studies of flint samples were performed by M. A. Kulkova using a POLAM-111 polarizing microscope at x65 magnification. The sections were also studied under a binocular microscope at x15 magnification. Using this method, detailed descriptions of the mineral composition of the samples were made, macro-and microinclusions were identified, and organogenic components and structural features were determined.

As a result of the study, a reference collection of rocks was formed from the studied indigenous deposits in the North-West Caucasus. To unify the obtained data, all samples are given symbols (for example,-

mer, KR-1, where KR means flint). When working with archaeological materials, such a reference collection makes it possible to make assumptions about the origin of certain raw materials from a particular deposit with a high degree of reliability without conducting special analyses. Similar collections are widely used in Europe (one of the most famous is collected at the European Center for the Study of Prehistory, Toutavel, France).

Obsidians from the Upper Paleolithic layers of the Mezmai Cave were studied separately. Their chemical composition was determined by M. S. Shackley using a Quant'X EDXRF spectometer manufactured by Thermo Scientific Corporation (Switzerland) at the Geoarchaeological X-ray Fluorescence Laboratory (Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA) [Shackley, 2011].

Technological and typological methods of analysis were used in the study of stone materials. Databases were compiled for the investigated archaeological collections. The E4 database developed by H. Dibble and S. Mcparron was used (available on the Internet: www.oldstoneage.com), as well as additions to it. Statistical processing of materials was performed using the STATISTICA6.0 software package. The complexes were compared using tables and diagrams. This article presents only the main results of the study.

Mezmayskaya cave. It is located 50 km south of Maikop, on the right bank of the Sukhoi Kurdzhips River at an absolute altitude of 1,310 m (Golovanova, 2008; Golovanova, Doronichev, and Cleghorn, 2010). The Paleolithic site here was discovered in 1987 and has been explored for more than 25 years by the North Caucasus Paleolithic Expedition led by L. V. Golovanova. The Mezmay cave is a multi-layered monument with seven Mousterian and eight Upper Paleolithic layers identified by 2012, reflecting various chronological and cultural stages in the time interval from 73-63 to 13-12 thousand years ago. In our study, we used materials from the Early Upper Paleolithic from layers 1C, 1B and 1A (a total of 3,059 stone products) collected during the 2001 excavations on an area of 3.5 ^m2. The main raw material for making tools was flint.

Local flint from the Azish-tau deposit (KR-1), located 2 km from the cave, was used only sparsely by ancient people and brought to the cave in the form of nuclei. Testing of the nodules and cleaning them from the crust was most likely carried out at the deposit, since there were few chips with the crust (Tables 1-3). Cleavage was partially carried out in the cave, which is indicated by single nuclei (in layer 1A-3) and nucleoid fragments (in layer 1B), as well as semi-primary and technical chips. In all layers, about half of the items made from this raw material are fragments that were broken off during the splitting process due to the fracturing of the stone and numerous organic inclusions. That is why local flint (CR-1) was probably rarely used in the Upper Paleolithic (10.3% in layers 1C-1A). Its share decreases from 12 % in layer 1C to 6.4 % in layer 1A. Only 5.8 % of all plate chips are made from this flint. Tools were found only in layer 1C (7 copies).

Research results

Early Upper Paleolithic. In the Northwestern Caucasus, there are isolated monuments of this era: Guba canopy-1 (layer 2), Mezmayskaya Caves (layers 1C-1A) and Korotkaya Caves (Fig.

Figure 1. Location of the Mezmayskaya and Korotkaya caves, Guba canopy-1 and associated raw material deposits in the Early Upper Paleolithic. 1-Azish-tau (KR-1); 2-Shakhanskoe (KR-9/10); 3 - Gubske (KR-7); 4 - Besleneevsky (KR-3 - 5); 5 - Akhmet-kaya (KR-44); 6 - obsidian outcrops near the village of Zayukovo; 7 - obsidian outcrops in the Kuyun-Dag area.

Table 1. Composition of the collection from the 1C layer of the Mezmay cave

Note: here and further in the tables NC - indeterminate flint, origin is not established; RC-pink flint.

