See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339947259

Microblades in MIS2 Central China: Cultural Change and Adaptive Strategies

Article  in  PaleoAmerica · March 2020

DOI: 10.1080/20555563.2020.1728872

CITATIONS READS

0 259

1 author:

Yue Feng
Peking University
2 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Yue Feng on 13 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PaleoAmerica
A journal of early human migration and dispersal

ISSN: 2055-5563 (Print) 2055-5571 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ypal20

Microblades in MIS2 Central China: Cultural

Change and Adaptive Strategies

Yue Feng

To cite this article: Yue Feng (2020): Microblades in MIS2 Central China: Cultural Change and
Adaptive Strategies, PaleoAmerica, DOI: 10.1080/20555563.2020.1728872

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/20555563.2020.1728872

Published online: 15 Mar 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ypal20
PALEOAMERICA Center for the Study of the First Americans
https://doi.org/10.1080/20555563.2020.1728872 Texas A&M University

REVIEW ARTICLE

Microblades in MIS2 Central China: Cultural Change and Adaptive Strategies

Yue Feng
School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The diffusion of Northeast Asian microblades and their relation to human migration are key issues Microblade; Central China;
to understanding the peopling of the Americas. However, understanding of this process is hindered Marine Isotope Stage 2;
by a lack of a cultural framework for terminal Pleistocene Central China. This paper reviews data human migration; adaptive
from microblade sites located in Central China dating to Marine Isotope Stage 2, uses a modified strategies
typology based on the chaîne opeŕ atoire to build a chronological sequence of changing lithic
technology and typology, and further divides the Central Chinese sequence into four main
phases: 29,000–22,000 cal yr BP, 22,000–17,000 cal yr BP, 17,000–14,000 cal yr BP, and 14,000–
10,000 cal yr BP. By comparing this chronology with established sequences for other parts of
Northeast Asia, it is evident that these technological phases appeared in different orders across
the region, which is best explained by human migrations driven by climate change and possibly
transition in adaptive strategies.

1. Introduction China to build a cultural sequence based on lithic typol-

Microblade was the most widely distributed lithic tech-
nology in terminal Pleistocene Northeast Asia and
North America, and is often used as a key indicator of
the Asian origin of the first Americans (Yi and Clark
1985). In recent years, as a result of increased fieldwork
and the development of high-resolution dating methods,
several studies have increased our understanding of the
chronological and spatial distribution of lithic technol-
ogies spanning 12,000–30,000 calendar years ago (cal
yr BP), predominantly Marine Isotope Stage 2 (MIS2).
For example, Kato’s (2014) study of microblade assem-
blages in Central China, Northeast China, and Japan
identifies that there were two basic groups using different
microblade technology: North Microblade Industries
characterized by wedge-shaped microcores, and a micro-
blade industry in Central China based on pyramidal
microcores. Buvit et al. (2016) compared late-Pleistocene
archaeological radiocarbon databases from the Trans-
Baikal, Russian Far East, and Paleo-Sakhalin-Hok-
kaido-Kuril Peninsula (PSHK), identifying three
migration events at 24,830, 22,740, and ∼15,000 cal yr
BP. Wang (2017) analyzed recently discovered micro-
blades in Central China and suggested three major dis-
persals during MIS2, each characterized by blades and
microblades, boat-shaped microblade cores, and Yubetsu
cores. When combined, these studies provide a model of
late-Pleistocene human migration, which can be tested
against well-dated cultural frameworks across Northeast
Asia. This paper reanalyzes microblade sites in Central
ogy and variability in tool assemblages, aimed at explor-
ing current theories concerning human migration,
environmental change, and subsistence practice.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sample selection
The area discussed in this paper is restricted to Central
China, often referred to as “Huabei”. Today, this area is
roughly defined by the Qinling Mountains and the
Huaihe River in the south, the Great Wall in the
north and west (coinciding with the 400 mm rainfall
isohyet), and the eastern coast (Figure 1). In modern
times, the typical climate is continental monsoon
characterized by hot and rainy summers and cold and
dry winters, with vegetation dominated by temperate
deciduous broad-leaved forest. During the Last Glacial
Maximum (LGM), with the expansion of ice sheets in
the north, a fall in sea level led to the expansion of
land (Xie et al. 1996), and it has been estimated that
the coastal line was 300 km farther east than where it
is today (Zhuang 2002), connecting Central China
with the Korean Peninsula and Japanese islands.
Figure 1 shows the distribution of archaeological of
sites during MIS2. Most are located in the Loess Plateau
and piedmont areas, while the subsiding Lower Yellow
River Plain has few recorded sites, possibly because of
the thick alluvium deposited during the Holocene that
may have buried Paleolithic sites.

CONTACT Yue Feng fengyuearchaeology@pku.edu.cn

© 2020 Center for the Study of the First Americans
2 Y. FENG
Figure 1 Dated MIS2 site distribution in Central China (1, Nihe-
wan Basin; 2, Southern Shanxi; 3, eastern piedmont of Songshan
Mountain).
Some sites only have had limited excavation or surface
survey, and earlier excavations often lacked solid dating
information, while the three densest areas (circles in
Figure 1), southern Shanxi, Nihewan Basin, and the east-
ern piedmont of Songshan Mountain, have had more
systematic archaeological work that continues to the pre-
sent day, providing more precise stratigraphy and cul-
tural frameworks. As such, this paper focuses on the
discoveries in these areas to reconstruct the evidence
for specific microblade technologies, using materials
from other sites as supplementary and tests. To be con-
sistent, all radiocarbon dates used in this paper were cali-
brated with Oxcal IntCal 13.
2.2. Microblade technology and core typology
As a direct reflection of microblade technology, core
typology is a key component of microblade studies; how-
ever, different regions across Northeast Asia and North
America have utilized different terms and definitions.
In China, the basic typological framework was set by
Chen (1983; for English version, see Chen 1992), and
although still widely used today, more detailed analyses
in recent years using chaîne opératoire approaches have
revealed a more complicated picture. Based on the type
of blanks and the reduction sequence of the core, this
paper divides Chinese microblade cores into the three
main categories.
The first category is prismatic cores, including cylind-
rical, pyramidal, semi-conical, and conical forms (Figure 2
(1–4)). The blank for this core type is generally rectangu-
lar or squared, and microblades were generally detached
all over the body, and sometimes, the cores were re-orien-
tated to make full use of the raw material. Within this
technology, one particular type is worthy of more detailed
attention: pencil-shaped or bullet cores (Figure 2(3)). This
type of core had a very small platform and a pointed
bottom, with microblades detached all around the body,
leaving highly distinctive uniform, densely packed parallel
scars.
The second category is boat-shaped cores (Figure 2
(5)). The blank is always a thick flake and its ventral
side is usually directly used as the platform of the core.
The thinning of the body is done by flaking along the
margins of the flake, also in a ventral to dorsal direction,
and generally there is no or very limited trimming on the
back ridge. The retouch of microblades derived from
such cores also follows a ventral to dorsal direction,
resulting in shorter microblades compared to those pro-
duced from wedge-shaped cores.
The third category is wedge-shaped cores (Figure 2
(6–8)). This is the most problematic type because at
least three different sub-types have been collated
under this term. In sub-type 1 (Figure 2(6)), the blank
comprises flakes or thin blocks with marginal trimming
on the edge, and the platform and striking face are gen-
erally wide. During preparation, the core was not inten-
sively retouched and thus was often irregular in shape.
This sub-type has been generally recovered from early
sites before 20,000 cal yr BP, together with narrow-
faced blade cores, and they are technically connected
to the latter. Sub-type 2 (Figure 2(7)) is characterized
by finely worked bifaces that formed as blanks, and
the platform is formed by removing ski-spalls. This
sub-type is finely prepared with bifacial retouch before
the detaching of microblades, and the shape is more
regular compared to the previous sub-type. In Japan,
this technology is called “Yubetsu” (Sato and Tsutsumi
2007). Sub-type 3 (Figure 2(8)) is characterized by a
blank prepared from a flake, but the body of the core
was trimmed bifacially from the platform. The general
shape is similar to the second sub-type, but the
reduction sequence can be seen to be different. While
the second sub-type applies bifacial retouch to first
shape the core, followed by the removal of ski-spalls
to form the platform, this core type usually utilizes
the surfaces of natural joints or flake scars as platforms
to trim the core, with the platform width being greater
than the Yubetsu cores. These three sub-types do share
the same feature with regard to edge trimming, but their
chaînes opératoires and their spatial and chronological
distributions are very different. In this paper, the term
“wedge-shaped core,” therefore, only refers to the first
sub-type, while the second sub-type is referred to as
“Yubetsu core,” and the third, “wide wedge-shaped
core.” As such, this paper generally follows the terms
used in archaeological reports to describe the core
types, but with unique types (e.g., Yubetsu cores, wide
wedge-shaped cores, and pencil-shaped cores) being
specially emphasized.
 PALEOAMERICA 3

Figure 2 Microblade core types: 1, pyramidal (Li, Li, and Kato 2014); 2, semi-conical (Li, Li, and Kato 2014); 3, pencil-shaped (Xie, Li, and
Liu 2006); 4, cylindrical (Chen 1983, for English version, see Chen 1992); 5, boat-shaped (Song et al. 2017); 6, wedge-shaped (Zhao 2015);
7, Yubetsu (Gai and Wei 1977); 8, wide wedge-shaped (Ren 2015).

