Rethinking the initial Upper Paleolithic

Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e10

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

Rethinking the initial Upper Paleolithic Steven L. Kuhn a, *, Nicolas Zwyns b, c a

School of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Bldg. 30, Tucson, AZ 85721-0030, USA Dept. of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA c Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Available online xxx

The term Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) was originally proposed to describe a specific assemblage from the site of Boker Tachtit (level 4). The use of the term was subsequently extended to cover the earliest Upper Paleolithic assemblages in the Levant, characterized by forms of blade production that combines elements of Levallois method (faceted platforms, hard hammer percussion, flat-faced cores) with features more typical of Upper Paleolithic blade technologies. More recently, the term IUP has been broadened again to include any early Upper Paleolithic assemblage with Levallois-like features in methods of blade production, irrespective of location. Artifact assemblages conforming to this broadest definition of the IUP have been reported from a vast area, stretching from the Levant through Central and Eastern Europe to the Siberian Altai and Northwest China. Whereas it is indisputable that similar lithic technologies can be found in all of these areas, it is not self-evident that they represent a unified cultural phenomenon. An alternative possibility is convergence, common responses to adapting Mousterian/MSA Levallois technology to the production of blade blanks, or some combination of multiple local origins with subsequent dispersal. In this paper, we suggest that the current definition of IUP has become too broad to address such issues, and that understanding the origins of this phenomenon requires a more explicit differentiation between analogies and homologies in lithic assemblages. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Early Upper Paleolithic Hominin dispersals Levallois Blade technology

1. Introduction What we call “cultures” or “culture complexes” in the Paleolithic often exist on a scale unmatched by any familiar contemporary social or cultural phenomenon. Constellations of associated material culture traits that define the Acheulean or the Aurignacian are extraordinarily persistent in time and remarkably widespread in space. Specific technological procedures, such as pressure microblade production or Levallois method are even more broadly distributed and long-lived. These kinds of phenomena present a challenge to archaeologists. We do not know exactly how to understand them. Are they cultures in a familiar sense at all, or are they the outcome of less familiar processes leading to the fixation of certain cultural traits across very large areas? To what extent can broad similarity in lithic technology be equated with continuity in cultural transmission, as opposed to convergence guided by the fracture mechanics of isotropic stone or responses to similar ecological challenges?

The Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) has become this sort of “extensive” cultural phenomenon. When first proposed, the term Initial Upper Paleolithic had a very narrow meaning. The use of the term has subsequently been broadened to encompass an everlarger series of archaeological assemblages that spans an area stretching from North Africa to north China. At this point the term has become so generalized that its meaning and utility must be reevaluated. Here, we examine what has been called IUP in various places and reconsider what this phenomenon might signify for hominin global dispersals and trajectories of cultural evolution. We briefly review the origins and uses of the term Initial Upper Paleolithic, the spatial and temporal ranges of assemblages identified as IUP, and some of the technological variability subsumed under the name. At this point, the global distribution of IUP assemblages presents important challenges for distinguishing results of large-scale dispersal events from outcomes of technological convergence. 2. History of the term

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S.L. Kuhn), [email protected] (N. Zwyns).

As far as we are aware, Marks and Ferring (1988) coined the term Initial Upper Paleolithic to describe the lithic industry from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.05.040 1040-6182/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Kuhn, S.L., Zwyns, N., Rethinking the initial Upper Paleolithic, Quaternary International (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.05.040

2

S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e10

layer 4 (the most recent stratum) at Boker Tachtit, as well as the earliest Upper Paleolithic levels at Ksar Akil. The layer 4 industry resembles material from the other three layers at Boker Tachtit in terms of many typological and technological indicators. However, it contains a method of blade production that combines some features of Levallois (hard hammer percussion, platform faceting), with an Upper Paleolithic volumetric exploitation of the core's volume. What further sets layer 4 apart is the predominant use of unipolar production: in the earliest levels bidirectional exploitation is much more common. Moreover, while artifacts resembling Levallois blades and points were produced, they do not occur at the end of the reduction sequence as in other assemblages from the site, leading Volkman (1983) to conclude that they were not the intended products of reduction. Marks saw the Boker Tachtit sequence as documenting the gradual transformation of MP-type Levallois blade production to an essentially UP mode of core exploitation and (unipolar) production. Thus, the technology from Layer 1 at the bottom of the stratigraphic sequence was considered to be predominantly Levallois Mousterian in character, while the Layer 4 assemblage was predominantly Upper Paleolithic. The next revision of term IUP came when Kuhn et al. (1999) proposed it as a general descriptor for all early Upper Paleolithic assemblages from the eastern Mediterranean and Near East that contained mainly Upper Paleolithic tool forms made on blades produced by a technology combining elements of Levallois (flat core faces, hard hammer, platform faceting, etc.) with more typical prismatic core exploitation. In essence, this combined assemblages

formerly termed Emiran with those conforming to Marks and Ferring's conceptualization of the Initial Upper Paleolithic. The term IUP was proposed as a replacement for existing terminologies such as Emiran, which is too specific (Emireh points are not found at all sites) or “transitional” (which presumes a phylogenetic relationship with earlier and later assemblages). Although IUP technologies may €da be transitional in some places, this must be demonstrated. E. Boe and colleagues proposed the designation Pal eolithique intermediare for similar reasons, but the use of term has so far been limited to comparatively recent assemblages from Umm et ‘Tlel, Syria (Bourguignon, 1998; Ploux and Soriano, 2003). At sites such as ızlı cave and Ksar ‘Akil, where organic preservation is good, Üçag other elements of Upper Paleolithic non-lithic technologies, including ornaments and bone tools, are present, even abundant in layers yielding IUP assemblages. More recently, application of the term IUP has been broadened even more. Many researchers now refer to all industries dating to between 35 ka and 50 ka, and that show features of Levallois technology in blade production as Initial Upper Paleolithic (e.g., Hoffecker, 2011). This includes assemblages scattered from N. Africa to central Europe to northwest China. Sinitsyn (2003) and Arrizabalaga et al. (2003) independently proposed a rather different definition of the term. They call the earliest Upper Paleolithic industries in a particular area, irrespective of their characteristics, Initial Upper Paleolithic. This usage reframes IUP as a purely chronostratigraphic term with little specific technological or typological content. While that may be a valid literal use of the phrase “Initial Upper Paleolithic”, we are concerned here with a

nska Ska la III; 3. Bohunice-Kejbaly I, II; 4. Temnata; 5. Bacho-Kiro; 6. Kulychyvka; 7. Korolevo I, 2; 8. Shlyakh; 9. Haua Fig. 1. Global distribution of IUP sites. 1. Brno-Bohunice; 2. Stra ızlı; 12. Kanal Cave; 13. Um el'Tlel; 14. Jerf Ajlah; 15. Yabrud II; 16. Antelias; 17. Abou Halka; 18. Ksar Akil; 19. Emireh; 20. El Wad; 21. Raqefet; 22. Fteah; 10. Hagfet ed Dabba; 11. Üçag Mughur al Hamamah; 23. Tor Sadaf; 24. Boker Tachtit; 25. Kara-Bom; 26. Ust-Karakol 1; 27. Kara-Tenesh; 28. Makarovo 4; 29. Kamenka A-C; 30. Khotyk; 31. Podzvonkaya; 32. Tolbor 4; 33. Tolbor 16; 34. Tsagan-Agui; 35. Shuidonggou 1; 36. Shuidonggou 2, 9 (adapted from Geoatlas.com).

