Siberia and neighboring regions in the Last Glacial Maximum: did people occupy northern Eurasia at that time?

An updated analysis of Paleolithic sites in Siberia and the Urals 14C-dated to the coldest phase of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), with its timespan currently determined as ca. 23,000–19,000 BP (ca. 27, 300–22,900 cal BP), is presented. It is demonstrated that people continuously occupied the southern and central parts of Siberia and the Russian Far East (up to 58° N latitude), and perhaps sporadically settled regions located even further north, up to 70° N, throughout the LGM. This is in accord with our previous data, but is now based on a larger dataset, and also on a paleoecological analysis of the major pre-LGM archaeological sites in Siberia and the Urals north of 58° N. It is clear that Paleolithic people in northern Eurasia were able to cope with the treeless tundra environment well in advance of the LGM, at least at ca. 34,000–26,000 BP (ca. 38,500–30,000 cal BP). Therefore, a high degree of adaptation to cold conditions allowed people to survive in Siberia during the LGM

Home Range Size in Middle Pleistocene China and Human Dispersal Patterns in Eastern and Central Asia

Home range size in Middle Pleistocene China can be explored based on various lines of evidence. This paper provides a brief review of home range size from the perspectives of raw material source distance and the geographic location of archaeological localities in the eastern half of China. In most cases, hominids exploited lithic materials for tool manufacture from sources close to their camps. This is indicative of small home range size in the Middle Pleistocene of this region. Hominid occupation of upland localities in the later Middle Pleistocene may reflect a larger home range than previously. In the wider geographic context, based on faunal dispersals, hominid nlOrphology, and also with reference to some relevant ecological hypotheses, it is difficult to defend the idea of geographic isolation of Eastern Asia in the Pleistocene. Rather, it seems that hominid dispersal within Eurasia may have been a significant behavioral attribute contributing to the evolution and survival of Homo species. KEYWORDS: China, home range, dispersal

Shuidonggou localities 1 and 2 in northern China: archaeology and chronology of the Initial Upper Palaeolithic in north-east Asia

Shuidonggou localities 1 and 2 provide key evidence for the Initial Upper Palaeolithic of northeast Asia. In a recent article in Antiquity (87 (2013), 368–383), Li et al. proposed a new chronology, building on the earlier results of Madsen et al. (Antiquity 75 (2001), 705–716). Here Susan Keates and Yaroslav Kuzmin take issue with the new chronology. The article is followed by a response from Li and Gao

Siberia and neighboring regions in the Last Glacial Maximum: did people occupy northern Eurasia at that time?

An updated analysis of Paleolithic sites in Siberia and the Urals 14C-dated to the coldest phase of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), with its timespan currently determined as ca. 23,000–19,000 BP (ca. 27, 300–22,900 cal BP), is presented. It is demonstrated that people continuously occupied the southern and central parts of Siberia and the Russian Far East (up to 58° N latitude), and perhaps sporadically settled regions located even further north, up to 70° N, throughout the LGM. This is in accord with our previous data, but is now based on a larger dataset, and also on a paleoecological analysis of the major pre-LGM archaeological sites in Siberia and the Urals north of 58° N. It is clear that Paleolithic people in northern Eurasia were able to cope with the treeless tundra environment well in advance of the LGM, at least at ca. 34,000–26,000 BP (ca. 38,500–30,000 cal BP). Therefore, a high degree of adaptation to cold conditions allowed people to survive in Siberia during the LGM

Shuidonggou localities 1 and 2 in northern China: archaeology and chronology of the Initial Upper Palaeolithic in north-east Asia

Shuidonggou localities 1 and 2 provide key evidence for the Initial Upper Palaeolithic of northeast Asia. In a recent article in Antiquity (87 (2013), 368–383), Li et al. proposed a new chronology, building on the earlier results of Madsen et al. (Antiquity 75 (2001), 705–716). Here Susan Keates and Yaroslav Kuzmin take issue with the new chronology. The article is followed by a response from Li and Gao