gladyshev et al 2012 mongolian upper paleolithic

at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e11

Contents lists available

Quaternary International

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

The Upper Paleolithic of Mongolia: Recent finds and new perspectives

Sergei A. Gladyshev a, John W. Olsen b, Andrei V. Tabarev a,*, Anthony J.T. Jull c

a Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, 17 Lavrentieva Avenue, Novosibirsk 630090, Russiab School of Anthropology, University of Arizona, 1009 E. South Campus Drive, Tucson, AZ 85721-0030, USAcDepartment of Geosciences, University of Arizona, 1040 E. 4th Street, Tucson, AZ 85721-0077, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online xxx

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (A.V. Tabarev).

1040-6182/$ e see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd adoi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.01.032

Please cite this article in press as: GladysheInternational (2012), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.20

a b s t r a c t

This article reports on materials excavated and analyzed since 2008 at the multi-component open-airTolbor-15 Site (Selenge River basin, northern Mongolia). Also discussed are problems of chronology andperiodization of the Mongolian Upper Paleolithic based on radiocarbon dating, including new deter-minations available for the Tolbor-4 and 15 sites, along with associated archaeological materials. Theearly stage of the Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) in Mongolia persisted for a relatively long period andcan be divided into two sub-chrons, the earliest ranging from 40 to 35,000 BP. The later stage of theMongolian EUP, falling between 33 and 26,000 BP, is represented by assemblages from the KhangaiMountains (e.g., Tolbor-4 and 15, Orkhon-7) and the Gobi Altai district (e.g., Tsagaan Agui Cave, ChikhenAgui Rockshelter, Chikhen-2). The middle Upper Paleolithic in Mongolia has been identified only on thebasis of sites in the Orkhon River valley, all of which post-date ca. 25,000 BP. The material culture of thislong period is characterized by the complete replacement of blade industries by flake industries, alongwith the parallel development of the pressure-flaked microblade technique. The later phase of theMongolian Upper Paleolithic is well-dated down to the end of the Pleistocene. Typical industries includethose excavated at Tolbor-15, which are characterized by the predominance of microcores reduced byboth pressure and percussion, the appearance of retouched points on flakes, and an increase in thenumber of microblades as a fraction of overall blade blanks.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Mongolia has attracted the attention of researchers interested inhuman origins for more than a century. Some of the first multi-disciplinary scientific investigations of Central Asia were initiatedduring the second decade of the twentieth century as a result ofhypotheses generated by Henry Fairfield Osborn andWilliam DillerMatthew (Osborn,1916; Rainger, 2004) who regarded this region asa likely “cradle of humankind.”Most famously, invaluable scientificinformation concerning the geography, climate, geology, paleon-tology, and archaeology of Mongolia and North China was collectedby the American Museum of Natural History’s Central AsiaticExpeditions headed by Roy Chapman Andrews (1922e1925) and bythe Sino-Swedish Expeditions (1927e1935) directed by SvenHedin (Hedin et al., 1943; Maringer, 1950; Fairservis, 1993). Theterritory investigated by the Sino-Swedish Expeditions includedInner Mongolia, Gansu, and Xinjiang, where archaeologist FolkeBergman gathered numerous artifacts of presumed Pleistocene and

nd INQUA. All rights reserved.

v, S.A., et al., The Upper Pale12.01.032

early Holocene age (Bettinger et al., 1994), whereas the AmericanMuseum’s expeditions focused primarily on Mongolian terrain(Nelson, 1926; Gallenkamp, 2001).

Following a spate of mid-20th century political turmoil,includingWorld War II, which inhibited or precluded field researchin the region, archaeological studies in Central Asia, includingMongolia, were revived by Soviet Russian scientists at the end ofthe 1940s. The Joint Soviet-Mongolian Expedition, directed initiallyby S. Kiselev, began work in 1949 and included a Paleolithicteam led by A. P. Okladnikov. A number of important sites such asMoil’tyn-am and related Pleistocene localities were found by thatexpedition in the valleys of the Orkhon and Tuul (or Tola) rivers.The first modern investigations of the Mongolian Paleolithic areclosely linkedwith the names A. P. Okladnikov and A. P. Derevianko.During the 1960s Okladnikov studied the deeply stratified Moil’-tyn-am Site in Övörkhangai aimag (Okladnikov, 1981) and con-ducted surveys of eastern and central Mongolia, mapping andexcavating Neolithic complexes near Tamsagbulag (or TamtsagBulag) in Dornod aimag, easternMongolia, where he uncovered onedwelling and a human interment.

In 1983, the Joint Soviet-Mongolian Historical and CulturalExpedition, headedby A. P. Derevianko, succeededKiselev’s research

olithic of Mongolia: Recent finds and new perspectives, Quaternary

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.01.032



S.A. Gladyshev et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e112

initiative. Several of the Expedition’s teams investigated westernMongolia (including the Mongolian Altai range and the Great LakesBasin), the Gobi Lakes Valley in south-central Mongolia, the GobiAltai massif, and the southern slopes of the Khangai Mountains. Thisperiod of research is best known for the discovery and excavation ofthemulti-componentOrkhon-1 andOrkhon-7 sites near Kharkhorin(or Qara Qorum) in northwestern Övörkhangai aimag, and theinvestigation of deflated surface aggregate sites in the Gobi LakesValley (e.g., Orok Nor-1 and 2 and Nariyn Gol-1 through 17)(Derevianko et al., 2000b). Cave and rockshelter sites, includingTsagaanAgui andChikhenAgui inBayankhonggoraimag,were foundin the foothills of the Gobi Altai. Unfortunately, most results of thiswork are of limited value to non-Russophone scholars, andwere notwidely circulated.

A fundamentally new phase in the history of Mongolianarchaeology began in 1995 with the formation of the trilateralJoint Mongolian-Russian-American Archaeological Expeditions(JMRAAE), co-directed by D. Tseveendorj (Mongolia), A. P. Der-evianko (Russia), and J. W. Olsen (USA). During nearly annualexpeditions that have been carried out since 1995 (http://jmraae.

Fig. 1. a. Maps indicating location of sites mentioned in the text: 1 e Kara Bom; 2 e Döröl6 e Tamsagbulag; 7 e Kamenka; 8 e Varvarina Gora; 9 e Tolbaga; 10 e Kunalei; 11 e Poddistribution. c. The profile at Tolbor-15.