Please cite this article in press as: Kuhn, S.L., Zwyns, N., Rethinking the initial Upper Paleolithic, Quaternary International (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.05.040

S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e10

3

assemblages in different parts of the world. It might even be possible to claim that they trace an eastward dispersal of Neanderthals. Fossil associations are few and taxonomic determinations are tentative at ızlı cave in southern Turkey show a best. The isolated teeth from Üçag predominance of Homo sapiens traits but a few possess Neanderthal features as well (Kuhn et al., 2009; Baykara, 2010). Likewise, the fragmentary remains from layer XXIV or XXV at Ksar Akil (Douka et al., 2013) are taxonomically ambiguous. Based on morphology alone, we are often on uncertain ground in attributing fragmentary fossils from this period to one taxon or another. Moreover, given recent genetic evidence for interbreeding between Neanderthals and (and to a smaller extent Denisovans) and the ancestors of modern H. sapiens (Green et al., 2010; Reich et al., 2010; Sankararaman et al., 2012), we must allow for the possibility that what are called IUP industries could have been produced by more than one hominin taxon.

somewhat more strictly defined phenomenon, namely the set of early Upper Paleolithic assemblages, from anywhere in the world, with features of Levallois in blank production and essentially Upper Paleolithic retouched tool inventories. While “IUP” may be preferable to terms such as “transitional”, lumping together any and all late Pleistocene industries with Levallois-like features in the system of blade production and a predominance of UP tool forms may produce a definition that is too general to be very useful except as descriptive shorthand for general features of lithic technology. The central question is whether the combination of UP tool forms and Levallois blade production could represent independent developments rather than a complex of cultures related by descent. In other words, are the shared characteristics the IUP sensu lato evidence for cultural continuity e via diffusion or population movement e over a vast area (homologies), or are they simply a series of convergences? The IUP is of more than anecdotal interest since it is one key to understanding the historical and evolutionary processes leading to the establishment of modern humans in Eurasia (Hublin, 2012). Where it occurs the IUP is always the earliest form of Upper Paleolithic industry in a particular region. It is also often (but not always) associated with novel forms of behavior identified as “modern” (beads, shaped bone tools, etc.). Because IUP technologies combine elements of Levallois technology with more classic “volumetric” UP blade production, some researchers consider them transitional between Middle and Upper Paleolithic. However, in many areas (central Europe, Mongolia, China) they are clearly intrusive. Other researchers have assumed a phylogenetic relationship between technologies distributed over tens of thousands of kilometers and spanning nearly ten thousand years, claiming that this particular constellation of features is a proxy for a single early dispersal of anatomically modern humans into Eurasia (Hoffecker, 2011:35). There is currently no strong evidence that the IUP as a whole indexes anatomically modern humans. We currently do not know which hominin(s) were responsible for producing the IUP

3. Geographic range, temporal duration, and technological variability With their discovery in the middle of the 20th century, a few salient attributes of Levantine IUP assemblages captured the attention of archaeologists. The combination of stereotypical “Middle Paleolithic” knapping techniques with “Upper Paleolithic” blank and tool forms, along with distinctive fossiles directeurs such as Emireh points and chanfreins made the Levantine assemblages quite unique globally (Garrod, 1951e1952). Subsequent findings demonstrated that the general phenomenon of Upper Paleolithic tools on Levalloislike blanks is more widespread. In evaluating the significance of the IUP sensu lato, we must recognize the geographic scale over which it occurs. Assemblages fitting the broad definition of IUP have been documented from North Africa to North China (Table 1, Fig. 1). Particular dense concentrations of UP assemblages with Levalloislike blade technology occur in the eastern Mediterranean Levant, Moravia (the Bohunician sites), and between the Siberian Altai and northern Mongolia. However, scattered occurrences are noted across southern and eastern Europe and northwest China.

Table 1 Sites yielding IUP/early UP with Levallois blades. Only excavated, stratigraphically-secure contexts included. (References are generally limited to the most recent publications, especially to those containing dates). Region

Country

Site

N. Africa

Libya

Middle East

Israel

Haua Fteah Hagfet ed Dabba Boker Tachtit

Jordan Syria

Lebanon

Turkey S.E. Europe

Bulgaria

Central Europe

Moravia

Eastern Europe

Ukraine

Emireh El Wad Raqefet Mughur al- Hamamah Tor Sadaf Yabrud II Jerf Ajlah Um et'Tlel Antelias Abou Halka Ksar Akil ızlı Üçag Kanal cave Temnata Bacho Kiro Brno-Bohunice Str ansk a Sk ala III Bohunice-Kejbaly I,II Korolevo I, 2 Kulychivka

Layer(s)

1e4

F VIIIeV A, B? 6 B,C II2b-IIbase VIIeV IVfeIVe XXVeXXII FeI

Various 5 4a (1a, II) III

Dated? (y/n)

Yes: redating underway No No No Yes No No Yes Yes

Notes

References

Dabban Dabban

McBurney, 1967a, 1967b McBurney, 1967b Marks and Volkman, 1983; Volkman 1983

Mixed? Pal eolithique intermediare

No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Bohunician Bohunician

Garrod, 1955 Garrod, 1951e52 Sarel, 2004 Richter et al., 2009b Fox and Coinman, 2004 Pastoors et al., 2008 Richter et al., 2001 Ploux and Soriano, 2003 Copeland, 1970; Leder, 2013 Azoury, 1986; Leder, 2013 Azoury, 1986; Ohnuma, 1988 Kuhn et al., 2009 Kuhn et al., 1999 Tsanova, 2008 Tsanova, 2008 Richter et al., 2008, 2009a Richter et al., 2008 Richter et al., 2008 Gladilin, 1989; Gladilin and Demidenko, 1989 Cohen and Stepanchuk, 1999 (continued on next page)

Please cite this article in press as: Kuhn, S.L., Zwyns, N., Rethinking the initial Upper Paleolithic, Quaternary International (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.05.040

4

S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e10

Table 1 (continued ) Region

Country

Site

Layer(s)

Dated? (y/n)

Siberian Altai

Russia Russia

Shlyakh Kara-Bom Ust Karakol 1 (sector 1) Kara Tanesh Makarovo 4

8 OH5e6 OH 5.4e5.5

Yes Yes No No Yes

Nekhoroshev, 1999; Hoffecker, 2011 Goebel et al., 1993 Derevianko et al., 1987; Slavinskiy, 2007 Derevianko et al., 2001 Goebel and Aksenov, 1995

Kamenka A-C Khotyk Podzvonkaya Tolbor 4 Tolbor 16 Tsagan-Agui Shuidonnguo 1 Shuidonnguo 2, 9

6 3 2 OH5eOH6 7 (lower) 3 Lower 5, 7

Yes In progress Yes Yes Yes

Orlova et al., 2005; Lbova, 2008 Kuzmin et al., 2006; Lbova, 2008 Tashak, 2002 Derevianko et al., 2007; Zwyns, 2012 Zwyns et al., 2014 Derevianko et al., 2004 Li et al., 2013 Li et al., 2013

Cis-and Transbaikal

Russia

N.Mongolia S. Mongolia N.W. China

3a

It is equally important to recognize that although the IUP in the broadest sense is very widespread, it is not a ubiquitous component of Paleolithic cultural sequences. To date, assemblages with these characteristics have not been reported from western and northern Europe. Nor are they known in the area stretching from the Zagros through Central and South Asia (see Dennell et al.,1991 for a possible exception), although there are few well-studied assemblages from these regions and future discoveries could change the situation radically. What this shows is that early Upper Paleolithic assemblages with Levallois features in blade production are not a universal stage in the transition from Middle to Upper Paleolithic. They are an element in many, but by no means all regional sequences. In addition to covering a vast area of geographic space, in some places IUP assemblages also cover very long spans of time. The calibrated radiocarbon dates for layers yielding claimed IUP assemblages range between 32 ka and 47 ka, mostly falling between 39 ka and 45 ka cal BP (Table 2). Where multiple dates are available, individual sites or site complexes may cover a significant timespan, on the order of 6e8 ky. Certainly a part of this variability stems from very real difficulties in radiocarbon dating samples in this time range (e.g., Higham et al., 2009). Many dates, and especially those obtained prior to the widespread use of AMS counting and development of highly effective sample-pre-treatment techniques should be considered essentially minimum age estimates. Even with the most stringent sample pre-treatment and counting procedures as well as the most up-to-date calibration methods, dates older than 40 k 14C years are likely to underestimate the true age. Application of independent dating methods such as OSL and TL, as well as stratigraphic markers such as the Y-5 tephra (Fedele et al., 2003; Pyle et al., 2006), will be vital to obtaining a better understanding of the true age of these and other late MP and early UP assemblages.

