sign in sign up
<<
Home , Dingcun, Jia Lanpo, Pei Wenzhong, Xiaochangliang, Zhoukoudian

第 四 紀 研 究 (The Quaternary Research) 28 (4) p. 237-242 Nov. 1989

The Early of China1)

HUANG Weiwen2)

spread widely and existed for a long time. The Introduction deposits contained very rich fossils of mammal. 1. Geographic Distribution and the Types of The fauna exisiting in the stage from the early Deposits to the middle can be at least divided Before the 1940's, only one locality of the into three groups, which have their own Early Paleolithic period was discovered in characteristics and sequence: Nihewan fauna of . That is near early Pleistocene, Gongwangling (Lantian Man) City (the site of ). Since the 1950's fauna of the latest stage of early Pleistocene many new localities have been found, of which or the earliest stage of middle Pleistocene and no less than fifteen are relatively important. Zhoukoudian (Peking Man) fauna of the middle These localities spread in North, South and Pleistocene. In the recent years, some scholars covering a range from 23°35' to have suggested that locations of Dali and 40°15'N and from 101°58' to 124°8'E which which originally recognized as be- includes two climate zones, namely, the sub- longing to the early stage of late Pleistocene tropical zone and warm temperate zone in the should place in the middle Pleistocene, as the eastern part of today's Asia (Fig. 1). latest stage of this epoch (LIU and DING,1984). The localities include three types of deposit: There also existed fluviatile and fluviol- 1) Fluviatile deposit: acustrine deposits of Pleistocene in South Xihoudu (), Kehe (Shanxi), Lantian China. But, what is the most characteristic is (Shaanxi), Dali (Shaanxi), Baise (Guangxi), the deposits which spread widely in the etc. karst area. Yuanmou fauna was one belonging 2) Fluviolacustrine deposit: to the early Pleistocene, which, could be found in Yuanmou (Yunnan), Xiaozhangliang and fluviolacustrine deposit. Donggutuo (), Sanmenxia (Henan), Ailuropoda-Stegodon Fauna can be seen every- etc. where in the cave deposit. It is a fauna mainly 3) Cave deposit: composed of tropical and subtropical animals. Zhoukoudian (Beijing), Guanyindong (Gui- During the long period of Pleistocene, no zhou), Miaohoushan (Liaoning), etc. significant change seemed to happen in this 2. Mammal Fauna and Chronology fauna. At present, our subdivision of the fauna The traditional method of biostratigraphy is into early, middle and late stages is only still the principal means to do research on the dependent on the occurrence of a small group of dating of early Paleolithic. The stratum of the specific or rare species. This relatively refects early Pleistocene of is pre- the fact that, as compared with North China, served, and can be seen clearly. Except for the South China which located in the low latitude cave deposits, the deposits of fluviatile and was much less influenced by the climate of lacustrine were well developed in all the stages glacial epoch. Because of this, it is difficult to of Pleistocene, and so was the thick loess which date the early Paleolithic of South China. But,

1) Read in the Symposium of the Japan Association for Quaternary Research 1988. 2) Institute of Vertebrate Paleonotology and , Academia Sinica 中 国 科 学 院 古 脊 椎 動 劫 与 古

