The Upper Paleolithic of Mongolia: Recent finds and new perspectives

Gladyshev, S.A.; Olsen, John W.; Tabarev, Andrei V.; Jull, A. J. T.

doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.01.032

Cited by 30 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Temporally, the dates of IUP in northwest China concentrated on 30 to 40 ka BP, after which no trace has been left of similar technological system. The discovery of IUP in the Siberian Altai area, the Baikal region, and northern Mongolia were earlier than similar discoveries in China, and also indicated their connection with the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic period (Derevianko, 2011;Gladyshev et al, 2010Gladyshev et al, , 2012. Therefore, most scholars agree that the blade technology seen in Chinese IUP remains was introduced from Siberia or Mongolia (Boëda et al, 2013;Derevianko, 2011;Gao et al, 2002;Li et al, 2013b;Madsen et al, 2001).…”

Section: Dispersal Of Iup Technological System and Potentially Reflecmentioning

confidence: 98%

Technology diffusion and population migration reflected in blade technologies in northern China in the Late Pleistocene

Chen

Wang

et al. 2016

Sci. China Earth Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the origin and evolution of modern human behaviors have become a common topic of research in Paleolithic archaeology. One important part of modern human behavior, blade technology, was once thought to be unique to modern humans. Recent studies have suggested that variations in blade technology do not fully correspond to modern populations. However, the standardization, diversity, discontinuity in terms of time distribution, and differences in spatial distribution of blade technology give it an important role in discussions of modes of adaptation, diffusion of technology, and population migration of hominins. By categorizing the major blade assemblages in China, we show that there were two blade reduction methods in northern China: the Levallois method and the prismatic method. Dating back 30000-40000 years, the Levallois and prismatic blade method combined to form the characteristics of the early stage of the Upper Paleolithic. Artifacts bearing such characteristics are located in Northwest China, Northeast China, and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. The unearthed blades are similar in technological organization and are connected geographically with those discovered in Siberia and Mongolia, which also indicates a distinct border from those discovered in northern China. This fact is suggestive of population immigration. About 25000-29000 years ago, a combination of prismatic blades and microblades was developed in the hinterland of China; however whether it can be regarded as the representative of population migration or only a technological adaption remains undetermined. We suggest that the system of production of different blades should be distinguished in the study of blade assemblages and that different blade methods should not be integrated into a single technical system to discuss technology diffusion and population dispersal.

show abstract

Section: Dispersal Of Iup Technological System and Potentially Reflecmentioning

confidence: 98%

Technology diffusion and population migration reflected in blade technologies in northern China in the Late Pleistocene

Chen

Wang

et al. 2016

Sci. China Earth Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mongolia has been a focus of attention for researchers interested in human origins for more than a century and substantial advances in the understanding of the Mongolian Paleolithic have been made in the last few decades 1 . The discovery of Paleolithic remains is, however, still mainly limited to restricted areas in the centre part of the country (Fig.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compound-specific radiocarbon dating and mitochondrial DNA analysis of the Pleistocene hominin from Salkhit Mongolia

Devièse

Massilani

et al. 2019

Nat Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…In neighbouring Mongolia the IUP with blades is dated to c . 41 000 cal BP at the Tolbor 4 site and to c. 38 900 cal BP at Tolbor 15 (Gladyshev et al 2010, 2012; see Figure 1). Sub-prismatic cores are especially frequent at Tolbor 4 (n. 116) and Tolbor 15 (n. 28) (e.g.…”

Section: Archaeological Contextmentioning

confidence: 96%

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

Keates¹,

Kuzmin

2015

Antiquity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

The Upper Paleolithic of Mongolia: Recent finds and new perspectives

Cited by 30 publications

References 16 publications

Technology diffusion and population migration reflected in blade technologies in northern China in the Late Pleistocene

Technology diffusion and population migration reflected in blade technologies in northern China in the Late Pleistocene

Compound-specific radiocarbon dating and mitochondrial DNA analysis of the Pleistocene hominin from Salkhit Mongolia

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About