The article considers a model of transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic in East and Southeast Asia. The Early and Middle Paleolithic industries in the Sino-Malay zone differed in all technical and typological parameters from those in the rest of Eurasia and Africa. Materials from Chinese and Korean archaeological sites indicate the autochthonous development of the flake industry during the Early and Middle Paleolithic. The appearance in East and South-East Asia of such tools as bifaces and Levallois points, which raise questions about the influence of representatives of the second wave of human population migration to this territory, is explained by the convergence process and changes in adaptation strategies. Lamellar and microplate components in the Upper Paleolithic complexes of the Sino-Malay zone have been recorded since the turn of 30-20 thousand years ago. Their appearance is associated with the spread of human populations from Southern Siberia and Mongolia. At the same time, the process of acculturation rather than replacement of the local population by migrants took place, which is confirmed by anthropological data indicating the autochthonous development of modern humans in East and South-East Asia.

Key words: Pleistocene, Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition, convergence, adaptation, acculturation, China, Korean Peninsula.

Introduction

In the Sino-Malay zone, the transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic took place according to a completely different scenario (model) than in other regions of Eurasia (Derevyanko, 2006a, b). This is due to the fact that the Early and Middle Paleolithic industries of East and Southeast Asia differed in all technical and typological indicators from those in the rest of Eurasia and Africa.

East and South-East Asia was probably inhabited about 1.8-1.6 million years AGO by two migration flows of archanthropes with the Odduvai industry and the Lower Paleolithic microindustry (Derevyanko, 2009). From the initial settlement up to 30 thousand years AGO, industries developed mainly on an autochthonous basis in this territory. The global wave of migration of archanthropes with the Acheulean industry did not spread east of India and Mongolia. On the territory of China, bifacial technology convergently appeared ca. 1 million years AGO - much earlier than in other regions of Eurasia, with the exception of the Middle East. In the Sino-Malay zone, the Levallois system of primary splitting is not known in the Early and Middle Paleolithic. The entire Paleolithic period is characterized mainly by three methods: bipolar, hitting a hard bump on the nucleus and chipping blanks with an anvil.

In China, as in the whole of East and South-East Asia, due to the lack of the Levallois system

page 2
It is impossible to draw a clear boundary between the Early and Middle Paleolithic of the Primary cleavage. Here, all the main technical and typological indicators of the Paleolithic during the early, Middle, and most of the Upper Pleistocene differed little from each other. Nevertheless, I believe that we cannot agree with the opinion of some researchers about the monotony, inertia and backwardness of the Paleolithic industries of the Sino-Malay zone in comparison with those of the adjacent territories. Bifacial technology, for example, appeared in China almost 500 thousand years earlier than in Europe. Its appearance, like many other innovations, is associated with special adaptation strategies developed by archanthropes in Southeast and East Asia, adapting their cultural tradition to the ecological conditions of the region of their habitat. The use of wood and bamboo probably led to the emergence and widespread use of various chopping tools: choppers, choppers, products such as choppers and cleavers. Bifacially processed chopping tools in China existed throughout the Paleolithic. But they appeared convergently in those areas where the ecological situation required it, and disappeared when they were no longer necessary.

Even in the last century, scientists paid attention to the difference between the Paleolithic of China and the paleolithic of other regions of Eurasia and its uneven division into three stages (Schick and Dong, 1993; Schick, 1994; Gao and Olsen, 1997; Gao Xing, 1999; Ranov, 1999). When comparing Early Palaeolithic sites with localities dated in the chronological interval of 150-30 thousand years AGO, it is obvious that there are no fundamental differences in their industries in all the main technical and typological indicators. Based on this, the three-stage division of the Paleolithic in the Sino-Malay zone should be abandoned by analogy with the rest of Eurasia and Africa, and the Middle Paleolithic should be excluded from the periodization, since there are no criteria for its allocation. The division of the Chinese Paleolithic into lower and upper, or early and late, confirms the specifics of the development of Paleolithic industries in the Sino-Malay zone, but in no way their backwardness or archaism. The three-term division of the Paleolithic was made based on materials from Western Europe. But if we take a critical approach to their analysis, it is obvious that there is also a large mosaic of Early and Middle Paleolithic industries, especially if we consider the problem as a whole in Eurasia. Criteria for identifying the Middle Paleolithic in this vast area are clearly insufficient, and they are not always convincing, chronologically uncorrelated, and often quite formal and declarative.

The authors attribute a different number of localities to the Middle Paleolithic in China: Qiu Zhonglan [1989-30], Wei Qi [1989], Wu Xinzhi, and F. Poirier [Wu Xinzhi, Poirier, 1995] - more than 40. Zhang Sens-shui (1987) identified 42 Middle Paleolithic localities in the north of China alone. This is due to several reasons: the chronological range of the Middle Paleolithic is not sufficiently defined; there are no clear criteria; new dates have been obtained for a number of important archaeological sites whose age was determined using biostratigraphy, with the advent of radiometric and other absolute dating methods. In general, relatively few stratified monuments have been identified in China. There are 17 known sites with a total of about 100 artefacts; in five of them, the number of finds slightly exceeds 1000 copies, and most of the sites are represented by single stone tools (Gao Xing, 1999).

The most informative localities of the final stage of the middle - first half of the Upper Pleistocene are Zhoukoudian-15, Dingcun, Xujiayao, Dali, Yaotougou, Shuigou, Gezidong, etc. Let's look at those of them that give the most complete picture of the industry in the chronological range of 130-30 thousand years AGO.

Middle Paleolithic sites in China

Until the two-stage periodization of the Chinese Paleolithic is accepted by researchers, we will have to use the term "Middle Paleolithic", referring to the sites of the final middle - first half of the Upper Pleistocene. One of the most researched locations of this time is Zhoukoudian-15. It was discovered in 1932 and was excavated for three years (1935-1937) [Jia Lanpo, 1936; Pei, 1939; Gao, 2000a; Gao Xing, 2000]. The location of Zhoukoudian-15 is probably wrongly attributed to cave-type sites. By the time people settled there, the roof had already collapsed and, most likely, the inhabitants of the parking lot lived under a rock canopy. Loose sediments were exposed to a depth of 10 m. The upper level consists of yellowish loam with limestone inclusions. Stone products were found throughout the entire thickness (Pei, 1939). Given that there are no fundamental bottom-up differences in the industry, Pei Wenzhong did not consider it necessary to divide the artifacts into layers, but described the material as a single whole.

More than 10 thousand stone products were found. 95.2% of them are made of quartz, 3 % - from various igneous rocks, and 1.8 % - from other raw materials. All the major archaeological sites in the Zhoukoudian area were located in close proximity to each other and due to the immutability of geological and geomor-

page 3
Under certain geological conditions, people used the same sources of raw materials for making tools. The inhabitants of location 15 used local raw materials to a greater extent than at other sites.

The most complete study of stone tools from Zhoukoudian-15 was done by Gao Xing in his doctoral dissertation [Gao, 2000b]. He attributed 130 nuclei, 439 cleavages, 91 fragments of cleavages, 87 bipolar cleavages, 7 chipping points, and 4,829 industrial wastes to artifacts representing primary cleavage (Gao, 2000b; Gao Xing, 2000).

Most of the nuclei (126 specimens) are made of quartz pebbles. Gao Xing based on three criteria - the direction of cleavage of flakes, the number of impact pads and their size - identified three subclasses of nuclei: simple, disc-shaped and polyhedral. To simple nuclei, which have one or two shock pads, he attributed 23 copies. Several flakes were removed from them, an average of about four. Chipping was carried out without a specially prepared impact pad, in most cases it retained a pebble crust. Nuclei of this type were used infrequently. Their sizes are different: the minimum length is 34 mm, the maximum is 140 mm. From the disc-shaped nuclei (Fig. 1), the flakes were chipped alternately: first on one side, and then, using the negative of this removal as a shock pad, on the opposite side. Most of the nucleoli of this type were oval in plan and xiphoid in cross-section. Disc-shaped nuclei were often used until they were completely depleted. The most numerous group consisted of polyhedral or orthogonal nuclei (74 specimens). They had several impact pads without special treatment, and the chipping of flakes was carried out haphazardly. Among the nuclei of this type, there are few strongly worked specimens, mostly they are large in size, with traces of a small number of removals.

At the Zhoukoudian-1 site, located 70 m northwest of the Zhoukoudian-15 site, the bipolar splitting method was used as the main one, which was first recorded on this monument. Sometimes it was used at other Paleolithic sites in China, especially in the northern part of it. At the Zhoukoudian-15 site, only 11.6% of the nuclei and flakes were attributed to the bipolar cleavage principle (Fig. 2), and the main method was a direct bump on the nucleus, and the flakes were retouched in the same way. Chinese researchers have a well-founded belief that the widespread use of the bipolar method is due to the need to use poor quality raw materials - vein quartz, which was abundant, and in general this method is not effective [Gao Xing, 2000].

Among the flakes in the collection from Zhoukoudyan-15, Gao Xing identifies 7 specimens that can be attributed to plates based on the fact that they have a length twice as long as the width and are more or less of the correct shape.-

1. Disc-shaped nuclei from the Zhoukoudian-15 locality (according to [Gao Xing, 2000]).

2. Bipolar fragments from the Zhoukoudian-15 locality (according to [Gao Xing, 2000]).

page 4

3. Stone tools from the Zhoukoudian-15 locality (according to [Jia Lanpo, 1984]).

we. The attention of many researchers is attracted by a thin flint flake of a regular sub-triangular shape with facets along one edge on the dorsal side (Fig. 3, 13). On its surface there are negatives of three shots converging at one end, opposite the impact bump. According to the main technical and morphological characteristics, this artifact is close to the Levallois pinnacles. Many researchers often classified it in this way, which led to the conclusion that the Levallois principle of primary splitting existed in China. Having studied the technology of primary stone processing at the Zhoukoudian-15 site, Gao Xing made an important conclusion: the "Levallois peak" is the result of applying radial technology or alternative (alternate) chipping rather than Levallois technology [Ibid., p. 10]. In China, with the exception of Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia, which are adjacent to Mongolia and Southern Siberia, the Levallois principle of primary splitting was not known (Derevyanko, 2005, 2006b).

Flakes from the Zhoukoudian-15 site are mostly small in size and irregular in shape. There are no traces of touch-up on the drum pads. The removal of flakes from the nuclei was carried out with stone chippers. During excavations, 7 specimens were found: five from volcanic rocks and two from sandstone. At one or two ends of them, you can see potholes and crumpling formed during the chipping of flakes. Two bumpers have potholes in the center of the pebbles. They were used as a miniature anvil. The presence of a large amount of industrial waste indicates that stone tools were made directly at the site of the parking lot.

1,282 retouched items were found at the Zhoukoudian-15 site. The vast majority of tools belong to the scraper-shaped ones - 1 188 copies (93 %). They are divided into several groups: single side scrapers - 1,043 copies; double-edged side scrapers-113 copies; double-edged side scrapers-12 copies; miniature scrapers-12 copies; scrapers-8 copies. Chopper-shaped tools, cleavers or cleavers, points, notched-toothed products, awls, incisors, spheroids, flakes with retouching are also highlighted. Most of the tools have one-sided retouching and were processed mainly from the dorsal side. Most of them are small in size and irregular in shape. Retouching is irregular and gives the impression of being disordered [Gao, 2000b, p. 159]. But some products (points, scrapers) have a carefully treated work surface, indicating that regular fine-facet retouching was used if necessary. Large tools such as choppers and cleavers were decorated with large chips with an additional touch-up of the working blade.

page 5
Zhoukoudian-15 is dated in the range of 140-110 thousand years BC, which does not contradict geochronological data. Despite the fact that the Zhoukoudian-1 and -15 localities are only 70 m apart, they have significant differences in the primary cleavage. According to other technical and typological characteristics, these complexes do not differ [Gao, 2000a, b].

