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: skuhn@email.arizona.edu (S.L. Kuhn), nzwyns@ucdavis.edu
(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
3
S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e10
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
14
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
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. Kara€da, 1990; Skrdla, 2003b).
nska
ska
la (below) (adapted from Boe
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 dişlerin 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