“…The first, spanning from 40,000 BP to 35,000 BP, includes the site of Rashaan Khad, which is about 150 km SW from Salkhit (dated at 39,100 ± 1000 BP (OxA-34324)) 3 . The second, represented by assemblages from the Khangai Mountains and the Gobi Altai district, covers the period between 33,000 BP and 26,000 BP 1,4,5 . The Mousterian or Levallois elements disappear with the Middle Upper Paleolithic (MUP) in Mongolia.…”
A skullcap found in the Salkhit Valley in northeast Mongolia is, to our knowledge, the only Pleistocene hominin fossil found in the country. It was initially described as an individual with possible archaic affinities, but its ancestry has been debated since the discovery. Here, we determine the age of the Salkhit skull by compound-specific radiocarbon dating of hydroxyproline to 34,950–33,900 Cal. BP (at 95% probability), placing the Salkhit individual in the Early Upper Paleolithic period. We reconstruct the complete mitochondrial genome (mtDNA) of the specimen. It falls within a group of modern human mtDNAs (haplogroup N) that is widespread in Eurasia today. The results now place the specimen into its proper chronometric and biological context and allow us to begin integrating it with other evidence for the human occupation of this region during the Paleolithic, as well as wider Pleistocene sequences across Eurasia.
“…The first, spanning from 40,000 BP to 35,000 BP, includes the site of Rashaan Khad, which is about 150 km SW from Salkhit (dated at 39,100 ± 1000 BP (OxA-34324)) 3 . The second, represented by assemblages from the Khangai Mountains and the Gobi Altai district, covers the period between 33,000 BP and 26,000 BP 1,4,5 . The Mousterian or Levallois elements disappear with the Middle Upper Paleolithic (MUP) in Mongolia.…”
A skullcap found in the Salkhit Valley in northeast Mongolia is, to our knowledge, the only Pleistocene hominin fossil found in the country. It was initially described as an individual with possible archaic affinities, but its ancestry has been debated since the discovery. Here, we determine the age of the Salkhit skull by compound-specific radiocarbon dating of hydroxyproline to 34,950–33,900 Cal. BP (at 95% probability), placing the Salkhit individual in the Early Upper Paleolithic period. We reconstruct the complete mitochondrial genome (mtDNA) of the specimen. It falls within a group of modern human mtDNAs (haplogroup N) that is widespread in Eurasia today. The results now place the specimen into its proper chronometric and biological context and allow us to begin integrating it with other evidence for the human occupation of this region during the Paleolithic, as well as wider Pleistocene sequences across Eurasia.
“…Even though the percentage of microblade production is low, it cannot be denied as a microblade site because of the representative micro-core employing pressure flaking techniques ( Fig. 1) (Gladyshev et al, 2010(Gladyshev et al, , 2012.…”
Section: Early Remains In Siberia Mongolia Japan and Koreamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ust'-Karakol 1: 1 and 7 e monfrontal microcore (stratum 11); 2, 3 and 5 e wedge-shaped microcore (stratum 9); 4 and 6 e conical shaped microcore (stratum 9) (afterDerevianko et al 2003). Tolbor-15: 8 e boat-shaped microcore (Horizon 5); 9 e wedge-shaped microcore (Horizon 5) (afterGladyshev et al, 2010). Anui 2: 10 e prismatic core (Horizon 8); 11 e wedge-shaped core (Horizon 8); 12 e prismatic core (Horizon 9) (afterDerevianko et al, 2003).…”
“…This issue has already been addressed before by other researchers such as Graf (2008a). These sites are often mentioned in the discussions as representing evidence for the birthplace of microblade technology, but so far the published data do not allow to consider these assemblages as serious candidates for the emergence of pressure knapped microblade industries, as illustrated in Figure 6 when comparing these cores and pressure knapped microblade cores.Figure 6Siberian and Mongolian bladelet cores (a–f) vs. Siberian and Russian Far East pressure knapped microblade cores (g–j): (a–b) Bladelet cores from Ust’Karakol-1 (Altai), redrawn from Derevianko and Shunkov (2004); (c and f) bladelet cores from Anui-2 (Altai), redrawn from Derevianko et al (1998); (d) bladelet core from Tolbor-15 (Mongolia) redrawn from Gladyshev et al (2010); (e) bladelet/microblade core from Mal’ta (Angara), redrawn from Sitlivy et al (1997); (g) microblade core from Druchak-Vetrenny (Kolyma); (h) microblade core from Tytylvaam-4 (Chukotka); (i) microblade core from Ushki Lake-1 (Kamchatka); (j) microblade core from Verkhne-Troitskaia (Yakutia).…”
Section: Critical Review Of the Earliest Microblade Assemblages By Rementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Siberian and Mongolian bladelet cores (a–f) vs. Siberian and Russian Far East pressure knapped microblade cores (g–j): (a–b) Bladelet cores from Ust’Karakol-1 (Altai), redrawn from Derevianko and Shunkov (2004); (c and f) bladelet cores from Anui-2 (Altai), redrawn from Derevianko et al (1998); (d) bladelet core from Tolbor-15 (Mongolia) redrawn from Gladyshev et al (2010); (e) bladelet/microblade core from Mal’ta (Angara), redrawn from Sitlivy et al (1997); (g) microblade core from Druchak-Vetrenny (Kolyma); (h) microblade core from Tytylvaam-4 (Chukotka); (i) microblade core from Ushki Lake-1 (Kamchatka); (j) microblade core from Verkhne-Troitskaia (Yakutia).…”
Section: Critical Review Of the Earliest Microblade Assemblages By Rementioning
This article is a critical review of published data from the earliest evidence of pressure knapped microblade technology from various regions in Northeast Asia (Siberia, Korea, China, Mongolia, Japan, Sakhalin, and Russian Far East), including discussions not only on published dates, but also on published artifacts (drawings and photos) relating to these assemblages. The issue concerning the geographical and chronological origin of microblade technology in Northeast Asia remains a widely debated concern, not only as new data emerge, but also due to researchers having different definitions of the term “microblade” and “microblade core”. In this case, by microblade technology, I refer to the systematic production of microblades using the pressure knapping technique. I therefore review the data in light of this defining feature and conclude that, based on the present state of research, pressure knapping microblade technology probably emerged in the Far East (China, Korea, or Japan) around 30,000–25,000 cal BP, in spite of most authors considering that microblade technology emerged in southern Siberia 40,000–35,000 years ago. In the discussion section, I argue about the potential role of obsidian in the emergence of pressure knapped microblade technology.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