One of the most important sites of the end of the Middle - first half of the Upper Pleistocene are the sites united under the common name Dingcun. They are located in the area of Xiangfen County Town and Chai Zhuang Railway Station in the south of the prov. Shanxi. The first parking lot was opened in 1953, and stationary works were carried out in September - November 1954 with the participation of Pei Wenzhong, Jia Lanpo, Wu Rukang, Liu Xianting, Qiu Zhonglan, Wang Jieyi, and Lu Junye. Later, 14 sites with Paleolithic tools and remains of Pleistocene fauna were discovered on the third terrace of the Fenhe River, a tributary of the Yellow River. In 11 of them (54: 90, 91, 93 - 100, 102) 2,005 stone products and 27 animal bones were found. At 54: 100, three fossilized teeth of the "Dingcun man" were found, and later a fragment of a child's skull was found (Wang Jian and Wang Yizhen, 2004). In the 1970s, localities were discovered on both banks of the Fenhe River 76: 006 - 008; 79: 05. All of them were located at the base of Terrace III, as well as the sites studied in 1954, in a layer of sandy gravel. In 1979, on the eastern bank of the river. Fenhe to the north of the Chai Zhuang Railway Station, locations 79: 02 - 04 were discovered. They were located in the sandy-pebble layer of the Lishu loess on the fourth terrace. In subsequent years, localities 80: 01 and 94: 01 were discovered. Paleolithic sites were partially excavated on the western bank of the Fenhe River, including the Late Paleolithic 77: 01 site with a microindustry called Chaysy.

The discovery of the Dingcun complex played a major role in the study of the Paleolithic in China. Prior to that, China had accumulated extensive experience in the study of cave sites, but here archaeologists had to conduct excavations in river and lake alluvial deposits and take into account not only the specifics of the vertical distribution of cultural horizons, but also their planigraphy, the possibility of redeposition of artifacts under the influence of a watercourse. Currently, 27 localities have been discovered in this area, including three sites with Lower Pleistocene fauna [Gam same]; 20 sites are located on the third terrace of the Fenhe River (Huang Weiwen et al., 2005). The archaeological sites of the Dingcun complex belong to the Lower, Middle and Late Pleistocene.

Throughout the study of the Dingtsun sites, there are discussions about their chronostratigraphy. The faunal remains accompanying the finds are of different times: along with the animals of the early Upper Pleistocene stage, the Middle Pleistocene ones are also represented. Different dates were obtained for parking lots. Basically, they tried to date the location 54: 100, where the fossilized teeth of the "Dingcun man"were found. The nonequilibrium-uranium method was used to obtain a date of 210-160 thousand years ago (Chen and Yuan, 1988), and the amino acid racemization date was estimated at about 90-70 thousand years ago (Zhou, 1989). Localities 54: 97 and 100 are dated by the paleomagnetic method. The gravel layer, which was a culture-bearing horizon, showed an inverse polarity corresponding to the Blake episode (122-119 KA BP). The most probable date of the main locations of the Dingcun complex is 120-70 Ka BP, i.e. they belong to the first half of the Upper Pleistocene. Materials from these sites are extremely important for correlating the Paleolithic sites of East Asia, and establishing a more precise chronostratigraphy of these sites is one of the tasks of Chinese archaeology.

The earliest stage of the Dingcun industry, according to Wang Jian, was studied on the fourth terrace of the Fenhe River (Wang Jian et al., 1994). There were found nuclei, flakes, choppers, massive spiky points, including triangular ones, scrapers, scrapers, notched products, chopping tools, chisels, bolas, etc. Typologically, they are close to the stone inventory of the main localities studied in the 1950s. For the manufacture of stone tools, cornea was mainly used, much less often-flint, quartz, limestone, quartzite, sandstone, gneiss, etc. The raw material mainly comes from the alluvium of the river.

Pei Wenzhong and Jia Lanpo [Pei Wenzhung et al., 1958] made a detailed study of stone artefacts from the Dingcun localities and identified nuclei, flakes, choppers, massive triangular points similar to choppers, bolas, unifas, polyhedral tools, pointed points, miniature points, and scrapers. Nuclei make up about 10 % of the stone inventory. The most typical ones are large ones with negative images taken in various directions, but mostly from the edges to the center. They are typologically similar to disc-shaped nuclei (Figs. 4, 2-5). For the vast majority of cores, the impact pad was not specially prepared. Typologically, subprismatic nuclei stand apart and have a fan-shaped working platform, i.e. a plane of cleavage of flakes and lamellar flakes from them. Since 1,566 artefacts were found in situ out of 2,005 stone objects collected in 1954, and 439 were found on the surface and their origin is unclear, I am convinced that attributing these nuclei to the main culture-containing horizons is incorrect. Among the flakes in the Dingcun collection, some researchers distinguish Levallois flakes. In the parking lot of the Dingcun complex, as well as on all other sites-

page 6

4. Scrabbles (1) and nuclei (2-5) from the Dingcun locality (according to [Jia Lanpo, 1984]).

In some Early Paleolithic localities in China, the Levallois cleavage system was not used, and these flakes, as in the Zhoukoudian-15 locality, were cleaved from disc-shaped nuclei.

Among the guns, massive trihedral pinnacles and pinnacles are highlighted. They were made from pebbles (Figs. 5, 5, 11) and large flakes (Fig. 5, 2, 12, 14). The pebbles had bifacial treatment. Their entire surface was treated with large chips with additional touch-up of smaller ones at the edges. Massive trihedral pinnacles and pinnacles were subjected to two-sided processing to varying degrees. Some of the points were carefully retouched on both sides. Others have only one or more chips on one side. Special mention should be made of products with a carefully retouched elongated tip, the so-called Dingcun points (Figs. 5, 13). As a rule, their surface is more carefully treated with chips, and the edges and tip are corrected with a smaller retouch. These items are assigned by some researchers to a special category of peaks of the Dingcun complex [Ibid.]. Anyone who has studied the Dingcun Paleolithic complex has no doubt that there are bifacially worked tools, including pointed ones. But these products have nothing to do with the Acheulean industry, either in terms of technical and typological characteristics, or chronologically. And according to one type of weapon, it is completely illegal to attribute the complex to the Acheulean. It is important to note that the technical and typological characteristics of these tools are not related to earlier bifacially processed products of Baise and other locations of the Early Paleolithic. They appeared in Dintsuni convergently as a result of the development of new adaptation strategies in the early Upper Pleistocene. The Dingcun collection includes not only large spikelets, but also small ones (4-7 cm). They were made from flakes and lamellar chips. The lateral edges and tip were treated with chips on the dorsal side and corrected with retouching.

Among the tools identified are scrapers and scraper-like tools, which were made from flakes of various sizes and shapes. Simple side scrapers are made on large flakes (Fig. 5, 1, 7, 9), some have a working blade length of up to 20 cm. On the dorsal side, they are treated with chips of various sizes, and a straight or slightly convex working blade is treated with one-and multi-row retouching. There are also double scrapers. They are treated with chips on the dorsal side, and the working blade is decorated with different facet retouching (Fig. 5, 3). They are rare.-

page 7

5. Stone tools from the Dingcun site (po: [Jia Lanpo, 1984]). 1, 3, 4, 7, 9 - scrapers; 2, 12, 14-spiky points; 5, 11 - bifacial spiky points; 6 - notched product; 8, 10-nuclei; 13-Dingtsun gable.

genteel scrapers. They are also of considerable size (Figs. 5, 4). The working blades and points are decorated with large retouching on the dorsal side. Smaller scraper-shaped tools were made from flakes. Often they had several working edges. The dorsal side was partially processed, the working blades were corrected by retouching. 5, 6), large flakes of irregular shape were used for the manufacture of notched products (Fig. Their working blade was decorated with a large retouch on the dorsal side, often around the entire perimeter. Choppers and choppers stand out among the chopping tools. Most choppers are made from nuclei. Chopping tools with a wide blade are considered by some researchers to be jibs, which cannot be considered justified, since these products differ significantly from Acheulean jibs. The flakes in the collection, with retouching and without additional processing, could be used for wood and bone work.

There is no single point of view about the place of the Dingcun industry in the Paleolithic of China. Zhang Senshui (1993) believes that the Paleolithic Dingtsuni localities do not represent a homogeneous complex. He assigned parking lots 54: 100 and 102 to one group, and all the others to the other. Stone tools of the first group, which are of medium and small size, are attributed to the Zhou-koudian-15, Xujiao, and Dali microliths industry, while the second group belongs to a different tradition. Wang Jian and Wang Yizhen [2004] consider the materials of some Dingtsuni localities to be redeposited. According to the authors, the further down the river they are located, the more there are miniature flakes and tools in them, which were much more often moved by the watercourse. It is difficult to fully agree with this statement, it raises many questions, but the fact of some redefinition of materials is indisputable.

A number of researchers divide the Dingcun complex into three stages, based not only on technical and typological differences in industries, but also on different geological and geomorphological positions of cultural horizons (Wang Jian et al., 1994; Wang Jian and Wang Yizhen, 2004). The early stage includes localities in the sand-pebble layer of the Lishu loess on the fourth terrace of the Fenhe River, and the middle stage includes the main localities of the complex, the culture-containing horizons of which lie in the sand-pebble layers of the third terrace. According to the main technical and typological indicators, these stages are very close to each other and form, from the point of view of the dynamics of industry and culture, a single whole. It is very likely that the early period refers to the end of the Middle Pleistocene, and the middle or "classical" period refers to the beginning of the upper one. The late stage, corresponding to the developed Upper Paleolithic, is attributed by Wang Jian, Tao Fuhai, and Wang Yizhen (1994) to the"New Dingtsun Culture". From my point of view, if there is an unquestionable continuity between the early and middle stages, then the late one is not related to the older industry in all technical and typological indicators.

page 8
The Dingcun industry of the early and middle stages is widespread in a significant part of the Fenhe River basin. In the middle and lower reaches of the river in the border zone of three provinces - Shanxi, Shaanxi and Henan - more ancient sites are known. The sites of Xihoudu, Kehe, Lantian, Shuigou, Huixingou and a number of others belong to the Early Paleolithic period. Wang Jian and Wang Yizhen [2004] believe that, despite the significant chronological gap between the Early Paleolithic sites and the Dingcun sites, there is an unmistakable connection in terms of technical and typological indicators, as evidenced, for example, by the design technique and typology of massive triangular pinnacles and pinnacles. From their point of view, there was a certain cultural and historical unity in the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow, Fenhe and Weihe Rivers in the Middle Pleistocene. Gai Pei and Huang Wanpo (1982) identified Dingcun-type localities in the Fenhe culture. Other sites have been discovered in the Fenhe River Valley: Nanliang, Luzunxigou, etc.

