# An Initial Upper Palaeolithic attribution is not empirically supported at Shiyu, northern China

Leonardo Carmignani, Igor Djakovic, Peiqi Zhang, Nicolas Teyssandier, Nicolas Zwyns, Marie Soressi

► To cite this version:

Leonardo Carmignani, Igor Djakovic, Peiqi Zhang, Nicolas Teyssandier, Nicolas Zwyns, et al. An Initial Upper Palaeolithic attribution is not empirically supported at Shiyu, northern China. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2024, 9 (1), pp.34-37. 10.1038/s41559-024-02548-9. hal-04918824

HAL Id: hal-04918824

https://hal.science/hal-04918824v1

Submitted on 29 Jan 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

Public Domain
1 **An Initial Upper Palaeolithic attribution is not empirically supported at**
2 **Shiyu, northern China**

3

4 Leonardo Carmignani¹†, Igor Djakovic¹†, Peiqi Zhang², Nicolas Teyssandier³, Nicolas Zwyns⁴ and

5 Marie Soressi¹*

6

7

8 † These authors contributed equally to this work.

9 * corresponding author email address: m.a.soressi@arch.leidenuniv.nl

10

11 ¹ Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, The Netherlands

12 ² Université de Bordeaux, CNRS, Ministère de la Culture, PACEA, UMR 5199, Pessac, France

13 ³ CNRS UMR 5608 TRACES, University Toulouse Jean Jaurès, France

14 ⁴ Department of Anthropology, University of California-Davis, USA

15

16

17

18 Initial Upper Palaeolithic (IUP) assemblages are increasingly thought to be linked to the first
19 widespread dispersal of *Homo sapiens* across Eurasia between 55 and 40 thousand years ago (kya cal
20 BP). As a result, today the identification of Initial Upper Palaeolithic assemblages plays a key role in
21 archaeological research focused on this key period – which is also characterized by the eventual
22 disappearance of Neandertals and Denisovans from the fossil record. In a recent paper, Yang *et al.*¹
23 claim to have identified the oldest and easternmost IUP at Shiyu, northern China, dated to ~45 kya cal
24 BP and with this to transform knowledge of the routes and timing of the migration of *Homo sapiens* in
25 Asia. We argue, however that this attribution is based on a biased sample of artefacts, the misuse of
26 technological definitions, and the misreading of stone artefacts central to their argument. Furthermore,
27 it relies on the questionable assumption that the studied material (750 lithic artefacts from an original
28 ~15,000) is a representative sample of a single assemblage. While we recognize the value of
29 technological re-evaluations of previously excavated assemblages, we believe that an ‘Initial Upper
30 Palaeolithic’ attribution is not empirically supported. In fact, it detracts attention from more pressing
31 issues concerning the character of this technology, the association between lithics and personal
32 ornaments, and the overall integrity of the assemblage. Below, we highlight the key problems in the
33 conclusions reached by Yang *et al.*¹

34

35 **Sampling of material:** Yang *et al.* attribute the Shiyu assemblage as IUP technology based on the
36 presence of typical Levallois and volumetric blade products. The assemblage in question is a set of 750
37 lithic artifacts selected from a larger pool of over 15,000 artefacts, representing approximately 5% of
38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

the original assemblage. The latter were collected in 1963 according to unknown selection criteria in a deposit known as 'Layer 2'. It remains unclear whether the sample is representative of one, or perhaps several, distinct assemblages as Layer 2 was circa 1 meter thick. Hence, the association of Levallois and volumetric blade nor the association of these with personal ornaments are guaranteed.

**Blade production:** Central and East Asian IUP assemblages are characterized by bidirectional blade production with circa 20-40% of blanks and tools displaying bidirectional removals from two opposed platforms in excavated assemblages⁴,⁵. Of the 750 total artefacts sampled: nine blade or blade fragments are identified. If we include technical pieces (crested blades and core tablets), the entire blade component consists of 18 pieces (0.12% of total assemblage, 2.4% of reported sample). Assuming this sample is representative of the original assemblage, this proportion is notably low compared to what is documented in other IUP assemblages in Central Asia, particularly in nearby Mongolia²⁻⁵. Also, it falls below what is observed in some Middle Palaeolithic assemblages directly associated with Neanderthal remains⁶. In Supplementary Fig. 27, where a metrical distribution is displayed, flakes and bipolar flakes partially overlap with the length-width ratio of blades. Among the two blade cores reported at Shiyu, the only illustrated example does not show unidirectional or bidirectional exploitation characteristic of blade production (**see our Fig. 1A**). Overall, the nine elongated elements classified as blades could result from the simple flake or bipolar production that constitute ~83% of the sampled products. Therefore, in our view, the published evidence from Shiyu does not demonstrate an intentional blade production – which is a fundamental trait of IUP assemblages across their distribution.