Please cite this article in press as: Gladyshev, S.A., et al., The Upper PaleInternational (2012), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.01.032

arizona.edu/), large tracts of Mongolia, including the Gobi Altaidistrict and central Gobi Desert, the Orkhon and Selenge valleys,and the Lake Khövsgöl (or Hubsugul) Basin have been surveyed,leading to the discovery of more than 1000 Stone Age localities (themajority being deflated surface lag deposits). Focused archaeolog-ical survey and excavation have been undertaken by JMRAAE at thestratified open-air Chikhen-2 Site and at Tsagaan Agui Cave andChikhen Agui Rockshelter in the Gobi Altai and, most recently, atTolbor-4 and 15 on the middle reach of the Selenge River (Fig. 1a).

The inclusion of American colleagues in the long-standingRussianeMongolian archaeological research effort resulted in anincreased number of English-language publications in non-Russianjournals as well as in the English edition of Archaeology, Ethnology,and Anthropology of Eurasia (ISSN: 1563-0110) published by theRussian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Archaeology andEthnography in Novosibirsk. Monographic technical reports of theexpeditions have also been published in three languages: English,Mongolian, and Russian (Derevianko et al., 1996, 1998, 2000a), oneprincipal contribution of which is the dissemination of an extensiveseries of radiocarbon dates covering the period from the early

j-1; 3 e Tolbor-4 & 15; 4 e Moil’tyn-am, Orkhon-1 & 7; 5 e Chikhen Agui, Chikhen-2;zvonkzya; 12 e Khotyk; 13 e Shuidonggou; 14 e Tsagaan Agui. b. Map of Tolbor sites


http://jmraae.arizona.edu/

http://jmraae.arizona.edu/

S.A. Gladyshev et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e11 3

Holocene back to the lower limits of the method (i.e., the EarlyUpper Paleolithic).

The current article focuses on materials excavated and analyzedsince 2008 at the multi-component open-air Tolbor-15 Site.Although this locality contains both Pleistocene and Holocenehorizons, discussion here is restricted to the Paleolithic materialsrecovered thus far (Derevianko et al., 2003, 2008). Problems ofchronology and periodization of the Mongolian Upper Paleolithicbased on radiocarbon dating are discussed, including new deter-minations for the Tolbor-4 and 15 sites, along with a correlation ofassociated archaeological materials (Fig. 1b).

2. Tolbor-15 archaeological assemblages and theirinterpretation

The Tolbor-15 Site is located on the second (10e12 m) terrace ofthe west bank of the Ikh Tulberiin Gol, roughly 9 km south of itsconfluencewith the Selenge River, in Unt’ bag, Khutag-Öndör suum,Bulgan aimag (49�16022.800N, 102�58018.400E). A portion of the sitewas disturbed during road construction, exposing artifacts, and thepresence of two Metal Age Turkic kurgans (burial mounds) on thesite further limits the area accessible for excavation.

The total area of the Tolbor-15 excavation unit is 137 m2.The site’s stratigraphy is divided into six geological levels (L-1through 6) enclosing seven archaeological horizons (AH-1 through7) (Kolomiets et al., 2009):

Level 1 (L-1) e humus with an indistinct lower border (includesArchaeological Horizon 1);

Level 2 (L-2) e compacted whitish aleurite including fine-grained aeolian sediment (includes Archaeological Horizon 2);

Level 3 (L-3) e sandy light grey aleurite including small, lumpyclasts. The lower margin of this stratum is indistinct and includesArchaeological Horizons 3 and 4;

Level 4 (L-4) e whitish sandy loam with the same physicalcharacteristics as L-3 but exhibiting a higher concentration of sandysediments. The margins of this stratum are indistinct and sinuousrather than level. Includes Archaeological Horizon 5;

Level 5 (L-5)e a greyish loamy stratumwith uneven texture andgravel inclusions. The lower margin is sharp and distinct witha shallow dip. The upper portion of L-6 includes ArchaeologicalHorizon 6, while AH-7 falls within the lower portion of this unit;

Level 6 (L-6) e a mixture of cobbles and gravel with a sandymatrix, most likely representing the ancient river bed.

The total thickness of soft sediments containing archaeologicalmaterials ranges between 2.2 and 2.4 m (Fig. 1c).

The 2008e10 archaeological collection from Tolbor-15 totalsmore than 33,000 artifacts. Nuclei and tools from AH-2, 3 and 4constitute around 3.5% of the total collection. Debitage comprisesthe bulk of all artifacts recovered from all archaeological horizons atTolbor-15, allowing reconstruction, step-by-step, of the primaryreduction sequences employed. For example, wedge-shapedmicrocores appear initially in AH-5 (Fig. 55, 9). Microblades weremade on flakes with retouched preparation of the back and basaledges, and were removed by applying pressure to the narrow frontof the core. Similar wedge-shaped nuclei were also found in AH-3(Fig. 65). In AH-2 and 1, microcores are typologically much moredeveloped. They were produced on both flakes and small bifaceswith extensive preparation, yielding more regular microblades asend products. Sub-prismatic and tabular nuclei are virtually absentfrom Archaeological Horizons 1 and 2 and the flakes produced aresmaller than in the earlier horizons (Fig. 62, 6).

Cores intended for the production of large blades and bladeletsdominate the lower horizons at Tolbor-15.They consist 3.4%of the assemblage. Several nucleus types have been identifiedincluding tabular (Fig. 22, 4, 6, 7), sub-prismatic (Fig. 23, 5), large


multidirectional, narrow-front (Fig. 28), and small polyhedralvarieties (Fig.21). It seems that the pressure-flaked microbladetechnique appeared at Tolbor-15 first in AH-5. In these lower strata,initial reduction was based on direct percussion with both soft andhard hammers. The presence of crested and semi-crested technicalspalls in AH-6 and 7 indicates core rejuvenation by moving theflake removal surface from the core’s broadest face to its narrowback. This method is typical of Early Upper Paleolithic industries innorthernMongolia (e.g., Dörölj-1, Orkhon-1,Orkhon-7, andTolbor-4).

