Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Eastern Europe : taxonomical issues

The debates on understanding of Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Eastern Europe are on the spot now. Nevertheless, not much attention is being paid to taxonomy as a key tool of data analysis. The proposed taxonomical approach challenges the ternary schema, which consists of such interrelated taxons as "technocomplex", "industry", and "type of industry". A wide sample of archaeological data has been analyzed in terms of various comparative strategies. The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Eastern Europe has been understood as a nonlinear/multidimensional process. Its archaeological interface points to the notion of two "lines of development" termed as transitional and early Upper Palaeolithic industries, in which technological and typological variability has been documented.
The group of transitional industries appears within two technocomplexes: the Epimicoquian and the Levallois‑Mousterian of Tabun D tradition. The first comprises several industries with a distinctive combination of Micoquian and Upper Palaeolithic traits and rooted the Middle Palaeolithic Micoquian. The second is distinguished by a particular technology providing Levallois recurrent bipolar reduction and volumetric reduction within the same knapping context. The industries which belong to this technocomplex are geographically diverse: Kremenician (western Volhynia), Bohunician (Central Europe), Temnata cave I, VI (Balkans), Levallois‑Mousterian of Tabun D and Emiran (Near East). The consideration tentatively assumes that the bearers of this tradition, presumably anatomically modern humans, came to inhabit part of Europe. Three technocomplexes have been described within the Early Upper Palaeolithic line of development: the Aurignacian, the Archaic Gravettian, and the Epimicoquian. Each of them is represented by a number of industries which have been spread throughout the different territorial groups.