The Paleolithic of Central Asia

The Lower Paleolithic of Central Asia is represented by several sealed and more or less firmly dated Lower–Middle Pleistocene cave and open-air sites in the southeastern part and by more numerous surface occurrences throughout the region. The assemblages assigned to the Lower Paleolithic form two rather distinct groups, one remarkable for well-made handaxes and the other characterized by cores and flakes with no handaxes. The distribution map of pebble industries and industries with handaxes shows that while the latter originate from the western regions of Central Asia, the former are concentrated in the eastern part of the area. The Middle Paleolithic assemblages of Central Asia do not form a single technocomplex. Their variability in time is difficult to assess, but variation in space is obvious. Very few Upper Paleolithic sites in this region are known. At the same time, their stone industries are very diverse and most of them differ sharply from each other and from sites in adjacent regions.     

Lower and middle paleolithic of northern Asia: Achievements,problems, and perspectives

Considerable progress has been made in recent years in the study of the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of northern Asia. There is growing evidence for initial human occupation before 700,000 years ago—as early as elsewhere in Asia—and for a very early adaptation to the arctic desert environment. New models of Lower Paleolithic settlement involve expansion and reduction of occupation in response to climatic variation, rather than simple colonization followed by steady occupation. The Middle Paleolithic of northern Asia is better documented, including actual finds of archaicHomo sapiens. The transition to the Upper Paleolithic seems to involve the survival of earlier cultural traits, but the mechanisms and processes are not well understood. Further significant knowledge concerning these periods awaits the development of common methodologies for classification and analysis.     

湖北旧石器文化初步研究

一、前　言湖北位于我国中部 ,长江从其腹地穿越 ,地理位置处于东经 1 0 8°2 1′——— 1 1 6°0 1′ ,北纬 2 9°5′——— 33°2 0′。属亚热带季风气候 ,因受太阳辐射和季风环流的季节性变化的影响 ,湖北雨热同季 ,四季分明 ,光照充足 ,雨量充沛 ,年平均降水量在 80 0毫米～ 1 0 0 0毫米 ,年均光照总数在 1 2 0 0小时～2 0 0 0小时之间 ,年平均温度在 1 5℃～ 1 7℃。湖北东、西、北三面环山 ,东南及中部为平原。全境河流交织 ,湖泊如星。湖北的生物资源也极为丰富 ,据统计 ,生活在湖北的动物多达 70 0余种、植物 4 0 0 0多种。这种生态…     

Three Scenarios Of The Middle To Upper Paleolithic Transition The Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in Africa and the Early Peopling of Eurasia by Anatomically Modern Humans

Previous papers of this cycle describe the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Eurasia and in the Sino-Malayan zone. Archaeological evidence from Africa however, suggests a completely different model of the transition. Despite the variability of Paleolithic industries in Africa, the maintenance of the Middle Paleolithic strategy of core reduction constitutes a common trend. The transitional industries in North and East Africa are characterized by Aterian points and backed geometric implements.     

Reassessment of the Lower Paleolithic (Acheulean) presence in the western Tien Shan

Kulbulak (Uzbekistan) is among the most important Paleolithic sites in Central Asia. Based on excavations from the 1960s to the 1980s, a stratigraphic sequence yielding 46 archeological horizons of the Lower, Middle and Upper Paleolithic has been described. The lowermost 22 layers were at that time defined as Acheulean, both in cultural and chronological aspects. Based on these previous works, Kulbulak has thus often been cited as one of the rarest occurrences of Lower Paleolithic and Acheulean in the region. However, this attribution was debatable. New excavations at Kulbulak in 2007–2010 provided new material and the first reliable dates that permitted us to tackle this issue. Moreover, a reappraisal of the lithic collections and documents from previous excavations was also conducted. These new data clearly indicate the absence of Acheulean or even Lower Paleolithic at Kulbulak. On the contrary, the lithic assemblages from this site only correspond to Middle and Upper Paleolithic periods. The lowermost layers are particularly interesting due to the presence of an early industry with blade and bladelet technology.     

Excavations at the Bairaki Lower Paleolithic Site,Trans-Dniesteria,in 2011

Early Paleolithic deposits of the left-bank high seventh fluvial terrace of the Dniester were excavated at Bairaki, Trans-Dniestria. The assemblage is comprised of 28 artifacts including distinct flakes, cores, and Lower Paleolithic tools. Based on the 2011 geological and archaeological study, tools from the riverbed alluvium, paralleled by those of the Middle Oldowan, date to the earliest Lower Pleistocene. Bairaki, then, should be classified among the most ancient Paleolithic sites in Eastern Europe.     

Levantine Perspectives on the Middle to Upper Paleolithic “Transition”

This article presents a synthesis of the presently available data concerning the processes and meaning of the technical changes in lithic productions across the Middle Paleolithic/Upper Paleolithic boundary in the Levant. As a “corridor” between Africa and Eurasia, this area is of first importance in the discussion of Modern Human origins. The results of several new field projects (especially concerning the Initial Upper Paleolithic), the recent lithic technological studies (based on the chaîne opératoire concept) as well as radiometric dating were used here to discuss the rhythms and processes of technical changes at the onset of the Upper Paleolithic, examining carefully the lithic repertoire from the Late Middle Paleolithic through the Initial Upper Paleolithic from Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, and Israel. This paper puts forward the idea that the emergence of Upper Paleolithic technical characteristics did not occur following a single process, even in the same region (here the Levant), but most probably followed a “mosaic” pattern. However taking into account the data presently available, the main basic scenario for the onset of the Upper Paleolithic in this region would have been the generalization of new technical traits that would have emerged within certain local Late Middle Paleolithic and the following Initial Upper Paleolithic groups. If a diffusion phenomenon should be considered, as claimed by many scholars, the available information suggests that it has functioned more as a stimulus rather than the simplistic scenario of a catastrophic wave of population and the resulting acculturation.     

The Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition in Southeastern Central Europe (Czechoslovakia and Hungary)

Southeastern Central Europe is quite rich in finds of progressive Neandertals from Middle Paleolithic contexts and early modern humans associated with evolved Upper Paleolithic (Aurignacian and Pavlovian). There are no human fossils that can be related to the transitional Middle-Upper Paleolithic units (the Bohunician and the Szeletian); thus, from anthropology we know only that the transitional period began with Neandertals and ended with modern humans. The archaeological record is more complex. The Jankovichian industries of Hungary differ from the mostly non-Levallois Middle Paleolithic of Central Europe in the presence of some Levallois; they seem to be technologically related to the Levallois-Leptolithic Bohunician industries of Moravia, dated to 43,000–38,000 B.P., which are the first transitional Upper Paleolithic unit. The appearance of the Szeletian before 42,000 B.P. in Hungary and at about 39,000 in Moravia represents a technological variation of the transition, although retaining marked local Middle Paleolithic elements. The date of the appearance of the typical Aurignacian, the first culture clearly related to modern humans, is unclear, but it certainly developed after 36,000 B.P. and has several dates between 35,000 and 30,000 B.P.     

The Upper Paleolithic of the Russian steppe zone

The vast steppe area North of the Black Sea has been populated since the early Middle Paleolithic. The number of known sites dating to the Upper Paleolithic is increasing as research progresses, and today about 150 Upper Paleolithic sites have received some (although varied) degree of study. For a long time, the steppe zone was considered to have had a separate cultural-economic adaptation that differed drastically from that found in the periglacial province farther north. The difference was expressed in the specialization in bison hunting and in the very high mobility of the population. More recent archaeological research, described briefly in this article, presents a different picture: Subsistence was more varied, hunting was not limited to bison, and the settlement system indicates long periods of occupation of the sites. There were many local archaeological cultures, and study of the material remains indicates numerous contacts between the people of the steppe zone and those in Central Europe and the Caucasus and, by way of the Caucasus, with Western Asia.     

The Upper Paleolithic of Northern Asia: Achievements,problems, and perspectives. II. Central and Eastern Siberia

Earlier scholars believed that the Upper Paleolithic of Central and Eastern Siberia appeared very late. However, modern research has shown that not only was there a local Middle Paleolithic, but also there was a very early series of sites in Central Siberia which show both Middle and early Upper Paleolithic traits. These are called the Makarovo horizon and may be 70,000–50,000 years old; features derived from this horizon can be dated to about 30,000 B.P. and can be seen in the early D'uktai culture. The true early Upper Paleolithic is relatively homogeneous in Central and Eastern Siberia and includes artwork. The local Upper Paleolithic reached its florescence in the culture of Mal'ta and Bur'et', which developed out of local antecedents and which is here reinterpreted in light of recent research (including the artwork, structures, and burials). The final stages of the Upper Paleolithic show considerable variability, perhaps including some exotic traits.     

High Desert Paleolithic Survey at Abydos,Egypt

Abstract

In the winters of 2000 and 2002–2003 we surveyed a portion of the high desert immediately adjacent to the Nile Valley at Abydos, Egypt. The initial field season assessed the area's potential to contribute to the existing database of Paleolithic landscapes. Limited work done prior to our initial survey indicated that such Paleolithic sites in this region, while present, were relatively infrequent. Contrary to this expectation, we found the desert landscape densely littered with Paleolithic artifacts. Our subsequent work documented the extent of the distribution and the nature of Paleolithic artifacts. The goal of this work is to develop models of desert landscape use, particularly during the Middle Paleolithic, which can be integrated into those existing for the Nile Valley. In doing this, we provide a more complete picture of hominid adaptations in a place and time period critical to our understanding of the origins of modern human behaviors.     

Chagyrskaya Cave:A Middle Paleolithic Site In The Altai

This article presents the results of multidisciplinary studies conducted at Chagyrskaya – an Upper Pleistocene karst cave in the northwestern Altai where Middle Paleolithic stone tools and fossil remains of Neanderthals were found. Taphonomic aspects of the site are addressed, and results of science-based analyses including radiocarbon and paleomagnetic dating are presented. The deposits are similar to loess-like Upper Pleistocene loams of Western Siberia. Among the Middle Paleolithic industries of the Altai, the Chagyrskaya industry is paralleled only by that of Okladnikov (formerly Sibiryachikha) Cave. Both represent a local Middle Paleolithic Mousteroid facies, named Sibiryachikha after the eponymous site.     

New datings of Amudian layers at Qesem Cave (Israel): results of TL applied to burnt flints and ESR/U-series to teeth

Because only a few radiometric data are actually available, the chronology of the Amudian – a blade-dominated industry of the Acheulo-Yabrudian Cultural Complex (AYCC) of the late Lower Paleolithic in the Levant – is still not well constrained. Qesem Cave offers the opportunity to enhance our knowledge of the chronological position of this industry which is unique to the Levant. The Qesem Amudian bearing layers yielded also human remains showing affinities with those of modern populations recovered in the Middle Paleolithic sites of Skhul and Qafzeh. The results presented here are the first attempt to apply the TL and ESR/U-series dating methods at this site and these methods yielded results which are generally in agreement. They support a time interval of hominid-bearing occupation of the areas of the cave where Amudian lithic artifacts were recovered during MIS 8 and likely 9 for the Deep Pit Area, and during MIS 8 and possibly 7 for the Upper part of the sequence (Square K/10 and the Eastern Microfauna-Bearing Area). An older occupation of the cave is also conceivable on the base of two dating results (MIS 11).     

The Sibiryachikha Facies of the Middle Paleolithic of the Altai

The Middle Paleolithic industry of the Sibiryachikha facies is described on the basis of two stratified sites in the Altai – Okladnikov Cave (formerly Sibiryachikha) and Chagyrskaya Cave. Stratigrtraphic, environmental, and chronological aspects are discussed. The structure of two cave sites is analyzed. Petrographic properties of raw material are described and the typology and technology of the lithic industry are compared with those of other local Middle Paleolithic traditions. The Sibiryachikha facies of the Altai Middle Paleolithic represented by two sites was clearly associated with a small group of Neanderthals who migrated from western Central Asia. Eventually the Middle Paleolithic industry evolved into a local variant of the Upper Paleolithic.     

The Chinese Upper Paleolithic: Geography, Chronology, and Techno-typology

This article reviews the archaeology and chronology of the Chinese Upper Paleolithic and the human fossils attributed to this period. The onset of the Upper Paleolithic in China dates to ca. 35,000–30,000 years ago and is marked by the appearance of a few body decorations and well-shaped bone tools that were added to stone tool assemblages, including core-and-flake tools in North China and cobble tools in South China. The proliferation of blade assemblages in northwest China is interpreted as the cultural impact or the physical presence of bearers of blade industries from western Eurasia. The ensuing appearance of microblade assemblages in North China by 23,000–22,000 years ago reflects the use of local siliceous crystalline nodules by a population that recognized the advantages of this raw material. At that time in South China, prehistoric artisans continued to shape their stone objects from the available flat river cobbles. During the later part of the Chinese Upper Paleolithic (ca. 21,000–10,000 BP), foragers also made bone tools, antler objects, pottery, and shell tools, which laid the technological foundations for the early Neolithic period. One difficulty in this research is that human fossils are rare. Few are well dated and morphological, cultural, and biological interpretations are hotly debated. Our review attempts to facilitate the understanding of a poorly known period in Chinese archaeology and its place in human cultural evolution.     

Early Upper Paleolithic industries of Eastern Europe

Early Upper Paleolithic sites are known in various parts of Eastern Europe, but the two main concentrations of them are the Prut-Dniester basin and the middle Don. The flint industries are divided into archaeological cultures (cultural traditions), of which some show clear archaic features (Kostenki-Streletsian, Gorodtsovian, Brynzenian, etc.), while others have no Mousteroid characteristics (Spitsynian, Telmanian, etc.). Both types of culture coexisted throughout the Early Upper Paleolithic. In some cases, it is possible to trace genetic links between archaeological cultures and to follow the transition between the Middle and the Upper Paleolithic. The radiocarbon age of the oldest Upper Paleolithic sites in the Russian Plain is about 40,000 B.P., but some sites may be older. The Early Upper Paleolithic ended about 24,000–23,000 B.P. In the Crimea, the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition appears to have taken place at about 20,000–18,000 B.P.     

旧石器时代亚欧大陆高纬度地区人群的扩散及其对中国旧石器文化格局的影响

欧亚大陆高纬度地区气候与资源环境迥异于人类的起源地——热带非洲。人类需要具备更多的文化适应手段才能适应高纬度地区的生存。在旧石器时代早中期,人类向该地区的迁移扩散极为有限,而旧石器时代晚期,随着技术、社会组织等文化层面的进步,人类开始广泛向高纬度地区扩散,打破了东亚地区与欧亚大陆西侧的文化隔离屏障,对中国旧石器时代西北、东北及华北地区的文化格局产生了不同程度的影响。本文拟通过人类适应的视角,结合考古材料,分析人类向欧亚大陆高纬度地带的扩散历程及由此而引发的人类迁徙、交流对中国旧石器时代文化面貌格局产生的具体影响。     

Ecological Patterns in the Upper Pleistocene and Holocene in the Jebel Gharbi, Northern Libya: Chronology, Climate and Human Occupation

Surveys and test excavations in the Jebel Gharbi have brought to light a large quantity of prehistoric sites indicating intensive human occupation from the Upper Pleistocene to the Holocene. Several radiometric dates (standard ¹⁴C, AMS and U/Th) provide a detailed framework of the absolute chronology of the local peopling of the area. Generalised Middle Stone Age archaeological materials represent the earliest term of reference in the geological series. Aterian complexes are well-represented, being widely spread throughout the mountain range and in the lowlands. Lower Later Stone Age, or “Dabban”, artefacts are also attested to both geological and archaeological sequences. Human occupation continued with the Upper and Final Epipalaeolithic (or “Iberomaurusian”) and later, with Capsian and Neolithic groups. Permanent and seasonal water springs and raw material sources influenced settlement strategy and selected areas offered particularly favourable conditions and became intensively occupied.     

Questions of Complexity and Scale in Explanations for Cultural Transitions in the Pleistocene: A Case Study from the Early Upper Paleolithic

Matching scales of observation and explanation is an essential challenge for archaeology, Paleolithic archaeology in particular. This paper presents a case study from the Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) in the Eastern Mediterranean to illustrate some of the scalar issues in explaining transitions in the Pleistocene. The cultural sequence at Üça??zl? Cave I documents both continuity and change in a range of behaviors over approximately 12 ky. The sequence spans the transition from one EUP cultural unit, the Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) to another one, the Ahmarian. There is evidence for changes in lithic technology and retouched tool forms, human diets, and the role of the site within a regional land use system, but few if any of these changes are closely timed with the shift from one archaeological “culture” to another. In this particular case, local and regional transitions seem to be largely unconnected. However, considering the local situations allows a more precise focus on what the broader cultural transition represents and how it might be studied.     

The Muddle in the Middle Pleistocene: The Lower–Middle Paleolithic Transition from the Levantine Perspective

The terms Lower Palaeolithic and Middle Palaeolithic represent research constructs within which cultural evolution and prehistoric hominin behaviours can be studied, with the transition usually understood as marking a watershed in our evolution: an adaptation with a million-year record of success that gives way to something new. The interpretation of the Lower Palaeolithic Acheulian technocomplex is usually understood as a period of cultural stasis that extends over much of Africa and Eurasia, principally associated with Homo erectus. Those innovations that can be observed occur widely separated from one another in space and time. Yet a closer and more detailed examination of the Middle Pleistocene records from East Africa, southern Africa, Europe and the Levant reveals significant variation in cultural repertoires. A kind of paradox emerges, in which an Old World Lower Palaeolithic, apparently lacking an overall dynamic of distinctive and directed change in terms of cumulative variation over time, nevertheless culminates in a transition which sees the universal appearance of the Middle Palaeolithic. The two main hypotheses that have been advanced to explain the global transition, which happens essentially synchronously, appear mutually exclusive and contradictory. One view is that altered climatic-environmental constraints enabled and encouraged an ‘Out-of-Africa’ dispersal (or dispersals) of a new type of genus Homo. This cultural replacement model has been challenged more recently by the alternative hypothesis of accumulating but unrelated and temporally non-linked regional, and in fact potentially autochthonous, processes. The Levant, by virtue of its position bridging Africa and Eurasia (thus being the region into which any out-of-Africa groups would have had first to disperse into), must be seen as a critical region for assessing the relative merits of these competing hypotheses. This paper deals with the Lower–Middle Paleolithic boundary in the Levant within a long temporal perspective. The Middle Pleistocene record in the Levant enables us to examine the amplitude of variation within each techno-complex, as well as to question whether there are diachronic changes in the amplitude of techno-typological variations as well as changes in the manner by which they appear in the record. The results carry significant implications for understandings of demographic and societal processes during the Lower–Middle Paleolithic transition in the Levant.