Late Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic of the Western Balkans: lithic assemblages from Šalitrena Pećina (Serbia)

Investigating changes in lithic raw material use from the Middle Paleolithic to the Upper Paleolithic in Jebel Qalkha, southern Jordan

The article considers the lithic assemblage of archaeological horizon 4a of Tolbor 4 site in Northern Mongolia (excavation campaign of 2017) in the context of development of Early Upper Paleolithic lithic industries during MIS-3 stage. On the basis of radiocarbon dates, stratigraphic position and techno-typological features of lithic assemblage this complex along with the industry of archaeological horizon 4b of Tolbor 4 is classified as terminal Early Upper Paleolithic. Th is industry is characterized by predominantly flake-based orthogonal and small-blade unidirectional reduction techniques. Th e collection of complex 4a revealed a geometric microlith — trapeze, previously considered a characteristic feature of the late Upper Paleolithic of the region. It was determined that the Early Upper Paleolithic of Tolbor 4 archaeological complexes shows a smooth sequential evolution from the Initial Upper Paleolithic of Archaeological Horizon 5, through the terminal Early Upper Paleolithic of Horizon 4c/5 to the terminal Early Upper Paleolithic of Horizons 4b and 4a. The radiocarbon dates obtained allow the chronological framework of the Terminal Upper Paleolithic to be shifted closer to the lower boundary of the Last Glacial maximum. The Terminal Early Upper Paleolithic technocomplex defined on the basis of complexes 4a and 4b of Tolbor-4, as well as Archaeological Horizon 4 Kharganyn-gol-5 have undoubted cultural and/or stadial reminiscence with the lithic industries of the Kunaley culture of Russian Transbaikal.

Although the lithic cutting-edge productivity has long been recognized as a quantifiable aspect of prehistoric human technological evolution, there remains uncertainty how the productivity changed during the Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic transition. Here we present the cutting-edge productivity of eight lithic assemblages in the eastern Mediterranean region that represent a chrono-cultural sequence including the Late Middle Paleolithic, Initial Upper Paleolithic, the Early Upper Paleolithic, and the Epipaleolithic. The results show that a major increase in the cutting-edge productivity does not coincide with the conventional Middle-Upper Paleolithic boundary characterized by the increase in blades in the Initial Upper Paleolithic, but it occurs later in association with the development of bladelet technology in the Early Upper Paleolithic. Given increasing discussions on the complexity of Middle-Upper Paleolithic cultural changes, it may be fruitful to have a long-term perspective and employ consistent criteria for diachronic comparisons to make objective assessment of how cultural changes proceeded across conventional chrono-cultural boundaries.

Proposer une synthèse sur la préhistoire d’un archipel et de ses assemblages lithiques n’est pas chose facile, d’une part à cause de l’immensité de l’espace concerné mesurant 2 millions de km2, d’autre part du fait que la notion de Paléolithique y est difficilement applicable et notamment celles de « Paléolithique supérieur » ou d’Epipaléolithique-Mésolithique établies en Eurasie occidentale. L’Indonésie et ses myriades d’îles et îlots (environ 18000) s’inscrivent dans un rectangle 5000 km sur 2000 km de part et d’autre de l’équateur ce qui en fait le plus grand archipel du monde. Cette aire géographique immense s’étirant sur un espace maritime d’environ 6 millions de km2, ne nous permet pas aujourd’hui de traiter exhaustivement l’ensemble des groupes industriels, des faciès ou des cultures préhistoriques, c’est pour cela que nous aborderons les principaux. L’Indonésie occupe une place privilégiée pour l’histoire des hommes fossiles qui la rend incontournable dans les connaissances de la variabilité des comportements des hominidés en contexte intertropical. Cette contribution a pour objectif de dresser un bilan critique et objectif des différentes méthodes de taille rencontrées depuis 1 million d’années sur les principales îles à partir d’une sélection de sites dont la stratigraphie est bien établie et bien datée.
 Rares sont les technocomplexes bien définis avant l’Holocène, période où l’insularité de cette aire géographique s’est fixée avec la remontée marine marquant progressivement le début de l’histoire des archipels insulindiens. Parmi ceux-ci nous citerons le « Toalien » à Sulawesi (faciès à pointes), le « Sampungien » (faciès à pointes) et les industries sur éclats de Song Keplek ou « Keplekien » (débitage orthogonal) dans l’Est de l’île de Java. Hormis ces trois traditions techniques qui restent individualisables sur un plan typo-technologique, il n’y a pas dans l’ensemble du matériel rencontré, de faciès différentiables associés à une dénomination d’outils spécifiques. En règle générale, les industries lithiques du Pléistocène supérieur et de l’Holocène indonésien répondent à une production basique d’éclats et d’outils sur éclats avec de multiples variantes régionales. Le mode de débitage est très largement à la pierre dure, non Levallois, rarement Discoïde, non lamino-lamellaire tel qu’on peut le rencontrer en Europe de l’Ouest ou au Proche et Moyen-Orient. Contrairement à l’Asie du Sud-Est continentale où il est encore plus difficile de discerner un Paléolithique ancien, moyen et récent du fait de la continuité d’industries toutes réalisées sur galet (Hoabinhien et autres), l’Indonésie qui devient insulaire à la marge du Pléistocène et de l’Holocène propose une hétérogénéité des assemblages lithiques sans précédent. C’est-à-dire une diversité dans les modalités de production lithique selon différentes chaînes opératoires de façonnage (galet, pointe de type de Sampung, biface...) ou de débitage (discoïde, orthogonal et laminaire).
 Le but de cet article est donc de présenter de façon synthétique les principaux ensembles lithiques de l’Archipel indonésien à partir d’une sélection d’îles sur lesquelles des assemblages lithiques ont pu être correctement documentés. Nous nous intéresserons ainsi aux îles de Sumatra, de Java, de Kalimantan (Bornéo), de Sulawesi, et à quelques autres plus orientales qui, comme Timor et Flores, ont, ces dernières années, livré des découvertes de premier plan en paléoanthropologie et en préhistoire. Par commodité, nous avons été obligés de procéder à des coupures régionales et chronologiques (Pléistocène ancien-moyen et Pléistocène supérieur final-Holocène ancien) qui permettent d’exposer au mieux cette synthèse sur des assemblages lithiques qui n’ont pas tous fait l’objet d’études technologiques approfondies au sens où nous pouvons l’entendre en Europe avec l’utilisation du concept de chaîne opératoire.

