Anatomical evidence for the antiquity of human footwear: Tianyuan and Sunghir

Trinkaus [Trinkaus, E., 2005. Anatomical evidence for the antiquity of human footwear use. J. Archaeol. Sci. 32, 1515–1526] provided a comparative biomechanical analysis of the proximal pedal phalanges of western Eurasian Middle Paleolithic and Middle Upper Paleolithic humans, in the context of those of variably shod recent humans. The anatomical evidence indicated that supportive footwear was rare in the Middle Paleolithic but became frequent by the Middle Upper Paleolithic. Based on that analysis, additional data are provided for the Middle Upper Paleolithic (∼27,500 cal BP) Sunghir 1 and the earlier (∼40,000 cal BP) Tianyuan 1 modern humans. Both specimens exhibit relatively gracile middle proximal phalanges in the context of otherwise robust lower limbs. The former specimen reinforces the association of footwear with pedal phalangeal gracility in the Middle Upper Paleolithic. Tianyuan 1 indicates a greater antiquity for the habitual use of footwear than previously inferred, predating the emergence of the Middle Upper Paleolithic.     

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 Enisei River of Central Siberia in the Late Pleistocene

Recent Paleolithic work along the middle Enisei River of central Siberia has revealed a long history of occupation that almost certainly begins in the Middle Pleistocene. Although the evidence for the Lower Paleolithic is somewhat tentative, there is good reason to believe that hunter-gatherers had periodically occupied the middle Enisei before the last interglacial. The steppe environment of the region during the Upper Pleistocene was relatively bountiful; more than 200 Upper Paleolithic sites, both before and after the Last Glacial Maximum, have been located. The region appears to have been abandoned during the Last Glacial Maximum. Most of Soviet and Russian archaeological work has been guided by a cultural–historical orientation, but recently there has been increased interest in developing adaptationist and ecological research strategies. The middle Enisei and the wider central Siberian region are key to understanding early adaptations to the north and the dimensions of Paleolithic population movements.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The Bohunician in Moravia and Adjoining Regions

The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in the Middle Danube area is characterized by the presence of two transitional technocomplexes, the Bohunician and the Szeletian, together with the early appearance of the Aurignacian. The Bohunician lacks a local predecessor and seems to be intrusive to the area. Both the Bohunician typology and technology combine Middle and the Upper Paleolithic components. Although the Bohunician sites are mostly concentrated within the Brno basin, collections with characteristic traces of Bohunician technology have been documented during the same interval in surrounding areas, as well as far to the south and east. A preliminary comparison of the sites indicates a high degree of similarity among assemblages and may represent the same expansion event hypothetically associated with anatomically modern humans.     

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.     

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…     

Neandertals,early modern humans,and rodeo riders

In 1995 Berger and Trinkaus (J. Archaeol. Sci. 22, 841–852) proposed that the anatomical distribution of Neandertal trauma, with a predominance of upper body lesions, reflected close-quarter ambush hunting as dictated by the available Middle Paleolithic weaponry (the “Rodeo rider” hypothesis). The necessity for mobility among these Late Pleistocene foragers, as a factor possibly reducing the number of preserved lower limb injuries, was considered as an alternative explanation. The accumulating data on Upper Paleolithic injuries and Middle Paleolithic weaponry, considerations of differential skeletal susceptibility of minor trauma, and evidence of interhuman violence, plus the importance of mobility for Late Pleistocene human existence, suggest that hunting injuries may explain only part of the pattern. The purpose of this note is not to resolve to ultimate factors behind the anatomical distribution of traumatic lesions among the Neandertals (or early modern humans). It is 1) to emphasize that there are multiple probable contributing factors other than close-quarter ambush hunting due to the limitations of Middle Paleolithic weaponry, and 2) to open the discussion to alternative interpretations.     

Reply to the comments on analytical archaeology

A view of the Middle‐Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe is offered from the perspective of Americanist anthropological archaeology. After a brief consideration of how the transition seems to be perceived by many British and Continental workers, patterns in lithic typology and technology, raw material variability, reduction strategies and intensity of site use, blank frequencies; bone, antler and ivory technologies, paleolithic art, subsistence strategies and settlement patterns are reviewed. It is concluded that perceptions of pattern, and what it might mean, are (1) theory‐laden and paradigm dependent, and (2) are almost entirely determined by the relative importance of historicist biases in a particular research tradition, and (3) by preconceptions about the nature of the biological transition between archaic and modern humans.     

New Archaeological Books and Journals

Abstract

As part of a research program aimed at clarifying the date of the Middle Paleolithic in Greece and its relationship with contemporary industries in the Balkans, a survey of the Larisa area of Thessaly for Paleolithic remains was undertaken in 1987. The results of this survey are reported, along with a reinterpretation of the available evidence in Greece for the date of the Middle Paleolithic. The banks and terrace system of the Peneios River were systematically searched along with those parts of Thessaly with deposits old enough to contain prehistoric artifacts. In 1987, we discovered 32 find spots and collected211 lithic artifacts. The lithic artifacts are Middle and Upper Paleolithic types, and are dated by their association with the fluviatile deposits exposed by downcutting of the river. Radiometric dates for the fluviatile deposits indicate an age of 45–27 KYA (thousands of years ago) for the Paleolithic finds. Other dates for the Middle Paleolithic in Greece are on the same order. The Thessalian Paleolithic industry is a Levallois-Mousterian facies with bifacial leafpoints, side Scrapers, Mousterian points, denticulates, andAurignacian-type end scrapers, burins, retouched Blades, and bifacial leafpoints with rounded bases. The Thessalian industry with its mixture of Middle and Upper Paleolithic types, is similar to other assemblages in Greece. The Greek Levallois-Mousterian resembles the Szeletian of Hungary and is of approximately the same age. It was perhaps produced by late Neanderthals in contact with an anatomically-modern human population. Late Upper Paleolithic Epigravettian and Mesolithic industries were not identified in Thessaly and are rare in Greece. Some areas may have been uninhabited or little used until 9 KYA when the first Neolithic settlements appear in Thessaly.     

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 Late Paleolithic of the Yenisei: A new outline

The area of the Middle and Upper Yenisei is one of the most important concentrations of Paleolithic sites in Northern Asia. More than 200 localities, belonging to various stages of the Paleolithic, are now known. The initial phase of the Late Paleolithic is represented by Malaya Syiya, which is dated to approximately 34,000–33,000 B.P. The middle phase of the Late Paleolithic is marked by the blade industries of Early Sartan age (24,000–18,000 B.P.), as at Shlenka, Tarachikha, Ui I, and elsewhere. At 18,000–16,000 B.P., these were replaced by the Final Paleolithic Afontova and Kokorevo cultures, although some of the earlier blade industries continued into this period (Golubaya I).     

Late Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic Evidence from the East European Plain and Caucasus: A New Look at Variability,Interactions, and Transitions

This paper presents analyses of Late Middle Paleolithic (LMP) and Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) material from the East European Plain and Caucasus. Late Middle Paleolithic industries show a highly variable pattern, although they are formally ascribed to a limited number of technocomplexes. Many of the LMP industries, especially in the Crimea, survived to the time of the transition to the Upper Paleolithic, but data suggesting a local origin of EUP are extremely rare. The transition is generally dated between 32/30,000 and 26/24,000 years, while the most crucial changes coincide with the Stillfried B interstadial. Aurignacian (two variants), Gravettian, and Transitional industries are recognized in the EUP. The presence of Middle Paleolithic traits in the Aurignacian may indicate acculturation, while the Transitional industries might reflect either acculturation or independent local development of new technologies, raising the possibility of local transformation of some Middle Paleolithic into non-Aurignacian EUP industries.     

The Middle Paleolithic of the East Mediterranean Levant

This paper reviews recent developments in geochronology, archaeology, and behavioral interpretations of the Middle Paleolithic Period (ca. 47–250 Kyr) in the East Mediterranean Levant. Neandertals and early modern humans both occupied the Levant during this period. Both these hominids are associated with the Levantine Mousterian stone tool industry and similar sets of faunal remains. The Levant has long been seen as preserving evidence for the origin of modern humans out of Neandertal ancestors. Recent radiometric dates for Levantine Middle Paleolithic contexts challenge this hypothesis. Instead, they suggest the evolutionary relationships between these hominids were far more complicated. Proposed models for Neandertal and early modern human coevolutionary relationships are examined. Intense competition between Neandertals and early modern humans for a narrow human niche may be the context out of which the Upper Paleolithic behavioral revolution arose.     

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.     

“The Good,the Bad,and the Ugly”: evaluating the radiocarbon chronology of the middle and late Upper Paleolithic in the Enisei River valley,south-central Siberia

The ¹⁴C record for the Upper Paleolithic in Siberia has remained largely unevaluated and includes good, bad, and ugly dates. Too often researchers accept either all published dates or only those dates that tend to support proposed chronological hypotheses, regardless of sample quality and association. This article systematically evaluates all published ¹⁴C dates (including several newly obtained AMS dates) from middle and late Upper Paleolithic sites in the Enisei River valley of south-central Siberia to establish a reliable chronology for the region and address the tempo of modern human dispersals in Siberia during late Pleistocene times. The revised chronology indicates humans were present before and after the Last Glacial Maximum, but absent during this climatic event. Results also suggest that human population in the region may have increased during the Oldest Dryas.