**Point production:** Only 12 points were recognized – and no cores related to their production were identified. This constitutes 1.6% of the reported sample and appears to be in par with what is known for the IUP in China⁷. However, based on the figures, some blanks identified as points are not points. The 'Levallois points' in Supplementary Fig. 25 (b and d) show quadrangular (d) and sub-quadrangular (b) morphologies instead of the typical triangular outline. Unlike IUP points that are usually predetermined during debitage, scars on their dorsal surface are parallel and not convergent (**see our Fig. 1B n. 4,5**). The triangular shape of some 'Levallois points' at Shiyu has been given through retouch (Fig. 4 n. 2, 3). Taking this into account, points should not be considered as a defining character of the Shiyu assemblage.

<caption>**Figure 1.** Blade core (A) and point (B) comparison between Shiyu and IUP assemblages (all the same scale except when indicated otherwise) (ref. n.1 ⁸, n.2 and 4 ⁵ n.5 ⁹); Platform comparison (ref. n. 7¹², n.8 ¹, n.9¹³)</caption>

**Concerning the presence of Levallois production:** The characterization of Levallois hinges upon six explicit criteria¹⁰. Several non-Levallois production methods can yield Levallois-like artifacts¹¹. At Shiyu, the presence of Levallois cannot be confirmed because:
75

76

77

- No cores related to this system were found and the two flakes illustrated in Fig 25 (e-f) could equally have been produced by a variety of different free-hand percussion methods. The same applies to the few points classified by the authors as ‘Levallois points’.

78

79

80

81

- Yang *et al*¹ specify: ‘*All of the Levallois points have retouched platforms, ‘en chapeau de gendarme,’ the retouches covering the complete platforms*’. However, on the illustrated examples (Fig. 5: 1, 2, 4), the delineation is straight or convex and not ‘en chapeau de gendarme’ (see our **Fig. 1C**).

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

**Retouched tools:** Burin-cores co-existing with bidirectional blade technology are a characteristic element of the IUP of Mongolia and Siberia¹⁴. At Shiyu, there are no burin-cores and no clear evidence of systematic blade production. Yang *et al*.¹ report 412 retouched pieces (55% of the entire assemblage), an unusually high proportion which is likely the result of a sampling strategy (750 studied pieces of ~15000 in total assemblage). The majority are tool types such as scrapers, notches, and denticulates (231 pieces, 65% of determinable tool types) known in various non-IUP contexts¹⁵. The single end-scraper depicted (no total=6) is ambiguous as the retouch is on the longest edge of the blank (rather than the shortest).

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

## Conclusion

94

95

96

97

98

99

Between ~55 and 40 kya, features such as the use of stone-tipped weaponry, bone tools, personal ornaments, and coloring minerals are not specific to IUP industries¹⁶,¹⁷. Accordingly, Initial Upper Palaeolithic assemblages in Asia are defined on a strict technological foundation – i.e., production of points and blades from a sub-volumetric, non-Levallois reduction system(s), burin-cores. We believe that such definition provides an objective archaeological meaning to the concept, which is essential during a critical period for the expansion of *Homo sapiens* across Eurasia¹⁵. We, therefore, argue that this attribution must remain based on lithic technological criteria and applied with discretion. Although Yang *et al*. have added valuable new data concerning cultural diversification in northern China, the technological features necessary to support an IUP attribution are absent. In the case of Shiyu, such an attribution neither enhances our understanding of this assemblage nor of the Initial Upper Palaeolithic. As it stands, an ‘Initial Upper Palaeolithic’ attribution simply detracts from more pressing issues concerning the integrity of the assemblage, the character of the technology, and the potential association with personal ornaments.

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111
112 **Author contribution:**

113 L.C. and I.D. wrote the original draft with editorial and content support from M.S. N.Z. and P.Z.

114 provided extra references and contributed to the writing with N.T.