人 美 研 究 所. 238 The Quaternary Research Vol. 28 No. 4 Nov. 1989

Fig. 1 Early Paleolithic localities in China 1. Zhoukoudian, Beijing, 2. and Donggutuo, Hebei, 3. Dingcun, Shanxi, 4. Sanmenxia, Henan, 5. Xihoudu and Kehe, Shanxi, 6. Dali, Shaanxi, 7. Lantian, Shaanxi, 8. Liangshan, Shaanxi, 9. Yuanmou, Yunnan, 10. Guanyindong, Guizhou, 11. Baise, Guangxi, 12. Miaohoushan, Liaoning the field work on the two deposits of the river stratum of early Paleolithic period in Miaohoushan terraces of Liangshan and Baise shows that the dates back to 0.4-0.14 Ma (MUSEUM of LIAONING means of geomorphology can play a satis- PROVINCE and MUSEUM of BENXI CITY, 1986); the factory role in the approach to date the stone loclity of Dail Man dates back to 0.23-0.18 industries. Ma; the loclity of Dingcun Man dates back to From the 1960's, the dating methods of 0.21-0.16 Ma (CHENet al., 1984); and so forth. paleomagnetism and isotope have been applied Although the above dating work may be not to the research of early Paleolithic in China. For perfact, the preliminary results are inspiring. example, by the dating methods of paleomag- Technological Tradition of the Stone netism, fission track, radiometry of uranium series, thermoluminescence, and amino acid It took half a century for us to come to know racemization, we have obtained the following the technological tradition of the early Paleolithic results; the stratum of Peking Man fossile and in China. In the past, owing to the fact that the cultural remains in the Loc. 1 of ZKD dates back stone industry of Peking Man was the only to 0.7-0.23 Ma (WU et al., 1985); the locality of representative of the early Paleolithic of China Yuanmou Man dates back to 1.7 Ma (LI et al., and that the researchers in the early period 1976); the locality of Gongwangling (Lantian overemphasized the primitivity of this industry Man) dates back to 1 Ma (CHENG et al.,1978) or and difficulty to compare it with the early stone dates back to 1.15 Ma (LIU et al., 1985); the industry of other regions of the world (TEILHARD 1989年11月 第 四 紀 研 究 第28巻 第4号 239

and PEI, 1932; BLACK et al., 1933). The conclu- culture of the Paleolithic in North China at least sions reached earlier were somewhat biased. contains two systems, that is“Kehe-Dingcun Although Prof. HENRIBREUIL has some good system”which is also called“the Tradition of viewpoints concerning the stone industry of the Big Stone Flake -Chopping Tools Peking Man, for instance, he pointed out that and the Big Trianglar Pointed Tools”, and“the some advanced types existed in the stone Loc. 1 of Zhoukoudian-Shiyu system”which is artifacts (BREUIL, 1932, 1935), it did not change also called“Bow-shaped -Burins Tradi- people's idea. Not long afterwards Prof. H. L. tion”(JIA et al., 1972). Although some re- MOVIUS expressedan opinion of the scheme of the searchers hold different views (PEI and ZHANG, cultural tradition pertaining to the early Paleo- 1985), the present author thinks the theory put lithic in China. That is the“two culture forward by JIA and his assistants is based on theory”. He thought that the cultural tradition overwhelming facts. It seems that apart from pertaining to the early Paleolithic in China those in North China, the stone artifacts of the should belong to“the great chopper-chopping- early Paleolithic in South China was not tool complex”(MOVIUS, 1944, 1948). composed of a single tradition either. One of the For a very long time, the scheme of MOVIUS had obvious evidences lies in the fact that it is very a strong influence over people's understanding inappropriate to put the industry of Liangshan of the cultural tradition pertaining to the early and Baise and the industry of Guanyindong in Paleolithic in China as well as in the east and the same tradition. the west. However, with the increase of new In an article published in 1987, the present archeological materials and the deepening of the author presented a relatively systematic account research on the original materials, the defects of of the bifaces hitherto found in China, pointing this scheme have become increasingly obvious. out that there existed some stone industies of Even MOVIUShimself has recognized this fact the early Paleolithic in China which contained (MOVIUS,1978). With regard to China, the bifaces and whose tool group was similar to that defects of MOVIUS' schemeare mainly reflected in of the biface culture of the west (HUANG, 1987). the following two aspects. First, chopper- As it happens, these industries concentrated chopping tools were not necessarily the main or relatively in the area where the three main characteristic elements of the stone industry of rivers of China-the Yellow River, the Yangtse the early Paleolithic in China. Take the stone River and the Pearl River-run through. The artifacts of Peking Man as an example, chopper- biface unearthed in Pingliang of Lantian has the chopping tools constitute only 5.4% of the total longest history. The locality of Pingliang is tools, whereas the scrapers account for 75.2% of situated about two kilometers west of the the total. Another example is provided by the Lantian Man Site of Gongwangling. The stone artifacts found in Guanyindong, where the stratum of the biface is a little lower than that of chopper-chopping tools make up only 5.6% of the the fossil of Lantian Man. As mentioned above, total tools, whereas the scrapers reach as high according to the paleomagnetic dating, the as 82% of the total (PEI and ZHANG, 1985; LI and Lantian Man dates back to about 1 to 1.15Ma. If WEN, 1986). This being the case, it is obviously this dating is correct, the specimen of Pinliang inappropriate to generalize the tradition of the can be regarded as the earliest biface known in early Paleolithic in China as the“chopper- , whose age is not much different from culture”. Secondly, as China has that of the earliest biface discovered in Olduvai a vast territory, the stone industry of its early Gorge of East Africa Paleolithic could not be composed of one with a The existence of biface in the Dingcun single tradition. In 1972, Prof. , who had industry was first mentioned in JIA Lanpo's been engaged in the study of the Paleolithic in report (JIA, 1956). But in a report published in North China, and his assistants first put 1958, while“a approximate to biface” forward the theory that the development of the was retained, the category of biface was removed 240 The Quaternary Research Vol. 28 No. 4 Nov. 1989