Table 2. Composition of the collection from layer 1B of the Mezmay Cave

Table 3. Composition of the collection from layer 1A of the Mezmay cave

The main raw material for the manufacture of tools was imported Shakhan flint (KR-9/10), the deposit of which is located 30 - 40 km north-east of the cave. In layer 1C, products made from it make up 87.2 %, in layer 1B-31.1%, and in layer 1A - 29.9%. Judging by the composition of the collection (Tables 1-3), which shows the entire cycle of primary cleavage from nuclei and technical chips to chips with a crust, people transported high-quality flint in the form of partially cleaned flints. gall crusts of raw material pieces or prenuclei. All the nuclei from this flint are small in size (up to 5 cm) and highly utilized. Splitting and making tools were carried out in the parking lot, where numerous scales and micro scales were found. Most of the tools in all layers are also made of Shahan flint (78 %), plates with a blunted edge and plates with retouching predominate. Scrapers and incisors are represented by single specimens.

Another source of imported flint was the Besleneevsky deposits (KR-3 - 5), which are located 50-60 km northeast of the cave. This colored flint is represented in small amounts in layers 1B (2.2%) and 1A (3.1 %). Despite the absence of nuclei, it can be assumed that this raw material was split in the cave, since technical chips, flakes with a crust and fragments were found. Several tools and flakes from Besleneyevsky flint were also found.

Obsidian products are most diverse in layer 1A (5.5 %). According to the analysis results (tab. 4), obsidian originates both from the outcrops near the village of Zayukovo in Kabardino-Balkaria (approximately 250 km east of the cave; Central Caucasus) and from the Kuyun-Dag deposit in Southern Georgia (450 km south-east; South Caucasus), confirming the presence of contacts between the North and South Caucasus in the epoch of the Russian Empire. early Upper Paleolithic.

Gubsky naees-1. It is located 9 km southwest of the village of Barakaevskaya in the Mostovsky district of Krasnodar Krai, on the left side of the Gubsky Gorge at an absolute altitude of approx. 770 m. The monument was discovered and excavated on an area of approx. 12 m ² by P. U. Autlev in 1962-1963. In 1975-1976 excavations on the area of approx. 4 m ^2s were carried out by the Caucasian Paleolithic Expedition of the LOIA of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the Adyghe Research Institute of Nuclear Power Engineering under the leadership of V. P. Lubin, P. U. Autlev and Kh.A. Amirkhanov. Based on climatostratigraphic data, layer 2 correlates with the Paudorf interstadial and dates from 29-25 Ka BP (Amirkhanov, 1986). There are no absolute dates. Materials collected from an area of approx. 16 ^m2 and consisting of 4,590 items were described by Kh. A. Amirkhanov [Ibid.]. Today, the collection is kept in the National Museum of the Republic of Adygea in Maykop,

Table 4. Element content in obsidian samples from the Mezmai Cave (collections 2001, 2006, 2007)

and its deposits, mln^-1

* The sample has dimensions smaller than those required for accurate determination of the EDXRF origin, but appears to be close to the standards for the deposit.

See Table 5. The collection consists of layer 2 of the Guba canopy-1

It consists of only 2618 stone objects (Table 5). including flakes and incisor flakes (18 %), which together with small fragments account for up to 25 %. The majority of products contain various chips (73 %). Guns are few in number (6.5 %).

Most of the products (65 %) are made of local flint of gray, brownish tones (KR-7). Its quality is not very high, the collection contains 134 fragments of flint with areas of crust and cleavage edges. 46 specimens (3% in this category of raw materials) were found to have preserved their morphology. End and prismatic shapes are distinguished. The nuclei were carefully prepared and regularly corrected during the cleavage process. This is proved by a large number of technical chips (86 copies; 5 %). Among them, there are 3 rib plates, 75 chips of the impact pad adjustment, including edge ones, 5 tablets, chips of the end faces of the nuclei. More than half of the flakes have crustal areas (51 %) or are primary (6.5 %). This confirms that the entire splitting cycle was carried out in the parking lot. Despite the fact that nuclei and technical cleavages indicate the predominance of prismatic cleavage techniques, flakes are the most numerous (73 %), and plates and plates account for only 20% of all cleavages. Microplates are missing. This is obviously a result of the fact that a significant part of the fine material has been lost.

