DOCSLIB.ORG

The Early Paleolithic of China1) HUANG Weiwen2)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Early Paleolithic of China1) HUANG Weiwen2) 第 四 紀 研 究 (The Quaternary Research) 28 (4) p. 237-242 Nov. 1989 The Early Paleolithic 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 Pleistocene 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 China. That is Zhoukoudian near Beijing early Pleistocene, Gongwangling (Lantian Man) City (the site of Peking Man). 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 Northeast China 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 Dingcun 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 (Shanxi), Kehe (Shanxi), Lantian China. But, what is the most characteristic is (Shaanxi), Dali (Shaanxi), Baise (Guangxi), the cave 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 (Hebei), 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 North China is well 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 Paleoanthropology, 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. Xiaochangliang 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 Industry 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 Chopper-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 Scraper-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- East Asia, whose age is not much different from chopping tool 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Shang Dynasty
    misterfengshui.com 風水先生 History of China ANCIENT 3 Sovereigns and 5 Emperors Xia Dynasty 2100–1600 BC Shang Dynasty 1600–1046 BC Zhou Dynasty 1122–256 BC Western Zhou Eastern Zhou Spring and Autumn Period Warring States Period IMPERIAL Qin Dynasty 221 BC–206 BC Han Dynasty 206 BC–220 AD Western Han Xin Dynasty Eastern Han Three Kingdoms 220–280 Wei, Shu & Wu Jin Dynasty 265–420 Western Jin 16 Kingdoms Eastern Jin 304–439 Southern & Northern Dynasties 420–589 Sui Dynasty 581–618 Tang Dynasty 618–907 ( Second Zhou 690–705 ) 5 Dynasties & 10 Kingdoms 907–960 Liao Dynasty 907–1125 Song Dynasty 960–1279 Northern Song Xi Xia Southern Song Jin Yuan Dynasty 1271–1368 Ming Dynasty 1368–1644 Qing Dynasty 1644–1911 MODERN Republic of China 1912–1949 People's Republic of China (Mainland China) 1949–present Republic of China (Taiwan) 1945-present from Wilkipedia [email protected] Fax: 852-2873-6859 misterfengshui.com 風水先生 Timeline of Chinese History The recorded history of China began in the 15th century BC when the Shang Dynasty started to use markings that evolved into the present Chinese characters. Turtle shells with markings reminiscent of ancient Chinese writing from the Shang Dynasty have been carbon dated to as early as 1500 BC.[1] Chinese civilization originated with city-states in the Yellow River (Huang He) valley. 221 BC is commonly accepted to be the year in which China became unified under a large kingdom or empire. In that year, Qin Shi Huang first united China. Successive dynasties in Chinese history developed bureaucratic systems that enabled the Emperor of China to control increasingly larger territory that reached maximum under the Mongolian Yuan Dynasty and Manchurian Qing Dynasty.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography
    Bibliography Many books were read and researched in the compilation of Binford, L. R, 1983, Working at Archaeology. Academic Press, The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology: New York. Binford, L. R, and Binford, S. R (eds.), 1968, New Perspectives in American Museum of Natural History, 1993, The First Humans. Archaeology. Aldine, Chicago. HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco. Braidwood, R 1.,1960, Archaeologists and What They Do. Franklin American Museum of Natural History, 1993, People of the Stone Watts, New York. Age. HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco. Branigan, Keith (ed.), 1982, The Atlas ofArchaeology. St. Martin's, American Museum of Natural History, 1994, New World and Pacific New York. Civilizations. HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco. Bray, w., and Tump, D., 1972, Penguin Dictionary ofArchaeology. American Museum of Natural History, 1994, Old World Civiliza­ Penguin, New York. tions. HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco. Brennan, L., 1973, Beginner's Guide to Archaeology. Stackpole Ashmore, w., and Sharer, R. J., 1988, Discovering Our Past: A Brief Books, Harrisburg, PA. Introduction to Archaeology. Mayfield, Mountain View, CA. Broderick, M., and Morton, A. A., 1924, A Concise Dictionary of Atkinson, R J. C., 1985, Field Archaeology, 2d ed. Hyperion, New Egyptian Archaeology. Ares Publishers, Chicago. York. Brothwell, D., 1963, Digging Up Bones: The Excavation, Treatment Bacon, E. (ed.), 1976, The Great Archaeologists. Bobbs-Merrill, and Study ofHuman Skeletal Remains. British Museum, London. New York. Brothwell, D., and Higgs, E. (eds.), 1969, Science in Archaeology, Bahn, P., 1993, Collins Dictionary of Archaeology. ABC-CLIO, 2d ed. Thames and Hudson, London. Santa Barbara, CA. Budge, E. A. Wallis, 1929, The Rosetta Stone. Dover, New York. Bahn, P.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Notes Introduction 1. Hobsbawm 1990, 66. 2. Diamond 1998, 322–33. 3. Fairbank 1992, 44–45. 4. Fei Xiaotong 1989, 1–2. 5. Diamond 1998, 323, original emphasis. 6. Crossley 1999; Di Cosmo 1998; Purdue 2005a; Lavely and Wong 1998, 717. 7. Richards 2003, 112–47; Lattimore 1937; Pan Chia-lin and Taeuber 1952. 8. My usage of the term “geo-body” follows Thongchai 1994. 9. B. Anderson 1991, 86. 10. Purdue 2001, 304. 11. Dreyer 2006, 279–80; Fei Xiaotong 1981, 23–25. 12. Jiang Ping 1994, 16. 13. Morris-Suzuki 1998, 4; Duara 2003; Handler 1988, 6–9. 14. Duara 1995; Duara 2003. 15. Turner 1962, 3. 16. Adelman and Aron 1999, 816. 17. M. Anderson 1996, 4, Anderson’s italics. 18. Fitzgerald 1996a: 136. 19. Ibid., 107. 20. Tsu Jing 2005. 21. R. Wong 2006, 95. 22. Chatterjee (1986) was the first to theorize colonial nationalism as a “derivative discourse” of Western Orientalism. 23. Gladney 1994, 92–95; Harrell 1995a; Schein 2000. 24. Fei Xiaotong 1989, 1. 25. Cohen 1991, 114–25; Schwarcz 1986; Tu Wei-ming 1994. 26. Harrison 2000, 240–43, 83–85; Harrison 2001. 27. Harrison 2000, 83–85; Cohen 1991, 126. 186 • Notes 28. Duara 2003, 9–40. 29. See, for example, Lattimore 1940 and 1962; Forbes 1986; Goldstein 1989; Benson 1990; Lipman 1998; Millward 1998; Purdue 2005a; Mitter 2000; Atwood 2002; Tighe 2005; Reardon-Anderson 2005; Giersch 2006; Crossley, Siu, and Sutton 2006; Gladney 1991, 1994, and 1996; Harrell 1995a and 2001; Brown 1996 and 2004; Cheung Siu-woo 1995 and 2003; Schein 2000; Kulp 2000; Bulag 2002 and 2006; Rossabi 2004.
