ArticlePloS one2022
Diachronic shifts in lithic technological transmission between the eastern Eurasian Steppe and northern China in the Late Pleistocene.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The successful occupation of the eastern Eurasian Steppe in the Late Pleistocene improved cultural connections between western Eurasia and East Asia. We document multiple waves of lithic technological transmission between the eastern Eurasian Steppe and northern China during 50-11 cal. ka BP. These waves are apparent in the sequential appearance of three techno-complexes in northern China: (1) the Mousterian techno-complex, (2) the blade techno-complex mixed with Mousterian elements, (3) and the microlithized blade techno-complex. These lithic techno-complexes were transmitted under different paleoenvironmental conditions along different pathways through the eastern Eurasian Steppe. The Mousterian techno-complex and the blade techno-complex mixed with Mousterian elements were only dispersed in the north and west peripheries of northern China (50-33 cal. ka BP). We argue that these techno-complexes failed to penetrate into the hinterland of northern China because they were not well suited to local geographical conditions. In contrast, the microlithized blade technology which diffused from the eastern Eurasian Steppe was locally modified into a Microblade techno-complex which was highly suited to local environmental conditions, and proliferated across the hinterland of northern China (28/27-11 cal. ka BP). The subsequent spread of microblade technology over vast regions of Mongolia and Siberia indicates that the Pleistocene inhabitants of northern China not only adopted and modified technologies from their neighbors in the Eurasian Steppe, but these modified variants were subsequently transmitted back into the Eurasian Steppe. These episodes of technological transmission indicate complicated patterns of population dispersal and technological interaction across northern China and the eastern Eurasian Steppe.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.