115

116 **Acknowledgements:**

117 L.C., I.D. and M.S. are funded by the NWO (VI.C.191.07 awarded to M. Soressi).

118

119 **Ethics declarations:**

120 The authors declare no competing interests.

121

122 **References**

123 1. Yang, S.-X. et al. Initial Upper Palaeolithic material culture by 45,000 years ago at Shiyu in northern China. Nat. Ecol. Evol. (2024) doi:10.1038/s41559-023-02294-4.

125 2. Rybin, E. P. Tools, beads, and migrations: Specific cultural traits in the Initial Upper Paleolithic of Southern Siberia and Central Asia. Quat. Int. 347, 39-52 (2014).

127 3. Derevyanko, A., Petrin, V., Rybin, E. & Chevalkov, L. Paleolithic complexes of the stratified part of the Kara-Bom site (Mousterian/Upper Paleolithic). (1998).

129 4. Derevianko, A. et al. The technology of early Upper Paleolithic lithic reduction in Northern Mongolia: The Tolbor-4 site. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 29, 16-38 (2007).

131 5. Zwyns, N. The Initial Upper Paleolithic in Central and East Asia: blade technology, cultural transmission, and implications for human dispersals. Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology, 4(3), 19 (2021).

134 6. Carmignani, L. & Soressi, M. Ahead of the Times: Blade and Bladelet Production Associated with Neandertal Remains at the Bau de l'Aubesier (Mediterranean France) Between MIS 7 and MIS 5d. PaleoAnthropology 2023, 1-33 (2023).

137 7. Li, F., Kuhn, S. L., Chen, F. & Gao, X. Intra-assemblage variation in the macro-blade assemblage from the 1963 excavation at Shuidonggou locality 1, northern China, in the context of regional variation. Plos One 15, e0234576 (2020).

140 8. Brantingham, P. J., Krivoshapkin, A., Jinzeng, L. & Tserendagva, Y. The initial upper paleolithic in northeast Asia. Curr. Anthropol. 42, 735-746 (2001).
142 9. Škrdla, P. *The Bohunician in Moravia and adjoining regions*. Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 41, 2–13 (2013).

144 10. Boëda, E. *Le Concept Levallois: Variabilité Des Méthodes*. (1994).

145 11. Li, F. et al. *A refutation of reported Levallois technology from Guanyindong Cave in south China*. Natl. Sci. Rev. 6, 1094–1096 (2019).

147 12. Usik, V. I., Rose, J. I., Hilbert, Y. H., Van Peer, P. & Marks, A. E. Nubian Complex reduction strategies in Dhofar, southern Oman. Quat. Int. 300, 244–266 (2013).

149 13. Bonilauri, S. *Les outils du Paléolithique moyen, une mémoire technique oubliée? Approche technofonctionnelle appliquée à un assemblage lithique de conception Levallois provenant du site d'Umm el Tlel (Syrie centrale)*. (Paris 10, 2010).

152 14. Zwyns, N. *The initial upper paleolithic in Central and East Asia: blade technology, cultural transmission, and implications for human dispersals*. J. Paleolit. Archaeol. 4, 19 (2021).

154 15. Kuhn, S. L. & Zwyns, N. *Rethinking the initial Upper Paleolithic*. Quat. Int. 347, 29–38 (2014).

155 16. Julien, M., David, F., Girard, M. & Roblin-Jouve, A. *Le Châtelperronien de La Grotte Du Renne (Arcy-Sur-Cure, Yonne, France): Les Fouilles d'André Leroi-Gourhan (1949-1963)*. (Musée national de Préhistoire, 2019).

158 17. Arrighi, S. et al. *Bone tools, ornaments and other unusual objects during the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Italy*. Quat. Int. 551, 169–187 (2019).

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169
a Blade core comparison

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Organized parallel
removals

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>(1) IUP blade core from Shuidonggou</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>(2) IUP blade core from Tolbor-16</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>(3) So-called blade core from Shiyu</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

2x magnification

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>(4) Disorganized removals</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

b Point comparison

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>(5) IUP laminar point
from Tolbor-16</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

Convergent scars

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>(6) IUP point from
Stránská skála</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

Parallel scars

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>(7) Quadrangular flakes from Shiyu</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

c Platform comparison

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>(8) Flakes from Shiyu</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>(9) Platform typology</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>(10) Chapeau de gendarme
platform from Umm el Tlel</figcaption></figure>