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

Shi-Xia Yang, Jia-Fu Zhang, Jian-Ping Yue, Fa-Xiang Huan, Andreu Ollé, Francesco D'errico, Michael Petraglia

► To cite this version:

Shi-Xia Yang, Jia-Fu Zhang, Jian-Ping Yue, Fa-Xiang Huan, Andreu Ollé, et al.. Reply to: An Initial Upper Palaeolithic attribution is not empirically supported at Shiyu, northern China. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2024, 9 (1), pp.38-41. 10.1038/s41559-024-02554-x. hal-05336705

HAL Id: hal-05336705

https://hal.science/hal-05336705v1

Submitted on 9 Dec 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.

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

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Reply to: 'An Initial Upper Palaeolithic attribution is not empirically
supported at Shiyu, northern China'

Shi-Xia Yang¹,², Jia-Fu Zhang³, Jian-Ping Yue¹,⁴, Fa-Xiang Huan¹, Andreu Ollé⁵,⁶, Francesco d'Errico⁷,⁸, Michael Petraglia²,⁹,¹⁰

1. Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and
   Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.

2. Australian Research Centre for Human Evolution, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

3. MOE Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China.

4. Department of History, Anhui University, Hefei, China.

5. Institut Català de Palaeoecologia Humana i Evolució Social (IPHES-CERCA), Zona Educacional 4, Campus Sescelades URV (Edifici W3), 43007, Tarragona, Spain.

6. Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Dept. d'Història i Història de l'Art, Av. Catalunya 35, 43002, Tarragona, Spain.

7. Université de Bordeaux, PACEA UMR 5199, CNRS, Pessac, France.

8. Centre for Early Sapiens Behaviour (SapienCE), Department of Archaeology, History, Cultural Studies and Religion, University of Bergen, Norway.

9. School of Social Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

10. Human Origins Program, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA.

Carmignani and colleagues contend that our identification of the oldest and easternmost Initial Upper Palaeolithic (IUP) at Shiyu, northern China¹, is based on a misuse of technological definitions and biased artefact sampling. However, this criticism is hampered by restrictive Eurocentric definitions and methodological misunderstandings. Carmignani et al. apply a narrow definition of the Asian IUP based on the presence of points and blades reduced from sub-volumetric, non-Levallois system, burin-cores. Shiyu does not perfectly conform to this definition, so they exclude its lithic industry from the IUP. We argue that this definition hampers understanding of modern human dispersals across Eurasia. Like any other discipline where classification is central, archaeologists define categories of objects and assemblages based on similarities in sets of traits. These categories are not inherently
meaningful; rather, their significance arises from assumptions about underlying biological and cultural processes. The assumption that lends meaning to the IUP is that it reflects a combination of demic and cultural diffusion processes associated with the spread of *Homo sapiens* throughout Eurasia². To understand this evolutionary history, we need to adopt a flexible comparative approach that uses the original IUP definition as a baseline rather than a set of strict, restrictive criteria. A more flexible approach may help to disentangle cultural innovations and diffusion occurring during or after demic diffusion, as well as cultural blending with local populations on a regional scale, thereby illuminating the complex interactions that certainly occurred, with possible implications for gene exchange. Success in this endeavor depends on being able to distinguish diffusion of innovation from cultural convergence. Opening up our definitions admittedly creates greater uncertainty about the drivers of similarity and the meaning that underlies cultural constructs³,⁴. But there are good reasons for taking this risk. Can we reasonably believe that in a territory of 44 million km² stretching from the Arctic to the Equator, the expansion of *Homo sapiens* over thousands of years, encountering different hominin species, was associated with a single, uniform technology? It is clear in this context that the strict application by Carmignani et al. of a “points-blades-and-volumetric-burin-core” definition, possibly useful to characterize the IUP in one region, will fail to capture the overall complexity of *Homo sapiens’* expansion in others. This strict Eurocentric definition and interpretive framework does not pay attention to regional traditions in which cultural novelties occur, possibly signaling the dispersal of *Homo sapiens* populations. Carmignani et al. suggest that Shiyu lithics share features of the European Mousterian. Implying relationship to lithic industries produced by Neanderthals discounts any element of novelty at Shiyu that could link to *Homo sapiens* dispersal, as suggested by previously discovered human remains at the site⁵.

Shiyu must be assessed within the context of regional technology. With few exceptions, lithic industries preceding and alongside Shiyu are characterised throughout China as core and flake technologies, a flaking strategy generally applied to lower-quality raw materials⁶. Core-flake strategies do not involve preparation of striking platforms, typically producing
flakes of undetermined morphology that are rarely retouched and shaped into formal tools⁶.
Shiyu is different, as the remainder of our response illustrates.

