Quaternary International 347 (2014) 29e38

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
b
Dept. of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA
c
Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The term Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) was originally proposed to describe a specic assemblage from
Available online 23 June 2014 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
Keywords: elements of Levallois method (faceted platforms, hard hammer percussion, at-faced cores) with fea-
Early Upper Paleolithic tures more typical of Upper Paleolithic blade technologies. More recently, the term IUP has been
Hominin dispersals
broadened again to include any early Upper Paleolithic assemblage with Levallois-like features in
Levallois
methods of blade production, irrespective of location. Artifact assemblages conforming to this broadest
Blade technology
denition 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 unied 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 denition 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.

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 mate-
rial culture traits that dene the Acheulean or the Aurignacian are
extraordinarily persistent in time and remarkably widespread in
space. Specic technological procedures, such as pressure micro-
blade 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 un-
derstand them. Are they cultures in a familiar sense at all, or are
they the outcome of less familiar processes leading to the xation 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?
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: skuhn@email.arizona.edu (S.L. Kuhn), nzwyns@ucdavis.edu
(N. Zwyns).
The Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) has become this sort of
extensive cultural phenomenon. When rst proposed, the term
Initial Upper Paleolithic had a very narrow meaning. The use of the
term has subsequently been broadened to encompass an ever-
larger 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 re-
evaluated. 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
briey review the origins and uses of the term Initial Upper
Paleolithic, the spatial and temporal ranges of assemblages iden-
tied as IUP, and some of the technological variability subsumed
under the name. At this point, the global distribution of IUP as-
semblages presents important challenges for distinguishing results
of large-scale dispersal events from outcomes of technological
convergence.
2. History of the term
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.
30 S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International 347 (2014) 29e38

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 facet-
ing), 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 as-
semblages 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) produc-
tion. 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 (at
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 Fer-
ring's conceptualization of the Initial Upper Paleolithic. The term
IUP was proposed as a replacement for existing terminologies such
as Emiran, which is too specic (Emireh points are not found at all
sites) or transitional (which presumes a phylogenetic relationship
with earlier and later assemblages). Although IUP technologies may
be transitional in some places, this must be demonstrated. E. Boe da
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
agzl cave and Ksar Akil, where organic preservation is good,
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 denition 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 specic 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
Fig. 1. Global distribution of IUP sites. 1. Brno-Bohunice; 2. Stra la III; 3. Bohunice-Kejbaly I, II; 4. Temnata; 5. Bacho-Kiro; 6. Kulychyvka; 7. Korolevo I, 2; 8. Shlyakh; 9. Haua
Fteah; 10. Hagfet ed Dabba; 11. ag zl; 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.
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).
 S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International 347 (2014) 29e38 31

somewhat more strictly dened 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 denition that is too
general to be very useful except as descriptive shorthand for gen-
eral 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 (homol-
ogies), 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 identied as
modern (beads, shaped bone tools, etc.). Because IUP technolo-
gies 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 rela-
tionship 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 in-
dexes anatomically modern humans. We currently do not know
which hominin(s) were responsible for producing the IUP
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
best. The isolated teeth from ag zl cave in southern Turkey show a
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.
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 atten-
tion 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 ndings demonstrated
that the general phenomenon of Upper Paleolithic tools on Levallois-
like blanks is more widespread. In evaluating the signicance of the
IUP sensu lato, we must recognize the geographic scale over which it
occurs. Assemblages tting the broad denition of IUP have been
documented from North Africa to North China (Table 1, Fig. 1).
Particular dense concentrations of UP assemblages with Levallois-
like 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 Layer(s) Dated? (y/n) Notes References