3. Central China microblades influence on both the nature of accumulated sediments

3.1. Southwest Shanxi
As one of the earliest-studied regions, southwest Shanxi
has provided a high density of microblade sites, and
recent work at Shizitan (Song et al. 2017) has offered
a sequence spanning from 26,000 to 8000 cal yr BP. Shi-
zitan is located in Jixian County of Shanxi Province,
2 km west from the Yellow River, and comprises several
localities. Locality 1 was first excavated in 1980, with
further survey and excavation from 2000 to 2010. The
profile at Locality 29 (Song et al. 2017) indicated a
sequence of environmental phases that had a strong
and the lithic culture. The earliest deposit at this site,
Layer 8, was still dominated by traditional core-and-
flake technology, with the earliest microblade recovered
in Layer 7, which consisted of loess containing blades
recovered below an erosional surface. The six cultural
layers above this were all buried in fine alluvial silt relat-
ing to the site’s proximity to the floodplain, indicative of
cycles of alternating cold/warm climatic conditions. A
total of 41 radiocarbon dates are available for Shizitan,
Locality 1, providing a tight chronology by which to
analyze cultural changes and associated changes in
lithic technology in the area. By assembling all
4 Y. FENG
Figure 3 Lithic complex of Shizitan Locality 29, Layer 7 (College
of History and Culture, Shanxi University, Institute of Archaeol-
ogy, Shanxi Province 2017): 1–2, microblades; 3, microblade
core; 4, backed knife; 5, side scraper; 6,8, end scrapers; 7,
burin; 9, retouched blade.
excavated materials and dates together, the cultural
sequence for southwest Shanxi can be organized as
described below.
Phase 1, 27,000–24,000 cal yr BP, represents the first
appearance of microblade technology. Twenty-three
microblade cores and 2489 microblades were recovered
from Layer 7 in Locality 29 together with flakes, blades,
blocks, debris, and tools (Figure 3), as well as
Figure 4 Lithic complex from Shizitan Locality 5, Layer 2 (Shizitan Kaogudui 2016): 1–3, microblade cores; 4, 6, 8, side scrapers; 5, flake
core; 7, end scraper.
ornaments including drilled ostrich eggshell beads,
and one piece of shell ornament, composing the earliest
assemblage in this area. Tool kits are dominated by side
scrapers and end scrapers on blade blanks, with a few
burins, backed knives, drills, a point, notch, and grind-
ing stone. Microblade core types are varied, but in gen-
eral, cylindrical and semi-conical ones form the
majority. An early excavated site in Xiangfen, Shanxi,
named Dingcun Locality 77:01 or Chaisi, had only
213 lithic pieces, but the types and ratios of cores
and tools were very similar to those seen at Shizitan
(Wang 1986). The only date for this site, 31,250–
28,250 cal yr BP, was determined on shell in 1976
using conventional radiocarbon (IA-CASS 1992),
resulting in an earlier date than might be expected.
Close to Shizitan but across the Yellow River in the
Province of Shaanxi, the Longwangchan site (Wang
2014; Zhang et al. 2011) in Yichuan County yielded
similar findings. The microblade cores were more
diverse with many funnel-shaped and semi-conical
ones and a few cylindrical, boat-shaped, and wedge-
shaped ones. The number of tools was very limited at
the site, and their shapes and retouch techniques
were less unified, but general types like side scrapers,
end scrapers, a point, burin, drill, and denticulate
were all found, and blades were also recovered.
Phase 2, 24,000–17,000 cal yr BP, is a period during
which microblades are highly evident at Shizitan (Shizi-
tan Kaogudui 2002, 2010, 2013a, 2016; Zhao 2008).
 PALEOAMERICA 5

Figure 5 Microblade cores from Shizitan Locality 12G (Shizitan Kaogudui 2013b).

Many localities demonstrate a continuous sequence of tool assemblage, and other types appear less common,
artifact-bearing layers. All of these sites, including with one exception at Locality 1 where there were 49 bur-
Locality 5 (Layers 2–4), Locality 12 (sub-localities A, C, ins and 23 drills, making up 16.40 per cent of the whole
D, E), Locality 14 (Layers 2–4), and Locality 29 (Layers assemblage. Another broadly contemporary site, also in
2–6), were buried by fine-grained silt on an ancient allu-
vial plain, indicating a settlement pattern centered along
the bank of the river during a period of relatively mild
climate. The artifacts are also very similar across all
localities (Figure 4): boat-shaped microblade cores are
almost the only core type present, and side scrapers
make up more than half of the tool assemblage. End scra-
pers and points are also commonly seen among all these
localities, while other tools such as burins, drills, denticu-
lates, a backed knife, and grinding stones are much less
common and distributed unevenly, which is possibly
related to the different functional roles of the sites.
Small bifaces appeared for the first time in this area
during Phase 2, but most tools were only retouched
marginally.
Phase 3, 14,000–10,000 cal yr BP, appears to consist of
a break in occupation after Phase 2 in southwest Shanxi,
broadly coinciding with the H1 Event (Wang et al.
2001), to which no sites are dated. However, people reap-
peared in the area after 14,000 cal yr BP, having left rich
evidence at Locality 1 (Layer 4), Locality 5 (Layer 1),
Locality 9 (Layers 4–5), Locality 12G (Layer 2), and
Locality 29 (Layer 1). Previously dominant boat-shaped
cores are still popular during this time, but in general,
the microblade technique becomes more diverse
(Figure 5). Two new types also emerge during this period:
the wide wedge-shaped and pencil-shaped cores, indicat-
ing new innovations within microblade technology. Side Figure 6 Tools from the Youfang site (Xie and Cheng 1989): 1, 3,
scrapers and end scrapers, however, still dominate the 4, 6, points; 2, 5, burins; 7, backed knife.
6 Y. FENG
southern Shanxi, is Xueguan (Wang et al. 1983) in Puxian
County, which shows a similar diversification of micro-
blade cores but a predominance of boat-shaped forms.
The composition of tools was slightly different with far
more end scrapers than side scrapers. The dating of this
site used conventional radiocarbon methods on charcoal,
which may account for the slightly earlier date than
expected.
3.2. Nihewan Basin
Located in Yangyuan County, northwestern Hebei Pro-
vince, Nihewan Basin is one of the most intensively
worked areas in China. It has provided rich lithic
sequences to examine microblade technological change.
As many sites were excavated before the routine appli-
cation of radiocarbon dating and new data are still not
yet fully published, the chronological sequence is less
clear compared to Shizitan. With recent optically stimu-
lated luminescence dating and through the calibration of
earlier radiocarbon data, a sequence has been con-
structed, as outlined below.
Phase 1, 29,000–26,000 cal yr BP, is represented only
at Youfang (Nian et al. 2014; Xie and Cheng 1989). Arti-
facts were buried in loess similar to Layer 7 at Shizitan
Locality 29. Wedge-shaped microblade cores are the
most common core type, and a similar technique was
also applied to blade and bladelet production. Cylindrical
and boat-shaped cores were also found. The tool assem-
blage is dominated by side scrapers, end scrapers, and
points, while a few burins and a backed knife were also
found (Figure 6).
Figure 7 Tools from the Erdaoliang Site (Li, Ren, and Li 2016): 1, side scraper; 2–6, burins.
Phase 2, 22,000–20,000 cal yr BP, is characterized by
the site of Erdaoliang (Li, Ren, and Li 2016). The site
was buried under the upper part of the third terrace of
the north bank of the Sanggan River. The stratigraphic
profile of the site was mainly fine-grained alluvial silt.
Only boat-shaped microblade cores were found, and the
tool kit was dominated by burins, with a single backed
knife and side scraper also present. From the published
images, blades still appear to have been commonly used
as blanks for tool making (Figure 7). Close to the Nihewan
Basin, similar sites were found in northeastern Hebei Pro-
vince, for example, Mengjiaquan (Institute of Cultural
Relics of Hebei Province, Preservation Station of Cultural
Relics of Tangshan City, and Preservation Station of Cul-
tural Relics of Yutian County 1991) and Tingsijian (Wang
1997), where boat-shaped cores were the major type, but
the tool assemblage was more diverse with side scrapers,
burins, drills, points, notches, and backed knives.
Phase 3, 17,000–15,000 cal yr BP, marks a dramatic
change in microblade technology, and the density of
sites increases greatly. Sites characterized by Yubetsu
technique occupy the second terrace of the Sanggan
River, and sites are mainly buried by loess indicative of
dry and cold climate. The most representative sites fall
within the Hutouliang site group, including published
localities like Hutouliang (Gai and Wei 1977), Jijitan
(Institute of Cultural Relics of Hebei Province 1993),
Ma’anshan, and Yujiagou (Xie, Li, and Liu 2006). From
a broader perspective, both Yujiaxiaobu (Song and Shi
2008) in the Datong Basin and Nanjiagou (Niu et al.
2017) in the Huailai Basin can also be considered part
of this industry. Yubetsu cores represent almost the

