Take a look at this website. Apparently Soviet anthropologists used the term Мадлен for Magdalenian, as suggested, but mean something which in the West is considered "incorrect".

A very different view is taken of cultures in the earlier prehistoric period, in Palaeolithic times. Breuil has been taken to task for referring Palaeolithic cultures to ethnic groups [11]. In the Upper Palaeolithic period, owing to the lack of a clear stratigraphy from caves, or proper Solutrean or Magdalenian industries, the cultural sequence in Russia is confused. The cultural terms are used by Soviet archaeologists to describe periods, and cultures as we use the term are not recognized. An interesting theory is that of Semenov who regards the cultural terms as representing technological stages, as was done by some 19th-century archaeologists [12]. While we may have neglected technology too much in Palaeolithic studies, and no doubt Semenov's work will have a considerable influence on the subject, it is hard to believe that a very closely defined, possibly indeed one of the best defined cultures, the Magdalenian, can be explained entirely or even primarily in technological terms.

This brings us to what in my opinion is the central difference in the interpretation of culture between English and Soviet archaeologists. Since Sir Cyril Fox's Archaeology of the Cambridge Region appeared in 1923, it has been a commonplace among English prehistorians that archaeological remains can be employed to reveal the relationship to their environment of the people to whom they belong, that by plotting the distribution of the remains on a map the influence of this or that environmental factor, geology or vegetation, can be demonstrated. The tendency of the 'geographical school' has been to push the matter further and to interpret nearly all the remains in economic terms. It is perhaps overlooked by critics that the evidence by its very nature allows itself to be used for this purpose, and the fact that it is silent on many other aspects of primitive life is also why the archaeologist using the evidence is silent, not because he denies their importance. It is a method rather than a theory which has grown from the material itself, whereas the besetting weakness of all Soviet theory is precisely that it is theory brought in from elsewhere.


http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:qmzlM600NLQJ:antiquity.a...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 39 mins (2006-05-03 08:05:45 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Excuse me for these enormous notes. Here is more:

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:JGU9yWpEut8J:en.wikipedi...

It appears as if Palaeolithic culture did not extend beyond southern and western Europe, in part because the glacial age had not yet ended (10,500 BC). Palaeolithic culture was followed by the Neolithic, traces of which can be found in eastern Europe (southern Russia), caucusus for example.