An industry other than Dingcun has been identified in two Xujiao localities on the border of Shanxi and Hebei provinces (Chia and Wei, 1976; Chia et al., 1979; Wu Maolin, 1986; Qiu Zhonglang, 1989; Wei Qi, 1989, 2004; Keates, 2000). The sites are located on the right bank of the Liigou River, a tributary of the Sanganhe River, at an altitude of 970 and 980 m above sea level. Excavations were carried out in 1974, 1976-1977 and 1979. According to stratigraphic data and analysis of lithological facies, the lake basin in the Nihewan Basin was at the stage of large-scale shallowing when people settled here. There were many lakes and watercourses in the basin. The climate was somewhat cooler than at present, with wet summers and dry and cold winters. The landscapes were a shrubby forest-steppe. During the rainy season, the water level in the lakes increased and this led to floods. The culture-containing layers are located in clay deposits with inclusions of pebbles, silt, and fine-grained sand. The area of cultural deposits at the sites is more than 5,000 m2.

Different information is given about the number of stone artifacts and paleoanthropological finds. Wei Qi [2004] reports more than 20 thousand stone products found mainly in Zhangxingou. Among the published 14,039 artifacts discovered during excavations in 1974 and 1976, 2,578 nuclei (18.4 %), 8,449 flakes (60.2%), 1,073 bolas (7.6%), 1,939 tools and blanks (13.8%). 12 types of rocks were used as raw materials, most often veined quartz (64 %), as well as flint, quartzite, and siliceous limestone. During the primary and secondary processing, a stone bump was used and the reception of a nuclear impact on an anvil was used. The tools, like the cores, are mostly small, which can be explained by the size of the feedstock that was mined near the sites (Aigner, 1981).

The most common nuclei are discoid and protoprismatic (Figs. 6, 2-7). The preparation of the shock pad is not traceable. Only on some flakes chipped from disc-shaped nuclei, traces of previous chipping are visible, which gives the impression of a faceted platform.

Flakes are mostly small in size and irregular in shape. Many retain a pebble crust.

Fig. 6. Spikelet (1) and nuclei (2-7) from the Xujiayao site (according to Jia Lanpo, 1984).

page 9
Tools were made from flakes. Often they were used for work and without additional retouching. Among the tools, the greatest number of scraper-like tools (scrapers, scrapers) and bolas. Scrapers (1,677 copies) are divided into 17 types: side straight, concave and convex (double-edged and pointed), end ones with straight double or many working edges, etc. (fig. 7, 1 - 6, 9, 15, 17). Different information is given about the number of stone spheroids and balls (bolas), but they are much more than 1,000. When I visited the Xujiayao site, I saw quite a few balloons at the site. Although some of them are angular in shape, most are clearly standardized. Some of the spheroid balls were used as impactors. They could also serve as throwing tools when hunting animals. The spikelets are represented by beak-shaped, toothed forms, with shoulders (see Fig. 6, 1). They are small in size. Among the tools, a small number of engravers, drills, and chisels are distinguished (see Fig. 7, 7, 8, 10 - 12). One product on a small plate flake has double-sided processing (Fig. 7, 16). However, there is no good reason to claim that bifacial processing was used at these sites. Choppers and choppers are also represented by individual items.

Paleoanthropological findings are extremely important. Fossilized hominid bones are completely fragmented. The first paleoanthropological find - a parietal bone-was discovered in 1976. A year later, fragments of the posterior part of the parietal bone were found. Some of the bones show signs of incision, which may indicate cannibalism. On the posterior part of the parietal bone, a hole with a diameter of 9.5 mm was revealed with signs of healing [Wei Qi, 2004].

A different industry from the Dingcun one was also found in the study of the Yaotougou locality, discovered in 1972 near the city of Zhanwu in the western part of the Prov. Shaanxi on the border with the prov. Gansu, in the center of the loess plateaus of Northern China (Gai Pei and Huang Wanpo, 1982). The site is located in the middle reaches of the Jinhe River. The culture-bearing horizon lies in a clay-pebble layer that overlies the loess layer.

River pebbles were used as raw materials, mainly quartzite (80%), much less often quartz, flint and volcanic rocks. Flakes were chipped off mainly by a hard bump when hitting the yadrish, in which the non-impact platform retained a pebble crust. Nuclei are divided into multi-site (up to three impact sites), pebble and flat. Flakes of mostly small size were chipped from them. Some retained a shingle crust. Among the flakes, elongated, wide sub-triangular and pebble ones are distinguished.

Tools of labor are represented by scrapers, pegs, ru-

7. Stone products from the Xujiayao site (according to [Jia Lanpo, 1984]). 1 - 6, 9, 13 - 15, 17 - scrapers; 7, 8, 10-incisors; 11, 12-drills; 16 - bifacial product.

page 10
expensive products. There are three types of scrapers: one with a straight side blade, one with an arc-shaped blade, and one with a protruding blade. The tips have a sub-triangular shape in cross-section. Their edges were decorated with a stepwise steep retouch, the tip was processed more carefully with a small retouch. The base also has traces of cool retouching. Chopping tools were made from pebbles and chips. On the one hand, a significant part of the surface was processed, on the other hand, only the working edge was formed with chips. Yaotougou-type localities were identified in the Jinwei culture [Ibid.].

At all sites belonging to the end of the Middle and first half of the Upper Pleistocene, not only in the north, but also in the south of China, the bipolar method, the technique of an anvil and hitting a hard bump on the nucleus were used in the primary splitting. At a number of locations in the northern regions, bifacial products are common, tools such as choppers, choppers, pointers, and various modifications of scrapers are presented everywhere. For their manufacture, flakes were used, often without special processing, and sometimes various kinds of blanks and nuclei. Of course, the Paleolithic industry in China in the chronological interval 130-40 thousand years AGO was not homogeneous. Researchers identify local variants or cultures. The Paleolithic sites show a gradual evolution of the industry: the emergence of new types of stone tools, a greater variety of them, the use of new types of higher-quality raw materials, a greater degree of standardization of primary cleavage products, the improvement of secondary processing techniques, etc. But in general, in China, as in all of East and Southeast Asia, the industry of this period differs significantly from that of the rest of Eurasia. The Levallois system of primary splitting is not recorded in this territory, and stone products were made only from flakes. The absence of any significant qualitative changes in the Paleolithic industries does not allow us to speak about the transition to the Upper Paleolithic. But such a conclusion can only be made on the basis of criteria for distinguishing the Upper Paleolithic from the rest of Eurasia. Of course, in South-East and East Asia, there were also evolutionary changes in the primary and secondary processing of stone, but so imperceptibly that it is still impossible to draw a boundary at any chronological stage. Significant changes in the industry in China are recorded starting from 30 thousand years AGO at the locations of the north and north-west. They are connected with the penetration of a new industry with plate splitting and the use of plates, along with flakes, as blanks for various stone products.

Formation of the Upper Paleolithic culture in China

There are different points of view on the chronology and origins of the Upper Paleolithic culture in China. Jia Lanpo and Huang Weiwen believed that it correlated with the Middle and late Upper Pleistocene in the range of 40-10 Ka BP and was associated with previous cultures (Paleoanthropology..., 1985). Tang Chung and Gai Pei (1986) divided the Upper Paleolithic into three phases. The first one is characterized by truncated split-off tools and bola-type throwing tools (40-30 thousand years BC). The most famous location where it is represented is Salavusu. The second phase is characterized by shell knives and microplate technology (30-15 thousand years BC). The most striking sites are Shuidonggou and Zhiyu. This phase is divided into three subphases: the first is characterized by a plate - based industry, with a large number of typical butt knives and the absence of microplate technology, the second (30 - 25 thousand years BC) - the origin of this tradition (typical site - Zhiyu), the third (25-15 thousand years BC) - by the development of a new technology. the simultaneous spread of pillow knives and microplate technology (the most famous site is Xiachuan). And finally, the third phase is the developed microplate tradition (15-10 thousand years BC). The most famous localities where it is represented are Xueguan, Hutouliang, and Shandingdong. There are other points of view on the time of formation of the Upper Paleolithic culture in China. But all researchers, perhaps, agree that the sites of the early Upper Paleolithic are localized in the north-west and north of the country and are associated with the emergence of a new technology in the manufacture of stone tools.

The available materials do not allow us to date the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic in China. At all localities that belong to the early Upper Paleolithic stage with tools on flakes, for example, Salavus, both in primary and secondary processing, the traditions of the previous stage are largely preserved. Nevertheless, the industry of this locality can be considered a transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic, because the plate technology did not in any way replace the flake technology, it gradually spread from north to south for more than 10 thousand years. The use of old techniques in primary splitting and flakes as billets was preserved in China until the Neolithic. This indicates not the replacement of the autochthonous population by newcomers with the plate industry, but a different scenario of events. The most likely scenario is the following:

page 11
40-35 thousand years AGO, one or several small populations with a plate industry migrated from Southern Siberia and Mongolia to the south, which was the impetus for the gradual spread of this industry on a relay basis throughout East and Southeast Asia. There was a process not of substitution, but of diffusion of cultures and acculturation of the alien population, due to its small size, by autochthonous ones. The flake industry is by no means primitive. It was well adapted to the local ecological conditions and sources of raw materials, and only for this reason, at many sites throughout the Upper Paleolithic, the large role of flakes in the manufacture of various stone products is largely preserved. This is why the process of transition from the Early Paleolithic to the Late One had its own specifics in East and Southeast Asia. It is quite possible that it began long before the appearance of a developed plate industry in this territory, as, in particular, is evidenced by the Salavusu (Sharaossogol) type localities.

The Sharaossogol site in Inner Mongolia was discovered in 1922 by E. Lisan, who visited the area after receiving reports of the discovery of Pleistocene animal bones. The following year, E. Lee-san and P. Teilhard de Chardin began excavations in the south-eastern part of Ordos at d. Xiaoqiaopan on the bank of the Sharaossogol River (Teilhard de Chardin and Licent, 1924), later joined by M. Boule and A. Breuil (Boule et al, 1928). During field work on the right bank of the river, an area of approx. 2 thousand m 2. The height of the crop horizon outlet above the river valley was approx. 7 m. At a depth of 50 m, highly fossilized bones of Pleistocene animals and ca. 200 small stone products (Larichev, 1980; Abramova, 1994). The industry was unusual, first of all in its size: all the artifacts could fit in two handfuls. The largest gun had dimensions of 65×80 mm. This is due not only to special technological techniques, but also to the presence in this area of mainly river pebbles with a diameter of 20 - 40 mm.

The industry of the lower culture-bearing Sharaossogol horizon differs from the industry of the Middle and Early Upper Pleistocene localities in China. Vitreous phthanite and a small amount of quartzite were used as raw materials. All nuclei are miniature. Small flakes were removed from them, among which there are lamellar ones. The nuclei were used as much as possible for removing workpieces, some of them were later turned into scrapers and scraper-like tools (Fig. 8, 6, 10, 12, 14, 19, 21). The presence of rib plates indicates that the nuclei were larger at the initial stage (Figs. 8, 22, 23). One nucleus is distinguished, which can be typologically attributed to wedge-shaped ones. At the end of it there are negatives of removing several microplates (Fig. 8, 1).

The most numerous series of tools are scrapers and mics-

8. Stone tools from the Sharaossogol locality (according to [Jia Lanpo, 1984]). 1-wedge-shaped nucleus; 2, 11, 13-multi-facet incisors; 3 - 5, 7 - 9, 20 - scraped it; 6, 10, 12, 14, 19, 21 - nuclei; 15, 17, 18-pinnules; 16-toothed article; 22, 23-rib plates.

page 12
scrapers (fig. 9, 11 - 13, 16 - 19, 24 - 29, 36). Scrapers are made of sub-triangular and triangular flakes and plates. Straight or oval working blade is decorated with one -, two-and multi-row semi-circular retouching. Some scrapers are treated with a steep toothed retouch, sometimes there are recesses. Micro Scrapers are made on miniature flakes or plates. The blade is decorated with a small retouch.

