The easternmost Middle Paleolithic (Mousterian) from Jinsitai Cave, North China

Journal of Human Evolution 114 (2018) 76e84

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Human Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol

The easternmost Middle Paleolithic (Mousterian) from Jinsitai Cave, North China Feng Li a, b, *, Steven L. Kuhn c, Fuyou Chen a, Yinghua Wang d, John Southon e, Fei Peng a, Mingchao Shan d, Chunxue Wang f, Junyi Ge a, Xiaomin Wang a, g, Tala Yun d, Xing Gao a, g, ** a Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 142 Xizhimenwai Street, Beijing 100044, China b Department of Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen 72070, Germany c Department of Anthropology, Bldg. 30, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0030, USA d Inner Mongolia Museum, Hohhot 010010, China e Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697-3100, USA f The Research Center for Chinese Frontier Archaeology, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China g University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 7 July 2017 Accepted 5 October 2017

The dispersal of Neanderthals and their genetic and cultural interactions with anatomically modern humans and other hominin populations in Eurasia are critical issues in human evolution research. Neither Neanderthal fossils nor typical Mousterian assemblages have been reported in East Asia to date. Here we report on artifact assemblages comparable to western Eurasian Middle Paleolithic (Mousterian) at Jinsitai, a cave site in North China. The lithic industry at Jinsitai appeared at least 47e42 ka and persisted until around 40e37 ka. These findings expand the geographic range of the Mousterian-like industries at least 2000 km further to the east than what has been previously recognized. This discovery supplies a missing part of the picture of Middle Paleolithic distribution in Eurasia and also demonstrates the makers' capacity to adapt to diverse geographic regions and habitats of Eurasia. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Middle Paleolithic Mousterian Lithic technology Jinsitai Cave North China

1. Introduction The dispersal of Neanderthals and their interactions with anatomically modern humans (AMHs) and other hominin populations (i.e., Denisovans) in Eurasia are critical issues in human evolution research (e.g., Mellars, 2004; Soficaru et al., 2006; Reich et al., 2010; Conard and Richter, 2011; Higham et al., 2014). Neanderthals and associated Middle Paleolithic industries disappeared from much of Europe by or shortly after 40 ka (Higham et al., 2014). They were largely replaced by non-indigenous AMHs who were the bearers of Upper Paleolithic culture variants. In East Asia, AMHs were present quite early, although some controversies remain (Michel et al., 2016), with the earliest dates being between 120 ka and 70 ka in south and central China (Shen et al., 2002; Liu et al.,

* Corresponding author. ** Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (F. Li), [email protected] (X. Gao). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2017.10.004 0047-2484/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

2010a, b, 2015, 2016; Bae et al., 2014) and 40 ka in North China (Shang et al., 2007; Fu et al., 2013). Some fossils (Woo and Peng, 1959; Wu et al., 2014; Li et al., 2017) and modern DNA from contemporary East Asian populations show evidence of Neanderthal admixture (Vernot et al., 2016), but no definite Neanderthal fossils have been reported from East Asia to date. For many years now, there have been debates about whether the term ‘Middle Paleolithic,’ associated with Neanderthals in western Eurasia, was even applicable to China and adjoining areas. Researchers have argued that the term Middle Paleolithic has no real meaning in most of East Asia (Ikawa-Smith, 1978; Gao and Norton, 2002; Norton et al., 2009; Li, 2014; Seong and Bae, 2016), in the sense that contemporaneous assemblages lack the diagnostic elements, such as Levallois debitage, that define Middle Paleolithic industries in western Eurasia. Here we describe the lithic assemblages from Jinsitai Cave, a site located in North China about 20 km south from the China-Mongolia border. They more closely resemble the Mousterian assemblages from central and western Eurasia than the contemporaneous

F. Li et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 114 (2018) 76e84

artifact material from central and northern China. This finding shows that hominins carrying Mousterian-like Middle Paleolithic technology appeared in North China at least 47e42 ka and persisted there until around 40e37 ka. The discoveries at Jinsitai supply a missing part of the picture of Middle Paleolithic hominin dispersal in Eurasia and show that the makers of these assemblages had the capacity to adapt to diverse geographic regions. It also has important implications for understanding lithic variability and population dynamics in North China during the Late Pleistocene. Jinsitai Cave (45
140 23.400 N, 115
280 32.700 E; 1401 m above sea level) is located in the low foothills of the Donghaierhan Mountains, 25 km west of the town of Alatanheli (Dongwuzhumuqin Banner, Inner Mongolia, North China; Fig. 1a). The cave, which is around 120 m2 in area, is situated in a granite hill (Fig. 1b). The Jinsitai Cave was first excavated in 2000e2001 (Wang et al., 2010), but several factors have limited our understanding of the site: 1) the initial excavations were not well controlled and the provenience of the archaeological finds was recorded only by stratigraphic layer; 2) the stratigraphy and chronology remained partially unresolved; and 3) the lithic assemblages were not properly described. Aiming to resolve these problems, the Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology of Chinese Academy of Sciences (IVPP, CAS) and the Inner Mongolia Museum reinvestigated the cave in 2012e2013. Here we aim to describe the findings from the more recent excavations, in which archaeological finds were accurately placed in a three-dimensional matrix and the archaeological sequence has been well dated (Fig. 2a). 2. Materials and methods The 2012e2013 excavations of Jinsitai Cave covered a maximum area of 10 m2 (Fig. 2c). Nine clear stratigraphic layers were identified and exposed over a depth of approximately 3.6 m. The sediments are composed mainly of yellow-brown gravels, clayey silt, clay, and silty sand with granite breccia (Fig. 2b). The uppermost eight layers contain archaeological materials representing multiple time periods. Layer 9, the base of the stratigraphic sequence, is archaeologically sterile. Layers 1 and 2 contained Bronze Age and Neolithic assemblages with ceramics and freshwater shell beads. Layers 3 and 4 yielded late Upper Paleolithic artifact assemblages with pressure microblades and bifacially thinned points. The assemblages from Layers 5 and 6 are relatively small and nondiagnostic. Layers 7 and 8 yielded Middle Paleolithic artifact assemblages, which are the main focus of this paper.

