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.     

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.     

江苏连云港将军崖旧石器晚期遗址的考古发掘与收获

2002～2006年在连云港将军崖旧石器晚期遗址的发掘,主要收获包括人类石铺生活面1处和可能属于灶坑的遗迹2处,以及1500余件石制品。工具类型以刮削器为主,以小型为主,石片石器和细石器各占一定比例。石器工业早期为华北主工业类型——石片石器工业,晚期以细石器为主。主要文化层的地质年代为晚更新世晚期至全新世早期。     

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. 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.     

Environmental Conditions of The Late Paleolithic and Early Neolithic Sites in Southern Sakhalin

The article presents the results of a palynological study conducted at Late Paleolithic (Olympiya-5 and Ogonki-5) and Early Neolithic (Slavnaya-5) sites located in the southern part of Sakhalin Island. The reconstructed environments оf Late Paleolithic sites in southern Sakhalin included dark coniferous (fir and spruce) forests, indicative of a relatively warm phases of the last stadial coinciding with Daansgard-Oeschger oscillations. The Early Holocene conditions in southern Sakhalin were relatively warm although a virtually complete absence of pollen of deciduous trees suggests that the Boreal period was not the Holocene climatic optimum in that region.     

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.     

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…     

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 Late Upper Paleolithic occupation of the northern Tibetan Plateau margin

The pre-Neolithic history of the Tibetan Plateau is virtually unknown. Test excavations of Late Paleolithic sites, described here, provide preliminary evidence that the initial occupation of the plateau's extreme environments was by small groups of foragers probably traveling from lower elevation plateau margins. These foragers occupied very short-term camps focused on the procurement and extensive processing of small-to-medium mammals. Five separate occupations date to 13–15,000 Cal yr BP, but limited survey data suggest mid-elevation locations may have been temporarily occupied as early as 25,000 years ago. Full-time, year-round occupation of the plateau probably did not take place until the early Neolithic advent of domesticated animals.     

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 Middle Paleolithic of the Caucasus

Journal of World Prehistory - This paper presents a short review of the data and new approaches to Middle Paleolithic chronology and variability in the Caucasus. A climatostratigraphic scheme of...     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Resource intensification in the Late Upper Paleolithic: a view from southern China

Resource intensification is often viewed as a precursor to sedentism and thereby to agriculture. Late Upper Paleolithic sites in China are also seen as important precursors to the beginnings of sedentism and agriculture, but few faunal assemblages have been studied in detail and therefore little is known of pre-Neolithic economies in the region. A large faunal sample from a key site for early pottery and possible rice collection sheds light on subsistence strategies at the end of the Paleolithic. We apply an array of taphonomic analyses to the mammal remains to investigate the extent to which carcasses were processed for within-bone nutrients, which we see as a possible indicator of resource intensification. Determining if this is a regional trend, and/or represents diachronic change in subsistence strategies, will depend on the availability of comparative data in the future.     

黄家湾旧石器遗址发掘简报

湖北省十堰市的丹江口水库位于汉水上游,地处鄂西北、豫西南交界处的秦岭、大巴山与江汉平原的过渡地带,属丘陵盆地型水库。正常蓄水位为157m,淹没区面积800多平方公里。南