Archaeological Research in Asia xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Archaeological Research in Asia

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ara

Initial Upper Paleolithic: A (near) global problem and a global opportunity

Steven L. Kuhn
Department of Anthropology, Bldg. 30, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0030, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The Initial Upper Paleolithic is an excellent test case for evaluating different approaches to understanding
Initial Upper Paleolithic cultural variation and continuity across broad regions. The central questions about the origins of the IUP, namely
Transitions the roles of cultural transmission and convergence in explaining its broad distribution across Eurasia, are
Cultural evolution common to many periods and locations. This chapter begins with a brief overview of the concept of the Initial
Dispersal
Upper Paleolithic, its history and the features which define it. It then summarizes some of the major research
Convergence
questions about the IUP phenomenon, and details the contributions of the papers in this special issue toward
resolving them.

1. Introduction
This paper begins with brief discussion of the concept of the Initial
Upper Paleolithic (IUP) and how the meaning of the term has evolved.
It then considers what I believe to be the most important unresolved
questions about the IUP, and how answering these questions can be
relevant not just to researchers interested in late Pleistocene prehistory
in Eurasia, but also to archaeologists working in many areas and time
periods. Key problems include defining the IUP, assessing levels of
variation within the limits of that definition, and understanding how
the broad but discontinuous global distribution of the IUP came about.
Attempting to answer these questions forces us to re-examine assump-
tions about pattern and process, to think differently about the geo-
graphic and temporal scales of the phenomena we study, and to im-
prove the ideas we use to explain or to understand them. The papers in
this volume address many of those questions using new data and in-
novative approaches.
2. What is the initial Upper Paleolithic?
Common usage of the term “Initial Upper Paleolithic” (or IUP) has
evolved considerably. As far as I know the designation was first used by
Anthony Marks in the early 1980s to refer to a single assemblage from
the most recent layer (layer 4) at the important Upper Paleolithic site of
Boker Tachtit in the Negev Desert, Israel (Marks and Volkman, 1983;
Usik and Demidenko, 1993). Marks viewed the technology in layer 4 as
the end of a gradual evolutionary trend in which bidirectional Levallois
point production was supplanted by a more typical Upper Paleolithic
form of volumetric, unidirectional blade production (Marks and
Volkman 1983). Some years later I expanded the application of the
term, using it to describe the assemblages from the lower levels (layers
F–I) at Üçağızlı cave in Turkey, as well as from Ksar Akil and other sites
in the Levant where we see roughly similar sorts of hard hammer blade
production with flat-faced cores and platform faceting. I thought IUP
was a better name for these particular early UP assemblages than was
the older designation “Emiran,” because most of the cave assemblages
lacked Emireh points (Kuhn et al., 1999).
Subsequent researchers have broadened the use of the term IUP
even more. It has been applied globally to describe any early Upper
Paleolithic assemblages with Levallois elements in blade production.
Other researchers have termed these “lepto-Levalloisian” or “Levallois-
leptolithic” industries (Meignen, 2006; Svoboda and Svoboda, 1985),
but this more precise term has not been widely adopted. As the papers
in this special issue illustrate, we see reference to Initial Upper Paleo-
lithic assemblage from areas as far from the Levant as north China,
Siberia, and northern Mongolia (Derevianko et al. 2012; Kuhn & Zwyns
2014; Zwyns et al. 2012; Brantingham et al. 2001; Morgan et al. 2014;
Rybin, 2014a,b). There now appear to be “hot spots” containing mul-
tiple IUP sites in the Mediterranean Levant, Czech Moravia (where it is
known as Bohunician), the Siberian Altai, and the trans-Baikal/north-
central Mongolia, with other sites scattered between and around.
The recognition that technologically similar assemblages occur over
such as vast geographic scale is important. At the same time, we must
recognize the kind of entity we are dealing with changes as the geo-
graphic frame expands. When the term was applied only to the
Levantine material we could be comfortable with the knowledge that it
represented a limited span of time and geography, and that there was
likely to have been a degree of cultural continuity among the makers of
the various assemblages. However, when we extend the definition of
IUP to include assemblages in North and East Asia for example, we

E-mail address: skuhn@email.arizona.edu.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2018.10.002
Received 23 October 2017; Received in revised form 3 October 2018; Accepted 8 October 2018
2352-2267/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Kuhn, S.L., Archaeological Research in Asia, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2018.10.002
S.L. Kuhn
cannot assume the same explanations for similarities among these as-
semblages.
Initial Upper Paleolithic assemblages in the broad sense share a
number of key features:
• The central defining features of the Initial Upper Paleolithic relate to
methods of blade production. The most broadly-shared features are
chaînes opératoires incorporating hard hammer percussion, platform
faceting, and flat-faced or semi-tournant cores. The blades and some
resulting cores resemble products of Levallois manufacture, though
they differ in some respects as well. This reduction strategy is often
associated with more typical Upper Paleolithic volumetric core ex-
ploitation (also with hard hammer) (Kuhn & Zwyns 2014; Boëda
et al. 2013). In Siberia and Mongolia the exploitation of the narrow
face of a core, along with distinctive “burin-cores” for producing
small blades are also typical of IUP assemblages (Slavinsky et al.,
2018; Zwyns et al., 2012; Zwyns and Lbova, 2018).
• The basic chronostratigraphic positions of Initial Upper Paleolithic
assemblages are similar across their range. Where it occurs the IUP
is always the earliest form of Upper Paleolithic. In the eastern
Mediterranean Levant it is typically stratified above the late
Mousterian and below the early Ahmarian. In central Europe the
IUP occupies an intermediate stratigraphic position between the
later Middle Paleolithic and the early Aurignacian, although it
seldom occurs in long sequences. In the Siberian Altai IUP assem-
blages are stratified between the Mousterian and the early Upper
Paleolithic (EUP). The situation in Mongolia and North China is
somewhat different. There are no deep sequences containing MP,
IUP and post-IUP assemblages in North Asia. In northern Mongolia
the IUP is succeeded by early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) assemblages
with prismatic blade technology (Gunchinsuren et al., 2014; Zwyns
et al., 2014). In contrast, simple core and flake assemblage predate
and post-date the Initial Upper Paleolithic in north China and
southern Mongolia. (Kuhn and Zwyns, 2018; Li et al., 2016, 2013b)
A substantial level of diversity is also subsumed within the IUP.