Scrapers were made from large flakes compared to other equipment. One is made on a massive chip - 65×80 mm (see Figs. 8, 20). Its working blades are designed on two opposite sides: one is treated with a steep jagged retouch, the other with large chips from the ventral plane and corrected with a fine retouch. The rest of the scrapers are also designed with a cool retouch, in some cases with a smaller touch-up (see fig. 8, 3 - 5, 7 - 9; 9, 31 - 35, 37). The blade is straight, sometimes with notches.

A. Breuil (Boule et al., 1928) identified sharp points among the finds (see Fig. 8, 15, 17, 18; 9, 4 - 7). They are made of flakes and plates and are decorated with a steep, and sometimes jagged retouch, some have a small notch. Almost all the points, except one, are broken off, and it is impossible to say anything definitely about the shape of the base. The whole specimen has a leaf-like shape and is decorated with fine retouching around the entire perimeter (see Figs. 9, 8). A. Breuil identified a significant number of incisors (see Figs. 8, 2, 11, 13;

9. Stone products from the Sharaossogol locality (according to [Jia Lanpo, 1984]). 1, 2, 9, 10 - flakes with retouching; 3, 22, 23 - plates with retouching; 4-7 - fragments of points; 8 - point; 11-13, 16-19, 24-29, 36-scrapers; 14, 15, 20 - tools with a notch; 21-chisel; 30-flake; 31-35, 37-scrapers.

page 13
9, 21), the bulk of which, in his opinion, are multi-facetted of the median type. This type of incisors also includes micronuclei.

Among the flakes and plates, there are copies with small, sometimes opposite retouching along one or two edges (see Fig. 9, 1 - 3, 9, 10, 22, 23). In some flakes, the beak-shaped tip is highlighted by retouching. Several small pebbles that have one long side treated with chips, and then corrected with retouching, can be typologically attributed to microchoppers.

Among the faunal remains, A. Breuil identified several bones with a flattened or retouched edge. These conclusions should be taken with caution. Not in the materials from the culture-containing horizon, but among the lifting finds, there is a fragment of a bone product with a pointed end on both sides, near which triangular cuts are made.

After the publication of the results of field research in Sharapogol, this site has aroused great interest among archaeologists, anthropologists, geologists, paleobotanists, geochronologists and scientists of other specialties, and its study continues to this day.

In 1956. Wang Yuping (1957) clarified the geological and geomorphological situation in the area of the Sharaossogol River and discovered two more Paleolithic sites. It was found approx. 80 stone products, including several flakes with retouching, which he identified as scrapers. Of particular interest are the paleoanthropological finds found in the area of D. Dishaogouvan: two parietal and femoral bones. In the immediate vicinity of them, rhino and horse bones were found in the layer. After studying paleoanthropological findings, U Zhukan (1958) concluded that they are morphologically closer to modern humans than to Neanderthals in Western Europe, thereby determining the position of "Ordos man" in the system of evolution as a direct ancestor of modern humans. In the following years, Wang Yuping discovered new paleoanthropological finds.

Later, field work in Sharapogol was conducted under the supervision of Pei Wenzhong (Pei Wenzhong and Li Yuheng, 1964). Since 1978, Dong Guangzhong has been conducting research in this area for a number of years. The 1981 report alone reports six paleoanthropological finds, four of which were recovered from the stratum (Dong Guangzhong et al., 1981). In 1980, under the leadership of Huang Weiwen, excavations began at the Fanjiagouwan site discovered by Wang Yuping (Huang Weiwen et al., 2004).

As a result of many years of research, various specialists have obtained extensive material. Spore-pollen analysis showed that the vegetation cover in this area has repeatedly changed from the mixed forest-steppe of the Sharaossogol Formation (coniferous and broad-leaved trees) to the desert steppe of the Chengchuan Formation since the Upper Pleistocene. Then it was replaced by the waterless steppe of the Dagouvan Formation and the Dishaogouvan formation (a steppe with sparse shrubs and a waterless steppe). The composition of the fauna was very diverse. A total of 35 species have been identified. Of these, 3 belong to insectivores, 4 to carnivores, 12 to rodents, 1 to proboscids, 3 to ungulates, and 12 to artiodactyls. Nine extinct species.

The most difficult and still unresolved issue is the dating of the earliest culture-bearing horizons of Sharaossogol. Based on geological and paleobotanical data, sandy clays are dated to the early and Middle Upper Pleistocene. Since the 1980s, various radiometric methods have been used. But the results are also very different. A radiocarbon dating of 35,340 ± 1,900 thousand years BC was obtained from coal chips (Li Xingguo et al., 1984). Based on the method of stimulation by infrared luminescence light (IRSL), the culture-containing horizon of the Fanjiagouvan locality is dated to 68-61 thousand years BC (Yin Gongming and Huang Weiwen, 2004). The date of 50-34 thousand years BC was obtained from bone remains by the uranium series method (Yuan Syxun et al., 1983). The result of thermoluminescence (TL) dating is 124-93 Ka BC (Dong Guangzhong et al., 1998).

The main problem, from my point of view, is not the divergence of researchers ' views on the dating of cultural horizons in the range of 120-35 thousand years AGO, but the fact that, judging by the technical and typological characteristics of stone tools, all the dates discussed are overestimated. We can agree with Tang Chung and Gai Pei (1986), who assigned Sharaossogol to the number of sites with truncated flakes and bola-type tools (the first phase of the Upper Paleolithic), dated in the chronological interval of 40-30 KA BP. And even this date is somewhat inflated. Judging by the main technical and typological characteristics of the industry, the age of the earliest culture-bearing horizon of Sharaossogol is no more than 35 thousand years. Wedge-shaped nuclei, which belong to the main culture-containing horizon, probably got there by accident, or this layer is not older than 25 thousand years ago.

A clear boundary in the Paleolithic in China is outlined with the appearance of the plate industry there, which is already, undoubtedly, Upper Paleolithic. This industry, based on plate splitting and tools on elongated billets, was formed on the basis of local technocomplexes around 30 thousand years AGO. We will focus in more detail on the two earliest Upper Paleolithic sites in China - Zhiyu and Shuidonggou.

page 14
Zhiyu was discovered in 1963 (Jia Lanpo et al., 1972; Larichev, 1980; Abramova, 1994). It is located in the vicinity of the village of the same name, 15 km northwest of the city of Shosyan in the prov. Shanxi, in the southwestern part of the Datong Basin. The location is located at the source of the Sanganhe River, at the confluence of Zhiyuhe and Xiaocankou. The culture-containing layer was located in the sediments of the 25 - to 30-meter second terrace of the Zhiyuhe River. It was extremely rich in finds: on an area of 70 m2, about 15 thousand stone products and more than 5 thousand were found. highly fragmented and burnt bones of Pleistocene animals. Of the ten animal species, four are extinct. The largest number of identifiable bones belongs to Przewalski's horse (130 specimens) and kulan (88 specimens). It is very important that the occipital part of the skull, fragments of the lower jaws, teeth, and individual parts of the human postcranial skeleton were also found in the layer.

The industry of the Zhiyu locality is undoubtedly Upper Paleolithic. The initial material for making tools was pebbles of vein quartzite, quartz, siliceous sandstone, and a small amount of volcanic rocks. Despite the poor quality of raw materials, the ancient masters, who already knew the technique of stone processing perfectly, even chipped knife-shaped plates and microplates from quartz and quartzite nodules.

In addition to the usual Chinese Paleolithic cleavage removal nuclei, subprismatic single - and double-site ones were also found at the site (Figs. 10, 1-3). Their impact pads are formed by a single transverse chip with subsequent adjustment along the edge. In the case of single-site cores, the end was sharpened by chips, and they are similar in type to the end cores. There is also a typical end face (Figs. 10, 17). Its impact pad is prepared with a single chip and several microplates are removed from the end face. All the nuclei are highly worked, small in size. Tools made from plates and flakes are also small in size. Apparently, already at this time, the push-up technique began to be used.

Raw materials of poor quality did not allow for the initial splitting to obtain plates and microplates of the correct shape, however, many of them were blanks for tools. According to researchers, the tool kit is dominated by points and spines (Figs. 10, 11, 12), which are divided into five groups (Jia Lanpo et al., 1972). One cannot but agree with Z. A. Abramova [1994], who expressed doubts about the validity of assigning many products to this type. Tools defined as points and points could be scrapers, miniature scrapers with a "snout" or "spout", etc. Incisors, serrated products, small-sized scrapers, and chisel-shaped tools are also highlighted.

10. Stone and bone products from the Zhiyu site (according to [Jia Lanpo, 1984]). 1-3, 17-nuclei; 4 - 6, 8, 16, 22 - fragments of plates with retouching; 7-microplate; 9 - scraper; 10 - cutter; 11, 12 - spiky points; 13, 19-21, 23-scrapers; 14, 15, 18-toothed products; 24-29 - bone fragments with traces of processing; 30 - fragment of a pendant.

page 15
tools, scrapers, plates, and flakes with retouching. Of the large tools, only chopping ones are represented, but they are also relatively small.

In the parking lot, not only stone was processed, but also bone. The bone fragments show traces of chipping and incisions (Figs. 10, 24-29). One bone tool of the peaked type was also found. Special attention should be paid to the fragment of a rounded pendant made of graphite tiles (Figs. 10, 30), which resembles the pendants from the Upper Grotto of Zhoukoudian, also made of graphite tiles.

For the Zhiyu locality, a date of 28,945 ± 1,370 Ka BP was obtained from buffalo bones. This is one of the earliest monuments of the Upper Paleolithic in China, where the beginnings of the plate industry can be traced.

Simultaneously with Sharaossogol, the study of the Shuidungou locality, discovered in 1923 by P. Teilhard de Chardin and E. Pisan (Licent and Teilhard de Chardin, 1925; Boule et al., 1928), began. It is located 5 km east of the village of the same name and 28 km from the administrative center of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, Yingchuan, 18 km west of the Yellow River. The location is located on a hill with a height of 15 m. Nearby is a ravine, which is currently a seasonal riverbed that flows into the Yellow River. During the first excavations, 80 m2 was uncovered at a point that received the designation F1. The culture-containing horizon was about 50 cm thick and contained ash focal spots. Opposite the first parking lot on the southern bank of the ravine, a second point (F2) is open, and half a kilometer south of S. Shuidonggou has three more (F3, F4, F5). Points F3 and F4 were badly destroyed, while F5 was well preserved. In addition to the five sites, Mesolithic and Neolithic finds have been found in the area. In the course of subsequent studies in 1957, 1960, 1963, 1980, and 2001, the stratigraphy of the sites was refined and new significant material was obtained. According to most researchers, stratified points F1 and F2 belong to the Paleolithic, and three others belong to a later time (Mesolithic and Neolithic).

The stone tools collected during excavations in 1923 were studied by A. Breuil. He identified disc-shaped mousterian-like nuclei from which flakes were chipped, and nuclei for removing plates. The tool kit included scrapers, chatelperron-type points, punctures, anchos, incisors, microliths, and scrapers. Evaluating the Shuidungou industry, A. Breuil noted that to the Western typologist it "appears as something located halfway between the developed Moutier and the emerging Aurignacian, or as a combination of these two elements" (Boule et al., 1928, p. 121). He concluded that this industry could have been brought by Mustier culture carriers from Europe, West Asia, or North Africa. Some scrapers, chisels and drills resemble Azil ones.

