Examining recycling behaviors at Semizbugu P1 (2022), Kazakhstan Текст научной статьи по специальности «История и археология»

УДК 902/904 (574) МРНТИ 03.41.91

https://doi.org/10.52967/akz2022.3.17.103.114

Examining recycling behaviors at Semizbugu P1 (2022), Kazakhstan

Keywords: archaeology, Paleolithic, recycling, stone tools, surface site

© 2022 Coco E., Mamirov T.

Ty^h сездер: археология, палеолит, реутилизация, тас куралдар, ашык типтi ескерткiштер

Ключевые слова: археология, палеолит, вторичная переработка, каменные орудия, стоянка открытого типа

Emily Coco1*, Talgat Mamirov2

^Corresponding author, PhD candidate, researcher, Center for the Study of Human Origins, Department of

Anthropology, New York University, NY, USA. Email: ec3307@nyu.edu 2Candidate of historical sciences, Deputy Director for Science, Margulan Institute of Archaeology, Almaty,

Kazakhstan. Email: tmamirov@mail.ru

Abstract. This article presents the preliminary results of a new project aimed at investigating the behavioural aspects of stone tool reutilisation at the Semizbugu Palaeolithic complex. Monuments with surface artifacts are ideal sites for recycling, as artifacts are easy to locate and reuse on the day surface in such environments. As part of this project, artifacts were analysed at a new site, designated P1 (2022) of the Semizbugu settlement complex, with a focus on the identification of recycled objects, mainly by the presence of double patina. The results presented here describe the nature of the secondary use of the artifacts. The relevance of the work carried out is associated primarily with the fact that this is a completely new approach in the study of Paleolithic monuments of Kazakhstan, represented by numerous sites of the so-called "open type". On the example of the Semizbugu P1 monument (2022) it is possible to extrapolate the received conclusions with other similar monuments of the region for understanding of character of principles of reutilization and behavioral aspects in the past. Direct field studies at the Semizbugu complex were preceded by laboratory work on materials collected in the 1960s by A.G. Medoev.

Acknowledgements: This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 2133751. Funding for this work was also provided by the Leakey Foundation, the Fulbright U.S. Student program, and the Ranieri International Scholars Fund. Access to the collections and the field site was made possible with the help of O.A. Artyukhova, Margulan Institute of Archaeology and the Museum of the Paleolithic of Kazakhstan at al-Farabi Kazakhstan National University. EC would also like to thank her field team.

Citation: Coco, E., Mamirov, T. 2022. Examining recycling behaviors at Semizbugu P1 (2022), Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan Archeology, 3 (17), 103-114. DOI: 10.52967/akz2022.3.17.103.114

Эмили Коко1*, Талгат Базарбайулы Мамиров2

"корреспондент авторы, докторант, зерттеушу Адамныц шь^у тепн зерттеу орталь^ы, антропология факультету Нью-Йорк университету

Нью-Йорк, АК.Ш 2тарих Fылымдарыныц кандидаты, директордыц Fылым женшдеп орынбасары, Э.Х. МарFyлан ат. Археология институты, Алматы к,., Казахстан

Эмили Коко1*, Талгат БазарбаевичМамиров2

"автор-корреспондент, докторант, исследователь, Центр изучения происхождения человека,

факультет антропологии, Нью-Йоркский университет, Нью-Йорк, США 2кандидат исторических наук, заместитель директора по науке, Институт археологии им. А.Х. Маргулана, г. Алматы, Казахстан

Семiзб¥fы Р1 (2022) артефактшерш реутилизациялау бойынша эрекеттер асnектiлерiн зерттеу, Казахстан

