Early Upper Paleolithic Stone Tool Technologies of Northern Mongolia: The Case of Tolbor-4 and Tolbor-15*

Деревянко, А. П.; Rybin, Evgeny P.; Gladyshev, S.A.; Gunchinsuren, Byambaa; Цыбанков, А. А.; Olsen, John W.

doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2014.07.004

Cited by 27 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license made available under a (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted May 18, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.18.444621 doi: bioRxiv preprint 45kya as proposed by Zwyn and colleagues 20 , and here we propose it to be a wider phenomenon that populated the broad geographic area between Mediterranean Levant [40][41][42][43][44] , East Europe [45][46][47] , Siberia-Mongolia 10,20,[48][49][50][51] and East Asia 9,52,53 in less than 5ky, reaching as far South as Oceania before 37kya, and which eventually died out in Europe after repeated admixtures with Neanderthals (Bacho Kiro and Oase1 being two notable examples) (Figure 2.B). In Western Europe, in the same timeframe, this interaction has been suggested as a trigger for the development of Chatelperronian material culture 54 , while the Uluzzian technocomplex in Mediterranean Europe might be better explained by an additional, yet uncharacterized expansion from the Hub 55,56 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 68%

Genetics and material culture support repeated expansions into Paleolithic Eurasia from a population hub out of Africa

Vallini

Marciani

Aneli

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The population dynamics that followed the out of Africa expansion (OoA) and ultimately led to the formation of Oceanian, West and East Eurasian macro populations have long been debated. Furthermore, with the OoA being dated between 70 kya and 65 kya and the earliest splits between West and East Eurasian populations being inferred not earlier than 43 kya from modern DNA data, an additional question concerns the whereabouts of the early migrants out of Africa before those differentiations. Shedding light on these population dynamics may, in turn, provide clues to better understand cultural evolution in Eurasia between 50 kya and 35 kya, where the development of new technologies may be correlated to parallel independent evolution paths, to the arrival of new populations, or to long-term processes of cultural and biological exchanges. Here we jointly re-analyze Eurasian Paleolithic DNA available to date in light of material culture, and provide a comprehensive population model with minimal admixture events. Our integrated approach i) maintains Zlaty Kůň genetically as the most basal out of Africa human lineage sequenced to date, also in comparison to Oceanians and putatively links it with non-Mousterian material cultures documented in Europe 48-43 kya; ii) infers the presence of an OoA population Hub from which a major wave broadly associated with Initial Upper Paleolithic lithic industries emanated to populate West and East Eurasia before or around 45 kya, and of which Ust′Ishim, Bacho Kiro and Tianyuan were unadmixed descendants; iii) proposes a parsimonious placement of Oase1 as an individual related to Bacho Kiro who experienced additional Neanderthal introgression; and iv) explains the East/West Eurasian population split as a longer permanence of the latter in the OoA Hub, followed by a second population expansion (before 37 kya), broadly associated with Upper Paleolithic industries, that largely replaced pre-existing humans in Europe, and admixed with the previous wave to form Yana and Mal′ta in Siberia and, to a greater extent, GoyetQ116-1 in Belgium.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 68%

Genetics and material culture support repeated expansions into Paleolithic Eurasia from a population hub out of Africa

Vallini

Marciani

Aneli

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is increasingly clear today, however, that the IUP behavioral traits between contiguous regions in Asia are chronologically constrained. A lack of convincing antecedents (Slavinsky and Tsybankov 2020;Kuzmin and Keates 2020) combined with the perspective of social intimacy between hunter-gatherer groups (e.g., Tostevin 2003aTostevin , b, 2007 furthermore leads one to envision a broader unifying cultural entity across the region (Rybin 2000;Rybin 2014;Zwyns 2012) which possibly developed some local variations (Derevianko et al 2013) (Fig. 2).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Initial Upper Paleolithic in Central and East Asia: Blade Technology, Cultural Transmission, and Implications for Human Dispersals