More than half (53%) of the tools were made from local flint (KR-7). Single plates with a blunted edge, obliquely retouched and tronked plates are presented. A third of the tools are made up of various scrapers (36 %), including round and carenoid ones. Incisors 16 %, chisel-shaped products are isolated. There are numerous plates and flakes with jagged (14 %) or regular (18 %) retouching.

Some of the products (13.5 %) are made of flint (KR-3 - 5), which came from the Besleneyevskoye field located 20-25 km east of the site. The nuclei are represented by end and prismatic shapes. Edge and rib technical chips are numerous. The main category of products is flakes (49 %). Compared to local flint, there are few chips with the crust (17 %). Plates and lamellae are quite numerous (28 %). Most likely, flint was delivered to the parking lot in the form of prepared nuclei for splitting. A large number of guns (20%) are made from this high-quality raw material. More than half (59 %) are end scrapers. There are single plates with a blunted edge, jagged-notched products and chips with retouching. Numerous scales indicate that the tools were made directly in the parking lot.

Some of the finds (18 %) are made of several varieties of flint, the origin of which has not yet been determined. All product categories are presented (Table 5).

The above description of the collection from the lower Late Paleolithic layer of the Guba canopy-1 allows us to speak about the extraordinary specifics of this industry, which is characterized by numerous and diverse scrapers.

The Cave Is Short. It is located on the right side of the Khakodz River gorge (Belaya River valley) at an absolute altitude of 550 m. The monument was opened in 1986 and

Table b. Composition of the collection from the Short Cave

It was excavated in 2000 and 2006 (Blazhko, 2009). Based on several radiocarbon dates, Upper Paleolithic layer 2 is dated in the range of 38-29 Ka BP (CalPal-2007-Hulu calibrated values).

As a result of excavations in 2006 (approx. 3 m ²), a small collection of stone objects was obtained (tab. 6) and numerous faunal remains. The majority of products (64 %) are made of brown and gray flint, the deposit of which is currently not found. Records and microplates predominate. The guns are decorated mainly on plates. The presence of scales indicates that the tools were retouched in the cave.

Petrographic studies have identified two sources of flint raw materials. Products made from Besleneyevsky flint (KR-4), the deposit of which is located approximately 50-60 km to the east of the cave, are not numerous (19 %). Half of them are plates (including three with a blunted edge) and microplates. Individual products include flint from the Akhmet-kaya deposit (KR-44), which is about 90 km away from the cave.

The Epipaleolithic period. In the North-Western Caucasus, it is known about. 20 monuments of this era. However, only five of them are stratified, for which detailed technical, typological and raw material analysis is possible: Guba sheds-1 and -7, Kasozhskaya cave located in the Guba River valley, Mezmayskaya cave located 50 km to the southwest, and the open-type site Baranakha-4 - the easternmost monument in this area. 2). Quite numerous collections are collected at the Baranakha-1 site and the Yavor site (Amirkhanov, 1986; Doronichev, 1995). The results of new studies at the sites of Naves Chygai and Dvoinaya Cave have not yet been fully published (Leonova, Ageeva, and Alexandrova, 2011). The caves of Dakhovskaya-2, Korotkaya-2 (Blazhko, 2009), Ruslanova, Guba sheds-2 - 4, -6, and Lubochny (Autlev and Lubin, 1994) have been studied previously. They only indicate the presence of an ancient person in the region during this era.

2. Location of the Mezmay cave, Guba canopy-1, open-type Baranakha site-4 and associated raw material deposits in the Epipaleolithic. 1-Azish-tau (KR-1); 2-Shakhanskoe (KR-9/10); 3-Gubske (KR-7); 4-Besleneevskie (KR-3-5); 5-Akhmet-kaya (KR-44); 6-Berezovaya balka (KR-12) 7-Baranakha (KR-14); 8-obsidian outcrops near the village of Zayukovo; 9-obsidian outcrops in the Kuyun-Dag area.

Mezmayskaya cave. Materials from Epipaleolithic layers 1-4 and 1-3 from the 2001 excavations (a total of 1,465 stone products) come from an area of 5 ^m2. The time of existence of sites of this period is determined in the range of 17-13 thousand years AGO (Golovanova, 2008).

