You are on page 1of 11

Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e11

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

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

The Upper Paleolithic of Mongolia: Recent nds 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, Russia School of Anthropology, University of Arizona, 1009 E. South Campus Drive, Tucson, AZ 85721-0030, USA c Department of Geosciences, University of Arizona, 1040 E. 4th Street, Tucson, AZ 85721-0077, USA
b

a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history: Available online xxx

a b s t r a c t
This article reports on materials excavated and analyzed since 2008 at the multi-component open-air Tolbor-15 Site (Selenge River basin, northern Mongolia). Also discussed are problems of chronology and periodization of the Mongolian Upper Paleolithic based on radiocarbon dating, including new determinations available for the Tolbor-4 and 15 sites, along with associated archaeological materials. The early stage of the Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) in Mongolia persisted for a relatively long period and can be divided into two sub-chrons, the earliest ranging from 40 to 35,000 BP. The later stage of the Mongolian EUP, falling between 33 and 26,000 BP, is represented by assemblages from the Khangai Mountains (e.g., Tolbor-4 and 15, Orkhon-7) and the Gobi Altai district (e.g., Tsagaan Agui Cave, Chikhen Agui Rockshelter, Chikhen-2). The middle Upper Paleolithic in Mongolia has been identied only on the basis of sites in the Orkhon River valley, all of which post-date ca. 25,000 BP. The material culture of this long period is characterized by the complete replacement of blade industries by ake industries, along with the parallel development of the pressure-aked microblade technique. The later phase of the Mongolian Upper Paleolithic is well-dated down to the end of the Pleistocene. Typical industries include those excavated at Tolbor-15, which are characterized by the predominance of microcores reduced by both pressure and percussion, the appearance of retouched points on akes, and an increase in the number 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 in human origins for more than a century. Some of the rst multidisciplinary scientic investigations of Central Asia were initiated during the second decade of the twentieth century as a result of hypotheses generated by Henry Faireld Osborn and William Diller Matthew (Osborn, 1916; Rainger, 2004) who regarded this region as a likely cradle of humankind. Most famously, invaluable scientic information concerning the geography, climate, geology, paleontology, and archaeology of Mongolia and North China was collected by the American Museum of Natural Historys Central Asiatic Expeditions headed by Roy Chapman Andrews (1922e1925) and by the Sino-Swedish Expeditions (1927e1935) directed by Sven Hedin (Hedin et al., 1943; Maringer, 1950; Fairservis, 1993). The territory investigated by the Sino-Swedish Expeditions included Inner Mongolia, Gansu, and Xinjiang, where archaeologist Folke Bergman gathered numerous artifacts of presumed Pleistocene and

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: olmec@yandex.ru (A.V. Tabarev). 1040-6182/$ e see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.01.032

early Holocene age (Bettinger et al., 1994), whereas the American Museums expeditions focused primarily on Mongolian terrain (Nelson, 1926; Gallenkamp, 2001). Following a spate of mid-20th century political turmoil, including World War II, which inhibited or precluded eld research in the region, archaeological studies in Central Asia, including Mongolia, were revived by Soviet Russian scientists at the end of the 1940s. The Joint Soviet-Mongolian Expedition, directed initially by S. Kiselev, began work in 1949 and included a Paleolithic team led by A. P. Okladnikov. A number of important sites such as Moiltyn-am and related Pleistocene localities were found by that expedition in the valleys of the Orkhon and Tuul (or Tola) rivers. The rst modern investigations of the Mongolian Paleolithic are closely linked with the names A. P. Okladnikov and A. P. Derevianko. During the 1960s Okladnikov studied the deeply stratied Moiltyn-am Site in vrkhangai aimag (Okladnikov, 1981) and conducted surveys of eastern and central Mongolia, mapping and excavating Neolithic complexes near Tamsagbulag (or Tamtsag Bulag) in Dornod aimag, eastern Mongolia, where he uncovered one dwelling and a human interment. In 1983, the Joint Soviet-Mongolian Historical and Cultural Expedition, headed by A. P. Derevianko, succeeded Kiselevs research

Please cite this article in press as: Gladyshev, S.A., et al., The Upper Paleolithic of Mongolia: Recent nds and new perspectives, Quaternary International (2012), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.01.032

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

initiative. Several of the Expeditions teams investigated western Mongolia (including the Mongolian Altai range and the Great Lakes Basin), the Gobi Lakes Valley in south-central Mongolia, the Gobi Altai massif, and the southern slopes of the Khangai Mountains. This period of research is best known for the discovery and excavation of the multi-component Orkhon-1 and Orkhon-7 sites near Kharkhorin (or Qara Qorum) in northwestern vrkhangai aimag, and the investigation of deated surface aggregate sites in the Gobi Lakes Valley (e.g., Orok Nor-1 and 2 and Nariyn Gol-1 through 17) (Derevianko et al., 2000b). Cave and rockshelter sites, including Tsagaan Agui and Chikhen Agui in Bayankhonggor aimag, were found in the foothills of the Gobi Altai. Unfortunately, most results of this work are of limited value to non-Russophone scholars, and were not widely circulated. A fundamentally new phase in the history of Mongolian archaeology began in 1995 with the formation of the trilateral Joint Mongolian-Russian-American Archaeological Expeditions (JMRAAE), co-directed by D. Tseveendorj (Mongolia), A. P. Derevianko (Russia), and J. W. Olsen (USA). During nearly annual expeditions that have been carried out since 1995 (http://jmraae.

