Reply to the comment on “Upper Paleolithic site Tuyana – A multi-proxy record of sedimentation and environmental history during the late Pleistocene and the Holocene in the Tunka rift valley, Baikal region [Quat. Int. 534 (2019) 138–157]”

• DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2023.04.006
• Publication Date: 2023-05-04T05:04:49Z
• Authors: Ivan M. Berdnikov; Natalia E. Berdni...; Ekaterina A. Lipnina; Dmitrii P. Zolotarev; Ivan S. Shegutov; Alexander A. Shch...; Elena V. Bezrukova; Galina G. Matasova; Alexey Yu Kazansky; Varvara V. Ivanova; Guzel A. Danukalova; Ivan A. Filinov; Fedora I. Khenzyk...; Evgeniya M. Osipova; Evgeniy O. Rogovskoi; Galina A. Vorobyeva
• Keywords: Aurignacian; Upper Paleolithic; Assemblage (archaeology); Stadial; Middle Paleolithic

This is a response to the comments provided by Kseniya Kolobova and Andrey Krivoshapkin to our article, in which we presented the results of geoarchaeological analysis of the materials from the Tuyana Upper Paleolithic site. We are grateful to the authors for their attention to our study. However, we do not share their opinion that the Early Upper Paleolithic assemblage of Tuyana site is just “one of the manifestations of regional bladelet/microblade techno-complexes with a low number of carinated cores”. It can be best defined as a variety of Aurignacian sensu lato because it contains typical Aurignacian cores and tools. We hope that this response sufficiently addresses the main points of the critique and, moreover, that it will be useful to direct further debates on the settlement of North Asia by modern humans in the Upper Paleolithic.