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.     

Prehistory of the Upper Yenisei area (southern Siberia)

Our understanding of the prehistory of the Upper Yenisei area is based on several key multilayered sites, which provide an excellent opportunity for the investigation of long-term culture change and the reconstruction of culture history. The earliest traces of prehistoric people in the region date to the Sartan glacial. Ui I is dated to ca. 22,000–17,000 B.P. and belongs to the middle phase of the Yenisei Upper Paleolithic, predating the period of the Final Paleolithic Afontova culture (16,000–10,000 B.P.). The Early Holocene period remains little known; there is only one assemblage (the lower cultural layer of Sosnovka Golovan'skaya) which may be attributed to the Epipaleolithic. In the seventh and sixth millennia B.P., the aceramic Early Neolithic (the uppermost cultural horizons of Maina and Ui II, Ust'Khemchik 3, etc.) was widespread and was replaced by the Late Neolithic Verkhneeniseisk culture in the fifth millennium B.P. This was succeeded by the Eneolithic Afanas'eva culture at the end of the fifth millennium B.P. and, later, by the Bronze Age Okunev culture (until the twelfth century B.C.). From the eighth to the second centuries B.C., Scythian cultures flourished in the area, until the invasion of the Huns. All of these stages of the Holocene culture sequence are represented in the stratified site of Toora-Dash.     

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 Mesolithic of Southern Scandinavia

The Mesolithic of Southern Scandinavia, with comprises Denmark and Southern Sweden, has been an attractive area for research for several reasons, including the good preservation conditions at many sites. Most of the work has been concentrated on the southwestern part of Southern Scandinavia, but results from more recent investigations mean that other areas can also be analyzed. New finds in the last few years have given us a greater understanding of the Late Paleolithic settlement and of its relation of the Mesolithic. For the Early Mesolithic (10,000–8000 B.P.), interest has focused primarily on the small inland bog sites in the southern part of the area, where the coast has since been submerged. Farther north, where the land has been uplifted, evidence of coastal settlement has been documented. The Late Mesolithic (8000–6000 B.P.) is known chiefly on the basis of its large coastal settlements. In this period, there is also a larger and more varied collection of finds, which makes it possible to discern clear regional differences. There has also been considerable research on the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic.     

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.     

Radiocarbon Chronology of the Siberian Paleolithic

We have compiled 462 C-14 determinations for 120 Paleolithic and Mesolithic sites from Siberia and the Russian Far East. The Mousterian sites are dated to ca. 46,000–28,500 BP. The Middle–Upper Paleolithic transition dates to ca. 43,300–28,500 BP. Although there are a few earlier sites, most of the Upper Paleolithic sites are dated to the time interval between ca. 34,000 BP and 10,000 BP. The earlier Upper Paleolithic stage is characterized by macroblade technology and is radiocarbon-dated to ca. 34,000–20,000 BP. The earliest microblade technology occurs in the late stage of the Upper Paleolithic, dated to ca. 23,000–20,000 BP, but the majority of microblade sites is dated to ca. 20,000–11,000 BP. The Final Paleolithic (Mesolithic) sites date to ca. 12,000–6000 BP. At ca. 13,000–11,000 BP, the earliest Neolithic appeared in both the Russian Far East (Amur River basin) and the Transbaikal. The Paleolithic–Neolithic transition occurred ca. 13,000–6000 BP.     

The Shuidonggou site complex: new excavations and implications for the earliest Late Paleolithic in North China

The initial Late Paleolithic, said to appear between 40 and 30 kya in eastern Asia, is defined by the appearance of many innovations. These archaeological indicators include the appearance of more refined stone tool making techniques (e.g., include the appearance of blade and microblade technology), complex hearth construction, use of pigments and personal ornamentation, as well as worked faunal implements such as bone and antler tools. We report here new findings from a multidisciplinary research project conducted at the Shuidonggou (Choei-tong-keou) site complex in northern China, a series of localities that date from the initial Late Paleolithic to the Neolithic.     