only type of microblade cores at these sites, and bifacially
retouched tools were more common than in earlier
phases. For example, at Hutouliang, all 42 points and
31 side scrapers were retouched unifacially or bifacially
(Gai and Wei 1977; Figure 8). The composition of tool
assemblages greatly varies between localities, possibly
reflecting functional and behavioral differences. Worth
drawing attention to is the emergence of new types of
finely retouched tools, such as large bifacial adze-shaped
tools and spearpoints. Faunal remains suggest that unlike
previous phases when medium-sized herbivores formed
the major food resource, larger animals like Equus, Bos,
and even rhinoceros are commonly present in this
phase, indicating that the change of tool kits might be
related to the hunting of larger game.
Phase 4, 12,000–11,000 cal yr BP, is represented in the
upper layer of Yujiagou (Xia et al. 2001). Yujiagou belongs
to the Hutouliang group geographically, and the lower
cultural layer shares similar features with the other
localities within the group. However, the upper layer
was different in terms of both lithic technology and tool
complex. Although in the upper layer, artifacts are very
Figure 8 Bifaces and unifaces from Hutouliang site (Gai and Wei
1977).
PALEOAMERICA 7
limited and Yubetsu cores are still common, several new
technological aspects emerge: first, finely prepared pen-
cil-shaped cores (Figure 9(2, 5)); second, the earliest
polished stone axe in this region, suggesting new ways
of tool production; and third, several sherds of pottery,
thermoluminesence (TL) dated to 11,700 cal yr BP, mak-
ing them the earliest ceramics in Nihewan. These com-
bined findings were novel to this area, possibly
reflecting the changes in mobility and lifestyle that
become more evident in the record of the early Holocene.
3.3. Eastern Piedmont of Songshan Mountain
Excavations in the eastern piedmont of Songshan Moun-
tain have only been conducted in recent years, and the
number of sites recovered is still relatively limited,
hence the sequence is presently less complete than other
areas. However, the co-existence of microblade and
blade technologies in China was first confirmed in this
region at the site of Xishi, and recent work at Lingjing
Xuchang Men provides a profile spanning the Middle to
Upper Paleolithic. The development of microblade tech-
nology can be divided into two phases, as outlined below.
Phase 1, 26,000–25,000 cal yr BP, marks the first
appearance of typical blades in this area. In addition, a
few microblades and microblade cores were discovered
at two sites next to each other, Xishi and Dongshi
(Wang and Wang 2014). The types present during this
phase include cylindrical, semi-conical, boat-shaped,
and wedge-shaped cores (Figure 10), with cylindrical
and wedge-shaped cores outnumbering other types.
Most lithic findings consist of lithic debitage generated
from blade production, with a limited number of
finished tools and no faunal remains present, suggesting
the site may have functioned as a lithic workshop. The
tool kit was dominated by end scrapers manufactured
from blade blanks, but other common tools like a side
scraper, point, and burin were also found.
Phase 2 is dated to after 14,000 cal yr BP, but an ear-
lier date came from Layer 5 at the Lingjing Xuchang Man
site (Li and Ma 2016). The microblade technology for
this phase is very diverse with almost all the types of
cores mentioned above (Li, Li, and Kato 2014), and a
tool assemblage composed of side scrapers, points, and
burins, accompanied by pottery with residues from
9800 cal yr BP. At around 10,000 cal yr BP, the sites of
Lijiagou in Xinmi (Wang, Xia, and Wang 2018; Wang
et al. 2015) and Dagang (Zhang and Li 1996) at Wuyang
County provide evidence of the transition to the Neo-
lithic. Similar to southwest Shanxi and Nihewan, at
these sites boat-shaped cores are still very common,
and other core types, such as cylindrical and semi-coni-
cal, also occur (Figure 11). Both sites have similar tool
8 Y. FENG

Figure 9 Lithic assemblage from the Yujiagou site (Xie, Li, and Liu 2006): 1, side scraper; 2, 5, pencil-shaped cores; 3, end scraper; 4,
Yubetsu core; 6, point; 7, biface.

Figure 10 Microblade cores from the Xishi site (Gao 2011).

Figure 11 Microblade cores from the Lingjing Xuchang Men site (Li and Ma 2016).
 PALEOAMERICA 9

assemblages dominated by side scrapers and end scra-

References: 1, Chen (2011); 2, Department of History, Shanxi University, Institute of Archaeology, Shanxi Province (2017); 3, Gao (2011); 4, IA-CASS (1992); 5, Nian et al. (2014); 6, Song et al. (2017); 7, Wang (2014); 8, Xie, Li, and
References

7, 9

2, 6
5, 8
1, 4
pers with a few points, burins, and backed knives. At

10
3
Lijiagou, small boulders deliberately brought to the site
represent a unique phenomenon, possibly relating to

∼30,000
lithics

2568

697
213
42,928
the construction of living structures and hence a decline

All
in mobility (Wang et al. 2015). In the layers above that
contain microblades, Early Neolithic pottery, generally

Blades

100
227

42
+
made of clay mixed with sandy temper and fired at
high temperatures, was found. The most common cer-

Microblades
amic form is a straight, barrel-shaped vessel with an

34
82

2489
92
+
outer surface decorated with patterns including cord-
marks and incisions. These materials have provided
key evidence to understanding the Paleolithic–Neolithic

Note: Numerical data are given where present within publications; in other instances, a scale has been used in which + present, ++ common, +++ dominant, ∼ around.
Microblade
cores
transition in Central China.

23
13
+
4. A chronological sequence for Central China

Wide wedge-
shaped
From the cases discussed above, it seems that the three
regions followed similar trajectories of development. In
the text that follows, characteristics of the aforemen-
tioned sites have been compiled together chronologi-

Yubetsu
cally, along with sporadic data covering the remainder
of Central China (Tables 1–4).
It can be seen that the changes in technology and cul-

shaped
Pencil-
ture, in general, occur in parallel with climatic fluctu-
ations. Blade and microblade technology first appeared
in Central China slightly before or at the very beginning
Wedge-
Microblade cores

shaped

++
of the LGM (Clark et al. 2009), replacing the traditional
+

8
2
core-and-flake technique that characterize earlier MIS3
assemblages (Wang 2017). During the H2 Event (An
shaped
Boat-

2000), boat-shaped microblade cores became dominant

Table 1 Composition of microblades at Phase 1 sites, 29,000–22,000 cal yr BP.

+
+

2
3
and a proliferation of sites is seen throughout Central
China, a trend that continued into the later LGM warm-
conical
Semi-

+++

ing (Wu et al. 2009). During the coldest H1 Event, pre-

++
+
+

vious locations in the hinterland of Central China were

abandoned, while in the Nihewan Basin and farther
Pyramidal

north, the new Yubetsu technique appeared and quickly

+++

came to occupy large areas. Following the Bølling/

Allerød (B/A) warming (Wang et al. 2001), the full diver-
Cylindrical

sity of microblade technology appeared in Central China,

+++
+
+

together with bifacially trimmed, wide wedge-shaped

Liu (2006); 9, Zhang et al. (2011); 10, Zhao (2015).

and pencil-shaped cores, but boat-shaped cores were

25,000 26,000

28,442
26,687
25,905
26,100
29,000
31,251
range (95.4%)

Similar to Xishi
Calendar age

still the dominant type. A decline in site density in the

hinterland occurred during the Younger Dryas, and
26,189
25,771
24,610
23,414
26,000
28,251

while the total number of sites is limited, the major fea-

tures of the lithic assemblages appear not very different
to those from before, during, and after the event. How-
Layer

layer

ever, more fieldwork and re-analysis of previously exca-

Upper
2c

6
5
4
7
2

vated materials may provide more evidence for any

Longwangchan

internal changes during this period.