## Lithic artefact sampling

Carmignani and colleagues question the selective nature of the Shiyu assemblage, but our research strategy responded to these constraints given the history of research at Shiyu⁸, the incomplete nature of the collection studied, and the lack of information on the exact location of each artefact within Layer 2. Due to its sorted nature, the lithic assemblage had to be evaluated conservatively, without weighting the proportion of diagnostic artefacts. We therefore did not present lithic percentages in our paper, as this would have been an inaccurate way to characterize the assemblage. Carmignani and colleagues' calculation of percentages of particular artefact categories is therefore misleading.

## Penecontemporaneity of the Layer 2 artefacts

Carmignani et al. express doubts about the depositional integrity of Shiyu’s archaeological assemblage, pointing to the thickness of Layer 2. However, the penecontemporaneity of the Layer 2 artefacts is supported by a range of information sources in the original paper¹, including the similar state of preservation of the stone artefacts and fossils and the taphonomic history of the faunal remains. Moreover, the ages of the numerous ¹⁴C and OSL samples from Layer 2 are closely grouped, ranging between 46.7-44.2 and 45.0-42.5 ka with 95.4% confidence interval (Fig. 1). The age-depth model for Layer 2 supports the interpretation of a rapid deposition at ca. 45 ka, associated with a brief period of cultural occupation.
## Blade production

Carmignani and colleagues deny the existence of blade production at Shiyu and instead indicate that the blades are a product of simple flake or bipolar production. We do not agree. The Shiyu blade core is in the maintenance stage (Fig. 2a:1) rather than in a blade reduction process, which would show parallel flake scars⁸. When referring to the blade core in the maintenance stage (Fig. 2a:1), Carmignani et al. compare it to bidirectional Levallois blade cores. Although some IUP assemblages such as Tolbor-16⁹ are characterized by bidirectional blade production, more widespread reduction systems are attested in Central and East Asian assemblages labeled as IUP¹⁰. Carmignani et al. ignore the presence of diagnostic blade debitage products, i.e. blade crests and blades as tool blanks (Fig. 2a: 2-9). At Shiyu, length-width ratios (Supplementary Fig. 27) and a one-way ANOVA test shows that significant differences exist among the blades, flakes, and bipolar flakes (F = 71.76104, p < 0.0001), with the blade method producing elongated blanks, further supporting blade production as a component of the Shiyu lithic technology.

## Points and Levallois production

Carmignani et al. argue that two artefacts described as points are quadrangular or sub-quadrangular in shape and lack convergent dorsal scars; they conclude that these pieces could have been produced by various free-hand percussion methods, not necessarily by the Levallois method. However, there are points exhibiting a triangular morphology with convergent dorsal scars (Fig. 2b:10,11-15). The morphology of sub-quadrangular and irregular points is due to distal impact factors and the application of continuous retouching on their ventral surfaces (e.g., Fig. 2b:10,11,14).

As we pointed out, the Shiyu assemblage available for study lacked cores, which limited information about use of the Levallois method. Carmignani et al. dismiss our identification of
flakes with striking platforms en chapeau de gendarme arguing that they are straight and
convex. However, such platforms are rare even in collections where they are best
documented¹¹,¹². Carmignani et al. fail to consider the variability of these features and how
they are influenced by different raw materials. We maintain that even if less pronounced than
in textbook cases, talons en chapeu de gendarme are present at Shiyu (e.g., Fig. 2b).
Moreover, we do not see how the question of the shape of the talons on flakes, otherwise
identifiable as Levallois, significantly strengthens their argument that the Shiyu assemblage is
not representative of the IUP.

## Toolkits

Contrary to Carmignani et al., we are not surprised by the presence of a wide variety of tools
at Shiyu, including scrapers and notches, as such tools are found in Siberian IUP sites¹³,¹⁴.
Carmignani et al. question the interpretation of a single end scraper from Shiyu, dismissing
our technological diagnosis. However, we documented the presence of three end scrapers at
Shiyu, all with detailed functional analyses (Fig. 4: B-7; Supplementary Figs. 36 and 37) ¹.
Two of the end scrapers show typical fractures below the tool front, suggesting that they were
intentionally fractured (Fig. 2-c), a common practice in the IUP of the Altai region¹⁵.

In sum, even if we accept the idea that the Shiyu assemblage represents a series of close
occupations rather than a single incursion at ca. 45 ka, it would still testify to the presence of
cultural innovations at the site compared to previous and contemporary assemblages, and in
association with human remains described as *Homo sapiens*⁵. Some of the cultural traits
identified at Shiyu are shared with neighboring regions where the narrow application of the “
points-blades-and-volumetric-burin-core” yardstick has led authors to attribute them to the
IUP. Other traits at Shiyu are original, as would be expected with the spread and encounters
of *Homo sapiens* over the vast geography of an already populated Eurasia.
Acknowledgements

We thank two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on the first draft of this reply.

References

1. Yang, S. X. et al. Initial Upper Palaeolithic material culture by 45,000 years ago at Shiyu in northern China. *Nat. Ecol. Evol.* **8**, 552–563 (2024).

2. Zwyns, N. The Initial Upper Paleolithic in Central and East Asia: Blade technology, cultural transmission, and implications for human dispersals. *J. Paleo. Arch.* **4**, 19 (2021)

3. Groucutt, H. S. in Culture History and Convergent Evolution: Can We Detect Population in Prehistory? (ed Groucutt, H. S.) 1–12 (Springer, Cham, 2020).

4. O'Brien, M. J., Buchanan, B. & Eren, M. I. in Convergent Evolution in Stone-Tools Technology (eds O'Brien, M. J., Buchanan, B. & Eren, M. I.) 3–21 (The MIT Press, 2018).

5. Jia, L. P., Gai, P. & You, Y. Z. The report of excavation at Shiyu site in Shanxi Province. *Acta Archaeol. Sin.* **1**, 39–58 (1972)

6. Yang, S., Deng, C., Zhu, R. & Petraglia, M. The Paleolithic in the Nihewan Basin, China: Evolutionary history of an Early to Late Pleistocene record in eastern Asia. *Evol. Anthropol.* **29**, 125–142 (2020).

7. Wang, F. G. et al. Innovative ochre processing and tool use in China 40,000 years ago. *Nature* **603**, 284–289 (2022).

8. Shimelmitz, R., Barkai, R. & Gopher, A. Systematic blade production at late Lower Paleolithic (400–200 kyr) Qesem Cave, Israel. *J. Hum. Evol.* **61**, 458–479 (2011).

9. Zwyns, N. et al. The Northern Route for human dispersal in Central and Northeast Asia: New evidence from the site of Tolbor-16, Mongolia. *Sci. Rep.* **9**, 11759 (2019).

10. Rybin, E. P. Tools, beads, and migrations: Specific cultural traits in the Initial Upper Paleolithic of Southern Siberia and Central Asia. *Quatern. Int.* **347**, 39–52 (2014).

11. Zaidner, Y. & Weinstein-Evron, M. The emergence of the Levallois technology in the Levant: A view from the Early Middle Paleolithic site of Misliya Cave, Israel. *J. Hum. Evol.* **144**, 102785 (2020).

12. Shimelmitz, R. & Kuhn, S. L. Early Mousterian Levallois technology in Unit IX of Tabun cave. *PaleoAnthropology*, 1–27 (2013)

13. Kuhn, S. L. & Zwyns, N. Rethinking the Initial Upper Paleolithic. *Quatern. Int.* **347**, 29–38 (2014).

14. Derevianko, A. P. et al. Early Upper Paleolithic stone tool technologies of Northern Mongolia: The case of Tolbor-4 and Tolbor-15. *Archaeol. Ethnol. Anth.* **41**, 21–37 (2013).

15. Slavinsky, V. S. et al. Intentional fragmentation of blades in the Initial Upper Paleolithic industries of the Kara-Bom site (Altai, Russia). *Archaeol. Res. Asia* **17**, 50–61 (2019).
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1:** Age-depth model for Layer 2, the cultural layer at Shiyu. The modelled ages are from Extended Data Table 1¹. Note that additional radiocarbon ages on three cut-marked bones supports this chronological information; however, these ages are not included in the model as no depth information was available for them. Error bars refer to ± 1 standard error.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2:** Blade technology and Levallois points at Shiyu. a. 1. Blade core and its technological description; 2. Crest blade and its technological description; 3-9. Blades and retouched blades. b. marginally retouched Levallois points showing direction of dorsal scars and 3D scans of the striking platforms. 10-13. Points with impact factures 11,14. Points bearing continuous retouch on the ventral face; 15. Retouched Levallois point; c. 16-17. End scrapers show intentional fragmentation, an attribute documented in other IUP sites.</figcaption></figure>