Аннотация. Бул макалада СемiзбуFы палеолиттiк кешенiндегi тас куралдарын реутилизациялаудыц эрекеттер аспектiлерiн зерттеуге баFытталFан жаца жобаныц алдын-ала нэтижелерi келтiрiлген. Артефактiлерi беткi кабатта орналаскан ескерткiштер кайта вцдеуге ете ы^айлы орын болып табылады, вйткенi мундай жаFдайда артефактiлердi жердщ бетiнен оцай табуFа жэне кайта пайдалануFа бо-лады. Осы жоба аясында 2022 ж. СемiзбуFы турак кешеншщ Р1 (2022) ретшде белгiленген жаца жер-де артефакттер талданып, кайта вцделген заттар-ды сэйкестендiру Yшiн, непзшен, кос патинаныц болуына баса назар аударылды. Мунда усынылFан нэтижелер артефактiлердi екiншi рет пайдала-ну тYрiн сипаттайды. ЖYргiзiлген жумыстардыц взектмт, ец алдымен, «ашык типл» деп аталатын квптеген турактармен усынылFан Казакстанныц палеолиттiк ескерткiштерiн зерттеудщ жаца тэсiлi болып табылатындыFымен байланысты. СемiзбуFы Р1 (2022) ескертмшшщ мысалын колдана отырып, алынFан тужырымдарды аймактыц баска уксас ескерткiштерiмен экстраполяциялауFа болады, бул вткен замандаFы реутилизация принциптерiмен эрекеттер аспекттершщ сипатын тYсiну Yшiн кажет. СемiзбуFы кешенiндегi далалык зерттеулердщ ал-дында вткен Fасырдыц 60-жылдарында А.Г. Ме-доев жинаFан материалдар бойынша зертханалык жумыстар жYргiзiлдi.

Алгыс: Бул материал ¥лттык Fылыми кордыц колдауымен №2133751 грант бойынша орындалFан жумыска негiзделген. Бул жумысты Лики коры, АКШ студенттерiне арналFан Фулбрайт баFдарламасы жэне Раньери халыкаралык стипендиаттар коры каржыландырды. КоллекцияларFа жэне далалык учасшге кол жеткiзу О.А. Артюхованыц, Э.Х. МарFулан атындаFы Археология институты, эл-Фараби атындаFы Казак улттык университет жанындаFы Казакстанныц Палеолит музешнщ квмег аркасында мYмкiн болды. ЕК взшщ далалык тобына да алFыс бiлдiргiсi келедi.

Сiлтеме жасау Yшiн: Коко Э., Мамиров Т.Б. СемiзбуFы Р1 (2022) артефактiлерiн реутилизациялау бойынша эрекеттер аспектшерш зерттеу, Казакстан. Казахстан археологиясы. 2022. № 3 (17). 103-114-бб. ^ылшынша). DOI: 10.52967/akz2022.3.17.103.114

Изучение поведенческих аспектов по реутилизации артефактов на Семизбугу Р1 (2022), Казахстан

Аннотация. В данной статье представлены предварительные результаты нового проекта, направленного на изучение поведенческих аспектов по реутилизации каменных орудий на палеолитическом комплексе Семизбугу. Памятники с поверхностным залеганием артефактов являются идеальным местом для вторичной переработки, поскольку в таких условиях артефакты легко обнаружить на дневной поверхности и повторно их использовать. В рамках данного проекта артефакты были проанализированы на новом месте, обозначенном в 2022 г. как Р1 (2022) комплекса стоянок Семизбугу, с акцентом на идентификацию переработанных предметов, главным образом, по наличию двойной патины. Представленные здесь результаты описывают характер вторичного использования артефактов. Актуальность проведенных работ связана в первую очередь с тем, что это является совершенно новым подходом в изучении палеолитических памятников Казахстана, представленных многочисленными стоянками так называемого «открытого типа». На примере памятника Семизбугу Р1 (2022) можно экстраполировать полученные выводы с другими аналогичными памятниками региона для понимания характера принципов реутилизации и поведенческих аспектов в прошлом. Непосредственно полевым исследованиям на комплексе Семизбугу, предшествовали лабораторные работы по материалам, собранным в 60-е гг. прошлого века А.Г. Медое-вым.

Благодарности: Данный материал основан на работе, выполненной при поддержке Национального научного фонда по гранту № 2133751. Финансирование этой работы также было предоставлено Фондом Лики, программой Фулбрайта для студентов США и Фондом международных стипендиатов Раньери. Доступ к коллекциям и полевому участку стал возможен благодаря помощи О.А. Артюховой, Института археологии им. Маргулана, Музея палеолита Казахстана при Казахстанском национальном университете им. аль-Фараби. ЕК также хотела бы поблагодарить свою полевую группу.