N. Africa Libya Haua Fteah Dabban McBurney, 1967a, 1967b

Hagfet ed Dabba Dabban McBurney, 1967b
Middle East Israel Boker Tachtit 1e4 Yes: redating Marks and Volkman, 1983; Volkman 1983
underway
Emireh No Garrod, 1955
El Wad F No Garrod, 1951e52
Raqefet VIIIeV No Sarel, 2004
Jordan Mughur al- Hamamah Yes Richter et al., 2009b
Tor Sadaf A, B? No Fox and Coinman, 2004
Syria Yabrud II 6 No Mixed? Pastoors et al., 2008
Jerf Ajlah B,C Yes Richter et al., 2001
Um et'Tlel II2b-IIbase Yes Pal
eolithique Ploux and Soriano, 2003
intermediare
Lebanon Antelias VIIeV No Copeland, 1970; Leder, 2013
Abou Halka IVfeIVe No Azoury, 1986; Leder, 2013
Ksar Akil XXVeXXII Azoury, 1986; Ohnuma, 1988
Turkey agzl FeI Yes Kuhn et al., 2009
Kanal cave No Kuhn et al., 1999
S.E. Europe Bulgaria Temnata Yes Tsanova, 2008
Bacho Kiro Yes Tsanova, 2008
Central Europe Moravia Brno-Bohunice Various Yes Bohunician Richter et al., 2008, 2009a
Str
anska Sk
ala III 5 Yes Bohunician Richter et al., 2008
Bohunice-Kejbaly I,II 4a Richter et al., 2008
Eastern Europe Ukraine Korolevo I, 2 (1a, II) Yes Gladilin, 1989; Gladilin and Demidenko, 1989
Kulychivka III Cohen and Stepanchuk, 1999
(continued on next page)
32 S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International 347 (2014) 29e38

Table 1 (continued )

Region Country Site Layer(s) Dated? (y/n) Notes References

Russia Shlyakh 8 Yes Nekhoroshev, 1999; Hoffecker, 2011

Siberian Altai Russia Kara-Bom OH5e6 Yes Goebel et al., 1993
Ust Karakol 1 (sector 1) OH 5.4e5.5 No Derevianko et al., 1987; Slavinskiy, 2007
Kara Tanesh No Derevianko et al., 2001
Cis-and Russia Makarovo 4 3a Yes Goebel and Aksenov, 1995
Transbaikal
Kamenka A-C 6 Orlova et al., 2005; Lbova, 2008
Khotyk 3 Kuzmin et al., 2006; Lbova, 2008
Podzvonkaya 2 Tashak, 2002
N.Mongolia Tolbor 4 OH5eOH6 Yes Derevianko et al., 2007; Zwyns, 2012
Tolbor 16 7 (lower) In progress Zwyns et al., 2014
S. Mongolia Tsagan-Agui 3 Yes Derevianko et al., 2004
N.W. China Shuidonnguo 1 Lower Yes Li et al., 2013
Shuidonnguo 2, 9 5, 7 Yes Li et al., 2013