(PEIet al., 1958). Later, in a letter to PEI,BREUIL Ethnological History in Youjiang. According to who had read the report expressed his disagree- the statistics on the preliminary classification, ment to incorporate the Dingcun industry into in more than one thousand tools made up of the chopper-chopping tool tradition. He pointed picks, chopper-chopping tools and others, the out that many specimens incorporated into the number of bifaces reached about 100. chopper-chopping tools in the report should The knowledge of the above-mentioned“stone again be regarded as bifaces, which according to industry yielding biface”of the early Paleolithic him, might belong to the type of the late can be regarded as a supplement to the“Kehe- (PEI,1965). L. G. FREEMAN, who saw a Dingcun system”defined by JIA Lanpo. Of part of the specimens of Dingcun during a visit course, the connotations of the two concepts to China in 1975, has also expressed similar differ in a certain degree. For instance, the views. He wrote that“after having seen the present author reclassifies all the bifacial“tri- Ting-ts'un (Dingcun) collections, the discovery angular and pointed tools”into the category of of true Acheulean or Acheulean-like industrial bifaces. And the present author not only regards complexes in China would come as no great the known stone industry yielding biface of the shock”(FREEMAN, 1977). Recently, after re- early Paleolithic in North China and South examining the stone artifacts of Dingcun, LIU China as basically belonging to the same Yuan (1988) classified sixteen specimens as technological tradition, but also believes that “there are many similarities”between these bifaces, which constitute 10.7% of the total number of the tools. industries in China and the biface cultures of The Liangshan industry was discovered in the the West (HUANG,1987). 1950's, but the main work has been done since With respect to the discussion of the“prim- 1980. This industry spread in the basin of the itiveness”of the stone tools of Peking Man, since Hanshui River, the largest tributary of the the report of this industry has ascertained with Yangtse. The original stratum of the stone detailed statistic figures the actual existence of artifacts was located on the third , 40-60 the tools of advanced types such as points, meters above the river surface. The artifacts burins, stone awl and others, the problem has co-existed with the“Ailuropoda-Stegodon Fauna”. become relatively clear. Besides, the places of The group of the stone tools includes unifacial Xiaozhangliang and Donggutuo discovered in and bifacial chopper-chopping tools, spheroids, the Nihewan Basin between the plain of Beijing bifaces, cleavers, picks, scrapers and others and the Plateau of Inner-Mongolia indicate that (HUANG and OI, 1987; YAN and HUANG, 1987). in North China the tradition represented by the The Baise industry was discovered in 1973. stone tools of Peking Man could be dated back to After that a series of work has been done. Since 1Ma (YOUet al., 1980; WEI et al., 1985; HUANG, most of the stone artifacts were collected from 1985). As to the“characteristics”of the stone the surface of high terrace of the Youjiang River, tools of Peking Man, this question can also be the stratum and data of the stone artifacts were discussed. For instance, some researchers have not ascertained. However, according to the field already pointed out that the bipolar percussion observation of the present author in 1986, the technique and its artifacts which has always original stratum of the stone artifacts is probably been regraded as one of the most important located on the third terrace, about 64 meters characterisitics of the stone industry of Peking above the river level. The age of this terrace is Man is actually“a world-wide cultural pheno- approximate to that of the Peking Man (HUANG menon which existed very widely in terms of et al., 1988). time and space”(LIN, 1987). The present author In the spring of 1988, the author of this article would like to add one more point. That is, apart went to Baise again and had the opportunity to from the bipolar artifacts, it is not too diffcult to observe several thousands of Baise stone artifacts find the equivalents in the“light-duty tools” collected and preserved by the Museum of (LEAKEY, 1971) in the stone industry of Olduvai 1989年11月 第 四 紀 研 究 第28巻 第4号 241