Для цитирования: Коко Э., Мамиров Т.Б. Изучение поведенческих аспектов по реутилизации артефактов на Семизбугу Р1 (2022), Казахстан. Археология Казахстана. 2022. № 3 (17). С. 103-114 (на англ. яз.). РР1: 10.52967^2022.3.17.103.114

Examining recycling behaviors 1 at Semizbugu p12 (2022), Kazakhstan ' r'%

1 Introduction (Coco E., Mamirov T.)

The Paleolithic surface site complex, Semizbugu (fig. 1), located in the Saryarka region of Central Kazakhstan, has some of the best known surface deposits in Kazakhstan [Derevianko et al. 1993; 1998; Taimagambetov 1997; Artyukhova et al. 2001; Artyukhova 2013; Artyukhova, Mamirov 2014; Osipova, Artyukhova 2019]. Discovered in 1961 by A.G. Medoev during his work on the geological expedition of the Institute of Geology of the Kazakh SSR Academy of Sciences, the Semizbugu deposits are dense concentrations of stone tool artifacts located on the flat tops and slopes of the Semizbugu hills [Taimagambetov, Ozherelyev 2009; Artyukhova, Mamirov 2014]. Tens of thousands of artifacts were collected at 11 different sites in this landscape in the 1960s by A.G. Medoev; analysis of these artifacts was carried out to determine the technological and typological characteristics [Derevianko et al. 1993; Artyukhova et al. 2001; Artyukhova, Mamirov 2014].

Fig. 1. Map of Kazakhstan with the location of Semizbugu indicated by the red star. Other surface deposits in Kazakhstan identified by the green squares. Projected coordinate system is EPSG 28412 (Pulkovo 1942/G-K zone 12). Data sources: site locations - after Osipova et al. 2020: Artyukhova, Mamirov 2014; vector and raster map

data from ©Natural Earth

1-сур. Ceiwi36yfbi орналаск,ан Казахстан картасы, к,ызыл жулдызшамен белпленген.. Kазак1стандаFы баск,а ашык, типтег ескертшштер жасыл шаршымен белпленген. ЖобаланFан координаттар жYЙесi-EPSG 28412 (Пулково 1942/G-K 12 аймаFы). Дереккездер: объектшердщ орналаск,ан жерi - ([Осипова и др.2020; Артюхоба, Мамиров 2014]: бойынша); векторлык, жэне растрлык, карталар дерем^ ©Natural Earth

Рис. 1. Карта Казахстана с местоположением Семизбугу, обозначенным красной звездой. Другие памятники открытого типа в Казахстане обозначены зелеными квадратами. Проектируемая система координат -EPSG 28412 (Пулково 1942/зона G-K 12). Источники: местоположения объектов - (по: [Осипова и др. 2020; Артюхова, Мамиров 2014]); данные векторных и растровых карт ©Natural Earth

Казахстан археологиясы № 3 (17) 2022 105

Surface sites would have been ideal locations for recycling in the past. Artifacts at surface sites are exposed on the ground for long periods of time. This makes it more likely that ancient people would have found previously discarded artifacts at these sites to recycle [Camilli, Ebert 1992]. Despite this, few studies explicitly investigate recycling in surface contexts [Mcdonald 1991]. Stone tool recycling is defined as any instance in which stone artifacts are scavenged and then reworked, with some period of discard between episodes of manufacture [Amick 2007; Vaquero 2011; Barkai et al.2015a].The most reliable indication of recycling is evidence of knapping after some sort of surface alteration, such as a patina or rock varnish, has formed [Vaquero 2011; Vaquero et al. 2012; 2015; Turq et al. 2013; Peresani et al. 2015; Shimelmitz 2015]. This results in flake scars of different colors that demonstrate the discard period between use events.