In layer 1 - 3, local raw materials (CR-1) make up only 2.8 % (Table 7). The collection contains some individual chips, including one technical one. In layer 1-4, local flint finds are significantly higher ( 16.2 %), and 36% of the collection is made up of fragments (Table 8). Two technical chips and one nucleus are also identified, while only two retouched plates are found from tools. Lots of flakes and micro-flakes.

As in previous periods, the inhabitants of the site used high-quality Shakhan flint (CR-9/10; 21.2 % in layer 1-3 and 19.9 % in layer 1-4). The composition of the collection (Tables 7, 8) shows that nuclei were brought to the cave, the splitting of which partially occurred at the site. Here, the removed chips were transformed into tools (numerous scales and fragments). The composition of the chips indicates that prenuclei were formed in flint deposits, and there are single primary and semi-primary flakes.

Layers 1-4 and 1-3 contain many finds of colored Besleneyevsky flint (KR-3-5): 17.6 and 21.9%, respectively-

See Table 7. Composition of the collection from layer 1-3 of the Mezmay cave

Table 8. Composition of the collection from layer 1-4 of the Mezmay cave

naturally. There are no nuclei from this raw material, but there are numerous flakes, two technical chips, plates, plates and microplates, a large number of flakes and small fragments. Among the tools, we can note a fragment of the tip with a petiole from layer 1-4 and several plates with side recesses from layer 1-3.

A significant part of the items in the 2001 collection are made of various types of imported high-quality flint, the sources of which have not yet been identified. In comparison with the materials of the early Upper Paleolithic, its greatest diversity is observed here. Obviously, the population began to develop new deposits during this period.

Obsidian finds are few and far between. Probably, it was brought to the parking lot in the form of finished products, which were sometimes corrected. This is indicated by the absence of nuclei and the presence of only single plates and microplates in the 2001 collection. According to the results of the conducted analyses (see Table. 4), obsidian in the period under review still came from two sources: near the village of Zayukovo and Kuyun-Dag.

Gubsky naees-1. Based on climatostratigraphy, layer 1 correlates with the Lyasko interstadial and is tentatively dated to 17-16 Ka BP (Amirkhanov, 1986). The studied collection included 768 items. Most of them (69 %) are made of local flint (KR-7). The collection contains products representing the entire cleavage cycle (Table 9). Among the nuclei, prismatic ones predominate, several test pieces and one gall are distinguished. A lot of small fragments (11 %). About 35% of chips have areas of crust. Also, 14 technical chips were identified, among which edge flakes predominate, two rib chips and one tablet were identified. About half of the cleavage products (49 %) are plates, lamellae (73 % of lamellar chips) and microplastics. The tool kit (32.5 %) contains scrapers, plates with a blunted edge, a toothed tool, a chip with retouching, a marginal incisor and a point with a petiole. The blanks most often served as plate chips and plates. Numerous scales (19 %), there is one incisor flake. Judging by the composition of the collection, the entire cycle of production of guns took place in the parking lot.

Color Besleneyevsky flint (KR-3 - 5) is represented by two prismatic nuclei, fragments, a technical chip and a few chips with a crust. Plate-shaped withdrawals predominate (52 %). Blanks for tools most often served as plates. Plates with a blunted edge, a scraper, single toothed products and chips with retouching are highlighted. Lots of scales (14 %). Some of the items (16 %) are made of flint, the source of which is unknown.

Baranakha-4. The parking lot is located 7 km north-east of the village of Pregradnaya in the Urupsky district of the Karachay-Cherkess Republic in the interfluve of Urup and Kuva at an absolute altitude of 1,477 m. The monument was studied in 1989, 1996 and 2011. Only in the last year was the Epipaleolithic layer 1A identified and studied, the industry of which has analogies in the materials of layer 1 - 3 of the Mezmay Cave (Golovanova and Doronichev, in press). The collection consists of 235 pieces originating from an area of approx. 10 ^m2.

In the Epipaleolithic period, people actively used the local flint deposit (KR-14; 27% of finds), which is located 300 - 400 m away. They split raw materials in the parking lot, as evidenced by nuclei, flakes with a crust and small fragments (Table 10). A small number of primary and semi-primary chipping points indicate that the chipping of the nodules from the crust was carried out at the flint deposit. More than half (55 %) of products are fragmented, which means that

Table 9. The collection consists of layer 1 of the Guba canopy-1

Table 10. Composition of the collection from layer 1A of the Baranakha-4 parking lot

This is due to the low quality of raw materials. The studied collection lacks plate chips and tools made of this flint.

