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.     

New radiocarbon dating of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in Kebara Cave,Israel

The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition (MP-UP transition) is considered a major technological and cultural threshold, at the time when modern humans spread “out of Africa”, expanded from the Levant into Europe and possibly into central and northern Asia. The dating of this techno-cultural transition has proved to be extremely difficult because it occurred sometime before 40,000 radiocarbon years before present (¹⁴C years BP), which is close to the end of the effective dating range of radiocarbon. Other dating methods such as Thermoluminescence (TL) or Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) are not sufficiently precise to date the recorded archaeological MP-UP transition in the Levant. Here we report a consistent set of stratified radiocarbon ages on freshly excavated charcoal from Kebara Cave, Mt. Carmel (Israel), that span the late Middle Paleolithic (MP) and Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) This study applied novel strategies to improve sample preparation techniques and data analysis to obtain high-resolution radiocarbon models. From this study it is proposed that the MP-UP transition for this site can be placed immediately after 45,200 ± 700 ¹⁴C years BP and before 43,600 ± 600 ¹⁴C years BP or from 49/48 to 47/46 radiocarbon calibrated years before present (years Cal BP).     

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.     

The Palaeolithic of the Bosphorus Region NW Turkey

Abstract

A survey of open-air sites in NW Turkey identified 16 Palaeolithic sites. Analysis of nearly 2000 lithics identified Lower, Middle, and Early Upper Palaeolithic (EUP) components. The Lower Palaeolithic is represented by a core-chopper/flake assemblage at one site and an assemblage with small bifaces at another. Middle Palaeolithic assemblages similar to the typical Balkan Mousterian were found at most sites, and an EUP assemblage similar to the Balkan Aurignacian was found on the Black Sea coast. Later Upper Palaeolithic cultures, e.g., Gravettian or Epigravettian, were not found. Palaeolithic sites were also not found in Turkish Thrace west of Büyük Çekmece, and a palaeoenvironmental barrier, perhaps a channel connecting the Marmara and Black Seas, may have existed before the Bosphorus was opened in the Holocene. A difference in the distribution of Lower-Middle Palaeolithic sites and EUP sites was also noted. EUP sites are clustered on the Black Sea coast while earlier sites are found in the interior and on the shores of the Sea of Marmara. This change in settlement pattern may support a hypothesis of cultural change between the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic and perhaps the replacement hypothesis for the peopling of Europe by early modern humans.     

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.     

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.     

European Regional Studies: A Coming of Age?

This article reviews current developments in European regional studies. A brief history of settlement archaeology as practiced in Europe is followed by a discussion of new approaches to regional analysis and surface survey. I argue that recent, steady investments in the technology, methods, and theory of regional archaeological analysis and surface survey have stimulated advances in the study of settlement patterns and settlement pattern change through time in many parts of Europe. When innovative technologies (e.g., remote sensing, GPS, GIS), methods (e.g., geoarchaeology, “siteless” survey), and new theoretical frameworks (both processual and postprocessual) have been combined, breakthroughs in our understanding of European settlement have resulted. In the last half of the article, I describe some of these breakthroughs in a broad discussion of European settlement history, beginning with the earliest prehistory of Europe through the Middle Ages. Shifts in perspective are particularly apparent for phases of transition: from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic, Paleolithic to Mesolithic to Neolithic, and with the rise and expansion of states.     

Evidence for kill-butchery events of early Upper Paleolithic age at Kostenki,Russia

At least 10 early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) open-air sites are found at Kostenki on the west bank of the Don River in Russia. During the 1950s, A.N. Rogachev excavated concentrations of horse bones and teeth from EUP layers at Kostenki 14 and 15 exhibiting the characteristics of kill-butchery assemblages. Excavations at Kostenki 12 in 2002–2003 uncovered a large quantity of reindeer and horse bones in EUP Layer III that also might be related to kill-butchery events, and the partial skeleton of a sub-adult mammoth excavated during 2004–2007 in EUP Layer V at Kostenki 1 yields traces of butchery. The character of these large mammal assemblages – combined with the analysis of artifacts and features – suggests that both habitation areas and kill-butchery locations are represented in a “EUP landscape” at Kostenki.     

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. I. Western Siberia

The beginning of the Upper Paleolithic in Western Siberia is now dated to almost 35,000 B.P. The earliest sites reveal a well-developed blade technology and very sophisticated mobiliary art. The evidence suggests that the early Upper Paleolithic developed within Siberia out of the local Mousterian and that there is no need to regard it as an intrusive phenomenon out of the west, as has been traditionally done. The florescence of the Western Siberian Upper Paleolithic began at about the glacial maximum and two major cultural groups can be identified. However, they share many features in common and seem not to have existed in isolation from each other; instead, it is possible to trace numerous complex and interwoven connections between them. Together, they form a Western Siberian Upper Paleolithic technocomplex, which was essentially local but fully as sophisticated and as technologically advanced as was that of Europe.     

The Upper Paleolithic of Northern Asia: Achievements,problems, and perspectives. III. Northeastern Siberia and the Russian Far East

Research into the Upper Paleolithic of northeastern Asia began in the 1940s. Recent work has led to the discovery of numbers of sites, some of them more than 30,000 years old, which are assigned to the D'uktai culture. The material recovered from these sites indicates relationships between the D'uktai culture and other cultures in Europe, Japan, Korea, China, and North America. For the most part, however, these similarities do not result from a spread of cultural traits from Europe into Asia. Instead, most of them reflect local development of the Upper Paleolithic, within both Asia and Europe, out of local Middle Paleolithic industries, which were themselves originally similar in technology and typology.     

The Upper Paleolithic in Mediterranean Spain: A Review of Current Evidence

In spite of an active and sophisticated archaeological research program, the Paleolithic of the Iberian peninsula remains comparatively little known to English-speaking prehistorians, with the exception of Cantabrian Spain. The rich data set compiled by Spanish prehistorians and their colleagues over the past several decades stands to make a valuable and unique contribution to our understanding of the Pleistocene prehistory of Europe. We present a detailed overview of Upper Paleolithic chronology, sites, and assemblages for Mediterranean Spain, an area of over 1,600,000 km ² that extends from the French border to the Straits of Gibraltar. To interpret these data, we employ a regional perspective that emphasizes studies of paleoeconomy (especially zooarchaeology) and settlement. The Middle–Upper Paleolithic transition and Upper Paleolithic art also receive detailed treatment, and the Upper Paleolithic of Mediterranean Spain is discussed in the broader context of the late Upper Pleistocene of western Europe and the Mediterranean Basin.     

Standing at the gates of Europe: Human behavior and biogeography in the Southern Carpathians during the Late Pleistocene

This study presents a behavioral analysis of Middle and Upper Paleolithic lithic assemblages from 14 sites located in the southern Carpathian Mountains. Using a whole assemblage behavioral indicator, we show that the hominins that manufactured those stone tools do not appear to have differed in terms of the flexibility of the mobility strategies they employed to exploit their landscapes. Rather than biological change, we argue that large-scale climate changes are likely more important drivers of behavioral changes during the Late Pleistocene of the region, including during the Middle–Upper Paleolithic transition. These results agree well with the results of studies having employed this methodology in other regions, suggesting that this is a generalized feature of the transition across Eurasia. Recasting the transition as a mainly ecological rather than purely biocultural process allows us to generate new perspectives from which to approach the question of behavioral change during the Late Pleistocene, and ultimately suggests that the process referred to as the ‘Middle–Upper Paleolithic transition’ is essentially a brief segment of a much more extensive process driven by prehistoric human–environment interactions that would culminate in the highly logistical mobility strategies documented throughout the continent at the Last Glacial Maximum.     

Streams as Entanglement of Nature and Culture: European Upper Paleolithic River Systems and Their Role as Features of Spatial Organization

Large river valleys have long been seen as important factors to shape the mobility, communication, and exchange of Pleistocene hunter-gatherers. However, rivers have been debated as either natural entities people adapt and react to or as cultural and meaningful entities people experience and interpret in different ways. Here, we attempt to integrate both perspectives. Building on theoretical work from various disciplines, we discuss the relationship between biophysical river properties and sociocultural river semantics and suggest that understanding a river’s persona is central to evaluating its role in spatial organization. By reviewing the literature and analyzing European Upper Paleolithic site distribution and raw material transfer patterns in relation to river catchments, we show that the role of prominent rivers varies considerably over time. Both ecological and cultural factors are crucial to explaining these patterns. Whereas the Earlier Upper Paleolithic record displays a general tendency toward conceiving rivers as mobility guidelines, the spatial consolidation process after the colonization of the European mainland is paralleled by a trend of conceptualizing river regimes as frontiers, separating archaeological entities, regional groups, or local networks. The Late Upper Paleolithic Magdalenian, however, is characterized again by a role of rivers as mobility and communication vectors. Tracing changing patterns in the role of certain river regimes through time thus contributes to our growing knowledge of human spatial behavior and helps to improve our understanding of dynamic and mutually informed human-environment interactions in the Paleolithic.     

History,Chronology and Techno-Typology of the Upper Paleolithic Sequence in the Shuidonggou Area,Northern China

The timing and behavioral markers of the Upper Paleolithic in different parts of the world are of great importance to research on modern human dispersals. The pattern of behavioral developments in the Upper Paleolithic in northern China differs in important ways from the patterns observed in West Eurasia, Africa, and South Asia. Shuidonggou (SDG), a cluster of Paleolithic sites in northern China, contains several of the most important Upper Paleolithic sites in the region. Various localities yield evidence of three major cultural components dated by ¹⁴C, uranium-series, and optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) methods to between roughly 46 ka and 10 ka. The oldest component, blade assemblages with western Eurasian early Upper Paleolithic characteristics, appears to be intrusive from Siberia and/or Mongolia, beginning at least 41 ka (e.g., SDG 1 and SDG 9). Advanced core and flake assemblages may mark the appearance of an indigenous Late Paleolithic of North China beginning at around 33 ka (e.g., SDG 2 and SDG 8). Finally, around 10.5 ka, microblade technology arrived in the area (SDG 12), although we are not sure of its origins at present. Other typical Upper Paleolithic cultural remains, such as bone tools and body decorations, have been found at various localities in the SDG area as well (e.g., ostrich eggshell beads from SDG 2, 7, and 8). Information from this cluster of occupations increases our understanding of cultural variability, adaptation, and demographic dynamics of modern humans in Late Pleistocene northern Asia.

     

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.     

Water availability and landuse during the Upper and Epipaleolithic in southwestern Syria

Paleolithic research often assumes that environmental conditions played a major role in shaping human evolution. To study this relationship we present a spatially explicit approach based on the assumption that the distribution of water within the landscape is an essential component of local environmental conditions. Here, we analyze the relation of wetness and human landuse patterns from the Upper Paleolithic (UP) and Epipaleolithic (EP) of Western Syria. In particular the spatially explicit character of the approach enables the detection of a significant change in landuse patterns during the UP and EP accompanied by a significant shift in the wetness characteristics of the preferentially used areas. These results are discussed against the background of published data on climatic conditions in order to identify both a possible time frame and triggers for this change in landuse. While we conclude an increased influence of natural conditions on the spatial behavior for the UP, we suggest an additional influence of cultural circumstances in shaping EP spatial behavior. For the region studied we argue that the bounded pattern observed during the UP changes to a spatially flexible pattern during the Late Natufian.     

On the Supposedly Young age of Angara Alluvial Sediments Based on the Findings of Salvage Excavations in the Flooding Area of the Boguchany Hydroelectric Plant

Based on the stratigraphy of Paleolithic sites on the northern Angara, the Upper Pleistocene and Holocene history of the region is reconstructed. Findings of recent salvage excavations in the Boguchany flooding zone as well as the evidence of Quaternary geology, geomorphology, neotectonics, and archaeology jointly disprove the “young Angara” model proposed by G.I. Medvedev and other “geoarchaeologists.” The principal event postulated by that model – the alleged disastrous outburst of the Angara along the Baikal channel 12–7 ka BP is supported neither by the relief nor by the Upper Pleistocene and Holocene sedimentation record nor by the stratigraphy of the Paleolithic sites on the northern Angara.     

State Archaeology and the Private Museum: An Integrated Approach to Archaeological Site Management for Local People in China

During the emergence of Chinese archaeology, the legislative system of cultural heritage in China included archaeological excavations and investigations as being the ‘exclusive right of state’. This mode of state archaeology has proved its worth by increasing the authority and quality of archaeological research and excavations, as well as enhancing the social values and benefits at the state level. The local communities, however, have hardly been embedded into the archaeological projects, nor have the archaeological projects been employed to improve local and regional economic development. This paper considers private museums as embodying regional values and beneficial to projects under the mode of state archaeology. With a case study outlining collaborations between archaeologists and local agents under the excavation and conservation of ancient kiln sites at the town of Zichuan, I argue that private museums could be relatively prominent platforms for public engagement in activities of state archaeology. It might contribute to a reconsideration of the following: indirect archaeological concerns, local economic benefits, identities and alternative interpretations of locality.     

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.