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.     

Anatomy,behavior, and modern human origins

The fossil record suggests that modern human morphology evolved in Africa between 150,000 and 50,000 years ago, when the sole inhabitants of Eurasia were the Neanderthals and other equally nonmodern people. However, the earliest modern or near-modern Africans were behaviorally (archaeologically) indistinguishable from their nonmodern, Eurasian contemporaries, and it was only around 50,000-40,000 years ago that a major behavioral difference developed. Archaeological indications of this difference include the oldest indisputable ornaments (or art broadly understood); the oldest evidence for routine use of bone, ivory, and shell to produce formal (standardized) artifacts; greatly accelerated variation in stone artifact assemblages through time and space; and hunting-gathering innovations that promoted significantly larger populations. As a complex, the novel traits imply fully modern cognitive and communicative abilities, or more succinctly, the fully modern capacity for Culture. The competitive advantage of this capacity is obvious, and preliminary dates suggest that it appeared in Africa about 50,000 years ago and then successively in western Asia, eastern Europe, and western Europe, in keeping with an African origin. Arguably, the development of modern behavior depended on a neural change broadly like those that accompanied yet earlier archaeologically detectable behavioral advances. This explanation is problematic, however, because the putative change was in brain organization, not size, and fossil skulls provide little or no secure evidence for brain structure. Other potential objections to a neural advance in Africa 50,000-40,000 years ago or to the wider Out-of-Africa hypothesis, include archaeological evidence (1) that some Neanderthals were actually capable of fully modern behavior and (2) that some Africans were behaviorally modern more than 90,000 years ago.     

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 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.     

论中国南方及东南亚地区早期砾石石器

本文对中国南方及东南亚地区早期砾石石器的概况、特点、原因等作了较系统的研究;指出它们与中国北方以及欧洲同期旧石器相比,具有明显的差异,其独特的文化面貌是由这一地区独特的自然环境和生态环境决定的。     

The Art of Taphonomy and the Taphonomy of Art: Layer IV,Molodova I,Ukraine

Level IV of Molodova I, an open-air Middle Paleolithic site in the Ukraine has been described by some researchers as a possible source of evidence for early symbolic behavior. We examined bone objects from this layer that were identified by Ukrainian researchers as exhibiting possible Neandertal produced engravings including two anthropomorphic figures. While we have determined that there is no evidence of symbolic activity at Molodova I, the database we have created, with its systematic recording of traces left by taphonomic agents on faunal remains, provides a better understanding of the overall site taphonomy.     

就石片台面研究问题答李炎贤

石片包括了各种类型台面的石片,石片台面的分类可以视为石片分类的一种。旧石器时代考古术语需要斟酌和规范。科学研究必须实事求是。     

Final Paleolithic and Mesolithic Research in Reunified Germany

During the past decade research into the German Final Paleolithic and Mesolithic has experienced an important revival. One clear sign of this renewed interest in the periods are the annual meetings of the Arbeitsgruppe Mesolithikum (Mesolithic Working Group) which have taken place every spring since 1992. At these meetings, which take place at changing venues, topical themes of Final Paleolithic and Mesolithic interest are presented by informal lectures and it is also possible to study regional collections (artifacts, raw materials) at first hand. Numerous contributions were subsequently published together in one volume (Conard and Kind (1998) Aktuelle Forschungen zum Mesolithikum/Current Mesolithic Research, Mo Vince, Tübingen). The present paper intends to complement that collection of papers with a synthesis of developments and perspectives and to present recent research highlights in the German Final Paleolithic and Mesolithic, together with a comprehensive bibliography, to a wider international audience.     

Two sides of the same coin—rocks, bones and site function of Picareiro Cave, central Portugal

The issue of site function rarely has been a main focus in the study of Portuguese Upper Paleolithic. This fact may be related to a lack of interest in this research area. More likely, however, it is due to the fact that there are relatively few Paleolithic sites with data that allow a serious study of site function. At Picareiro Cave, central Portugal, there are various data sets from level F/G dated to the latter Magdalenian that are adequate for this type of research. These are habitat structures, lithic artifacts, macro- and mesofauna, as well as 3D location of all artifacts and fauna larger than 1 cm. Based on the interpretation of the analytical results of each data set, it is possible to reconstruct site function of this particular level of Picareiro Cave. The morphology of one of the hearths, being very large in size, with the base prepared and a pavement surrounding it, as well as the condition and diversity of fauna, indicates that it was used for processing the meat of rabbits, red deer, and wild boar, probably through smoking and grilling. All of the evidence from the different types of data (lithic artifacts, habitat structures, use of space, and fauna) indicate that Layers F/G of Picareiro Cave are the result of a specific task, that of processing animal carcasses of rabbits, red deer, and wild boar.     

The origins of lithic projectile point technology: evidence from Africa,the Levant,and Europe

Projectile weaponry is a human cultural universal, but its origins and antiquity remain poorly understood. Stone- and bone-tipped projectile weapons have long been treated as emergent features of the "Upper Paleolithic" behavioral revolution. Recently it has been proposed that projectile technology was in widespread use among Homo sapiens populations in Africa during Middle Stone Age (MSA) times. One obstacle to researching the origins of projectile point technology is that the criteria archaeologists employ for recognizing plausible and implausible stone projectile points are largely subjective (overall tool shape, microwear traces). Tip cross-sectional area (TCSA) is a ballistically significant dimension that works well at discriminating North American stone projectile points (spearthrower dart tips and arrowheads) from spear points. This paper compares the TCSA values of ethnographic North American stone projectile points to hypothetical Middle and Upper Paleolithic stone projectile points from Africa, the Levant, and Europe. The results of this comparison do not support the hypothesis of widespread use of stone-tipped projectiles in Africa, the Levant, or Europe prior to 40 Ka. In the New World and in Australia, where we have the richest ethnographic record of stone projectile point use, these implements are largely employed in big-game hunting and in warfare. One or both of these factors may have played a role in the widespread adoption of stone projectile point technology after 40 Ka.