arizona.edu/), large tracts of Mongolia, including the Gobi Altai district and central Gobi Desert, the Orkhon and Selenge valleys, and the Lake Khvsgl (or Hubsugul) Basin have been surveyed, leading to the discovery of more than 1000 Stone Age localities (the majority being deated surface lag deposits). Focused archaeological survey and excavation have been undertaken by JMRAAE at the stratied open-air Chikhen-2 Site and at Tsagaan Agui Cave and Chikhen Agui Rockshelter in the Gobi Altai and, most recently, at Tolbor-4 and 15 on the middle reach of the Selenge River (Fig. 1a). The inclusion of American colleagues in the long-standing RussianeMongolian archaeological research effort resulted in an increased number of English-language publications in non-Russian journals as well as in the English edition of Archaeology, Ethnology, and Anthropology of Eurasia (ISSN: 1563-0110) published by the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography in Novosibirsk. Monographic technical reports of the expeditions have also been published in three languages: English, Mongolian, and Russian (Derevianko et al., 1996, 1998, 2000a), one principal contribution of which is the dissemination of an extensive series of radiocarbon dates covering the period from the early

Fig. 1. a. Maps indicating location of sites mentioned in the text: 1 e Kara Bom; 2 e Drlj-1; 3 e Tolbor-4 & 15; 4 e Moiltyn-am, Orkhon-1 & 7; 5 e Chikhen Agui, Chikhen-2; 6 e Tamsagbulag; 7 e Kamenka; 8 e Varvarina Gora; 9 e Tolbaga; 10 e Kunalei; 11 e Podzvonkzya; 12 e Khotyk; 13 e Shuidonggou; 14 e Tsagaan Agui. b. Map of Tolbor sites distribution. c. The prole at Tolbor-15.

Please cite this article in press as: Gladyshev, S.A., et al., The Upper Paleolithic of Mongolia: Recent nds and new perspectives, Quaternary International (2012), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.01.032

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

Holocene back to the lower limits of the method (i.e., the Early Upper Paleolithic). The current article focuses on materials excavated and analyzed since 2008 at the multi-component open-air Tolbor-15 Site. Although this locality contains both Pleistocene and Holocene horizons, discussion here is restricted to the Paleolithic materials recovered thus far (Derevianko et al., 2003, 2008). Problems of chronology and periodization of the Mongolian Upper Paleolithic based on radiocarbon dating are discussed, including new determinations for the Tolbor-4 and 15 sites, along with a correlation of associated archaeological materials (Fig. 1b). 2. Tolbor-15 archaeological assemblages and their interpretation The Tolbor-15 Site is located on the second (10e12 m) terrace of the west bank of the Ikh Tulberiin Gol, roughly 9 km south of its conuence with the Selenge River, in Unt bag, Khutag-ndr suum, Bulgan aimag (49160 22.800 N, 102 580 18.400 E). A portion of the site was disturbed during road construction, exposing artifacts, and the presence of two Metal Age Turkic kurgans (burial mounds) on the site further limits the area accessible for excavation. The total area of the Tolbor-15 excavation unit is 137 m2. The sites stratigraphy is divided into six geological levels (L-1 through 6) enclosing seven archaeological horizons (AH-1 through 7) (Kolomiets et al., 2009): Level 1 (L-1) e humus with an indistinct lower border (includes Archaeological Horizon 1); Level 2 (L-2) e compacted whitish aleurite including negrained aeolian sediment (includes Archaeological Horizon 2); Level 3 (L-3) e sandy light grey aleurite including small, lumpy clasts. The lower margin of this stratum is indistinct and includes Archaeological Horizons 3 and 4; Level 4 (L-4) e whitish sandy loam with the same physical characteristics as L-3 but exhibiting a higher concentration of sandy sediments. The margins of this stratum are indistinct and sinuous rather than level. Includes Archaeological Horizon 5; Level 5 (L-5) e a greyish loamy stratum with uneven texture and gravel inclusions. The lower margin is sharp and distinct with a shallow dip. The upper portion of L-6 includes Archaeological Horizon 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 sandy matrix, most likely representing the ancient river bed. The total thickness of soft sediments containing archaeological materials ranges between 2.2 and 2.4 m (Fig. 1c). The 2008e10 archaeological collection from Tolbor-15 totals more than 33,000 artifacts. Nuclei and tools from AH-2, 3 and 4 constitute around 3.5% of the total collection. Debitage comprises the bulk of all artifacts recovered from all archaeological horizons at Tolbor-15, allowing reconstruction, step-by-step, of the primary reduction sequences employed. For example, wedge-shaped microcores appear initially in AH-5 (Fig. 55, 9). Microblades were made on akes with retouched preparation of the back and basal edges, and were removed by applying pressure to the narrow front of the core. Similar wedge-shaped nuclei were also found in AH-3 (Fig. 65). In AH-2 and 1, microcores are typologically much more developed. They were produced on both akes and small bifaces with extensive preparation, yielding more regular microblades as end products. Sub-prismatic and tabular nuclei are virtually absent from Archaeological Horizons 1 and 2 and the akes produced are smaller than in the earlier horizons (Fig. 62, 6). Cores intended for the production of large blades and bladelets dominate the lower horizons at Tolbor-15.They consist 3.4% of the assemblage. Several nucleus types have been identied including tabular (Fig. 22, 4, 6, 7), sub-prismatic (Fig. 23, 5), large

