Shuidonggou localities 1 and 2 in northern China: archaeology and chronology of the Initial Upper Palaeolithic in north-east Asia

Abstract

Shuidonggou localities 1 and 2 provide key evidence for the Initial Upper Palaeolithic of north-east Asia. In a recent article in Antiquity (87 (2013), 368–383), Li et al. proposed a new chronology, building on the earlier results of Madsen et al. (Antiquity 75 (2001), 705–716). Here Susan Keates and Yaroslav Kuzmin take issue with the new chronology. The article is followed by a response from Li and Gao.

History, Chronology and Techno-Typology of the Upper Paleolithic Sequence in the Shuidonggou Area, Northern China

“…This would imply either that some post-depositional disturbance occurred, or that there are unrecognized cut-and-fill events in the sequence. The new excavation, ongoing since 2018, will clarify the stratigraphic and chronological issues at this locality, but it is clear that the age of the large blade assemblage from the Late Pleistocene layers is older than some investigators have previously stated (Madsen et al 2001;Keates and Kuzmin 2015).…”

“…However, a wide range of assemblages with different technologies and ages have been identified through subsequent research in the area (Gao, Wang, Pei and Chen 2013b;Li, Gao et al 2013;Pei et al 2012). Although numerous reports of the recent field operations and laboratory studies of SDG localities 1-5, 7, 8, 9, and 12 have been published (Boëda, Hou, Forestier, Sarel and Wang 2013;Gao et al 2008;Gao, Wang and Guan 2013a;Li, Kuhn, Gao and Chen 2013;Liu et al 2009;Morgan et al 2014;Nian, Gao and Zhou 2014;Pei et al 2012;Yi, Chen, Pei and Gao 2014;Wang, Pei, Ma and Feng 2007, and references therein), the chronology of major localities continues to be debated (e.g., Keates and Kuzmin 2015;Li, Kuhn et al 2013;Li, Kuhn and Gao 2015). More importantly, the technological characteristics and chronology of the various archaeological layers and localities are difficult to extract from the available literature, while some older publications are even misleading.…”

An Early Instance of Upper Palaeolithic Personal Ornamentation from China: The Freshwater Shell Bead from Shuidonggou 2

“…Radiocarbon chronology reported by Li et al [ 96 ] proposes that Locality 2 was occupied 41.4–34.4 cal kyr BP (layer CL7), 34.4–32.6 cal kyr BP (CL6 and 5), 32.6–31.4 cal kyr BP (CL4 and 3), 31.3–29.9 cal kyr BP (CL2), and perhaps, based on a single OSL age, 20.3±1.0 ka (CL1). This chronology has been recently discussed by Keates and Kuzmin [ 97 ] (see reply by Li et al [ 98 ]), who use the large dispersion of 14 C determinations to challenge the idea of a precocious appearance of a blade technology at Locality 2.…”

Modern Human Origin and Dispersal – Review of J. F. Hoffecker. Modern Humans – Their African Origin and Global Dispersal. 2018. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN: 9780231160766; 506 pages, with 59 illustrations, 23 tables, 23 boxes. (Imaged used with permission by Columbia University Press.)

“…32,600-41,500 cal BP). The early dates for the blade cores at Shuidonggou 1 and the Levallois-like blade technology at Shuidonggou 2 can, however, not be supported because the dates are not consistent with the sites' stratigraphy (Keates and Kuzmin 2015).…”

“…30 kyr (e.g., Yuan et al 1995). While OSL dates of sediments are increasingly applied to sites in China (Table 5.1), it remains to be seen how they would tally with direct 14 C ages (Keates and Kuzmin 2015). In Japan, the oldest directly 14 C dated modern human is from the Shiraho-Saonetabaru Cave (Okinawa) at ca.…”