Table 2 Published radiocarbon dates for IUP sites/assemblages. (** refers to later early UPprovides minimum age for underlying IUP). Where calibrated ages were not published dates were calibrated using CalPal online version 1.5. Site

Layer/industry 1

Boker Tachtit Boker Tachtit1 Boker Tachtit1 Ucagizli 12 Ucagizli 12 Ucagizli 12 Ucagizli 12 Ucagizli 12 Ucagizli 12 Ucagizli 12 Ucagizli 12 Ucagizli 12 Ucagizli 12

4 1 1 Fbc Fbc Fbc G H1-3 H1-3 H1-3 H1-3 H1-3 I

C age

s

34,000 45,000 47,000 34,000 35,020 39,100 39,100 35,500 35,670 38,900 39,400 41,400 33,874

600 1000 1000 690 740 1000 1500 1200 730 1100 1200 1100 271

14

Calib. BP 39,300 48,345 50,600 39,160 39,989 43,300 43,300 40,200 40,400 43,185 43,467 44,927 39,496

s 1150 1800 2200 1300 993 800 1060 1312 1070 850 896 1157 1015

Notes

References

Table 2 (continued ) Site 2

Ucagizli 1 Ucagizli 12 Ucagizli 12 Ucagizli 12 Ucagizli 12 Ucagizli 12 Umm el Tlel3 Bacho Kiro4 Bacho Kiro4 Bacho Kiro4 Bacho Kiro4 Temnata Doupka4 Temnata Doupka4 Temnata Doupka4 Temnata Doupka4 Temnata Doupka4 Stranska Skala5 Stranska Skala5 Stranska Skala5 Stranska Skala5 Stranska Skala5 Stranska Skala5 Stranska Skala5 Stranska Skala5 Stranska Skala5 Stranska Skala5 Stranska Skala5 Stranska Skala5 Stranska Skala5 Stranska Skala5 Brno-Bohunice5 Brno-Bohunice5 Brno-Bohunice5 Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Brno-Bohunice5 Brno-Bohunice5 Brno-Bohunice Brno-Bohunice5 Brno-Bohunice5 Brno-Bohunice5 Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Shlyakh6 Kulychivka6 Kara Bom7 Kara Bom7 Ust-Karakol 1 (1)**8 Ust-Karakol 1 (1)**8

Layer/industry

14

I I I I I I PI 11 11 11 11 couche 4- inter. couche 4- inter. couche 4- inter. couche 4- inter. couche 4- inter. IIIc IIId IIId IIIc IIId IIId IIIc IIIc IIId IIId III-1 IIIc III-2 IIIa Bohunician Bohunician Bohunician Bohunician Bohunician Bohunician Bohunician Bohunician Bohunician Bohunician Bohunician Bohunician Bohunician Bohunician Bohunician Bohunician Bohunician Bohunician Bohunician layer 8 III??? OH5-6 OH5-6 OH 5.2e5.3 OH 5.2e5.3

35,100 36,915 39,200 39,700 39,817 40,200 36,000 34,800 37,650 38,500 >43,000 38,200 38,800 39,100 45,000 46,000 34,440 34,530 34,530 34,680 35,080 35,320 36,350 36,570 37,270 37,900 38,200 38,300 38,500 41,300 32,740 34,770 35,025 36,000 36,050 36,540 38,200 38,690 38,770 40,050 40,173 41,250 41,350 41,400 42,100 42,750 42,900 43,250 43,600 <44,000 31,000 43,200 43,300 31,410 29,900

C age

s

Calib. BP

s

1400 335 1300 1600 383 1300 2500 1100 1450 1700

39,682 41,812 43,354 43,737 43,646 44,020 39,958 39,638 42,334 42,883

1554 335 943 1193 599 1079 2515 1288 1127 1228

1500 1700 1800 7000 8000 720 790 770 820 830 310 990 940 990 1100 1100 1100 1300 1300 530 240 730 1100 260 310 330 320 330 360 1200 450 450 1400 450 550 1700 550 550

42,728 43,092 43,312

1122 1205 185

39,620 39,643 39,696 39,738 40,003 40,250 40,889 41,229 42,024 42,574 42,784 42,847 42,948 44,879 37,237 39,926 39,994 40,576 40,752 41,633 42,617 43,082 43,100 43,772 43,979 44,780 44,878 45,015 45,501 46,246 46,681 46,868 47,144 <47,500 35,100 46,931 47,025 35,784 34,728

1010 1046 977 1043 1045 874 1158 941 670 884 893 888 974 1301 856 812 989 1265 1035 310 428 592 600 625 1016 735 726 1399 844 1206 1936 1606 1604

500 1500 1600 1160 2070

500 1995 2052 1356 2209

Please cite this article in press as: Kuhn, S.L., Zwyns, N., Rethinking the initial Upper Paleolithic, Quaternary International (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.05.040

S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e10 Table 2 (continued ) Site Kamenka A Kamenka A8 Kamenka A8 Kamenka A8 Kamenka A8 Khotyk9 Khotyk9 Podzvonkaya10 Tolbor 411 Tolbor 411 Tolbor 411 Tolbor 411 Chikhen Agui12 Chikhen Agui 2**12 Tsagaan Agui12 Tsagaan Agui12 Tsagaan Agui12 Tsagaan Agui12 Tsagaan Agui12 SDG213 SDG213

Layer/industry

3 3 3

2.5 3 3 3 3 3 7 7

14

C age

40,500 35,845 31,060 30,460 26,760 38,200 28,770 38,900 31,210 >41,050 35,230 37,400 27,432 30,555 33,840 33,780 33,500 32,960 30,940

s

Calib. BP

s

3800 695 530 430 265 2800 245 3300 410

44,848 40,588 35,188 34,739 31,451 42,039 33,264 42,755 34,233 >44,570 40,129 41,354 32,114 34,813 38,992 38,972 38,676 37,498 35,080 34,395 41,445

3587 1046 528 441 344 2598 414 3132 400

680 2600 872 410 640 585 600 670 480

991 2475 818 438 1420 1432 1585 1018 478 328 223







Sources: 1, Marks, 1983; 2, Kuhn et al., 2009; 3, Ploux and Soriano 2003; 4, Tsanova, 2008: 12, 107; 5, Richter et al., 2009a, 2009b; 6, Hoffecker, 2011; 7, Derevianko and Rybin, 2003; 8, Kuzmin, 2004; 9, Kuzmin et al., 2006; 10. Lbova 2008; 11, Derevianko et al., 2007; 12, Derevianko et al., 2004; 13, Li et al., 2013.

These caveats notwithstanding, dates from more recent studies (Richter et al., 2008, 2009a; Kuhn et al., 2009) do suggest that at least the Levantine IUP and the Bohunician lasted for prolonged periods. This dispersal of radiometric dates shows that the IUP is not a transitory phenomenon. Even taking the dates critically it probably lasted longer than recent estimates for the age range of the proto-Aurignacian, and perhaps the early Aurignacian as well (Banks et al., 2013). Some authors have described temporal sequencing within the Levantine IUP sites, although the number of well-dated localities is comparatively small (Marks, 1990; Demidenko and Usik, 1993; Leder, 2013). In Siberia and northern Mongolia, chronological data available suggest a sudden appearance of this technology, but they are insufficient to address the question of the local development (Gladyshev et al., 2010). Based on the current data, comparisons with the ages of sites in southern Mongolia and northwest China indicate that it took more than 5 ky for these technological systems to diffuse or be carried into the arid regions of East Asia (Li et al., 2013). Finally, the range of industries designated as IUP exhibit a considerable degree of technological heterogeneity. The more we learn about early Upper Paleolithic assemblages from different parts of Eurasia, and about IUP assemblages specifically, the more we realize that there is substantial variation among them. In the broadest sense of the term, the industries defined as Initial Upper Paleolithic share only a few basic traits. They are united mainly by the use of hard hammer percussion, facetted platforms and relatively flat exploitation faces on some cores, all of which are tightly linked traits from a technological point of view. Locally, other features are highly variable. ızlı FeI, Ksar Akil, Boker Tachtit 4)
In some assemblages, (Üçag blank production is almost exclusively unidirectional. In others (Boker Tachtit 1, 2, the Bohunician sites, Kara-Bom (OH5eOH6), Tolbor 4 (OH5eOH6), Shuidonggou 1, 2, blank production involves bidirectional removals.
Even bidirectional technological systems are not homogeneous. Sometimes bidirectional cores have platforms on opposite ends of the same broad face of the core (e.g Bohunician), but often the reduction took place on a broad flaking surface and at the