It is equally important to recognize that although the IUP in the

Table 2 (continued )
broadest sense is very widespread, it is not a ubiquitous component
of Paleolithic cultural sequences. To date, assemblages with these Site Layer/industry 14
C age s Calib. BP s
characteristics have not been reported from western and northern 2
Ucagizli 1 I 35,100 1400 39,682 1554
Europe. Nor are they known in the area stretching from the Zagros Ucagizli 12 I 36,915 335 41,812 335
Ucagizli 12 I 39,200 1300 43,354 943
through Central and South Asia (see Dennell et al.,1991 for a possible
Ucagizli 12 I 39,700 1600 43,737 1193
exception), although there are few well-studied assemblages from Ucagizli 12 I 39,817 383 43,646 599
these regions and future discoveries could change the situation Ucagizli 12 I 40,200 1300 44,020 1079
radically. What this shows is that early Upper Paleolithic assem- Umm el Tlel3 PI 36,000 2500 39,958 2515
blages with Levallois features in blade production are not a universal Bacho Kiro4 11 34,800 1100 39,638 1288
Bacho Kiro4 11 37,650 1450 42,334 1127
stage in the transition from Middle to Upper Paleolithic. They are an Bacho Kiro4 11 38,500 1700 42,883 1228
element in many, but by no means all regional sequences. Bacho Kiro4 11 >43,000
In addition to covering a vast area of geographic space, in some Temnata Doupka4 couche 4- inter. 38,200 1500 42,728 1122
places IUP assemblages also cover very long spans of time. The Temnata Doupka4 couche 4- inter. 38,800 1700 43,092 1205
Temnata Doupka4 couche 4- inter. 39,100 1800 43,312 185
calibrated radiocarbon dates for layers yielding claimed IUP as-
Temnata Doupka4 couche 4- inter. 45,000 7000
semblages range between 32 ka and 47 ka, mostly falling between Temnata Doupka4 couche 4- inter. 46,000 8000
39 ka and 45 ka cal BP (Table 2). Where multiple dates are available, Stranska Skala5 IIIc 34,440 720 39,620 1010
individual sites or site complexes may cover a signicant timespan, Stranska Skala5 IIId 34,530 790 39,643 1046
on the order of 6e8 ky. Certainly a part of this variability stems from Stranska Skala5 IIId 34,530 770 39,696 977
Stranska Skala5 IIIc 34,680 820 39,738 1043
very real difculties in radiocarbon dating samples in this time range
Stranska Skala5 IIId 35,080 830 40,003 1045
(e.g., Higham et al., 2009). Many dates, and especially those obtained Stranska Skala5 IIId 35,320 310 40,250 874
prior to the widespread use of AMS counting and development of Stranska Skala5 IIIc 36,350 990 40,889 1158
highly effective sample-pre-treatment techniques should be Stranska Skala5 IIIc 36,570 940 41,229 941
Stranska Skala5 IIId 37,270 990 42,024 670
considered essentially minimum age estimates. Even with the most
Stranska Skala5 IIId 37,900 1100 42,574 884
stringent sample pre-treatment and counting procedures as well as Stranska Skala5 III-1 38,200 1100 42,784 893
the most up-to-date calibration methods, dates older than 40 k 14C Stranska Skala5 IIIc 38,300 1100 42,847 888
years are likely to underestimate the true age. Application of inde- Stranska Skala5 III-2 38,500 1300 42,948 974
pendent dating methods such as OSL and TL, as well as stratigraphic Stranska Skala5 IIIa 41,300 1300 44,879 1301
Brno-Bohunice5 Bohunician 32,740 530 37,237 856
markers such as the Y-5 tephra (Fedele et al., 2003; Pyle et al., 2006),
Brno-Bohunice5 Bohunician 34,770 240 39,926 812
will be vital to obtaining a better understanding of the true age of Brno-Bohunice5 Bohunician 35,025 730 39,994 989
these and other late MP and early UP assemblages. Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunician 36,000 1100 40,576 1265
Brno-Bohunice5 Bohunician 36,050 260 40,752 1035
Brno-Bohunice5 Bohunician 36,540 310 41,633 310
Brno-Bohunice Bohunician 38,200 330 42,617 428
Table 2
Brno-Bohunice5 Bohunician 38,690 320 43,082 592
Published radiocarbon dates for IUP sites/assemblages. (** refers to later early UP-
Brno-Bohunice5 Bohunician 38,770 330 43,100 600
provides minimum age for underlying IUP). Where calibrated ages were not pub-
Brno-Bohunice5 Bohunician 40,050 360 43,772 625
lished dates were calibrated using CalPal online version 1.5.
Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunician 40,173 1200 43,979 1016
Site Layer/industry 14
C age s Calib. BP s Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunician 41,250 450 44,780 735
1
Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunician 41,350 450 44,878 726
Boker Tachtit 4 34,000 600 39,300 1150 Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunician 41,400 1400 45,015 1399
Boker Tachtit1 1 45,000 1000 48,345 1800 Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunician 42,100 450 45,501 844
Boker Tachtit1 1 47,000 1000 50,600 2200 Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunician 42,750 550 46,246 1206
Ucagizli 12 Fbc 34,000 690 39,160 1300 Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunician 42,900 1700 46,681 1936
Ucagizli 12 Fbc 35,020 740 39,989 993 Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunician 43,250 550 46,868 1606
Ucagizli 12 Fbc 39,100 1000 43,300 800 Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunician 43,600 550 47,144 1604
Ucagizli 12 G 39,100 1500 43,300 1060 Shlyakh6 layer 8 <44,000 <47,500
Ucagizli 12 H1-3 35,500 1200 40,200 1312 Kulychivka6 III??? 31,000 500 35,100 500
Ucagizli 12 H1-3 35,670 730 40,400 1070 Kara Bom7 OH5-6 43,200 1500 46,931 1995
Ucagizli 12 H1-3 38,900 1100 43,185 850 Kara Bom7 OH5-6 43,300 1600 47,025 2052
Ucagizli 12 H1-3 39,400 1200 43,467 896 Ust-Karakol 1 (1)**8 OH 5.2e5.3 31,410 1160 35,784 1356
Ucagizli 12 H1-3 41,400 1100 44,927 1157 Ust-Karakol 1 (1)**8 OH 5.2e5.3 29,900 2070 34,728 2209
Ucagizli 12 I 33,874 271 39,496 1015
 S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International 347 (2014) 29e38 33