Instances of reuse have been identified at Semizbugu, but recycling has not been extensively studied. Previous research found that some artifacts have overlapping retouch patterns attributed to different technological traditions [Artyukhova 2013; Artyukhova, Mamirov 2014]. Additionally, some researchers have argued that different surface conditions on the faces of artifacts at Semizbugu could indicate use in multiple Paleolithic periods [Artyukhova, Mamirov 2014]. This is because patinas have been correlated with particular typological phases at Semizbugu [Artyukhova 2013; Artyukhova, Mamirov 2014]. For example, diagnostic Acheulean and Mousterian materials often have a thick, deep, ochre-colored patina, whereas the late Paleolithic material looks "fresher" [Artyukhova, Mamirov 2014]. As a result, previous studies at Semizbugu have described multiples weathering stages of artifacts [Artyukhova, Mamirov 2014; Osipova, Artyukhova 2019]. These stages are strongly altered, medium altered, weakly altered, and not altered, as determined by the formation of patina, degree of ferrugination, and degree of polishing. The well-documented weathering of artifacts at Semizbugu means that recycling should also be easily identifiable.

The results presented in this article represent the first study at Semizbugu focused on examining recycling behaviors in these deposits.

2 Research methodsfCoco E.)

In the summer of 2022, field expeditions were undertaken to Semizbugu to collect newdata. The site of Semizbugu P1 (2022) is located on the southern slope of a hill in the Semizbugu mountains (fig. 2). The site is situated between Semizbugu 4 and the flat top of a hill where Semizbugu sites 7 through 10 are located. In May 2022, during surveys to identify new locations for data collection, we outline a rough area across which artifacts were spread on this slope. In June 2022, we collected data following the methodology outlined below for every artifact within three quadrants near the center of the concentration of artifacts on the slope. The first quadrant was 20 m by 20 m; the subsequent two quadrants were each 20 m by 10 m, to the east and south of the first quadrant respectively.

The new data collection methodology used during the 2022 field expeditions focused on collecting spatial data and individual artifact data, with each artifact being analyzed for signatures of recycling. Spatial locations of each artifact were recorded using Emlid Reach RS2 multi-band GNSS receivers. Additional artifact data was collected using standardized KoboToolBox forms to record the following data for each artifact:

1. maximum length, maximum width, maximum thickness, and weight;

2. cortex surface percentage and type;

3. attributes relating to determining technology, including platform attributes, flake scar number and direction, and retouch type as suggested by Andrefsky [Andrefsky 2005];

Examining recycling behaviors at Semizbugu p12 (2022), Kazakhstan

Fig. 2. Location of Semizbugu P1(2022) within the Semizbugu site complex. Projected coordinate system is EPSG 4326 (WGS 84). Data sources: raster map data from Bing and ESRI 2-сур. Ceiwi36yfbi нысандары кешеншде Ceiwi36yfbi Р 1 (2022) орналаскан жерк ЖобаланFан координаттар жYЙесi - EPSG 4326 (WGS 84). Дереккездер: Bing жэне ESRI растрлык карта деректерi Рис. 2. Местоположение Семизбугу P1(2022) в комплексе объектов Семизбугу. Проектируемая система координат - EPSG 4326 (WGS 84). Источники: данные растровых карт от Bing и ESRI

4. artifact class (i.e. broken flake, complete flake, core, tool) per categories from Phillips and colleagues [Phillips et al. 2017];

5. weathering classes, following those previously described for Semizbugu;

6. signatures of recycling on individual artifacts consistent with previous research on recycling, including:

a. artifacts with double patina;

b. artifacts with multiple technological/typological signatures;

c. flakes with removals on their ventral faces; and

d. cores used as hammer stones or hammer stones used as cores.

3 Results (Coco E.)

In total, 696 artifacts were analyzed from Semizbugu P1 (2022). This means that the density of artifacts in this deposit is approximately 2 artifacts per every square meter. Nearly 20% of the artifacts

had some sort of recycling signature, with the majority being identified as recycled due to the presence of double patinas (fig. 3). That results in a density of one recycled object for every 3 square meters.