The Middle Paleolithic occupations of Üçağızlı II Cave (Hatay, Turkey): Geoarcheological and archeological perspectives

This article explains lithic assemblage transitions during the Early Upper Palaeolithic (EUP) on the Musashino Upland by quantitative comparisons of lithic raw materials, core reduction (blade technology), and formal tool production. The results suggest that changes in aspects of lithic assemblage variability could be explained by changes in raw material utilization, not developments (sophistication of tool-making skills) in blade technology and methods of formal tool production. The results also indicate the possibility that the changes in lithic raw material would have been affected by changes in residential mobility and the foraging territorial scale of EUP hunter-gatherers, as well as the changes in organic raw material utilization in whole technological organization in various environmental settings during the EUP. Beside them, the characteristics of the lithic assemblages in Period I as the initial EUP assemblages in this region are different from general characteristics of Upper Palaeolithic assemblages (blade technology, standardized and formal flaked tools) in Eurasia. The nature of lithic raw material utilization, especially flaked tool use, in Period I assemblages looks extremely expedient. Therefore, the characteristics of initial EUP assemblages in this region represent that diversity in lithic raw material utilization and technological organization was present during the EUP.

Data about Palaeolithic peopling, settlement dynamics and techno-economy of the south-western margin of the Alpine region are sketchy. In this area, the lack of systematic research and the scarcity of lithic raw materials, spread the idea that Piedmont was not inhabited during Palaeolithic. In 2009, the re-starting of the excavations at the Ciota Ciara cave, gave rise to new questions and to the development of research projects at a regional scale.
 The Ciota Ciara cave is the only Middle Palaeolithic site object of multidisciplinary and systematic investigations. Its lithic assemblage, analysed through a techno-economic approach, allows to understand in detail the technological choices and the land mobility of the Neanderthal groups on a local and sub-regional scale. Other Middle Palaeolithic assemblages are known in the region and are all issued from surface collections. They come from the northern part of the region, from Vaude Canavesane, Trino, Baragge biellesi and Colline Novaresi. The technological study of these assemblages led to the identification of strong similarities in the technological choices of the Middle Palaeolithic human groups: they based their technology on the exploitation of vein quartz, a rock diffused all over the regional territory, from time to time accompanied by other local (spongolite, rhyolite, metamorphic rocks, jasper) and allochthonous (radiolarite and flint) lithic resources, with technological adaptation to their quality and mechanical properties both when it comes to predetermined methods (Levallois and discoid) and when expedient reduction sequences are used. Concerning Upper Palaeolithic, the only lithic assemblage issued from an archaeological excavation (and therefore with a clear stratigraphic context) is that from the Epigravettian site of Castelletto Ticino. Other lithic artefacts referable on a techno-typological basis to Upper Palaeolithic are from Trino and Colline Novaresi. As for Middle Palaeolithic, the techno-economic approach used in the analysis of these lithic assemblages, allow to have, for the first time, reliable data at a regional scale.
 In this work we present the data obtained after about ten years of research in Piedmont: they outline a scenario where, even in the limits of analysis mostly based on materials issued from surface collections, we can see both clear differences between the Middle and the Upper Palaeolithic technological behaviours and hypothesise the land mobility of the hunter-gatherers’ groups that inhabited the region.

This paper aims to update the characterization of the Upper Palaeolithic (UP) lithic technology in the northeastern Levant by discussing an issue regarding various cultural designations of UP lithic assemblages from Umm el Tlel, a main source of archaeological records in the northeastern Levant. The paper reviews the issue by incorporating the UP assemblages from Wadi Kharar 16R in the middle Euphrates. At this site, some of the techno-typological characteristics (e.g., el-Wad points and straight bladelets from single-platform cores) are similar to those of the southern Early Ahmarian, while other features (e.g., twisted bladelets and carinated tools) are reminiscent of the Levantine Aurignacian sensu lato. Given these observations, the previous identification of “Levantine Aurignacian” and “Ahmarian” at Umm el Tlel may represent the two opposed ends of continuous variations in the relative frequencies of twisted and straight bladelets rather than the two technological traditions exclusive to each other. The UP assemblages at Umm el Tlel and Wadi Kharar 16R are commonly characterized by the apparent mixture of techno-typological elements reminiscent of the southern Ahmarian (e.g., straight, pointed bladelets removed by unidirectional flaking) and the Levantine Aurignacian sensu lato (e.g., twisted bladelets from carinated tools). The employment of such multiple strategies characterizes the UP lithic technology of the two sites. On the other hand, more specific features (e.g., the presence or absence of el-Wad points) and radiocarbon dates indicate chrono-cultural links between Wadi Kharar 16R and Ksar Akil Phase VII and between Umm el Tlel and Ksar Akil Phase V. Consequently, the UP assemblages form Umm el Tlel and Wadi Kharar 16R indicate a coherent picture as well as diachronic patterns of the UP lithic technology in the northeastern Levant, which show some parallels with the later part of the UP sequence at Ksar Akil in the coastal zone.

This paper examines the faunal assemblages from Middle Palaeolithic cave sites in the Ach Valley and views them in a broader chronological context along with the Upper Palaeolithic assemblages of the region. We present data from the key Middle Palaeolithic sites of Geißenklösterle, Sirgenstein, Große Grotte and Kogelstein. Except Kogelstein, which is a hyena den, the other three sites served as cave bear hibernation dens, where cave bear is the most abundant species. The most frequent game species during the Upper Palaeolithic are horse, mammoth and reindeer. But these animals are mainly represented by specific skeletal elements, which were important as raw material for the production of organic tools. The large variety of organic tools made from bone, antler, and ivory, and the refuse resulting from their production in Upper Palaeolithic layers stands in contrast to the extreme rarity of organic tools and production debris in Middle Palaeolithic layers. The faunal assemblages in the Ach Valley document continuity in the seasonal use of the landscape and the preferred game, but reflect changes in the use of sites and organic technology between the Middle and the Upper Palaeolithic. Based on the faunal and lithic assemblages from the caves of the Ach Valley, most of the sites were used more intensively in the Upper Palaeolithic than in the Middle Palaeolithic. If these assemblages provide representative samples, the available data suggest lower population densities and greater mobility of Neanderthals during the Middle Palaeolithic than of modern humans during the Upper Palaeolithic. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The origin and spread of behavioral modernity has been one of the most hotly debated paleoanthropological issues during the past two decades or so. Researchers have examined changes in technology, subsistence, and social organization. The Upper (Late) Paleolithic is traditionally characterized by the establishment of a blade industry. Patterns of lithic technology closely reflect settlement and subsistence systems, and any change can be explained in terms of interplay among various factors, including technological constraints, raw material availability, mobility, and extended social networks in changing environments. A recent increase in archaeological excavations and advances in chronology allow us to discuss Late Pleistocene cultural evolution in Korea in more detail. Two notable, seemingly contradictory features during the early Late Paleolithic are recognized: (1) some lithic assemblages are characterized by small flake artifacts made of local quartzite and vein quartz, and (2) other assemblages include new artifact types—blades and tanged points—manufactured with hitherto largely unused fine-grained materials. Late Paleolithic technological characteristics emerged ca. 40,000-30,000 BP, but not until the onset of the OIS 2 did formal artifacts, such as blades and blade tools, became predominant in lithic assemblages. This change is viewed as a slow, evolutionary process that eventually culminated in the Late Paleolithic transition.

The Crimean Peninsula contains numerous important Palaeolithic sites. It has been considered a potential Neanderthal refugium in Eurasia prior to their disappearance or assimilation, and subsequent replacement by Homo sapiens. This understanding is primarily drawn from lithic technological analysis and radiocarbon dating. However, recent developments in the latter suggest that many of the previously obtained radiocarbon dates from Crimean sites may be too young. The chronological sequence from the site of Kabazi II is a case in point, where differences between dates of bulk collagen and those of single amino acids range up to 10,000 radiocarbon years. These discrepancies are argued to arise from sample contamination and its lack of removal in bulk collagen dating. In this paper, we undertake a critical re-evaluation of results from seven Palaeolithic archaeological sites in the Crimean Peninsula: Kabazi II, Siuren I, Buran-Kaya III, Zaskalnaya V and Zaskalnaya VI, Kabazi V and Starosel’e. Our analysis of radiocarbon results from various sites supports the view that radiocarbon dates obtained so far tend to be too young, which has been indicated in the stratigraphy and lithic assemblages. By harnessing robust radiocarbon protocols in future chronometric work, such as the extraction of hydroxyproline, ninhydrin derivatisation or the purification of amino acids using XAD-2 resin, there is potential for constructing accurate chronologies. Furthermore, improved dating accuracy holds the promise of significant additional insights into the prehistoric sequence of the Crimean Peninsula and its potential role as a refugium for Neanderthals prior to their disappearance.

The early Upper Paleolithic occupations at Üçağızlı Cave (Hatay, Turkey)

Les relations entre l’Extrême-Orient eurasien et le nord de l’archipel du Japon au Paléolithique

Since prehistoric times, the northern part of Bourgogne/Franche-Comté (east central France) has been an attractive transition area for populations and fauna, allowing movement from central to western Europe (and vice versa) via the Upper Danube Basin and the Belfort Gap. It also constitutes a North-South and South-North transition area via the main river valleys (Saône, Rhône, Rhine, Meuse, Moselle). In this region, the topography is varied and defined by hills that rise to between 300 and 600 m asl, including the Morvan and Côte-d’Or mountains, the Vosges hills and mountains and the foothill plateaux of the Jura. Prehistoric populations settled here at different times and for different durations. The late Middle Paleolithic and the Upper Paleolithic are the best represented prehistoric periods in the region. Since 2005, our research on the Middle Paleolithic has revealed that the lithic assemblages have many affinities with those of central Europe (Alth-mülian, Micoquien, Eastern Mousterian) including with facies dating to the transition with the Upper Paleolithic (Szélétien, Jankovichien, etc.). A spatio-temporal study shows that while topographical, geological (including raw material availability) and environmental factors facilitated the movement of and/or occupation by people and animals, this scenario cannot be applied in a blanket manner, varying locally and over time. Recent integrated scientific research, encompassing absolute dating, paleoenvironmental work, zooarchaeological studies and in-depth techno-typological analyses, sheds new light on the occupation of this part of France and Europe.

The objective of this paper is to enhance our understanding on the Upper Palaeolithic chronology and archaeological taxonomy of the Carpathian Basin based on the sites of the Dunazug Mountains (Western Hungary, Transdanubia). At the onset of the 20th century, both the cave and open-air sites of the region were attributed to the ‘Magdalenian’ corresponding to the late Pleistocene. From the 1960's the lithic assemblages of the cave sites were grouped together under the term ‘Pilisszántó culture’ which encompassed Late Glacial industries in Hungary. Following the abandonment of the term ‘Pilisszántó culture’, both the cave sites and the open-air Pilismarót site cluster were integrated into the Epigravettian phase. As a result, the sites in the Dunazug Mountains were not only considered contemporaneous but also thought to be integral components of the same hunter-gatherer annual cycle. This conclusion was drawn from the presumed similarities in the lithic industries and the observed differences in the faunal remains. To test this hypothesis, we analyzed the lithic assemblage from Kiskevély Cave near Csobánka. Our study revealed that the tool types from the cave differ from those previously published from open-air sites. The high proportion of armatures, characteristic of the Late Gravettian in Eastern Central Europe, indicates that the site was occupied by hunter-gatherers prior to the Last Glacial Maximum. These findings suggest that the area was not exclusively inhabited by Epigravettian groups, suggesting a more complex pattern of hunter-gatherer presence and landscape use in the region during the Upper Palaeolithic.