multidirectional, narrow-front (Fig. 28), and small polyhedral varieties (Fig.21). It seems that the pressure-aked microblade technique appeared at Tolbor-15 rst in AH-5. In these lower strata, initial reduction was based on direct percussion with both soft and hard hammers. The presence of crested and semi-crested technical spalls in AH-6 and 7 indicates core rejuvenation by moving the ake removal surface from the cores broadest face to its narrow back. This method is typical of Early Upper Paleolithic industries in northern Mongolia (e.g., Drlj-1, Orkhon-1, Orkhon-7, and Tolbor-4). The percentage of tools in the whole collection of Tolbor-15 is about 3.7%. The toolkit identied in all horizons at Tolbor-15 is not typologically diverse, consisting mainly of Aurignacian-type endscrapers made on massive blades (Fig. 32, 6, 9, 10), forms known as pointed tools (blades with a point or beak retouched on their proximal ends; Fig. 31, 8, 15e17), bifaces (Fig. 311), skreblos (large side-scrapers; Fig. 34, 14) and a few thick planes (Fig. 35, 7). Planes are scarce and their morphology remains unchanged from AH-7 up through AH-3 (Fig. 69). Notched and denticulated tools and various pointed implements (Fig. 312, 13) are also quite rare, as are singleedge backed points, retouched blades (Fig. 33) and akes. The same pattern is reected in AH-4 and 5 (Fig. 51e4, 6e8, 10). Some small end-scrapers, various pointed tools, point fragments and retouched microblades were excavated in the upper archaeological horizons (Fig. 61, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10). In addition to stone artifacts, four sherds of Iron Age Hunnic pottery were found in AH-1. Although fragments of ostrich (Struthio sp.) eggshells recovered from AH-3, 5 and 7 are currently being radiocarbon dated, bone is scarce, fragmentary and poorly preserved, rendering it useless at present for taxonomic identication. Evidence of ve possible hearths was uncovered in AH-7, represented by bright red oxidized sediment without any trace of ash or charcoal, suggesting these res were of only very short duration. Overall, Tolbor-15 may be interpreted as a multi-component archaeological site, yielding materials associated with various periods of the Stone Age. Research at the site is in the initial stages and samples for radiocarbon dating are currently undergoing analysis, so at present precise archaeological periodization and chronology may be inferred only on the basis of indirect data such as comparisons with other Paleolithic sites in Mongolia and Transbaikalia (the region of south-central Siberia east of Lake Baikal) that are already associated with a number of 14C determinations. At Tolbor-15, at least three different Pleistocene technocomplexes and one Holocene assemblage (AH-1) have been identied. The materials from AH-6 and 7 represent the earliest cultural complex which is succeeded stratigraphically, and presumably chronologically, by AH-4 and 5. It is useful to note the differences that exist among these horizons. Archaeological Horizons 6 and 7 are characterized by tabular single-platform cores used for the production of both large blades and bladelets. The percentage of blades relative to the total number of removals is very high (up to 13%), reecting a typical Early Upper Paleolithic blade industry. Both these parameters change quantitatively in AH-4 and 5, in which the number of tabular cores and blades decreases considerably. The most fundamental differences between AH-6 and 7 and AH-4 and 5 are manifest in two other technological variables: (1) microblade production based on wedge-shaped nuclei appears rst in AH-5 and continues throughout the sequence up through AH-1; (2) the percentage of blades and bladelets in AH-4 and 5 decreases to 6%, clearly illustrating non-blade focused reduction in this technocomplex; trends which continue in AH-2 and 3. The number and morphological diversity of microblade cores steadily increase whereas nuclei for the production of large blanks decrease in number, eventually transforming into polyhedral ake cores. Within the category of blade blanks, the number of microblades

Please cite this article in press as: Gladyshev, S.A., et al., The Upper Paleolithic of Mongolia: Recent nds and new perspectives, Quaternary International (2012), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.01.032

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

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

increases as they begin to play an increasingly important role in the toolkit. Archaeological Horizon 1 differs dramatically from the lower cultural assemblages at Tolbor-15. AH-1 is a typical microlithic complex based on the exploitation of wedge-shaped and conical microcores. Microblades dominate the blanks produced, totaling roughly half of the entire collection of removals from this horizon. 3. Comparison with other archaeological assemblages in the Ikh Tulberiin Gol Valley Based upon these typological parameters, it is possible to suggest a chronological framework for the Tolbor-15 sequence by taking into consideration reliably dated Early Upper Paleolithic archaeological materials from Mongolia 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 Tolbor15. During excavations conducted in 2005e2007, six archaeological horizons were identied 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 from these horizons are not homogeneous. At Tolbor-4, AH-5 and 6 are technologically very similar, presumably reecting the early orescence of Upper Paleolithic blade industries in Central Asia. Archaeological Horizons 5 and 6 are also characterized by a predominance of single- and double-platform cores reduced bilongitudinally. Large blades also prevail among the total number of removals and tools are scarce. Similar industries have not been found thus far elsewhere in Mongolia but are well-known in the Altai Mountains and Transbaikal region of southern Siberia. At present, there are two associated radiocarbon dates supporting an Early Upper Paleolithic age for the Tolbor-4 industry: one innite determination of >41,050 BP (AAe79326) for AH-5, and a nite date of 37,400 2600 BP (AAe79314) for Archaeological Horizon 6. The lithic assemblage recovered from AH-4 at Tolbor-4 differs from the lower complexes, being similar to AH-6 and 7 at Tolbor-15 in terms of a notable transition from massive cores with a single ake removal surface to tabular single-platform nuclei and a decrease in the number of blades among the total amount of removals (Fig. 4). At the same time, sub-prismatic single- and