• Radiometrically dated assemblages with attributes of the IUP span a
large time range, from ca. 50 ka to 35 ka (calibrated). Where mul-
tiple dates are present in a single locality they can span up to 10 ka
(e.g, Kuhn et al., 2009; Richter et al., 2008; Stutz et al., 2015). Most
dates for the IUP were obtained using the 14C method applied to
bone charcoal and bone. Dates on marine shell present significantly
younger ages, and a restricted chronological range as well (Bosch
et al., 2015; Douka et al., 2013): this discrepancy probably stems
from the technical challenges of removing recent carbonate con-
tamination from aragonite original to shells. For reasons that have
yet to be understood, Optically Stimulated Luminescence dates from
localities such as Shuidonngou 1, 2, and 9 appear highly proble-
matic (Keates and Kuzmin, 2015; Li et al., 2013a,b)
• The range of retouched tool forms in IUP assemblages typically in-
corporates both Middle and Upper Paleolithic types. Distinctive,
derived artifact forms are scarce, and where such “type fossils”
occur their distributions are limited. For example, Emireh points,
Levallois points with bidirectional basal thinning, are found only in
the Levant. The distribution of chanfreins, a kind of flat lateral burin,
is restricted to the northern Levant. So called burin-cores may be
indicators of the IUP in the Siberian Altai, Mongolia, and the trans-
Baikal (Zwyns et al., 2012) but it is not yet clear that they are found
other places.
• Within the general definition, strategies of core reduction/blank
production also vary. IUP assemblages may contain either uni- or
bidirectional blade production. In southwest Asia these may be
temporally sequenced, with bidirectional production occurring
earlier (Marks and Volkman, 1983), but as far as I know this is not
true of the IUP from other regions. The frequencies of non-Levallois
2
Archaeological Research in Asia xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
prismatic and semi-tournant cores also vary among assemblages.
• Some IUP assemblages from the Levant also contain beads, bone
tools, and other “typical” Upper Paleolithic artifact classes (Kuhn
et al., 2009, 2001; Stiner et al., 2013). Ornaments and/or bone tools
are also reported from sites in Bulgaria, Siberia, and Mongolia
(Rybin, 2014a,b; Kuhn & Zwyns 2014; Buvit et al. 2015). However,
many sites lack such artifacts. Whether the presence/absence of
beads and bone tools is due to differences in preservation, site
function, or cultural practice, in an open question. For example, the
open-air Bohunician sites in the Czech Republic and IUP localities in
north Asia have comparatively poor organic preservation, so we
should not expect them to yield many artifacts of perishable organic
raw materials.
3. What questions does IUP pose, and how can we answer them?
The IUP presents us with certain challenges. Some can be resolved
through more excavation and discovery, but some cannot. These latter
issues are rooted in the basic ways we think about cultural evolution
and the changes over time in material culture. These questions are also
most broadly relevant to the discipline more generally.
One question we cannot presently answer with any certainty is
“who made the Initial Upper Paleolithic?” To date, very few hominin
fossils have been found in clear association with these assemblages, and
those which are known are highly fragmentary. The characters of these
specimens, mainly isolated teeth, are weighted toward Homo sapiens
(eg., Kuhn et al. 2009). However, in light of the diversity of populations
existing in Eurasia at this time and the genetic evidence for population
introgression (Dannemann et al., 2016; Reich et al., 2010;
Sankararaman et al., 2012, 2016) it seems highly problematic to assign
definitive taxonomic designation to very fragmentary specimens. More
generally there is no prior reason to assume that archaeological taxa
will map directly onto biological taxa. Biological taxa such as Nean-
derthals, Homo sapiens and Denisovans, the three most likely authors of
the Initial Upper Paleolithic, are themselves not truly equivalent. And
as discussed below the significance of the Initial Upper Paleolithic as a
unit of cultural variation remains uncertain. Consequently there is no
compelling reason that everything we call Initial Upper Paleolithic had
to have been the product of one and the same hominin population or
taxon.
3.1. Transitional industries
The very existence of a broadly distributed phenomenon such as the
IUP is a challenge to long-held views about cultural variation and
change. In terms of lithic technology it does not fit comfortably within
conventional stage systems describing the development of Paleolithic
cultures. With respect to Grahame Clarke's widely used “5 mode”
system, the IUP might best be characterized as mode 3.5: its features
bridge the definitions of Middle and Upper Paleolithic, and of Mode 3
and Mode 4. This apparent mixture of characters has led some autho-
rities to brand these industries “transitional,” in that they seemed to
represent a logical and convenient link connecting the Middle and
Upper Paleolithic. In fact all we really know on the face of things is that
the IUP is “intermediate”–the term coined by Bourguignon and col-
leagues to refer to the IUP-like material from Um et'Tlel (Boeda and
Bonilauri, 2006; Bourguignon, 1998). The term intermediate implies
chronological “betweenness.” However, as the explicit choice of words
implies, being temporally and stratigraphically intermediate does not
necessarily mean that an assemblage represents a bridge between one
quasi-stable state and another.
The first question one needs to ask about a supposed transitional
industry is “transitional from what to what?” In other words, is there
evidence for direct links to what came before and what came after?
More specifically, we have to ask whether the IUP is a plausible bridge
between the MP and UP in the places where it occurs. The shared features
S.L. Kuhn
that unite IUP assemblages are fairly generalized and one cannot safely
assume they are locally derived. The same set of features represents a
smooth and gradual in situ transition in one place, and yet marks an
abrupt discontinuity in another. For example, researchers working in
the Siberian Altai make a strong case that the earliest UP developed
directly out of the late MP and that it was the ancestor of later UP
technologies based on continuity in technological features. Similarly,
the continuity between IUP and late Ahmarian is well established in the
Levant (Kuhn, 2004; Meignen, 2006) and many scholars argue for
continuity with late Middle Paleolithic industries as well (Marks and
Volkman, 1983; Meignen 2012). In contrast the Bohunician appears in
intrusive to central Europe (Tostevin, 2007, 2013; Tostevin, 1996), and
its relationship to later Upper Paleolithic industries such as the Aur-
ignacian remains uncertain. At the Tolbor site complex and several
other localities in Mongolia the early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) assem-
blages which overlie the IUP resemble what we might expect for an
evolved IUP (Derevianko et al., 2013; Gunchinsuren et al., 2014; Izuho
et al., 2018; Zwyns et al., 2014). However comparatively little is known
about the late Middle Paleolithic in this area. In northwest China the
IUP is in no sense transitional. Neither blades nor Levallois are abun-
dant in the late Middle Paleolithic of north China. Late Middle Paleo-
lithic assemblages from the site of Jinsitai (Inner Mongolia) resemble
the Eurasian Mousterian but are based mainly on discoid reduction and
contain little evidence for systematic blade production (Li et al., 2018;
Wang et al., 2010). At Shuidonggou at least, the industries which im-
mediately follow the IUP bear stronger resemblance to older, pre-IUP
assemblages than they do to the IUP (Li et al., 2014, 2013a).