The Shuidonggou industry occupies an intermediate position between the developed Moustier and Azil or is the result of their mixing.

F. Bord, who studied the same collection, determined the plate industry indicator (31 %), identified scrapers (27 %), toothed tools (16.6 %), bifaces (1%), choppers (approx. 2 %), Upper Paleolithic types of tools (scrapers, incisors, punctures, knives with backs, tronked plates,etc. microliths, etc. - 28 %) [Bordes, 1968]. In his opinion, this industry is a very developed moustache and could have had a strong influence on the Upper Paleolithic culture of Siberia.

Jia Lanpo, Gai Pei, and Li Yanxian (1964), who studied the materials of the 1923 excavations, and participants of the 1960 Sino-Soviet expedition, drew attention to the wide variety of spikelets, scrapers, knife-shaped plates, and microplates, and concluded that the Shuidonggou industry, despite the combination of typological features of the Middle and Upper Paleolithic complexes P. D. Brantingham [Brantingham et al., 2004] and other experts who have studied this industry in sufficient detail also note signs of many Middle Paleolithic traditions in the primary splitting, secondary processing, and types of stone tools, but given the predominance of Upper Paleolithic elements and the geochronology of the site, they refer Shuidungou to the initial stage Upper Paleolithic.

The most complete information about research in Shuidonggou is contained in the report on the work carried out in 1980 in this area [Shuidonggou..., 2003]. Despite the existence of a number of monographic publications and a large number of articles devoted to field and laboratory studies of the monument, researchers have different points of view on many issues related to stratigraphy, geochronology, technical and typological analysis of inventory, etc. The controversial nature of the Shuidungou cultural and historical identity can be explained by the fact that some people paid attention to some archaic features of primary and secondary processing and types of tools, while others paid attention to elements characteristic of the developed Upper Paleolithic (Kozlowski, 1971). Chinese and Western paleolithologists have different approaches to assessing the typology of stone tools and their manufacturing technology.

The Shuidonggou industry is Early Upper Paleolithic and was left behind by a modern physical type of man (Derevyanko, 1975, 2006b, 2009). Primary cleavage is associated with discoid, parallel, two-site monofrontal, end-face, and micronuclei (Fig. 11; 12, 1 - 6). Disco-like flake removal cores-

page 16

11. Nuclei from the Shuidungou locality (from [Shuidungou..., 2003]).

12. Stone tools from the Shuidungou locality (according to [Shuidungou..., 2003]). 1-7, 18, 19-nuclei; 8, 10, 12-scrapers; 9-microplate; 11 - plate with toothed retouching; 13, 17 - notched products; 14-cutter; 15, 16-drills.

page 17
prominent, found not only in the Upper Paleolithic, but also in Neolithic sites. Two-site monofrontal nuclei from Shuidonggou are considered by some researchers to be Levalloisian. But this is a subjective assessment, due to a very broad understanding of levallois. In Shuidonggou, such nuclei are highly processed, i.e. blanks were repeatedly removed from them, which was accompanied by tweaking the impact pad, as a result, the illusion of its faceting could be created. End nuclei and micronuclei are quite typical for the Developed and Late Paleolithic. A small number of cleavage removal nuclei can be attributed to Levallois nuclei (Figs. 12, 7). No classical Levallois nuclei were found in Shuidungou, although there are sharp lamellar chips with a faceted area (Figs.13, 14, 15).

The weapon set is diverse. All sites are characterized by points. They are quite typical for the transition stage and the Upper Paleolithic. The edges of the spikelets were processed from the back with single-row and, more rarely, double-row retouching (Figs. 14, 1-3). End scrapers with straight and beveled working blades have a large share in the collection (see Fig. 12, 8, 10, 12; 13, 3 - 8). Not only the blade was retouched, but also one or two edges. There are high-shaped scrapers that resemble Karen's. Scrapers, knives, serrated and notched products were formed on plates and plate chips. A small number of incisors and punctures are presented.

In 1963, during excavations, a 58.8 mm long bone product was found, defined as a punch or hollow, and a rounded decoration made of an ostrich egg shell with a hole drilled in the center. A red pigment is marked in the area of the decoration. A charred tool with a crescent-shaped edge, made of split bone, was found in the hearth, for which the date was obtained 26 650 ± 170 years ago. On the inner and outer surfaces of the product there are traces of polishing and abrasion, which appeared, apparently, as a result of operation. One end of it is split.

The geochronology of Shuidonggou sites is quite complex. For the lower crop-bearing horizons, different methods were used to obtain dates that had a large discrepancy between each other and could not be taken as a basis. In 1999-2000, special studies related to the dating of the site were conducted. At point F2, foci and focal spots were identified, from which samples were taken for radiocarbon dating. The dates obtained generally fall within the range of 27-25 Ka BP, with a minimum value of 23,700 ± 180 and a maximum value of 29,520 ± 230 BP (Madsen et al., 2001; Brantingham et al., 2004). There are dates determined by the uranium method-38,000 ± 2,000 and 34,000 ± 2,000 BP [Shuidonggou..., 2003]. From my point of view, these dates are too high, the age of the Shuidonggou lower horizon industry is no more than 30 thousand years.

Chronologically, the Zhiyu and Shuidonggou sites belong to the Middle stage of the Upper Paleolithic. Month-

13. Stone products from the Shuidonggou locality (according to: [Shuidonggou..., 2003]). 1, 2 - scrapers; 3-8, 12, 13-scrapers; 9-11-notched products; 14, 15-Levallois plates; 16, 17-knives.

page 18

14. Stone products from the Shuidungou locality (according to [Shuidungou..., 2003]). 1-3-spiky points; 4 - 7 - notched products; 8-11-incisors; 12-14-drills.

It is still difficult to distinguish between the transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic period and the early Upper stage in China due to the lack of convincing criteria. At the Shuidonggou and Zhiyu sites, the primary cleavage, design of tools, and their typology show certain connections with Dingcun, Salavusu, and Dali-type sites. The model of the transition to the Upper Paleolithic on the territory of China can be presented as follows: at the beginning and middle of the late Pleistocene, there was a further progressive development of more ancient flake industries, and the basis was formed on which, with the arrival of 35-30 thousand years AGO, and perhaps earlier, carriers of plate technology from Mongolia and Southern Siberia were formed. industries like Shuidonggou and Zhiyu. The earliest monuments with plate complexes dating back 30-35 thousand years can be found in Xinjiang and northeastern China, i.e. in the regions bordering the Altai, Mongolia, and Transbaikalia.

The plate industry in China, as in the whole of East and South-East Asia, does not have its own roots and is brought in from the adjacent western and north-western regions. The earliest lamellar assemblages were recorded in the Altai Mountains, the Baikal Region, the Trans-Baikal Region, and Mongolia (Derevyanko, 2001, 2006a, and b; 2009). On the territory of China, this industry could have appeared as a result of either direct infiltration of its carriers from Southern Siberia and Mongolia to Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia, or the transfer of innovations by relay due to contacts of ancient populations of 35-30 thousand years AGO. A little later, it penetrated into other areas of Northwestern and Northern China. In this respect, the Shuidonggou industry is notable for preserving some of the Levallois traditions. In many technical and typological indicators, it is close to the Orkhon-1 and -7 and Oron-Nor-1 and -2 industries, where Levallois traditions in primary processing and in the forms of certain types of tools were still preserved 40 thousand years ago (Derevyanko et al., 2010).

Dating of the lower culture-bearing horizons of Sharaossogol earlier than 30 thousand years AGO is highly doubtful. End and wedge-shaped nuclei for removing microplates were found at this site. The earliest manifestation of microindustry was recorded in North, Central, and East Asia at the sites of the Karakol culture, where end and karenoid nuclei for removing microplates appeared around 35 thousand years ago. Attempts to find the origins of the Upper Paleolithic microindustry in China at the Lower Paleolithic site of Dongguto (Hou Yamei, 2005) are genuinely puzzling: chronologically, these complexes are separated by more than 1 million years. The microplate industry could not have appeared on the territory of China before 30 thousand years ago. Its first manifestation is recorded at the Zhiyu parking lot. Nuclei for removing microplates at the location-

page 19
Apparently, the Sharaossogol villages are connected not with the main cultural horizon, but with the overlying ones, or this horizon is not older than 25 thousand years ago.

The fact that the plate industry on the territory of China, as well as in the whole of East Asia, is introduced, is evidenced by its distribution in the chronological interval of 30-20 thousand years AGO. At first, it appeared in Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia, then in other areas of Northern China and on the Korean Peninsula, and later 25 thousand years AGO - in Southern China. It is noteworthy that in East Asia, ancient autochthonous techniques in primary and secondary stone processing were preserved for a long time. For almost 10 thousand years in this territory, along with the plate industry, there was also a traditional flake industry, which is to some extent due, apparently, to the lack of sufficient sources of high-quality raw materials for the production of stone tools. In addition, the adaptation strategies of the autochthonous population were well adapted to local environmental conditions, and traditional stone processing techniques quite successfully competed with external innovations. And only the widespread use of the microplate industry of 20-15 thousand years AGO led to a final change in the entire technological complex.

A similar scenario was followed by the formation of the Upper Paleolithic industry throughout East and Southeast Asia. Another example is the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition process on the Korean Peninsula.

Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition on the Korean Peninsula

The development of Paleolithic industries on the Korean Peninsula also occurred on a local basis. The sites of the Early Paleolithic period, older than 200 thousand years ago, are quite controversial here, but the presence of such monuments in China suggests their existence on the Korean Peninsula. One of the controversial locations is the Komyn-moru cave, located 2 km from the village. Seongwon in the north of North Korea. It is a narrow and long karst cavity, partially destroyed during the construction of the road [Preliminary report..., 1969; Kim Singyu, Kim Kyogyeong, 1974]. There are five lithological layers at the locality. Korean archaeologists believe that the age of loose deposits in the cave does not exceed the Middle Pleistocene. They distinguish among the monoports bifacially processed product, trapezoid gun, peaked, scraper, bump and jib. I have reviewed the finds from the Komyn-moru cave and doubt that these objects are man-made (Derevyanko, 1983).

The problem of the Middle Paleolithic on the Korean Peninsula has been considered by a number of researchers, but the most well-reasoned solution, in my opinion, is provided by Lee Hongjong (1997, 1998a, b, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003; Lee Hongjong et al., 2005). He refers the Middle Paleolithic localities to the end of the Middle-first half of the Upper Pleistocene. Based on their materials, Lee Hongjoong identifies three technical and typological variants of the industry. To the former, he refers hand-hewers-tools typical of Korean Middle Paleolithic monuments. The second option is represented by the pebble industry, based on chopping tools such as choppers, choppers and polyhedra, but without hand choppers. The third option includes tools on flakes, including hand choppers and products processed with fine retouching.

The earliest Paleolithic sites on the Korean Peninsula are Jongokri-1 (Jeongokni), Gawolri, Juhwolri, Yangmunri, Geumgul and Yongok Caves, etc. The most studied and at the same time controversial site is Jongokri-1 (Jeongokni), located on a small hill near the Honthangan River, 2 km from the village. Jongokri of Yeoncheon County prov. Kengu. It is characterized by rough chopping tools, bifaces, pikes, products resembling jibs, flakes, plate chips, etc. 15, 1-6). The emergence of this industry is associated with the arrival on the Korean Peninsula of populations of ancient people from China: stone tools from Jongokri-1 have a lot in common with the Dingtsun industry.