to the main elements of the stone industry of cranium, Cultural Relics Publishing House, Beijng, Peking Man, such as side scrapers, end scrapers, p. 95-101. burins, stone awls and others. JIA Lanpo (1956) The bifaces found in China. Kexue Tongbao (12), p. 39-41. Conclusion JIA Lanpo, GAI Pei and YOU Yuzhu (1972) Report of excavation in Shiyu, Shanxi-a paleolithic site. Acta To sum up, the stone industry of the early Archaeologica Sinica, 1, p. 39-60. Paleolithic in China was not formed by only one LEAKEY M. D. (1971) Olduvai Gorge, 3. 306p., Cambridge technological tradition and it is not appropriate University Press. to generalize it together with“chopper-chopping- LI Pu, QIAN Fang, MA Xinghua, PU Qingyu, XING tool culture”. The existence of the stone Lisheng, and JU Shigiang (1976) A preliminary

industry yielding biface gives people the reason study of the age of Yuanmou man by paleomagnetic

to question the theory of“two cultures”as put techniques. Scientia Sinica, 6, p. 579-591.

forward by Hallam MOVIUS. LI Yanxian and WEN Benheng (1986) Guanyindong- A lowerpaleolithic site at Qianxi county, Guizhou province.

References Cultural Relics Publishing House, Beijing, 181p. LIN Shengrong (1987) Bipolar technique and its pro- CHENG Guoliang, LIN Jinlu, and LI Suling (1978) A duction. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 6, p. 352-360. research in the ages of the strata of“Lantian Man”. LIU Tungsheng and DING Menglin (1984) A tentative Institute of Vertebrate and Paleoanthro- chronological correlation of early fossil hori- pology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (ed.): zons in China with the loess-deep sea records. Acta Collected Papers of Paleoanthropology, Science Press, Anthropologica Sinica, 3, p. 101-105. p. 151-157. LIU Tungsheng et al. (1985) Loess and Environment. CHENTiemei, YUANSixun and GAOShijun (1984) The Science Press, Beijing, 111p. study on Uranium-series dating of fossil bones and LIU Yuan (1988) The reobservation of stone artifacts an absolute age sequence for the main paleolithic in Dingcun. Acta Anthropologica, 7(4), p. 306-313. sites of North China. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 3, MOVIUS, H. L. (1944) Early man and Pleistocene p. 268-275. stratigraphy in southern and eastern Asia. Peabody BLACK, D., TEILHARD DE CHARDIN, P., YOUNG, C. C. and Mus., Am. Archaeol. Ethnol., Harvard Univ., Papers, PEI, W.-C. (1933) The Choukoutien cave deposits 19(3), 113p. with a synopsis of our present knowledge of the Late MOVIUS, H. L.(1948) The lower Paleolithic of southern Cenozoic of China. Memoirs GeologicalSurvey of China, and eastern Asia. Trans. Am. Phil. Soc., NS 38, Series A, No. 11, 166p. p. 329-420. BREUIL,H. (1932) Le feu et l' industrie osseuse a MOVIUS, H. L. (1978) South and Eastern: Asia: Con- Choukoutien. Bull. Geol. Soc. China, 11, p. 147-154. clusions. IKAWA-SMITH, F.(ed.): Early Paleolithic in BREUIL,H. (1935) L'etat actuel de nos connaissances South and East Asia, Mouton Publishers, Paris, sur les industries paleolithiques de Choukoutien (et p. 351-355. Nihowan). Anthropologie, 45, p. 740-746. MUSEUM OF LIOAONING PROVINCE AND MUSEUM OF BENXI FREEMAN,L. G. (1977) Paleolithic archaeology and CITY (1986) Miaohoushan-A site of early Paleolithic paleoanthropology in China. HOWELLS, W. W. and in Benxi county, Liaoning. Wenwu Press, Beijing, 120p. TSUCHITANI, P. J. (ed.): Paleoanthropology in the people's PEI W.-C. (1965) Professor ,pioneer of Republic of China. CSCPRC: Report (4), p. 79-113. Chinese Paleolithic archaeology and its progress HUANG Weiwen (1985) On the stone industry of after him. RIPOLL, E.(ed.): Miscelanea en Homenaje al Xiaozhangliang. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 4, Abate Henri Breuil, 2, 447p., Barcelona; p. 251-271. p. 301-307. (W.-C.) and ZHANGSendhui (1985) A HUANGWeiwen (1987) Bifaces in China. Acta An- study on the lithic artifacts of . Science thropologica Sinica, 6, p. 61-68. Press, Beijing, 277p. HUANG Weiwen and QI Guoqin (1987) Preliminary PEI Wenzhong (W.-C.) et al. (1958) Report on the excava- observation of Liangshan paleolithic site. Acta tion of paleolithic sites at Tingtsun, Hsiangfenhsien, Anthropologica Sinica, 6, p. 236-244. Shansi Province, China. Science Press, Beijing, 111p. HUANG Weiwen etal. (1988) Tentative opinions on the TEILHARD DE CHARDIN, P. and PEI W.-C. (1932) The age of Baise stone industry. Treaties in commemora- lithic industry of the Sinanthropus deposits in tion the 30th anniversary of the discoveryof Maba human Choukoutien. Bull. Geol. Soc. China, 11, p. 315-364. 242 The Quaternary Research Vol. 28 No. 4 Nov. 1989