The percentage of tools in the whole collection of Tolbor-15 isabout 3.7%. The toolkit identified in all horizons at Tolbor-15 is nottypologically diverse, consisting mainly of Aurignacian-type end-scrapers made on massive blades (Fig. 32, 6, 9, 10), forms known aspointed tools (blades with a point or beak retouched on theirproximal ends; Fig. 31, 8, 15e17), bifaces (Fig. 311), skreblos (largeside-scrapers; Fig. 34, 14) and a few thick planes (Fig. 35, 7). Planesare scarce and their morphology remains unchanged from AH-7 upthrough AH-3 (Fig. 69). Notched and denticulated tools and variouspointed implements (Fig. 312, 13) are also quite rare, as are single-edge backed points, retouched blades (Fig. 33) and flakes. The samepattern is reflected in AH-4 and 5 (Fig. 51e4, 6e8, 10). Some smallend-scrapers, various pointed tools, point fragments and retouchedmicroblades were excavated in the upper archaeological horizons(Fig. 61, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10). In addition to stone artifacts, four sherds ofIron Age “Hunnic” pottery were found in AH-1. Although fragmentsof ostrich (Struthio sp.) eggshells recovered from AH-3, 5 and 7 arecurrently being radiocarbon dated, bone is scarce, fragmentary andpoorly preserved, rendering it useless at present for taxonomicidentification. Evidence of five possible hearths was uncovered inAH-7, represented by bright red oxidized sediment without anytrace of ash or charcoal, suggesting these fires were of only veryshort duration.

Overall, Tolbor-15 may be interpreted as a multi-componentarchaeological site, yielding materials associated with variousperiods of the Stone Age. Research at the site is in the initial stagesand samples for radiocarbon dating are currently undergoinganalysis, so at present precise archaeological periodization andchronologymaybe inferred only on the basis of indirect data such ascomparisons with other Paleolithic sites in Mongolia and Trans-baikalia (the region of south-central Siberia east of Lake Baikal) thatare already associated with a number of 14C determinations.

At Tolbor-15, at least three different Pleistocene tech-nocomplexes and one Holocene assemblage (AH-1) have beenidentified. The materials from AH-6 and 7 represent the earliestcultural complex which is succeeded stratigraphically, andpresumably chronologically, by AH-4 and 5. It is useful to note thedifferences that exist among these horizons. Archaeological Hori-zons 6 and 7 are characterized by tabular single-platform coresused for the production of both large blades and bladelets. Thepercentage of blades relative to the total number of removals is veryhigh (up to 13%), reflecting a typical Early Upper Paleolithic bladeindustry.

Both these parameters change quantitatively in AH-4 and 5, inwhich the number of tabular cores and blades decreases consid-erably. The most fundamental differences between AH-6 and 7 andAH-4 and 5 are manifest in two other technological variables: (1)microblade production based onwedge-shaped nuclei appears firstin AH-5 and continues throughout the sequence up through AH-1;(2) the percentage of blades and bladelets in AH-4 and 5 decreasesto 6%, clearly illustrating non-blade focused reduction in thistechnocomplex; trends which continue in AH-2 and 3. The numberand morphological diversity of microblade cores steadily increasewhereas nuclei for the production of large blanks decrease innumber, eventually transforming into polyhedral flake cores.Within the category of blade blanks, the number of microblades


Fig. 2. Tolbor-15 lithic assemblage. Nuclei. AH 6, 7.


increases as they begin to play an increasingly important role in thetoolkit. Archaeological Horizon 1 differs dramatically from thelower cultural assemblages at Tolbor-15. AH-1 is a typical micro-lithic complex based on the exploitation of wedge-shaped andconical microcores. Microblades dominate the blanks produced,totaling roughly half of the entire collection of removals from thishorizon.

3. Comparison with other archaeological assemblages in theIkh Tulberiin Gol Valley

Based upon these typological parameters, it is possible tosuggest a chronological framework for the Tolbor-15 sequence bytaking into consideration reliably dated Early Upper Paleolithicarchaeological materials fromMongolia and the Transbaikal region.The closest locality yielding similar materials is the Tolbor-4 Site,located lower on the Ikh Tulberiin Gol River 2.5 km north of Tolbor-15. During excavations conducted in 2005e2007, six archaeologicalhorizons were identified at Tolbor-4, of which the three lowermost(AH-4, 5, and 6) are associated with the Early Upper Paleolithic


(Derevianko et al., 2007). Archaeological materials recovered fromthese horizons are not homogeneous. At Tolbor-4, AH-5 and 6 aretechnologically very similar, presumably reflecting the earlyflorescence of Upper Paleolithic blade industries in Central Asia.

Archaeological Horizons 5 and 6 are also characterized bya predominance of single- and double-platform cores reduced bi-longitudinally. Large blades also prevail among the total numberof removals and tools are scarce. Similar industries have not beenfound thus far elsewhere in Mongolia but are well-known in theAltai Mountains and Transbaikal region of southern Siberia. Atpresent, there are two associated radiocarbon dates supporting anEarly Upper Paleolithic age for the Tolbor-4 industry: one infinitedetermination of >41,050 BP (AAe79326) for AH-5, and a finitedate of 37,400� 2600 BP (AAe79314) for Archaeological Horizon 6.

The lithic assemblage recovered from AH-4 at Tolbor-4 differsfrom the lower complexes, being similar to AH-6 and 7 at Tolbor-15in terms of a notable transition from massive cores with a singleflake removal surface to tabular single-platform nuclei anda decrease in the number of blades among the total amount ofremovals (Fig. 4). At the same time, sub-prismatic single- and


Fig. 3. Tolbor-15 lithic assemblage. Tools. AH 6, 7: 1epointed tool (AH 6); 2eend scraper (AH 6); 3ebacked bladelet (AH 6); 4eskreblo (AH 6); 5eplain (AH 6); 6, 9, 10eend scrapers(AH 7); 7eplain (AH 7); 8, 15, 16, 17epointed tools (AH 7); 11ebiface (AH 7); 12, 13epoints (AH 7); 14eskreblo (AH 7).


double-platform cores were still in use and the toolkit is largelyunchanged, making it possible to suggest a terminus post quem forthe Tolbor-15 AH-6 and 7 industries of roughly 35,000 a.

4. Chronology and the broader Mongolian and South SiberianPaleolithic records

Materials from other Paleolithic localities in Mongolia may alsohelp confirm this chronology. One such site, Dörölj-1, is locatednear the confluence of the Selenge River and its northern tributary,the Egiïn Gol (Jaubert et al., 2004). At Dörölj-1, a cultural level lies atthe bottom of a four-meter section in a rich stratum of detritus.Traces of cryoturbation and fracturing in this level suggest that itmay be divided into several periods of occupation. This interpre-tation is supported by a series of radiocarbon dates which fall intotwo chrono-groups: one cluster at 29,540 � 390 BP (GifA-99561)and 31,880 � 800 BP (GifA-11664) and another at 21,820 � 190 BP(GifA-102451) and 22,030 � 180 BP (GifA-102453).