Flint from the Berezovaya Balka deposit (KR-12), which is located 5-6 km to the south, accounts for 24 %. This raw material was brought to the parking lot in the form of nuclei and tools were made (as indicated by the few flakes) or chips were used without processing.

The main raw material (45 %) was imported high-quality flint from the Akhmet-kaya deposit (KR-44), located about 40 km northwest of Baranakha. Despite the absence of nuclei from this flint in the studied collection, a small number of flakes with a crust, the presence of technical chips and fragments indicate that people brought cores that were peeled from the crust to the parking lot. Tools were made from the resulting chips, as evidenced by numerous micro-scales. All the tools in the collection are made from this flint. Among them, fragments of plates with a blunted edge, a marginal incisor, a trapezoid, and an end scraper are distinguished. With the exception of two plates of gray flint (the source of which has not been determined), all plate chips are made from raw materials originating from the Akhmet-Kaya deposit.

Conclusion

The earliest Upper Paleolithic industries appeared in the Northwestern Caucasus around 40-37 thousand years AGO. They are characterized by micro-plate splitting techniques, the predominance of tools on plates, a small number of incisors and scrapers designed mainly on flakes and technical chips, and single chisel-shaped products. These industries have analogies in the materials of monuments of the South Caucasus and the Levant (Golovanova, Doronichev, Cleghorn, 2010; Bar-Yosef et al., 2011). The presence of inter-regional relations with the territory of Southern Georgia is confirmed by the analysis of obsidian products originating from the Kuyun-Dag deposit. Isolated objects made of obsidian, whose outlets are located near the village of Zayukovo, allow us to talk about connections with the Central Caucasus, although Early Upper Paleolithic monuments have not yet been discovered there.

For the early stages of the Upper Paleolithic of the Northwestern Caucasus, only the site of active habitation in the Mezmay cave (layer 1C; more than 500 items per 1 m ² with a layer thickness of 20 cm, hearths and bonfires) and a short-term hunting site in a Short cave (few stone products, limited splitting, a high proportion of raw materials brought from remote deposits). Gradually, the development of raw materials in the region increased. This can be clearly seen in the example of layers 1C-1A of the Mezmay cave, where the share of local raw materials decreases. The percentage of flint from the Shakhansky deposit, located 30 - 40 km away, drops sharply. At the same time, higher - quality non-ferrous flint from the Besleneyevsky deposit (Table 11), 50-60 km away from the cave, appears in the upper layers 1B and 1A. At the same time, the proportion of various types of flint brought in increases, the sources of which have not yet been found. Limestone, sandstone, and shale were also used in the Upper Paleolithic (see Table. 1 - 3, 5 - 10). People could collect these rocks in alluvium.

The ratio of different types of flint in the materials of the Upper Paleolithic layers of the Mezmay cave, Table 11. %

rec. Most often, they were used to make bumpers, retouchers, or heat sinks.

By the end of the early Upper Paleolithic, the stone industry of the Mezmay Cave underwent minor changes, and at the same time bone tools and ornaments became numerous and diverse (Golovanova, 2008). The same period also includes the industry from layer 2 of the Guba canopy-1, which is characterized by a large number and variety of karenoid forms. It has analogies only in the middle complex of the Dzudzuana Cave in Georgia (Bar-Yosef et al., 2011). In the area of Gubsky shed-1, local flint is available in sufficient quantities and is suitable for obtaining various chips, so the entire splitting cycle took place in the parking lot. In addition, people brought here a certain amount of high-quality flint from the Besleneyevsky deposit, which was 20-25 km away.

