The Dating of a Middle Paleolithic Blade Industry in Southern Russia and Its Relationship to the Initial Upper Paleolithic

Hoffecker, John F.; Holliday, Vance T.; Nehoroshev, Pavel; Vishnyatsky, Leonid; Otcherednoy, A.K.; Salnaya, Natalya; Goldberg, Paul; Southon, John; Lehman, Scott J.; Cappa, Patrick J.; Giaccio, Biagio; Forman, Steven L.; Quade, Jay

doi:10.1007/s41982-019-00032-6

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The same author describes a comparable core geometry in the Hummalian assemblages from Syria (Boëda 1995). In other examples known from early Solutrean contexts in France (Renard 2010), the Middle Paleolithic of Crimea (Cabaj and Sitlivy 1994), the Lincombian-Raniszian-Jerzmanowician in the British Isles (Flas 2008(Flas , 2011, the Maisierian in Belgium (Touzé 2018), and the late Middle Paleolithic assemblages from East European Plain (Hoffecker et al 2019;Nehoroshev 2004;Nehoroshev and Vishnyatsky 2000), it is not always clear if the asymmetrical cross section of the core represents a feature of a broader reduction process (e.g., organized around a broad flaking surface) or a strategy on its own.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

show abstract

“…BP and marks a shift in the regional sequence toward blade-based production, and the Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP), which emerges after 40 ka cal BP. Despite some regional variation between western and eastern Eurasia Zwyns, 2014, 2018;Hoffecker et al, 2019;Kuhn, 2019;Hublin et al, 2020;Fewlass et al, 2020), the IUP is consistent enough in Central and East Asia to be associated with Homo sapiens dispersals along a 'Northern Route' as early as 46-45 ka cal BP (Goebel, 2004(Goebel, , 2015Zwyns, 2012;Fu et al, 2014;Madsen et al, 2014;Rybin, 2014;Hublin, 2015;Hoffecker, 2017;Li et al, 2019;Izuho et al, 2019;Kadowaki et al, 2019;. In addition to specific typological markers (Rybin, 2000(Rybin, , 2014, IUP assemblages often show distinctive technological features that stem from a strong emphasis on the production of blades.…”

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

Europe (2)

Naganuma,

Suzuki,

Nishiaki

2023

Replacement of Neanderthals by Modern Humans Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Dating of a Middle Paleolithic Blade Industry in Southern Russia and Its Relationship to the Initial Upper Paleolithic

Cited by 8 publications

References 60 publications

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

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

Europe (2)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About