3.2. Homology or homoplasy?
An even more fundamental set of questions concerns how we might
explain the distribution of sets of cultural traits—such as those which
define the IUP—over such extensive areas. In basic terms, we want to
know whether this phenomenon represents a clade or a grade. Here the
IUP is far from unique. In Paleolithic archaeology we often deal with
sets of material culture traits covering truly enormous geographic
ranges. Phenomena such as the Acheulean, or the Gravettian are
documented across vast swaths of Africa and/or Eurasia. They are
certainly not cultures in the sense of self-identifying social units. They
could well represent networks across which a limited set of cultural
traits were shared (Buchanan et al., 2017), but there are other potential
explanations. With particular respect to the IUP, some researchers
argue that the presence of IUP-like assemblages tracks a discrete ho-
minin dispersal event (Goebel, 2015; Hoffecker, 2011). However, it
could also be a consequence of repeated convergence or parallelism.
Perhaps Levallois-like blade production is simply an “easy” evolu-
tionary transition between Mousterian Levallois production and volu-
metric blade manufacture, a solution that people returned to again and
again. Or perhaps it solved particular adaptive problems common to
peoples across the region. In fact, a complete answer might well involve
all three processes: there might have been multiple points of origin with
regional dispersal from those places, for example.
Preferred explanations for similarities in material culture across
space and time have varied over the past century according to the
prevailing paradigms for explaining culture change. Though the mid-
20th century, similarities in material culture were typically explained
as a consequence of either population movement (migration) or cultural
exchange (diffusion). Advocates of the “New Archaeology” in the 1960s
rejected cultural or historical explanations for why people acted as they
did. Instead, they sought to explain commonalities in material culture
in terms of adaptation. Widespread adaptations of particular techno-
logical options, from bifaces to agriculture, were seen as products of
common adaptive challenges (convergences) rather than as outcomes of
shared cultural background.
In the current intellectual environment both kinds of explanations
are treated as potentially viable. Researchers continue to pursue
3
Archaeological Research in Asia xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
adaptive causes for both local and global changes in human behavior.
Simultaneously, cultural/historical perspectives on variation in mate-
rial culture have been reinvigorated. There are a host of reasons for the
resurgence. First, the revolution in research on both contemporary and
ancient DNA has provided independent (if chronologically poorly re-
solved) evidence for population movements and contacts. It is now
possible to document ancient demographic events independent of the
material culture evidence. Second, developments in theory, specifically
“dual inheritance” models (e.g., Shennan 2008; Richerson & Boyd
1978; Boyd & Richerson 1985; Cochrane 2009; Smith 2000), have
provided a fertile source of models for examining how cultural practices
might wax and wane within populations or flow between them. The
enthusiastic embrace of the chaîne opératoire approach to studying
material culture (Chazan, 2009; Pelegrin et al., 1988; Sellet, 1993;
Soressi and Geneste, 2011) has also provided rich ground for examining
technological choices resulting from common learning traditions. Fi-
nally, methods borrowed from phylogenetic systematics and cladistics
provide the means for testing alternative hypotheses about the re-
lationships between archaeological phenomena widely scattered in
time and space (e.g., Collard et al. 2006; Lycett 2009; Buchanan &
Collard 2007; Lyman & Brien 2000; Tehrani & Collard 2002). As a
consequence of all these developments, adaptation and history can now
be treated as complementary rather than as mutually exclusive ex-
planations for similarities in material culture across space and time.
In the terms of biological phylogenetics, the central methodological
challenge in explaining the near-global distribution of IUP assemblages
is distinguishing homoplasy from homology, separating the results of
convergence or parallelism in lithic technology from similarities that
reflect from common origin. Ultimately, if we are going to resolve
questions about cultural continuity and convergence the first thing we
need to understand is variation within the range of what we call IUP.
There is no other option: Darwinian evolution is change over time in
trait frequencies, not just replacement of one class by another. We
cannot name or define our way out of the problem of distinguishing
cultural connections from reinvention of basic forms and procedures.
Many of the papers in this special issue are concerned specifically with
the enterprise of documenting the variability in what we call IUP within
Asia.
The task of describing variability within the IUP “brand” is more
than a matter of excavating more sites (though that will certainly move
things forward). Legacy data already exist, in the form of collections
excavated and documented in previous decades. However, this in-
formation is not necessarily comparable across the entire span of the
phenomenon. The researchers who excavated Shuidonggou Locality 1
in China, Kara Bom in Russia, Bohunice in the Czech Republic, and Ksar
Akil in Lebanon, came from very different intellectual backgrounds and
employed very different systems for describing their findings. We can
certainly recognize some general commonalities: the problems come in
isolating the details (individual traits) which will make phylogenetic or
cladistic analysis possible. Ultimately, making these disparate records
work together will require (re) describing the materials using a
common set of categories and terms. One list of characters has already
been published (Kuhn and Zwyns, 2018). The list includes unusual
features that are not consistently reported in published findings and
that researchers in different areas may have described differently.
Several of the contributions to this special issue provide the kinds of
detail about specific dimensions of IUP technology in Asia needed to
draw conclusions about the relationships between superficially similar
industries. Zwyns and Lbova provide a particularly fine-grained tech-
nological analysis of blank production and transformation of blanks
into tools and cores at the Kamenka site in the Transbaikal region,
Russia (Zwyns and Lbova, 2018). They argue for a high degree of si-
milarity in technological features of IUP assemblages across Mongolia,
Siberia and the Transbaikal, observations which strongly favor the
hypothesis that these assemblages at least are products of a common
cultural background. This is a model approach, and parallel analyses of
S.L. Kuhn
material from China and western Eurasia are needed to more fully as-
sess the global phenomenon.
One unexpected source of variation among IUP assemblages is blade
segmentation, Many IUP assemblages in Asia contain very large blades:
blades at Kara Bom, in the Siberian Altai, can be as long as 35 cm
(Slavinsky et al. 2018). These large blades are seldom found in com-
plete condition, but are usually represented by multiple segments.