Table 2 (continued ) intersection with a narrow face or lateral edge (e.g. Kara-Bom).
Site Layer/industry 14
C age s Calib. BP s These variants can sometimes coexist and may at times repre-
sent different stages of reduction.
Kamenka A 40,500 3800 44,848 3587
Kamenka A8 35,845 695 40,588 1046

Some IUP technological systems appear to have been oriented
Kamenka A8 31,060 530 35,188 528 toward production of pointed pieces, others toward the pro-
Kamenka A8 30,460 430 34,739 441 duction of blades or even elongated akes. Multiple products
Kamenka A8 26,760 265 31,451 344 occur together in many assemblages, making it difcult to infer
Khotyk9 3 38,200 2800 42,039 2598
the intentionality of the toolmakers: reduction systems may be
Khotyk9 3 28,770 245 33,264 414
Podzvonkaya10 3 38,900 3300 42,755 3132 oriented toward producing multiple blank forms (Shimelmitz
Tolbor 411 31,210 410 34,233 400 and Kuhn, 2013).
Tolbor 411 >41,050 >44,570
Although standardized bladelet production systems are rare, at
Tolbor 411 35,230 680 40,129 991 least two different approaches to the manufacture of small
Tolbor 411 37,400 2600 41,354 2475
Chikhen Agui12 27,432 872 32,114 818
blanks are documented among IUP assemblages in different
Chikhen Agui 2**12 2.5 30,555 410 34,813 438 regions. At Umm el Tlel bladelets were produced as part of the
Tsagaan Agui12 3 33,840 640 38,992 1420 chaine op eratoire for making macro-blades and points, leaving
Tsagaan Agui12 3 33,780 585 38,972 1432 characteristic scars on the dorsal faces of Umm el Tlell points
Tsagaan Agui12 3 33,500 600 38,676 1585 da and Bonliauri, 2006): microwear
(Bourguignon, 1998; Boe
Tsagaan Agui12 3 32,960 670 37,498 1018
Tsagaan Agui12 3 30,940 480 35,080 478 evidence shows that some of these small elements were hafted.
SDG213 7 34,395 328 The asymmetric blade core/burin-core technology combination
SDG213 7 41,445 223 is typical of the IUP Siberia and in Mongolia (Zwyns, 2012;
Sources: 1, Marks, 1983; 2, Kuhn et al., 2009; 3, Ploux and Soriano 2003; 4, Tsanova, Zwyns et al., 2012). The method is oriented toward the pro-
2008: 12, 107; 5, Richter et al., 2009a, 2009b; 6, Hoffecker, 2011; 7, Derevianko and duction of small blades detached from the lateral edge of a
Rybin, 2003; 8, Kuzmin, 2004; 9, Kuzmin et al., 2006; 10. Lbova 2008; 11, larger blade, following its longitudinal axis (Fig. 2). Based on the
Derevianko et al., 2007; 12, Derevianko et al., 2004; 13, Li et al., 2013.
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
These caveats notwithstanding, dates from more recent studies and the Bohunician.
(Richter et al., 2008, 2009a; Kuhn et al., 2009) do suggest that at
Distinctive retouched forms vary regionally. In the Levant two
least the Levantine IUP and the Bohunician lasted for prolonged distinctive tool forms, Emireh points and chanfreins occur in IUP
periods. This dispersal of radiometric dates shows that the IUP is assemblages, though they are seldom found together. Neither
not a transitory phenomenon. Even taking the dates critically it artifact form is found in the Bulgarian sites or elsewhere in
probably lasted longer than recent estimates for the age range of southern Europe. In Siberia and Mongolia, blanks with inverse
the proto-Aurignacian, and perhaps the early Aurignacian as well proximal thinning do occur (Fig. 2) (Derevianko et al., 1987,
(Banks et al., 2013). Some authors have described temporal 1998a, 1998b; Rybin, 2004, 2014; Zwyns, 2012; Zwyns et al.,
sequencing within the Levantine IUP sites, although the number of 2014). Blanks differ in size and shape, being either elongated
well-dated localities is comparatively small (Marks, 1990; blades with inverse retouch on the distal end (in the Altai),
Demidenko and Usik, 1993; Leder, 2013). In Siberia and northern pointed akes in the Cis-Baikal (e.g. Makarovo-4) (Rybin, 2000)
Mongolia, chronological data available suggest a sudden appear- and blades with inverse truncation in Mongolia (e.g. Tolbor 4).
ance of this technology, but they are insufcient to address the
Other archaeological associations are also highly variable. In the
question of the local development (Gladyshev et al., 2010). Based on zl (Kuhn et al.,
Levant at least, the later IUP at Ksar Akil and ag
the current data, comparisons with the ages of sites in southern 2001, 2009) is associated with bone tools and abundant shell
Mongolia and northwest China indicate that it took more than 5 ky beads. Ornaments are also present in the early layers at Bacho
for these technological systems to diffuse or be carried into the arid Kiro (Kozlowski et al., 1982; Tsanova, 2008) and in Kara Bom
regions of East Asia (Li et al., 2013). (Derevianko and Rybin, 2003) and at Khotyk, in the Transbaikal.
Finally, the range of industries designated as IUP exhibit a In the latter region, bone artifacts such as a whistle (Kamenka A)
considerable degree of technological heterogeneity. The more we and a ute/whistle (Khotyk, layer 3), or stone ornament have
learn about early Upper Paleolithic assemblages from different also been reported (Lbova, 2010).
parts of Eurasia, and about IUP assemblages specically, the more
we realize that there is substantial variation among them. In the Because it ignores many aspects of this variability, the broad
broadest sense of the term, the industries dened as Initial Upper denition of IUP can lead to an interpretative dilemma. Long dis-
Paleolithic share only a few basic traits. They are united mainly by tance comparisons between Central European and North Asian
the use of hard hammer percussion, facetted platforms and rela- assemblages are a good example of the problems. Without clearly
tively at exploitation faces on some cores, all of which are tightly suggesting the idea of a united complex, some authors have
linked traits from a technological point of view. Locally, other fea- emphasized similarities between Bohunician and Kara-Bom IUP
tures are highly variable. (Svoboda and Skrdla, 1995; Bar-Yosef and Svoboda, 2003, 2004;
Skrdla, 2003b). Granted, these assemblages share some techno-

In some assemblages, (ag zl FeI, Ksar Akil, Boker Tachtit 4)
logical and typological features (Levallois-like products, dominance
blank production is almost exclusively unidirectional. In others of hard-hammer percussion, UP tool-types on blade blanks, bidi-
(Boker Tachtit 1, 2, the Bohunician sites, Kara-Bom (OH5eOH6), rectional aking). However, signicant differences can also be
Tolbor 4 (OH5eOH6), Shuidonggou 1, 2, blank production in- identied.
volves bidirectional removals. As described at Str  Ska
anska la, the most representative Bohu-

Even bidirectional technological systems are not homogeneous. nician reduction sequence is based on the production of convergent
Sometimes bidirectional cores have platforms on opposite ends blanks (Skrdla, 2003b). Although the aking is initialized by
of the same broad face of the core (e.g Bohunician), but often the removing crested blades, the convergent blanks are generally
reduction took place on a broad aking surface and at the struck in short series from the central part of the aking surface on
34 S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International 347 (2014) 29e38

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).
 S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International 347 (2014) 29e38
the broad face of the core. The convexity of the aking 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 nish 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 at
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
Fig. 3. Analytical description of IUP variants in bidirectional blade reduction. Kara-
Bom (above) and Stra nska ska
la (below) (adapted from Boe da, 1990; Skrdla, 2003b).
A. Initial crest B. Reduction e lateral motion: Above, the reduction is going back and
forth between a narrow and a broad aking surface. Below, the reduction is semi-
circular and moves from one side to the other with a aking surface located in between
C. Reduction e geometry: Above, the reduction area ts into a rectangular or scalene
triangle. Below, a rst phase of initialization (C1) is followed by the reduction (C2). The
reduction area ts into a trapeze. D. Reduction e inward motion: Above, the core
reduction follows an oblique axis form the point of initialization. Below, the core fol-
lows a straight axis from the initial crest. E. Management of lateral convexities:
debordant or crested blade. F. Below, a rst series of Levallois blanks (F1) is followed by
a management of the lateral (E) convexities before the second one starts (F2).
35
approach different from the dominant Bohunician reduction
sequence at Stra nska Ska
la, although cores exploited on the broad
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 Paleo-
lithic 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 aking 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 coex-
istence 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
European Middle Paleolithic (Re villion, 1995) rather than a united
cultural complex. Asymmetrical cores close to the Kara-Bom IUP
are also considered typical for the Chatelperronian (e.g. Roc-de-
Combe layer 8) (Boe da, 1990; but see also; Pelegrin, 1995;
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 sufcient basis to dene a single cultural
complex that encompasses any and all assemblage showing bidi-
rectional debordant pieces and Levallois akes/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
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 tech-
nological tradition is one such process, arguably the rst 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 repre-
sents frequent convergent evolution. The loose conguration of
attributes that dene the IUP may simply represent an easy
pathway from late MP Levallois to UP prismatic blade tech-
nologyda 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 impli-
cated 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 radio-
carbon 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
36 S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International 347 (2014) 29e38
(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 north-
ern Levant (ag zl, Ksar Akil, possibly Umm etTlel).
Given the known dates and the typo-technological differences
stressed above, it is even more difcult to derive the eastern Euro-
pean 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
nd 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 difcult to identify direct
ancestors for the North Asian technological systems. In Central Asia,
the earliest documented assemblages with volumetric blade tech-
nology occur around 170 ka, at Khonako in Tadjikistan (Sch afer et al.,
1998, 2003). Regrettably, few of the subsequent laminar MP as-
semblages are securely dated. A second preliminary scenario must
be proposed, qualied by the deciencies in temporal evidence:
1. Early dispersal of a complex technologically intermediate be-
tween 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 rst half of MIS3. This technology may have quickly devel-
oped 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 pop-
ulations carrying it) spread into northern Mongolia, southern
Mongolia, and nally northwest China.
Between Siberia and Northern Mongolia, interconnected
reduction sequences (asymmetric cores 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 identied 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
ake technologies into blade production.
5. Conclusion
As the denition 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
signicance for human evolution was fairly clear. Now that we are
speaking of a list of shared characteristics e centered on Levallois-
like 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 reect diffusion of technological ideas across
interconnected populations, or it could signal technological con-
vergences 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 accumu-
lating as a technology spread or of repeated, spontaneous de-
velopments, 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 recog-
nition of homologies and analogies using intensive attribute anal-
ysis (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 con-
straints 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. Specic and con-
nected reduction sequences such as asymmetrical cores/burin-
cores are more likely to represent such homologies. To identify a
clear case of homoplasy implies that we explicitly dene features
that are distributed beyond the regional scale. These analogies
could include some of the broad IUP characters such as a produc-
tion 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-dened cultural phe-
nomena. 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 prob-
ably the consequence of multiple processes, including migration,
 S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International 347 (2014) 29e38
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 in-
uences on the distributions of culture traits in the remote past is
an important step towards realizing the eld of archaeology's
unique perspective on human cultural dynamics played out at the
broadest scales.
References
Arrizabalaga, A., Altuna, J., Areso, M., Elorza, M., Garca, M., Iriarte, J.,
Mariezkurrena, K., Mujika, J., Pema n, E., Tarrin~ o, A., Uriz, A., Viera, L., Straus, L.G.,
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.
Banks, W., d'Errico, F., Zilha~o, J., 2013. Humaneclimate interaction during the Early
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. ag
Baykara, I., zl Mag _
aras Iinsanlarna ait dislerin Paleoantropolojik ana-
lizi. (Paloeanthropological analysis of the human teeth from ag zl cave) Goebel, T., Aksenov, M., 1995. Accelerator radiocarbon dating of the initial Upper
(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
Boe bitages
Levallois et laminaire. Pale olithique moyen et Pale olithique supe rieur ancian en
Europe. Memoires du Muse e de Prehistoire d'ile de France 3, 63e68.
da, E., Bonliauri, S., 2006. The intermediate Paleolithic, the rst bladelet pro-
Boe
duction 40 000 years ago. Anthropolgie (Brno) 44, 75e92.
Bourguignon, L., 1998. Les Industries du Pale olithique Interme diaire d'Umm El-Tlel:
Nouveaux e l e
ments pour le passage entre Pale olithique Moyen et Supe rieur. In:
Otte, M. (Ed.), Pre histoire d'Anatolie: Gene se de Deux Mondes. Universite  de
ge, Lie
Lie ge, pp. 709e730. ERAUL 85.
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 evi-
dence 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.,
Mercier, N., Nomade, S., Peigne , S., Sitzia, L., Tournepiche, J.-F., Al-Halibi, M., Al-
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
technological transition from the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic. Pale orient 19
(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 paleograa 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 stratit sirovannoi chasti stoyanki Kara-Bom (mustie-verkhnii
paleolit) (Paleolithic complex at the stratied site of Kara-Bom (Mousterian-
Upper 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 Founda-
tion. 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.
37
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 inves-
tigation. 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: Evi-
dence 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 periodi-
zation of Upper paleolithic sites in Mongolia. Archaeology, Ethnology & An-
thropology of Eurasia 38, 33e40.
Palaeolithic in southeast Siberia. Antiquity 69, 349.
Goebel, T., Derevianko, A.P., Petrin, V.T., 1993. Dating the middle-to-upper-
paleolithic 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., Prfer, K., Meyer, M., Burbano, H.A.,
Good, J.M., Schultz, R., Aximu-Petri, A., Butthof, A., Ho ber, B., Hoffner, B.,
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
(Bulgaria). Pan ~ stwowe wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa, pp. 119e167.
Krivoshapkin, A.I., Anoikin, A.A., Brantingham, P.J., 2006. The lithic industry of Obi-
Rakhmat Grotto, Uzbekistan. Indo-Pacic Prehistory Association Bulletin 26, 5e19.
Krivoshapkin, A.I., Kuzmin, Y.V., Jull, A.J.T., 2010. Chronology of the Obi-Rakhmat
Grotto (Uzbekistan): rst results on the dating and problems of the Paleo-
lithic key site in Central Asia. Radiocarbon 52, 549e554.
Kuhn, S., Stiner, M., Gle, 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., Gle, 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., Gle, E., Ozer, I., Ylmaz, H., Baykara, I., Akkol, A.,
Goldberg, P., Martnez, K., nay, E., Suata-Alpaslan, F., 2009. The Early Upper
Paleolithic occupations at ag zl Cave (Hatay, Turkey). Journal of Human
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-Pacic 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.
38 S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International 347 (2014) 29e38
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 techno-
logical shift from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in the southern Levant. In:
Trinkaus, E. (Ed.), The Mousterian Legacy. British Archaeological Reports In-
ternational 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 rassh-
chepleniya 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.
Otte, M., Boe da, E., Haesaerts, P., 1990. Rocourt: industrie laminaire archaque.
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
rust excavation. Pale orient 34, 47e65.
Pelegrin, J., 1995. Technologie lithique: le Chatelperronien de Roc-de-Combe (lot) et
de La Cote (Dordogne). CNRS Edition, Paris.
Ploux, S., Soriano, S., 2003. Umm el Tlel, une sequence du Pale olithique supe rieur en
Syrie centrale. Industries lithiques et chronologie culturelle. Pale orient 29,
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 Cam-
panian 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
Re bitage laminaire au Pale olithique moyen en
Europe septentrionale: e tat de la question. Bulletin de la Socie te
 pre
historique
franaise 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 thermolumi-
nescence 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 al-
Hamamah: 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
Ch^atelperronien : la se quence de la Grande-Roche-de-la Ple matrie a Quinay
(Vienne) (Doctoral thesis). In: Prehistory. University of Paris Ouest Nanterre, La
Defense, 564 p.
Rybin, E.P., 2000. K voprocu rykovodyatsik ickopaemiikh v industrialniikh kom-
plekcakh rannei porii verknego paleolita gornogo altaya (The question of the
'fossil directeur' in the Early Upper Paleolithic of Gorny-Altai). In: Paleo-
geograya Kamennogo Veka. Korreltisya Prirodniik Cobotii I Arkheologicheskiik
Kultur Paleolita Severnoy Azii in Sopredelniik Territorii: Materialii Mejdunar-
odnoi Konferentsii, pp. 123e126. Krasnoyarsk.
Rybin, E., 2004. Middle Paleolithic Blade Industries and the Middle-to-Upper-
Paleolithic 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: Specic cultural traits in the Initial
Upper Paleolithic of Southern Siberia and Central Asia. Quaternary International
347, 39e52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.04.031.
Sankararaman, S., Patterson, N., Li, H., Pa a
bo, S., Reich, D., 2012. The date of inter-
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.
Schafer, J., Ranov, V., Sosin, P., 1998. The cultural evolution of man and the chro-
nostratigraphical background of changing environments in the loess palaeosoil
sequences of Obi-Mazar and Khonako (Tadjikistan). Anthropologie 36, 121e135.
Schafer, 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
Upper Paleolithic of northern Eurasia. In: Zilha ~o, Z., d'Errico, F. (Eds.), The
Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes.
Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications, Trabalhos de Arqueologia, vol. 33.
Instituto Portugue ^s de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 89e107.
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 retting approach. Stranska skala. In:
Svoboda, J.A., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Stranska Skala. Origins of the Upper Paleo-
lithic 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. Chelo-
vekPaleolitechnologii, Geoecologia, Ethnograi 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 Denition 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 Antropo-
logiya 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.
Tsanova, T., 2008. Les de buts du Paleolithique supe rieur dans l'Est des Balkans.
Reexion a  partir de l'e tude taphonomique et techno-e conomique des en-
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.
Tuffreau, A., Re villion, S., Somme , J., Van Vliet-Lanoe , B., 1994. Le gisement
paleolithique moyen de Seclin (Nord). Bulletin de la Socie te
 prehistorique
franaise 91 (1), 23e46.
Volkman, P., 1983. Boker Tachtit: cores reconstructions. In: Marks, A.E. (Ed.), Pre-
history 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 347,
53e65.