Our study suggests the existence of a certain selection of raw materials in the Upper Paleolithic. People developed local sources, even low-quality ones, but used these raw materials very sparsely. For example, in the Mezmay cave, it was mainly used for flakes and rarely produced plates, microplates, scrapers and incisors. Also in the parking lot of Baranakha-4, the main part of the guns is made of stone flint. It can be assumed that the early representatives of Homo sapiens mainly used high-quality raw materials, even if it was necessary to transport them over long distances. For example, in the Mezmai cave, in the vicinity of which raw materials are of very poor quality, the main raw material base was made up of stone flint (87.2 %). Probably, the preference for high-quality raw materials was associated with the introduction of the plate splitting technique at the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic, which made it possible to obtain the maximum number of blanks from one piece of raw material. Humans have become less dependent on local deposits and more mobile than Neanderthals, who are tied to sources of raw materials.

All the nuclei from mineral raw materials at the sites of the Upper Paleolithic are strongly worked and are residual. At the Gubsky Naves-1 and Baranakha-4 sites, the proportion of native flint among crusted chips is small compared to the local one: at the first site, it is 18.5% in layer 2 and 26.8% in layer 1, while at the second site, it is 14.2 %. This confirms the thesis that high-quality raw materials were brought to the sites in the form of prenuclei prepared for cleavage. In the Mezmay cave, where the number of nuclei and chips with a crust is small, the percentage ratio is difficult to estimate. At almost all monuments, the vast majority of plates, plates, and microplates are made of stone flint. The exception is the industry of Gubsky canopy-1, where local raw materials were of a fairly high quality.

At present, five flint deposits have been studied for the Early Upper Paleolithic of the Northwestern Caucasus (see Fig. 1). The most widely transported was Besleneyevsky colored flint, which is identified in the materials of the Mezmayskaya and Korotkaya caves and the Guba canopy-1. Data on the Mezmay cave indicate that its sources were used throughout the entire Upper Paleolithic. This suggests that there are known routes to the Besleneevsky deposits. Since the early Upper Paleolithic, humans have used new sources of raw materials unknown to local Neanderthals. Flint from the Akhmet-kaya deposit was supplied to the Korotkaya cave, located about 90 km away, and to the Baranakha-4 parking lot, which is 40 km away.

In the Epipaleolithic, the number of deposits used increased (see Figure 2). There is a greater variety of flint species, the sources of which have not yet been discovered. At the same time, transportation of high-quality raw materials has increased. At the Baranakha-4 site, flint from the Akhmet-kaya deposit accounts for 45 %. In the Epipaleolithic layers of the Mezmay Cave, the proportion of Besleneyevsky flint increased to 22 % (layer 1-3). In comparison with Shakhanskoye (Doronicheva and Kulkova, 2011), it is of higher quality (the content of organogenic inclusions is lower, or there are none at all; the grain size is smaller), so the preference for this raw material is not accidental, although the Besleneevsky deposits are located at a distance of 50-60 km, and Shakhanskoye is 25-30 km from the cave.

The Epipaleolithic industries of the Northwestern Caucasus are characterized by a microplate splitting technique, various points whose shapes are analogous in the gravette and epigravette of Europe, and the early appearance of geometric microliths widely known in the Middle East. Most of the monuments have characteristic points with petioles. These characteristics make it possible to combine these industries with those of Imereti in Transcaucasia (Golovanova et al., 2012). Availability of contacts-

The trade between the population of these regions is confirmed by the transportation of obsidian from the south of Georgia. The study of the use of stone raw materials shows that in the Epipaleolithic, the territories developed by ancient man significantly expanded (see Figure 2).

Throughout the Upper Paleolithic period in the Northwestern Caucasus, the vast majority of tools were made of high-quality stone flint. Only in the materials of the Guba shed-1, about 50 % of the gun kit is made of local flint of good quality. Such rocks as sandstone, siltstone, and limestone were most often brought to the sites in the form of pebbles and could be used as retouchers, bumpers, and terochniki.

In conclusion, it should be noted that in the Upper Paleolithic, the resource development zone was usually within a radius of about 100 km from the site. The main material for making tools was high-quality flint. In the absence of local sources of such raw materials, they were transported over distances from 20 to 100 km, in contrast to the Middle Paleolithic, when local (0 - 5 km) resources were mainly used, even if their quality was low (Doronicheva and Kulkova, 2011).

Acknowledgements

The authors express their gratitude to the National Geographic Foundation of the USA, the Museum of Anthropology and Archeology of the University of Pennsylvania, St. Petersburg State University, and the National Museum of the Republic of Adygea for their assistance and support of the research. We are very grateful to L. V. Golovanova, V. B. Doronichev and A. V. Blazhko for the opportunity to work with the collections.

List of literature

Amirkhanov Kh. A. The Upper Paleolithic of the Kuban region, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1986, 113 p.

Amirkhanov Kh. A. On the problem of evolution and periodization of the Upper Paleolithic of the Western Caucasus // RA. - 1994. - N4. - p. 9-23.

Autlev N. U., Lubin V. N. Istoriya issledovaniya paleolita Gubskogo basseina [History of Paleolithic research in the Guba basin]. Maikop: Meoty Publ., 1994, pp. 12-21.

Bader N. O. Pozdny palaeolit Kavkaza [Late Paleolithic of the Caucasus]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1984, pp. 272-288. (Archeology of the USSR).

Blazhko, A.V., Excavations of the Upper Paleolithic site in a Short cave in the North-West Caucasus, AO 2006, Moscow: Nauka, 2009, pp. 349-350.

Golovanova, L. V., On an important feature of the Late Paleolithic of the Caucasus, Nasledie Kubani. - 2008. - N 1. - p. 78-117.

Golovanova L. V., Doronichev V. B. Ekologicheskie niches i modeli adaptatsii v srednego paleolite Kavkaza [Ecological niches and adaptation models in the Middle Paleolithic of the Caucasus]. - 2005. - N5. - p. 3-72.

Golovanova L. V., Doronichev V. B. Issledovanie mnogosloynykh pamyatnikov srednego i pozdnego paleolita na Severo-Zapadnom Kavkaze [Study of multilayered monuments of the Middle and Late Paleolithic in the North-West Caucasus].

Doronichev V. B. Paleolithic of Karachay-Cherkessia: author's abstract. dis. ... candidate of Historical Sciences. - SPb., 1995. - 15 p.

Doronicheva E. V., Kulkova M. A. Petrographic study of flint from Middle Paleolithic deposits and sites in the North-West Caucasus / / Stratum plus. -2011. - N1. - pp. 153-169.

Kolesnik A.V. The Middle Paleolithic of Donbass. Donetsk: Lebed Publ., 2003, 293 p. (in Russian)

Leonova, E. V., Ageeva, K. E., and Alexandrova, O. I., Dynamics of cultural processes in the Upper Paleolithic-Mesolithic of the Northwestern Caucasus (based on the materials of the multilayer monuments of the Chygai canopy and Dvoyaya Cave), Tr. III Vseros. archeol. the congress. - SPb.; M.; Veliky Novgorod, -2011. - Vol. I. - pp. 65-67.

Lyubin V. P. Paleolith of the Caucasus / / Paleolith of the Caucasus and Northern Asia. - L.: Nauka, 1989. - pp. 7-142. - (Paleolith of the world).

Meshveliani T. K. On the early Upper Paleolithic of Western Georgia // Tr. of the State Museum of Georgia. 1986, vol. 89, pp. 115-123.

Nasedkin V. V., Formozov A. A. Vulkanicheskoe steklo iz stoyanok kamennogo veka Krasnodarskogo kraya i Checheno-Ingushetii [Volcanic glass from stone Age sites of the Krasnodar Territory and Chechen-Ingushetia].

Nekhoroshoe P. E. Technological method for studying the primary splitting of Middle Paleolithic stone. St. Petersburg: European House Publ., 1999, 171 p.

Stepanchuk V. N. The Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Ukraine. Chernovtsy: Zelena Bukovina Publ., 2006, 463 p. (in Russian)

Formozov A. A. Kamenny vek i eneolit Prikubanya [The Stone Age and Eneolithic of the Kuban Region]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1965, 160 p.

Andrefsky W.Jr. The analysis of stone tool procurement, production and maintenance // J. of Archaeological Research. -2009. -N17. -P. 65 - 103.

Bar-Yosef O., Belfer-Cohen A, Mesheviliani Т., Jakeli N., Bar-Oz G., Boaretto В., Goldberg P., Eliso Kvavadze E., Matskevich Z. Dzudzuana: an Upper Palaeolithic cave site in the Caucasus foothills (Georgia) //Antiquity. - 2011. -Vol. 85. -P. 331 - 349.

Binford R.L. Organization and formation processes: looking at curated technologies // J. of Anthropological Research. - 1979. -N 35. - P. 255 - 273.

Binford R.L. Constructing frames of reference: An analytical method for archaeological theory building using ethnographic and environmental data sets. - Berkley: University of California Press, 2001. - 583 p.

Feblot-Augustins J. Revisiting European Upper Paleolithic Raw Material Transfers: The Demise of the Cultural Ecological Paradigm? // Eithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies / eds. B. Adams, B. Blades. - N. Y: Wiley Blackwell, 2009. -P. 25 - 46.

Geneste J.M. Analyse lithique d'industries Mousteriennes du Perigord: une approche technologique du comportement

des groupes humains au Paleolithique moyen: These de Doctoral - Bordeaux: Universite de Bordeaux I, 1985. - 567 p.

Geneste J.M. Les industries de la Grotte Vaufrey: Technologie du debitage, economie, et circulation de la matiere premiere lithique // Grotte Vaufrey: Paleoenvironnement, Chronologie, Activites Humaines. - P.: Societe Prehistorique Francaise, 1988. - P. 441 - 518.

Golovanova L.V., Doronichev V.B., Cleghorn N. Bone Tools and Symbols: Early Modern Human Behavior in the Caucasus //Antiquity. - 2010. - N 84 (324). - P. 299 - 320.

Golovanova L.V., Doronichev V.B., Cleghorn N.E., Sapelko T.V., Kulkova M.A., Spasovskiy Yu.N., Shakley M.S. The Epipaleolithic of the Caucasus after the Last Glacial Maximum // Quanternary International. - 2012 (in press).

Gregoire S. Apports et limites des nouvelles techniques de la petroarcheologie prehistorique // Earth and Planetary Sciences. -2001. -N 332. -P. 479 - 482.

Hovers E. The exploitation of raw material at the Mousterian site of Quinetra // Qedem: Monograph of the Institute of Archaeology. -Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1990. -P. 150 - 167.

Kelly R.L. Hunter-gatherer mobility strategies // J. of Anthropological Research. - 1983. - N 39. - P. 277 - 306.

Kuhn S.L. Upper Paleolithic raw material economies of Ucagizli cave, Turkey // J. of Anthropological Archaeology. -2004. -N23. -P. 431^148.

Masson A. Petroarcheologie des roches siliceuses: Interet en Prehistoire: These de 3e cycle, Universite Claude-Bernard-Lyon-1. -Lyon, 1981. - 147p.

Masson A. Recherches sur la provenance des silex prehistoriques // Methode d'etude. Etudes Prehistoriques. -1979. -N15. -P. 29 - 40.

Montet-White A. Lithic Acquisition, Settlements and Territory in the Epigravettian of Central Europe // Raw Material Economies Among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: Publications in Anthropology. -Lawrence, 1991. -N 19. -P. 205 - 219.

Rensink E., Kolen J., Spieksma A. Patterns of Raw Material Distribution in the Upper Pleistocene of Northwestern and Central Europe // Raw Material Economies Among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: Publications in Anthropology. -Lawrence, 1991. -N19. -P. 141 - 159.

Roebroeks W., Kolen J., Rensink E. Planning Depth, Anticipation and the Organization of Middle Palaeolithic Technology: The "Archaic Natives" meet Eve's Descendants // Helinium. - 1988. - Vol. XXVIII, N 1. - P. 17 - 34.

Rolland N., Dibble H. A New Synthesis of Middle Paleolithic Assemblage Variability // American Antiquity. -1990. -Vol. 55,N3. -P. 480 - 499.

Sealy J. Diet, Mobility, and Settlement Pattern among Holocene Hunter-Gatherers in Southernmost Africa // Current Anthropology. - 2006. - Vol. 47, N 4. - P. 569 - 595.

Shackley M.S. An Introduction to X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analysis in Archaeology // X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry (XRF) in Geoarchaeology. - N. Y.: Springer, 2011. -P. 7 - 44.

Turq A. Raw material and technological studies of the Quina Mousterian in Perigord // The Middle Paleolithic: adaptation, behavior, and variability. - Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1992. -P. 75 - 85.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 03.04.12, in the final version-on 30.10.12.

Permanent link to this publication: