lable at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International 347 (2014) 29e38

Contents lists avai

Quaternary International

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

Rethinking the initial Upper Paleolithic

Steven L. Kuhn a, *, Nicolas Zwyns b, c

a School of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Bldg. 30, Tucson, AZ 85721-0030, USAb Dept. of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USAc Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 23 June 2014

Keywords:Early Upper PaleolithicHominin dispersalsLevalloisBlade technology

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: skuhn@email.arizona.edu (S.L.

(N. Zwyns).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.05.0401040-6182/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights

a b s t r a c t

The term Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) was originally proposed to describe a specific assemblage fromthe site of Boker Tachtit (level 4). The use of the term was subsequently extended to cover the earliestUpper Paleolithic assemblages in the Levant, characterized by forms of blade production that combineselements of Levallois method (faceted platforms, hard hammer percussion, flat-faced cores) with fea-tures more typical of Upper Paleolithic blade technologies. More recently, the term IUP has beenbroadened again to include any early Upper Paleolithic assemblage with Levallois-like features inmethods of blade production, irrespective of location. Artifact assemblages conforming to this broadestdefinition of the IUP have been reported from a vast area, stretching from the Levant through Central andEastern Europe to the Siberian Altai and Northwest China. Whereas it is indisputable that similar lithictechnologies can be found in all of these areas, it is not self-evident that they represent a unified culturalphenomenon. An alternative possibility is convergence, common responses to adapting Mousterian/MSALevallois technology to the production of blade blanks, or some combination of multiple local originswith subsequent dispersal. In this paper, we suggest that the current definition of IUP has become toobroad to address such issues, and that understanding the origins of this phenomenon requires a moreexplicit differentiation between analogies and homologies in lithic assemblages.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Whatwe call “cultures” or “culture complexes” in the Paleolithicoften exist on a scale unmatched by any familiar contemporarysocial or cultural phenomenon. Constellations of associated mate-rial culture traits that define the Acheulean or the Aurignacian areextraordinarily persistent in time and remarkably widespread inspace. Specific technological procedures, such as pressure micro-blade production or Levallois method are even more broadlydistributed and long-lived. These kinds of phenomena present achallenge to archaeologists. We do not know exactly how to un-derstand them. Are they cultures in a familiar sense at all, or arethey the outcome of less familiar processes leading to the fixation ofcertain cultural traits across very large areas? To what extent canbroad similarity in lithic technology be equated with continuity incultural transmission, as opposed to convergence guided by thefracture mechanics of isotropic stone or responses to similarecological challenges?

Kuhn), nzwyns@ucdavis.edu

reserved.

The Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) has become this sort of“extensive” cultural phenomenon. When first proposed, the termInitial Upper Paleolithic had a very narrow meaning. The use of theterm has subsequently been broadened to encompass an ever-larger series of archaeological assemblages that spans an areastretching from North Africa to north China. At this point the termhas become so generalized that its meaning and utility must be re-evaluated. Here, we examine what has been called IUP in variousplaces and reconsider what this phenomenon might signify forhominin global dispersals and trajectories of cultural evolution. Webriefly review the origins and uses of the term Initial UpperPaleolithic, the spatial and temporal ranges of assemblages iden-tified as IUP, and some of the technological variability subsumedunder the name. At this point, the global distribution of IUP as-semblages presents important challenges for distinguishing resultsof large-scale dispersal events from outcomes of technologicalconvergence.

2. History of the term

As far as we are aware, Marks and Ferring (1988) coined theterm Initial Upper Paleolithic to describe the lithic industry from

S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International 347 (2014) 29e3830

layer 4 (the most recent stratum) at Boker Tachtit, as well as theearliest Upper Paleolithic levels at Ksar Akil. The layer 4 industryresembles material from the other three layers at Boker Tachtit interms of many typological and technological indicators. However,it contains a method of blade production that combines somefeatures of Levallois (hard hammer percussion, platform facet-ing), with an Upper Paleolithic volumetric exploitation of thecore's volume. What further sets layer 4 apart is the predominantuse of unipolar production: in the earliest levels bidirectionalexploitation is much more common. Moreover, while artifactsresembling Levallois blades and points were produced, they donot occur at the end of the reduction sequence as in other as-semblages from the site, leading Volkman (1983) to concludethat they were not the intended products of reduction. Markssaw the Boker Tachtit sequence as documenting the gradualtransformation of MP-type Levallois blade production to anessentially UP mode of core exploitation and (unipolar) produc-tion. Thus, the technology from Layer 1 at the bottom of thestratigraphic sequence was considered to be predominantlyLevallois Mousterian in character, while the Layer 4 assemblagewas predominantly Upper Paleolithic.

The next revision of term IUP came when Kuhn et al. (1999)proposed it as a general descriptor for all early Upper Paleolithicassemblages from the eastern Mediterranean and Near East thatcontained mainly Upper Paleolithic tool forms made on bladesproduced by a technology combining elements of Levallois (flatcore faces, hard hammer, platform faceting, etc.) with more typicalprismatic core exploitation. In essence, this combined assemblages

Fig. 1. Global distribution of IUP sites. 1. Brno-Bohunice; 2. Str�ansk�a Sk�ala III; 3. Bohunice-KeFteah; 10. Hagfet ed Dabba; 11. Üça�gızlı; 12. Kanal Cave; 13. Um el'Tlel; 14. Jerf Ajlah; 15. YabrMughur al Hamamah; 23. Tor Sadaf; 24. Boker Tachtit; 25. Kara-Bom; 26. Ust-Karakol 1; 27. K4; 33. Tolbor 16; 34. Tsagan-Agui; 35. Shuidonggou 1; 36. Shuidonggou 2, 9 (adapted from

formerly termed Emiran with those conforming to Marks and Fer-ring's conceptualization of the Initial Upper Paleolithic. The termIUP was proposed as a replacement for existing terminologies suchas Emiran, which is too specific (Emireh points are not found at allsites) or “transitional” (which presumes a phylogenetic relationshipwith earlier and later assemblages). Although IUP technologies maybe transitional in some places, this must be demonstrated. E. Bo€edaand colleagues proposed the designation Pal�eolithique intermediarefor similar reasons, but the use of term has so far been limited tocomparatively recent assemblages from Umm et ‘Tlel, Syria(Bourguignon, 1998; Ploux and Soriano, 2003). At sites such asÜça�gızlı cave and Ksar ‘Akil, where organic preservation is good,other elements of Upper Paleolithic non-lithic technologies,including ornaments and bone tools, are present, even abundant inlayers yielding IUP assemblages.

More recently, application of the term IUP has been broadenedeven more. Many researchers now refer to all industries dating tobetween 35 ka and 50 ka, and that show features of Levalloistechnology in blade production as Initial Upper Paleolithic (e.g.,Hoffecker, 2011). This includes assemblages scattered fromN. Africato central Europe to northwest China. Sinitsyn (2003) andArrizabalaga et al. (2003) independently proposed a ratherdifferent definition of the term. They call the earliest UpperPaleolithic industries in a particular area, irrespective of theircharacteristics, Initial Upper Paleolithic. This usage reframes IUP asa purely chronostratigraphic term with little specific technologicalor typological content. While that may be a valid literal use of thephrase “Initial Upper Paleolithic”, we are concerned here with a

jbaly I, II; 4. Temnata; 5. Bacho-Kiro; 6. Kulychyvka; 7. Korolevo I, 2; 8. Shlyakh; 9. Hauaud II; 16. Antelias; 17. Abou Halka; 18. Ksar Akil; 19. Emireh; 20. El Wad; 21. Raqefet; 22.ara-Tenesh; 28. Makarovo 4; 29. Kamenka A-C; 30. Khotyk; 31. Podzvonkaya; 32. TolborGeoatlas.com).

S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International 347 (2014) 29e38 31

somewhat more strictly defined phenomenon, namely the set ofearly Upper Paleolithic assemblages, from anywhere in the world,with features of Levallois in blank production and essentially UpperPaleolithic retouched tool inventories.

While “IUP” may be preferable to terms such as “transitional”,lumping together any and all late Pleistocene industries withLevallois-like features in the system of blade production and apredominance of UP tool forms may produce a definition that is toogeneral to be very useful except as descriptive shorthand for gen-eral features of lithic technology. The central question is whetherthe combination of UP tool forms and Levallois blade productioncould represent independent developments rather than a complexof cultures related by descent. In other words, are the sharedcharacteristics the IUP sensu lato evidence for cultural continuity e

via diffusion or population movement e over a vast area (homol-ogies), or are they simply a series of convergences?

The IUP is of more than anecdotal interest since it is one key tounderstanding the historical and evolutionary processes leading tothe establishment of modern humans in Eurasia (Hublin, 2012).Where it occurs the IUP is always the earliest form of UpperPaleolithic industry in a particular region. It is also often (but notalways) associated with novel forms of behavior identified as“modern” (beads, shaped bone tools, etc.). Because IUP technolo-gies combine elements of Levallois technology with more classic“volumetric” UP blade production, some researchers consider themtransitional between Middle and Upper Paleolithic. However, inmany areas (central Europe, Mongolia, China) they are clearlyintrusive. Other researchers have assumed a phylogenetic rela-tionship between technologies distributed over tens of thousandsof kilometers and spanning nearly ten thousand years, claimingthat this particular constellation of features is a proxy for a singleearly dispersal of anatomically modern humans into Eurasia(Hoffecker, 2011:35).

There is currently no strong evidence that the IUP as a whole in-dexes anatomically modern humans. We currently do not knowwhich hominin(s) were responsible for producing the IUP

Table 1Sites yielding IUP/early UP with Levallois blades. Only excavated, stratigraphically-secureespecially to those containing dates).

Region Country Site Layer(s) Da

N. Africa Libya Haua FteahHagfet ed Dabba

Middle East Israel Boker Tachtit 1e4 Yeun

Emireh NoEl Wad F NoRaqefet VIIIeV No

Jordan Mughur al- Hamamah YeTor Sadaf A, B? No

Syria Yabrud II 6 NoJerf Ajlah B,C YeUm et'Tlel II2b-IIbase Ye

Lebanon Antelias VIIeV NoAbou Halka IVfeIVe NoKsar Akil XXVeXXII

Turkey Üça�gızlı FeI YeKanal cave No

S.E. Europe Bulgaria Temnata YeBacho Kiro Ye

Central Europe Moravia Brno-Bohunice Various YeStr�ansk�a Sk�ala III 5 YeBohunice-Kejbaly I,II 4a

Eastern Europe Ukraine Korolevo I, 2 (1a, II) YeKulychivka III

assemblages in different parts of the world. It might even be possibleto claim that they trace an eastward dispersal of Neanderthals. Fossilassociations are few and taxonomic determinations are tentative atbest. The isolated teeth fromÜça�gızlı cave in southern Turkey show apredominance of Homo sapiens traits but a few possess Neanderthalfeatures as well (Kuhn et al., 2009; Baykara, 2010). Likewise, thefragmentaryremains fromlayerXXIVorXXVatKsarAkil (Doukaetal.,2013) are taxonomically ambiguous. Based onmorphology alone, weare often on uncertain ground in attributing fragmentary fossils fromthis period to one taxon or another. Moreover, given recent geneticevidence for interbreeding between Neanderthals and (and to asmaller extent Denisovans) and the ancestors of modern H. sapiens(Green et al., 2010; Reich et al., 2010; Sankararaman et al., 2012), wemust allow for thepossibility thatwhatare called IUP industries couldhave been produced by more than one hominin taxon.

3. Geographic range, temporal duration, and technologicalvariability

With their discovery in the middle of the 20th century, a fewsalient attributes of Levantine IUP assemblages captured the atten-tion of archaeologists. The combination of stereotypical “MiddlePaleolithic”knapping techniqueswith “Upper Paleolithic”blank andtool forms, along with distinctive fossiles directeurs such as Emirehpoints and chanfreinsmade the Levantine assemblages quite uniqueglobally (Garrod, 1951e1952). Subsequent findings demonstratedthat thegeneral phenomenonofUpperPaleolithic toolsonLevallois-like blanks is morewidespread. In evaluating the significance of theIUP sensu lato, wemust recognize the geographic scale overwhich itoccurs. Assemblages fitting the broad definition of IUP have beendocumented from North Africa to North China (Table 1, Fig. 1).Particular dense concentrations of UP assemblages with Levallois-like blade technology occur in the eastern Mediterranean Levant,Moravia (the Bohunician sites), and between the Siberian Altai andnorthern Mongolia. However, scattered occurrences are notedacross southern and eastern Europe and northwest China.

contexts included. (References are generally limited to the most recent publications,

ted? (y/n) Notes References

Dabban McBurney, 1967a, 1967bDabban McBurney, 1967b

s: redatingderway

Marks and Volkman, 1983; Volkman 1983

Garrod, 1955Garrod, 1951e52Sarel, 2004

s Richter et al., 2009bFox and Coinman, 2004

Mixed? Pastoors et al., 2008s Richter et al., 2001s Pal�eolithique

intermediarePloux and Soriano, 2003

Copeland, 1970; Leder, 2013Azoury, 1986; Leder, 2013Azoury, 1986; Ohnuma, 1988

s Kuhn et al., 2009Kuhn et al., 1999

s Tsanova, 2008s Tsanova, 2008s Bohunician Richter et al., 2008, 2009as Bohunician Richter et al., 2008

Richter et al., 2008s Gladilin, 1989; Gladilin and Demidenko, 1989

Cohen and Stepanchuk, 1999

(continued on next page)

Table 1 (continued )

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

Russia Shlyakh 8 Yes Nekhoroshev, 1999; Hoffecker, 2011Siberian Altai Russia Kara-Bom OH5e6 Yes Goebel et al., 1993

Ust Karakol 1 (sector 1) OH 5.4e5.5 No Derevianko et al., 1987; Slavinskiy, 2007Kara Tanesh No Derevianko et al., 2001

Cis-andTransbaikal

Russia Makarovo 4 3a Yes Goebel and Aksenov, 1995

Kamenka A-C 6 Orlova et al., 2005; Lbova, 2008Khotyk 3 Kuzmin et al., 2006; Lbova, 2008Podzvonkaya 2 Tashak, 2002

N.Mongolia Tolbor 4 OH5eOH6 Yes Derevianko et al., 2007; Zwyns, 2012Tolbor 16 7 (lower) In progress Zwyns et al., 2014

S. Mongolia Tsagan-Agui 3 Yes Derevianko et al., 2004N.W. China Shuidonnguo 1 Lower Yes Li et al., 2013

Shuidonnguo 2, 9 5, 7 Yes Li et al., 2013

Table 2 (continued )

Site Layer/industry 14C age s Calib. BP s

Ucagizli 12 I 35,100 1400 39,682 1554Ucagizli 12 I 36,915 335 41,812 335Ucagizli 12 I 39,200 1300 43,354 943Ucagizli 12 I 39,700 1600 43,737 1193Ucagizli 12 I 39,817 383 43,646 599Ucagizli 12 I 40,200 1300 44,020 1079Umm el Tlel3 PI 36,000 2500 39,958 2515Bacho Kiro4 11 34,800 1100 39,638 1288Bacho Kiro4 11 37,650 1450 42,334 1127Bacho Kiro4 11 38,500 1700 42,883 1228Bacho Kiro4 11 >43,000Temnata Doupka4 couche 4- inter. 38,200 1500 42,728 1122Temnata Doupka4 couche 4- inter. 38,800 1700 43,092 1205Temnata Doupka4 couche 4- inter. 39,100 1800 43,312 185Temnata Doupka4 couche 4- inter. 45,000 7000Temnata Doupka4 couche 4- inter. 46,000 8000Stranska Skala5 IIIc 34,440 720 39,620 1010Stranska Skala5 IIId 34,530 790 39,643 1046Stranska Skala5 IIId 34,530 770 39,696 977Stranska Skala5 IIIc 34,680 820 39,738 1043Stranska Skala5 IIId 35,080 830 40,003 1045Stranska Skala5 IIId 35,320 310 40,250 874Stranska Skala5 IIIc 36,350 990 40,889 1158Stranska Skala5 IIIc 36,570 940 41,229 941Stranska Skala5 IIId 37,270 990 42,024 670Stranska Skala5 IIId 37,900 1100 42,574 884Stranska Skala5 III-1 38,200 1100 42,784 893Stranska Skala5 IIIc 38,300 1100 42,847 888Stranska Skala5 III-2 38,500 1300 42,948 974Stranska Skala5 IIIa 41,300 1300 44,879 1301Brno-Bohunice5 Bohunician 32,740 530 37,237 856Brno-Bohunice5 Bohunician 34,770 240 39,926 812Brno-Bohunice5 Bohunician 35,025 730 39,994 989Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunician 36,000 1100 40,576 1265

S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International 347 (2014) 29e3832

It is equally important to recognize that although the IUP in thebroadest sense is very widespread, it is not a ubiquitous componentof Paleolithic cultural sequences. To date, assemblages with thesecharacteristics have not been reported from western and northernEurope. Nor are they known in the area stretching from the ZagrosthroughCentral and SouthAsia (seeDennell et al.,1991 for a possibleexception), although there are few well-studied assemblages fromthese regions and future discoveries could change the situationradically. What this shows is that early Upper Paleolithic assem-blageswith Levallois features in blade production arenot a universalstage in the transition fromMiddle to Upper Paleolithic. They are anelement in many, but by no means all regional sequences.

In addition to covering a vast area of geographic space, in someplaces IUP assemblages also cover very long spans of time. Thecalibrated radiocarbon dates for layers yielding claimed IUP as-semblages range between 32 ka and 47 ka, mostly falling between39 ka and 45 ka cal BP (Table 2). Where multiple dates are available,individual sites or site complexes may cover a significant timespan,on the order of 6e8 ky. Certainly a part of this variability stems fromvery real difficulties in radiocarbondating samples in this time range(e.g., Highamet al., 2009).Manydates, and especially those obtainedprior to the widespread use of AMS counting and development ofhighly effective sample-pre-treatment techniques should beconsidered essentially minimum age estimates. Evenwith the moststringent sample pre-treatment and counting procedures as well asthe most up-to-date calibration methods, dates older than 40 k 14Cyears are likely to underestimate the true age. Application of inde-pendent datingmethods such as OSL and TL, as well as stratigraphicmarkers such as the Y-5 tephra (Fedele et al., 2003; Pyle et al., 2006),will be vital to obtaining a better understanding of the true age ofthese and other late MP and early UP assemblages.

Table 2Published radiocarbon dates for IUP sites/assemblages. (** refers to later early UP-provides minimum age for underlying IUP). Where calibrated ages were not pub-lished dates were calibrated using CalPal online version 1.5.

Site Layer/industry 14C age s Calib. BP s

Boker Tachtit1 4 34,000 600 39,300 1150Boker Tachtit1 1 45,000 1000 48,345 1800Boker Tachtit1 1 47,000 1000 50,600 2200Ucagizli 12 Fbc 34,000 690 39,160 1300Ucagizli 12 Fbc 35,020 740 39,989 993Ucagizli 12 Fbc 39,100 1000 43,300 800Ucagizli 12 G 39,100 1500 43,300 1060Ucagizli 12 H1-3 35,500 1200 40,200 1312Ucagizli 12 H1-3 35,670 730 40,400 1070Ucagizli 12 H1-3 38,900 1100 43,185 850Ucagizli 12 H1-3 39,400 1200 43,467 896Ucagizli 12 H1-3 41,400 1100 44,927 1157Ucagizli 12 I 33,874 271 39,496 1015

Brno-Bohunice5 Bohunician 36,050 260 40,752 1035Brno-Bohunice5 Bohunician 36,540 310 41,633 310Brno-Bohunice Bohunician 38,200 330 42,617 428Brno-Bohunice5 Bohunician 38,690 320 43,082 592Brno-Bohunice5 Bohunician 38,770 330 43,100 600Brno-Bohunice5 Bohunician 40,050 360 43,772 625Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunician 40,173 1200 43,979 1016Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunician 41,250 450 44,780 735Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunician 41,350 450 44,878 726Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunician 41,400 1400 45,015 1399Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunician 42,100 450 45,501 844Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunician 42,750 550 46,246 1206Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunician 42,900 1700 46,681 1936Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunician 43,250 550 46,868 1606Bohunice: Red Hill Sites5 Bohunician 43,600 550 47,144 1604Shlyakh6 layer 8 <44,000 <47,500Kulychivka6 III??? 31,000 500 35,100 500Kara Bom7 OH5-6 43,200 1500 46,931 1995Kara Bom7 OH5-6 43,300 1600 47,025 2052Ust-Karakol 1 (1)**8 OH 5.2e5.3 31,410 1160 35,784 1356Ust-Karakol 1 (1)**8 OH 5.2e5.3 29,900 2070 34,728 2209

Table 2 (continued )

Site Layer/industry 14C age s Calib. BP s

Kamenka A 40,500 3800 44,848 3587Kamenka A8 35,845 695 40,588 1046Kamenka A8 31,060 530 35,188 528Kamenka A8 30,460 430 34,739 441Kamenka A8 26,760 265 31,451 344Khotyk9 3 38,200 2800 42,039 2598Khotyk9 3 28,770 245 33,264 414Podzvonkaya10 3 38,900 3300 42,755 3132Tolbor 411 31,210 410 34,233 400Tolbor 411 >41,050 >44,570Tolbor 411 35,230 680 40,129 991Tolbor 411 37,400 2600 41,354 2475Chikhen Agui12 27,432 872 32,114 818Chikhen Agui 2**12 2.5 30,555 410 34,813 438Tsagaan Agui12 3 33,840 640 38,992 1420Tsagaan Agui12 3 33,780 585 38,972 1432Tsagaan Agui12 3 33,500 600 38,676 1585Tsagaan Agui12 3 32,960 670 37,498 1018Tsagaan Agui12 3 30,940 480 35,080 478SDG213 7 34,395 328SDG213 7 41,445 223

Sources: 1, Marks, 1983; 2, Kuhn et al., 2009; 3, Ploux and Soriano 2003; 4, Tsanova,2008: 12, 107; 5, Richter et al., 2009a, 2009b; 6, Hoffecker, 2011; 7, Derevianko andRybin, 2003; 8, Kuzmin, 2004; 9, Kuzmin et al., 2006; 10. Lbova 2008; 11,Derevianko et al., 2007; 12, Derevianko et al., 2004; 13, Li et al., 2013.

S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International 347 (2014) 29e38 33

These caveats notwithstanding, dates from more recent studies(Richter et al., 2008, 2009a; Kuhn et al., 2009) do suggest that atleast the Levantine IUP and the Bohunician lasted for prolongedperiods. This dispersal of radiometric dates shows that the IUP isnot a transitory phenomenon. Even taking the dates critically itprobably lasted longer than recent estimates for the age range ofthe proto-Aurignacian, and perhaps the early Aurignacian as well(Banks et al., 2013). Some authors have described temporalsequencing within the Levantine IUP sites, although the number ofwell-dated localities is comparatively small (Marks, 1990;Demidenko and Usik, 1993; Leder, 2013). In Siberia and northernMongolia, chronological data available suggest a sudden appear-ance of this technology, but they are insufficient to address thequestion of the local development (Gladyshev et al., 2010). Based onthe current data, comparisons with the ages of sites in southernMongolia and northwest China indicate that it took more than 5 kyfor these technological systems to diffuse or be carried into the aridregions of East Asia (Li et al., 2013).

Finally, the range of industries designated as IUP exhibit aconsiderable degree of technological heterogeneity. The more welearn about early Upper Paleolithic assemblages from differentparts of Eurasia, and about IUP assemblages specifically, the morewe realize that there is substantial variation among them. In thebroadest sense of the term, the industries defined as Initial UpperPaleolithic share only a few basic traits. They are united mainly bythe use of hard hammer percussion, facetted platforms and rela-tively flat exploitation faces on some cores, all of which are tightlylinked traits from a technological point of view. Locally, other fea-tures are highly variable.

� In some assemblages, (Üça�gızlı FeI, Ksar Akil, Boker Tachtit 4)blank production is almost exclusively unidirectional. In others(Boker Tachtit 1, 2, the Bohunician sites, Kara-Bom (OH5eOH6),Tolbor 4 (OH5eOH6), Shuidonggou 1, 2, blank production in-volves bidirectional removals.

� Even bidirectional technological systems are not homogeneous.Sometimes bidirectional cores have platforms on opposite endsof the same broad face of the core (e.g Bohunician), but often thereduction took place on a broad flaking surface and at the

intersection with a narrow face or lateral edge (e.g. Kara-Bom).These variants can sometimes coexist and may at times repre-sent different stages of reduction.

� Some IUP technological systems appear to have been orientedtoward production of pointed pieces, others toward the pro-duction of blades or even elongated flakes. Multiple productsoccur together in many assemblages, making it difficult to inferthe intentionality of the toolmakers: reduction systems may beoriented toward producing multiple blank forms (Shimelmitzand Kuhn, 2013).

� Although standardized bladelet production systems are rare, atleast two different approaches to the manufacture of smallblanks are documented among IUP assemblages in differentregions. At Umm el Tlel bladelets were produced as part of thechaine op�eratoire for making macro-blades and points, leavingcharacteristic scars on the dorsal faces of Umm el Tlell points(Bourguignon, 1998; Bo€eda and Bonliauri, 2006): microwearevidence shows that some of these small elements were hafted.The asymmetric blade core/burin-core technology combinationis typical of the IUP Siberia and in Mongolia (Zwyns, 2012;Zwyns et al., 2012). The method is oriented toward the pro-duction of small blades detached from the lateral edge of alarger blade, following its longitudinal axis (Fig. 2). Based on thepublications, at least a few burin-like cores were also collectedfrom Boker Tachtit (1, 2) (Volkman,1983) and Temnata (sector II,layer VI) (Tsanova, 2008) but they seem absent from Ksar-Akiland the Bohunician.

� Distinctive retouched forms vary regionally. In the Levant twodistinctive tool forms, Emireh points and chanfreins occur in IUPassemblages, though they are seldom found together. Neitherartifact form is found in the Bulgarian sites or elsewhere insouthern Europe. In Siberia and Mongolia, blanks with inverseproximal thinning do occur (Fig. 2) (Derevianko et al., 1987,1998a, 1998b; Rybin, 2004, 2014; Zwyns, 2012; Zwyns et al.,2014). Blanks differ in size and shape, being either elongatedblades with inverse retouch on the distal end (in the Altai),pointed flakes in the Cis-Baikal (e.g. Makarovo-4) (Rybin, 2000)and blades with inverse truncation in Mongolia (e.g. Tolbor 4).

� Other archaeological associations are also highly variable. In theLevant at least, the later IUP at Ksar Akil and Üça�gızlı (Kuhn et al.,2001, 2009) is associated with bone tools and abundant shellbeads. Ornaments are also present in the early layers at BachoKiro (Kozlowski et al., 1982; Tsanova, 2008) and in Kara Bom(Derevianko and Rybin, 2003) and at Khotyk, in the Transbaikal.In the latter region, bone artifacts such as awhistle (Kamenka A)and a flute/whistle (Khotyk, layer 3), or stone ornament havealso been reported (Lbova, 2010).

Because it ignores many aspects of this variability, the broaddefinition of IUP can lead to an interpretative dilemma. Long dis-tance comparisons between Central European and North Asianassemblages are a good example of the problems. Without clearlysuggesting the idea of a united complex, some authors haveemphasized similarities between Bohunician and Kara-Bom IUP(Svoboda and Skrdla, 1995; Bar-Yosef and Svoboda, 2003, 2004;Skrdla, 2003b). Granted, these assemblages share some techno-logical and typological features (Levallois-like products, dominanceof hard-hammer percussion, UP tool-types on blade blanks, bidi-rectional flaking). However, significant differences can also beidentified.

As described at Str�ansk�a Sk�ala, the most representative Bohu-nician reduction sequence is based on the production of convergentblanks (Skrdla, 2003b). Although the flaking is initialized byremoving crested blades, the convergent blanks are generallystruck in short series from the central part of the flaking surface on

Fig. 2. Artifacts from IUP sites in North Asia. 1e3 : Tolbor 4, OH5e6; 4e6 : Ust-Karakol 1 (sector 1) (OH5.4e5.5). Blade with proximal retouch (1 and 4); burin-core (2 and 5),bidirectional asymmetrical blade core (3 and 6) (drawings by N. Zwyns).

S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International 347 (2014) 29e3834

S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International 347 (2014) 29e38 35

the broad face of the core. The convexity of the flaking surface isthen reshaped by debordant removals on both sides of the core, anotable difference from the recurrent centripetal Levallois method(Fig. 3, lower). As noted by Skrdla (2003b), the cores start as “UpperPaleolithic” but finish as Middle Paleolithic, and integrate elementsof both volumetric conceptions.

At Kara-Bom, reduction takes place alternately on a broad and anarrow face of the core (Derevianko and Volkov, 2004; Dereviankoet al., 2001; Zwyns, 2012) (Fig. 3, upper). The intersection of the twosurfaces seems to be used to reshape convexities during thereduction process and at the stage of discard the core is rather flatand/or asymmetrical in section. Blanks produced encompass threecategories: blades with parallel or sub-parallel edges, convergentblades and thick debordant/crested elements (used as blanks forburin-cores). This reduction path illustrates a sub-volumetric

Fig. 3. Analytical description of IUP variants in bidirectional blade reduction. Kara-Bom (above) and Str�ansk�a sk�ala (below) (adapted from Bo€eda, 1990; Skrdla, 2003b).A. Initial crest B. Reduction e lateral motion: Above, the reduction is going back andforth between a narrow and a broad flaking surface. Below, the reduction is semi-circular and moves from one side to the other with a flaking surface located in betweenC. Reduction e geometry: Above, the reduction area fits into a rectangular or scalenetriangle. Below, a first phase of initialization (C1) is followed by the reduction (C2). Thereduction area fits into a trapeze. D. Reduction e inward motion: Above, the corereduction follows an oblique axis form the point of initialization. Below, the core fol-lows a straight axis from the initial crest. E. Management of lateral convexities:debordant or crested blade. F. Below, a first series of Levallois blanks (F1) is followed bya management of the lateral (E) convexities before the second one starts (F2).

approach different from the dominant Bohunician reductionsequence at Str�ansk�a Sk�ala, although cores exploited on the broadand narrow face, or the narrow face alone, are also reported (seeSkrdla, 2003a; 2003b, Figs. 7.1, 7.5, 9.7).

Interestingly, the variability within the laminar Middle Paleo-lithic of northwest Europe also encompasses these two types ofblade reduction. At Seclin (MIS5, France), reduction of blade coresfollowing a semi-prismatic pattern includes debordant/crestedblades removed from both edges and a central flaking surface(Tuffreau et al., 1994). Although oriented toward different endproducts, this system is roughly comparable to the Bohunicianmanagement of lateral convexities. Asymmetrical cores aredescribed in Rocourt (Belgium, MIS5) (Otte et al., 1990). The coex-istence with classical Levallois, the level of technological variabilityobserved, and the broad timespan represented suggest that MIS5assemblages represent an incipient development of the northwestEuropean Middle Paleolithic (R�evillion, 1995) rather than a unitedcultural complex. Asymmetrical cores close to the Kara-Bom IUPare also considered typical for the Chatelperronian (e.g. Roc-de-Combe layer 8) (Bo€eda, 1990; but see also; Pelegrin, 1995;Roussel, 2011). Given that it can be found in the early UP as wellas MP assemblages dated to the last interglacial, this reductionsystem can hardly be sufficient basis to define a single culturalcomplex that encompasses any and all assemblage showing bidi-rectional debordant pieces and Levallois flakes/blades. The samereasoning could apply to the differences between western andnorth Asian IUP assemblages. In light of the relative consistencyobserved between the assemblages from the Altai and fromnorthern Mongolia, the structural differences observed betweenthe Bohunician and Kara-Bom blade technology cannot be leftunexplained. Tomake sense out of these differences it is essential tore-evaluate the concept of the IUP, and to attempt to describe andexplain variation within it.

4. Discussion

The geographic and temporal dispersal of IUP technology posesa fundamental question. What range of processes that can lead tothe repetition of a constellation of technological features over timeand space? Dispersal of a single group bearing a particular tech-nological tradition is one such process, arguably the first one thatmany archaeologists think of. However, technologies can alsodisperse across existing social networks without people actuallymoving with them. A third, less frequently-considered possibility isthat the broad dispersal of some characteristics of the IUP repre-sents frequent convergent evolution. The loose configuration ofattributes that define the IUP may simply represent an “easy”pathway from late MP Levallois to UP prismatic blade tech-nologyda comparatively small-scale shift in modalities of bladeproduction. In other words, as a global phenomenon, the IUP couldrepresent a grade rather than a clade. While we tend to considerthem separately, all these sets of mechanisms are probably impli-cated in the full range and distribution of industries termed IUP. Thevariability observed could represent a series of radiations ordistinct dispersal events, at various geographical scales, occurringwithin a narrow time window.

Although one should be very cautious in interpreting radio-carbon dates greater than 37,000 14C years, the existing corpus ofdates (Table 2) is inconsistent with the hypothesis that the globalIUP represents a single dispersal event. There is a broad time trendin dates within the IUP range, running from southwest (the Levant)to the northeast (Mongolia and northwest China) but the trend ishardly clear or monotonic. For example, the dates from Kara Bom inthe Siberian Altai are among the oldest in the entire sample,approaching the current age estimates for the base of Boker Tachit

S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International 347 (2014) 29e3836

(Fig. 1). Focusing just on the western part of the IUP distributionwemust imagine a complex scenario in order to explain the apparentrelationships between the Bohunician and the Levantine IUP:

1. Early development of the Initial Upper Paleolithic in thesouthern Levant (Boker Tachtit 1e2), possibly stimulated bydiffusion of techniques or people out of the Nile Valley. Theseearliest assemblages are characterized by bidirectionalproduction.

2. A fairly rapid dispersal of early populations using a bidirectionalcore management strategy to south-central Europe, resulting inthe Bohunician assemblages (Tostevin, 2000, 2003).

3. A second, later dispersal of populations using unidirectionalproduction strategies from the southern Levant into the north-ern Levant (Üça�gızlı, Ksar ‘Akil, possibly Umm et’Tlel).

Given the known dates and the typo-technological differencesstressed above, it is even more difficult to derive the eastern Euro-pean or Altai Initial Upper Paleolithic out of the Bohunician or earlyBulgarian sites. In order to account for the early dates from sites inthe Siberian Altai, one needs to posit that IUP-like technologiesoccur early on in at least two areas, the Levant/North Africa andnorth Asia/the Altai. Although it has been proposed that IUP couldfind its origins in the Levantine (Rybin, 2004) or Central AsianMiddle Paleolithic (Krivoshapkin et al., 2006, 2010), the antiquity ofblade traditions in these regions makes it difficult to identify directancestors for the North Asian technological systems. In Central Asia,the earliest documented assemblages with volumetric blade tech-nology occur around 170 ka, at Khonako inTadjikistan (Sch€afer et al.,1998, 2003). Regrettably, few of the subsequent laminar MP as-semblages are securely dated. A second preliminary scenario mustbe proposed, qualified by the deficiencies in temporal evidence:

1. Early dispersal of a complex technologically intermediate be-tween assemblages such as Obi-Rakhmat (upper layers)(Uzbekistan) (Krivoshapkin et al., 2006), Shi-Bat Dihya 1(Yemen) (Delagnes et al., 2012), and Boker Tachtit layer 1 duringthe first half of MIS3. This technology may have quickly devel-oped derived features while spreading into neighboring regions.This techno-complex appears distinctly different than the IUPfrom Central Europe.

2. From the Altai, Levallois-like blade technology (and/or pop-ulations carrying it) spread into northern Mongolia, southernMongolia, and finally northwest China.

Between Siberia and Northern Mongolia, interconnectedreduction sequences (asymmetric cores þ burin-cores) and othertechnological and typological elements represent a packageconsistent enough to be regarded as homologies rather than theresults of homoplasy. Using this combination of features, a similarvariety of IUP can be recognized across Siberia into NorthernMongolia, the small number of sites notwithstanding. The laststages of its spread are more easily identified given the absence oflikely antecedents to IUP technology in southern Mongolia andwestern China. IUP blade production may have been an “easy”pathway from Levallois to prismatic blade production, but only inplaces where there was Levallois to begin with. It is not such anobvious path for transforming typical northern Chinese core andflake technologies into blade production.

5. Conclusion

As the definition of the term Initial Upper Paleolithic has beenbroadened, more questions have arisen as to what it represents.When the IUPwas a discrete technological phase securely anchored

between the late MP and early Ahmarian in the Levant, its potentialsignificance for human evolution was fairly clear. Now that we arespeaking of a list of shared characteristics e centered on Levallois-like blade technology e that link assemblages covering a large partof Eurasia, it is less evident what we are dealing with. The IUP sensulato could represent evidence for one or more population dispersalevents, it could reflect diffusion of technological ideas acrossinterconnected populations, or it could signal technological con-vergences on a large scale. On the one hand, allowing for one case oftechnological convergence leads us to wonder whether there maynot be more examples of homoplasy. On the other hand, thetechnological and typological dissimilarities among IUP industriesfrom different parts of Eurasia do not necessarily indicate that theyare entirely unrelated, independent local developments. After all,one would expect a dispersing culture complex to change overtime, so unless it spread extraordinarily quickly, the earliest andmost recent manifestations should not be identical.

Fortunately, these alternative scenarios, of changes accumu-lating as a technology spread or of repeated, spontaneous de-velopments, have also very different implications for spatial andtemporal structures of technological variability. Moreover, we alsohave the methods to resolve these different scenarios. The recog-nition of homologies and analogies using intensive attribute anal-ysis (e.g., Tostevin, 2000, 2003), combinedwithmethods of analysissuitable for building hypotheses about relationships of descent(e.g., see papers in O'Brien, 2008), have the potential to help usbetter understand the IUP and related phenomena. In combinationwith dating methods such as OSL and TL, application of these kindsof explicitly evolutionary approaches promise to provide a muchbetter understanding of whether the many assemblages fallingunder the umbrella of the Initial Upper Paleolithic represent thetracks of a single population or the consequences of external con-straints on lithic reduction played out again and again in differentparts of the world.

Discussing evidence for material culture among chimpanzees,Byrne (2007) stresses that a combination of near ubiquity andintricate complexity is necessary to identify cultural transmission(see also Stout et al., 2010 for archeological applications). In thepresent case, it would mean identifying a combination of featurescomplex enough to represent homology rather than a directresponse to technical or environmental constraints. Repetition ofthe features in the same or neighboring regions at around the sametime makes it more likely that they are a marker for culturaltransmission, supporting dispersal hypotheses. Specific and con-nected reduction sequences such as asymmetrical cores/burin-cores are more likely to represent such homologies. To identify aclear case of homoplasy implies that we explicitly define featuresthat are distributed beyond the regional scale. These analogiescould include some of the broad IUP characters such as a produc-tion of convergent blades/points, the switch to organic hammersand unidirectional reduction, or the presence of common UP tooltypes (end scrapers, perforators or simple burin forms).

In closing, we would like to emphasize that the questions wehave posed about the IUP are not unique to that particular entity.Researchers have long been aware of the extraordinarily broaddistributions of certain more-or-less well-defined cultural phe-nomena. Clovis technology, for example, is found, in one form oranother, over most of North and Central America during a relativelyrestricted period at the end of the Pleistocene. Earlier culturecomplexes such at the proto-Aurignacian, Aurignacien ancien andthe Gravettian are also extraordinarily widespread within Eurasia.Like the Initial Upper Paleolithic, these constellations of traits occurover geographic scales larger than familiar contemporary culturalphenomena. Also like the Initial Upper Paleolithic, they are prob-ably the consequence of multiple processes, including migration,

S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International 347 (2014) 29e38 37

cultural transmission, and technological convergence. Moreover, itis virtually certain that the distributions of the Aurignacian andClovis for example are the outcomes different combinations offactors. Recognizing, and learning to untangle the diverse in-fluences on the distributions of culture traits in the remote past isan important step towards realizing the field of archaeology'sunique perspective on human cultural dynamics played out at thebroadest scales.

References

Arrizabalaga, A., Altuna, J., Areso, M., Elorza, M., García, M., Iriarte, J.,Mariezkurrena, K., Mujika, J., Pem�an, E., Tarri~no, A., Uriz, A., Viera, L., Straus, L.G.,2003. The initial Upper Paleolithic in Northern Iberia: new evidence fromLabeko Koba. Current Anthropology 44, 413e421.

Azoury, I., 1986. Ksar Akil, Lebanon: A Technological and Typological Analysis of theTransitional and Early Upper Palaeolithic Levels of Ksar Akil and Abu Halka. In:B. A. R. International Series 289. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Banks, W., d'Errico, F., Zilh~ao, J., 2013. Humaneclimate interaction during the EarlyUpper Paleolithic: testing the hypothesis of an adaptive shift between theProto-Aurignacian and the Early Aurignacian. Journal of Human Evolution 64(1), 39e55.

Bar-Yosef, O., Svoboda, J., 2003. Discussion. In: Svoboda, J.A., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.),Stranska Skala. Origins of the Upper Paleolithic in the Brno Basin. Moravia,Czech Republic, pp. 173e179.

Baykara, _I., 2010. Üça�gızlı Ma�garası _Iinsanlarına ait dislerin Paleoantropolojik ana-lizi. (Paloeanthropological analysis of the human teeth from Üça�gızlı cave)(Unpublished PhD dissertation). Department of Anthropology, Social SciencesInstitute, Ankara University (in Turkish).

Bo€eda, E., 1990. De la surface au volume, analyse des conceptions, des d�ebitagesLevallois et laminaire. Pal�eolithique moyen et Pal�eolithique sup�erieur ancian enEurope. Memoires du Mus�ee de Prehistoire d'ile de France 3, 63e68.

Bo€eda, E., Bonliauri, S., 2006. The intermediate Paleolithic, the first bladelet pro-duction 40 000 years ago. Anthropolgie (Brno) 44, 75e92.

Bourguignon, L., 1998. Les Industries du Pal�eolithique Interm�ediaire d'Umm El-Tlel:Nouveaux �el�ements pour le passage entre Pal�eolithique Moyen et Sup�erieur. In:Otte, M. (Ed.), Pr�ehistoire d'Anatolie: Gen�ese de Deux Mondes. Universit�e deLi�ege, Li�ege, pp. 709e730. ERAUL 85.

Byrne, R.W., 2007. Culture in great apes: using intricate complexity in feeding skillsto trace the evolutionary origin of human technical prowess. PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 362, 577e585.

Cohen, V.Y., Stepanchuk, V.N., 1999. Late Middle and early Upper Paleolithic evi-dence from the east European Plains and Caucasus: a new look at variability,interactions, and transitions. Journal of World Prehistory 13, 265e319.

Copeland, L., 1970. The Early Upper Palaeolithic material from levels VIIeV, AnteliasCave, Lebanon. Berytus 19, 99e143.

Delagnes, A., Tribolo, C., Bertran, P., Brenet, M., Crassard, R., Jaubert, J., Khalidi, L.,Mercier, N., Nomade, S., Peign�e, S., Sitzia, L., Tournepiche, J.-F., Al-Halibi, M., Al-Mosabi, A., Macchiarelli, R., 2012. Inland human settlement in southern Arabia55,000 years ago. New evidence from the Wadi Surdud Middle Paleolithic sitecomplex, western Yemen. Journal of Human Evolution 63 (3), 452e474.

Demidenko, Y., Usik, V., 1993. Problem of changes in Levallois technique during thetechnological transition from the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic. Pal�eorient 19(2), 5e15.

Dennell, R.W., Rendell, H., Halim, M., Moth, E., 1991. Site 55, Riwat: a 42,000 yr bp.Open-air Palaeolithic site from northern Pakistan. Journal of Field Archaeology19, 17e33.

Derevianko, A.P., Molodin, V.I., Markin, S.V., 1987. Archeologicheskie issledovanyana Altai v. 1986 g. (Archeological research in the Altai in 1986), IIFFSO AN. ed.

Derevianko, A.P., Agadjanian, A.K., Baryshnikov, G.F., Dergacheva, M.I., Dupal, T.A.,Malaeva, E.M., Markin, S.V., Molodin, V.I., Nikolaev, S.V., Orlova, L.A., Petrin, V.T.,Postnov, A.V., Ulianov, V.A., Fedeneva, I.V., Foronova, I.V., Shunkov, M.V., 1998a.Arkheologia, geologia i paleografia pleistotsena i golotsena Gornogo Altaya(Archaeology, geology and paleogeography of the Pleistocene and Holocene ofthe Mountainous Altai). Institute of Archeology and Ethnography. SiberianBranch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk.

Derevianko, A.P., Petrin, V.T., Rybin, E.P., Chevalkov, L.M., 1998b. Paleoliticheskiekompleksy stratifit sirovannoi chasti stoyanki Kara-Bom (mustie-verkhniipaleolit) (Paleolithic complex at the stratified site of Kara-Bom (Mousterian-Upper Paleolithic)). Institute of Archeology and Ethnography. Siberian Branch ofthe Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk.

Derevianko, A.P., Markin, S.V., Shunkov, M.V., Petrin, V.T., Otte, M., Sckiya, A., 2001.In: Smolarski, P., Sitlivy, V. (Eds.), Paleolithic of the Altai, Richard Liu Founda-tion. Richard Li. ed.. European Institute of Chinese Studies Occasional Papers 1.

Derevianko, A.P., Rybin, E.P., 2003. The earliest representations of symbolicbehaviour by Paleolithic humans in the Altai Mountains. Archaeology,Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 4, 27e50.

Derevianko, A.P., Brantingham, P.J., Olsen, J.W., Tseveendorj, D., 2004. Initial UpperPaleolithic blade industries from the north-central Gobi Desert, Mongolia. In:Brantingham, P.J., Kuhn, S.L., Kerry, K.W. (Eds.), The Early Upper PaleolithicBeyond Western Europe, pp. 207e222.

Derevianko, A.P., Volkov, P.V., 2004. Evolution of lithic reduction technology in thecourse of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in the Altai Mountains.Archeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 2, 21e35.

Derevianko, A.P., Zenin, A.N., Rybin, E.P., Gladyshev, S.A., Tsybankov, A.A.,Olsen, J.W., Tseveendorj, D., Gunchinsuren, B., 2007. The technology of earlyUpper Paleolithic lithic reduction in Northern Mongolia: the Tolbor-4 site.Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 29, 16e38.

Douka, K., Bergman, C.A., Hedges, R.E.M., Wesselingh, F.P., Higham, T.F.G., 2013.Chronology of Ksar Akil (Lebanon) and implications for the colonization ofEurope by anatomically modern humans. PLoS One 8 (9), e72931.

Fedele, F.G., Giaccio, B., Isaia, R., Orsi, G., 2003. The Campanian Ignimbrite eruption,Heinrich event 4, and Palaeolithic change in Europe: a high-resolution inves-tigation. In: Geophysical Monograph Volcanism and the Earth's Atmosphere.American Geophysical Union, vol. 139, pp. 301e325.

Fox, J.R., Coinman, N., 2004. Emergence of the Levantine Upper Paleolithic: Evi-dence from the Wadi al-Hasa. In: Brantingham, P.J., Kerry, K., Kuhn, S. (Eds.), TheEarly Upper Paleolithic Beyond Western Europe. University of California Press,Berkeley, pp. 97e112.

Garrod, D.A.E., 1951e1952. A transitional industry from the base of the UpperPalaeolithic in Palestine and Syria. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute81e82, 121e130.

Garrod, D.A.E., 1955. The Mugharet el Emireh in Lower Galilee: type station of theEmiran Industry. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 85, 141e162.

Gladilin, V.N., 1989. The Korolevo Palaeolithic site: research methods, stratigraphy.Anthropologie (Brno) 27, 93e103.

Gladilin, V.N., Demidenko, Y., 1989. Upper Palaeolithic stone tool complexes fromKorolevo. Anthropologie (Brno) 27, 143e178.

Gladyshev, S., Olsen, J., Tabarev, A.V., Kuzmin, Y.V., 2010. Chronology and periodi-zation of Upper paleolithic sites in Mongolia. Archaeology, Ethnology & An-thropology of Eurasia 38, 33e40.

Goebel, T., Aksenov, M., 1995. Accelerator radiocarbon dating of the initial UpperPalaeolithic in southeast Siberia. Antiquity 69, 349.

Goebel, T., Derevianko, A.P., Petrin, V.T., 1993. Dating the middle-to-upper-paleolithic transition at Kara-Bom. Current Anthropology 34, 452.

Green, R.E., Krause, J., Briggs, A.W., Maricic, T., Stenzel, U., Kircher, M., Patterson, N.,Li, H., Zhai, W., Fritz, M.H., Hansen, N.F., Durand, E.Y., Malaspinas, A.S.,Jensen, J.D., Marques-Bonet, T., Alkan, C., Prüfer, K., Meyer, M., Burbano, H.A.,Good, J.M., Schultz, R., Aximu-Petri, A., Butthof, A., H€ober, B., H€offner, B.,Siegemund, M., Weihmann, A., Nusbaum, C., Lander, E.S., Russ, C., Novod, N.,Affourtit, J., Egholm, M., Verna, C., Rudan, P., Brajkovic, D., Kucan, Z., Gusic, I.,Doronichev, V.B., Golovanova, L.V., Lalueza-Fox, C., de la Rasilla, M., Fortea, J.,Rosas, A., Schmitz, R.W., Johnson, P.L., Eichler, E.E., Falush, D., Birney, E.,Mullikin, J.C., Slatkin, M., Nielsen, R., Kelso, J., Lachmann, M., Reich, D., P€a€abo, S.,2010. A draft sequence of the Neandertal genome. Science 328 (5979), 710e722.

Higham, T., Brock, F., Peresani, M., Broglio, A., Wood, R., Douka, K., 2009. Problemswith radiocarbon dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Italy.Quaternary Science Reviews 28, 1257e1267.

Hoffecker, J., 2011. The Early Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Europe reconsidered.Evolutionary Anthropology 20, 24e39.

Hublin, J.-J., 2012. The earliest modern human colonization of Europe. ProceedingsNational Academy of Science 109 (34), 13471e13472.

Kozlowski, J.K., Dagnan-Ginter, A., Gatsov, I., Sirakova, S., 1982. Upper Palaeolithicassemblages. In: Kozlowski, J.K. (Ed.), Ex Cavation in the Bacho Kiro Cave(Bulgaria). Pa~nstwowe wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa, pp. 119e167.

Krivoshapkin, A.I., Anoikin, A.A., Brantingham, P.J., 2006. The lithic industry of Obi-Rakhmat Grotto, Uzbekistan. Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Bulletin 26, 5e19.

Krivoshapkin, A.I., Kuzmin, Y.V., Jull, A.J.T., 2010. Chronology of the Obi-RakhmatGrotto (Uzbekistan): first results on the dating and problems of the Paleo-lithic key site in Central Asia. Radiocarbon 52, 549e554.

Kuhn, S., Stiner, M., Güleç, E., 1999. Initial Upper Paleolithic in south-central Turkeyand its regional context: a preliminary report. Antiquity 73, 505e517.

Kuhn, S., Stiner, M., Reece, D., Güleç, E., 2001. Ornaments in the Earliest UpperPaleolithic: new perspectives from the Levant. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences (USA) 98, 7641e7646.

Kuhn, S., Stiner, M.C., Güleç, E., €Ozer, I., Yılmaz, H., Baykara, I., Açıkkol, A.,Goldberg, P., Martínez, K., Ünay, E., Suata-Alpaslan, F., 2009. The Early UpperPaleolithic occupations at Üça�gızlı Cave (Hatay, Turkey). Journal of HumanEvolution 56, 87e113.

Kuzmin, T.V., 2004. Origin of the Upper Paleolithic in Siberia. A georachaeologicalperspective. In: Brantingham, P.J., Kerry, K., Kuhn, S. (Eds.), The Early UpperPaleolithic beyond Western Europe. University of California Press, Berkeley,pp. 196e206.

Kuzmin, Y.V., Lbova, L.V., Jull, T.A.J., Cruz, R.J., 2006. The Middle-to-Upper Paleolithictransition in Transbaikal, Siberia: the Khotyk site chronology and archeology.Current Research in the Pleistocene 23, 23e26.

Lbova, L., 2008. Chronology and paleoecology of the Early Upper Paleolithic in theTransbaikal region (Siberia). Eurasian Prehistory 5, 109e114.

Lbova, L., 2010. Evidence ofmodern human behavior in the Baikal zone during the EarlyUpperPaleolithicPeriod.Bulletinof the Indo-PacificPrehistoryAssociation30,9e13.

Leder, D., 2013. Technological and Typological Change at the Middle to UpperPaleolithic Boundary in Lebanon (Ph.D. dissertation). Faculty of Philosophy,University of Cologne.

Li, F., Gao, X., Kuhn, S., Fuyou, C., 2013. Re-examination of the dates of large bladetechnology in Chinadcomparison of Shuidonggou locality 1 and locality 2.Journal of Human Evolution 64, 161e168.

S.L. Kuhn, N. Zwyns / Quaternary International 347 (2014) 29e3838

Marks, A.E., 1983. The sites of Boker and Boker Tachtit. A brief introduction. In:Marks, A.E. (Ed.), Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel,The Avdat/Aqev area. Part 3, vol. III. Southern Methodist University Press,Dallas, pp. 15e37.

Marks, A.E., 1990. The Middle and Upper Palaeolithic of the Near East and the Nilevalley : the problem of cultural transformations. In: Mellars, P.A. (Ed.), TheEmergence of Modern Humans : An Archaeological Perspective. EdinburghUniversity Press, Edinburgh, pp. 56e80.

Marks, A.E., Ferring, C.R., 1988. The Early Upper Palaeolithic of the Levant. In:Hoffecker, J.E., Wolf, C.A. (Eds.), The Early Upper Palaeolithic: Evidence fromEurope and the Near East, British Archaeological Reports International Series437. Oxford, pp. 43e72.

Marks, A.E., Volkman, P.W., 1983. Changing core reduction strategies: A techno-logical shift from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in the southern Levant. In:Trinkaus, E. (Ed.), The Mousterian Legacy. British Archaeological Reports In-ternational Series 164, Oxford, pp. 13e33.

McBurney, C.B.M., 1967a. The Haua Fteah (Cyrenaica) and the Stone Age of theSoutheast Mediterranean. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

McBurney, C.B.M., 1967b. Current status if the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of theentire region from the Levant through North Africa. In: Wendrof, F., Marks, A.(Eds.), Problems in Prehistory: North Africa and the Levant. SMU Press, Dallas,pp. 411e425.

Nekhoroshev, P.E., 1999. Tekhnologicheskii metod izucheniya pervobytnogo rassh-chepleniya kamnya srednego paleolita. Evropeiskii Dom, St. Petersburg.

O'Brien, M. (Ed.), 2008. Cultural Transmission and Archaeology: Issues and CaseStudies. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Ohnuma, K., 1988. Ksar Akil, Lebanon: a Technological Study of the Earlier UpperPalaeolithic Levels at Ksar Akil, vol. III. Levels XXVeXIV. British ArchaeologicalReports International Series 426, Oxford.

Orlova, L., Kuzmin, Y., Lbova, L., 2005. Radiouglerodnye daty pamyatnikov paleolita imezolita Zabaikalya i Mongolii (Radiocarbon dates of the Paleolithic andMesolithic of the Transbaikal and Mongolia). In: Paleoliticheskie KulturyZabaikalya I Mongolii (Novye Fakty, Metody I Gipotezy), pp. 88e92.Novosibirsk.

Otte, M., Bo€eda, E., Haesaerts, P., 1990. Rocourt: industrie laminaire archaïque.Helinium 30, 3e13.

Pastoors, A., Weniger, G.-C., Kegler, J.F., 2008. The MiddleeUpper Palaeolithictransition at Yabrud II (Syria): a re-evaluation of the lithic material from therust excavation. Pal�eorient 34, 47e65.

Pelegrin, J., 1995. Technologie lithique: le Chatelperronien de Roc-de-Combe (lot) etde La Cote (Dordogne). CNRS Edition, Paris.

Ploux, S., Soriano, S., 2003. Umm el Tlel, une sequence du Pal�eolithique sup�erieur enSyrie centrale. Industries lithiques et chronologie culturelle. Pal�eorient 29,5e34.

Pyle, D.M., Ricketts, G.D., Margari, V., van Andel, T.H., Sinitsyn, A.A., et al., 2006.Wide dispersal and deposition of distal tephra during the Pleistocene ‘Cam-panian Ignimbrite/Y5’ eruption, Italy. Quaternary Science Reviews 25,2713e2728.

Reich, D., Green, R.E., Kircher, M., Krause, J., Patterson, N., Durand, E., et al., 2010.Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia.Nature 468, 1053e1060.

R�evillion, S., 1995. Technologie du d�ebitage laminaire au Pal�eolithique moyen enEurope septentrionale: �etat de la question. Bulletin de la Soci�et�e pr�ehistoriquefrançaise 92 (4), 425e442.

Richter, D., Schroeder, H.B., Rink, W.J., Julig, P.J., Schwarcz, H.P., 2001. The Middle toUpper Palaeolithic transition in the Levant and new thermoluminescence datesfor a late Mousterian assemblage from Jerf al-Ajla Cave (Syria). Paleorient 27(2), 29e46.

Richter, D., Tostevin, G., �Skrdla, P., 2008. Bohunician technology and thermolumi-nescence dating of the type locality of Brno-Bohunice (Czech Republic). Journalof Human Evolution 55, 871e888.

Richter, D., Tostevin, G., �Skrdla, P., Davies, W., 2009a. New radiometric ages for theEarly Upper Palaeolithic type locality of Brno-Bohunice (Czech Republic):comparison of OSL, IRSL, TL and 14C dating results. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 36, 708e720.

Richter, T., Stutz, A.J., Nilsson-Stutz, L.G., el-Balawnh, M., 2009b. Mughur al-Hamamah: a Prehistoric Cave site in the Western’ Ajlun District, report on theinitial survey season. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 53,73e82.

Roussel, M., 2011. Normes et variations de la production lithique durant leChatelperronien : la s�equence de la Grande-Roche-de-la Pl�ematrie �a Quinçay(Vienne) (Doctoral thesis). In: Prehistory. University of Paris Ouest Nanterre, LaD�efense, 564 p.

Rybin, E.P., 2000. K voprocu “rykovodyatsik ickopaemiikh” v industrialniikh kom-plekcakh rannei porii verknego paleolita gornogo altaya (The question of the'fossil directeur' in the Early Upper Paleolithic of Gorny-Altai). In: Paleo-geografiya Kamennogo Veka. Korreltisya Prirodniik Cobotii I ArkheologicheskiikKultur Paleolita Severnoy Azii in Sopredelniik Territorii: Materialii Mejdunar-odnoi Konferentsii, pp. 123e126. Krasnoyarsk.

Rybin, E., 2004. Middle Paleolithic “Blade” Industries and the Middle-to-Upper-Paleolithic Transition in South Siberia: Migration or Regional Continuity?. In:British Archaeological Reports International Series 1239, pp. 81e90.

Rybin, E.P., 2014. Tools, beads, and migrations: Specific cultural traits in the InitialUpper Paleolithic of Southern Siberia and Central Asia. Quaternary International347, 39e52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.04.031.

Sankararaman, S., Patterson, N., Li, H., P€a€abo, S., Reich, D., 2012. The date of inter-breeding between Neandertals and modern humans. PLoS Genetics 8 (10),e1002947. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002947.

Sarel, J., 2004. The MiddleeUpper Paleolithic transition in Israel. In: BritishArchaeological Reports International Series 1229. Oxford.

Sch€afer, J., Ranov, V., Sosin, P., 1998. The cultural evolution of man and the chro-nostratigraphical background of changing environments in the loess palaeosoilsequences of Obi-Mazar and Khonako (Tadjikistan). Anthropologie 36, 121e135.

Sch€afer, J., Laurat, T., Ranov, V.A., Sosin, P.M., 2003. Das Altpalaolithikum aus dem4.Palaobodenkomplex von Obi-Mazar (Tadschikistan). In: VeroffentlichungenDes Landesamtes Fur Archaologie Band 57-Festschrift Dietrich Mania,pp. 509e535.

Shimelmitz, R., Kuhn, S., 2013. Early Mousterian Levallois technology in Unit IX ofTabun Cave. Paleoanthropology, 1e27.

Sinitsyn, A., 2003. The most ancient sites of Kostenki in the context of the initialUpper Paleolithic of northern Eurasia. In: Zilh~ao, Z., d'Errico, F. (Eds.), TheChronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes.Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications, Trabalhos de Arqueologia, vol. 33.Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 89e107.

Skrdla, P., 2003a. Bohunician and Aurignacian technologies: a morphologicaldescription. In: Svoboda, J.A., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Stranska Skala. Origins of theUpper Paleolithic in the Brno Basin, Moravia, Czech Republic, pp. 66e76.

Skrdla, P., 2003b. Bohunician technology: a refitting approach. Stranska skala. In:Svoboda, J.A., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Stranska Skala. Origins of the Upper Paleo-lithic in the Brno Basin, Moravia, Czech Republic, pp. 119e151.

Slavinskiy, V.S., 2007. Industrii Ranneverhinepaleoliticheskii Ourovney OvitanyaCtoyanki Ust-Karakol 1 (Early Upper Paleolithic Industry from the occupationlevels at Ust-Karakol 1). In: Severnaya Evrasia v Anthropologenie. Chelo-vekPaleolitechnologii, Geoecologia, Ethnografii i Anthropologii, pp. 197e214.

Stout, D., Semaw, S., Rogers, M.J., Cauche, D., 2010. Technological variation in theearliest Oldowan from Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. Journal of Human Evolution 58,474e491.

Svoboda, J.A., 2004. Continuities, discontinuities, and interactions in early. The EarlyUpper Paleolithic beyond Western Europe. In: Brantingham, P.J., Kerry, K.,Kuhn, S. (Eds.), The Early Upper Paleolithic Beyond Western Europe. Universityof California Press, Berkeley, pp. 30e49.

Svoboda, J., Skrdla, P., 1995. The Bohunician technology. In: Dibble, H.L., Bar-Yosef, O.(Eds.), The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology, pp. 429e438.Madison.

Tashak, V., 2002. Podzvonkaya: Paleoliticheskie Materialy Nizhnego Kompleksa(Buryatia) e (The Podzvonkaya site: Paleolithic materials from the lowercomplex (Buryatia). In: Kradin, N.N. (Ed.), Arkheologiya I Kulturnaya Antropo-logiya Dalnego Vostoka I Tsentralnoi Azii, pp. 25e33. Vladivostok.

Tostevin, G.B., 2000. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition from the Levant toCentral Europe: in situ development or diffusion? In: Orschiedt, J., Weniger, G.-C. (Eds.), Neanderthals and Modern Humans: Discussing the Transition. Central& Eastern Europe from 50,000e30,000 BP. Neanderthal Museum, Mettmann,Germany, pp. 90e109.

Tostevin, G.B., 2003. A quest for antecedents: a comparison of the terminal MiddlePalaeolithic and early Upper Palaeolithic of the Levant. In: Goring-Morris, A.N.,Belfer-Cohen, A. (Eds.), More than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper PalaeolithicDiversity in the Near East. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 54e67.

Tsanova, T., 2008. Les d�ebuts du Pal�eolithique sup�erieur dans l'Est des Balkans.R�eflexion �a partir de l'�etude taphonomique et techno-�economique des en-sembles lithiques des sites de Bacho Kiro (couche 11), Temnata (couches VI et 4)et Kozarnika (niveau VII). In: B.A.R. International Series 1752. Archaeopress,Oxford.

Tuffreau, A., R�evillion, S., Somm�e, J., Van Vliet-Lano€e, B., 1994. Le gisementpal�eolithique moyen de Seclin (Nord). Bulletin de la Soci�et�e pr�ehistoriquefrançaise 91 (1), 23e46.

Volkman, P., 1983. Boker Tachtit: cores reconstructions. In: Marks, A.E. (Ed.), Pre-history and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, 3: the Avdat/AqevArea (Part 3). SMU Press, Dallas, pp. 127e190.

Zwyns, N., 2012. Laminar Technology and the Onset of the Upper Paleolithic in theAltai, Siberia. In: Studies in Human Evolution. Leiden University Press, Leiden.

Zwyns, N., Rybin, E.P., Hublin, J.J., Derevianko, A.P., 2012. Burin-core technology andlaminar reduction sequence in the initial Upper Paleolithic from Kara-Bom(Gorny-Altai, Siberia). Quaternary International 259, 33e47.

Zwyns, N., Gladyshev, S.A., Gunchinsuren, B., Tsedendorj, B., Flas, D., Dogand�zi�c, T.,Tabarev, A.V., Gillam, J.C., Khatsenovich, A.M., McPherron, S.P., Paine, C.H.,Purevjal, K.E., Stewart, J.R., 2014. The open-air site of Tolbor 16 (NorthernMongolia): preliminary results and perspectives. Quaternary International 347,53e65.