Luminescence chronology of the Palaeolithic–Neolithic transition in the Yujiagou site at the Nihewan Basin, northern China

Abstract

The relationship between the Palaeolithic–Neolithic cultural transition and environmental changes is important for understanding human history. However, the timing and nature of human behaviour at the transition, and their relationship to local environmental conditions, remain poorly understood. The Yujiagou archaeological site in the Nihewan Basin, northern China, provides valuable chronological and archaeological information about cultural changes in northern China due to its continuous archaeological sequence of cultural layers from the Palaeolithic to Neolithic. In this study, we apply post‐infrared infrared stimulated luminescence (pIRIR) dating on individual feldspar grains to date the Yujiagou deposits. We provide a revised chronology for the archaeological sequence at the site. We combine these results with multi‐proxy climatic indicators to gain insights into palaeoenvironmental changes in the region. The results show that the age of the artefact‐bearing deposits ranges from 13.5 to 9.7 ka. Polished stones and pottery begin to occur in the archaeological layer around 13 ka, corresponding to a transitional period when the local climate changed from cold to warm. This site provides evidence for understanding the process that led to the regional transition from hunter‐gathering to farming.

The Paleolithic in the Nihewan Basin, China: Evolutionary history of an Early to Late Pleistocene record in Eastern Asia

“…The appearance of pottery and ground stone tools by ca. 13 ka in these sites denotes the beginning of the Neolithization process in the Nihewan Basin, as is also demonstrated in North and Northeast China, as well as Korea, Japan, and Siberia …”

“…[34][35][36][37] In contrast, the Nihewan Basin contains a rich quantity of fossils and stone artifacts in good depositional contexts and with a sound relative chronology throughout the course of the Pleistocene. 5,7,[38][39][40][41] Moreover, dating of sedimentary sequences from the Pleistocene to the Holocene, using magnetostratigraphy, as well as electron spin resonance (ESR), luminescence, and radiocarbon methods, 29 Notes: + indicates ages for Xiaochangliang all fall in the Early Pleistocene, but owing to different estimates of rates of sedimentation, discrepant dates have been reported (see text for details).++ indicates Middle Pleistocene ages of Xujiayao have been reported, though the U-series ages are considered the most accurate here (see text for details).…”

Paleohydro-climatic changes revealed by anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility at the Heitugou section, Nihewan Basin, and its influences on human’s occupation

“…型, 后期 过渡为Cl − -K + -Na + 型 [91,92] ; 孢粉证据 [14] 和岩石磁学证 据 [23,63,93] XJY 许家窑 0.1 [95] DGT 东谷坨 1.1 [63] XSH 下沙河 0.028~0.029 [9] 1.15~1.21 [96] XBMY 西白马营 0.046±0.003 [97] 1.06~1.12 [45] QEG 雀儿沟 0.268±0.013 [98] 1.119±0.132 [26] YJG 于家沟 0.0097~0.0135 [29] CJW 岑家湾 1.1 [99] DP 东坡 0.321±0.015 [100] BS 半山 1.32 [63] HTL 虎头梁 0.01~0.014 [101] 1.35 [28] BJ 板井 0.086±0.004 [98] MJG 马圈沟 MJG-1:1.4 MJG-2,3:1.7 [28] MTL 摩天岭 0.315±0.013 [98] MJG-1:1.55 MJG-2:1.65 MJG-3:1.66 [63] YF 油房 0.015~0.017 [101] LP 兰坡 1.6 [102] 0.026~0.029 [103] XCL 小长梁 1.36 [21] HG 后沟 0.395 [104] DCL 大长梁 1.36 [23] ML 马梁 0.78 [105] 1.48 [45] 0.79 [45] 古人类遗址进行了整理(表2), 尝试对这些遗址的时空 [19] ; (c) 泥河湾盆地古人类主要遗址年代与高程变化关系 Figure 6 Distribution of Paleolithic sites in Nihewan Basin since 1.9 Ma. (a) Topographic map of Nihewan Basin and distribution of paleolithic sites, black frame represents the location of (b).…”

Intensive exploitation of animal resources during Deglacial times in North China: a case study from the Yujiagou site

“…Thermoluminescence (TL), optical stimulated luminescence (OSL) and accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS 14 C) were carried out to present the ages of different layers of Yujiagou (Table 1, Xia et al 2001;Tsuneto et al 2009;Lin et al 2018;Rui et al 2019). In order to obtain more accurate dating of fauna, we sent eight bone samples to beta analytic and got radiocarbon dates of faunal assemblages from layers 2-5 ( Table 1).…”

“…16,023 to 13,855 cal BP. Here, we rely exclusively on the radiocarbon dates of bones because (1) the TL sample of Xia et al (2001) did not distinguish the sub-layers within layer 3; (2) the margin of error of the TL method is approximately ± 10%, which is too great to be useful for our purposes; (3) the OSL results of Tsuneto et al (2009) and Rui et al (2019) concentrated on the layers 6, 3a and 2, in which the bones were not as abundant as those in layers 3b and 4; and (4) the specific layers of AMS 14 C samples of Lin et al (2018) are obscure. There is an obvious hiatus from 12.9 to 11.5 cal ka BP between layers 3a and 3b, which may suggest that mobile hunter-gatherer groups left this area or abandoned this site during the harsh Younger Dryas interval.…”