Shizitan S29

The composition of tools also varied slightly through

Youfang
Dongshi

time (Tables 5–8). During Phase 1, with the introduction

Chaisi
Xishi
Site

of blade technology, end scrapers manufactured from

 10
Y. FENG
Table 2 Composition of microblades at Phase 2 sites, 22,000–17,000 cal yr BP.
Microblade cores
Calendar age Semi- Boat- Wedge- Pencil- Wide wedge- Microblade
Site Layer range (95.4%) Cylindrical Pyramidal conical shaped shaped shaped Yubetsu shaped cores Microblades Blades All lithics References
Shizitan S29 6 21,682 24,901 14 40 54 802 1 5655 3
5 21,974 24,922 85 85 607 7153
4 19,316 23,444 129 129 723 10,691
3 20,564 21,181 24 24 187 2120
2 17,623 19,187 64 64 358 2612
Shizitan S5 4 21,471 21,963 3 3 5 377 10
3 20,564 21,181 24 24 187 278
2 19,804 20,195 6 6 26 757
Shizitan S14 4 22,353 23,021 3 3 25 390 9
3 19,550 21,150 4 4 25 326
2 17,901 18,611 20 20 59 919
Shizitan S12C 2 23,065 23,570 2 8 5 135 12
Shizitan S12A 3 16,050 18,180 1 16 159 2364 12
Shizitan S12D 2 Similar to 1 1 37 12
Shizitan S12A
Shizitan S12E 3, 4 Similar to 1 1 231 12
Shizitan S12A
Erdaoliang 3 21,963 22,419 15 15 125 1915 7
Mengjiaquan 4 20,575 21,865 1 1 1 3 + ∼23,000 5
Tingsijian 2 Similar to 19 19 111 + 699 4, 11
Mengjiauqan
Pengyang 3 21,963 22,419 1 1 2 2 1, 6
Shixiakou 6 17,200 18,500 1 3 2 14 19 203 8
5 2 3 1 2 9 33 202
Dadiwan 4 20,000 13,000 +++ 3 7 251 2
References: 1, Barton, Brantingham, and Ji (2007); 2, Bettinger et al. (2010); 3, Department of History, Shanxi University, Institute of Archaeology, Shanxi Province (2017); 4, Institute of Cultural Relics of Hebei Province, Bureau of
Cultural Relics of Qinhuangdao City and Protection Office of Cultural Relics of Changli County (1992); 5, Institute of Cultural Relics of Hebei Province, Preservation Station of Cultural Relics of Tangshan City, and Preservation
Station of Cultural Relics of Yutian County (1991); 6, Ji et al. (2005); 7, Li, Ren, and Li (2016); 8, Ren, Zhou, and Li (2017); 9, Shizitan Kaogudui (2013a); 10, Shizitan Kaogudui (2016); 11, Wang (1997); 12, Zhao (2008).
Table 3 Composition of microblades at Phase 3 sites, 17,000–14,000 cal yr BP.
Microblade cores
Calendar age Semi- Boat- Wedge- Pencil- Wide wedge- Microblade
Site Layer range (95.4%) Cylindrical Pyramidal conical shaped shaped shaped Yubetsu shaped cores Microblades Blades All lithics References
Hutouliang 16,000 17,000 444 350 1, 7, 8
Jijitan Similar to 117 452 2304 2
Hutouliang
Yujiaxiaobu 2 Similar to 10 13 17 572 4
Hutouliang
Ma’anshan 3 15,285 16,039 ∼300 ∼300 ∼500 + ∼18,000 5, 6
Yujiagou 3b 11,600 13,700 + + +++ + + ∼40,000 3, 6, 9
References: 1, Gai and Wei (1997); 2, Institute of Cultural Relics of Hebei Province (1993); 3, Mei (2007); 4, Song and Shi (2008); 5, Sun (1999); 6, Xie, Li, and Liu (2006); 7, Zhu and Gao (2006); 8, Zhu and Gao (2007); 9, Xia et al.
2001.

Table 4 Composition of microblades at Phase 4 sites, 14,000–10,000 cal yr BP.

Microblade cores
Calendar age Semi- Boat- Wedge- Pencil- Wide wedge- Microblade All
Site Layer range (95.4%) Cylindrical Pyramidal conical shaped shaped shaped Yubetsu shaped cores Microblades Blades lithics References
Xueguan 2 15,320 16,223 1 4 10 53 19 87 110 4777 18
Shizitan S29 1 13,106 13,332 7 7 109 3410 4, 16
Lingjing 5 11,847 13,854 19 36 23 3 9 1 82 ∼4000 7, 25
Dadiwan 5 10,000 13,000 +++ 1
Shuidonggou 3 10,794 11,529 16 2 12 21 19 130 905 224 8344 21, 22
12
Yujiagou 3a 11,600 + + + + 19, 2, 26, 27
Shizitan S5 1 10,248 10,514 1 1 1 1606 15
Taohuajian 3 ∼10,000 + + +++ + + + ∼1500 6, 8
Jiangjunya ∼10,000 3 3 2 5
Lijiagou 4 10,300 10,500 2 6 8 11 725 24, 11, 12,
17
Donghulin 9500 10,500 +++ + + +++ ++ + + 10, 3
Dagang 4 ∼10,000 9 19 28 14 327 23
∼10,000

PALEOAMERICA
Shizitan S1 4 30 64 35 79 208 545 1807 20
Shizitan S9 4, 5 13,800 8500 2 1 2 1 2 8 134 1119 9, 13
Shizitan S12G 2 Similar to 8 8 48 1130 14
Shizitan S9
References: 1, Bettinger et al. (2010); 2, Chen (1999); 3, Cui (2010); 4, Department of History, Shanxi University, Institute of Archaeology, Shanxi Province (2017); 5, Fang et al. (2008); 6, Li (1989); 7, Li and Ma (2016); 8, Liu (2007);
9, Liu et al. (2011); 10, School of Archaeology and Museology, Center of Chinese Archaeology Studies, Peking University, Beijing Institute of Cultural Relics (2006); 11, School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking University
and Zhengzhou Municipal Institution of Archaeology (2011); 12, School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking University and Zhengzhou Municipal Institution of Archaeology (2013); 13, Shizitan kaogudui (2010); 14, Shizitan
kaogudui (2013b); 15, Shizitan kaogudui (2016); 16, Song et al. (2017); 17, Wang et al. (2015); 18, Wang, Ding, and Tao (1983); 19, Xie, Li, and Liu (2006); 20, Xie, Yan, and Tao (1989); 21, Yi et al. (2014); 22, Yi et al. (2015); 23,
Zhang and Li (1996); 24, Zhengzhou Municipal Institution of Archaeology and Museology, Peking University (2013); 25, (Li, Li, and Kato 2014); 26, Mei 2007; 27, Xia et al. 2001.

11
 12
Table 5 Composition of tools at Phase 1 sites, 29,000–22,000 cal yr BP.

Y. FENG
Calendar age Tools
Site Layer range (95.4%) Side scraper End scraper Point Burin Borer Denticulate Notch Backed knife Biface Adze-shaped tool Spearpoint Ground stone References
Xishi 2c 25,000 26,000 + +++ + + 3
Dongshi Upper layer Similar to Xishi 1 4 10
Longwanchan 6 26,189 28,442
5 25,771 26,687 + + + + + + 7, 9
4 24,610 25,905
Shizitan S29 7 23,414 26,100 100 65 1 8 2 1 2 8 2, 6
Youfang 2 26,000 29,000 12 8 9 3 1 2 5, 8
Chaisi 28,251 31,251 9 19 3 4 2 1 4 1 1, 4
References: 1, Chen (2011); 2, Department of History, Shanxi University, Institute of Archaeology, Shanxi Province (2017); 3, Gao (2011); 4, IA-CASS (1983); 5, Nian et al. (2014); 6, Song et al. (2017); 7, Wang (2014); 8, Xie, Li, and
Liu (2006); 9, Zhang et al. (2011); 10, Zhao (2015).

Table 6 Composition of tools at Phase 2 sites, 22,000–17,000 cal yr BP.

Calendar age Tools
Site Layer range (95.4%) Side scraper End scraper Point Burin Borer Denticulate Notch Backed knife Biface Adze-shaped tool Spearpoint Ground stone References
Shizitan S29 6 21,682 24,901 30 13 4 4 3
5 21,974 24,922 96 64 3 1
4 19,316 23,444 137 67 20 3 3
3 20,564 21,181 3 1 2 5
2 17,623 19,187 18 25 5 1 4 2
Shizitan S5 4 21,963 21,471 4 3 10
3 3 2 1
2 19,804 20,195 5 1
Shizitan S14 4 22,353 23,021 2 1 2 9
3 19,550 21,150 6 2 2 1
2 17,901 18,611 19 2 4 1 1

Shizitan S12C 2 23,065 23,570 8 2 12

Shizitan S12A 3 16,050 18,180 74 9 1 6 1 12
Shizitan S12D 2 1 1 12
Shizitan S12E 3, 4 24 5 2 1 12
Erdaoliang 3 21,963 22,419 3 7 1 7
Mengjiaquan 20,575 21,865 6 1 2 6 2 5
Tingsijian Similar to 10 5 2 4 1 3 4, 11
Mengjiauqan
Peng-yang 21,963 22,419 14 1 1 6, 1
Shixiakou 6 17,200 18,500 2 3 1 8
5 3 4 6
Dadiwan 4 20,000 13,000 2
References: 1, Barton, Brantingham, and Ji (2007); 2, Bettinger et al. (2010); 3, Department of History, Shanxi University, Institute of Archaeology, Shanxi Province (2017); 4, Institute of Cultural Relics of Hebei Province, Bureau of
Cultural Relics of Qinhuangdao City and Protection Office of Cultural Relics of Changli County (1992); 5, Institute of Cultural Relics of Hebei Province, Preservation Station of Cultural Relics of Tangsham City, and Preservation
Station of Cultural Relics of Yutian County (1991); 6, Ji et al. (2005); 7, Li, Ren, and Li (2016); 8, Ren, Zhou, and Li (2017); 9, Shizitan kaogudui (2013a); 10, Shizitan kaogudui (2016); 11, Wang (1997); 12, Zhao (2008).
Table 7 Composition of tools at Phase 3 sites, 17,000–14,000 cal yr BP.
Calendar age Tools
Site Layer range (95.4%) Side scraper End scraper Point Burin Borer Denticulate Notch Backed knife Biface Adze-shaped tool Spearpoint Ground stone References
Hutouliang 16,000 17,000 31 221 42 37 25 1, 6, 7
Jijitan Similar to 103 2 2 2 2 228 1 21 1
Hutouliang
Yujiaxiaobu 2 Similar to 12 3
Hutouliang
Ma’anshan 3 16,039 15,285 77 35 18 36 26 5 4, 5
Yujiagou 3b 11,600 13,700 +++ +++ + + + + + + 2, 5
References: 1, Gai and Wei (1977); 2, Mei (2007); 3, Song and Shi (2008); 4, Sun (1999); 5, Xie, Li, and Liu (2006); 6, Zhu and Gao (2006); 7, Zhu and Gao (2007).

Table 8 Composition of tools at Phase 4 sites, 14,000–10,000 cal yr BP.

Calendar age Tools
Site Layer range (95.4%) Side scraper End scraper Point Burin Borer Denticulate Notch Backed knife Biface Adze-shaped tool Spearpoint Ground stone References
Xueguan 2 15,320 16,223 55 134 29 4 2 16
Shizitan S29 1 13,106 13,332 6 5 4 7 3
Lingjing 5 11,847 13,854 15 77 2 8 1 5 4 1 6
Dadiwan 5 10,000 13,000 1
Shuidonggou 12 3 10,794 11,529 263 26 1 9 23 17 25 10 18, 19
Yujiagou 3a 11,600 +++ + + + + + +
Shizitan S5 1 10,248 10,514 1 1 14
Taohuajian 3 ∼10,000 +++ + + + + + 5, 7
Jiangjunya ∼10,000 +++ +++ ++ 4
Lijiagou 4 10,300 10,500 45 4 1 1 1 21, 10, 11 15
Donghulin 9500 10,500 + + 2, 9
Dagang 4 ∼10,000 30 17 10 20
∼10,000

PALEOAMERICA
Shizitan S1 4 342 49 23 2 2 8 17
Shizitan S9 4, 5 13,800 8500 2 1 2 1 2 8 134 8, 12
Shizitan S12G 2 Similar to 8 8 48 13
Shizitan S9
References: 1, Bettinger et al. (2010); 2, Cui (2010); 3, Department of History, Shanxi University, Institute of Archaeology, Shanxi Province (2017); 4, Fang et al. (2008); 5, Li (1989); 6, Li and Ma (2016); 7, Liu (2007); 8, Liu et al.
(2011); 9, School of Archaeology and Museology, Center of Chinese Archaeology Studies, Peking University, Beijing Institute of Cultural Relics (2006); 10, School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking University and Zhengz-
hou Municipal Institution of Archaeology (2011); 11, School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking University and Zhengzhou Municipal Institution of Archaeology (2013); 12, Shizitan kaogudui (2010); 13, Shizitan kaogudui
(2013b); 14, Shizitan kaogudui (2016); 15, Wang et al. (2015); 16, Wang, Ding, and Tao (1983); 17, Xie, Yan, and Tao (1989); 18, Yi et al. (2014); 19, Yi et al. (2015); 20, Zhang and Li (1996); 21, Zhengzhou Municipal Institution of
Archaeology and School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking University (2013).

13
14 Y. FENG
blade blanks became very important; however, other
tools such as side scrapers, points, burins, denticulates,
notches, and backed knives were also common, although
their absolute numbers were not large. During Phase 2,
side scrapers made up over 50 per cent of the total
assemblage, and end scrapers, points, and burins were
also important. The Phase 3 tool kit was quite different
from the previous phases, with more end scrapers and
notches. Of even more importance was the emergence
of a range of new tools types, including large bifaces,
adze-shaped tools, and spearpoints, together with an
increasing use of bifacial retouch during tool production.
Throughout Phase 4, the general composition of tools
was similar to that of Phase 2, but besides the appearance
of new microblade technologies, innovations like
polished stone tools and pottery can be seen as indicative
of key transitions.
Changes in settlement distributions are also evident
between the phases (Figure 12). The occupation of
Phase 1 sites usually overlapped with flake sites of
MIS3, even though the lithic technique was completely
different, suggesting a possible population replacement.
Phase 2 sites often comprise alternating sequences of
occupation deposits overlain by alluvial silts along the
courses of major rivers, indicating a preference for the
reoccupation of favored settlement localities within
the landscape. This was likely determined by the avail-
ability of food resources and water. Phase 3 sites are
currently only identified within the Nihewan Basin
and neighboring areas in the north. Most of these
sites comprise a single cultural layer, but the number
of artifacts at each is very large, and the technology
and composition of tools throughout each locality’s
occupation remains stable, suggesting a very intensive
use of the space over a relatively short period. During
Phase 4, the occupational settlement patterns of Phase
2 reemerge. Similar localities at Shizitan were reused
Figure 12 Distribution of sites during the four phases discussed
in the text.
after a 3000-year gap, and the distribution of micro-
blade sites expanded eastward into new areas. At Lijia-
gou, small boulders were intentionally brought in by
humans, possibly in relation to a certain type of con-
struction (Wang et al. 2015), and at Donghulin, burials
were found (School of Archaeology and Museology,
Center of Chinese Archaeology Studies, Peking Univer-
sity, Beijing Institute of Cultural Relics 2006), all indica-
tive of a decline in mobility. In the northern part of
Central China, however, a handful of bone/antler tools
slotted for microblade inserts was discovered at Shui-
donggou Locality 12, still indicating a more direct link-
age to high mobility (Yi et al. 2013).
In terms of subsistence, the published materials are
often less explicit on faunal and floral remains compared
to the lithic component, but it is still possible to find
some clues from a few typical sites. Starch analysis on
grinding stones at Shizitan (Liu et al. 2011, 2013) demon-
strated the processing of plants came into being in south-
west Shanxi no later than 26,000 cal yr BP, and during
H2 and LGM warming, a “broad-spectrum” plant-use
pattern appeared, indicated by a great variety of foods
including tubers, grass seeds, and beans. After the B/A
warming, the ratio of Paniceae grass seeds increased,
which can potentially be related to the increased exploi-
tation of millet grasses as a precursor to their eventual
cultivation and domestication in Central China. For
fauna, most sites referred to in this paper are dominated
by medium-sized mammals such as deer, gazelle, or pro-
capra; however, there were a few exceptions, suggesting
periods in which different hunting strategies may have
prevailed. One was the discovery of large animals, for
example, rhinoceros and bovines at the Hutouliang
group during the H1 Event, indicating that these people
were also focused on large game. Another pattern is pre-
sented at Shuidonggou Locality 12, where the faunal
assemblage is dominated by hare and other small-sized
animals (Zhang et al. 2013), which, taken together with
the appearance of groundstone and increased evidence
for plant resources, suggests a transition to a “broad-
spectrum” diet.
5. Conclusion and discussion
Based on the above discussions, it is possible to organize
the changes in lithic-artifact technology and adaptive
strategies into the four phases summarized in Table 9.
In comparison with other areas in Northeast Asia, the
lithic sequence in Central China and the possible
changes in adaptive strategies behind it seem to be
unique. In Northeast China, the Yubetsu technique as
the earliest microblade technology appeared no later
than 21,000 cal yr BP, and only after 14,000 cal yr BP
 PALEOAMERICA 15

Table 9 Changes in lithics and adaptive strategies between the phases discussed in the text.
Microblade Hypothesized
Phases technology Composition of tools Site distribution Settlement pattern Subsistence group
Onset of LGM Prismatic, wedge- Side scrapers and end All over central Overlapped MIS3 flake Selective herbivore Northern
(29,000– shaped scrapers on blade blanks China sites, scattered hunting, diverse Northeast
22,000 cal yr plant use, flax and Asia
BP) other fiber
processing
H2 LGM Boat-shaped Side scrapers dominate All over central Long-lasting, staying at Wild millet cutting Southern
warming China, the same locality, on and grinding Northeast
(22,000– extremely river bank occurred, selective Asia
17,000 cal yr evident in herbivore hunting
BP) southeast
Shanxi
H1 (17,000– Yubetsu Bifaces Restricted to Intensive use of the Hunting of both Northern
14,000 cal yr Nihewan and space during a medium-sized and Northeast
BP) farther north relatively short period large-sized Asia
herbivores
B/A, YD, Boat-shaped, Diverse tool kit: side scrapers, All over central Large blocks of stones Higher ratios of grass Southern
Preboreal prismatic, end scrapers, points, China, brought by humans, seeds and small- Northeast
(14,000– pencil-shaped, burins, denticulates, expanded to the burials, and possible sized animals Asia
10,000 cal yr wide wedge- notches, backed knives, east houses, a decline of (rabbit, bird, etc.)
BP) shaped, pottery, polished stone mobility
tools

did more diverse core types including the boat-shaped
form appear (Li 2009). This compares well with the
known sequences of the Russian Far East, for example,
the Selemdzha complex (Derevianko, Volkov, and Lee
1998). In the Trans-Baikal region, lithic studies (Terry,
Buvit, and Konstantinov 2016) combined with radiocar-
bon dating (Buvit et al. 2016) revealed a 2000-year gap
between the middle Upper Paleolithic microcores and
the late Upper Paleolithic wedge-shaped microblade
industry, indicating a reoccupation of this area after
the LGM by peoples utilizing new lithic technologies.
Findings at Tolbor-4 and Tolbor-15 in Mongolia may
help link these two stages by providing materials that
include both microcores and wedge-shaped microblades
(Gladyshev et al. 2012), as well as a growing proportion
of tools made on flakes and a general decrease in tool
size, but the ages of these sites and whether they rep-
resented the emergence of pressure flaking remains
debatable (Rybin et al. 2016). In Korea, microblades
appeared during the LGM, and the wedge-shaped core
was the earliest and most widely distributed microblade
technology (Seong 2007). In Japan, there is a division
between the northeast and southwest: Hokkaido and
northern Honshu are characterized by Yubetsu technol-
ogy, while southern Honshu and Kyushu are dominated
by boat-shaped and prismatic cores (Sato and Tsutsumi
2007). In eastern Beringia, the earliest microblade indus-
try, for example at Swan Point, is labeled Dyuktai and
characterized by Yubetsu technology (Flenniken 1987;
Wygal 2018).
Also from Table 9, it can be hypothesized that there
were two major cultural groups in terminal Pleistocene
Northeast Asia. The northern group is mainly distributed
in the Russian Far East, Northeast China, the Korean
Peninsula, northern Japan, and eastern Beringia, being
characterized by the wedge-shaped, Yubetsu method.
These populations appear to have been highly mobile
with a heavy reliance on large-sized animals, and their
movement was triggered by fluctuations in temperature
and the migrations of large mammals in response. In con-
trast, the southern group encompasses Central China,
southwestern Japan, and the submerged continental
shelf in between, where boat-shaped and prismatic core
technologies are dominant. These populations had less
mobility and a longer tradition of more intensive utiliz-
ation of plant resources, more readily influenced by
fluctuations in humidity caused by the rise and decline
of sea level. Generally, then, these two large-scale popu-
lation groupings are demonstrated by differences in lithic
technology, tool-assemblage composition, settlement
organization, subsistence strategy, and geographic distri-
bution, as well as variant developmental histories. More
detailed comparative analyses and future genetic studies
will be needed to test this framework.
There are unlikely to be strict boundaries between
the territories of these two groups, and interactions
caused by direct migration events or the spread of tech-
nology and communication are expected to have com-
monly occurred throughout MIS2. The earliest
microblades recovered in Central China likely have
their origins in microcores discovered in southern
Siberia (Derevianko, Shimkin, and Powers 1998), as
dispersing populations were driven southward by the
cooling climate (Bar-Yosef and Wang 2012; Kato
2014; Qu et al. 2013; Wang 2017). The source of the
use of pressure flaking remains unknown, however.
Boat-shaped-core technology appeared around
24,000 cal yr BP, and this appearance seems to have
16 Y. FENG
been earlier in Central China than in the surrounding
regions, and shows a close connection with local
core-and-flake industries (Song et al. 2019). During
the H1 event, cold and dry climate might have driven
people using boat-shaped cores eastward, given the
emergence of this technology in southwest Japan. Simi-
larly, the Hutouliang group in the Nihewan Basin may
signify the southward movement of the Yubetsu tra-
dition (Wang 2017). With warming climate during
the B/A event, a more developed lithic technology
including pencil-shaped and wide wedge-shaped micro-
blade cores, utilization of new food resources, and more
sedentary lifeways emerged in Central China. It should
be noted, however, that almost all of these innovations
had an earlier origin in southwest Japan (e.g., southern
Kyushu; Iizuka and Izuho 2017), indicating a potential
southern path of introduction across the continental
shelf. More detailed research and the recovery
especially of human remains and genetic evidence
may help to elucidate the reason behind these techno-
logical exchanges.
With respect to the question of the peopling of the
Americas, the northern group is more closely related to
findings in Beringia (Flenniken 1987; Yi and Clark
1985), which was also supported by both ancient (e.g.,
Tackney et al. 2015) and modern DNA studies (e.g.,
Tamm et al. 2007), while the role of the southern
group remains unclear, because the distribution and
spread of non-Yubetsu methods and migrations of this
group remain largely unresolved. More detailed data
and comparative studies as well as possible ancient
DNA analysis will be needed for future discussions.
Acknowledgements
Prof Ted Goebel, the editor of PaleoAmerica, offered kind sug-
gestion and assistance on the writing and revising of this paper.
Dr Christopher Stevens from the Institute of Archaeology,
University College London, gave great help in language and
reorganization of the structure. All three anonymous reviewers
provided very detailed advice. Prof Youping Wang and Prof
Jianing He from School of Archaeology and Museology, Pek-
ing University, as well as Dr Huijie Mei from Hebei Normal
University also helped in material collection. I would like to
thank all of them for their generous assistance.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributor
Yue Feng is currently a PhD candidate at the School of Archae-
ology and Museology, Peking University, majoring in Paleo-
lithic Archaeology. Her research mainly focuses on Late
Pleistocene human migration and lithic technology in China
and surrounding areas.
References
An, Z. 2000. “The History and Variability of the East Asian
Paleomonsoon Climate.” Quaternary Science Reviews 19
(1): 171–187.
Bar-Yosef, O., and Y. Wang. 2012. “Paleolithic Archaeology in
China.” Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 319–335.
Barton, L., P. J. Brantingham, and D. Ji. 2007. “Late Pleistocene
Climate Change and Paleolithic Cultural Evolution in
Northern China: Implications from the Last Glacial
Maximum.” Developments in Quaternary Science 9 (C):
105–128.
Bettinger, R., L. Barton, C. Morgan, F. Chen, H. Wang, T. P.
Guilderson, D. Ji, and D. Zhang. 2010. “The Transition to
Agriculture at Dadiwan, People’s Republic of China.”
Current Anthropology 51 (5): 703–714.
Buvit, I., M. Izuho, K. Terry, M. V. Konstantinov, and A. V.
Konstantinov. 2016. “Radiocarbon Dates, Microblades and
Late Pleistocene Human Migrations in the Transbaikal,
Russia and the Paleo-Sakhalin-Hokkaido-Kuril Peninsula.”
Quaternary International 425: 100–119.
Chen, C. 1983. “Preliminary Exploration of the Typology and
Technology of Microcores in China – Also of Cultural
Relationship between Asia and Northwestern North
America.” Acta Anthropologica Sinica 2 (4): 331–341 (in
Chinese).
Chen, C. 1992. “A Comparison of Microblade Cores from East
Asia and Northwestern North America: Tracing Prehistoric
Cultural Relationships.” PhD diss., McGill University,
Montreal.
Chen, X. 1999. “Exploring Early Neolithic Cultures in China:
Questions on Earliest Potteries.” In New Progresses in
Prehistoric Archaeology, edited by Q. Xu, F. Xie, and J.
Wang, 189–202. Beijing: China Science Publishing (in
Chinese).
Chen, H. 2011. Cultural Adaptation Studies on Huabei
Microblade: Archaeological Analysis on Late Paleolithic
Sites in Shanxi and Hebei. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University
Publishing (in Chinese).
Clark, P., A. Dyke, J. Shakun, A. E. Carlson, J. Clark, B.
Wohlfarth, J. X. Mitrovica, S. T. Hostetler, and A. M.
McCabe. 2009. “The Last Glacial Maximum.” Science 325:
710–714.
College of History and Culture, Shanxi University and Shanxi
Provincial Institute of Archaeology. 2017. “Preliminary
Report on Locality S29 at Shizitan Site, Jixian County,
Shanxi Province.” Kaogu 2: 35–51 (in Chinese).
Cui, T. 2010. “The Study of the Donghulin Site’s Lithic
Assemblage: The Lithic Industry and Human Behavior in
the Process of Paleolithic to Neolithic.” PhD diss., Peking
University, Beijing (in Chinese).
Department of History, Shanxi University, Institute of
Archaeology, Shanxi Province. 2017. “Preliminary Report
on Locality S29 of Shizitan Site, Jixian County, Shanxi
Province.” Kaogu 2: 35–51 (in Chinese).
Derevianko, A. P., D. Shimkin, and W. Powers. 1998. The
Paleolithic of Siberia: New Discoveries and Interpretations.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Derevianko, A. P., P. V. Volkov, and H.-J. Lee. 1998.
Selemdzhinskaya Pozdnepaleoliticheskaya Kultura.
Novosibirsk: Izdatelstvo Instituta Arkheologii i Etnografii
Sibirskogo Otdeleniya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk (in Russian).
Fang, Y., Q. Hui, J. Xiang, L. Luo, and S. Liu. 2008. “Excavation
and Findings at Jiangjunya Late Paleolithic Site,
Lianyungang, Jiangsu.” Dongnan Wenhua 1: 14–19 (in
Chinese).
Flenniken, J. 1987. “The Paleolithic Dyuktai Pressure Blade
Technique of Siberia.” Arctic Anthropology 24 (2): 117–132.
Gai, P., and Q. Wei. 1977. “The Discovery of an Upper
Paleolithic Site at Hutouliang.” Vertebrata PalAsiatica 15
(4): 287–300 (in Chinese).
Gao, X. 2011. “A Preliminary Study of Lithic Assemblage of
Xishi Site.” MA thesis, Peking University, Beijing (in
Chinese).
Gladyshev, S. A., J. W. Olsen, A. V. Tabarev, and A. J. T. Jull.
2012. “The Upper Paleolithic of Mongolia: Recent Finds and
New Perspectives.” Quaternary International 281: 36–46.
IA-CASS (Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of
Social Sciences). 1992. Radiocarbon Dates in Chinese
Archaeology, 1965–1991. Beijing: Cultural Relics
Publishing House (in Chinese).
Iizuka, F., and M. Izuho. 2017. “Late Upper Paleolithic-Initial
Jomon Transitions, Southern Kyushu, Japan: Regional Scale
to Macro Processes a Close Look.” Quaternary International
441: 102–112.
Institute of Cultural Relics of Hebei Province. 1993. “Late
Paleolithic Microblade at Jijitan Site.” Wenwu Chunqiu 2:
1–22 (in Chinese).
Institute of Cultural Relics of Hebei Province, Bureau of
Cultural Relics of Qinhuangdao City and Protection Office
of Cultural Relics of Changli County. 1992. “Tingsijian
Microlithic Site of Changli County, Hebei Province.”
Wenwu Chunqiu (S1): 121–127 (in Chinese).
Institute of Cultural Relics of Hebei Province, Preservation
Station of Cultural Relics of Tangshan City, and
Preservation Station of Cultural Relics of Yutian County.
1991. “A Brief Report on the Excavation of the Paleolithic
Mengjiaquan Site, Yutian, Hebei.” Wenwu Chunqiu 1: 1–
13 (in Chinese).
Ji, D., F. Chen, R. Bettinger, R. Elston, Z. Geng, L. Barton, H.
Wang, C. An, and D. Zhang. 2005. “Human Response to
the Last Glacial Maximum: Evidence from North China.”
Acta Anthropologica Sinica 24 (4): 270–282 (in Chinese).
Kato, S. 2014. “Human Dispersal and Interaction during the
Spread of Microblade Industries in East Asia.” Quaternary
International 347: 105–112.
Li, H. 1989. “Preliminary Report on Taohuajian Late
Paleolithic Site at Lianyungang City.” Dongnanwenhua 3:
209–213.
Li, Y. 2009. “The Paleolithic Industry in Heilongjiang Valley
and Its Nearby Eastern Area.” PhD diss., Jilin University,
Changchun, China (in Chinese).
Li, Z., Y. Li, and S. Kato. 2014. “Observations of Microblade
Core Technologies from Level 5 of the Xuchang Man Site,
Lingjing.” Acta Anthropologica Sinica 33 (3): 285–303 (in
Chinese).
Li, Z., and H. Ma. 2016. “Techno-typological Analysis of the
Microlithic Assemblage at the Xuchang Man Site,
Lingjing, Central China.” Quaternary International 400:
120–129.
PALEOAMERICA 17
Li, G., X. Ren, and J. Li. 2016. “A Preliminary Report on the
Excavation of Erdaoliang Upper Paleolithic Site in the
Nihewan Basin.” Acta Anthropologica Sinica 34 (3): 509–
521 (in Chinese).
Liu, S. 2007. “A Study on Lithic Assemblages of
Taohuajian Site.” MA thesis, Peking University, Beijing
(in Chinese).
Liu, L., S. Bestel, J. Shi, Y. Song, and X. Chen. 2013. “Paleolithic
Human Exploitation of Plant Foods during the Last Glacial
Maximum in North China.” Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110
(14): 5380–5385.
Liu, L., W. Ge, S. Bestel, D. Jones, J. Shi, Y. Song, and X. Chen.
2011. “Plant Exploitation of the Last Foragers at Shizitan in
the Middle Yellow River Valley China: Evidence from
Grinding Stones.” Journal of Archaeological Science 38
(12): 3524–3532.
Mei, H. 2007. “Paleo-Neolithic Transition at Nihewan Basin:
Case Study of Yujiagou Site at Yangyuan County.” PhD
diss., School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking
University, Beijing (in Chinese).
Nian, X., X. Gao, F. Xie, H. Mei, and L. Zhou. 2014.
“Chronology of the Youfang Site and Its Implications for
the Emergence of Microblade Technology in North
China.” Quaternary International 347 (1): 113–121.
Niu, D., F. Xue, D. Li, Y. Li, and F. Xie. 2017. “A Report on
Paleolithic Survey of 2014 in Huailai Basin, Hebei
Province.” Acta Archaeologica Sinica 36 (e): 1–8 (in Chinese).
Qu, T., O. Bar-Yosef, Y. Wang, and X. Wu. 2013. “The Chinese
Upper Palaeolithic: Geography, Chronology, and Techno-
typology.” Journal of Archaeological Science 21 (1): 1–73.
Ren, H. 2015. “A Comprehensive Study on Wedge-Shaped
Microcores Excavated at Shizitan Sites.” Journal of
National Museum of China 1: 6–13 (in Chinese).
Ren, J., J. Zhou, F. Li, et al. 2017. “A Preliminary Report on
2015′ s Excavation at Shixiakou Paleolithic Locality 1 in
Gansu Province, North China.” Acta Archaeologica Sinica
36 (1): 1–16 (in Chinese).
Rybin, E., A. Khatsenovich, B. Gunchinsuren, J. Olsen, and N.
Zwyns. 2016. “The Impact of the LGM on the Development
of the Upper Paleolithic in Mongolia.” Quaternary
International 425: 69–87.
Sato, H., and T. Tsutsumi. 2007. “The Japanese Microblade
Industries: Technology, Raw Material Procurement, and
Adaptations.” In Origin and Spread of Microblade
Technology in Northern Asia and North America, edited
by Y. Kuzmin, S. Keates, and C. Shen, 153–178. Burnaby:
Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University.
School of Archaeology and Museology, Center of Chinese
Archaeology Studies, Peking University, Beijing Institute
of Cultural Relics. 2006. “Donghulin Prehistorical Site at
Mentougou District, Beijing.” Kaogu 7: 3–8 (in Chinese).
School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking University and
Zhengzhou Municipal Institution of Archaeology. 2011.
“Preliminary Report on Lijiagou Site at Xinmi, Henan
Province.” Kaogu 4: 3–9 (in Chinese).
School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking University and
Zhengzhou Municipal Institution of Archaeology. 2013.
“Report on Southern Part of Lijiagou Site, Xinmi, Henan
Province.” Gudaiwenming 9: 208–239.
Seong, C. 2007. “Late Pleistocene Microlithic Assemblages in
Korea.” In Origin and Spread of Microblade Technology in
18 Y. FENG
Northern Asia and North America, edited by Y. Kuzmin, S.
Keates, and C. Shen, 103–114. Burnaby, BC: Archaeology
Press, Simon Fraser University.
Shizitan Kaogudui. 2002. “Locality S14 at Shizitan Paleolithic
Site, Jixian County, Shanxi Province.” Kaogu 4: 15–28 (in
Chinese).
Shizitan Kaogudui. 2010. “Preliminary Report on Locality S9
at Shizitan Site.” Kaogu 10: 871–881 (in Chinese).
Shizitan Kaogudui. 2013a. “Preliminary Report on 2002–2005
Excavation at Locality S14, Shizitan Site.” Kaogu 2: 3–13 (in
Chinese).
Shizitan Kaogudui. 2013b. “Preliminary Report on Locality
S12G at Shizitan Site.” Kaogu yu Wenwu 3: 3–8 (in Chinese).
Shizitan Kaogudui. 2016. “Locality S5 at Shizitan Paleolithic
Site, Jixian County, Shanxi Province.” Kaogu 4: 3–15 (in
Chinese).
Song, Y., D. J. Cohen, J. Shi, X. Wu, E. Kvavadze, P. Goldberg,
S. Zhang, Y. Zhang, and O. Bar-Yosef. 2017.
“Environmental Reconstruction and Dating of Shizitan 29,
Shanxi Province: An Early Microblade Site in North
China.” Journal of Archaeological Science 79: 19–35.
Song, Y., S. Grimaldi, F. Santaniello, D. J. Cohen, J. Shi, and O.
Bar-Yosef. 2019. “Re-thinking the Evolution of Microblade
Technology in East Asia: Techno-functional Understanding
of the Lithic Assemblage from Shizitan 29 (Shanxi, China).”
PLoS ONE 14 (2): 1–23, e0212643.
Song, Y., and J. Shi. 2008. “A Preliminary Observation and
Study on the Stone Artifacts from the Yujiaxiaobu Site,
Yanggao County, Shanxi.” Acta Anthropologica Sinica 27
(3): 200–209 (in Chinese).
Sun, X. 1999. “Preliminary Study on Ma’anshan Stone Tools.”
MA thesis, School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking
University, Beijing (in Chinese).
Tackney, J. C., B. A. Potter, J. Raff, M. Powers, W. S. Watkins,
D. Warner, J. D. Reuther, J. D. Irish, and D. H. O’Rourke.
2015. “Two Contemporaneous Mitogenomes from
Terminal Pleistocene Burials in Eastern Beringia.”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 112 (45): 13833–13838.
Tamm, E., T. Kivisild, M. Reidla, M. Metspalu, D. G. Smith, C.
J. Mulligan, C. M. Bravi, et al. 2007. “Beringian Standstill
and Spread of Native American Founders.” PLoS ONE 2
(9): e829.
Terry, K., I. Buvit, and M. Konstantinov. 2016. “Emergence of
a Microlithic Complex in the Transbaikal Region of
Southern Siberia.” Quaternary International 425: 88–99.
Wang, J. 1986. “On the Dates and Characteristics of the
Xiachuan Site and the Locality No. 7701 of Dingcun Site-
Group.” Acta Anthropologica Sinica 5 (2): 172–178 (in
Chinese).
Wang, E. 1997. “New Materials of Microliths from Tingsijian
Site of Changli County, Hebei Province.” Acta
Anthropologica Sinica 16 (1): 1–10 (in Chinese).
Wang, X. 2014. “Studies on Microblade from Locality 1 at
Longwangchan Site, Yichuan County, Shaanxi Province.”
Archaeology and Cultural Relics 6: 59–64 (in Chinese).
Wang, Y. 2017. “Late Pleistocene Human Migrations in
China.” Current Anthropology 58: S504–S513.
Wang, Y., H. Cheng, R. L. Edwards, Z. S. An, J. Y. Wu, C.-C.
Shen, and J. A. Dorale. 2001. “A High-Resolution Absolute-
dated Late Pleistocene Monsoon Record from Hulu Cave,
China.” Science 294: 2345–2348.
Wang, X., J. Ding, and F. Tao. 1983. “The Microliths from
Xueguan, Puxian, Shanxi.” Acta Anthropologica Sinica 2
(2): 162–171 (in Chinese).
Wang, Y., and S. Wang. 2014. “New Achievements and
Perspectives on Paleolithic Archaeology during the MIS3
along the Eastern Foot of Songshan Mountain, Henan
Province.” Acta Anthropologica Sinica 33 (3): 304–314 (in
Chinese).
Wang, Y., Z. Xia, and S. Wang. 2018. Lijiagou Site and the
Transition from Paleolithic to Neolithic: Origin of
Agriculture along the Eastern Foot of Songshan Mountain.
Beijing: China Science Publishing (in Chinese).
Wang, Y., S. Zhang, W. Gu, S. Wang, J. He, X. Wu, T. Qu, J.
Zhao, Y. Chen, and O. Bar-Yosef. 2015. “Lijiagou and the
Earliest Pottery in Henan Province, China.” Antiquity 89
(344): 273–291.
Wu, J., Y. Wang, H. Cheng, and L. R. Edwards. 2009. “An
Exceptionally Strengthened East Asian Summer Monsoon
Event between 19.9 and 17.1 ka BP Recorded in a Hulu
Stalagmite.” Science in China (Series D: Earth Sciences) 52
(3): 360–368.
Wygal, B. T. 2018. “The Peopling of Eastern Beringia and Its
Archaeological Complexities.” Quaternary International
466: 284–298.
Xia, Z., F. Chen, G. Chen, G. Zheng, F. Xie, and H. Mei.
2001. “Environmental Background of Paleo-Neolithic
Transition at Nihewan Basin in North China.”
Science in China (Series D: Earth Sciences) 31 (5): 393–400.
Xie, F., and S. Cheng. 1989. “Report on the Excavation of
Microlithic Site at Youfang, Yangyuan County, Hebei
Province.” Acta Anthropologica Sinica 8 (1): 57–68 (in Chinese).
Xie, C., Z. Jian, Q. Zhao, and P. Wang. 1996. “The
Paleogeographic Configuration of China Seas and Its
Climatic Influence during the Last Glacial Maximum.”
Disiji Yanjiu 1: 1–10 (in Chinese).
Xie, F., J. Li, and L. Liu. 2006. Paleolithic Cultures at Nihewan.
Shijiazhuang: Huashan Wenyi Publishing House (in Chinese).
Xie, X., J. Yan, and F. Tao. 1989. “Mesolithic Cultural Site at
Shizitan, Jixian County, Shanxi Province.” Kaoguxuebao 3:
305–323 (in Chinese).
Yi, M., L. Barton, C. Morgan, D. Liu, F. Chen, Y. Zhang, S. Pei,
et al. 2013. “Microblade Technology and the Rise of Serial
Specialists in North-central China.” Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 32: 212–223.
Yi, M., R. L. Bettinger, F. Chen, S. Pei, and X. Gao. 2014. “The
Significance of Shuidonggou Locality 12 to Studies of Hunter-
Gatherer Adaptive Strategies in North China during the Late
Pleistocene.” Quaternary International 347 (1): 97–104.
Yi, S., and G. Clark. 1985. “The ‘Dyuktai Culture’ and New
World Origins.” Current Anthropology 26 (l): l–20.
Yi, M., X. Gao, H. Wang, S. Pei, and F. Chen. 2015. “A Study on
Cores Unearthed from the Shuidonggou Locality 12 in 2007.”
Acta Anthropologica Sinica 34 (2): 166–179 (in Chinese).
Zhang, J., and Z. Li. 1996. “Preliminary Report on the
Excavation of Dagang Microlithic Site in Wuyang County,
Henan Province.” Acta Anthropologica Sinica 15 (2): 105–
113 (in Chinese).
Zhang, J., X. Wang, W. Qiu, G. Shelach, G. Hu, X. Fu, M.-G.
Zhuang, and L.-P. Zhou. 2011. “The Paleolithic Site
of Longwangchan in the Middle Yellow River,
China: Chronology, Paleoenvironment and Implications.”
Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (7): 1537–1550.