Slavinsky and colleagues (Slavinsky et al., 2018) show that at Kara
Bom, many segments were produced intentionally, as indicated by 1)
characteristic signs of percussion on the segment ends, and 2) unique
byproducts (“butterfly” flakes”). These segments of large blades were in
turn transformed into tools or cores for small laminar element (burin
cores). Shuidonggou 1 in China also yields many blade segments, but
there is no positive evidence that blade segments were produced in-
tentionally. Instead, dimensional evidence suggests that the many un-
worked segments in this assemblage were results of natural breakage
(Kuhn and Li, 2018). These differences in the methods and aims of
blade segmentation show how superficial similarities–large blades
broken into segments–can hide deeper differences. Although more cases
are needed, it suggests that systematic production of large blades and
segmentation by percussion represents a derived trait of the Siberian
and Mongolian IUP. That it is not present in Shuidonggou may tell us
something about the origins of blade production technology in north-
west China.
Each of the papers in this special focuses largely, if not entirely, on
the lithic evidence. This makes sense as the IUP was defined in terms of
flaking methods, and in many cases all we know about are the stone
tools. However, as biologists know well, it is difficult to evaluate the
likelihood of convergence or parallelism in a single trait. The prob-
ability of independent convergence of multiple traits declines ex-
ponentially with number of traits considered. For this reason it will be
important to consider multiple features of technology and behavior, not
just the ones that define the IUP. Artifact classes such as bone tools,
personal ornaments, and so forth, may be less ubiquitous than stone
tools but they present potentially rich fields for study on their own.
Zwyns and Lbova are the only authors in this special issue to address
these other artifact classes in detail, though several other contributions
mention them in passing. This is something we need more of in order to
fully evaluate the IUP phenomenon. On their own, similarities or dif-
ferences in blade production are ambiguous as an indicators of phylo-
genetic relationships. Combining lithic data with evidence from bone
artifacts, beads and other aspects of material culture will produce a
much more comprehensive and robust story.
Environmental context is another vital part of the story, as it affects
both the potential for and barriers to dispersal. Ecological factors might
also produce common conditions that lead to convergence in behavior.
Izuho and colleagues (2018) address this specifically with respect to
IUP and early Upper Paleolithic industries at the Tolbaga site in western
Transbaikal. They show that, at one site at least, changes in assem-
blages coincide with changes in local environments. Ascertaining
whether similar patterns are reflected in other sites could produce vi-
able hypotheses for explaining the turnover in technologies– whether
successive population expansion and contraction or shifts in technology
in response to environmental change.
It is also important to remember that evolution and dispersal did not
stop with the IUP. Morisaki et al. (2018) look further East, to Japan, to
develop hypothesis about where Japanese early Upper Paleolithic
(EUP) blade production originated. They conclude is that it is more
likely to have come from Korea than from China or areas farther west.
While this conclusion may well be correct, some of the comparisons are
curious. For example, it is not clear why they made explicit compar-
isons only with the Shuidonggou site in China, or with sites much far-
ther west where the assemblages are considerably older. More apt
comparisons might have been the IUP or EUP of Mongolia. Also, par-
enthetically, the assemblage from Jinsitai in Inner Mongolia, China is
not Upper Paleolithic, nor is it particularly rich in blades (e.g., Li et al.
4
Archaeological Research in Asia xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
2018).
Morgan and colleagues (2017) take on the treacherous problem of
“modern human behavior” (MHB). They argue that that the full suite of
traits typically used to define MHB (save parietal or portable art) does
not stabilize in East Asia until MIS 2, although most elements appear
singly in earlier intervals within the Upper Pleistocene. They conclude
that MHB is not a useful concept for East Asia. In fact, many researchers
have come to the conclusion that it is not really a useful concept at all
(Henshilwood and Marean, 2003; Kuhn and Hovers, 2013; Shea, 2011).
As Morgan et al. point out, most definitions of “modern human beha-
vior” are based on the features of the European Upper Paleolithic. We
should not expect a complex of characters that coalesced in the
northern temperate zones of western Europe during MIS 3 and 2 to
characterize human behavior across the rest of the world. However, the
European record provides a deeper lesson. Until around 20 years ago,
the most robust expression of the traits of MHB in Europe was also as-
sociated with the later Upper Paleolithic, just before and during the
LGM (Straus, 2005, 1995). The subsequent dating of elaborate re-
presentational art to early Upper Paleolithic ages (González-Sainz et al.,
2013; Quiles et al., 2016), and recognition of the importance of bladelet
production in some early Aurignacian industries (Le Brun-Ricalens
2005; Maillo Fernández 2005; Tsanova et al. 2012) has changed this
situation. One wonders whether the same will occur as the sample of
Initial and Early Upper Paleolithic sites East Asia continues to grow,
and especially as more stratified sites with good organic preservation
are excavated.
4. A word on chronology
Obviously, geochronology must play a central role in sorting out the
origins and genesis of the IUP. If the IUP technological pattern origi-
nated in one place and spread out from there, whether through diffu-
sion or migration, there should be clear geographic trends in earliest
dates from particular regions. The fact that the global sample of dates
on IUP assemblages spans 10–15,000 years is itself encouraging in this
respect. We should expect major cultural developments to be time-
transgressive, especially when we are dealing with a distribution of sites
covering something on the order of 7000 km at its broadest point.
At present, evidence for trends in radiocarbon dates from the Levant
to northeast Asia is equivocal (Kuhn and Zwyns, 2014; Morgan et al.,
2014). Although it would be tempting to interpret this as evidence in
favor of multiple centers of origin, methodological and technical issues
complicate the situation. The broad spread of radiometric dates within
single sites or layers is especially worrisome. This dimension of varia-
tion in radiometric ages is at least partially a consequence of the many
difficulties with 14C dating for the time range in question. Dates ap-
proaching the limits of radiocarbon method are especially susceptible to
contamination by recent carbon from a range of sources (Higham et al.,
2009; Pigati et al., 2007). More stringent pretreatment protocols such
as ABOX and ultra-filtration (Bird et al., 1999; Brock et al., 2010) can
remove more of these contaminants, but even these are not the ultimate
cures for the ills of the method. For reasons that are unclear at present,
some samples respond better to one pretreatment protocol whereas
other samples provide better results with alternative protocols
(Boaretto, 2007; Rebollo et al., 2008). Ultimately, radiocarbon record
alone may never provide results precise enough to resolve chron-
ological all questions about phenomena 40,000 years or older. Methods
such as OSL and TL dating could eventually supplant 14C although
currently the precision of these techniques is not sufficient to provide
substantially better chronological resolution. In the right contexts
dating methods such as tephrochronology and uranium-series dating
may be key to establishing high-resolution chronologies. Here we must
rely on our colleagues in the natural sciences who are working to im-
prove techniques for pretreating 14C samples, to refine radiocarbon
dating calibration curves, and to improve the precision and reliability of
other dating methods. Until they succeed, however, we must be
S.L. Kuhn
cautious not to put too much emphasis on isolated dates.
The sources of ambiguities in dating the Initial Upper Paleolithic are
not exclusively technical. Solid stratigraphic association remains an
essential component of any chronological study in archaeology. Well-
though-out protocols for selecting dating samples have been proposed
(Boaretto, 2007; Graf, 2009). Yet “stratigraphic hygiene” has not al-
ways been a high priority, and many of the dates at the extremes of the
IUP range come from uncertain contexts. Surprisingly, the dates from
Shuidonngou locality 2 published more than 15 years ago (Madsen
et al., 2001) are still cited in discussions of the Initial Upper Paleolithic
(Keates and Kuzmin, 2015), even though 1) the samples were obtained
from an unexcavated natural erosional profile with no archaeological
association beyond the presence of hearths, and 2) published studies of
SDG 2 after extensive excavation provide strong evidence that the dates
came from cultural layer 3 at the site, which did not contain an Initial
Upper Paleolithic assemblage (Li et al., 2014, 2013b). Similarly, the
early date for the IUP published by Madsen comes from a radiocarbon
assessment of a carbonate crust on a single quartzite flake from non-
excavated context at the South Temple Canyon 1 site (Madsen et al.,
2014). The age determination is may be valid but it is not clear how the
thing dated relates to the phenomenon of interest. The date more re-
cently published by Morgan et al. (Morgan et al., 2014) on locality 1 at
Shuidonggou did come from an excavated stratigraphic profile but its
association with the archaeological materials is unclear. The fragment
of charcoal dated was assigned to a layer based on assessment of a
highly eroded profile that had been exposed for more than two decades.
The date might well refer to the IUP materials at the site but this is
impossible to establish with any certainty.
5. Conclusion: boader relevance of the IUP
Resolving the global problem of the Initial Upper Paleolithic is no
simple undertaking. It will require integrating knowledge form a di-
verse set of cultural archives, created by researchers representing many
intellectual traditions. It will also involve an inevitable struggle with
the limitations of our current dating methods. On the other hand, trying
to solve the problems presented by the IUP can contribute much to
general archaeological theory and method. Questions of cultural dy-
namics in Eurasia between 50 ka and 35 ka– whether they concern the
dispersal of Homo sapiens or the development of “behavioral moder-
nity”– are undeniably fascinating and important. But difficulties in-
herent in explaining very widespread cultural phenomena are common
to many regions and time periods. Researchers are asking very similar
questions about the mechanisms behind the vast geographic footprint of
Mode II or Acheulean bifacial technology (Lycett, 2009; Moncel et al.,
2016), or the less extensive but still impressive distributions of the
Aurignacian or Gravettian across western Eurasia, or Clovis material
culture in North America. Owing to the abundance of well-excavated,
stratigraphically controlled and potentially datable sites—with much of
the best recent work carried out by the contributors to this special
issue– the IUP may turn out to be an ideal platform for testing alter-
native methods and conceptual frameworks, finding out the best stra-
tegies for working out the genesis of far-flung archaeological com-
plexes.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Masami Izuho, organizer of the 2016 meeting of the
Asian Paleolithic Association meeting, for inviting me to speak there,
and to Masami and Nicolas Zwyns for inviting me to contribute this
special issue of Archaeological Research in Asia.
References
Bird, M.I., Ayliffe, L.K., Fifield, L.K., Turney, C.S.M., Cresswell, R.G., Barrows, T.T., David,
B., 1999. Radiocarbon dating of “old” charcoal using a wet oxidation, stepped-
5
Archaeological Research in Asia xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
combustion procedure. Radiocarbon 41, 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0033822200019482.
Boaretto, E., 2007. Determining the chronology of an archaeological site using radio-
carbon: minimizing uncertainty. Isr. J. Earth Sci. 56, 207–216.
Boeda, E., Bonilauri, S., 2006. The Intermediate Paleolithic: the first bladelet production
40,000 years ago. Anthropologie XLIV 75–92.
Boëda, E., Hou, Y.M., Forestier, H., Sarel, J., Wang, H.M., 2013. Levallois and non-
Levallois blade production at Shuidonggou in Ningxia, North China. Quat. Int. 295,
191–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.07.020.
Bosch, M.D., Mannino, M.A., Prendergast, A.L., Connell, T.C.O., Demarchi, B., 2015. New
chronology for Ksâr ‘ Akil (Lebanon) supports Levantine route of modern human
dispersal into Europe. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 112, 7683–7688. https://doi.org/
10.1073/pnas.1501529112.
Bourguignon, L., 1998. Les industries du Paléolithique Intermédiaire d'Umm el Tlel.
Nouveaux éléments pour le passage entre Paléolithique moyen et supérieur dans le
Bassin d'El Khowm. In: Otte, M. (Ed.), Préhistoire d'Anatolie. Genèse de Deux
Mondes, ERAUL, Liege, pp. 709–730.
Boyd, R., Richerson, P.J., 1985. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Brantingham, P.J., Krivoshapkin, A.I., Jinzeng, L., Tserendagva, Y., 2001. The initial
Upper Paleolithic in Northeast Asia. Curr. Anthropol. 42, 735–747. https://doi.org/
10.1086/323817.
Brock, F., Higham, T., Ditchfield, P., Ramsey, C.B., 2010. Current pretreatment methods
for AMS radiocarbon dating at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (Orau).
Radiocarbon 52, 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200045069.
Buchanan, B., Collard, M., 2007. Investigating the peopling of North America through
cladistic analyses of early Paleoindian projectile points. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 26,
366–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2007.02.005.
Buchanan, B., Hamilton, M.J., Hartley, J.C., Kuhn, S.L., 2017. Investigating the scale of
prehistoric social networks using culture, language, and point types in western North
America. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-017-0537-y.