Fig. 3. Scheme of spatial location artifacts analyzed at Semizbugu P1 (2022). Small light grey dots represent artifacts without any recycling signatures. Large, colored dots represent recycled artifacts, with colors corresponding to the type of recycling signature 3-сур. Ceiwi36yfbi P1 (2022) талданFан артефакттердщ ке^сштш орналасу схемасы. Кшкентай ашык сур HYK^ep ешкандай ецдеу белгiлерi жок артефактiлердi керсетедк Yлкен TYCTi HY^^ep кайта ецделген аpтeфактiлepдi бiлдipeдi, олардыц TYстepi кайта ецдеу колтацбасыныц TYpiнe сэйкес кeлeдi

Рис. 3. Схема пространственного расположения артефактов, проанализированных на Семизбугу P1 (2022). Маленькие светло-серые точки представляют артефакты без каких-либо признаков переработки. Большие цветные точки представляют переработанные артефакты, цвета которых соответствуют типу подписи переработки

Nearly 50% of the artifacts found at Semizbugu P1 (2022) are complete flakes, with the next most numerous artifact type being tools (24% of the artifacts). Cores make up a relatively small percentage of the assemblages at just 5.5% of the artifacts.

We investigated whether recycling more frequently occurred on certain types of artifacts (fig. 4a). Artifacts were classified into seven different artifact type categories: complete flakes, broken flakes, cores, core fragments, tools, tool fragments, and shatter. We found that artifacts that are tools are significantly more likely to be recycled. We also looked specifically at what types of tools are more likely to be recycled. When comparing tool types, most tool categories have some sort of recycling signature to varying degrees. Interestingly, none of the broad tool categories (fig. 4b) are significantly more likely to have recycled

Examining recycling behaviors at Semizbugu p12 (2022), Kazakhstan

Fig. 4. Number of artifacts by artifact type (a), tool type (b), and Bordian type (c). Percentage of recycled

and non-recycled objects given for each category

4-сур. Артефакт TYpi (a), кару TYpi (b) жэне «Бордтщ TYpi-паpак» (c) бойынша артефакттер саны. Эpбip санат Yшiн келлршген кайта ецделген жэне кайта ецделмеген объектшердщ пайызы

Рис. 4. Количество артефактов по типу артефактов (a), типу орудий (b) и «Бордовскому тип-листу» (c). Процент переработанных и не переработанных объектов, приведенный для каждой категории

signatures; however, when tools are broken out by Bordian types (fig. 4c), it seems that burins, end scrapers, single scrapers, transverse scrapers, and interior surface scrapers are more likely to have recycling signatures compared to non-tools.

In addition to categorically defining artifacts, we looked at the relationship between recycling and artifact size, as determined by length, width, thickness, and weight. Specifically, we used Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests to compare the distribution of each of the artifact size variables for recycled variables to the overall distribution of these variables for all artifacts. We found significant differences in the distributions of weight, length, and width, but not thickness (fig. 5). Artifacts with recycling signatures are heavier, longer, and wider than the average artifact in this deposit.

Fig. 5. Core density estimates for distributions of weight, length, width, and thickness of artifacts. Distributions for the entire assemblage shown with black line. Distributions of recycled artifacts shown with blue curve

5-сур. Артефакттердщ салмаFын, узындь^ын, енш жэне кальщдь^ын белу Yшiн нуклеус ть^ыздь^ын баFалау. БYкiл жиынтыктарды белу кара сызыкпен керсеттген. Кайта ецделген артефакттердщ таралуы кек

кисыкпен керсеттген

Рис. 5. Оценки плотности нуклеуса для распределений веса, длины, ширины и толщины артефактов. Распределения для всей совокупности показаны черной линией. Распределения переработанных

артефактов показаны синей кривой

Finally, we investigated whether recycling signatures were related to weathering stages at Semizbugu P1 (2022) (fig. 6). Using binary logistic regressions, we found that the odds of artifacts having recycling signatures does significantly depend on weathering stage. Specifically, when compared to strongly weathered artifacts, the odds that mildly weathered artifacts have recycling signatures decreases by 58%.

л„„л„,„„.,т- Examining recycling behaviors

CoCo E., MAMIROv T. at Semizbugu p12 (2022), Kazakhstan

Similarly, the odds that weakly weathered artifacts and unweathered artifacts have recycling signatures are decreased by 22% and 18%, respectively, compared to the odds of strongly weathered artifacts having recycling signatures.