Korean archaeologists do not have a single point of view on the geochronology of the site. There is a date determined by the thermoluminescence method: 190-70 thousand years AGO (Lee Hongjong, 2002). Bae Gidong dates the culture-bearing layer to 200-180 Ka BP (1989). Lee Seonbok also believed that the site was 40-50 thousand years old [1989]; currently, he assigns the lower culture - bearing layer to the period of 130-75 thousand years AGO [Li Seonbok, 1999]. In my opinion, Jongokri's age is-1 70 - 120 From the point of view of technical and typological assessment, the industry is associated with the Dingcun industrial complex of China.

Jongokri-1 materials are the basic materials for characterizing the industry of the late Middle-first half of the Upper Neo-Pleistocene. Almost all the main types of tools are represented at this site, which are found in various combinations on monuments dating from the chronological range of 80-40 thousand years AGO (Figure 16). It is likely that the absence of certain categories of tools at this or that location is due to its weak study, and not cultural differences. Although, of course, it is impossible to deny the presence of local industry options on the Korean Peninsula.

page 20

15. Hand choppers (1 - 4, 6 - 15) and jib (5) from monuments of the Korean Peninsula (according to Lee Hongjong, 2002). 1-6-Jongokri; 7-Geumpari; 8-Bensari; 9-Balkhandong; 10, 11 - Geumgul (cave monument); 12 - Dejn; 13 - 15 - Seokjanri; 16-Rengok (cave monument).

16. "Peak" type cannon (1), hand choppers (2, 3), and jib on a large chip (4) from the Korean Peninsula localities (according to (Lee Hongjong, 2002)).

Localities containing several cultural layers have been discovered on the Korean Peninsula: Chunneri, Yongok, and Hahwajeri - four Upper Paleolithic end horizons each; Goreri, Jinjinul, Hopyenton, Changhenri, Sinbuk, and Wolpien - two or four Upper Paleolithic horizons each (Lee Gi-kil, 2005).

The second horizon of the Engok Cave (49,200 ± 2,000 and 46,100 ± 2,000 BP) and the lower layer of the Bonmendon locality (49,860 ± 2,710 and 48,000 BP) are very important for solving the problem of the transition to the Upper Paleolithic. 450 ± 1,970 bp (Lee Hongjong, 2003). These sites are dominated by the pebble tradition in the primary and secondary processing of stone, mainly quartzite. The number of tools on flakes, including small ones, is increasing, but in general it is difficult to trace the emergence of fundamentally new techniques in preparing nuclei for cleaving flakes and the emergence of new types of stone tools. This trend also persists at many sites dating back to ca. 30 thousand years old, including Jeongjari, where three objects with an age of 25-30 thousand years are recorded (Lee Hongjong et al., 2005).

All Paleolithic sites of the late Middle and early and mid-Upper Pleistocene on the Korean Peninsula are characterized by a pebble technique, the presence of bifaces, peaks, choppers, choppers, and scrapers.,

page 21

17. Artefacts from the Yongok cave site (based on [Lee Hongjong, 2003]).
tools on flakes. Primary cleavage is represented by disc-shaped, pebble-shaped, and orthogonal nuclei. The Levallois technique, as in China, is not traceable. On the Korean Peninsula, as well as in other regions of the Sino-Malay zone, from the time of the initial human settlement of these territories to the advent of the plate industry, there was a slow evolutionary development of the industry based on small and large flakes. In a detailed study of Paleolithic sites, of course, local variants with the specifics of primary and secondary processing of stone tools are distinguished. However, I would like to emphasize once again that the Middle Paleolithic traditions typical of the African and Eurasian zones are not traced in these territories. On the Korean Peninsula, no elements have been identified in industrial complexes that make it possible to distinguish the Middle Paleolithic and trace the transition to the Upper One. In the Korean localities dating back to the middle of the late Pleistocene, along with the appearance of pebble and disc-shaped equipment in primary processing, the presence of macro-tools (choppers, choppers, bifaces, scrapers), numerous products made of small flakes, etc. were found.e. there was a process of microlitization of the industry, and the raw material used was no longer quartzite, but mainly flint and other fine-crystalline rocks.

The problem of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic on the Korean Peninsula continues to be debatable. And if experts ever agree to draw the line at a certain chronological boundary, it will still be controversial, because during the second half of the Middle and most of the upper Pleistocene, the stone industry evolved. For example, the conclusion about the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic after 40 thousand years BC (Yi Seonbok, 2001) is absolutely not reasoned. It is also true that K. Bae (2009) stated that the Upper Paleolithic culture in this area was formed under the influence of various human populations.

The stone industry on the Korean Peninsula has undergone significant changes with the introduction of plate removal cores and the manufacture of tools from plates. This probably occurred no earlier than 30-25 thousand years ago. At the sites of the previous stage, nuclei were found from which lamellar flakes could be cleaved, but in general, the lamellar industry came from the south of the Russian Far East and north-east of China. It is difficult to determine what events were behind this. The new technology may have spread as a result of contact with neighboring tribes or (and) as a result of their direct infiltration. But the process itself was not a replacement for the old flake in-

page 22
In the chronological interval of 25-15 thousand years AGO, the two industries were mixed, and gradually flakes as the primary basis for many types of stone tools were replaced by plates, and then by microplates.

The considered Middle Paleolithic localities of China and the Korean Peninsula, with many differences, are united by the use of flakes for the manufacture of tools, which were chipped from disc-shaped, orthogonal, pebble and other nuclei. On the Korean Peninsula, bifaces were much more widespread and lasted longer. Some Korean archaeologists call them angel choppers, but this is an inaccurate designation. Korean and Chinese bifaces differ from Angelic choppers both in shape and processing technique. Their identification leads to annoying misunderstandings, in particular, to the conclusion that on the Korean Peninsula "the production of Acheulean-type stone tools" continued until 20 thousand years AGO (Lee Seonbok, 1996, p. 156). And it is very important that on all Chinese and Korean Paleolithic sites where there are bifaces, neither in the primary cleavage nor in the tool kit there are no angelic elements. Bifaces, apparently, were used as chopping tools. In Japan, starting from 27 thousand years AGO, bifacially processed products with the grinding of the working blade were used in this capacity (Derevyanko, 1984).

In general, the Middle Paleolithic of East Asia, including Japan, was fundamentally different from that of the western regions of the Asian continent, and the transition to the Upper Paleolithic here, as well as in Southeast Asia, took place in a completely different way. Throughout the Early and Middle Paleolithic, the Sino-Malay zone developed industries that were distinct from those in the rest of Asia.

Anthropological aspect (instead of discussion)

All the extensive archaeological material on the Paleolithic of East Asia indicates that this territory has been undergoing the evolutionary development of industry on an autochthonous basis for more than 1 million years without any significant external influence. The Upper Paleolithic industries were formed here on the basis of local flakes and plate industries imported from Southern Siberia and Mongolia. No migration flow of modern physical people with a different industry from Africa in the chronological range of 100-30 thousand years AGO can be traced on the basis of all available archaeological material. This conclusion is also confirmed by the formation of a modern anthropological type of person on an erectoid basis in this territory.

Currently, the largest number of skeletal remains of Homo erectus has been found in China and Indonesia. Despite some differences, they form a fairly homogeneous group. Yunxiang Homo erectus (936 Ka BP) is of great importance [Le Site..., 2008]. The volume of their brains (1152 and 1123 cm3), as well as the presence of bifaces and cleaver-type chopping tools in the industry of this locality, indicate a significant advance in the physical type and culture of a person. The findings from the Zhoukoudian-1 cave - skulls, teeth, and parts of the postcranial skeletons of 44 individuals-are of great importance for determining the further evolution paths of Homo erectus. The physical type of synanthropus was restored in sufficient detail. These hominids, similar to the Javanese pithecanthropus, were included in the species Homo erectus as a subspecies of Homo erectus pekinensis (Zubov, 2004). Layers 1 - 10 of Zhoukoudian are dated by various methods in the range of 460 - 230 Ka BP, 11, 12-approximately 500 Ka BP, and 13 (by the paleomagnetic method) - 690 Ka BP (Pope, 1988; Bada, 1987; Keates, 2001; etc.). Middle-Upper Pleistocene, paleoanthropological finds from the Hexian localities (prov. Anhui), Changyang and Yunxian (prov. Hubei), Maba (prov. Guangdong), Dingcun and Dali (prov. Shanxi), Salawusu, Liujiang and Laibin (prov. Gansu), Ziyang (prov. Sichuan), from the Upper Grotto of Zhoukoudian, etc.

F. Weidenreich, a leading expert on Chinese paleoanthropological materials, was one of the first to substantiate the hypothesis that African Homo erectus, which settled in Eurasia, evolved into Homo sapiens over a long period of time. African and Asian H. erectus differed in anatomical features, but retained similarities in the main diagnostic features. As a result of evolutionary development and natural selection, a modern physical type of person could have formed independently in different regions of the globe [Weidenreich, 1939, 1943, 1945, 1946, 1947].

Ideas expressed by F. M. Wolpoff, A. Thorne, F. Smith, D. Fryer, and J. Pope [Wolpoff et al., 1994] believe that the fossil anthropological remains of earlier and later forms indicate the continuity of their evolutionary series. Late Pleistocene craniological materials "illustrate the ongoing sapientation of the Chinese skull and provide convincing evidence of a unique regional craniofacial complex that links the earliest Chinese remains with modern Chinese populations" [Ibid., p. 187]. In the last 50 years, numerous paleoanthropological sites have been identified in China.

page 23
findings that allow us to trace the continuity not only between the ancient anthropological type and modern Chinese populations, but also between representatives of the Pleistocene from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens sapiens. Wu Xinzhi (2004) notes that all ancient skulls have many common indicators that confirm continuity. In addition, they show a mosaic of morphological features of Homo sapiens erectus and Homo sapiens sapiens. This indicates a gradual transition from one subspecies to another [Ibid., p. 131, 133] and suggests that H. sapiens sapiens is a chronological subspecies of H. sapiens erectus [Wolpoff et al., 1994]. Human evolution in China is characterized by both continuity and hybridization, or interspecific crossing. The latter reduced the degree of morphological isolation of different populations and preserved the unity of humanity as a species (Wu Xinzhi, 2004).

There were differences between Javanese and Chinese H. erectus, which, as a result of evolution and natural selection for almost 1 million years, could lead to the formation of a Mongoloid race based on Chinese H. erectus, and an Australoid race based on Javanese ones.

New dates obtained by the latest methods for seven Paleolithic localities with bone remains of Homo sapiens sapiens (Shen and Michel, 2007) are an important confirmation of the possibility of the formation of a modern physical type of man on the territory of China. Dating was carried out using teeth or other samples from lithological horizons containing paleoanthropological finds. His results prove that people of the modern physical type appeared on the territory of China no later than 100 thousand years ago [Ibid., p. 162].

New data were obtained from the Liujiang cave site in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region of Southern China. In 1958, a well-preserved human skull and several fragments of limb bones were found there. The skull belonged to one of the earliest representatives of the modern physical type of man in East Asia. Together with it, the bones of Pongo sp., Ailurocla augustus, Sus sp.were found. et al., which represent the typical fauna of the late Pleistocene. The most frequently cited date of the Liujiang skull is about 20 thousand years ago. Repeated stratigraphic studies have shown that it may have a minimum age of about 68 thousand years, the maximum age is more than 153 thousand years, and the most likely age is 111 - 139 thousand years [Shen et al., 2002, p. 827].