Buvit, I., Terry, K., Izuho, M., Konstantinov, M.V., 2015. The emergence of modern be-
havior in the Trans-Baikal, Russia: timing and technology. In: Kaifu, Y., Izuho, M.,
Goebel, T., Sato, H., Ono, A. (Eds.), Emergence and Diversity of Modern Human
Behavior in Paleolithic Asia. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX, pp.
490–505.
Chazan, M., 2009. Pattern and technology: why the chaîne opératoire matters. In: Shea,
J.J., Lieberman, D. (Eds.), Transitions Prehistory: Essays Honor Ofer Bar-Yosef.
Oxbow Books, for the American School of Prehistoric Research, Oxford, pp. 469–478.
Cochrane, E., 2009. Evolutionary explanation and the record of interest: using evolu-
tionary archaeology and dual-inheritance theory to explain the archaeological re-
cord. In: Shennan, S.J. (Ed.), Pattern and Process in Cultural Evolution. University of
California Press, Berkeley, pp. 113–132.
Collard, M., Shennan, S.J., Tehrani, J.J., 2006. Branching, blending, and the evolution of
cultural similarities and differences among human populations. Evol. Hum. Behav.
27, 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.07.003.
Dannemann, M., Andrés, A.M., Kelso, J., 2016. Introgression of Neandertal- and
Denisovan-like haplotypes contributes to adaptive variation in human toll-like re-
ceptors. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 98, 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2015.11.015.
Derevianko, A.P., Xing, G., Olsen, J.W., Rybin, E.P., 2012. The Paleolithic of Dzungaria
(Xinjiang, Northwest China) based on materials from the Luotuoshi site. Archaeol.
Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 40, 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeae.2013.04.002.
Derevianko, A.P., Rybin, E.P., Gladyshev, S.A., Gunchinsuren, B., Tsybankov, A., Olsen,
J.W., 2013. The technology of early Upper Paleolithic lithic reduction in Northern
Mongolia: the Tolbor-4 site. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 41, 21–37. https://
doi.org/10.1134/S1563011007010021.
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, e72931. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0072931.
Goebel, T., 2015. The overland dispersal of modern humans to eastern Asia: an alter-
native, northern route from Africa. In: Kaifu, Y., Izuho, M., Goebel, T., Sato, H., Ono,
A. (Eds.), Emergence and Diversity of Modern Human Behavior in Paleolithic Asia.
Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX, pp. 437–452.
González-Sainz, C., Ruiz-Redondo, A., Garate-Maidagan, D., Iriarte-Avilés, E., 2013. Not
only Chauvet: dating Aurignacian rock art in Altxerri B Cave (northern Spain). J.
Hum. Evol. 65, 457–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.08.001.
Graf, K.E., 2009. “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”: evaluating the radiocarbon chron-
ology of the middle and late Upper Paleolithic in the Enisei River valley, south-
Central Siberia. J. Archaeol. Sci. 36, 694–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2008.
10.014.
Gunchinsuren, B., Tsybankov, A.A., Olsen, J.W., 2014. Early Upper Paleolithic stone tool
technologies of northern Mongolia: the case of Tolbor 4 and Tolbor 15. Archaeol.
Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 41, 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeae.2014.07.004.
Henshilwood, C.S., Marean, C.W., 2003. The origin of modern human behavior: critique
of the models and their test implications. Curr. Anthropol. 44, 627–651. https://doi.
org/10.1086/377665.
Higham, T.F.G., Brock, F., Peresani, M., Broglio, A., Wood, R., Douka, K., 2009. Problems
with radiocarbon dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Italy. Quat.
Sci. Rev. 28, 1257–1267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2008.12.018.
Hoffecker, J.F., 2011. The early upper Paleolithic of Eastern Europe reconsidered. Evol.
Anthropol. 20, 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan20284.
Izuho, M., Terry, K., Vasil'ev, S., Konstantinov, M., Takahashi, K., 2018. Tolbaga revisited:
scrutinizing occupation duration and its relationship with the faunal landscape
during MIS 3 and MIS 2. Archaeol. Res. Asia.
Keates, S.G., Kuzmin, Y.V., 2015. Shuidonggou localities 1 and 2 in northern China:
S.L. Kuhn
archaeology and chronology of the initial Upper Palaeolithic in north-East Asia.
Antiquity 89, 714–720. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2015.22.
Kuhn, S.L., 2004. From initial Upper Paleolithic to Ahmarian at Ucagizli cave, Turkey.
Anthropologie 42, 249–262.
Kuhn, S.L., Hovers, E.H., 2013. Alternative pathways to complexity: evolutionary tra-
jectories in the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age: an introduction to
Supplement 8. Curr. Anthropol. 54, S176–S182. https://doi.org/10.1086/673501.
Kuhn, S.L., Li, F., 2018. Abundant blade segments at Shuidonggou, Locality 1: intentional
or accidental? Archaeol. Res. Asia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2018.02.003.
Kuhn, S.L., Zwyns, N., 2014. Rethinking the initial Upper Paleolithic. Quat. Int. 347,
29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.05.040.
Kuhn, S.L., Zwyns, N., 2018. Convergence and continuity in the Initial Upper Paleolithic
of Eurasia. In: O'Brien, M., Buchannan, B., Eren, M. (Eds.), Convergent Evolution in
Stone-Tool Technology. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kuhn, S.L., Stiner, M.C., Güleç, E., 1999. Initial Upper Palaeolithic in south-Central
Turkey and its regional context: a preliminary report. Antiquity 73, 505–517. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00065066.
Kuhn, S.L., Stiner, M.C., Reese, D.S., Gu, E., 2001. Ornaments of the earliest Upper
Paleolithic: new insights from the Levant. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98, 7641–7646.
Kuhn, S.L., Stiner, M.C., Gulec, E., Ozer, I., Yilmaz, H., Baykara, I., Acikkol, A., Goldberg,
P., Martinez-Molina, K., Unay, E., Suata-Alpaslan, F., 2009. The early Upper
Paleolithic occupations at Üçağızlı Cave (Hatay, Turkey). J. Hum. Evol. 56, 87–113.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.07.014.
Le Brun-Ricalens, F. (Ed.), 2005. Productions Lamellaires Attribuées à l'Aurignacien:
Chaines Operatoires et Perspectives Technoculturelles. Musee National d'Histoire et
d'Art Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
Li, F., Gao, X., Chen, F., Pei, S., Zhang, Y., Wang, H., Kuhn, S.L., 2013a. The development
of Upper Palaeolithic China: new results from the Shuidonggou site. Antiquity 87,
368–383.
