You're welcome,
After translating last night, it appears to me that, typologically (the only way I see that an estimate can be made), the artifacts look to be Middle Paleolithic, probably <200 kyr old, although, obviously, a surface collection could have artifacts from a wide range of dates.
Dar
Dar,
You are certainly right on both counts. This is why I feel your
topic title could be somewhat misleading, especially for people who favour "diagonal" reading, to the extent that what is being referred to in this paper does not pertain to the Acheulean ("stricto sensu" - - both techno-typologically and chronologically speaking), but to a Middle Palaeolithic Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition and, more precisely, to what is described as a regional facies of the latter. If this is not clearly expressed in the abstract, it is clear from the short descriptions, from the illustrations, as well as from the following, equally brief conclusion (see below).
7. Conclusion
La découverte des sites de Kuk-ayaz permet de combler des vides archéologiques dans le secteur nord-est du Kizilkum central et l’étude de ces sites a comme perspective une meilleure connaissance du Paléolithique en Asie centrale. La présence de bifaces dans le Paléolithique d’Ouzbékistan est uniquement spécifique au territoire du Kizilkum et au plateau Usturt. La présence de la technique Levallois dans le matériel de Kuk-ayaz, associée aux bifaces, témoigne d’une autre phase dans la culture moustérienne de tradition acheuléenne dans ces territoires.
My quick translation:
The discovery of the Kuz-ayaz sites allow us to fill the archaeological blanks in the northeast region of the central Kizilkum and to develop a better appreciation of the Uzbek Palaeolithic. The occurrence of bifaces in the Uzbek Palaeolithic is uniquely specific to the Kizilkum territory and to the Usturt plateau. The association of the Levallois technique and of the bifaces, in the Kuk-ayaz assemblages can be viewed as indicative of another phase [?] in the Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition (MTA, in French) of these regions.
Also, given this MTA attribution – and assuming that such an assessment is vaguely correct – -the material likely represents human occupations that span the latter part of the MP. But then, one should not try to read too much from what is essentially a very preliminary survey report based on, as you rightfully note, surface collections which, I might add, appear to be rather small and, therefore, not necessarily eloquent.
Jacques