Very important confirmations of the possibility of the formation of a modern anatomical type of man in East Asia were obtained by studying paleoanthropological finds in the Zhizhen Cave in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region of Southern China (Wu et al., 2010). The cave is a karst chamber made in Triassic deposits. It is located at an altitude of 34 m above the level of the Hejiang River and 179 m above sea level. In the far part of the cave there is a gallery, which in the early Pleistocene was filled with loose deposits. Subsequently, most of them were removed, apparently, by water flows. Some of these deposits remained on the walls and ceiling of the cave. In the future, the cave was again filled with later loose deposits. A similar situation can be traced in many caves in North Vietnam. Interruptions in sedimentation are recorded by impacting ring formations that overlap loose sediments. There were several of them. The age of the two upper runoff formations determined by the uranium method corresponds to the 3rd oxygen-isotope stage (average value 28-52 thousand years). For the next one, we obtained a series of dates from 87 to 74 thousand years ago. Loose deposits containing two molars and the outer part of the human mandible are dated to 113-100 Ka BP (106.2 ± 6.7 Ka BP).This layer contains remains of Late Middle or Early Upper Pleistocene fauna (Elephas kiangnanensis and Elephas maximus, etc.). It contains 25 % of extinct species. According to the researchers, the dates obtained by the uranium method and the analysis of faunal remains allow us to correlate paleoanthropological finds from the Zhizhen Cave with the beginning of the oxygen-isotope stage 5 or, possibly, 6.

The lower jaw (Zhizhen 3) shows the developed morphology of the external symphysis characteristic of modern humans, with a distinct chin protrusion, well-defined chin pits, moderately developed lateral tubercles, and a vertical position of the symphysis, which, according to researchers, distinguishes it from any known jaw of late archaic humans. At the same time, the structure of the lingual surface of the symphysis and the massiveness of the body of the jaw bring this find closer to Pleistocene archaic humans. The researchers believe that the age and morphology of the human remains from the Zhizhen Cave indicate that modern humans appeared in East Asia either as a result of migration and subsequent assimilation, or as a result of the continuous population development of ancient human forms in this territory in combination with gene exchange.

According to the available extensive archaeological material, no migration of people from the west to the territory of China can be traced in the chronological interval of 120-100 thousand years AGO. Given the proximity of Paleolithic industries in the Sino-Malay zone and their difference from the industries of neighboring western regions, it can be argued that at the end of the Middle-

page 24
At the beginning of the Upper Pleistocene, the modern physical type of man was formed in East and Southeast Asia, along with Africa.

The possibility of human evolutionary development and the formation of a modern physical type of man in East and Southeast Asia is confirmed by new facts. The extensive archaeological material of hundreds of studied Paleolithic sites indicates the continuity of industry development in this area over the past million years. Probably, as a result of paleoecological catastrophes (cold snap, etc.), the range of ancient human populations in the Sino-Malay zone narrowed, but archanthropes never left it. Here, both man and his industries evolved evolutionarily, without any significant external influences. An additional argument in support of this conclusion is the fact that in the Sino-Malay zone, the Middle Paleolithic epoch is not represented in the same way as in other parts of Eurasia and Africa. It can be identified conditionally, but it is impossible to justify the beginning and end due to the lack of convincing diagnostic signs. The transition to the Upper Paleolithic in this zone probably began 45-30 thousand years AGO and ended with the advent of plate technology. Its distribution is associated with the penetration of populations from the territories of Southern Siberia and Mongolia. At the same time, acculturation, rather than replacement of the autochthonous population, occurred. This process is reflected in Chinese and Korean Paleolithic sites dating back 20-30 thousand years, where along with the old traditions in primary and secondary stone processing, new technologies related to the plate industry are presented.

Thus, the available archaeological and paleoanthropological material, in my opinion, is quite sufficient to state that the wave of migration of modern people from Africa did not reach the shores of the Pacific Ocean. The development of industry in South-East and East Asia in the chronological interval of 100 - 30 thousand years AGO occurred completely differently than in the rest of Asia and Africa. This suggests a special Sino-Malay scenario for the transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic.

List of literature

Abramova Z. A. Paleolith of Northern China / / Paleolith of Central and Eastern Asia, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1994, pp. 61-135.

Bae Gidong. Jongokri. Seoul: Seuldehakge Publ., 1989, 74 p. (in Russian).

Wang Jian, Wang Yizhen. Discoveries and Studies of Paleolithic Archaeology in Shanxi Province / / Zhongguo kaoguxue yanjiude shiji huigu: Jiushizi shidai kaogu juan (A Century-long Retrospective Study of Chinese Archaeology: Paleolithic Era Archaeology). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe Publ., 2004, pp. 111-145 (in Chinese).

Wang Jian, Tao Fuhai, and Wang Yizhen. A brief report on the research and excavations of the Dingcun Paleolithic complex. - 1994. - N 3. - p. 1-75 (in Chinese).

Wang Yuping. A brief report on archaeological exploration in the Sharaossogol Valley in the territory of the Ikezhaomeng aimag. - 1957. - N 4. - p. 22-25 (in Chinese).

Wei Qi. Initial Paleolithic studies in Dongguto / / Nihewan yanjiu lunwen xuan bian (Selected works on Nihewan). Beijing: Wenwu Publ., 1989, pp. 115-128 (in Chinese).

Wei Qi. Paleolithic in the Nihewan basin / / Zhongguo kaogu xue yanjude shiji hongtu: Jiushizi shidai kaogu juan. (A Century-long Retrospective Study of Chinese Archaeology: Paleolithic Era Archaeology). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe Publ., 2004, pp. 83-110 (in Chinese).

Gai Pei, Huang Wanpo. Middle Paleolithic cultural monuments discovered in Chang'u County, Shanxi province / / Renleixue xuebao. - 1982. - Issue 1 (1). - p. 18-29 (in Chinese).

Gao Xing. Discussion on the "Middle Paleolithic of China" / / Renleixue xuebao. - 1999. - Issue 18. - p. 1-16 (in Chinese).

Splitting of the nuclei of the Zhoukoudian-15 locality / / Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2000. - N 3 (3). - p. 2-12.

Derevyanko A. P. Stone Age of Northern, Eastern and Central Asia: a course of lectures. Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk State University, 1975, 232 p. (in Russian)

Derevyanko A. P. Paleolith of the Far East and Korea. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1983, 215 p. (in Russian)

Derevyanko A. P. Paleolithic of Japan. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1984, 272 p. (in Russian)

Derevyanko A. P. Perekhod ot srednego k verkhnem paleolitu na Altae [Transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in the Altai]. - 2001. - N 3. - p. 70-103.

Derevyanko A. P. Drevneyshie migratsii cheloveka v Evrazii i problema formirovaniya verkhnego paleolita [The oldest human migrations in Eurasia and the problem of Upper Paleolithic formation]. - 2005. - N 2. - p. 22-36.

Derevyanko A. P. Migrations, convergence, acculturation in the Early Paleolithic of Eurasia // Ethnocultural Interaction in Eurasia, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 2006a. - Book 1. - p. 25-47.

Derevyanko A. P. Paleolithic of China: results and some problems in studying. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 20066, 83 p. (in Russian)

Derevyanko A. P. Transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic in East Asia (China, Korean Peninsula). Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 2006, 82 p. (in Russian)

Derevyanko A. P. Transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic and the problem of formation of Homo sapiens sapiens in East, Central and Northern Asia. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 2009, 326 p. (in Russian)

Derevyanko A. P., Kandyba A.V., Petrin V. T. Paleolith of Orkhon. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 2010, 384 p.

Dong Guangzhong, Gao Shanyu, Li Baosheng. New discovery of Ordos Man fossils / / Kexue tongbao. - 1981. - N 19. - P. 1192-1194 (in Chinese).

page 25
Dong Guangzhong, Su Zhizhu, Jin Heling. New data on the age of the Upper Pleistocene Sharaossogol formation / / Kexue tongbao. - 1998. - N43 (17). - p. 1869-1872 (in Chinese).

Zubov A. A. Paleontological pedigree of man. Moscow: Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2004, 551 p.

Yin Gongming, Huang Weiwen. Dating of the Fanjiagouvan site of the Sharaossogol site by the ISRL method / / Renleixue xuebao. - 2004. - Issue 23 (4). - pp. 272-276 (in Chinese).

Kim Singyu, Kim Kyogyeong. Report on the excavation of the Paleolithic Komeung-moru monument in Sanwon County / / Kogominsok nonmunjip (Collection of articles on Archeology and ethnography). - Pyongyang: Sahwe kwahagwon chulphansa, 1974. - N 4. - p. 3-39 (in cor. yaz.).

Larichev, V. E., Upper Paleolithic of loess regions of Central and Eastern Asia, in Paleolith of Central and Eastern Asia. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1980, pp. 122-164.

Lee Gi-kil. K voprosu o perekhod ot srednego k verkhnem paleolitov v Korey [On the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in Korea]. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 2005, pp. 117-132.

Li Xingguo, Liu Guanglian, Xu Guoying, Wang Fulin, Liu Kunshan. The age of the Ordos (Hetao) man and culture Sharaossogol / / Dii ci quanguo 14 C xueshu huyi lunwenji (Collection of articles of the First All-China Scientific Conference, dedicated. problems of the radiocarbon dating method). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe Publ., 1984. - P. 141-143 (in Chinese).

Lee Sungbok. Dongbukashiyi geseokgi (Paleolithic of Northeast Asia). Seoul: Seuldehakge Publ., 1989, 283 p. (in cor. yaz.).

Lee Sungbok. Chronostratigraphy of the Paleolithic in the Imjin River basin, Khangukgogohakbo, 1996, issue 34, pp. 135-160 (in Russian).

Lee Hongjoong. Various aspects of the production of stone tools in the Upper Paleolithic in Korea / / Suyanggae and Her Neighbors: Second International Symposium. - Danyang: s. n., 1997. - P. 215-229 (in cor. yaz.).

Lee Hongjoong. Distribution of Paleolithic sites in the Yeongsan river basin and their study / / Jibansaua jibanmunhua. - 1998a. - Issue 1. - p. 189-219 (English).

Lee Hongjoong. Preliminary studies of the conservative nature of the tradition of stone tools in Korea / / Gyeongghisahak. - 19986. - Issue no. 22. - p. 1-14 (in cor. yaz.).

Lee Hongjoong. Chronology of the Upper Paleolithic in Korea / / Suyanggae and Her Neighbors: 3rd International Symposium. - Danyang: s. n., 1999. - P. 98-109 (in cor. yaz.).

Lee Hongjoong. Izuchenie srednepaleoliticheskoy kul'tury v Severo-Vostochnoy Azii [Study of the Middle Paleolithic Culture in North-East Asia].

Lee Hongjoong. Issledovanie kul'tury srednego paleolita na Koreiskom peninsulov [Study of the Middle Paleolithic culture on the Korean Peninsula]. - 2002. - N 2. - p. 87-104.

Lee Hongjoong. The transition period from the Middle to the Late Paleolithic and the tradition of tools on flakes on the Korean Peninsula / / Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2003. - N 1. - p. 65-79.

Lee Hongjoong, Kim Jongbin, Wim Hyunsoo, Lee Heyoung, Jang Taehyung. Preserving the tradition of making pebble tools in the Upper Paleolithic of Korea / / Topical issues of Eurasian Paleolithic studies. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 2005, pp. 133-140.