Fig. 6. Number of artifacts by weathering stage. Percentage of recycled and non-recycled objects given for each category 6-сур. Ауа-райыныц сатылары бойынша артефактшер саны. 3p6ip санат Yшiн керсетшген кайта ецделген жэне кайта ецделмеген объекттердщ пайыздык аракатынасы Рис. 6. Количество артефактов по стадиям выветривания. Процентное соотношение переработанных и непереработанных объектов, указанное для каждой категории

4 Discussion and conclusions (Coco E, Mamirov T.)

These results from Semizbugu P1 (2022) confirm the presence of recycling behaviors at this Paleolithic site complex. Additionally, the higher likelihood of recycled implements occurring on more weathered artifacts supports the posited relationship between recycling frequency and exposure [Camilli, Ebert 1992]. The results also demonstrate that recycling occurs more frequently on certain types of artifacts, which could indicate preferences when scavenging for recycling material. Selection of specific types of objects for recycling has been noted in stratified cave contexts in Israel [Belfer-Cohen, Bar-Yosef 2015b]. However, it is argued that thicker objects are being selected for recycling in these cave contexts, which differs from the patterns at Semizbugu P1 (2022) where thickness of recycled artifacts does not significantly differ from the overall distribution of artifact thickness.

Studying surface deposits like Semizbugu is essential for furthering our understanding of recycling behaviors. Additionally, given the prevalence of surface sites in Kazakhstan, this region is uniquely suited for investigating recycling behaviors in different contexts. This will be invaluable for helping archaeologists to understand possible factors that make recycling more or less likely within a landscape. The recycling of stone tools is a potentially powerful force repeatedly rewriting archaeological patterns throughout history. This project represents an important first step to explore the range of conditions that may promote recycling so we can fully understand how this behavior functioned in the past.

ЭДЕБИЕТ

1 Артюхова О.А. Мустье Центрального Казахстана. Алматы: ИА КН МОН РК, 2013. 206 с.

2 Артюхова О.А., Деревянко А.П., Петрин В.Т., ТаймагамбетовЖ.К. Палеолитические комплексы Семизбугу,

пункт 4 (Северное Прибалхашье). Новосибирск: ИАЭт СО РАН, 2001. 120 с.

3 Артюхова О.А., Мамиров Т.Б. Каменный век Сарыарки: эволюция культур от древнепалеолитических

охотников до первых металлургов в свете новейших исследований. Алматы: ИА КН МОН РК, 2014. 356 с.

4 Деревянко А.П., Аубекеров Б.Ж., Петрин В.Т., Таймагамбетов Ж.К., Артюхова О.А., Зенин В.Н.,

Петров В.Г. ПалеолитСеверногоПрибалхашья (Семизбугу - пункт 2. Ранний-поздний палеолит). Новосибирск: ИАЭтСОРАН, 1993. 114 с.

5 Осипова Е.А., Артюхова О.А., Мамиров Т.Б. Нижний палеолит Казахстана: морфо-технологический и

типологический аспект изучения двусторонне обработанных изделий на примере бифасов Приаралья и Мугалжарских гор // Известия Иркутского государственного университета. Серия «Геоархеология. Этнология. Антропология». 2020. Т. 32. С. 3-14.

6 Таймагамбетов Ж.К., Ожерельев Д.В. Позднепалеолитические памятники Казахстана. Алматы: Казак

университет^ 2009. 256 с.

7 Amick D.S. Investigating the Behavioral Causes and Archaeological Effects of Lithic Recycling // Tools versus

Cores: Alternative Approaches to Stone Tool Analysis / Ed. McPherron, S.P. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2007. P. 223-252.

8 Andrefsky W. Lithics: Macroscopic approaches to analysis, Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, 2005. 301 р. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511810244

9 Barkai R., Lemorini C., Vaquero M. The origins of recycling: A Paleolithic perspective // Quaternary International.

2015. Vol. 361. P. 1-342.

10 Belfer-Cohen A., Bar-Yosef O. Paleolithic recycling: The example of Aurignacian artifacts from Kebara and

Hayonim caves // Quaternary International. 2015. Vol. 361. Р. 256-259.

11 Camilli E.L., Ebert J.I. Artifact Reuse and Recycling in Continuous Surface Distributions and Implications for

Interpreting Land Use Patterns // Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes / Eds. Rossignol, J., Wandsnider, L. Boston: Springer US, 1992. P. 113-136.

12 Derevianko A.P., Petrin V.T., Taimagambetov Zh.K. Palaeolithic Sites of Surface Occurrence in the Arid Zone of

Eurasia: Methods of Studying and Potential of Information // Anthropologie. 1998. Vol. 36, N 1/2. P. 99-119.

13 McdonaldM.M.A. Systematic Reworking of Lithics from Earlier Cultures in the Early Holocene of Dakhleh Oasis,

Egypt // Journal of Field Archaeology. 1991. Vol. 18. P. 269-273.

14 Osipova E.A., Artyukhova O.A. Le site paléolithique de Sémizbougou XI au Kazakhstan: nouvelle approche

de l'étude techno-typologique // L'Anthropologie. Numérospécial: Préhistoire de la Russie, 2019. 123. P. 319-332.

15 Peresani M., Boldrin M., Pasetti P. Assessing the exploitation of double patinated artifacts from the Late

Mousterian: Implications for lithic economy and human mobility in northern Italy // Quaternary International. 2015. 361. P. 238-250.

Examining recycling behaviors 1 at Semizbugu p12 (2022), Kazakhstan ' r'%

16 PhillippsR.S., HoldawayS., RamseyR., Wendrich W., Emmitt J.J. Approaches to Paleoenvironment and Landscape

Use. In: Holdaway, S., Wendrich, W. (Eds.). The Desert Fayum Reinvestigated. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, Los Angeles, CA. 2017. P. 17-50.

17 Shimelmitz R. The recycling of flint throughout the Lower and Middle Paleolithic sequence of Tabun Cave, Israel

// Quaternary International. 2015. 361. P. 34-45.

18 TaimagambetovZh. Periods in the Development of Kazak Palaeolithic Industries: Their Chronology and Correlation

with the Industries in Contiguous Territories // East and West. 1997. 47. P. 351-361.

19 Turq, A., Roebroeks, W., Bourguignon, L., Faivre, J.-P. The fragmented character of Middle Palaeolithic stone tool

technology // Journal of Human Evolution. 2013. 65. P. 641-655.

20 Vaquero M. New perspectives on recycling of lithic resources using refitting and spatial data // Quartär. 2011. 58.

P. 113-130.

21 Vaquero M., Alonso S., García-Catalán S., García-Hernández A., Gómez de Soler B., Rettig D., Soto M. Temporal

nature and recycling of Upper Paleolithic artifacts: the burned tools from the Molí del Salt site (VimbodíiPoblet, northeastern Spain) // Journal of Archaeological Science. 2012. 39. P. 2785-2796.

22 Vaquero M., Bargalló A., Chacón M.G., Romagnoli F., Sañudo P. Lithic recycling in a Middle Paleolithic

expedient context: Evidence from the AbricRomaní (Capellades, Spain) // Quaternary International. 2015. 361. P. 212-228.

REFERENCES

1 Artyukhova, O. A., 2013. MusMe Tsentralnogo Kazakhstana (Mousterian of Central Kazakhstan). Almaty:

Margulan Institute of Archaeology (in Russian).

2 Artyukhova, O. A., Derevianko, A. P., Petrin, V. T., Taimagambetov, Z. K., 2001. Paleoliticheskie Kompleksy

Semizbugu, Punkt 4 (Severnoe Pribalkhashie)(Paleolithic Complexes of Semizbugu, Point 4 (Northern Pribalkhash)). Novosibirsk: Institut arkheologii i etnografii SO RAN (in Russian).

3 Artyukhova, O.A., Mamirov, T.B., 2014. Kamennyi vek Saryarki: evolutsiya kultur ot drevnepaleoliticheskikh

okhotnikov do pervykh metallurgov v svete noveishikh issledovaniy (Stone Age of Saryarka: the evolution of cultures from ancient Paleolithic hunters to the first metallurgists in the light of the latest research). Almaty: Margulan Institute of Archaeology (in Russian).

4 Derevianko, A. P., Aubekerov, B. Zh., Petrin, V T., Taimagambetov, Z. K., Artyukhova, O. A., Zenin, V. N., Petrov,

V. G., 1993. Paleolit Severnogo Pribalkhash'ya (Semizbugu Punkt 2, Ranniy-PozdniyPaleolit) (Paleolithic of the Northern Balkhash (Semizbugu point 2. Early-Late Paleolithic)). Novosibirsk: Institut arkheologii i etnografii SO RAN (in Russian).

5 Osipova, E. A., Artyukhova, O. A., Mamirov T.B. In: Izvestiya Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya

"Geoarheologiya. Etnologiya. Antropologiya".(Bulletin of the Irkutsk State University. Geoarchaeology, Ethnology, and Anthropology Series. 2020, 32, 3-14. DOI: 10.26516/2227-2380.2020.32.3 (in Russian).

6 Taimagambetov, Zh., Ozherelyev, D. 2009. Pozdnepaleoliticheskie pamyatniki Kazakhstana (Late Paleolithic sites

of Kazakhstan). Almaty: Kazakh University (in Russian).

7 Amick, D. S. 2007. In: Tools versus Cores: Alternative Approaches to Stone Tool Analysis / Ed. McPherron, S.P.

Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2007. P. 223-252 (in English).

8 Andrefsky, W. 2005. Lithics: Macroscopic approaches to analysis, Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBQ9780511810244 (in English).

9 Barkai, R., Lemorini, C., Vaquero, M., 2015a. In: Quaternary International. Vol. 361. P. 1-342 (in English).

10 Belfer-Cohen, A., Bar-Yosef, O., 2015b. In: Quaternary International. Vol. 361, P. 256-259 (in English).

11 Camilli, E.L., Ebert, J.I., 1992. Artifact Reuse and Recycling in Continuous Surface Distributions and Implications

for Interpreting Land Use Patterns. In: Rossignol, J., Wandsnider, L. (Eds.), Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes. Boston: Springer US (in English).

12 Derevianko, A. P., Petrin, V. T., Taimagambetov, Z. K., 1998. In: Anthropologie, 36, N 1/2, 99-119 (in English).

13 Mcdonald, M. M. A., 1991. In: Journal of Field Archaeology, 18, 269-273 (in English).

14 Osipova, E. A., Artyukhova, O. A., 2019. Le site paléolithique de Sémizbougou XI au Kazakhstan: nouvelle

approche de l'étude techno-typologique (The Paleolithic site SemizbougouXI in Kazakhstan: New approach of techno-typological study). In: L'Anthropologie, Préhistoire de la Russie. 123, 319-332. DOI: 10.1016Ij. anthro.2019.06.006 (in French).

15 Peresani, M., Boldrin, M., Pasetti, P., 2015. In: Quaternary International, 361, 238-250 (in English).

16 Phillipps, R. S., Holdaway, S., Ramsey, R., Wendrich, W., Emmitt, J. J., 2017. In: The DesertFayum Reinvestigated.

Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, CA, 17-50 (in English).

17 Shimelmitz, R. 2015. In: Quaternary International, 361, 34-45 (in English). 1S Taimagambetov, Z. 1997. In: East and West, 47, 351-361 (in English).

19 Turq, A., Roebroeks, W., Bourguignon, L., Faivre, J.-P. 2013. In: Journal of Human Evolution, 65, 641-655 (in

English).

20 Vaquero, M. 2011. In: Quartär, 58, 113-130 (in English).

21 Vaquero, M., Alonso, S., García-Catalán, S., García-Hernández, A., Gómez de Soler, B., Rettig, D., Soto, M. 2012.

In: JAS, 39, 2785-2796 (in English).

22 Vaquero, M., Bargalló, A., Chacón, M.G., Romagnoli, F., Sañudo, P. 2015. In: Quaternary International, Зб1,

212-228 (in English).

МYДделеp к,ак,ть^ысы туралы ак,паратты ашу. Автор мYДделеp какты^ысыныц жок,ть^ын мэлiмдейдi.

I Pаcкpытие информации о конфликте интересов. Автор заявляет об отсутствии конфликта интересов.

I Disclosure of conflict of interest information. The author claims no conflict of interest.

Мак,ала туралы акпарат I Информация о статье I Information about the article.

PедакцияFа тYcтi I Поступила в редакцию I Entered the editorial office: 19.09.2022.

Pецензенттеp макyлдаFан I Одобрено рецензентами I Approved by reviewers: 24.09.2022.

ЖаpиялаyFа кабылданды I Принята к публикации I Accepted for publication: 24.09.2022.