5

intersection with a narrow face or lateral edge (e.g. Kara-Bom). These variants can sometimes coexist and may at times represent different stages of reduction. Some IUP technological systems appear to have been oriented toward production of pointed pieces, others toward the production of blades or even elongated flakes. Multiple products occur together in many assemblages, making it difficult to infer the intentionality of the toolmakers: reduction systems may be oriented toward producing multiple blank forms (Shimelmitz and Kuhn, 2013). Although standardized bladelet production systems are rare, at least two different approaches to the manufacture of small blanks are documented among IUP assemblages in different regions. At Umm el Tlel bladelets were produced as part of the chaine op eratoire for making macro-blades and points, leaving characteristic scars on the dorsal faces of Umm el Tlell points €da and Bonliauri, 2006): microwear (Bourguignon, 1998; Boe evidence shows that some of these small elements were hafted. The asymmetric blade core/burin-core technology combination is typical of the IUP Siberia and in Mongolia (Zwyns, 2012; Zwyns et al., 2012). The method is oriented toward the production of small blades detached from the lateral edge of a larger blade, following its longitudinal axis (Fig. 2). Based on the publications, at least a few burin-like cores were also collected from Boker Tachtit (1, 2) (Volkman, 1983) and Temnata (sector II, layer VI) (Tsanova, 2008) but they seem absent from Ksar-Akil and the Bohunician. Distinctive retouched forms vary regionally. In the Levant two distinctive tool forms, Emireh points and chanfreins occur in IUP assemblages, though they are seldom found together. Neither artifact form is found in the Bulgarian sites or elsewhere in southern Europe. In Siberia and Mongolia, blanks with inverse proximal thinning do occur (Fig. 2) (Derevianko et al., 1987, 1998a, 1998b; Rybin, 2004, 2014; Zwyns, 2012; Zwyns et al., 2014). Blanks differ in size and shape, being either elongated blades with inverse retouch on the distal end (in the Altai), pointed flakes in the Cis-Baikal (e.g. Makarovo-4) (Rybin, 2000) and blades with inverse truncation in Mongolia (e.g. Tolbor 4). Other archaeological associations are also highly variable. In the ızlı (Kuhn et al., Levant at least, the later IUP at Ksar Akil and Üçag 2001, 2009) is associated with bone tools and abundant shell beads. Ornaments are also present in the early layers at Bacho Kiro (Kozlowski et al., 1982; Tsanova, 2008) and in Kara Bom (Derevianko and Rybin, 2003) and at Khotyk, in the Transbaikal. In the latter region, bone artifacts such as a whistle (Kamenka A) and a flute/whistle (Khotyk, layer 3), or stone ornament have also been reported (Lbova, 2010).

Because it ignores many aspects of this variability, the broad definition of IUP can lead to an interpretative dilemma. Long distance comparisons between Central European and North Asian assemblages are a good example of the problems. Without clearly suggesting the idea of a united complex, some authors have emphasized similarities between Bohunician and Kara-Bom IUP (Svoboda and Skrdla, 1995; Bar-Yosef and Svoboda, 2003, 2004; Skrdla, 2003b). Granted, these assemblages share some technological and typological features (Levallois-like products, dominance of hard-hammer percussion, UP tool-types on blade blanks, bidirectional flaking). However, significant differences can also be identified.  Ska la, the most representative BohuAs described at Str anska nician reduction sequence is based on the production of convergent blanks (Skrdla, 2003b). Although the flaking is initialized by removing crested blades, the convergent blanks are generally struck in short series from the central part of the flaking surface on

Please cite this article in press as: Kuhn, S.L., Zwyns, N., Rethinking the initial Upper Paleolithic, Quaternary International (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.05.040

6

S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e10

Fig. 2. Artifacts from IUP sites in North Asia. 1e3 : Tolbor 4, OH5e6; 4e6 : Ust-Karakol 1 (sector 1) (OH5.4e5.5). Blade with proximal retouch (1 and 4); burin-core (2 and 5), bidirectional asymmetrical blade core (3 and 6) (drawings by N. Zwyns).

Please cite this article in press as: Kuhn, S.L., Zwyns, N., Rethinking the initial Upper Paleolithic, Quaternary International (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.05.040

S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e10

the broad face of the core. The convexity of the flaking surface is then reshaped by debordant removals on both sides of the core, a notable difference from the recurrent centripetal Levallois method (Fig. 3, lower). As noted by Skrdla (2003b), the cores start as “Upper Paleolithic” but finish as Middle Paleolithic, and integrate elements of both volumetric conceptions. At Kara-Bom, reduction takes place alternately on a broad and a narrow face of the core (Derevianko and Volkov, 2004; Derevianko et al., 2001; Zwyns, 2012) (Fig. 3, upper). The intersection of the two surfaces seems to be used to reshape convexities during the reduction process and at the stage of discard the core is rather flat and/or asymmetrical in section. Blanks produced encompass three categories: blades with parallel or sub-parallel edges, convergent blades and thick debordant/crested elements (used as blanks for burin-cores). This reduction path illustrates a sub-volumetric

7

approach different from the dominant Bohunician reduction nska  Ska la, although cores exploited on the broad sequence at Stra and narrow face, or the narrow face alone, are also reported (see Skrdla, 2003a; 2003b, Figs. 7.1, 7.5, 9.7). Interestingly, the variability within the laminar Middle Paleolithic of northwest Europe also encompasses these two types of blade reduction. At Seclin (MIS5, France), reduction of blade cores following a semi-prismatic pattern includes debordant/crested blades removed from both edges and a central flaking surface (Tuffreau et al., 1994). Although oriented toward different end products, this system is roughly comparable to the Bohunician management of lateral convexities. Asymmetrical cores are described in Rocourt (Belgium, MIS5) (Otte et al., 1990). The coexistence with classical Levallois, the level of technological variability observed, and the broad timespan represented suggest that MIS5 assemblages represent an incipient development of the northwest villion, 1995) rather than a united European Middle Paleolithic (Re cultural complex. Asymmetrical cores close to the Kara-Bom IUP are also considered typical for the Chatelperronian (e.g. Roc-de€da, 1990; but see also; Pelegrin, 1995; Combe layer 8) (Boe Roussel, 2011). Given that it can be found in the early UP as well as MP assemblages dated to the last interglacial, this reduction system can hardly be sufficient basis to define a single cultural complex that encompasses any and all assemblage showing bidirectional debordant pieces and Levallois flakes/blades. The same reasoning could apply to the differences between western and north Asian IUP assemblages. In light of the relative consistency observed between the assemblages from the Altai and from northern Mongolia, the structural differences observed between the Bohunician and Kara-Bom blade technology cannot be left unexplained. To make sense out of these differences it is essential to re-evaluate the concept of the IUP, and to attempt to describe and explain variation within it. 4. Discussion

Fig. 3. Analytical description of IUP variants in bidirectional blade reduction. Karanska  ska la (below) (adapted from Boe €da, 1990; Skrdla, 2003b). Bom (above) and Stra A. Initial crest B. Reduction e lateral motion: Above, the reduction is going back and forth between a narrow and a broad flaking surface. Below, the reduction is semicircular and moves from one side to the other with a flaking surface located in between C. Reduction e geometry: Above, the reduction area fits into a rectangular or scalene triangle. Below, a first phase of initialization (C1) is followed by the reduction (C2). The reduction area fits into a trapeze. D. Reduction e inward motion: Above, the core reduction follows an oblique axis form the point of initialization. Below, the core follows a straight axis from the initial crest. E. Management of lateral convexities: debordant or crested blade. F. Below, a first series of Levallois blanks (F1) is followed by a management of the lateral (E) convexities before the second one starts (F2).