Zwyns

2021

J Paleo Arch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Archaeological assemblages labeled as Initial Upper Paleolithic are often seen as possible evidence for dispersals of Homo sapiens populations in Eurasia, ca. 45,000 years ago. While most authors agree that the IUP can be recognized by a set of shared features, there is far less consensus on what these features are, and what they mean. Because of methodological challenges inherent to long distance comparisons, documenting and establishing a firm connection between archaeological assemblages remain difficult and often draw legitimate skepticism. There could be many reasons why Paleolithic hunter-gatherers used comparable technologies, but it usually comes down to two kinds of processes: cultural transmission or convergence. In other words, technological similarities may illustrate a cultural link between regions or may be caused by mechanisms of independent reinvention between more distantly related populations. Here, I focus on three assemblages from the Siberian Altai, Zabaikal region, and North Mongolia to address one main question: is there such thing as a united IUP in Central and East Asia, or are we looking at unrelated yet comparable adaptive processes? First, I describe the common structure of lithic blade production at the sites, with special attention to derived features relative to the regional sequence. After comparing the complexity of the production system with those of other lithic technologies, I suggest that this coherent, intricate, yet unprecedented technological pattern found across contiguous regions in Asia is better explained by transmission processes than by multiple unrelated reinventions, or local developments. The blade production system described in Siberia and Mongolia reoccur as a package, which is consistent with indirect bias and/or conformist cultural transmission processes. Overall, the results point toward close contact between individuals and hunter gatherer populations, and supports the recognition of a broad cultural unit to encapsulate Asian IUP assemblages. Considering other lines of evidence, the geographical and chronological distribution of Asian IUP lithic technology is consistent with a dispersal of Homo sapiens populations in Central and East Asia during the Marine Isotopic Stage 3, although the geographical origin of such movement is less clear.

show abstract

“…More variable in geographical distribution and assemblage composition, the EUP moves away from a strict focus on large blades to integrate a more specialized production of bladelets (Rybin et al, 2007), a shared pattern globally marking changes in successful hunting weaponry (Teyssandier et al, 2010) and hunter-gatherer patterns of mobility (Bon, 2005). At the regional level, the EUP could be the logical continuation of the IUP (Derevianko et al, 2013), or a rupture in the local sequence consecutive to a population turnover (Zwyns, 2012), but reliable data concerning human occupation during the 45 to 40 ka cal BP time interval is currently lacking. Essentially, we know too little about hunter-gatherer groups during this critical period to properly test models of demography or behavioral adaptation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new Upper Paleolithic occupation at the site of Tolbor-21 (Mongolia): Site formation, human behavior and implications for the regional sequence

Rybin

Paine

Khatsenovich

et al. 2020

Quaternary International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Central and East Asia, the Upper Paleolithic dates as early as 45 ka cal BP, but until recently, there was little reliable information concerning human occupation during the following period, between 45 and 40 ka cal BP. Here we present results of the excavation of the site of Tolbor-21, in the Selenga drainage system, Northern Mongolia. We focus on Tolbor-21 Archeological Horizon 4 (AH4), an archeological assemblage that documents human occupations that fall stratigraphically and chronologically between the Initial and the Early Upper Paleolithic. We report on the spatial distribution of the finds, the zooarcheological and the lithic data to determine which of the observations reflect post-depositional processes, and which are informative of human behavior. Our initial results presented here show evidence of reworking and preservation bias on a succession of occupations, the exploitation of medium/large herbivores, and a potential structured use of space. At the regional level, our results suggest that improving the resolution of data collection may identify previously undocumented episodes of human occupation. At a broader scale, the Tolbor-21 AH4 assemblage brings new perspectives on the development of the Early Upper Paleolithic in Central and Northeast Asia.

show abstract

Early Upper Paleolithic Stone Tool Technologies of Northern Mongolia: The Case of Tolbor-4 and Tolbor-15*

Cited by 27 publications

References 4 publications

Genetics and material culture support repeated expansions into Paleolithic Eurasia from a population hub out of Africa

Genetics and material culture support repeated expansions into Paleolithic Eurasia from a population hub out of Africa

The Initial Upper Paleolithic in Central and East Asia: Blade Technology, Cultural Transmission, and Implications for Human Dispersals

A new Upper Paleolithic occupation at the site of Tolbor-21 (Mongolia): Site formation, human behavior and implications for the regional sequence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About