Please cite this article in press as: Gladyshev, S.A., et al., The Upper Paleolithic of Mongolia: Recent nds and new perspectives, Quaternary International (2012), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.01.032

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

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 largely unchanged, making it possible to suggest a terminus post quem for the Tolbor-15 AH-6 and 7 industries of roughly 35,000 a. 4. Chronology and the broader Mongolian and South Siberian Paleolithic records Materials from other Paleolithic localities in Mongolia may also help conrm this chronology. One such site, Drlj-1, is located near the conuence of the Selenge River and its northern tributary, the Egin Gol (Jaubert et al., 2004). At Drlj-1, a cultural level lies at the bottom of a four-meter section in a rich stratum of detritus. Traces of cryoturbation and fracturing in this level suggest that it may be divided into several periods of occupation. This interpretation is supported by a series of radiocarbon dates which fall into two 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 reduction in the Drlj-1 archaeological complex is represented by several technologies including tabular single- and double-platform nuclei.

Short blades and large, elongated blades, including some pointed examples, were the most common blank forms. The removal of lame crete was a common practice. There are also nuclei on akes and small irregular chunks used for the production of bladelets and microblades in the collection along with some radially-aked cores. The Drlj-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-like tools were found. Perforated ostrich eggshell pendants recovered from Early Upper Paleolithic contexts are of special interest, as this occurrence is the rst such recorded in Mongolia. Based on the perceived technological and typological similarities among the lithic assemblages from Drlj-1, Tolbor-15 AH-6 and 7, and Tolbor-4 AH-4, these materials collectively illustrate one cultural period within the Mongolian Early Upper Paleolithic. If this assumption proves correct, then the lower chronometric boundary of AH-6 and 7 at Tolbor-15 should fall at approximately 30,000 a. Archaeological Horizon 7 at the Tolbor-15 site has an associated date of 29,150 20 BP (AA-84138) and AH-5 a date of 28,460 310 BP (AA-84137). This publication deals only with noncalibrated 14C dates (BP) for Tolbor-15 on the samples of eggshell of

Please cite this article in press as: Gladyshev, S.A., et al., The Upper Paleolithic of Mongolia: Recent nds and new perspectives, Quaternary International (2012), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.01.032

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

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 radiocarbon date from AH-7 of 26,700 300 BP (AA-84135) corresponds with Archaeological Horizon 4 at the Tolbor-4 locality. Two additional sites have produced materials remarkably similar to those from Tolbor-15, AH-6 and 7; the open-air Chikhen2 locality and Chikhen Agui Rockshelter, located in Shinejinst suum, southern Bayankhongor aimag, in the central Gobi Altai district of Mongolia. During the excavation of Chikhen-2, it was established that the lower horizons (3e2.5) include Early Upper Paleolithic cultural remains, while the upper units (2.4e1) belong to the later Upper Paleolithic. There is one radiocarbon date currently available for horizon 2.5: 30,550 410 BP (AA-31870; Derevianko, 2005). Tabular Levallois-type, single- and doubleplatform cores as well as sub-prismatic double-platform blade

cores were employed during primary reduction. Lame crete and pointed blades occur among the removals excavated. The toolkit includes end- and djet scrapers, retouched akes, points on blades (including beveled forms), denticulates and notched tools, while large side-scrapers (skreblos), burins and other chisel-like tools are quite rare. Thinning of the bulb of percussion by primary aking and subsequent trimming is common at Chikhen2. Also characteristic of the Mongolian Early Upper Paleolithic is the presence of backed blades and bladelets, backed points and ovoid bifaces in the assemblage. Archaeological materials from the Paleolithic level in Chikhen Agui Rockshelter are very similar to the early assemblage at Chikhen-2 and are associated with a radiocarbon date of 27,432 872 BP (AA-26580) on charcoal from a distinct hearth

Please cite this article in press as: Gladyshev, S.A., et al., The Upper Paleolithic of Mongolia: Recent nds and new perspectives, Quaternary International (2012), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.01.032

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

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 upper chronological boundary of AH-6 and 7 at Tolbor-15. A number of sites exhibiting reduction and tool manufacturing strategies similar to Archaeological Horizons 6 and 7 at Tolbor-15 are known in more distant territories, such as the Transbaikal region and the Altai Mountains of southern Siberia, typied by sites such as Kamenka A and C, Podzvonkaya 1\2, Khotyk 3, Varvarina Gora 2, and Tolbaga 4, all yielding 14C dates ranging between 30 and 40,000 BP (locality designations follow Lbova, 2009). Non-Levallois sub-prismatic cores were principally employed to produce elongated triangular blanks. The production of blade blanks was preceded by the removal of lame crete to generate a functional convex aking face on the nucleus, and this approach was also used to rejuvenate the ake removal surface throughout the cores use-life. One technological peculiarity noted at the Kamenka A and C sites is the predominance of double striking platforms. The removal of pointed blades is uncommon in other Upper Paleolithic assemblages in the Transbaikal region, although single- and doubleplatform percussion has been identied at the majority of these sites. Blade indexes vary considerably while the percent of faceted platforms is low. Among the nuclei, sub-prismatic and tabular forms with an additional ake removal surface on the cores narrow