Preliminary report on the excavation of the Komeung-moru monument in Sanwon County / / Kogominsok nonmunjip (Collection of articles on Archeology and ethnography). - Pyongyang: Sahwe kwahagwon chulphansa, 1969. - N 1. - p. 31-40 (in cor. yaz.).

Pei Wenzhong, Li Yuheng. Nachalnoe issledovanie rechnoi sistemy Sharaossogol [Initial study of the Sharaossogol river system]. Guzichzhuidong'u yu guzhenlei, 1964, No. 8 (2), pp. 99-118 (in Chinese).

Ranov V. A. The Early Paleolithic of China (study and modern concepts). Moscow: INQUA PUBL., 1999, 110 p. (IN Russian)

At the Beetle. Parietal and femoral bones of the Ordos man / / Gujizhuidong'u xuebao. - 1958. - N 2 (4). - p. 208-212 (in Chinese).

At Maolin's. Study of the temporal bone of a person from Xujiayao / / Renleixue xuebao. - 1986. - N 5. - p. 220-226 (in Chinese).

Hou Yamei. Lower Pleistocene Dongutoid nucleus in the Nihewan basin (Northern China) and its features // Topical issues of Eurasian paleolithology. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 2005, pp. 209-223.

Huang Weiwen, Dong Guangzhong, Hou Yamei. Stratigraphic, chronological and ecological context of the discovery of Ordos Homo sapiens / / Renleixue xuebao. - 2004. - Vol. 23. - p. 258-271.

Huang Weiwen, Hou Yamei, Song Hongyong. Pebble tools in the Paleolithic of China / / Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2005. - N 1. - p. 2-15.

Jia Lanpo. Jiushizi shidai kaogu lunwen xuan (Selected works on the Paleolithic of China). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe Publ., 1984, 253 p. (in Chinese).

Jia Lanpo, Gai Pei, Li Yanxian. New materials from the Paleolithic site of Shuidungou, Vertebrata PalAsiatica, 1964, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 75-83 (in Chinese).

Jia Lanpo, Gai Pei, and Yu Yuzhu. Report on excavations of the Zhiyu Paleolithic monument in Shanxi province / / Kaogu xuebao. - 1972. - N 1. - p. 39-58 (in Chinese).

Qiu Zhonglan. Srednepaleoliticheskaya kul'tura v Kitaye [Middle Paleolithic Culture in China]. - Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 1989, pp. 195-220 (in Chinese).

Zhang Senshui. Zhongguo jiushizi wenhua (Paleolithic Cultures of China). - Tianjin: Tianjin kexue chubanshe, 1987. - 134 p. (in Chinese).

Shuidonggou-1980 nian fajue baogao (Shuidonggou - report of the 1980 excavation). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe Publ., 2003, 233 p. (in Chinese).

Yuan Sixun, Chen Temei, Gao Shijun. Dating of the Ordos man and the Sharaossogol culture by the uranium series method / / Renleixue xuebao. - 1983. - N2(1). - p. 90-94 (in Chinese).

Aigner J.S. Archaeological Remains in Pleistocene China. - Munchen: s.n., 1981. - 351 p.

Bada J.K. Paleoanthropological applications of amino acid racemization dating of fossil bones and teeth // Anthropologischer Anzeiger. - 1987. - N45. - S. 1 - 8.

Bae K. Origin and patterns of the Upper Paleolithic industries in the Korean Peninsula and movement of modern Rumans in East Asia // Quaternary Intern. - 2009. - Vol. 30. - P. 1 - 10.

Bordes F. Pe Paleolitique dans le monde. - P.: Hachette, 1968. - 256 p.

Boule M., Breuil H., Licent E., Teilhard de Chardin P. Le Paleolithique de la Chine // Archives de l'Inst. Pal. Hum. - 1928. - Vol. 4. - P. 1 - 136.

page 26
Brantingham P.J., Gao X., Madsen D.B., Bettinger R.L., Elston R.G. The Initial Upper Paleolithic at Shuidonggou, Northwestern China // The Early Upper Paleolithic beyond Western Europe. - Berkeley; Los Angeles; L.: Univ. of California Press, 2004. - P. 223 - 241.

Chen T.M., Yuan S.X. Uranium-Series dating of bones and teeth from Chinese Palaeolithic sites // Archaeometry. - 1988. - Vol. 30(1). - P. 59 - 76.

Chia L.P., Wei Q. A Palaeolithic site at Hsue-chia-yao in Yangkao County, Shansi Province // Acta Archaeologica Sinica. - 1976. - Vol. 2. - P. 97 - 114.

Chia L.P., Wei Q., Li C. Report on the excavation of Hsuchiayao man site in 1976 // Vertebrata Pal Asiatica. - 1979. - Vol. 17(4). - P. 277 - 293.

Gao X. A study of flaking technology at Zhoukoudian Locality 15 // Acta Anthropologica Sinica. - 2000a. - Vol. 19 (3). - С 199 - 215.

Gao X. Interpretation of Lithic Technology of Zhoukoudian Locality 15 // Acta Anthropologica Sinica. - 2000b. - Vol. 19. - P. 156 - 165.

Gao X., Olsen J.W Similarity and variability within the Lower Paleolithic: East Asia, western Europe and Africa compared // Evidence for Evolution - Essays in Honor of Prof. Chungchien Young on the Hundredth Anniversary of His Birth / eds. Y.S. Tong et al. - Beijing: China Ocean Press, 1997. - P. 63 - 76.

Jia Lanpo. Preliminary report on the excavation of Zhoukoudian Locality 15 // Shijie Ribao. - 1936. - 19 yiyue, 2 eryue.

Keates S.G Early and Middle Pleistocene Hominid Behaviour in Northern China / eds. John and Erica Hedges. - Oxford: BAR, 2000. - 387 p. - (BAR Intern. Ser; N 863).

Keates S.G. Perspectives on "Middle Paleolithic" Settlement Patterns in China // Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age / ed. by N.J. Conard. - Tubingen: Kerns Verlag, 2001. - P. 153 - 175.

Kozlowski J.K The problem of the so-called Ordos culture in the light of Paleolithic finds from Northern China and Southern Mongolia // Folia Quaternaria. - 1971. - Vol. 39. - P. 63 - 99.

Le Site de L'homme de Yunxian. Quyuanhekou, Quingqu, Yunxian, Province du Hubei. - P.: CNRS Editions, 2008. - 587 p.

Li Seonbok On the temporal change of Korea Paleolithic industry // World Views of the Early and Middle Paleolithic in Japan: A Symposium to Commemorate the 80th Birthday Celebrations of Professor Chosuke Serizawa. - Sendai: Tohoku Fukushi University, 1999. - P. 115 - 122.

Licent E., Teilhard de Chardin P. Le Paleolithique de la Chine // L'Anthropologie. - 1925. - Vol. 35, N 3/4. - P. 201 - 235.

Licent E., Teilhard de Chardin P., Black D. On a presumably Pleistocene human tooth from the Sjara-osso-gol (south-eatern Ordos) deposits // Bull. Geol. Soc. China. - 1928. - Vol. 5 (3/4). - P. 285 - 290.

Madsen D.B., Li J., Brantingham P.J., Gao X., Elston R.G., Bettinger R.L. Dating Shuidonggou and the Upper Palaeolithic blade industry in North China // Antiquity. - 2001. - Vol. 75, N 290. - P. 706 - 716.

Paleoanthropology and Palaeolithic Archaeology in the People's Republic of China. - Orlando; San Diego; N.Y; L. et al.: Academic Press, 1985. - 293 p.

Pei W.C. The upper cave industry of Choukoutien // Paleontologia Sinica. New Ser. D. - 1939. - Vol. 9. - P. 1 - 58.

Pei Wenzhung, Wu Rukang, Jia Lanpo, Zhou Mingzhen, Liu Xianting, Wang Zeyi. Report on the excavation of Palaeolithic sites at Ting-tsun, Hsiangfenhsien, Shansi province, China // Memoirs of the Inst, of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeanthropology. Ser. A. - Beijing: Science Press, 1958. - N2. - P. 1 - 111.

Pope G.G. Recent advances in Far Eastern paleoanthropology // Ann. Rev. Anthropology. - 1988. - N 17. - P. 43 - 77.

Schick K.D. The Movius Line Reconsidered // Integrative Paths to the Past / eds. R.S. Corruccini, R.L. Ciochon. - Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1994. - P. 569 - 596.

Schick K.D., Dong Z.A. Early Paleolithic of China eastern Asia // Evol. Anthropologia. - 1993. - Vol. 2 (1). - P. 22 - 35.

Shen G., Michel V. Position chronologique des sites de l'homme moderne en Chine d'apres la dation U-Th // L'Antropologie. - 2007. - N 111. - P. 157 - 165.

Shen G., Wang W, Wang Q., Zhao J., Collerson K., Zhou C., Tobias P.V. U-serias dating of Liujiang hominid site in Guangxi, Southern China // J. Human Evolution. - 2002. - N43. - P. 817 - 829.

Tang Chung, Gai Pei. Upper Paleolithic Cultural Traditions in North China // Advances in World Archaeology. - 1986. - Vol. 5. - P. 339 - 364.

Teilhard de Chardin P., Licent E. On the discovery of a Paleolithic industry in northern China // Bull. Geol. Soc. of China. - 1924. - Vol. 1 (3). - P. 45 - 50.

Yi Seonbok. Middle-Upper Paleolithic Transition in Korea: A Brief Review // J. of the Korean Palaeolithic Society. - 2001. - N4. - P. 17 - 24.

Weidenreich F. On the Earlist Representatives of Modern Mankind Recovered on the Soil East Asia // Bull, of the Natural History Society of Peking. - 1939. - N 13. - P. 161 - 174.

Weidenreich F. The skull of Sinanthropus pekinensis: A comparative study of a primitive hominid skull // Paleontologia Sinica. Ser. D. - 1943. - Whole Ser. 127. - P. 1 - 484.

Weidenreich F. Giant early man from Java and South China // Anthropological Papers of the American Museum. - 1945. - N40. - P. 1 - 134.

Weidenreich F. Apes, Giants and Man. - Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1946. - 122 p.

Weidenreich F. The trend of human evolution // Evolution. - 1947. - N 1. - P. 221 - 236.

Wolpoff M.H., Thorne A.G., Smith F.H, Frayer D.W., Pope G.G. Multiregional evolution: A world-wide source from modern human populations // Origins of Anatomically Modern Humans. - N.Y; L.: Plenum Press, 1994. - P. 176 - 200.

Wu L., Jin Ch.-Zhu, Zhang Ying-Qi et al. Human Remains from Zhirendong, South China, and Modern Human Emergence in East // PNAS. - 2010. - Vol. 107, N45. - P 19201 - 19206.

Wu Xinzhi. On the origin of modern humans in China // Quaternary Intern. - 2004. - Vol. 117. - P. 131 - 140.

Wu Xinzhi, Poirier F.E. Human evolution in China: A Morphometric Description of Fossils and Review of Sites. - N.Y: Oxford University Press, 1995. - 317 p.

Zhang Senshui. A study on the stone artifacts from 54: 100 site in Dingcun region // Acta Anthropologica Sinica. - 1993. - Vol. 123. - P. 195 - 213.

Zhou Y. Amino Acid Dating of Peking Man and Dingcun Man // Acta Anthropologica Sinica. - 1989. - Vol. 8. - P. 177 - 181.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 08.07.10.

page 27

Permanent link to this publication: