The technology of early Upper Paleolithic lithic reduction in Northern Mongolia: The Tolbor-4 site

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

doi:10.1134/s1563011007010021

Cited by 36 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the same drainage system, T16 (along with Tolbor-4) yielded strong evidence for the occurrence of the IUP about 450 km upstream from Lake Baikal. With dates ranging between >41.5 to 31.5 ka uncal BP, the chronology is still uncertain 38–40 . The results presented here confirm that the IUP reaches Northeast Asia by 45 ka.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Northern Route for Human dispersal in Central and Northeast Asia: New evidence from the site of Tolbor-16, Mongolia

Zwyns

Paine

Bolorbat

et al. 2019

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fossil record suggests that at least two major human dispersals occurred across the Eurasian steppe during the Late Pleistocene. Neanderthals and Modern Humans moved eastward into Central Asia, a region intermittently occupied by the enigmatic Denisovans. Genetic data indicates that the Denisovans interbred with Neanderthals near the Altai Mountains (South Siberia) but where and when they met H. sapiens is yet to be determined. Here we present archaeological evidence that document the timing and environmental context of a third long-distance population movement in Central Asia, during a temperate climatic event around 45,000 years ago. The early occurrence of the Initial Upper Palaeolithic, a techno-complex whose sudden appearance coincides with the first occurrence of H. sapiens in the Eurasian steppes, establishes an essential archaeological link between the Siberian Altai and Northwestern China . Such connection between regions provides empirical ground to discuss contacts between local and exogenous populations in Central and Northeast Asia during the Late Pleistocene.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Northern Route for Human dispersal in Central and Northeast Asia: New evidence from the site of Tolbor-16, Mongolia

Zwyns

Paine

Bolorbat

et al. 2019

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The technological evolution documented at SDG2 is a clear and unusual technological reversal from the blades back to a non-predetermined, low-cost approach of flake production that was locally widespread during the late MIS3. This reversal is in contrast with what is observed in the Eurasian Steppe at that time ( Fig 1 ), where the IUP is generally followed by an early Upper Paleolithic defined by the emergence of bladelet production systems [ 23 , 37 ]. Contrary to the Steppe where the laminar traditions became consistent components in regional technological evolution, a different technological trajectory was present in the adjacent region of North China.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…Such a technological ‘reversal’ at SDG2 is against the expectations drawn from the general development of the Upper Paleolithic elsewhere in Eurasia, where a heavy reliance on laminar production is widely observed [ 34 – 36 ]. In the neighboring Steppe belt, from where blades in North China likely originate, blade production was persistent and gave way to the Early Upper Paleolithic varieties of blade and bladelet reduction systems [ 23 , 37 , 38 ]. In some regions, bladelet technology may have developed at the expense of larger blades but there is no doubt that both technologies coexisted during MIS3.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

After the blades: The late MIS3 flake-based technology at Shuidonggou Locality 2, North China

Zhang

Zwyns²,

Peng³

et al. 2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contrasting with the predominance of blade-based assemblages in the Eurasian Upper Paleolithic, the large-scale persistence of a core-and-flake technology remains one of the defining features of Late Pleistocene lithic technology in East Asia. In North China, Shuidonggou is an exceptional site where both technologies are documented, therefore, it is an important archaeological sequence to understand regional technological evolution during the Marine Isotopic Stage 3. Blade technology first occurred at Shuidonggou Locality 1 and 2 around 41 ka cal BP while core-and-flake assemblages were widespread in North China. However, systematic technological studies on assemblages postdating 34 ka cal BP have not been conducted to examine whether the blade technology appeared and disappeared over a short yet abrupt episode, or persists and integrates into other forms in the region. Here, we conducted qualitative and quantitative analyses to reconstruct lithic productions on the assemblages at Shuidonggou Locality 2, dated after 34 ka cal BP. Our results show that there is a total absence of laminar elements in stone artifacts dated to 34–28 ka cal BP at Shuidonggou. Instead, we observe a dominance of an expedient production of flakes in the younger assemblages, illustrating a rapid return to flake-based technology after a relatively brief episode of stone blade production. Combining archaeological, environmental, and genetic evidence, we suggest that this technological ‘reversal’ from blades back to core and flake technology reflect population dynamics and adaptive strategies at an ecological interface between East Asian winter and summer monsoon.

show abstract

“…Remarkably, these two technologies also occur in Early Emiran-like assemblages from northern Mongolia (e.g. see the respective illustrations for Tolbor 4, horizons 5-6 in Derevianko et al 2007).…”

Section: Obr 3 Kara-bom Oh6 Vybrané čEpelky Jádro Na čEpelky a Hrot (Podle Zwyns 2012)mentioning

confidence: 95%

Initial Upper Paleolithic bladelet production: Bladelets in Moravian Bohunician

Demidenko¹,

Škrdla²,

Rychtaříková³

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bladelets are a common Upper Palaeolithic technological category, often described as a proxy for the Early Upper Palaeolithic. However, bladelet production has already been documented within preceding Initial Upper Palaeolithic techno-complexes, e.g. at Boker Tachtit (Negev Desert, Israel) and Kara-Bom (Altai Republic, Russian Federation). Only isolated bladelets have been reported from the Central European Bohunician. However, a recently discovered and excavated site, Ořechov IV – Kabáty has yielded a large series (over 1,000 items) of micro-blades and bladelets, documenting a higher degree of technological heterogeneity of the Bohunician techno-complex than previously thought.

show abstract

The technology of early Upper Paleolithic lithic reduction in Northern Mongolia: The Tolbor-4 site

Cited by 36 publications

References 6 publications

The Northern Route for Human dispersal in Central and Northeast Asia: New evidence from the site of Tolbor-16, Mongolia

The Northern Route for Human dispersal in Central and Northeast Asia: New evidence from the site of Tolbor-16, Mongolia

After the blades: The late MIS3 flake-based technology at Shuidonggou Locality 2, North China

Initial Upper Paleolithic bladelet production: Bladelets in Moravian Bohunician

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About