margin, along with microcores for the production of blade-like blanks dominate these complexes. The toolkit includes retouched blades, end-scrapers, points on blades, borers, chisel-like and pebble tools. A large proportion of these assemblages consist of intentionally fragmented akes, truncated akes, and pointed tools. Denticulates and notched tools are also known. The only widely documented Middle Paleolithic tool type is the skreblo, large sidescraper made on massive, truncated blades. Some rarer Mongolian tool types occur in the Transbaikal region, including beveled and backed points as well as ovoid bifaces (Varvarina Gora, Tolbaga), tools with distal trimming (Khotyk), and points with retouched stems (Kamenka). There are also many composite tools known in both regions. In drawing parallels between AH-6 and 7 at Tolbor-15 and the emergent Early Upper Paleolithic blade technology of the Transbaikal region, it is necessary to also establish some important differences with respect to the frequency of particular artifact types within entire assemblages. For example, none of the Transbaikal sites demonstrates as high a percentage of pointed tools as does the Tolbor industry. Although chisel-like tools are widespread among sites in the Transbaikal region, they are extremely rare in the lower horizons at Tolbor-4 and are completely absent in AH-6 and 7 at Tolbor-15. Few burins and large scrapers on blades are known from

Please cite this article in press as: Gladyshev, S.A., et al., The Upper Paleolithic of Mongolia: Recent nds and new perspectives, Quaternary International (2012), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.01.032

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

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 blades with bifacial preparation which are typical of the southern Siberian Early Upper Paleolithic. Paleolithic industries such as those identied at Tolbor-4 and 15, Chikhen-2, Chikhen Agui Rockshelter, and Drlj-1 represent the local manifestation of a more widespread Early Upper Paleolithic culture whose geographical scope encompassed southern Siberia as well. This conclusion is supported by technological and typological analogies that may be drawn between Mongolian industries and their parallels not only in the Transbaikal region but also in the Altai Mountains, regarded by many as one of the main Eurasian centers of Upper Paleolithic origins (Derevianko et al., 2007). The reduction technology typical of Altai sites may be described as parallel with either one or two platforms. For example, the knapping strategy employed at Kara Bom includes the so-called double-platform pointed method based on the regular removal of lame crete and large blades. Typologically, nuclei are divided into tabular, sub-prismatic and blade microcores. There is also a wide variety of cores with ake removal surfaces on their narrow sides and burin-cores, which are also known in the Tolbor-4 and 15 assemblages. The Kara Bom tool tradition is very similar to Mongolian technocomplexes in terms of having a low percentage of massive side-scrapers (skreblos), including those with ventral trimming, and chisel-like tools and a high percentage of

denticulated and notched tools, and numerous end-scrapers on blades. Trimming of the bulb of percussion on tools is very common in some Altai assemblages (Kara Bom, Kara Tenesh, Maloyalomanskaya Cave, and Ust Karakol). In Levels 1e4 at Kara Bom, there are beveled points, tools with trimming on the distal end and blades with retouched stems, as there are at Denisova Cave (Level 11 in the central hall and Level 5 in the entrance chamber). The sites of Anui-3 (Levels 9e12), and Ust Karakol-1 have yielded backed blades and bladelets. The differences among the Siberian and Mongolian complexes (i.e., AH-6 and 7 at Tolbor-15 and AH-4 at Tolbor-4) lead to the conclusion that burins and symmetrical points on blades are more common in the Altai industries whereas pointed tools are much scarcer. With respect to the interpretation of Archaeological Horizons 4 and 5 at Tolbor-15, there are important differences between these levels and AH-6 and 7, expressed primarily in the appearance of wedge-shaped microcores and the prevalence of akes within the total assemblage of removals in the later horizons. Based on stratigraphy alone, AH-4 and 5 are undoubtedly younger than the lower units, but is it possible to suggest a provisional chronology for these industries? Four radiocarbon dates for AH-3 and 4 at Tolbor-15 were generated in 2009 by the University of Arizona and Beta Analytic, Inc. All fall between 14,000 and 14,900 BP. AH-3 has associated dates of 14,055 80 BP (AA-84136) and 14,930 70 BP (Beta-263742)

Please cite this article in press as: Gladyshev, S.A., et al., The Upper Paleolithic of Mongolia: Recent nds and new perspectives, Quaternary International (2012), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.01.032

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

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 neighboring Transbaikal region, bearing in mind that a similar lithic industry was also found at Tolbor-4 (AH-1 through 3), expressing the same technological parameters as AH-4 and 5 at Tolbor-15. The Kamenka (Complex B) Site, located in western Transbaikalia, has a ake-based industry typologically most similar to the Tolbor localities. Here, the primary reduction strategy is dominated by tabular single-platform ake cores with radial and polyhedral nuclei also present. Bladelet and microblade cores, the latter with narrow ake removal surfaces, and proto-wedge-shaped cores deserve special mention. Flakes comprise the largest category of removals, whereas blades are rare both in the debitage assemblage and in the toolkit. The most numerous tools at Kamenka are scrapers, borers, and notched tools. Large scrapers are only modestly represented, among which some examples display ventral trimming (including at their distal ends) similar to Mongolian complexes. The existence of a ake-dominated phase in the Upper Paleolithic of Mongolia and the Transbaikal region is currently suggested by only a handful of dates. The Podzvonkzya Site has yielded two nite 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 from a stratum underlying Level 3 (21,100 300 BP; GIN-6124), suggesting that Level 3 represents the latest manifestation of akebased industries in the southern Siberian Upper Paleolithic. Not all current archaeological and chronological data indicate the co-existence of ake and blade industries during the later Early Upper Paleolithic. Some point to the successive replacement of blade production by a ake-based strategy, a phenomenon illustrated at Tolbor-4 and Tolbor-15 where cultural horizons bearing ake industries lie immediately above those with blade industries and are technologically related to them. The further development of a technological trajectory based on the utilization of akes as principal blanks for the manufacture of wedge-shaped microcores is apparent in AH-2 and 3 at Tolbor-15. To date, the paucity of reliable radiocarbon dates makes it possible to suggest only a preliminary chronology for Pleistocene ake-based industries in Mongolia focusing on the postulated replacement of blade-based Early Upper Paleolithic industries no earlier than ca. 25,000 a; a trend that continued until the middle of the Last Glacial Maximum (ca. 20,000 a). An additional important constellation of problems awaiting investigation is the chronology, geography, and behavioral dynamics of wedge-shaped microblade technology in northern Mongolia. Until recently, this important region was not included in most discussions of early microblade production (e.g., Kuzmin, 2007). Tentatively, wedge-shaped microcore production in the region post-dates 25e23,000 BP, and current data from the Tolbor sites do not provide unequivocal evidence of the autochthonous development of this technology in northern Mongolia as opposed to its initial introduction from adjacent territories (i.e., northern China or southern Siberia) with subsequent modication in Mongolia to suit locally available lithic raw materials. 5. Mongolias rst fossil hominin The 2006 discovery of a human calotte in the Salkhit Valley in northern Khentii aimag, northeastern Mongolia (Tseveendorj et al., 2007; Coppens et al., 2008; Bae, 2010; Kaifu and Fujita, 2012) provides the rst direct fossil evidence of the Pleistocene occupation of Mongolia. The specimen, consisting of a complete frontal with partial nasals and two incomplete parietals, was recovered during mining operations. Subsequent investigations at the locality

have not yielded additional fossil remains, nor have artifacts been recovered yet at the calottes reconstructed nd-spot. The Salkhit hominin, which exhibits a mosaic of archaic and modern morphological traits inconclusively linking it with Chinese Homo erectus, Homo sapiens neandertalensis, and Asian members of archaic H. sapiens, is tentatively associated with Upper Pleistocene remains of woolly rhinoceros (Coelodonta antiquitatis), but its numerical age is only now being claried by Mongolian scholars (B. Gunchinsuren, personal communication). Regrettably, the preserved parts of the skullcap do not allow more precise taxonomic afliation (Bae, 2010), but the recovery of fossilized Homo remains in what appears biostratigraphically to be an Upper Pleistocene context gives hope that further investigations in the region will ultimately yield additional pre-modern human fossils and artifact assemblages in interpretable chrono-stratigraphic relationships. 6. Discussion and conclusions The early stage of the EUP in Mongolia persisted for a relatively long period and can be divided into two sub-chrons, the earliest of which (ca. 40e35,000 BP) is known only in northern Mongolia in the AH-5 and 6 complexes at Tolbor-4 and differs from the later EUP principally in having a higher blade index (33.8 at AH-6, 26.2 at AH5, and 20 at AH-4; Derevianko et al., 2007). Among the cores, the most characteristic are blade nuclei made on tabular blanks with a single ake-removal face and sub-prismatic double-platform varieties (also with a single ake removal surface). Most tools were prepared on blades and blade fragments. The second stage of the Mongolian EUP (ca. 33e26,000 BP) is represented by assemblages from the Khangai Mountains (Tolbor-4 and 15, Orkhon-7) and the Gobi Altai district (Tsagaan Agui Cave, Chikhen Agui Rockshelter, Chikhen-2) and is characterized by the following diagnostic traits: (1) the number of tabular medium-size single-platform blade cores with one ake-removal surface is greater; (2) through time, the production of lame crete is greatly reduced (this technique is unknown at Orkhon-7 and Tolbor-15, AH-5); and (3) the percentage of tools fashioned on blades is diminished along with the blade index as a whole. The took-kit for both sub-chrons of the Mongolian EUP is typologically homogeneous and sub-prismatic microcores and nuclei made on tabular blanks with single ake-removal surfaces are typical of all Mongolian EUP horizons. One of the most important innovations of the EUP is the development of pressure-aking techniques for microcore reduction, including so-called wedge-shaped nuclei. Although its numerical chronology is still uncertain, the middle Upper Paleolithic in Mongolia is recognized only on the basis of sites in the Orkhon River valley which all post-date ca. 25,000 BP. In terms of material culture, this period witnessed the total replacement of blade industries by ake industries, along with the parallel development of the pressure-aked microblade technique. The number of skreblos and djet tools decreased during this period. The nal phase of the Mongolian Upper Paleolithic is well-dated down to the end of the Pleistocene. Typical industries include those excavated from horizons AH-3 and 4 at Tolbor-15 characterized by a predominance of microcores reduced by both pressure and percussion, the appearance of retouched points on akes, and an increase in the number of microblades as a fraction of overall blade blanks. Denitions of modern human behavior and the relationships between technological change identied in the archaeological record as the Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition and the emergence of anatomical traits associated with H. sapiens in the fossil record dene a spectrum of problems associated with the temporal and geographical variables of later Pleistocene human activity.

Please cite this article in press as: Gladyshev, S.A., et al., The Upper Paleolithic of Mongolia: Recent nds and new perspectives, Quaternary International (2012), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.01.032

10

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

Compelling recent genetically-based demographic evidence indicates that the geographically variable timing in the appearance of the full package of characteristic Upper Paleolithic technologies and behaviors may stem from disparities in regional population densities (Powell et al., 2009). If this is true, then the transitional Middle-Upper Paleolithic archaeological complexes of southern Siberia and Mongolia may play an especially important role in the interpretation of increasingly complex later Pleistocene human behavior and technologies, given their geographical remoteness from western Eurasia and Africa where these phenomena have been more thoroughly studied for decades (Dennell and Roebroeks, 2005; Dennell, 2009; Bae, 2010). The archaeological materials described herein and technological analogies employed in the interpretation of the Tolbor-4 and Tolbor-15 sites cumulatively suggest afliation with Early Upper Paleolithic industries in Siberia and greater Central Asia. The technology of reduction identied in these Mongolian assemblages closely parallels the principal characteristics of blade production in these adjacent regions. The Tolbor toolkit, barring some local peculiarities, also bears witness to links between Mongolian industries and those of Early Upper Paleolithic southern Siberia. Archaeological materials recovered from Tolbor-4 and Tolbor-15 exhibit a combination of traits common among Early Upper Paleolithic complexes of the Altai Mountains and Transbaikal region as well as some specic local characteristics. The southernmost extent of Early Upper Paleolithic blade technologies is currently thought to be reected at the Shuidonggou (or Shui-tung-kou) Site located on the Ordos Plateau in the 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 favorably with the Early Upper Paleolithic Kara Bom-type industries of Siberia and Central Asia. New materials from northern Mongolia make similarities among the industries from Shuidonggou and various sites in Mongolia, Transbaikalia, and southern Siberia even more evident. Since current evidence suggests that human activities initially took place at Shuidonggou during Marine Isotope Stage [MIS] 3 (roughly 30e24,000 a), during a period when the climate was both warmer and moister than at present (Herzschuh, 2006; Gao et al., 2008), there is every reason to continue to investigate potential links between the Early Upper Paleolithic complexes of northern Mongolia and the now arid to semi-arid zone of North China that lies to the north of the central Huang He (Yellow River) Valley. Larger scale regional paleoclimatic reconstructions extending back to MIS 5e indicate that warmer, moister conditions prevailed throughout the period during which these technological innovations were rst manifest (e.g., Fedotov et al., 2006a, 2006b). By the same token, evidence suggests that in the Darhad Basin, some 330 km west-northwest of the Tolbor localities, glaciers reached one of three Upper Pleistocene periods of maximum extent in MIS 3 (i.e., the Zyrianka Glaciation, ca. 35e53,000 a) and both 14C and luminescence dating of lake sediments conrm the existence of paleolake highstands before roughly 35,000 a (Gillespie et al., 2008). In their analysis of the central Chinese high-resolution speleothem d18O record from Sanbao and Hulu Caves, Wang et al. (2008) conclude that early MIS 3 was characterized by increased temperature and monsoon activity. The timing of the maximum glacial advance appears synchronic across northern Mongolia but out of phase with Siberia, western Central Asia, and, perhaps central China, thus considerable regional paleoclimatic variation during the Upper Pleistocene must be factored in to any consideration of the similarities and differences visible among Paleolithic assemblages in these and adjacent territories (e.g., Dennell, 2009; Graf, 2009).

The potentially signicant inuence of Levallois and Levalloislike prepared core Middle Paleolithic technologies on the origin of industries at Shuidonggou and in the Mongolian Gobi Altai demands more investigation and discussion. Analysis of the earlier archaeological horizons at the Tolbor sites (which may be older than Shuidonggou), Chikhen Agui Rockshelter, and Chikhen-2, does not provide any evidence that Levallois technology (sensu stricto) played a role in their origin or orescence. Certainly, interdisciplinary studies of the Early Upper Paleolithic of Mongolia, the Transbaikal, southern Siberia and China await augmentation and geographical and temporal expansion. The past decade and a half of intensive research collaboration among American, Russian, and Mongolian archaeologists has yielded important and interesting results. More stratied sites have been excavated and analyzed in Mongolia and more radiocarbon dates reported during this short period than during the previous half century. Intensive analysis of these collections is ongoing, and the results could substantially alter the ways in which Central Asian Paleolithic technologies are integrated within a larger interpretive sphere of Pleistocene human activity. Acknowledgments The research activity reported here was generously supported by a grant from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (#11e06e12003e2011) in addition to grants from the U. S. National Science Foundation and the University of Arizonas Je Tsongkhapa Endowment for Central Asian Archaeology. We thank the Institute of Archaeology of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences, especially its Director, Professor D. Tseveendorj and the Head of its Stone Age Sector, Dr. B. Gunchinsuren, for their unagging support of our joint research as well as their friendship, generosity and collegiality extending back over many years. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. 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 and settlement systems in the Alashan Desert of Inner Mongolia, PRC. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13, 74e101. Brantingham, P.J., Krivoshapkin, A.I., Li, J., Tserendagva, Ya, 2001. The initial upper Paleolithic in Northeast Asia. Current Anthropology 42, 735e747. Coppens, Y., Tseveendorj, D., Demeter, F., Turbat, T., Giscard, P.-H., 2008. Discovery of an archaic Homo sapiens skullcap in Northeast Mongolia. Comptes Rendus Palevol 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 dispersal from Africa. Nature 438, 1099e1104. Derevianko, A.P., 2005. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in the Altai. The Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in Eurasia: Hypotheses and Facts. Institute 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 Mongolian early Holocene: excavations at Chicken Agui Rockshelter in the Gobi Altai. The Review 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 early upper 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. Archaeological Studies Carried Out by the Joint Russian-Mongolian-American Expedition 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

Please cite this article in press as: Gladyshev, S.A., et al., The Upper Paleolithic of Mongolia: Recent nds and new perspectives, Quaternary International (2012), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.01.032

S.A. Gladyshev et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e11 the Joint Russian-Mongolian-American Expedition in Mongolia in 1996. 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., 2000a. Archaeological Studies Carried Out by the Joint Russian-Mongolian-American Expedition in Mongolia in 1997-1998. Institute of Archaeology & Ethnography SB RAS Press, Novosibirsk (in Russian with 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 Agui Rockshelter (Mongolia). Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 34, 2e14. Derevianko, A.P., Petrin, V.T., Tseveendorj, D., Deviatkin, E.V., Laritchev, V.E., Vasilevskii, R.S., Zenin, A.N., Gladyshev, S.A., 2000b. Paleolithic and Neolithic of the Northern Face of the Valley of Lakes. Institute of Archaeology & Ethnography SB RAS Press, Novosibirsk (in Russian with English summary). Fairservis Jr., W.A., 1993. Archaeology of the Southern Gobi of Mongolia. Carolina Academic Press, Durham, N.C. Fedotov, A.P., Ignatev, A.V., Poberezhnaya, A.E., Velivetskaya, T.A., Ziborova, G.A., Otinova, E.L., Krapivina, S.M., Fedorin, M.A., 2006a. Oxygen and carbon isotope variations in ostracode shells from Lake Hubsugul (Mongolia) and regional Paleoclimate 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: evidence from 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 Central Asiatic Expeditions. Viking, New York. Gao, X., Yuan, B.W., Pei, S.W., Wang, H.M., Chen, F.Y., Feng, X.W., 2008. Analysis of sedimentary-geomorphologic variation and the living environment of Hominids at the Shuidonggou Paleolithic site. Chinese Science Bulletin 53, 2025e2032. Gillespie, A.R., Burke, R.M., Komatsu, G., Bayasgalan, A., 2008. Late Pleistocene glaciers in Darhad Basin, northern Mongolia. Quaternary Research 69, 169e187. Graf, K.E., 2009. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: evaluating the radiocarbon chronology 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 Expedition in Asia 1927e1935, 4 Volumes. Parts 1e3 Written in Collaboration with Folke Bergman: I. 1927e1928; II. 1928e1933; III. 1933e1935. IV. General Reports of Travels and Fieldwork, by F. Bergman, G. Bexell, Birger Bohlin, Gsta Montell (Reports from the Scientic Expedition to the North-Western Provinces

11

of China under the Leadership of Dr. Sven Hedin e The Sino-Swedish Expedition, Publications 23e26). Tryckeri & Thule, Stockholm. Herzschuh, U., 2006. Palaeo-moisture evolution in monsoonal Central Asia during the 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., Rodire, J., Servelle, C., 2004. Le Palolithique suprieur ancient de Mongolie: Drlj 1 (Egin Gol). Analogies avec les donnes de lAlta et de Sibrier (Acts of the XIVth UISPP Congress, University of Lige, Belgium, 2e8 September 2001. Section 6: Le Palolithique Suprieur). 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 Mongolia during the upper Pleistocene. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 37, 2e14. Kuzmin, Y.V., 2007. Geoarchaeological Aspects of the Origin and Spread of Microblade Technology in Northern and Central Asia. Origin and Spread of Microblade Technology in Northern Asia and North America, vol. 34. Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. 115e124. Lbova, L.V., 2009. Chronology and Paleoecology of the early upper Paleolithic in the Transbaikal Region (Siberia). Eurasian Prehistory 5, 109e114. Maringer, J., 1950. Contribution to the Prehistory of Mongolia, a Study of the Prehistoric Collections from Inner Mongolia (Reports from the Scientic Expedition 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 Museum Novitiates 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 Scientic Monthly 3, 5e22. Powell, A., Shennan, S., Thomas, M.G., 2009. Late Pleistocene demography and the appearance of modern human behavior. Science 324, 1298e1301. Rainger, R., 2004. An Agenda for Antiquity: Henry Faireld Osborn and Vertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, 1890e1935. University of Alabama Press, Montgomery, AL. Tseveendorj, D., Batbold, N., Amgalantugs, T., 2007. Mongolanthropus was discovered in Mongolia. Studia Archeologica Instituti Historiae Academiae Scientiarum 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 in the east Asian monsoon over the past 224,000 years. Nature 451, 1090e1093.

Please cite this article in press as: Gladyshev, S.A., et al., The Upper Paleolithic of Mongolia: Recent nds and new perspectives, Quaternary International (2012), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.01.032

You might also like