The Initial Upper Paleolithic in Central and East Asia: Blade Technology, Cultural Transmission, and Implications for Human Dispersals

Abstract

Archaeological assemblages labeled as Initial Upper Paleolithic are often seen as possible evidence for dispersals of Homo sapiens populations in Eurasia, ca. 45,000 years ago. While most authors agree that the IUP can be recognized by a set of shared features, there is far less consensus on what these features are, and what they mean. Because of methodological challenges inherent to long distance comparisons, documenting and establishing a firm connection between archaeological assemblages remain difficult and often draw legitimate skepticism. There could be many reasons why Paleolithic hunter-gatherers used comparable technologies, but it usually comes down to two kinds of processes: cultural transmission or convergence. In other words, technological similarities may illustrate a cultural link between regions or may be caused by mechanisms of independent reinvention between more distantly related populations. Here, I focus on three assemblages from the Siberian Altai, Zabaikal region, and North Mongolia to address one main question: is there such thing as a united IUP in Central and East Asia, or are we looking at unrelated yet comparable adaptive processes? First, I describe the common structure of lithic blade production at the sites, with special attention to derived features relative to the regional sequence. After comparing the complexity of the production system with those of other lithic technologies, I suggest that this coherent, intricate, yet unprecedented technological pattern found across contiguous regions in Asia is better explained by transmission processes than by multiple unrelated reinventions, or local developments. The blade production system described in Siberia and Mongolia reoccur as a package, which is consistent with indirect bias and/or conformist cultural transmission processes. Overall, the results point toward close contact between individuals and hunter gatherer populations, and supports the recognition of a broad cultural unit to encapsulate Asian IUP assemblages. Considering other lines of evidence, the geographical and chronological distribution of Asian IUP lithic technology is consistent with a dispersal of Homo sapiens populations in Central and East Asia during the Marine Isotopic Stage 3, although the geographical origin of such movement is less clear.

After the blades: The late MIS3 flake-based technology at Shuidonggou Locality 2, North China

“…Considering the bulk of the chronological data available for SDG1 and SDG2, earlier dates are more reliable than the few late ones and place the blade assemblages between 41 and 34 ka cal BP [ 9 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 81 ]. These dates are broadly consistent with a scenario of human population dispersals from the Eurasian Steppe [ 20 , 21 , 25 , 26 ], from North Mongolia [ 27 , 82 ], and/or the Altai [ 53 ]. After 34 ka cal BP, however, the unequivocal predominance of CFAs in North China suggests that the occurrence of blades is only a short episode in the region’s technological sequence.…”

“…From this perspective, the appearance and disappearance of the blade assemblages at SDG may reflect discontinuous cultural contacts between local populations and those of the neighboring regions. The CFAs nonetheless lack of specific and intricate derived features, making it a weak proxy for drawing phylogenetic inferences and/or cultural inferences regarding past population structure [ 82 , 101 ]. Moreover, the increasing evidence of personal ornaments along with the CFAs thereby suggests that, although the lithic technology has been generally persistent, there are other aspects of technological innovations occurring at a different pace in the region [ 58 , 59 , 102 , 103 ].…”

Genetics and Material Culture Support Repeated Expansions into Paleolithic Eurasia from a Population Hub Out of Africa

“…The scenario inferred by genetic data and supported by material culture, would then explain Ust’Ishim as the result of early IUP movements toward Siberia ( Zwyns et al 2019 ; Zwyns 2021 ), and the presence of Bacho Kiro-like populations in Europe at least from 45 ka as part of a broader peopling event that reached as far East as Tianyuan ∼40 ka with little or no interaction with preexisting Zlatý Kůň-like groups ( Supplementary fig. S4 and Section 3.5, Supplementary Material online) but with occasional contacts with Neanderthals ( Fu et al 2015 ; Hajdinjak et al 2021 ).…”

Tracing the Palaeolithic settlement patterns in the Western Tian Shan piedmont: an example of predictive GIS modelling use

“…The paper does not aim to discuss in detail the regional diversity and changes which took place between the Late Middle Palaeolithic and Early Upper Palaeolithic, nor to tackle the problem of a presence of Initial Upper Palaeolithic (for further discussion see Pavlenok et al ., 2021; Zwyns, 2021; Kot et al ., in press). Therefore, only two different phases of settlement were distinguished.…”