The Initial Upper Paleolithic of Kamenka site, Zabaikal region (Siberia): A closer look at the blade technology

Intra-assemblage variation in the macro-blade assemblage from the 1963 excavation at Shuidonggou locality 1, northern China, in the context of regional variation

“…For instance, at the Kamenka site in the Transbaikal region, 29.9% of blade platforms were shaped by abrasion on the external edge. At Kamenka, platform abrasion is often associated with smaller platforms and a high frequency of ventral lips, features suggested to be consistent with a marginal percussion technique by soft-stone hammer [18]. High frequencies of blade platform abrasion are also observed at sites in northern Mongolia, such as Tolbor 16 [19].…”

“…Although the occasional use of soft stone hammer and marginal percussion has been suggested based upon the study of the 1980 collection [20], abrasion on the exterior edges of platforms and lipping of the internal edges are nearly absent in the 1963 collection. This is an important difference from the quasi-contemporaneous assemblages in northern Mongolia and the Transbaikal region, where soft hammer percussion was frequently used [18,19].…”

“…This is higher than in the SDG 1 assemblage overall (17.8%), but considering only laminar blanks, as suggested above, UP formal tools make up 34.6% of retouched pieces at SDG 1. The frequency of UP formal tools is much lower at other northeast Asian IUP sites such as Kemenka (8.6%) and Tolbor 16 (0.4%) [18,19]. Pointed tools are present in many sites but the denticulated points at SDG 1 appear to be unique based on the published literature.…”

“…Assemblages with these characteristics are distributed broadly across Eurasia, from the eastern Mediterranean to northeast Asia. In northeast Asia, IUP assemblages have been documented in Siberia, Mongolia, as well as northern China, with particular "hot spots" in the areas surrounding Baikal lake, in northern Mongolia, and in the Siberian Altai [16][17][18][19][20][21]. Our main aim here is to examine the intra-assemblage variation in the collection from the 1963 excavation at Shuidonggou locality 1 (SDG 1) in northern China, in an effort to situate the site and assemblage within the range of IUP variability in northeast Asia.…”

Palaeolithic Complexes of the Podzvonkaya Site in the South of Western Transbaikal: Comparative Characteristic

“…Термин НВП был введен в 1-й половине ХХ в. для обозначения индустрий Северного, а затем и Южного Леванта, обладающих переходным характером от среднего к верхнему палеолиту Khun, Zwyns, 2014]. С течением времени география применения термина значительно расширилась на восток; верхнепалеолитические комплексы Центральной Азии, Алтая, Северного Китая также стали относиться к НВП [Rybin, 2014;Keates, Kuzmin, 2015;Belousova et al, 2018;Zwyns, Lbova, 2019]. В то же время в литературе возникла ситуация двоякого применения термина: и как хронологического, и как технологического показателя.…”