Li, F., Kuhn, S.L., Gao, X., Chen, F., Feng, L., 2013b. Re-examination of the dates of large
blade technology in China: a comparison of Shuidonggou Locality 1 and Locality 2. J.
Hum. Evol. 64, 161–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2012.11.001.
Li, F., Chen, F., Gao, X., 2014. “ Modern behaviors ” of ancient populations at
Shuidonggou Locality 2 and their implications. Quat. Int. 347, 66–73. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.04.001.
Li, F., Chen, F., Wang, Y., Gao, X., 2016. Technology diffusion and population migration
reflected in blade technologies in northern China in the late Pleistocene. Sci. China
Earth Sci. 59, 1540–1553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-016-5305-9.
Li, F., Kuhn, S.L., Chen, F., Wang, Y., Southon, J., Peng, F., Shan, M., Wang, C., Ge, J.,
Wang, X., Yun, T., Gao, X., 2018. The easternmost Middle Paleolithic (Mousterian)
from Jinsitai Cave, North China. J. Hum. Evol. 114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhevol.2017.10.004.
Lycett, S.J., 2009. Understanding ancient hominin dispersals using artefactual data: a
phylogeographic analysis of Acheulean handaxes. PLoS One 4, e7404. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007404.
Lyman, R.L., O'Brien, M.J., 2000. Measuring and explaining change in artifact variation
with clade-diversity diagrams. J. Anth. Arch. 19, 39–74. https://doi.org/10.1006/
jaar.1999.0339.
Madsen, D.B., Jingzen, L., Brantingham, P.J., Xing, G., Elston, R.G., Bettinger, R.L., 2001.
Dating Shuidonggou and the Upper Palaeolithic blade industry in North China.
Antiquity 75, 706–716. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00089213.
Madsen, D.B., Oviatt, C.G., Zhu, Y., Brantingham, P.J., Elston, R.G., Chen, F., Bettinger,
R.L., Rhode, D., 2014. The early appearance of Shuidonggou core-and-blade tech-
nology in North China: implications for the spread of anatomically modern humans in
Northeast Asia? Quat. Int. 347, 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.03.
051.
Maillo Fernández, J.M., 2005. La production lamellaire de l'Aurignacien de la Grotte
Morín (Cantabrie,Espagne). In: Le Brun Ricalens, F. (Ed.), Productions Lamellaires
Attribueés a l'Aurignacien: Chaines Operatoires et Perspectives Technoculturelles.
Musee National d'Histoire et d'Art Luxembourg, Luxembourg, pp. 339–357.
Marks, A.E., Volkman, P., 1983. Changing core reduction strategies: A technological shift
from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in the southern Levant. In: Trinkaus, E.
(Ed.), The Mousterian Legacy: Human Biocultural Change in the Upper Pleistocene.
British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, pp. 13–33.
Meignen, L., 2006. From the late Middle Paleolithic to the early Upper Paleolithic, be-
tween the Adriatic and the Caspian Sea : Continuity or Discontinuity? Anthropologie
44, 1–7.
Meignen, L., 2012. Levantine perspectives on the Middle to Upper Paleolithic “transi-
tion.”. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 40, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aeae.2012.11.003.
Moncel, M.-H., Arzarello, M., Boëda, É., Bonilauri, S., Chevrier, B., Gaillard, C., Forestier,
H., Yinghua, L., Sémah, F., Zeitoun, V., 2016. Assemblages with bifacial tools in
Eurasia (third part). Considerations on the bifacial phenomenon throughout Eurasia.
Comptes Rendus Palevol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2015.11.007.
Morgan, C., Barton, L., Yi, M., Bettinger, R.L., Gao, X., Peng, F., 2014. Redating
Shuidonggou Locality 1 and implications for the initial Upper Paleolithic in East Asia.
Radiocarbon 56, 165–179. https://doi.org/10.2458/56.16270.
Morgan, C., Barton, L., Bettinger, R.L., 2017. Looking for behavioral modernity in
Pleistocene northwestern China. Archaeol. Res. Asia 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ara.2017.07.007.
Morisaki, K., Sano, K., Izuho, M., 2018. Early Upper Paleolithic blade technology in the
Japanese Archipelago. Archaeol. Res. Asia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2018.03.
001.
Pelegrin, J., Bodu, P., Karlin, C., 1988. Chaines opératoires: un outil pour le Préhistorien.
In: Tixier, J. (Ed.), Technologie Préhistorique. Editions CNRS, Paris, pp. 55–62.
Pigati, J.S., Quade, J., Wilson, J., Jull, A.J.T., Lifton, N.A., 2007. Development of low-
6
Archaeological Research in Asia xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
background vacuum extraction and graphitization systems for 14 C dating of old (40
– 60 ka) samples. Quat. Int. 166, 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2006.12.
006.
Quiles, A., Valladas, H., Bocherens, H., Delqué-Količ, E., Kaltnecker, E., van der Plicht, J.,
Delannoy, J.-J., Feruglio, V., Fritz, C., Monney, J., Philippe, M., Tosello, G., Clottes,
J., Geneste, J.-M., 2016. A high-precision chronological model for the decorated
Upper Paleolithic cave of Chauvet-Pont d'Arc, Ardèche, France. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
113, 4670–4675.
Rebollo, N.R., Cohen-Ofri, I., Popovitz-Biro, R., Bar-Yosef, O., Meignen, L., Goldberg, P.,
Weiner, S., Boaretto, E., 2008. Structural characterization of charcoal exposed to high
and low Ph: implications for 14C sample preparation and charcoal preservation.
Radiocarbon 50, 289–307. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200033592.
Reich, D., Green, R.E., Kircher, M., Krause, J., Patterson, N., Durand, E.Y., Viola, B.,
Briggs, A.W., Stenzel, U., Johnson, P.L.F., Maricic, T., Good, J.M., Marques-Bonet, T.,
Alkan, C., Fu, Q., Mallick, S., Li, H., Meyer, M., Eichler, E.E., Stoneking, M., Richards,
M., Talamo, S., Shunkov, M.V., Derevianko, A.P., Hublin, J.-J., Kelso, J., Slatkin, M.,
Pääbo, S., 2010. Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in
Siberia. Nature 468, 1053–1060. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09710.
Richerson, P.J., Boyd, R., 1978. A dual inheritance model of the human evolutionary
process I: basic postulates and a simple model. J. Soc. Biol. Struct. 1, 127–154.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-1750(78)80002-5.