The geographic and temporal dispersal of IUP technology poses a fundamental question. What range of processes that can lead to the repetition of a constellation of technological features over time and space? Dispersal of a single group bearing a particular technological tradition is one such process, arguably the first one that many archaeologists think of. However, technologies can also disperse across existing social networks without people actually moving with them. A third, less frequently-considered possibility is that the broad dispersal of some characteristics of the IUP represents frequent convergent evolution. The loose configuration of attributes that define the IUP may simply represent an “easy” pathway from late MP Levallois to UP prismatic blade technologyda comparatively small-scale shift in modalities of blade production. In other words, as a global phenomenon, the IUP could represent a grade rather than a clade. While we tend to consider them separately, all these sets of mechanisms are probably implicated in the full range and distribution of industries termed IUP. The variability observed could represent a series of radiations or distinct dispersal events, at various geographical scales, occurring within a narrow time window. Although one should be very cautious in interpreting radiocarbon dates greater than 37,000 14C years, the existing corpus of dates (Table 2) is inconsistent with the hypothesis that the global IUP represents a single dispersal event. There is a broad time trend in dates within the IUP range, running from southwest (the Levant) to the northeast (Mongolia and northwest China) but the trend is hardly clear or monotonic. For example, the dates from Kara Bom in the Siberian Altai are among the oldest in the entire sample, approaching the current age estimates for the base of Boker Tachit

Please cite this article in press as: Kuhn, S.L., Zwyns, N., Rethinking the initial Upper Paleolithic, Quaternary International (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.05.040

8

S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e10

(Fig. 1). Focusing just on the western part of the IUP distribution we must imagine a complex scenario in order to explain the apparent relationships between the Bohunician and the Levantine IUP: 1. Early development of the Initial Upper Paleolithic in the southern Levant (Boker Tachtit 1e2), possibly stimulated by diffusion of techniques or people out of the Nile Valley. These earliest assemblages are characterized by bidirectional production. 2. A fairly rapid dispersal of early populations using a bidirectional core management strategy to south-central Europe, resulting in the Bohunician assemblages (Tostevin, 2000, 2003). 3. A second, later dispersal of populations using unidirectional production strategies from the southern Levant into the northızlı, Ksar ‘Akil, possibly Umm et’Tlel). ern Levant (Üçag Given the known dates and the typo-technological differences stressed above, it is even more difficult to derive the eastern European or Altai Initial Upper Paleolithic out of the Bohunician or early Bulgarian sites. In order to account for the early dates from sites in the Siberian Altai, one needs to posit that IUP-like technologies occur early on in at least two areas, the Levant/North Africa and north Asia/the Altai. Although it has been proposed that IUP could find its origins in the Levantine (Rybin, 2004) or Central Asian Middle Paleolithic (Krivoshapkin et al., 2006, 2010), the antiquity of blade traditions in these regions makes it difficult to identify direct ancestors for the North Asian technological systems. In Central Asia, the earliest documented assemblages with volumetric blade technology occur around 170 ka, at Khonako in Tadjikistan (Sch€ afer et al., 1998, 2003). Regrettably, few of the subsequent laminar MP assemblages are securely dated. A second preliminary scenario must be proposed, qualified by the deficiencies in temporal evidence: 1. Early dispersal of a complex technologically intermediate between assemblages such as Obi-Rakhmat (upper layers) (Uzbekistan) (Krivoshapkin et al., 2006), Shi-Bat Dihya 1 (Yemen) (Delagnes et al., 2012), and Boker Tachtit layer 1 during the first half of MIS3. This technology may have quickly developed derived features while spreading into neighboring regions. This techno-complex appears distinctly different than the IUP from Central Europe. 2. From the Altai, Levallois-like blade technology (and/or populations carrying it) spread into northern Mongolia, southern Mongolia, and finally northwest China. Between Siberia and Northern Mongolia, interconnected reduction sequences (asymmetric cores þ burin-cores) and other technological and typological elements represent a package consistent enough to be regarded as homologies rather than the results of homoplasy. Using this combination of features, a similar variety of IUP can be recognized across Siberia into Northern Mongolia, the small number of sites notwithstanding. The last stages of its spread are more easily identified given the absence of likely antecedents to IUP technology in southern Mongolia and western China. IUP blade production may have been an “easy” pathway from Levallois to prismatic blade production, but only in places where there was Levallois to begin with. It is not such an obvious path for transforming typical northern Chinese core and flake technologies into blade production. 5. Conclusion As the definition of the term Initial Upper Paleolithic has been broadened, more questions have arisen as to what it represents. When the IUP was a discrete technological phase securely anchored

between the late MP and early Ahmarian in the Levant, its potential significance for human evolution was fairly clear. Now that we are speaking of a list of shared characteristics e centered on Levalloislike blade technology e that link assemblages covering a large part of Eurasia, it is less evident what we are dealing with. The IUP sensu lato could represent evidence for one or more population dispersal events, it could reflect diffusion of technological ideas across interconnected populations, or it could signal technological convergences on a large scale. On the one hand, allowing for one case of technological convergence leads us to wonder whether there may not be more examples of homoplasy. On the other hand, the technological and typological dissimilarities among IUP industries from different parts of Eurasia do not necessarily indicate that they are entirely unrelated, independent local developments. After all, one would expect a dispersing culture complex to change over time, so unless it spread extraordinarily quickly, the earliest and most recent manifestations should not be identical. Fortunately, these alternative scenarios, of changes accumulating as a technology spread or of repeated, spontaneous developments, have also very different implications for spatial and temporal structures of technological variability. Moreover, we also have the methods to resolve these different scenarios. The recognition of homologies and analogies using intensive attribute analysis (e.g., Tostevin, 2000, 2003), combined with methods of analysis suitable for building hypotheses about relationships of descent (e.g., see papers in O'Brien, 2008), have the potential to help us better understand the IUP and related phenomena. In combination with dating methods such as OSL and TL, application of these kinds of explicitly evolutionary approaches promise to provide a much better understanding of whether the many assemblages falling under the umbrella of the Initial Upper Paleolithic represent the tracks of a single population or the consequences of external constraints on lithic reduction played out again and again in different parts of the world. Discussing evidence for material culture among chimpanzees, Byrne (2007) stresses that a combination of near ubiquity and intricate complexity is necessary to identify cultural transmission (see also Stout et al., 2010 for archeological applications). In the present case, it would mean identifying a combination of features complex enough to represent homology rather than a direct response to technical or environmental constraints. Repetition of the features in the same or neighboring regions at around the same time makes it more likely that they are a marker for cultural transmission, supporting dispersal hypotheses. Specific and connected reduction sequences such as asymmetrical cores/burincores are more likely to represent such homologies. To identify a clear case of homoplasy implies that we explicitly define features that are distributed beyond the regional scale. These analogies could include some of the broad IUP characters such as a production of convergent blades/points, the switch to organic hammers and unidirectional reduction, or the presence of common UP tool types (end scrapers, perforators or simple burin forms). In closing, we would like to emphasize that the questions we have posed about the IUP are not unique to that particular entity. Researchers have long been aware of the extraordinarily broad distributions of certain more-or-less well-defined cultural phenomena. Clovis technology, for example, is found, in one form or another, over most of North and Central America during a relatively restricted period at the end of the Pleistocene. Earlier culture complexes such at the proto-Aurignacian, Aurignacien ancien and the Gravettian are also extraordinarily widespread within Eurasia. Like the Initial Upper Paleolithic, these constellations of traits occur over geographic scales larger than familiar contemporary cultural phenomena. Also like the Initial Upper Paleolithic, they are probably the consequence of multiple processes, including migration,

Please cite this article in press as: Kuhn, S.L., Zwyns, N., Rethinking the initial Upper Paleolithic, Quaternary International (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.05.040

S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e10

cultural transmission, and technological convergence. Moreover, it is virtually certain that the distributions of the Aurignacian and Clovis for example are the outcomes different combinations of factors. Recognizing, and learning to untangle the diverse influences on the distributions of culture traits in the remote past is an important step towards realizing the field of archaeology's unique perspective on human cultural dynamics played out at the broadest scales.