Based on the morphology of exhausted cores, primary reductionin the Dörölj-1 archaeological complex is represented by severaltechnologies including tabular single- and double-platform nuclei.


Short blades and large, elongated blades, including some pointedexamples, were the most common blank forms. The removal oflame à crete was a common practice. There are also nuclei on flakesand small irregular chunks used for the production of bladelets andmicroblades in the collection alongwith some radially-flaked cores.The Dörölj-1 toolkit is comprised of end-scrapers on blades,pointed tools, denticulates and notched tools, retouched blades,and large, thick scrapers. Only a few burins and other chisel-liketools were found. Perforated ostrich eggshell pendants recoveredfrom Early Upper Paleolithic contexts are of special interest, as thisoccurrence is the first such recorded in Mongolia.

Based on the perceived technological and typological similari-ties among the lithic assemblages from Dörölj-1, Tolbor-15 AH-6and 7, and Tolbor-4 AH-4, these materials collectively illustrate onecultural period within the Mongolian Early Upper Paleolithic. Ifthis assumption proves correct, then the lower chronometricboundary of AH-6 and 7 at Tolbor-15 should fall at approximately30,000 a. Archaeological Horizon 7 at the Tolbor-15 site has anassociated date of 29,150 � 20 BP (AA-84138) and AH-5 a date of28,460 � 310 BP (AA-84137). This publication deals only with non-calibrated 14C dates (BP) for Tolbor-15 on the samples of eggshell of


Fig. 4. Tolbor-4 lithic assemblage. AH 4: 1, 3, 6eskreblos; 2, 5, 7eend scrapers; 4, 8e10, 12, 13ecores; 11epointed tool.


East Asian ostrich (Struthio anderssoni Lowe). An additional radio-carbon date from AH-7 of 26,700� 300 BP (AA-84135) correspondswith Archaeological Horizon 4 at the Tolbor-4 locality.

Two additional sites have produced materials remarkablysimilar to those from Tolbor-15, AH-6 and 7; the open-air Chikhen-2 locality and Chikhen Agui Rockshelter, located in Shinejinstsuum, southern Bayankhongor aimag, in the central Gobi Altaidistrict of Mongolia. During the excavation of Chikhen-2, it wasestablished that the lower horizons (3e2.5) include Early UpperPaleolithic cultural remains, while the upper units (2.4e1) belongto the later Upper Paleolithic. There is one radiocarbon datecurrently available for horizon 2.5: 30,550 � 410 BP (AA-31870;Derevianko, 2005). Tabular Levallois-type, single- and double-platform cores as well as sub-prismatic double-platform blade


cores were employed during primary reduction. Lame à crete andpointed blades occur among the removals excavated. The toolkitincludes end- and déjeté scrapers, retouched flakes, points onblades (including beveled forms), denticulates and notched tools,while large side-scrapers (skreblos), burins and other chisel-liketools are quite rare. Thinning of the bulb of percussion byprimary flaking and subsequent trimming is common at Chikhen-2. Also characteristic of the Mongolian Early Upper Paleolithic isthe presence of backed blades and bladelets, backed points andovoid bifaces in the assemblage.

Archaeological materials from the Paleolithic level in ChikhenAgui Rockshelter are very similar to the early assemblage atChikhen-2 and are associated with a radiocarbon date of27,432 � 872 BP (AA-26580) on charcoal from a distinct hearth


Fig. 5. Tolbor-15 lithic assemblage. AH 4, 5: 1, 3eside scrapers (AH 4); 2, 4eskreblos (AH 4); 5ewedge-shaped microcore (AH 4); 6ebacked blade (knife, AH 5), 7eend scraper(AH 5); 8ebeveled point (AH 5); 9ewedge-shaped microcore (AH 5); 10ecore (AH 5).


(Derevianko et al., 2001). This date also approximates the upperchronological boundary of AH-6 and 7 at Tolbor-15.

A number of sites exhibiting reduction and tool manufacturingstrategies similar to Archaeological Horizons 6 and 7 at Tolbor-15are known in more distant territories, such as the Transbaikalregion and the Altai Mountains of southern Siberia, typified by sitessuch as Kamenka A and C, Podzvonkaya 1\2, Khotyk 3, VarvarinaGora 2, and Tolbaga 4, all yielding 14C dates ranging between 30 and40,000 BP (locality designations follow Lbova, 2009).

Non-Levallois sub-prismatic cores were principally employed toproduce elongated triangular blanks. The production of bladeblanks was preceded by the removal of lame à crete to generatea functional convex flaking face on the nucleus, and this approachwas also used to rejuvenate the flake removal surface throughoutthe cores’ use-life.

One technological peculiarity noted at the Kamenka A and Csites is the predominance of double striking platforms. The removalof pointed blades is uncommon in other Upper Paleolithic assem-blages in the Transbaikal region, although single- and double-platform percussion has been identified at the majority of thesesites. Blade indexes vary considerably while the percent of facetedplatforms is low. Among the nuclei, sub-prismatic and tabularformswith an additional flake removal surface on the cores’ narrow


margin, along with microcores for the production of blade-likeblanks dominate these complexes. The toolkit includes retouchedblades, end-scrapers, points on blades, borers, chisel-like andpebble tools. A large proportion of these assemblages consist ofintentionally fragmented flakes, truncated flakes, and pointed tools.Denticulates and notched tools are also known. The only widelydocumented Middle Paleolithic tool type is the skreblo, large side-scraper made on massive, truncated blades. Some rarer Mongo-lian tool types occur in the Transbaikal region, including beveledand backed points as well as ovoid bifaces (Varvarina Gora, Tol-baga), tools with distal trimming (Khotyk), and points withretouched stems (Kamenka). There are also many composite toolsknown in both regions.

In drawing parallels between AH-6 and 7 at Tolbor-15 and theemergent Early Upper Paleolithic blade technology of the Trans-baikal region, it is necessary to also establish some importantdifferences with respect to the frequency of particular artifact typeswithin entire assemblages. For example, none of the Transbaikalsites demonstrates as high a percentage of pointed tools as does theTolbor industry. Although chisel-like tools are widespread amongsites in the Transbaikal region, they are extremely rare in the lowerhorizons at Tolbor-4 and are completely absent in AH-6 and 7 atTolbor-15. Few burins and large scrapers on blades are known from


Fig. 6. Tolbor-15 lithic assemblage. AH 2, 3: 1enotched bladelet (AH 2), 2emicrocore (AH 3), 3epointed tool (AH 2), 4einset (AH 2), 5ewedge-shaped microcore (AH 3), 6ecore(AH 3), 7eskreblo (AH 3), 8eend scraper (AH 2), 9eplane (AH 3), 10eskreblo (AH 2).


Mongolian sites, and there are no symmetrical points on bladeswith bifacial preparationwhich are typical of the southern SiberianEarly Upper Paleolithic.

Paleolithic industries such as those identified at Tolbor-4 and15, Chikhen-2, Chikhen Agui Rockshelter, and Dörölj-1 representthe local manifestation of a more widespread Early Upper Paleo-lithic culture whose geographical scope encompassed southernSiberia as well. This conclusion is supported by technological andtypological analogies that may be drawn between Mongolianindustries and their parallels not only in the Transbaikal region butalso in the Altai Mountains, regarded by many as one of the mainEurasian centers of Upper Paleolithic origins (Derevianko et al.,2007).

The reduction technology typical of Altai sites may be describedas parallel with either one or two platforms. For example, theknapping strategy employed at Kara Bom includes the so-called“double-platform pointed” method based on the regular removalof lame à crete and large blades. Typologically, nuclei are dividedinto tabular, sub-prismatic and blade microcores. There is alsoa wide variety of cores with flake removal surfaces on their narrowsides and burin-cores, which are also known in the Tolbor-4 and 15assemblages. The Kara Bom tool tradition is very similar toMongolian technocomplexes in terms of having a low percentageof massive side-scrapers (skreblos), including those with ventraltrimming, and chisel-like tools and a high percentage of


denticulated and notched tools, and numerous end-scrapers onblades. Trimming of the bulb of percussion on tools is very commonin some Altai assemblages (Kara Bom, Kara Tenesh, Maloyalo-manskaya Cave, and Ust’ Karakol). In Levels 1e4 at Kara Bom, thereare beveled points, tools with trimming on the distal end andblades with retouched stems, as there are at Denisova Cave (Level11 in the central hall and Level 5 in the entrance chamber). The sitesof Anui-3 (Levels 9e12), and Ust’ Karakol-1 have yielded backedblades and bladelets. The differences among the Siberian andMongolian complexes (i.e., AH-6 and 7 at Tolbor-15 and AH-4 atTolbor-4) lead to the conclusion that burins and symmetrical pointson blades are more common in the Altai industries whereaspointed tools are much scarcer.

With respect to the interpretation of Archaeological Horizons 4and 5 at Tolbor-15, there are important differences between theselevels and AH-6 and 7, expressed primarily in the appearance ofwedge-shaped microcores and the prevalence of flakes within thetotal assemblage of removals in the later horizons. Based on stra-tigraphy alone, AH-4 and 5 are undoubtedly younger than thelower units, but is it possible to suggest a provisional chronology forthese industries?

Four radiocarbon dates for AH-3 and 4 at Tolbor-15 weregenerated in 2009 by the University of Arizona and Beta Analytic,Inc. All fall between 14,000 and 14,900 BP. AH-3has associated datesof 14,055 � 80 BP (AA-84136) and 14,930 � 70 BP (Beta-263742)



while AH-4 generated determinations of 14,680 � 70 BP(Beta-263744) and 14,820 � 70 BP (Beta-263745).

A comparison considers archaeological data from the neigh-boring Transbaikal region, bearing in mind that a similar lithicindustrywas also foundat Tolbor-4 (AH-1 through3), expressing thesame technological parameters as AH-4 and 5 at Tolbor-15. TheKamenka (Complex B) Site, located in western Transbaikalia, hasa flake-based industry typologically most similar to the Tolborlocalities. Here, the primary reduction strategy is dominated bytabular single-platformflake coreswith radial andpolyhedral nucleialso present. Bladelet and microblade cores, the latter with narrowflake removal surfaces, and proto-wedge-shaped cores deservespecial mention. Flakes comprise the largest category of removals,whereas blades are rare both in the debitage assemblage and in thetoolkit. The most numerous tools at Kamenka are scrapers, borers,and notched tools. Large scrapers are only modestly represented,amongwhich someexamples displayventral trimming (including attheir distal ends) similar to Mongolian complexes.

The existence of a flake-dominated phase in the Upper Paleo-lithic of Mongolia and the Transbaikal region is currently suggestedby only a handful of dates. The Podzvonkzya Site has yielded twofinite radiocarbon determinations: 26,000� 920 BP (SB RASe3404)for Level 1 and 22,675 � 265 BP (SB RASe3350) for Level 2 (Lbova,2009), while the Kunalei Site has generated a single date froma stratum underlying Level 3 (21,100 � 300 BP; GIN-6124), sug-gesting that Level 3 represents the latest manifestation of flake-based industries in the southern Siberian Upper Paleolithic.

Not all current archaeological and chronological data indicatethe co-existence of flake and blade industries during the later EarlyUpper Paleolithic. Some point to the successive replacement ofblade production by a flake-based strategy, a phenomenon illus-trated at Tolbor-4 and Tolbor-15 where cultural horizons bearingflake industries lie immediately above those with blade industriesand are technologically related to them. The further developmentof a technological trajectory based on the utilization of flakes asprincipal blanks for the manufacture of wedge-shaped microcoresis apparent in AH-2 and 3 at Tolbor-15.

To date, the paucity of reliable radiocarbon dates makes itpossible to suggest only a preliminary chronology for Pleistoceneflake-based industries in Mongolia focusing on the postulatedreplacement of blade-based Early Upper Paleolithic industries noearlier than ca. 25,000 a; a trend that continued until the middle ofthe Last Glacial Maximum (ca. 20,000 a).

An additional important constellation of problems awaitinginvestigation is the chronology, geography, and behavioraldynamics of wedge-shaped microblade technology in northernMongolia. Until recently, this important region was not included inmost discussions of early microblade production (e.g., Kuzmin,2007). Tentatively, wedge-shaped microcore production in theregion post-dates 25e23,000 BP, and current data from the Tolborsites do not provide unequivocal evidence of the autochthonousdevelopment of this technology in northern Mongolia as opposedto its initial introduction from adjacent territories (i.e., northernChina or southern Siberia) with subsequent modification in Mon-golia to suit locally available lithic raw materials.

