The site of Rubas-1 in Dagestan as evidence of the existence of a Caspian route of early Trans-Caucasian migrations

The Caucasus can be regarded as one of the major transit routes of the earliest human migrations into Eurasia. This hypothesis is supported by the earliest hominid sites in Dmanisi, the Kudaro-1 Cave in Georgia and the Azukh Cave site in Azerbaijan as well as a number of younger sites. The majority of Palaeolithic sites are located in the Central Caucasus and along the Black Sea coast (the Kudaro Caves, the sites in the Goups gorge and others). In contrast, the Caspian coast of the Caucasus presents the best and most convenient north-south route (Figure 1). The known sites are located in the mountain regions of Azerbaijan and belong mostly to the Mousterian period. A few sites with surface occurrence of artefacts have been located in Dagestan (Lioubine & Beliaeva 2006).

Recently, however, a number of multi-layered and well-stratified sites have also been located in Dagestan. These sites are attributable to the Upper-Middle Palaeolithic period and earlier, and are unique for the north-eastern Caucasus.

The first Palaeolithic artefacts were discovered in the Rubas river valley in southern Dagestan in 2003 by a team led by H.A. Amirkhanov. In 2004, a team led by A.P. Derevianko located a further cluster of sites (Rubas 1-5) in the Rubas valley. The sites were located on an ancient pebble conglomerate overlain by loess-like loam sediments and a layer of modern soil.

In 2006, work continued at the site of Rubas 1 (N 41°53'21", E 48°07'35"; 270m above sea level; Figure 2). The site is located on the middle reaches of the river, 20km from the Caspian coastline, at the limit between the plain and low mountain zone and close to the north-eastern slope of the Karasyrt Ridge. The excavation area was located on top of a terrace about 30m above the water level. Excavations were carried out in two trenches running along the slope, 2m wide and 28m and 9m long respectively and one test pit of 7m². Three horizons bearing archaeological materials have been recognised.

The earliest archaeological collection has been recovered in association with the lowermost portion of Trench 1 (Figure 3). Artefacts were embedded in a thin layer of gravel and pebble. The layer is located between two layers of marigenous sediments, presumably attributable to the Apsheron (N23) and Baku (Q1) periods. A set of these artefacts (n=17) demonstrates clear signs of human working. The collection includes tools with a 'spur', small end-scrapers and retouched flakes. Major characteristic features of the collection are the small size of the tools, small variety of tool categories and a developed retouching technique. Artefacts from the site of Darvagchai-1 located 40km to the north-east from Rubas-1 and preliminarily dated to the Baku (Q1) period bear the closest similarity to the Rubas materials (Derevianko et al. 2006).

The layer of pebble conglomerate overlying the sandy loam horizon has yielded a set of younger artefacts. The pebble layer excavation area comprised approximately 10m² and yielded 93 artefacts. There are Levallois cores and simple cores of parallel reduction pattern. The collection of tools includes side-scrapers, atypical end-scrapers, a Mousterian point, notches and spurs, a bifacially worked handaxe and others. These artefacts have been preliminarily attributed to the Middle Palaeolithic.

Artefact collection 3 has been assembled from a 4m-thick layer of loess that was likely formed as a result of rock slides in the uppermost portion of the profile. The layer has been subdivided into 10 lithological horizons including 7 layers bearing archaeological materials. In 2006, a total of 469 artefacts were collected from a stratified context. The Levallois technological features (Levallois cores and elongated spalls detached in the course of formation of Levallois cores) and the flaking technique typical for the Middle Palaeolithic, characteristic of the artefacts recovered from the lower horizons, together with the features of small tool technology and the tool types typical of the Upper Palaeolithic (end-scrapers, burins, borers) allows us to attribute the industry to the chronological range of the terminal Middle Palaeolithic to the terminal Upper Palaeolithic.

The Dagestan materials provide a new insight into the problem of the origin and dispersal of the earliest small tool industries that appeared probably around 2 million years ago in Africa (the sites of Omo, Cada Gona and others) and dispersed over the Levant (Bizat Ruhama), Europe (Esernia la Pineta and others) and Central Asia (Kuldara). The industries from Rubas-1 and Darvagchai-1 have many features in common in the tool types and working techniques and provide the basis for recognition of the Caucasus as one of the areas where pre-Acheulian industries of small tools existed during the earliest stages of human occupation of this region.

Archaeological materials from younger periods are not so numerous. The archaeology of the region has not yet been well studied. As such, we are not able to recognise a general sequence of development of human culture throughout the Palaeolithic. However, available data suggests that the Rubas valley does contain sites illustrating all the periods of prehistory. Further investigations in the Rubas river valley are sure to provide us with new insights into Palaeolithic developments in the north-eastern Caucasus and identify this region as an important crossroads in early human migrations.

References

• DEREVIANKO, A.P., V.N. ZENIN & A.A. ANOYKIN. 2006. The Lower Paleolithic industry of small tools from the site of Darvagchai-1: morphology and preliminary classification, in Man and environment in the Stone Age cultures of Eurasia. Novosibirsk: IAET Press.
• LIOUBINE, V.P. & E.V. BELIAEVA. 2006. The early prehistory of the Caucasus. St. Petersburg: Oriental studies of Petersburg.

Authors

Note: Author information correct at time of publication

• A.P. Derevianko
  Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography SB RAS, Novosibirsk, Russia (Email: derev@archaeology.nsc.ru)
• A.A. Anoykin
  Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography SB RAS, Novosibirsk, Russia (Email: anton@archaeology.nsc.ru)
• V.S. Slavinsky
  Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography SB RAS, Novosibirsk, Russia (Email: slav@archaeology.nsc.ru)
• M.A. Borisov
  Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography SB RAS, Novosibirsk, Russia