References Arrizabalaga, A., Altuna, J., Areso, M., Elorza, M., García, M., Iriarte, J., n, E., Tarrin ~ o, A., Uriz, A., Viera, L., Straus, L.G., Mariezkurrena, K., Mujika, J., Pema 2003. The initial Upper Paleolithic in Northern Iberia: new evidence from Labeko Koba. Current Anthropology 44, 413e421. Azoury, I., 1986. Ksar Akil, Lebanon: A Technological and Typological Analysis of the Transitional and Early Upper Palaeolithic Levels of Ksar Akil and Abu Halka. In: B. A. R. International Series 289. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. ~o, J., 2013. Humaneclimate interaction during the Early Banks, W., d'Errico, F., Zilha Upper Paleolithic: testing the hypothesis of an adaptive shift between the Proto-Aurignacian and the Early Aurignacian. Journal of Human Evolution 64 (1), 39e55. Bar-Yosef, O., Svoboda, J., 2003. Discussion. In: Svoboda, J.A., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Stranska Skala. Origins of the Upper Paleolithic in the Brno Basin. Moravia, Czech Republic, pp. 173e179. _ 2010. Üçag _ ızlı Mag arası Iinsanlarına Baykara, I., ait dis¸lerin Paleoantropolojik anaızlı cave) lizi. (Paloeanthropological analysis of the human teeth from Üçag (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Department of Anthropology, Social Sciences Institute, Ankara University (in Turkish). €da, E., 1990. De la surface au volume, analyse des conceptions, des de bitages Boe olithique moyen et Pale olithique supe rieur ancian en Levallois et laminaire. Pale e de Prehistoire d'ile de France 3, 63e68. Europe. Memoires du Muse €da, E., Bonliauri, S., 2006. The intermediate Paleolithic, the first bladelet proBoe duction 40 000 years ago. Anthropolgie (Brno) 44, 75e92. olithique Interme diaire d'Umm El-Tlel: Bourguignon, L., 1998. Les Industries du Pale l e ments pour le passage entre Pale olithique Moyen et Supe rieur. In: Nouveaux e histoire d'Anatolie: Gene se de Deux Mondes. Universite  de Otte, M. (Ed.), Pre ge, Lie ge, pp. 709e730. ERAUL 85. Lie Byrne, R.W., 2007. Culture in great apes: using intricate complexity in feeding skills to trace the evolutionary origin of human technical prowess. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 362, 577e585. Cohen, V.Y., Stepanchuk, V.N., 1999. Late Middle and early Upper Paleolithic evidence from the east European Plains and Caucasus: a new look at variability, interactions, and transitions. Journal of World Prehistory 13, 265e319. Copeland, L., 1970. The Early Upper Palaeolithic material from levels VIIeV, Antelias Cave, Lebanon. Berytus 19, 99e143. Delagnes, A., Tribolo, C., Bertran, P., Brenet, M., Crassard, R., Jaubert, J., Khalidi, L., , S., Sitzia, L., Tournepiche, J.-F., Al-Halibi, M., AlMercier, N., Nomade, S., Peigne Mosabi, A., Macchiarelli, R., 2012. Inland human settlement in southern Arabia 55,000 years ago. New evidence from the Wadi Surdud Middle Paleolithic site complex, western Yemen. Journal of Human Evolution 63 (3), 452e474. Demidenko, Y., Usik, V., 1993. Problem of changes in Levallois technique during the orient 19 technological transition from the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic. Pale (2), 5e15. Dennell, R.W., Rendell, H., Halim, M., Moth, E., 1991. Site 55, Riwat: a 42,000 yr bp. Open-air Palaeolithic site from northern Pakistan. Journal of Field Archaeology 19, 17e33. Derevianko, A.P., Molodin, V.I., Markin, S.V., 1987. Archeologicheskie issledovanya na Altai v. 1986 g. (Archeological research in the Altai in 1986), IIFFSO AN. ed. Derevianko, A.P., Agadjanian, A.K., Baryshnikov, G.F., Dergacheva, M.I., Dupal, T.A., Malaeva, E.M., Markin, S.V., Molodin, V.I., Nikolaev, S.V., Orlova, L.A., Petrin, V.T., Postnov, A.V., Ulianov, V.A., Fedeneva, I.V., Foronova, I.V., Shunkov, M.V., 1998a. Arkheologia, geologia i paleografia pleistotsena i golotsena Gornogo Altaya (Archaeology, geology and paleogeography of the Pleistocene and Holocene of the Mountainous Altai). Institute of Archeology and Ethnography. Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk. Derevianko, A.P., Petrin, V.T., Rybin, E.P., Chevalkov, L.M., 1998b. Paleoliticheskie kompleksy stratifit sirovannoi chasti stoyanki Kara-Bom (mustie-verkhnii paleolit) (Paleolithic complex at the stratified site of Kara-Bom (MousterianUpper Paleolithic)). Institute of Archeology and Ethnography. Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk. Derevianko, A.P., Markin, S.V., Shunkov, M.V., Petrin, V.T., Otte, M., Sckiya, A., 2001. In: Smolarski, P., Sitlivy, V. (Eds.), Paleolithic of the Altai, Richard Liu Foundation. Richard Li. ed.. European Institute of Chinese Studies Occasional Papers 1. Derevianko, A.P., Rybin, E.P., 2003. The earliest representations of symbolic behaviour by Paleolithic humans in the Altai Mountains. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 4, 27e50. Derevianko, A.P., Brantingham, P.J., Olsen, J.W., Tseveendorj, D., 2004. Initial Upper Paleolithic blade industries from the north-central Gobi Desert, Mongolia. In: Brantingham, P.J., Kuhn, S.L., Kerry, K.W. (Eds.), The Early Upper Paleolithic Beyond Western Europe, pp. 207e222.

9

Derevianko, A.P., Volkov, P.V., 2004. Evolution of lithic reduction technology in the course of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in the Altai Mountains. Archeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 2, 21e35. Derevianko, A.P., Zenin, A.N., Rybin, E.P., Gladyshev, S.A., Tsybankov, A.A., Olsen, J.W., Tseveendorj, D., Gunchinsuren, B., 2007. The technology of early Upper Paleolithic lithic reduction in Northern Mongolia: the Tolbor-4 site. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 29, 16e38. Douka, K., Bergman, C.A., Hedges, R.E.M., Wesselingh, F.P., Higham, T.F.G., 2013. Chronology of Ksar Akil (Lebanon) and implications for the colonization of Europe by anatomically modern humans. PLoS One 8 (9), e72931. Fedele, F.G., Giaccio, B., Isaia, R., Orsi, G., 2003. The Campanian Ignimbrite eruption, Heinrich event 4, and Palaeolithic change in Europe: a high-resolution investigation. In: Geophysical Monograph Volcanism and the Earth's Atmosphere. American Geophysical Union, vol. 139, pp. 301e325. Fox, J.R., Coinman, N., 2004. Emergence of the Levantine Upper Paleolithic: Evidence from the Wadi al-Hasa. In: Brantingham, P.J., Kerry, K., Kuhn, S. (Eds.), The Early Upper Paleolithic Beyond Western Europe. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 97e112. Garrod, D.A.E., 1951e1952. A transitional industry from the base of the Upper Palaeolithic in Palestine and Syria. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 81e82, 121e130. Garrod, D.A.E., 1955. The Mugharet el Emireh in Lower Galilee: type station of the Emiran Industry. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 85, 141e162. Gladilin, V.N., 1989. The Korolevo Palaeolithic site: research methods, stratigraphy. Anthropologie (Brno) 27, 93e103. Gladilin, V.N., Demidenko, Y., 1989. Upper Palaeolithic stone tool complexes from Korolevo. Anthropologie (Brno) 27, 143e178. Gladyshev, S., Olsen, J., Tabarev, A.V., Kuzmin, Y.V., 2010. Chronology and periodization of Upper paleolithic sites in Mongolia. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 38, 33e40. Goebel, T., Aksenov, M., 1995. Accelerator radiocarbon dating of the initial Upper Palaeolithic in southeast Siberia. Antiquity 69, 349. Goebel, T., Derevianko, A.P., Petrin, V.T., 1993. Dating the middle-to-upperpaleolithic transition at Kara-Bom. Current Anthropology 34, 452. Green, R.E., Krause, J., Briggs, A.W., Maricic, T., Stenzel, U., Kircher, M., Patterson, N., Li, H., Zhai, W., Fritz, M.H., Hansen, N.F., Durand, E.Y., Malaspinas, A.S., Jensen, J.D., Marques-Bonet, T., Alkan, C., Prüfer, K., Meyer, M., Burbano, H.A., € ber, B., Ho €ffner, B., Good, J.M., Schultz, R., Aximu-Petri, A., Butthof, A., Ho Siegemund, M., Weihmann, A., Nusbaum, C., Lander, E.S., Russ, C., Novod, N., Affourtit, J., Egholm, M., Verna, C., Rudan, P., Brajkovic, D., Kucan, Z., Gusic, I., Doronichev, V.B., Golovanova, L.V., Lalueza-Fox, C., de la Rasilla, M., Fortea, J., Rosas, A., Schmitz, R.W., Johnson, P.L., Eichler, E.E., Falush, D., Birney, E., €€ Mullikin, J.C., Slatkin, M., Nielsen, R., Kelso, J., Lachmann, M., Reich, D., Pa abo, S., 2010. A draft sequence of the Neandertal genome. Science 328 (5979), 710e722. Higham, T., Brock, F., Peresani, M., Broglio, A., Wood, R., Douka, K., 2009. Problems with radiocarbon dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Italy. Quaternary Science Reviews 28, 1257e1267. Hoffecker, J., 2011. The Early Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Europe reconsidered. Evolutionary Anthropology 20, 24e39. Hublin, J.-J., 2012. The earliest modern human colonization of Europe. Proceedings National Academy of Science 109 (34), 13471e13472. Kozlowski, J.K., Dagnan-Ginter, A., Gatsov, I., Sirakova, S., 1982. Upper Palaeolithic assemblages. In: Kozlowski, J.K. (Ed.), Ex Cavation in the Bacho Kiro Cave ~ stwowe wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa, pp. 119e167. (Bulgaria). Pan Krivoshapkin, A.I., Anoikin, A.A., Brantingham, P.J., 2006. The lithic industry of ObiRakhmat Grotto, Uzbekistan. Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Bulletin 26, 5e19. Krivoshapkin, A.I., Kuzmin, Y.V., Jull, A.J.T., 2010. Chronology of the Obi-Rakhmat Grotto (Uzbekistan): first results on the dating and problems of the Paleolithic key site in Central Asia. Radiocarbon 52, 549e554. Kuhn, S., Stiner, M., Güleç, E., 1999. Initial Upper Paleolithic in south-central Turkey and its regional context: a preliminary report. Antiquity 73, 505e517. Kuhn, S., Stiner, M., Reece, D., Güleç, E., 2001. Ornaments in the Earliest Upper Paleolithic: new perspectives from the Levant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 98, 7641e7646. € Kuhn, S., Stiner, M.C., Güleç, E., Ozer, I., Yılmaz, H., Baykara, I., Açıkkol, A., Goldberg, P., Martínez, K., Ünay, E., Suata-Alpaslan, F., 2009. The Early Upper ızlı Cave (Hatay, Turkey). Journal of Human Paleolithic occupations at Üçag Evolution 56, 87e113. Kuzmin, T.V., 2004. Origin of the Upper Paleolithic in Siberia. A georachaeological perspective. In: Brantingham, P.J., Kerry, K., Kuhn, S. (Eds.), The Early Upper Paleolithic beyond Western Europe. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 196e206. Kuzmin, Y.V., Lbova, L.V., Jull, T.A.J., Cruz, R.J., 2006. The Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition in Transbaikal, Siberia: the Khotyk site chronology and archeology. Current Research in the Pleistocene 23, 23e26. Lbova, L., 2008. Chronology and paleoecology of the Early Upper Paleolithic in the Transbaikal region (Siberia). Eurasian Prehistory 5, 109e114. Lbova, L., 2010. Evidence of modern human behavior in the Baikal zone during the Early Upper Paleolithic Period. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 30, 9e13. Leder, D., 2013. Technological and Typological Change at the Middle to Upper Paleolithic Boundary in Lebanon (Ph.D. dissertation). Faculty of Philosophy, University of Cologne. Li, F., Gao, X., Kuhn, S., Fuyou, C., 2013. Re-examination of the dates of large blade technology in Chinadcomparison of Shuidonggou locality 1 and locality 2. Journal of Human Evolution 64, 161e168.

Please cite this article in press as: Kuhn, S.L., Zwyns, N., Rethinking the initial Upper Paleolithic, Quaternary International (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.05.040

10

S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e10

Marks, A.E., 1983. The sites of Boker and Boker Tachtit. A brief introduction. In: Marks, A.E. (Ed.), Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, The Avdat/Aqev area. Part 3, vol. III. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, pp. 15e37. Marks, A.E., 1990. The Middle and Upper Palaeolithic of the Near East and the Nile valley : the problem of cultural transformations. In: Mellars, P.A. (Ed.), The Emergence of Modern Humans : An Archaeological Perspective. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 56e80. Marks, A.E., Ferring, C.R., 1988. The Early Upper Palaeolithic of the Levant. In: Hoffecker, J.E., Wolf, C.A. (Eds.), The Early Upper Palaeolithic: Evidence from Europe and the Near East, British Archaeological Reports International Series 437. Oxford, pp. 43e72. Marks, A.E., Volkman, P.W., 1983. Changing core reduction strategies: A technological shift from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in the southern Levant. In: Trinkaus, E. (Ed.), The Mousterian Legacy. British Archaeological Reports International Series 164, Oxford, pp. 13e33. McBurney, C.B.M., 1967a. The Haua Fteah (Cyrenaica) and the Stone Age of the Southeast Mediterranean. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. McBurney, C.B.M., 1967b. Current status if the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of the entire region from the Levant through North Africa. In: Wendrof, F., Marks, A. (Eds.), Problems in Prehistory: North Africa and the Levant. SMU Press, Dallas, pp. 411e425. Nekhoroshev, P.E., 1999. Tekhnologicheskii metod izucheniya pervobytnogo rasshchepleniya kamnya srednego paleolita. Evropeiskii Dom, St. Petersburg. O'Brien, M. (Ed.), 2008. Cultural Transmission and Archaeology: Issues and Case Studies. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. Ohnuma, K., 1988. Ksar Akil, Lebanon: a Technological Study of the Earlier Upper Palaeolithic Levels at Ksar Akil, vol. III. Levels XXVeXIV. British Archaeological Reports International Series 426, Oxford. Orlova, L., Kuzmin, Y., Lbova, L., 2005. Radiouglerodnye daty pamyatnikov paleolita i mezolita Zabaikalya i Mongolii (Radiocarbon dates of the Paleolithic and Mesolithic of the Transbaikal and Mongolia). In: Paleoliticheskie Kultury Zabaikalya I Mongolii (Novye Fakty, Metody I Gipotezy), pp. 88e92. Novosibirsk. €da, E., Haesaerts, P., 1990. Rocourt: industrie laminaire archaïque. Otte, M., Boe Helinium 30, 3e13. Pastoors, A., Weniger, G.-C., Kegler, J.F., 2008. The MiddleeUpper Palaeolithic transition at Yabrud II (Syria): a re-evaluation of the lithic material from the orient 34, 47e65. rust excavation. Pale Pelegrin, J., 1995. Technologie lithique: le Chatelperronien de Roc-de-Combe (lot) et de La Cote (Dordogne). CNRS Edition, Paris. olithique supe rieur en Ploux, S., Soriano, S., 2003. Umm el Tlel, une sequence du Pale orient 29, Syrie centrale. Industries lithiques et chronologie culturelle. Pale 5e34. Pyle, D.M., Ricketts, G.D., Margari, V., van Andel, T.H., Sinitsyn, A.A., et al., 2006. Wide dispersal and deposition of distal tephra during the Pleistocene ‘Campanian Ignimbrite/Y5’ eruption, Italy. Quaternary Science Reviews 25, 2713e2728. Reich, D., Green, R.E., Kircher, M., Krause, J., Patterson, N., Durand, E., et al., 2010. Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia. Nature 468, 1053e1060. villion, S., 1995. Technologie du de bitage laminaire au Pale olithique moyen en Re tat de la question. Bulletin de la Socie te  pre historique Europe septentrionale: e française 92 (4), 425e442. Richter, D., Schroeder, H.B., Rink, W.J., Julig, P.J., Schwarcz, H.P., 2001. The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in the Levant and new thermoluminescence dates for a late Mousterian assemblage from Jerf al-Ajla Cave (Syria). Paleorient 27 (2), 29e46.  Richter, D., Tostevin, G., Skrdla, P., 2008. Bohunician technology and thermoluminescence dating of the type locality of Brno-Bohunice (Czech Republic). Journal of Human Evolution 55, 871e888.  Richter, D., Tostevin, G., Skrdla, P., Davies, W., 2009a. New radiometric ages for the Early Upper Palaeolithic type locality of Brno-Bohunice (Czech Republic): comparison of OSL, IRSL, TL and 14C dating results. Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 708e720. Richter, T., Stutz, A.J., Nilsson-Stutz, L.G., el-Balawnh, M., 2009b. Mughur alHamamah: a Prehistoric Cave site in the Western’ Ajlun District, report on the initial survey season. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 53, 73e82. Roussel, M., 2011. Normes et variations de la production lithique durant le quence de la Grande-Roche-de-la Ple matrie  Ch^ atelperronien : la se a Quinçay (Vienne) (Doctoral thesis). In: Prehistory. University of Paris Ouest Nanterre, La fense, 564 p. De Rybin, E.P., 2000. K voprocu “rykovodyatsik ickopaemiikh” v industrialniikh komplekcakh rannei porii verknego paleolita gornogo altaya (The question of the 'fossil directeur' in the Early Upper Paleolithic of Gorny-Altai). In: Paleogeografiya Kamennogo Veka. Korreltisya Prirodniik Cobotii I Arkheologicheskiik Kultur Paleolita Severnoy Azii in Sopredelniik Territorii: Materialii Mejdunarodnoi Konferentsii, pp. 123e126. Krasnoyarsk.

Rybin, E., 2004. Middle Paleolithic “Blade” Industries and the Middle-to-UpperPaleolithic Transition in South Siberia: Migration or Regional Continuity?. In: British Archaeological Reports International Series 1239, pp. 81e90. Rybin, E.P., 2014. Tools, beads, and migrations: Specific cultural traits in the Initial Upper Paleolithic of Southern Siberia and Central Asia. Quaternary International. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.04.031. €a €bo, S., Reich, D., 2012. The date of interSankararaman, S., Patterson, N., Li, H., Pa breeding between Neandertals and modern humans. PLoS Genetics 8 (10), e1002947. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002947. Sarel, J., 2004. The MiddleeUpper Paleolithic transition in Israel. In: British Archaeological Reports International Series 1229. Oxford. Sch€ afer, J., Ranov, V., Sosin, P., 1998. The cultural evolution of man and the chronostratigraphical background of changing environments in the loess palaeosoil sequences of Obi-Mazar and Khonako (Tadjikistan). Anthropologie 36, 121e135. Sch€ afer, J., Laurat, T., Ranov, V.A., Sosin, P.M., 2003. Das Altpalaolithikum aus dem 4.Palaobodenkomplex von Obi-Mazar (Tadschikistan). In: Veroffentlichungen Des Landesamtes Fur Archaologie Band 57-Festschrift Dietrich Mania, pp. 509e535. Shimelmitz, R., Kuhn, S., 2013. Early Mousterian Levallois technology in Unit IX of Tabun Cave. Paleoanthropology, 1e27. Sinitsyn, A., 2003. The most ancient sites of Kostenki in the context of the initial ~o, Z., d'Errico, F. (Eds.), The Upper Paleolithic of northern Eurasia. In: Zilha Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes. Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications, Trabalhos de Arqueologia, vol. 33. ^s de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 89e107. Instituto Portugue Skrdla, P., 2003a. Bohunician and Aurignacian technologies: a morphological description. In: Svoboda, J.A., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Stranska Skala. Origins of the Upper Paleolithic in the Brno Basin, Moravia, Czech Republic, pp. 66e76. Skrdla, P., 2003b. Bohunician technology: a refitting approach. Stranska skala. In: Svoboda, J.A., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Stranska Skala. Origins of the Upper Paleolithic in the Brno Basin, Moravia, Czech Republic, pp. 119e151. Slavinskiy, V.S., 2007. Industrii Ranneverhinepaleoliticheskii Ourovney Ovitanya Ctoyanki Ust-Karakol 1 (Early Upper Paleolithic Industry from the occupation levels at Ust-Karakol 1). In: Severnaya Evrasia v Anthropologenie. ChelovekPaleolitechnologii, Geoecologia, Ethnografii i Anthropologii, pp. 197e214. Stout, D., Semaw, S., Rogers, M.J., Cauche, D., 2010. Technological variation in the earliest Oldowan from Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. Journal of Human Evolution 58, 474e491. Svoboda, J.A., 2004. Continuities, discontinuities, and interactions in early. The Early Upper Paleolithic beyond Western Europe. In: Brantingham, P.J., Kerry, K., Kuhn, S. (Eds.), The Early Upper Paleolithic Beyond Western Europe. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 30e49. Svoboda, J., Skrdla, P., 1995. The Bohunician technology. In: Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology, pp. 429e438. Madison. Tashak, V., 2002. Podzvonkaya: Paleoliticheskie Materialy Nizhnego Kompleksa (Buryatia) e (The Podzvonkaya site: Paleolithic materials from the lower complex (Buryatia). In: Kradin, N.N. (Ed.), Arkheologiya I Kulturnaya Antropologiya Dalnego Vostoka I Tsentralnoi Azii, pp. 25e33. Vladivostok. Tostevin, G.B., 2000. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition from the Levant to Central Europe: in situ development or diffusion? In: Orschiedt, J., Weniger, G.C. (Eds.), Neanderthals and Modern Humans: Discussing the Transition. Central & Eastern Europe from 50,000e30,000 BP. Neanderthal Museum, Mettmann, Germany, pp. 90e109. Tostevin, G.B., 2003. A quest for antecedents: a comparison of the terminal Middle Palaeolithic and early Upper Palaeolithic of the Levant. In: Goring-Morris, A.N., Belfer-Cohen, A. (Eds.), More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 54e67. buts du Pale olithique supe rieur dans l'Est des Balkans. Tsanova, T., 2008. Les de flexion a  partir de l'e tude taphonomique et techno-e conomique des enRe sembles lithiques des sites de Bacho Kiro (couche 11), Temnata (couches VI et 4) et Kozarnika (niveau VII). In: B.A.R. International Series 1752. Archaeopress, Oxford. villion, S., Somme , J., Van Vliet-Lanoe €, B., 1994. Le gisement Tuffreau, A., Re olithique moyen de Seclin (Nord). Bulletin de la Socie te  pre historique pale française 91 (1), 23e46. Volkman, P., 1983. Boker Tachtit: cores reconstructions. In: Marks, A.E. (Ed.), Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, 3: the Avdat/Aqev Area (Part 3). SMU Press, Dallas, pp. 127e190. Zwyns, N., 2012. Laminar Technology and the Onset of the Upper Paleolithic in the Altai, Siberia. In: Studies in Human Evolution. Leiden University Press, Leiden. Zwyns, N., Rybin, E.P., Hublin, J.J., Derevianko, A.P., 2012. Burin-core technology and laminar reduction sequence in the initial Upper Paleolithic from Kara-Bom (Gorny-Altai, Siberia). Quaternary International 259, 33e47. Zwyns, N., Gladyshev, S.A., Gunchinsuren, B., Tsedendorj, B., Flas, D., Dogand zi c, T., Tabarev, A.V., Gillam, J.C., Khatsenovich, A.M., McPherron, S.P., Paine, C.H., Purevjal, K.E., Stewart, J.R., 2014. The open-air site of Tolbor 16 (Northern Mongolia): preliminary results and perspectives. Quaternary International. This volume.

Please cite this article in press as: Kuhn, S.L., Zwyns, N., Rethinking the initial Upper Paleolithic, Quaternary International (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.05.040