5. Mongolia’s first fossil hominin

The 2006 discovery of a human calotte in the Salkhit Valley innorthern Khentii aimag, northeastern Mongolia (Tseveendorj et al.,2007; Coppens et al., 2008; Bae, 2010; Kaifu and Fujita, 2012)provides the first direct fossil evidence of the Pleistocene occupa-tion of Mongolia. The specimen, consisting of a complete frontalwith partial nasals and two incomplete parietals, was recoveredduring mining operations. Subsequent investigations at the locality


have not yielded additional fossil remains, nor have artifactsbeen recovered yet at the calotte’s reconstructed find-spot. TheSalkhit hominin, which exhibits a mosaic of archaic and modernmorphological traits inconclusively linking it with Chinese Homoerectus, Homo sapiens neandertalensis, and Asian members ofarchaic H. sapiens, is tentatively associated with Upper Pleistoceneremains of woolly rhinoceros (Coelodonta antiquitatis), but itsnumerical age is only now being clarified by Mongolian scholars(B. Gunchinsuren, personal communication). Regrettably, thepreserved parts of the skullcap do not allow more precise taxo-nomic affiliation (Bae, 2010), but the recovery of fossilized Homoremains in what appears biostratigraphically to be an UpperPleistocene context gives hope that further investigations in theregion will ultimately yield additional pre-modern human fossilsand artifact assemblages in interpretable chrono-stratigraphicrelationships.

6. Discussion and conclusions

The early stage of the EUP in Mongolia persisted for a relativelylong period and can be divided into two sub-chrons, the earliest ofwhich (ca. 40e35,000 BP) is known only in northern Mongolia inthe AH-5 and 6 complexes at Tolbor-4 and differs from the later EUPprincipally in having a higher blade index (33.8 at AH-6, 26.2 at AH-5, and 20 at AH-4; Derevianko et al., 2007). Among the cores, themost characteristic are blade nuclei made on tabular blanks witha single flake-removal face and sub-prismatic double-platformvarieties (also with a single flake removal surface). Most tools wereprepared on blades and blade fragments.

The second stage of the Mongolian EUP (ca. 33e26,000 BP) isrepresented by assemblages from the Khangai Mountains (Tolbor-4and 15, Orkhon-7) and the Gobi Altai district (Tsagaan Agui Cave,Chikhen Agui Rockshelter, Chikhen-2) and is characterized by thefollowing diagnostic traits: (1) the number of tabular medium-sizesingle-platform blade cores with one flake-removal surface isgreater; (2) through time, the production of lame à crete is greatlyreduced (this technique is unknown at Orkhon-7 and Tolbor-15,AH-5); and (3) the percentage of tools fashioned on blades isdiminished along with the blade index as a whole. The took-kit forboth sub-chrons of the Mongolian EUP is typologically homoge-neous and sub-prismatic microcores and nuclei made on tabularblanks with single flake-removal surfaces are typical of allMongolian EUP horizons. One of the most important innovations ofthe EUP is the development of pressure-flaking techniques formicrocore reduction, including so-called “wedge-shaped” nuclei.

Although its numerical chronology is still uncertain, the middleUpper Paleolithic in Mongolia is recognized only on the basis ofsites in the Orkhon River valley which all post-date ca. 25,000 BP. Interms of material culture, this period witnessed the total replace-ment of blade industries by flake industries, along with the paralleldevelopment of the pressure-flaked microblade technique. Thenumber of skreblos and déjeté tools decreased during this period.

The final phase of the Mongolian Upper Paleolithic is well-dateddown to the end of the Pleistocene. Typical industries include thoseexcavated from horizons AH-3 and 4 at Tolbor-15 characterized bya predominance of microcores reduced by both pressure andpercussion, the appearance of retouched points on flakes, and anincrease in the number of microblades as a fraction of overall bladeblanks.

Definitions of modern human behavior and the relationshipsbetween technological change identified in the archaeologicalrecord as the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition and the emer-gence of anatomical traits associated with H. sapiens in the fossilrecord define a spectrum of problems associated with the temporaland geographical variables of later Pleistocene human activity.



Compelling recent genetically-based demographic evidence indi-cates that the geographically variable timing in the appearance ofthe “full package” of characteristic Upper Paleolithic technologiesand behaviors may stem from disparities in regional populationdensities (Powell et al., 2009). If this is true, then the transitionalMiddle-Upper Paleolithic archaeological complexes of southernSiberia and Mongolia may play an especially important role in theinterpretation of increasingly complex later Pleistocene humanbehavior and technologies, given their geographical remotenessfrom western Eurasia and Africa where these phenomena havebeenmore thoroughly studied for decades (Dennell and Roebroeks,2005; Dennell, 2009; Bae, 2010).

The archaeological materials described herein and technologicalanalogies employed in the interpretation of the Tolbor-4 andTolbor-15 sites cumulatively suggest affiliation with Early UpperPaleolithic industries in Siberia and greater Central Asia. Thetechnology of reduction identified in these Mongolian assemblagesclosely parallels the principal characteristics of blade production inthese adjacent regions. The Tolbor toolkit, barring some localpeculiarities, also bears witness to links between Mongolianindustries and those of Early Upper Paleolithic southern Siberia.Archaeological materials recovered from Tolbor-4 and Tolbor-15exhibit a combination of traits common among Early UpperPaleolithic complexes of the Altai Mountains and Transbaikalregion as well as some specific local characteristics.

The southernmost extent of Early Upper Paleolithic bladetechnologies is currently thought to be reflected at the Shui-donggou (or Shui-tung-kou) Site located on the Ordos Plateau inthe Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, China (Gao et al., 2008).The authors are in complete agreement with colleagues (e.g.,Brantingham et al., 2001), who compare Shuidonggou favorablywith the Early Upper Paleolithic Kara Bom-type industries ofSiberia and Central Asia. New materials from northern Mongoliamake similarities among the industries from Shuidonggou andvarious sites in Mongolia, Transbaikalia, and southern Siberia evenmore evident. Since current evidence suggests that human activi-ties initially took place at Shuidonggou duringMarine Isotope Stage[MIS] 3 (roughly 30e24,000 a), during a period when the climatewas both warmer and moister than at present (Herzschuh, 2006;Gao et al., 2008), there is every reason to continue to investigatepotential links between the Early Upper Paleolithic complexes ofnorthern Mongolia and the now arid to semi-arid zone of NorthChina that lies to the north of the central Huang He (Yellow River)Valley.

Larger scale regional paleoclimatic reconstructions extendingback to MIS 5e indicate that warmer, moister conditions prevailedthroughout the period during which these technological innova-tions were first manifest (e.g., Fedotov et al., 2006a, 2006b). By thesame token, evidence suggests that in the Darhad Basin, some330 km west-northwest of the Tolbor localities, glaciers reachedone of three Upper Pleistocene periods of maximum extent in MIS 3(i.e., the Zyrianka Glaciation, ca. 35e53,000 a) and both 14C andluminescence dating of lake sediments confirm the existence ofpaleolake highstands before roughly 35,000 a (Gillespie et al.,2008). In their analysis of the central Chinese high-resolutionspeleothem d18O record from Sanbao and Hulu Caves, Wang et al.(2008) conclude that early MIS 3 was characterized by increasedtemperature and monsoon activity. The timing of the maximumglacial advance appears synchronic across northern Mongolia butout of phase with Siberia, western Central Asia, and, perhapscentral China, thus considerable regional paleoclimatic variationduring the Upper Pleistocene must be factored in to any consider-ation of the similarities and differences visible among Paleolithicassemblages in these and adjacent territories (e.g., Dennell, 2009;Graf, 2009).


The potentially significant influence of Levallois and Levallois-like prepared core Middle Paleolithic technologies on the originof industries at Shuidonggou and in the Mongolian Gobi Altaidemands more investigation and discussion. Analysis of the earlierarchaeological horizons at the Tolbor sites (which may be olderthan Shuidonggou), Chikhen Agui Rockshelter, and Chikhen-2, doesnot provide any evidence that Levallois technology (sensu stricto)played a role in their origin or florescence.

Certainly, interdisciplinary studies of the Early Upper Paleolithicof Mongolia, the Transbaikal, southern Siberia and China awaitaugmentation and geographical and temporal expansion. The pastdecade and a half of intensive research collaboration amongAmerican, Russian, and Mongolian archaeologists has yieldedimportant and interesting results. More stratified sites have beenexcavated and analyzed in Mongolia and more radiocarbon datesreported during this short period than during the previous halfcentury. Intensive analysis of these collections is ongoing, and theresults could substantially alter the ways in which Central AsianPaleolithic technologies are integrated within a larger interpretivesphere of Pleistocene human activity.

Acknowledgments

The research activity reported here was generously supportedby a grant from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research(#11e06e12003e2011) in addition to grants from the U. S. NationalScience Foundation and the University of Arizona’s Je TsongkhapaEndowment for Central Asian Archaeology. We thank the Instituteof Archaeology of theMongolian Academy of Sciences, especially itsDirector, Professor D. Tseveendorj and the Head of its Stone AgeSector, Dr. B. Gunchinsuren, for their unflagging support of our jointresearch as well as their friendship, generosity and collegialityextending back over many years. We also thank two anonymousreviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of thispaper.

References

Bae, C.J., 2010. The late middle Pleistocene hominin fossil record of eastern Asia:synthesis and review. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 53, 75e93.

Bettinger, R.L., Madsen, D.B., Elston, R.G., 1994. Prehistoric settlement categories andsettlement systems in the Alashan Desert of Inner Mongolia, PRC. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 13, 74e101.

Brantingham, P.J., Krivoshapkin, A.I., Li, J., Tserendagva, Ya, 2001. The initial upperPaleolithic in Northeast Asia. Current Anthropology 42, 735e747.

Coppens, Y., Tseveendorj, D., Demeter, F., Turbat, T., Giscard, P.-H., 2008. Discovery ofan archaic Homo sapiens skullcap in Northeast Mongolia. Comptes RendusPalevol 7, 51e60.

Dennell, R., 2009. The Paleolithic Settlement of Asia. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK.

Dennell, R., Roebroeks, W., 2005. An Asian Perspective on early human dispersalfrom Africa. Nature 438, 1099e1104.

Derevianko, A.P., 2005. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in the Altai. TheMiddle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in Eurasia: Hypotheses and Facts. Insti-tute of Archaeology & Ethnography SB RAS Press, pp. 183e216 (in Russian).

Derevianko, A.P., Gladyshev, S.A., Olsen, J.W., Petrin, V.T., Tserendagva, Y., 2001.Characteristic features of the Chicken Agui Lithic assemblage (Gobi Altai).Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 5, 25e39.

Derevianko, A.P., Gladyshev, S.A., Nokhrina, T.I., Olsen, J.W., 2003. The Mongolianearly Holocene: excavations at Chicken Agui Rockshelter in the Gobi Altai. TheReview of Archaeology 24, 50e56.

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 & Anthropology of Eurasia 29, 16e38.

Derevianko, A.P., Olsen, J.W., Tseveendorj, D., Petrin, V.T., Zenin, A.N.,Krivoshapkin, A.I., Reeves, R.W., Deviatkin, E.V., Mylnikov, V.P., 1996. Archaeo-logical Studies Carried Out by the Joint Russian-Mongolian-American Expedi-tion in Mongolia in 1995. Institute of Archaeology & Ethnography SB RAS Press,Novosibirsk (in Russian with English summary).

Derevianko, A.P., Olsen, J.W., Tseveendorj, D., Petrin, V.T., Gladyshev, S.A.,Zenin, A.N., Mylnikov, V.P., Krivoshapkin, A.I., Reeves, R.W., Brantingham, J.,Gunchinsuren, B., Tserendagva, Y., 1998. Archaeological Studies Carried Out by



the Joint Russian-Mongolian-American Expedition in Mongolia in 1996. Insti-tute of Archaeology & Ethnography SB RAS Press, Novosibirsk (in Russian withEnglish summary).

Derevianko, A.P., Olsen, J.W., Tseveendorj, D., Petrin, V.T., Gladyshev, S.A.,Zenin, A.N., Mylnikov, V.P., Krivoshapkin, A.I., Reeves, R.W., Brantingham, J.,Gunchinsuren, B., Tserendagva, Y., 2000a. Archaeological Studies Carried Out bythe Joint Russian-Mongolian-American Expedition in Mongolia in 1997-1998.Institute of Archaeology & Ethnography SB RAS Press, Novosibirsk (in Russianwith English summary).

Derevianko, A.P., Olsen, J.W., Tseveendorj, D., Gladyshev, S.A., Nokhrina, T.I.,Tabarev, A.V., 2008. New insights into the archaeological record at Chicken AguiRockshelter (Mongolia). Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 34,2e14.

Derevianko, A.P., Petrin, V.T., Tseveendorj, D., Deviatkin, E.V., Laritchev, V.E.,Vasil’evskii, R.S., Zenin, A.N., Gladyshev, S.A., 2000b. Paleolithic and Neolithic ofthe Northern Face of the Valley of Lakes. Institute of Archaeology & Ethnog-raphy SB RAS Press, Novosibirsk (in Russian with English summary).

Fairservis Jr., W.A., 1993. Archaeology of the Southern Gobi of Mongolia. CarolinaAcademic Press, Durham, N.C.

Fedotov, A.P., Ignat’ev, A.V., Poberezhnaya, A.E., Velivetskaya, T.A., Ziborova, G.A.,Otinova, E.L., Krapivina, S.M., Fedorin, M.A., 2006a. Oxygen and carbon isotopevariations in ostracode shells from Lake Hubsugul (Mongolia) and regionalPaleoclimate changes for the last 140 ka. Doklady Earth Sciences 409A (6),994e996 (in Russian).

Fedotov, A.P., Ziborova, G.A., Khabuev, A.V., Otinova, E.L., Kugakolov, S.A.,Rodyakin, S.V., 2006b. Indication of climate humidity in central Asia: evidencefrom the granulometric record of bottom sediments in Lake Khubsugul(Mongolia) for the last 450 ka. Doklady Earth Sciences 408 (4), 547e549(in Russian).

Gallenkamp, C., 2001. Dragon Hunter: Roy Chapman Andrews and the CentralAsiatic Expeditions. Viking, New York.

Gao, X., Yuan, B.W., Pei, S.W., Wang, H.M., Chen, F.Y., Feng, X.W., 2008. Analysis ofsedimentary-geomorphologic variation and the living environment of Hominidsat the Shuidonggou Paleolithic site. Chinese Science Bulletin 53, 2025e2032.

Gillespie, A.R., Burke, R.M., Komatsu, G., Bayasgalan, A., 2008. Late Pleistoceneglaciers in Darhad Basin, northern Mongolia. Quaternary Research 69, 169e187.

Graf, K.E., 2009. ‘The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly’: evaluating the radiocarbonchronology of the middle and late upper Paleolithic in the Enisei River Valley,south-central Siberia. Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 694e707.

Hedin, S., Bergman, F., Bexell, G., Bohlin, B., Montell, G., 1943. History of the Expe-dition in Asia 1927e1935, 4 Volumes. Parts 1e3 Written in Collaboration withFolke Bergman: I. 1927e1928; II. 1928e1933; III. 1933e1935. IV. GeneralReports of Travels and Fieldwork, by F. Bergman, G. Bexell, Birger Bohlin, GöstaMontell (Reports from the Scientific Expedition to the North-Western Provinces


of China under the Leadership of Dr. Sven Hedin e The Sino-Swedish Expedi-tion, Publications 23e26). Tryckeri & Thule, Stockholm.

Herzschuh, U., 2006. Palaeo-moisture evolution in monsoonal Central Asia duringthe last 50,000 years. Quaternary Science Reviews 25, 163e178.

Jaubert, J., Bertran, P., Fontugne, M., Jarry, M., Lacombe, S., Leroyer, C., Marmet, E.,Taborin, Y., Tsogtbaatar, B., Brugal, J.P., Desclaus, M., Poplin, F., Rodière, J.,Servelle, C., 2004. Le Palèolithique supèrieur ancient de Mongolie: Dörölj 1(Egiïn Gol). Analogies avec les donnèes de l’Altaï et de Sibèrier (Acts of theXIVth UISPP Congress, University of Liège, Belgium, 2e8 September 2001.Section 6: Le Palèolithique Supèrieur). Archaeo Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 225e241.

Kaifu, Y., Fujita, M., 2012. Fossil record of early modern humans in east Asia.Quaternary International 248, 2e11.

Kolomiets, V.L., Gladyshev, S.A., Bezrukova, E.V., Rybin, E.P., Letunova, P.P.,Abzaeva, A.A., 2009. Environment and human behavior in northern Mongoliaduring the upper Pleistocene. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eur-asia 37, 2e14.

Kuzmin, Y.V., 2007. Geoarchaeological Aspects of the Origin and Spread ofMicroblade Technology in Northern and Central Asia. Origin and Spread ofMicroblade Technology in Northern Asia and North America, vol. 34. Archae-ology Press, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. 115e124.

Lbova, L.V., 2009. Chronology and Paleoecology of the early upper Paleolithic in theTransbaikal Region (Siberia). Eurasian Prehistory 5, 109e114.

Maringer, J., 1950. Contribution to the Prehistory of Mongolia, a Study of thePrehistoric Collections from Inner Mongolia (Reports from the ScientificExpedition to the North Western Province of China under the Leadership of Dr.Sven Hedin. The Sino-Swedish Expedition Publication 34: Archaeology 7).Tryckeri & Thule, Stockholm.

Nelson, N.C., 1926. Prehistoric archaeology of the Gobi Desert. American MuseumNovitiates 222, 10e16.

Okladnikov, A.P., 1981. Paleolit Tsentralnoi Azii. “Nauka” Sibirskoe Otdelenie,Novosibirsk (in Russian).

Osborn, H.F., 1916. The origin and evolution of life upon the earth. The ScientificMonthly 3, 5e22.

Powell, A., Shennan, S., Thomas, M.G., 2009. Late Pleistocene demography and theappearance of modern human behavior. Science 324, 1298e1301.

Rainger, R., 2004. An Agenda for Antiquity: Henry Fairfield Osborn and VertebratePaleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, 1890e1935.University of Alabama Press, Montgomery, AL.

Tseveendorj, D., Batbold, N., Amgalantugs, T., 2007. Mongolanthropus was discov-ered in Mongolia. Studia Archeologica Instituti Historiae Academiae Scientia-rum Mongolici 3 (23), 5e20. Number 1.

Wang, Y.J., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Kong, X.G., Shao, X.H., Chen, S.T., Wu, J.Y.,Jiang, X.Y., Wang, X.F., An, Z.S., 2008. Millennial- and orbital-scale changes inthe east Asian monsoon over the past 224,000 years. Nature 451, 1090e1093.


gladyshev et al 2012 mongolian upper paleolithic

Documents