Richter, D., Tostevin, G., Skrdla, P., 2008. Bohunician technology and thermo-
luminescence dating of the type locality of Brno-Bohunice (Czech Republic). J. Hum.
Evol. 55, 871–885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.04.008.
Rybin, E.P., 2014a. Tools, beads, and migrations: specific cultural traits in the initial
Upper Paleolithic of Southern Siberia and Central Asia. Quat. Int. 347, 39–52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.04.031.
Rybin, E.P., 2014b. Tools, beads, and migrations: specific cultural traits in the initial
Upper Paleolithic of southern Siberia and Central Asia. Quat. Int. 347, 39–52.
Sankararaman, S., Patterson, N., Li, H., Pääbo, S., Reich, D., 2012. The date of inter-
breeding between Neandertals and modern humans. PLoS Genet. 8, e1002947.
Sankararaman, S., Mallick, S., Patterson, N., Reich, D., 2016. The combined landscape of
Denisovan and Neanderthal ancestry in present-day Humans. Curr. Biol. 26,
1241–1247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.03.037.
Sellet, F., 1993. Chaîne opératoire: the concept and its applications. Lithic Technol. 18,
106–112.
Shea, J.J., 2011. Homo sapiens is as Homo sapiens was: behavioral variability versus
“behavioral modernity” in Paleolithic archaeology. Curr. Anthropol. 52, 1–35.
https://doi.org/10.1086/658067.
Shennan, S.J., 2008. Evolution in archaeology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 37, 75–91. https://
doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085153.
Slavinsky, V.S., Rybin, E.P., Khatsenovich, A., Belousova, N.E., 2018. Intentional frag-
mentation of blades in the Initial Upper Paleolithic industries of the Kara-Bom site
(Altai, Russia). Archaeol. Res. Asia.
Smith, E.A., 2000. Three styles in the evolutionary analysis of human behavior. In: Cronk,
L., Chagnon, N., Irons, W. (Eds.), Adaptation and Human Behavior: An
Anthropological Perspective. Aldine de Gruyter, New York, pp. 27–46.
Soressi, M., Geneste, J.-M., 2011. The history and efficacy of the chaine operatoire ap-
proach to lithic analysis: studying techniques to reveal past societies in an evolu-
tionary perspective. PaleoAnthropology 2011, 334–350. https://doi.org/10.4207/
PA.2011.ART63.
Stiner, M.C., Kuhn, S.L., Güleç, E., 2013. Early Upper Paleolithic shell beads at Üçağızlı
Cave I (Turkey): Technology and the socioeconomic context of ornament life-his-
tories. J. Hum. Evol. 64, 380–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.01.008.
Straus, L.G., 1995. The upper paleolithic of Europe: an overview. Evol. Anthropol. 4,
4–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.1360040103.
Straus, L.G., 2005. A mosaic of change: the Middle–Upper Paleolithic transition as viewed
from New Mexico and Iberia. Quat. Int. 137, 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
quaint.2004.11.019.
Stutz, A.J., Shea, J.J., Rech, J.A., Pigati, J.S., Wilson, J., Belmaker, M., Maria, R., Arpin,
T., Cabanes, D., Clark, J.L., Hartman, G., Hourani, F., White, C.E., Nilsson Stutrz, L.,
2015. Early Upper Paleolithic chronology in the Levant: new ABOx-SC accelerator
mass spectrometry results from the Mughr el-Hamamah. J. Hum. Evol. 85, 157–173.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.04.008.
Svoboda, J., Svoboda, H., 1985. Les industries de type Bohunice dans leur cadre strati-
graphique et écologique. Anthropologie. 89, 505–514.
Tehrani, J., Collard, M., 2002. Investigating cultural evolution through biological phy-
logenetic analyses of Turkmen textiles. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 21, 443–463. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0278-4165(02)00002-8.
Tostevin, G.B., 1996. 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 Paleolithic
Diversity in the Near East. Oxbow Books, Oxord, pp. 54–67.
Tostevin, G.B., 2007. Social intimacy, artefact visibility and acculturation models of
Neanderthal-modern human Interaction. In: Mellars, P.A., Boyle, K., Bar-Yosef, O.,
Stringer, C. (Eds.), Rethinking the Human Revolution. MacDonald Institute of
Archaeology, Cambridge, pp. 341–357.
Tostevin, G.B., 2013. Seeing Lithics: Middle Range Theory for Testing Cultural
Transmission in the Paleolithic. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Tsanova, T., Zwyns, N., Eizenberg, L., Teyssandier, N., Le Brun-Ricalens, F., Otte, M.,
2012. Le plus petit dénominateur commun : Réflexion sur la variabilité des ensembles
lamellaires du Paléolithique supérieur ancien d'Eurasie. Un bilan autour des exemples
de Kozarnika (Est des Balkans) et Yafteh (Zagros central). Anthropologie 116,
469–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anthro.2011.10.005.
Usik, V.I., Demidenko, Y.E., 1993. The problem of changes in Levallois technique during
the technological transition from the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic. Paléorient 19,
S.L. Kuhn
5–15. https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.1993.4593.
Wang, X.K., Wei, J., Chen, Q.J., Tang, Z.W., Wang, C.X., 2010. A preliminary study on the
excavation of the Jinsitai Cave site. Acta Anthropol. Sin. 29, 15–32 (in Chinese with
English abstract).
Zwyns, N., Lbova, L.B., 2018. The initial Upper Paleolithic of Kamenka site, Zabaikal
region (Siberia): a closer look at the blade technology. Archaeol. Res. Asia.
Zwyns, N., Rybin, E.P., Hublin, J.-J., Derevianko, A.P., 2012. Burin-core technology and
Archaeological Research in Asia xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
laminar reduction sequences in the initial Upper Paleolithic from Kara-Bom (Gorny-
Altai, Siberia). Quat. Int. 259, 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2011.03.036.
Zwyns, N., Gladyshev, S.A., Gunchinsuren, B., Bolorbat, T., Flas, D., Dogandžić, T.,
Tabarev, A.V., Gillam, J.C., Khatsenovich, A.M., McPherron, S.P., Odsuren, D., Paine,
C.H., Purevjal, K.E., Stewart, J.R., 2014. The open-air site of Tolbor 16 (Northern
Mongolia): preliminary results and perspectives. Quat. Int. 347, 53–65. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.05.043.