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.     

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.     

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.

     

The Woodland and Mississippian traditions in the prehistory of Midwestern North America

Cultural developments in Midwestern North America between 5000 and 400 B.P. are reviewed and related to two overlapping, but contrasting, cultural traditions: Woodland and Mississippian. Significant changes in prehistoric subsistence systems, settlement patterns, and sociopolitical organization are reviewed within a three-division framework, beginning with a Transitional period (5000–2000 B.P.) when Late Archaic and Early Woodland societies settled into different regions, constructed regional markers (cemeteries, mounds, earthworks), and established economic and social relations with both neighboring and more distant groups. This was followed by the Middle Woodland period (2000–1500 B.P.) that is associated with the Hopewell climax of long-distance exchange of exotic materials, mound building, and ceremonial activities, although all Middle Woodland groups did not participate in this Hopewell interaction sphere. In the Late Prehistoric period (1500–400 B.P.), the Woodland tradition persisted in some areas, while the Mississippian tradition developed from local Late Woodland societies elsewhere. Finally, the patterns of interaction between the two traditions are discussed.     

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.     

The late Upper Paleolithic in Italy: An overview

Previous studies of the Italian late Upper Paleolithic, or Epigravettian, have been primarily chronostratigraphic and typological. Only recently has attention been paid to environmental and behavioral data. The Epigravettian covers some 10,000 years, from about 20,000 B.P. (beginning of the last Wurm stadial) to about 10,000 B.P. (end of Dryas III and beginning of the Holocene). Traditionally, it has been divided into three phases: Early (20,000–16,000 B.P.), Evolved (16,000–14,000 B.P.), and Final (14,000–10,000 B.P.). The Evolved and Final Epigravettian have five regional facies: northern Tyrrhenian, central and southern Tyrrhenian, northern and central Adriatic, southern Adriatic and Sicilian. After an extensive summary of the available environmental data and traditional artifact analyses, we illustrate the present status of more behaviorally oriented research and discusss the consistency of the subdivisions in space and time. Suggestions are made of possible directions for future research.     

Late Preceramic Peru

This paper presents a synthesis of current knowledge of Late Preceramic Peru (ca. 4450–3800 B.P.), a field of study that is less than 50 years old. A brief history of investigations and discussion of chronological systems are presented. A review of Late Preceramic achievements concentrating on subsistence economies and technology is followed by discussion of the social world of Late Preceramic Peru and current consensus and disputes regarding culture processes. Extensive long-distance exchange, farming, and social complexity are first clearly seen in the archaeological record during this time period. Nevertheless, the significance of this evidence with regard to the nature and intensity of the culture practices and processes that they represent is currently under investigation and in contention.     

Siberia at the Last Glacial Maximum: Environment and Archaeology

This article focuses on the presence of humans in Siberia and the Russian Far East at the coldest time of the Late Pleistocene, called the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and dated to c. 20,000–18,000 rcbp. Reconstruction of the LGM environment of Siberia, based on the latest models and compilations, provides a background for human existence in this region. Most of Siberia and the Russian Far East at c. 20,000–18,000 rcbp was covered by tundra and cool steppe, with some forest formations in the river valleys. Climate was much colder and drier than it is today. Eighteen Upper Paleolithic sites in Siberia are radiocarbon dated strictly to the LGM, and at least six of them, located in southern parts of western and eastern Siberia and the Russian Far East, have solid evidence of occupation during that time span. It seems clear that southern Siberia was populated by humans even at the height of the LGM, and that there was no dramatic decline or complete disappearance of humans in Siberia at that time. The degree of human adaptation to periglacial landscapes in the mid-Upper Paleolithic of northern Eurasia was quite high; humans coped with the cold and dry environmental conditions using microblade technology, artificial shelters, tailored clothes, and megafaunal bones as fuel. An erratum to this article can be found at     

Paleotemperature record in late pleistocene clastic sediments at Divje babe 1 cave (Slovenia)

A new sedimentary morphogenic analysis was carried out at the Divje babe I Paleolithic site to determine paleotemperatures for Late Pleistocene deposits (around 80,000–40,000 BP) and to discover hiatuses in the sedimentary sequence. The Divje babe I paleotemperature record is based on the relative abundance of congelifracts in a 280 cm thick sedimentary sequence. Congelifracts are clasts whose morphogenesis is directly associated with post-depositional frost wedging. The Divje babe I paleotemperature record compares well with global GRIP (Summit) and other regional paleotemperature records for the Late Pleistocene. Comparisons are supported by ESR dates from the Divje babe I site. Two significantly cool climate phases were identified in the Divje babe I record. The older cool phase was placed between 67,000 BP and 62,000 BP and the second, younger cool phase was placed between 61,000 BP and 58,000 BP (both Middle Würmian) according to correlations with the GRIP record. The main disadvantage with the Divje babe I paleotemperature record is missing data. The sequence of cave sediments is not complete in Divje babe I due to breaks in sedimentation. Two reliable and two assumed hiatuses were identified in the studied sedimentary sequence.     

Comments on Graf, Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 2009 “ “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”

Here I present a critical evaluation of the analysis conducted by Graf [Graf, K.E., 2009. “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. Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 694–707] of the Paleolithic radiocarbon (¹⁴C) dataset for the Upper Paleolithic sites in the Yenisei River basin of Central Siberia. Graf applied a rating system to the corpus of existing ¹⁴C data for the region, and announced some new ¹⁴C dates. The results obtained, however, are highly biased due to several factors, including prejudice concerning the higher accuracy of the AMS technique in ¹⁴C dating and that ¹⁴C dates from the same cultural component should overlap with plus–minus two sigmas; ambiguities with the subdivision of the Lateglacial period; artificially high sample selection criteria; incomplete factual material; and unjustifiable and misleading statements on the ¹⁴C dating of fossil bones and the issue of Last Glacial Maximum human presence in Siberia. As a result, the conclusions made by Graf [Graf, K.E., 2009. “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. Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 694–707] are unconvincing. New analysis is necessary in order to improve the quality of treatment of the original data for the Upper Paleolithic ¹⁴C chronology in the Yenisei River basin.     

Beyond Boundaries: Nature,Culture and a Holistic Approach to Domestication in the Levant

The main objective of this paper is to suggest an alternative approach for the investigation of domestication in the Levant. First, basic data regarding domestication in the Levant are presented. Then the various traditional approaches towards domestication in the prehistoric Levant, labeled (1) environmental, (2) social and anthropological, and (3) cognitive, are briefly reviewed. This discussion forms the basis for a proposal of a “holistic approach,” in which domestication is regarded as a long-term, multidimensional and multirelational phenomenon, including many elements—such as plants, animals, humans, material culture and ancestors—with increasing human manipulation of these various constituents. After a presentation of the theoretical framework, a growth metaphor is used to reconstruct the process of domestication (ca. 20,000–6500 B.P.) as a number of phases: (1) germination in the Kebaran; (2) development in the Early Natufian; (3) retreat/dormancy in the Late/Final Natufian; (4) growth in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A; (5) florescence in the Early- and Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B: (6) further development in the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B; (7) dispersal in the Final Pre-Pottery Neolithic B and the Pottery Neolithic. In each of these phases, relations between the various elements are dealt with, special attention being paid to symbolical relations, as evidenced by “art” and ritual.     

The Late Prehistoric,Protohistoric, and Early Historic periods in Eastern Arabia (ca. 5000–1200 B.C.)

This paper presents an overview of cultural developments in eastern Arabia during the Late Prehistoric, Protohistoric, and Early Historic periods (ca. 5000–1200 B.C.) as defined here. Emphasis is placed on the indigenous lithic industries, ceramics, architecture, burial practices, and subsistence data, while interregional ties and comparative chronology are treated as well. A unified chronological schema for the entire region is proposed which can function alongside local, regional sequences.     

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.