Zhang, Y., S. Zhang, X. Xu, D. Liu, C. Wang, S. Pei, H. Wang,
and X. Gao. 2013. “Zooarchaeological Perspective on the
Broad-Spectrum Revolution in the Pleistocene-Holocene
Transitional Period, with Evidence from Shuidonggou
Locality 12, China.” Science China Earth Sciences 56 (9):
1487–1492.
Zhao, J. 2008. “Review on Discoveries at Locality S12, Shizitan
Site.” Kaoguxue Yanjiu 7: 223–231 (in Chinese).
Zhao, C. 2015. “Lithic Analysis of Dongshi Site.” MA thesis,
Peking University, Beijing (in Chinese).
Zhengzhou Municipal Institution of Archaeology and School
of Archaeology and Museology, Peking University. 2013.
View publication stats
PALEOAMERICA 19
“Report on Northern Part of Lijiagou Site, Xinmi, Henan
Province.” Gudaiwenming 9: 177–207.
Zhu, Z., and X. Gao. 2006. “A Study of Wedge-shaped Cores
from Hutouliang Site.” Acta Anthropologica Sinica 25 (2):
129–142 (in Chinese).
Zhu, Z., and X. Gao. 2007. “Microlithic Technology from
Hutouliang Site.” Acta Anthropologica Sinica 26 (4): 305–
310 (in Chinese).
Zhuang, L. 2002. “The Late Quaternary Paleo-Environment
Evolution and Sea Level Change in the Yellow Sea and the
East China Sea.” PhD diss., Graduate School of the
Chinese Academy of Sciences (in Chinese).