WEIQi, MENG Hao, and CHENG Shengquan (1985) New YAN Jiaqi and HUANG Weiwen (1987) The significance Paleolithic site from the Nihewan (Nihowan) Beds. of discovery of the Liangshan paleolithic industry. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 4, p, 232-240. Journal of Xian Mining Institute, 4, p. 43-46. WU Rukang et al. (1985) Multi-disciplinary study of the YOU Yuzhu, TANG Yingjun and LI Yi (1980) New Peking man site at Zhoukoudian. Science Press, discovery of paleoliths in the Nihewan Formation. Beijing, 267p. Quaternaria Sinica, 5, p. 1-13.

中 国 の 早 期 旧 石 器

黄 慰 文

(要 旨)

中国 の 早 期 旧 石 器 に関 して, 遺 跡 の地 理 的 分 布, 堆 積 が, 中期 更 新 世 に存 在 した動物 群 は 中 国北 部 に見 出 され 物 の型, 動 物 化 石 群 と年代 な どに基 づ い て, 石 器 の 伝 統 た もの とほ ぼ 同様 で ある. 中 国 の早 期 旧石 器 の年 代 決 定 的製 作 技 術 に つ い て論 じる. 中 国 で は15以 上 の 地 点 か は, 主 と して, 化 石 層 序 学 的 方 法 に よる が, 近 年, 古 地 ら早 期 旧 石 器 が 発 見 さ れ て い る. そ れ らの 堆 積 物 は3 磁 気 法 ・同位体 法 も併用 さ れて い る. 中 国 の早 期 旧 石 器 種 類-河 成 ・湖成 ・洞穴 成 堆 積物 で あ る. 前 期 か ら 中 は単 一 の技 術 伝統 に よ る製 作 物 よ り成 る もの で は な く, 期 まで の 更 新 世 に, 中 国 北 部 に は3動 物 群 が あ っ た. チ ョ ッパー ・チョ ッ ピ ング ・ト ゥー ル複 合物 と して一 括 その生存期間と生活様式は互いにまったく異なってい す る の は難 しい. ハ ン ド ・ア ック ス を含 む多 数 の石 器 の た. 中 国 南 部 に は2動 物 群 が 生 存 した. 中 国 北 東 部 の 存 在 は MOVIUS (1944) の 「両種 文 化 理 論 」3)に 異 議 を 申 前 期 更 新 世 の 状 況 は, 必 ず し も明 確 に は な っ て い な い し立 て る根 拠 を与 えて い る.

3) 旧 石 器 時 代 の 旧 大 陸 に は, イ ン ド以 西 に は ハ ン ド ・ア ック ス 製 作 伝 統 が, 以 東 に は ハ ン ド ・ア ック ス は な く, チ ョ ッ パ ー ・チ ョ ッ ピ ン グ ・ ト ゥー ル製 作 伝 統 が広 く分 布 す る-と い う2大 文 化 圏 の 存 在 仮 説.