77

Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating was conducted on bone and charcoal samples from the 2012e2013 excavations. Three different labs were involved in dating the samples: the AMS Centre, School of Physics, Peking University (BA); Beta Analytic Inc. (Beta); and Keck Carbon Cycle AMS Facility, Earth System Science Department, University of California, Irvine (UCIAMS). The dating method used in the AMS lab of Peking University (PKU) has been described in detail (Wu et al., 2012), and the sample processing protocols for Beta Analytic can be found on their website (Beta, 2017). Radiocarbon measurement procedures at the UC Irvine Keck laboratory and the ultrafiltration pretreatment method for bones were described in Southon et al. (2004). The wide ranges of ages obtained from the labs of Peking University and Beta Analytic Inc. suggested that contamination by recent humic materials might be a serious problem at Jinsitai. In an effort to remove as much recent contamination as possible, the UCIAMS samples were subjected to an overnight alkali treatment with 0.05 N NaOH after decalcification and prior to gelatinization and selection of a high molecular weight fraction by ultrafiltration. All dates have been calibrated using OxCal4.2 software (Ramsey, 2009) and INTCAL13 (Reimer et al., 2013). 3. Results 3.1. Radiocarbon dates A total of 27 14C dates have been obtained from bones and charcoal at Jinsitai. The 15 dates coming from layers 8 and 7 are of most concern here (Table 1). The set of dates shows a broad range of ages. However, many of the ages should be dismissed due to problems with context or pretreatment. Seven dates were obtained from layer 8, six from bones and two from a single isolated charcoal sample. The dates from charcoal are clearly much younger than those from bones, but they are close to the dates from layers 5 and 6, where a fireplace and concentration of ash were found (Fig. 3). Because no similar features were noted in layer 8, it is very likely that the charcoal sample is intrusive from those upper layers. Dates on bones span a range from >43,500 to 34,690 ± 270 yr BP. However, all but two of the ages represent whole collagen dates. Because of the well documented contamination problems (e.g., Ramsey et al., 2004; Southon et al., 2004), we conclude that the ages of 47,034 to 43,720 and 44,289 to 42,306 cal yr BP (95% confidence intervals), obtained from bone samples treated by the ultrafiltration method, are the best estimates of the age of layer 8

Figure 1. a) Geographical location of Jinsitai (JST) Cave. Neanderthal and Mousterian sites in Central Asia and Siberia are marked on the map, as well as early modern human sites in China. 2 ¼ Denisova, 3 ¼ Okladnikov, 4 ¼ Chagyrskaya, 5 ¼ Obi-Rakhmat, 6 ¼ Teshik-Tash, 7 ¼ Zhiren, 8 ¼ Fuyan, 9 ¼ Tianyuan. The red stippled line circumscribes the area with known Neanderthals associating with Mousterian industries. b) View of the entrance to JST Cave. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

78

F. Li et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 114 (2018) 76e84

Figure 2. Excavation plan and stratigraphy of Jinsitai Cave. a) Vertical distribution of archaeological finds of the 2012e2013 excavation (view from south). S ¼ stone artifacts, B ¼ bones, T ¼ teeth. Scales for both axes are meters. b) Stratigraphic layers of the west profile of the 2012e2013 excavations. c) Morphology of the cave and excavation plan.

Table 1 Radiocarbon dates from layers 8 and 7 of Jinsitai Cave. Field number

12JST-61901 13JST-58

Lab No

Dating materials

Pretreatment method

Charcoal Bone

Acid/alkali/acid Acid/alkali/acid Alkali purification Acid/alkali/acid Alkali purification Alkali purification ultrafiltration Alkali purification ultrafiltration Acid/alkali/acid Acid/alkali/acid Alkali purification Acid/alkali/acid Acid/alkali/acid Acid/alkali/acid Alkali purification Alkali purification ultrafiltration Alkali purification ultrafiltration

13JST-075 13JST-182 13JST187

BA121376 BA132053 Beta367569 BA132054 Beta367570 UCIAMS180644

Bone Bone Bone

13JST175

UCIAMS180645

Bone

12JST-87101

Charcoal

01DAJT3-7:18 01DAJT3 13JST-275 13JST-286 13JST-450 13JST307

BA121377 BA121378 Beta439532 BA4480a BA132055 BA132056 Beta367571 UCIAMS180642

Bone Bone Bone Bone Tooth Bone

13JST216

UCIAMS180643

Bone

a

Layer in the 2000e2001 sequence

Layer in the 2012e2013 sequence

14

C age yr Errors Cal yr BP (95%) BP

and

7 7 7

>40,000 20,050 33,640 26,740 Failed 34,920

and

7

34,210

8

and

8 8 8 8 8 8

25,990 25,640 39,500 36,285 35,610 34,690 >43,500 41,820

and

8

39,320

7 7

7 7C

d 13C ( ‰)

90 24,371e23,862 280 38,702e37,036 19.6 150 31,140e30,693 360 40,286e38,664 19.0 370 39,690e37,825 18.5 110 110 420 230 230 270

30,677e29,811 30,243e29,424 44,067e42,606 20.4 41,456e40,375 40,845e39,652 39,855e38,609 19.7 840 47,034e43,720 19.6 610 44,289e42,306 17.8

BA04480 was reported in Wang et al. (2010); all other dates are reported in this paper.

(Fig. 3). We note that the bone samples dated by the UCIAMS were quite large (~10 cm long) and are much less likely to have infiltrated down into the sediment column than tiny charcoal flecks. All other bone dates should be considered minimum ages. From layer 7, we obtained five dates from bones and one from charcoal. The age of charcoal is infinite (>40,000 yr BP). Again using only the dates from bone samples treated by ultrafiltration, we infer ages of 39,690 to 37,825 and 40,286 to 38,664 cal yr BP (95% confidence intervals) as the best age estimates of the human occupation in layer 7 (Fig. 3). These ages are more or less consistent with the minimum age of the single infinite charcoal date. 3.2. Fauna and chipped stone assemblages The preservation of bone is quite poor in the area sampled by the recent excavations at Jinsitai Cave. Only 150 vertebrate remains

were piece-plotted from layers 7e8 in the 2012e2013 excavations, 126 from layer 7, and 24 from layer 8. Unplotted small pieces were usually less than 1 cm and in advanced stages of weathering, and so are not included in this study. Even the larger specimens typically show longitudinal surface cracks caused by dehydration, making identification difficult. Isolated teeth provide most taxonomic information. In all, 71 specimens, representing a minimum of 18 individuals are identifiable to at least the family rank. In terms of total number of identified specimens (NISP), the most common taxonomic group are equids (60.56% of total NISP), followed by woolly rhinoceros (12.68% of total NISP) and bovids (8.45% of total NISP; Table 2). There are no obvious differences between layers 7 and 8 in the composition of the ungulates. Carnivoran remains are only present in layer 7 and are limited to isolated teeth and a relatively complete distal humeral fragment of a cave bear, Ursus spaelaeus.

F. Li et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 114 (2018) 76e84

79

Figure 3. Radiocarbon ages of layers 8 and 7 of Jinsitai cave and the NGRIP d18O ice-core record. Calibrated probability distributions shown in red are considered problematic. Results in brown are considered likely minimum ages. All others in black are considered acceptable. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

A total of 720 lithic artifacts were plotted during the 2012e2013 excavations in layer 7 (231) and layer 8 (489). Four hundred thirtythree pieces from layer 8 and 228 pieces from layer 7 (92%) were analyzed for this study. The artifacts are manufactured from chert

(24%), various volcanic rocks (69%), and quartz crystal (7%). Volcanic rocks include basalt (16%), andesite (10%), and tuff (11%). Based on the cortex preserved on some artifacts, most of the chert materials were obtained as well-rounded pebbles from alluvial

Table 2 The numbers of identifiable specimens (NISP) in the faunal assemblages from layers 8 and 7 of Jinsitai Cave. Taxonomic group

Taxonomic attribution

Common name

Layer 7

Layer 8

Rodentia Carnivora

Myospalax sp. Ursus sp. Canis lupus Gulo gulo Equus przewalskii Equus hemionus Coelodonta antiquitatis Bison sp. Procapra przewalskii

Zokor Bear Wolf Wolverine Wild horse Wild donkey Woolly rhinoceros Bison Gazelle

1 3 1 1 40 2 8 2 5 63

/ / / / 3 2 1 1 1 8

Perissodactyla

Artiodactyla Total

80

F. Li et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 114 (2018) 76e84

settings. The volcanic raw materials probably came mainly from nearby outcrops. The lithic assemblages from layers 8 and 7 at Jinsitai Cave contain a range of artifacts, including cores, flakes, and as many as 93 modified tools and 18 tool fragments (Table 3). The cores were used exclusively for flake production. Although some elongated flakes are present, the assemblages from layers 8 and 7 contain neither technological blades nor other technical elements typical of prismatic blade production. Most of the cores are discoid or polyhedral forms. Levallois technology, typical of the Middle Paleolithic, is represented in the Jinsitai assemblages. In layer 8, one Levallois core showing recurrent reduction with distal and lateral shaping is identified, although its overall shape and platform preparation are not typical (see Supplementary Online Material [SOM] S1). Levallois technology is better represented by products such as Levallois flakes and points (n ¼ 6) in layer 8 (Fig. 4). No Levallois cores were identified in our collection from layer 7, but a few well-made Levallois flakes and points (n ¼ 3) are present (Fig. 4). Other indicators of Levallois technology, such as flakes with faceted and chapeau de gendarme platforms (Fig. 4, Table 4) and technological
bordant flakes, are quite abundant in both layers 8 pieces such as de and 7 (Table 3). The larger collection from the 2000e2001 excavation campaigns also contains mainly discoid cores and products with a small number of typical Levallois cores, flakes, and points (see SOM Fig. S1). The collection of shaped tools from Jinsitai Cave is dominated by various types of scrapers, as well as notched and denticulate pieces made on flakes (Table 5), both typical of Middle Paleolithic industries. Single-edged sidescrapers are the most common forms in both layers 8 (10 out of 23) and 7 (6 out of 7), while convergent,
jete
, and transverse scrapers occur more frequently in layer 8 (12 de out of 23) than that in layer 7 (1 out of 7). Most of the scraper edges have semiabrupt or abrupt retouch, but some of them are modified with Quina or demi-Quina retouchdanother distinctive characteristic of some Eurasian Middle Paleolithic assemblages (Fig. 4). The percentage of denticulates and notched pieces are roughly equal in both layers 8 (37.7%) and 7 (32.4%). Tools more closely associated with Upper Paleolithic include five endscrapers (6.5%) from layer 8 and one burin (2.9%) from layer 7. However, these tools are very different from artifacts recovered from Upper Paleolithic layers at the site. None of the artifacts from layers 8 and 7 was manufactured on blades or elongated flakes, and the edges are

Table 3 Technological compositiona of the lithic industry from layers 8 and 7 of Jinsitai Cave. Class Levallois core Discoid core Core preform Simple unipolar and tested cores Polyhedral core Bipolar core Core fragment Core tablet
bordant De Levallois flake Levallois point Pseudo-Levallois point Levallois blade Plain blade Plain flake Flake fragment Chunk and undetermined fragment Percussor Total a

Layer 8

Layer 7

Total

1 13 0 12 11 1 6 1 13 4 2 2 2 9 137 119 99 1 433

0 8 1 10 15 0 1 1 7 2 1 0 0 6 72 64 40 0 228

1 21 1 22 26 1 7 2 20 6 3 2 2 15 209 183 136 1 661

Retouched tools are counted into different types of blanks.

modified lightly and irregularly. Bifacially retouched artifacts are limited to a single fragmentary specimen from layer 8. 4. Discussion and conclusion The lithic assemblages of Jinsitai layers 8 and 7 are basically similar. Technically and typologically these materials show a combination of diagnostic features in flake production and retouched tool form that is closest to the Mousterian of western Eurasia (Bordes, 1961; Mellars, 1995). Some characteristics of the materials from Jinsitai distinguish them from the classic Mousterian assemblages in western Eurasia, such as the near absence of various retouched points and bifacially worked pieces (Bordes, 1961; Mellars, 1995). This could be a simple effect of sample size, but given the vast geographical distances involved, the existence of a few distinctive features is unsurprising. Some features of the Jinsitai assemblages appear rather ‘generic’ in that they show broad but discontinuous distributions during the Middle and Late Pleistocene. However, the more important fact is that the combination of the characteristics is locally unique and unlike known lithic assemblages from adjoining areas to the south and east. Lithic assemblages dating to the late Middle and early Late Pleistocene (ca. 250e50 ka) in North China are well represented by Zhoukoudian locality 15, as well as by the Xujiayao, Banjingzi, and Wulanmulun sites (Qiu, 1985; Zhang, 1985; Gao and Norton, 2002; Norton et al., 2009; Hou et al., 2012; Ren et al., in press). These assemblages are generally characterized by polyhedral and discoid reduction, irregular flakes, and lightly-retouched scraper and denticulate types. Several authors of this paper (F.L., F.Y.C, and X.G.) have been involved in the new excavation of the Banjingzi site in Nihewan Basin, which dates to around 80e89 ka (Guo et al., 2016). For the sake of consistency in analytic procedures, we compare the assemblage at the Banjingzi site to the Jinsitai assemblages from layers 8 and 7. The main archaeological layer of Banjingzi yielded 2563 stone artifacts, among which 15 of 111 cores (14%) are discoid, and most of the others are simple or polyhedral. Flakes (n ¼ 419) are the main products of the core reduction. A few elongate flakes (n ¼ 9) are present, but there are no blade or Levallois products. Platforms of blanks are usually plain (37%) and cortical (21%), while dihedral (2%) and facetted (2%) platforms are rare, in contrast to Jinsitai. Among 162 retouched tools, sidescrapers (35%) are the main type, followed by denticulated (20%) and notched pieces (20%), transverse scrapers (7%), awls (6%), and others. Although the discoid core technique is considered a typical Middle Paleolithic characteristic in northern China (Bar-Yosef and Wang, 2012; Yee, 2012), it is not as common in the assemblages of Banjingzi or other so-called ‘Middle Paleolithic’ sites as it is at Jinsitai (Li et al., 2014). More importantly, it is clear that these so-called ‘Middle Paleolithic’ assemblages completely lack systematic Levallois debitage. Small flake tools, including scrapers and notch and denticulate pieces, are common in both the assemblages of Banjingzi and Jinsitai. However, most of the tools from Banjingzi are shaped lightly, while tools with well-developed steep retouch are common at Jinsitai. Moreover, other Mousterian artifact forms present in the
jete
scrapers with abrupt retouch, Jinsitai assemblages, such as de are not present in the Banjingzi assemblage. We note also that the stone artifact materials from Jinsitai layers 8 and 7 are very different from the early Upper Paleolithic complexes in North China that have been well studied in recent years, such as those from Shuidonggou locality 1 (Brantingham et al., 2001; Li et al., 2014; Peng et al., 2014), the Altai Mountains of Siberia (e.g., Kara Bom; Derevianko, 2011; Zwyns et al., 2012), and Mongolia (e.g., Tolbor sites; Gladyshev et al., 2010; Zwyns et al., 2014a). These early Upper Paleolithic assemblages are dated as early as 45 ka in Siberia and around 40e35 ka in Mongolia and

F. Li et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 114 (2018) 76e84

81


jete
scraper. 1 and 2 from layer Figure 4. Photographs of stone artifacts from layers 8 and 7 of Jinsitai Cave. 1, 3, 4) Levallois points; 2) Levallois flake; 5, 6) Transverse scrapers; 7) De 7, 3e7 from layer 8. Orientation and direction of the blanks are indicated for retouched tools (5e7).

Table 4 Counts of platform preparation of flakes from layers 8 and 7 of Jinsitai Cave. Category Cortical Cortical and plain Plain Faceted Dihedral Chapeau de gendarme Crushed Total

Layer 8

Layer 7

Total

42 6 85 27 12 1 24 197

21 0 62 13 1 1 8 106

63 6 147 40 13 2 32 303

Table 5 Counts of retouched tools from layers 8 and 7 of Jinsitai Cave. Typological categories Single-edged sidescraper Double-edged sidescraper Convergent scraper D
ejet
e scraper Transverse scraper Denticulate Notched piece Combinationa Endscraper (atypical) Borer/Awl Burin Fragment Other Total

Layer 8

Layer 7

Total

10 1 4 3 5 20 9 8 5 3 0 7 2 77

6 0 0 1 0 7 4 1 0 5 1 6 3 34

16 1 4 4 5 27 13 9 5 8 1 13 5 111

a Combination contains retouched edges with characteristics of more than one tool type, such as specimens with one scraper edge and one notched edge.

North China (Brantingham et al., 2001; Derevianko, 2011; Li et al., 2013; Kuhn and Zwyns, 2014), so they are chronologically contemporaneous with the occupations at Jinsitai. The early Upper Paleolithic assemblages of northeast Asia are typified by a combination of Levallois blade and prismatic blade reduction, high percentages of blades and elongated flakes, and finely retouched endscrapers and burins on blades, and often include personal ornaments (Derevianko, 2011; Zwyns et al., 2012; Rybin, 2014). The high percentage of blades and blade tools in the early Upper

Paleolithic assemblages is a particularly important distinction from the Jinsitai assemblages, in which fewer than 3% of artifacts could be classified as blades. Discoid flake manufacture, very common at Jinsitai (29% among the cores), is near absent from the early Upper Paleolithic of North China, Mongolia, and the Siberian Altai. The Jinsitai assemblages more closely resemble materials of similar age from neighboring areas to the west. The particular set of features that differentiates the Jinsitai materials from northern Chinese ‘Middle Paleolithic’ and early Upper Paleolithic assemblages is well represented in the Altai and Central Asia. At present, the ‘Mousterian’ sites closest to Jinsitai are Okladnikov and Chagyrskaya caves in the Altai Mountains of Siberia, Russia (Derevianko et al., 2013a, b). Those two caves yielded the ‘Sibiryachikha’ Mousterian industry, which is characterized by centripetal or discoid reduction, small numbers of typical Levallois
jete
type eleproducts, and high percentages of scrapers and de ments with semiabrupt retouched edges. The age of Okladnikov cave is not well constrained. Dates span a range from 27,482e25,587 cal yr BP to 44.8 ka (Krause et al., 2007). Although it was suggested that all the cultural-bearing strata in the cave are dated to 45e40 ka (Derevianko et al., 2013b), the most secure estimate is 40,796 to 39,539 cal yr BP based on the direct date for a human humerus fragment (Krause et al., 2007). Most of the dates from Chagyrskaya cave are infinite and suggest an age estimate of earlier than 49 ka (Derevianko et al., 2013a). Looking more broadly, the basic structure of the assemblages from Jinsitai layers 7 and 8 is similar to that of a wide range of Middle Paleolithic assemblages. The association between discoid production using local, lowquality raw materials and a limited number of Levallois products (often of exotic or high-quality raw materials) is commonly observed in Mousterian sites across Europe (e.g., Peresani, 2003; Meignen et al., 2009; Santamaría et al., 2010; de la Torre et al., 2013; Daffara et al., 2014; Faivre et al., 2014, 2017; Picin and Carbonell, 2016). Another Middle Paleolithic complex, named the Kara-Bom variant, is present in the Siberian Altai. It is characterized by the predominance of Levallois debitage, a larger proportion of blades and elongated flakes, numerous non-retouched Levallois points, and relatively few Mousterian tool forms (Derevianko et al., 2000a; Shunkov, 2005). Two Middle Paleolithic layers have been excavated

82

F. Li et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 114 (2018) 76e84

at Kara-Bom; two radiocarbon dates from the upper layer are infinite, >42 and >44 ka, and one sample between the two layers dated by Electron Paramagnetic Resonance yielded an age of 62.2 ka (Derevianko and Rybin, 2003). Our understanding of the Middle Paleolithic in Mongolia is complicated by the lack of contextual data, as many reported assemblages are surface collections. A Levallois-Acheulean tradition considered to be Middle Paleolithic in age has been identified based on research at surface sites (Jaubert, 2015) and at a few stratified sites, such as Tsagaan Agui (Derevianko et al., 2000b). A late Middle Paleolithic assemblage including Levallois and discoid elements and poorly defined retouched tool components was reported from the Orkhon Valley, and has been dated to approximately 40 ka (Derevianko et al., 2010). However, no Mousterian assemblages like those from Central Asia or the Siberian Altai region have been reported to date (Zwyns et al., 2014b). The discoveries at Jinsitai supply a missing part of the picture of Middle Paleolithic distribution in Eurasia. The Jinsitai assemblages resemble the ‘Sibiryachikha’ Mousterian in the Altai Mountains of Siberia, and probably together represent a regional Mousterian variant in Northeast Asia. The presence at Jinsitai of assemblages that so closely resemble the late Mousterian assemblages from several parts of western and central Eurasia expands the geographic range of this package of lithic technological traits at least 2000 km further to the east. Theoretically, one may argue that the features of the Jinsitai assemblages could be the result of convergent evolution or continuous development from local lithic industries in North China. However, the existence of the whole suite of features, with few or no clear antecedents in the local area, weighs against this hypothesis. The contemporaneous late Middle and early Late Pleistocene assemblages from China lack the distinctive Mousterian-like features of the Jinsitai assemblages. A much more reasonable interpretation is that the Jinsitai industry is a result of population dispersal or technological diffusion from the Altai Mountains of Siberia, where populations making similar artifact assemblages existed earlier. Associating lithic assemblages with hominin taxa is always a probabilistic and problematic endeavor. Although early AMHs are found with Mousterian assemblages in North Africa and Levant (Shea and Bar-Yosef, 2005; Hublin et al., 2017; Richter et al., 2017), Neanderthal remains are associated with classic Mousterian industries at dozens of sites in Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia (Stringer, 2002; Hublin, 2007; Krause et al., 2007; Slimak et al., 2011). Mousterian industries from sites in the Siberian Altai are exclusively associated with Neanderthals based on genetic and/or morphological analyses of the human fossils (Krause et al., 2007; Viola, 2012; Buzhilova, 2013). This increases the likelihood that the Mousterian industry at Jinsitai was also produced by Neanderthals or hominins with Neanderthal ancestry, as others have suggested (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen, 2013). However, this hypothesis remains highly provisional until diagnostic human fossils or DNA evidence are found. Even if the makers of the Jinsitai Mousterian assemblages were not Neanderthals, the site still has important implications for understanding the behavioral dynamics of hominin groups in Northeast Asia during the Late Pleistocene. Human populations were quite diverse in Siberia and East Asia at this time. In addition to the above-referenced Neanderthal fossils, ‘Denisovans’ have been identified by genetic analysis of fossils from the Siberian Altai dating to around 50e30 ka (Krause et al., 2010; Reich et al., 2010; Meyer et al., 2012). Around 40 ka, anatomically modern Homo sapiens were present at Tianyuan cave (Shang et al., 2007; Fu et al., 2013) in North China, some 500 km south of Jinsitai. The presence of so many Mousterian characteristics in the artifacts from Jinsitai shows that networks of interaction and cultural borrowing/

exchange between groups were quite extensive. If the Jinsitai Mousterian was produced by hominins other than Neanderthals, the sharing of similar lithic technological practices over such a distance by different populations would imply a high level of cultural exchange and behavioral compatibility. In addition, the presence of two Middle Paleolithic layers spanning several thousand years at Jinsitai indicates not only that hominins managed to cross part of the harsh Gobi Desert, but also that they persisted in a new environment for as long as 5000 years. This fact highlights the ecological resiliency of the populations and further demonstrates a capacity to adapt to diverse geographic regions and habitats. The new findings at Jinsitai also place the periodization of Chinese Paleolithic record in a slightly different light. Researchers have argued that there are no typical Middle Paleolithic assemblages in China and Korea, and therefore considered it inappropriate to apply this term to East Asian sites (Gao and Norton, 2002; Norton et al., 2009; Seong and Bae, 2016), proposing instead to divide the Pleistocene archaeological sequence into two parts, Early and Late Paleolithic. Clearly, the lithic assemblages from Jinsitai Cave have proved the presence of a typical Eurasian Middle Paleolithic industry in China. Although the distribution of such Middle Paleolithic assemblages is currently limited to the Jinsitai site, the existence of two layers spanning around 5000 years demonstrates the potential to find or identify more similar assemblages elsewhere in China, at least in the surrounding regions. Because no earlier counterparts have been discovered in the rest of North and South China, the most parsimonious interpretation is that the industry from layers 8 and 7 at Jinsitai represents an intrusion of populations and/or cultural knowledge from the Altai of Siberia. As yet, however, there is no evidence that this particular cultural pattern or population expanded farther east or south. We argue that the two-stage model of the Paleolithic record (Early and Late) still applies to most of China. However, China is a very vast area, so it is more productive to focus on technological and behavioral variability within China than to argue about a single universally applicable cultural sequence. Leaving aside the question of the presence or absence of various stages, the Middle and Late Pleistocene lithic industries from China have the potential to greatly enrich our understanding of population dynamics, cultural adaptations, and cultural links between ancient populations across the eastern half of the Eurasian landmass. In conclusion, the industry at Jinsitai dating from 47 ka to 37 ka expands the geographic range of Mousterian or Middle Paleolithic technologies at least 2000 km further to the east of Eurasia. This discovery highlights the vast potential of the East Asian record for exploring Paleolithic hominin dispersals, the hominins' capacity for adaptation to diverse environments, and the possible interactions among multiple hominin groups in North and East Asia. Acknowledgments We are grateful to the Associate Editor and the three anonymous reviewers, whose edits and comments made this a better paper. This work has been supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41672024 and 41502022), the Chinese Academy of Sciences Strategic Priority Research Program (Grant No. XDA05130202), and Funds for Paleontology Fieldwork and Fossil Preparation, CAS. F.L. thanks the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for a postdoctoral stipend and the Youth Innovation Promotion Association CAS (2017102), and S.K. thanks the Chinese Academy of Sciences President's International Fellowship Initiative (Grant No. 2015VEA013) for facilitating this study. X. Gao, F.Y. Chen, F. Peng, F. Li, Y.C. Zhao (IVPP), Y.H. Wang, M.C. Shan (Inner Mongolia Museum), H. Liu, J. Sai (Heritage Bureau of Xilinguole), and L. Su, Z. Han, D. Wu, T. Ba, N. Su, and R. Sai (Cultural Relics

F. Li et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 114 (2018) 76e84

Administration of Dongwuzhumuqin) participated in the Jinsitai 2012e2013 excavations. We thank the Inner Mongolia Museum, the Heritage Bureau of Xilinguole, and the Cultural Relics Administration of Dongwuzhumuqin County for their support. L. Su was especially helpful in providing assistance for the 2012e2013 excavations. We also thank Q.J. Chen from Jilin University for providing easy access to the Jinsitai 2000e2001 collection. Supplementary Online Material Supplementary online material related to this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2017.10.004. References Bae, C.J., Wang, W., Zhao, J., Huang, S., Tian, F., Shen, G., 2014. Modern human teeth from Late Pleistocene Luna Cave (Guangxi, China). Quatern. Intl. 354, 169e183. Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2013. Following Pleistocene road signs of human dispersals across Eurasia. Quatern. Intl. 285, 30e43. Bar-Yosef, O., Wang, Y., 2012. Paleolithic archaeology in China. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 41, 319e335. Beta Analytic, 2017. https://www.radiocarbon.com/pretreatment-carbon-dating. htm.
olithique Ancien et Moyen. Delmas, Bordeaux. Bordes, F., 1961. Typologie de Pale Brantingham, P.J., Kaivoshapkin, A.I., Li, J.-Z., Tserendagva, Y., 2001. The Initial Upper Paleolithic in Northeast Asia. Curr. Anthropol. 42, 735e747. Buzhilova, A.P., 2013. Dental remains from the Middle Paleolithic layers of Altai cave sites. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 41, 55e65. Conard, N., Richter, J. (Eds.), 2011. Neanderthal Lifeways, Subsistence and Technology: One Hundred Fifty Years of Neanderthal Study. Springer, New York. , D., Berto, C., Casini, A.I., Daffara, S., Arzarello, M., Berruti, G.L.F., Berruto, G., Berte 2014. The Mousterian lithic assemblage of the Ciota Ciara cave (Piedmont, Northern Italy): exploitation and conditioning of raw materials. J. Lithic Stud. 11, 1e16. de la Torre, I., Martínez-Moreno, J., Mora, R., 2013. Change and stasis in the Iberian Middle Paleolithic. Curr. Anthropol. 54, S320eS336. Derevianko, A.P., 2011. The Upper Paleolithic in Africa and Eurasia and the Origin of Anatomically Modern Humans. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography SB RAS Press, Novosibirsk. Derevianko, A.P., Rybin, E.P., 2003. The earliest representations of symbolic behavior by Paleolithic humans in the Altai Mountains. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 3, 27e50. Derevianko, A.P., Petrin, V.T., Rybin, E.P., 2000a. The Kara-Bom site and the characteristics of the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition in the Altai. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 2, 33e52. Derevianko, A.P., Olsen, J.W., Tseveendorj, D., Krivoshapkin, A.I., Petrin, V.T., Brantingham, P.J., 2000b. The stratified cave site of Tsagaan Agui in the Gobi Altai (Mongolia). Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 1, 23e36. Derevianko, A.P., Kandyba, A.V., Petrin, V.T., 2010. The Paleolithic of the Orkhon. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography SB RAS Press, Novosibirsk. Derevianko, A.P., Markin, S.V., Zykin, V.S., Zykina, V.S., Zazhigin, V.S., Sizikova, A.O., Solotchina, E.P., Smolyaninova, L.G., Antipov, A.S., 2013a. Chagyrskaya Cave: A Middle Paleolithic site in the Altai. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 41, 2e27. Derevianko, A.P., Markin, S.V., Shunkov, M.V., 2013b. The Sibiryachikha facies of the Middle Paleolithic of the Altai. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 41, 89e103. Faivre, J.-P., Discamps, E., Gravina, B., Turq, A., Guadelli, J.-L., Lenoir, M., 2014. The contribution of lithic production systems to the interpretation of Mousterian industrial variability in south-western France: The example of Combe-Grenal (Dordogne, France). Quatern. Intl. 350, 227e240. Faivre, J.P., Gravina, B., Bourguignon, L., Discamps, E., Turq, A., 2017. Late Middle Palaeolithic lithic technocomplexes (MIS 5e3) in the northeastern Aquitaine Basin: Advances and challenges. Quatern. Intl. 433B, 116e131. €a €bo, S., 2013. DNA Fu, Q., Meyer, M., Gao, X., Stenzel, U., Burbano, H.A., Kelso, J., Pa analysis of an early modern human from Tianyuan Cave, China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, 2223e2227. Gao, X., Norton, C.J., 2002. A critique of the Chinese ‘Middle Palaeolithic’. Antiquity 76, 397e412. Gladyshev, S.A., Olsen, J.W., Tabarev, A.V., Kuzmin, Y.V., 2010. Chronology and periodization of Upper Paleolithic Sites in Mongolia. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 38, 33e40. Guo, Y.-J., Li, B., Zhang, J.-F., Yuan, B.-Y., Xie, F., Roberts, R.G., 2016. Luminescence ages for three ‘Middle Palaeolithic’ sites in the Nihewan Basin, northern China, and their archaeological and palaeoenvironmental implications. Quatern. Res. 85, 456e470. Higham, T., Douka, K., Wood, R., Ramsey, C.B., Brock, F., Basell, L., Camps, M., Arrizabalaga, A., Baena, J., Barroso-Ruíz, C., Bergman, C., Boitard, C., Boscato, P.,
s, M., Conard, N.J., Draily, C., Froment, A., Galv
Caparro an, B., Gambassini, P., Garcia-Moreno, A., Grimaldi, S., Haesaerts, P., Holt, B., Iriarte-Chiapusso, M.-J.,

83


ndez, J.-M., Marom, A., Maroto, J., Jelinek, A., Jord
a Pardo, J.F., Maíllo-Ferna
ndez, M., Metz, L., Morin, E., Moroni, A., Negrino, F., Panagopoulou, E., Mene Peresani, M., Pirson, S., de la Rasilla, M., Riel-Salvatore, J., Ronchitelli, A., Santamaria, D., Semal, P., Slimak, L., Soler, J., Soler, N., Villaluenga, A., Pinhasi, R., Jacobi, R., 2014. The timing and spatiotemporal patterning of Neanderthal disappearance. Nature 512, 306e309. Hou, Y.-M., Wang, Z.-H., Yang, Z.-M., Zhen, Z.-M., Zhang, J.-F., Dong, W., Yuan, B.-Y., Li, B.-S., Huang, W.-W., Liu, Y., Bai, L.-Y., Bao, L., Li, S., Yang, J.-G., Zhang, L.-M., Zhang, Z.-J., 2012. The first trial excavation and significance of Wulanmulun site in 2010 at Ordos, Inner Mongolia in North China. Quatern. Sci. 32, 178e197 (in Chinese with English abstract). Hublin, J.-J., 2007. What can Neanderthals tell us about Modern Origins? In: Mellars, P., Boyle, K., Bar-Yosef, O., Stringer, C. (Eds.), Rethinking the Human Revolution: New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 235e248. Hublin, J.-J., Ben-Ncer, A., Bailey, S.E., Freidline, S.E., Neubauer, S., Skinner, M.M., Bergmann, I., Le Cabec, A., Benazzi, S., Harvati, K., Gunz, P., 2017. New fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco and the pan-African origin of Homo sapiens. Nature 546, 289e292. Ikawa-Smith, F., 1978. The early Paleolithic tradition of East Asia. In: Ikawa-Smith, F. (Ed.), Early Paleolithic in South and East Asia. Mouton, The Hague, pp. 1e10. Jaubert, J., 2015. The Paleolithic peopling of Mongolia: an updated assessment. In: Kaifu, Y., Izuho, M., Goebel, T., Sato, H., Ono, A. (Eds.), Emergence and Diversity of Modern Human Behavior in Paleolithic Asia. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, pp. 453e469. Krause, J., Orlando, L., Serre, D., Viola, B., Prufer, K., Richards, M.P., Hublin, J.-J., €a €bo, S., 2007. Neanderthals in central Asia and Hanni, C., Derevianko, A.P., Pa Siberia. Nature 449, 902e904. €€ Krause, J., Fu, Q., Good, J.M., Viola, B., Shunkov, M.V., Derevianko, A.P., Pa abo, S., 2010. The complete mitochondrial DNA genome of an unknown hominin from southern Siberia. Nature 464, 894e897. Kuhn, S.L., Zwyns, N., 2014. Rethinking the initial Upper Paleolithic. Quatern. Intl. 347, 29e38. Li, F., 2014. Fact or fiction: the Middle Palaeolithic in China. Antiquity 88, 1303e1309. Li, F., Kuhn, S.L., Gao, X., Chen, F.-Y., 2013. Re-examination of the dates of large blade technology in China: A comparison of Shuidonggou Locality 1 and Locality 2. J. Hum. Evol. 64, 161e168. Li, F., Kuhn, S.L., Olsen, J.W., Chen, F.-Y., Gao, X., 2014. Disparate stone age technological evolution in North China: Lithic technological variability and relations between populations during MIS 3. J. Anthropol. Res. 70, 35e67. Li, Z.-Y., Wu, X.-J., Zhou, L.-P., Liu, W., Gao, X., Nian, X.-M., Trinkaus, E., 2017. Late Pleistocene archaic human crania from Xuchang, China. Science 355, 969e972. Liu, W., Wu, X.Z., Pei, S.W., Wu, X.J., Norton, C.J., 2010a. Huanglong cave: a Late Pleistocene human fossil site in Hubei Province, China. Quatern. Intl. 211, 29e41. Liu, W., Jin, C.-Z., Zhang, Y.-Q., Cai, Y.-J., Xing, S., Wu, X.-J., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Pan, W.-S., Qin, D.-G., An, Z.-S., Trinkaus, E., Wu, X.-Z., 2010b. Human remains from Zhirendong, South China, and modern human emergence in East Asia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 19201e19206.
n-Torres, M., Cai, Y.-J., Xing, S., Tong, H.-W., Pei, S.-W., Sier, M.J., Liu, W., Martino Wu, X.-H., Edwards, R.L., Cheng, H., Li, Y.-Y., Yang, X.-X., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Wu, X.-J., 2015. The earliest unequivocally modern humans in southern China. Nature 526, 696e699. Liu, W., Xing, S., Wu, X.J., 2016. Morphological diversities of the late-Middle and Late Pleistocene human fossils in China. Sci. Sin. Terrae 46, 906e917 (in Chinese). Meignen, L., Delagnes, A., Bourguignon, L., 2009. Patterns of lithic raw material procurement and transformation during the Middle Paleolithic in western Europe. In: Adams, B., Blades, B.S. (Eds.), Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies. Wiiley-Blackwell, New York, pp. 15e24. Mellars, P., 1995. The Neanderthal Legacy: An Archaeological Perspective from Western Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Mellars, P., 2004. Neanderthals and the modern human colonization of Europe. Nature 432, 461e465. Meyer, M., Kircher, M., Gansauge, M.-T., Li, H., Racimo, F., Mallick, S., Schraiber, J.G., Jay, F., Prüfer, K., de Filippo, C., Sudmant, P.H., Alkan, C., Fu, Q., Do, R., Rohland, N., Tandon, A., Siebauer, M., Green, R.E., Bryc, K., Briggs, A.W., Stenzel, U., Dabney, J., Shendure, J., Kitzman, J., Hammer, M.F., Shunkov, M.V.,
s, A.M., Eichler, E.E., Slatkin, M., Reich, D., Derevianko, A.P., Patterson, N., Andre €bo, S., 2012. A high-coverage genome sequence from an archaic Kelso, J., P€ aa Denisovan individual. Science 338, 222e226. Michel, V., Valladas, H., Shen, G., Wang, W., Zhao, J.-x., Shen, C.-C., Valensi, P., Bae, C.J., 2016. The earliest modern Homo sapiens in China? J. Hum. Evol. 101, 101e104. Norton, C.J., Gao, X., Feng, X.-W., 2009. The East Asian Middle Paleolithic reexamined. In: Camps, M., Chauhan, P. (Eds.), Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions: Methods, Theories, and Interpretations. Springer, New York, pp. 245e254. Peng, F., Wang, H., Gao, X., 2014. Blade production of Shuidonggou Locality1 (Northwest China): A technological perspective. Quatern. Intl. 347, 12e20. Peresani, M., 2003. An initial overview on the Middle Palaeolithic discoid industries in central-northern Italy. In: Persani, M. (Ed.), Discoid Lithic Technology: Advances and Implications. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1120 BAR, Oxford, pp. 209e224.

84

F. Li et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 114 (2018) 76e84

Picin, A., Carbonell, E., 2016. Neanderthal mobility and technological change in the northeastern of the Iberian Peninsula: The patterns of chert exploitation at the Abric Romaní rock-shelter. C. R. Palevol. 15, 581e594. Qiu, Z.L., 1985. The Middle Paleolithic of China. In: Wu, R.K., Olsen, J. (Eds.), Palaeoanthropology and Palaeolithic Archaeology in the People's Republic of China. Academic Press, Orlando, pp. 187e210. Ramsey, C.B., 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51, 337e360. Ramsey, C.B., Higham, T., Bowles, A., Hedges, R.E.M., 2004. Improvements to the pre-treatment of bone at Oxford. Radiocarbon 46, 155e163. Reich, D., Green, R.E., Kircher, M., Krause, J., Patterson, N., Durand, E.Y., Viola, B., Briggs, A.W., Stenzel, U., Johnson, P.L.F., Maricic, T., Good, J.M., MarquesBonet, T., Alkan, C., Fu, Q., Mallick, S., Li, H., Meyer, M., Eichler, E.E., Stoneking, M., Richards, M., Talamo, S., Shunkov, M.V., Derevianko, A.P., €bo, S., 2010. Genetic history of an archaic Hublin, J.-J., Kelso, J., Slatkin, M., P€ aa hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia. Nature 468, 1053e1060. Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Ramsey, C.B., Buck, C.E., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P.,
, C., Heaton, T.J., Hoffmann, D.L., Hogg, A.G., Haflidason, H., Hajdas, I., Hatte Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer, B., Manning, S.W., Niu, M., Reimer, R.W., Richards, D.A., Scott, E.M., Southon, J.R., Staff, R.A., Turney, C.S.M., van der Plicht, J., 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0e50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55, 1869e1887. Ren, J.C., Li, F., Wang, X.M., Chen, F.Y., Gao, X., 2017. A preliminary report on the 2015 excavation of the Banjingzi site in Nihewan Basin. Archaeol. In press; (in Chinese with English abstract).
, M., Fernandes, P., Richter, D., Grün, R., Joannes-Boyau, R., Steele, T.E., Amani, F., Rue Raynal, J.-P., Geraads, D., Ben-Ncer, A., Hublin, J.-J., McPherron, S.P., 2017. The age of the hominin fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, and the origins of the Middle Stone Age. Nature 546, 293e296. Rybin, E.P., 2014. Tools, beads, and migrations: Specific cultural traits in the Initial Upper Paleolithic of Southern Siberia and Central Asia. Quatern. Intl. 347, 39e52. ~ averas, J.C., Santamaría, D., Fortea, J., de la Rasilla, M., Matrínez, L., Matrínez, E., Can Lalueza-Fox, C., 2010. The technological and typological behavior of a Neander
n Cave (Asturias, Spain). Oxford J. Archaeol. 29, 119e148. thal group from El Sidro Seong, C., Bae, C.J., 2016. The eastern Asian ‘Middle Palaeolithic’ revisited: a view from Korea. Antiquity 90, 1151e1165. Shang, H., Tong, H., Zhang, S., Chen, F., Trinkaus, E., 2007. An early modern human from Tianyuan Cave, Zhoukoudian, China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 6573e6578. Shea, J.J., Bar-Yosef, O., 2005. Who were the Skhul/Qafzeh people? An archaeological perspective on Eurasia's oldest modern humans. J. Israel Prehist. Soc. 35, 451e468. Shen, G., Wang, W., Wang, Q., Zhao, J., Collerson, K., Zhou, C., Tobias, P.V., 2002. USeries dating of Liujiang hominid site in Guangxi, Southern China. J. Hum. Evol. 43, 817e829.

Shunkov, M., 2005. The characteristics of the Altai (Russia) Middle Paleolithic in regional context. Bull. Indo-Pacific Prehist. Assoc. 25, 69e77. re, A., Slimak, L., Svendsen, J.I., Mangerud, J., Plisson, H., Heggen, H.P., Bruge Pavlov, P.Y., 2011. Late Mousterian Persistence near the Arctic Circle. Science 332, 841e845. Soficaru, A., Dobos¸, A., Trinkaus, E., 2006. Early modern humans from the Pes¸tera Muierii, Baia de Fier, Romania. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103, 17196e17201. Southon, J., Santos, G., Druffel-Rodriguez, K., Druffel, E., Trumbore, S., Xu, X.-M., Griffin, S., Ali, S., Mazon, M., 2004. The Keck Carbon Cycle AMS laboratory, University of California, Irvine: initial operation and a background surprise. Radiocarbon 46, 41e49. Stringer, C., 2002. Modern human origins: progress and prospects. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 357, 563e579. Vernot, B., Tucci, S., Kelso, J., Schraiber, J.G., Wolf, A.B., Gittelman, R.M., Dannemann, M., Grote, S., McCoy, R.C., Norton, H., Scheinfeldt, L.B., €a €bo, S., Akey, J.M., Merriwether, D.A., Koki, G., Friedlaender, J.S., Wakefield, J., Pa 2016. Excavating Neandertal and Denisovan DNA from the genomes of Melanesian individuals. Science 352, 235e239. Viola, B., 2012. New Neanderthal remains from Chagyrskaya Cave (Altai Mountains, Russian Federation). Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 147 S54, 293e294. Wang, X.-K., Wei, J., Chen, Q.-J., Tang, Z.-W., Wang, C.-X., 2010. A preliminary study on the excavation of the Jinsitai Cave site. Acta Anthropol. Sin. 29, 15e32 (in Chinese with English abstract). Woo, R.-K., Peng, R.-C., 1959. Fossil human skull of early Paleoanthropic stage found at Mapa, Shaoquan, Kwantung Province. Vert. PalAs. 3176e3182 (in Chinese). Wu, X., Zhang, C., Goldberg, P., Cohen, D., Pan, Y., Arpin, T., Bar-Yosef, O., 2012. Early pottery at 20,000 years ago in Xianrendong Cave, China. Science 336, 1696e1700. Wu, X.-J., Crevecoeur, I., Liu, W., Xing, S., Trinkaus, E., 2014. Temporal labyrinths of eastern Eurasian Pleistocene humans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 10509e10513. Yee, M.K., 2012. The Middle Palaeolithic in China: a review of current interpretations. Antiquity 86, 619e626. Zhang, S.S., 1985. A preliminary study on Middle Palaeolithic cultures in north China. Prehist. Stud. 1, 8e16 (in Chinese). Zwyns, N., Rybin, E.P., Hublin, J.-J., Derevianko, A.P., 2012. Burin-core technology and laminar reduction sequences in the initial Upper Paleolithic from Kara-Bom (Gorny-Altai, Siberia). Quatern. Intl. 259, 33e47. Zwyns, N., Gladyshev, S., Tabarev, A., Gunchinsuren, B., 2014a. Mongolia: Paleolithic. In: Smith, C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. SpringereVerlag, New York, pp. 5025e5032. Zwyns, N., Gladyshev, S.A., Gunchinsuren, B., Bolorbat, T., Flas, D., Dogand zi
c, T., Tabarev, A.V., Gillam, J.C., Khatsenovich, A.M., McPherron, S., Odsuren, D., Paine, C.H., Purevjal, K.-E., Stewart, J.R., 2014b. The open-air site of Tolbor 16 (Northern Mongolia): Preliminary results and perspectives. Quatern. Intl. 347, 53e65.