    [Show full text]
  • Settlement Patterns, Chiefdom Variability, and the Development of Early States in North China
    JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 15, 237±288 (1996) ARTICLE NO. 0010 Settlement Patterns, Chiefdom Variability, and the Development of Early States in North China LI LIU School of Archaeology, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia Received June 12, 1995; revision received May 17, 1996; accepted May 26, 1996 In the third millennium B.C., the Longshan culture in the Central Plains of northern China was the crucial matrix in which the ®rst states evolved from the basis of earlier Neolithic societies. By adopting the theoretical concept of the chiefdom and by employing the methods of settlement archaeology, especially regional settlement hierarchy and rank-size analysis, this paper introduces a new approach to research on the Longshan culture and to inquiring about the development of the early states in China. Three models of regional settlement pattern correlating to different types of chiefdom systems are identi®ed. These are: (1) the centripetal regional system in circumscribed regions representing the most complex chiefdom organizations, (2) the centrifugal regional system in semi-circumscribed regions indicating less integrated chiefdom organization, and (3) the decentral- ized regional system in noncircumscribed regions implying competing and the least complex chief- dom organizations. Both external and internal factors, including geographical condition, climatic ¯uctuation, Yellow River's changing course, population movement, and intergroup con¯ict, played important roles in the development of complex societies in the Longshan culture. As in many cultures in other parts of the world, the early states in China emerged from a system of competing chiefdoms, which was characterized by intensive intergroup con¯ict and frequent shifting of political centers.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Members of the Genus Homo -. EXPLORATIONS: an OPEN INVITATION to BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
    EXPLORATIONS: AN OPEN INVITATION TO BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY Editors: Beth Shook, Katie Nelson, Kelsie Aguilera and Lara Braff American Anthropological Association Arlington, VA 2019 Explorations: An Open Invitation to Biological Anthropology is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted. ISBN – 978-1-931303-63-7 www.explorations.americananthro.org 10. Early Members of the Genus Homo Bonnie Yoshida-Levine Ph.D., Grossmont College Learning Objectives • Describe how early Pleistocene climate change influenced the evolution of the genus Homo. • Identify the characteristics that define the genus Homo. • Describe the skeletal anatomy of Homo habilis and Homo erectus based on the fossil evidence. • Assess opposing points of view about how early Homo should be classified. Describe what is known about the adaptive strategies of early members of the Homo genus, including tool technologies, diet, migration patterns, and other behavioral trends.The boy was no older than 9 when he perished by the swampy shores of the lake. After death, his slender, long-limbed body sank into the mud of the lake shallows. His bones fossilized and lay undisturbed for 1.5 million years. In the 1980s, fossil hunter Kimoya Kimeu, working on the western shore of Lake Turkana, Kenya, glimpsed a dark colored piece of bone eroding in a hillside. This small skull fragment led to the discovery of what is arguably the world’s most complete early hominin fossil—a youth identified as a member of the species Homo erectus. Now known as Nariokotome Boy, after the nearby lake village, the skeleton has provided a wealth of information about the early evolution of our own genus, Homo (see Figure 10.1).
    [Show full text]
  • The Dates of the Discovery of the First Peking Man Fossil Teeth
    The Dates of the Discovery of the First Peking Man Fossil Teeth Qian WANG,LiSUN, and Jan Ove R. EBBESTAD ABSTRACT Four teeth of Peking Man from Zhoukoudian, excavated by Otto Zdansky in 1921 and 1923 and currently housed in the Museum of Evolution at Uppsala University, are among the most treasured finds in palaeoanthropology, not only because of their scientific value but also for their important historical and cultural significance. It is generally acknowledged that the first fossil evidence of Peking Man was two teeth unearthed by Zdansky during his excavations at Zhoukoudian in 1921 and 1923. However, the exact dates and details of their collection and identification have been documented inconsistently in the literature. We reexamine this matter and find that, due to incompleteness and ambiguity of early documentation of the discovery of the first Peking Man teeth, the facts surrounding their collection and identification remain uncertain. Had Zdansky documented and revealed his findings on the earliest occasion, the early history of Zhoukoudian and discoveries of first Peking Man fossils would have been more precisely known and the development of the field of palaeoanthropology in early twentieth century China would have been different. KEYWORDS: Peking Man, Zhoukoudian, tooth, Uppsala University. INTRODUCTION FOUR FOSSIL TEETH IDENTIFIED AS COMING FROM PEKING MAN were excavated by palaeontologist Otto Zdansky in 1921 and 1923 from Zhoukoudian deposits. They have been housed in the Museum of Evolution at Uppsala University in Sweden ever since. These four teeth are among the most treasured finds in palaeoanthropology, not only because of their scientific value but also for their historical and cultural significance.
    [Show full text]
  • Early “Neolithics” of China: Variation and Evolutionary Implications
    Boise State University ScholarWorks Anthropology Faculty Publications and Presentations Department of Anthropology Summer 2017 Early “Neolithics” of China: Variation and Evolutionary Implications Shengqian Chen Renmin University of China Pei-Lin Yu Boise State University This document was originally published by University of Chicago Press in Journal of Anthropological Research. Copyright restrictions may apply. doi: 10.1086/692104 Early “Neolithics” of China: Variation and Evolutionary Implications SHENGQIAN CHEN, School of History, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872 PEI-LIN YU, Department of Anthropology, Boise State University, Boise, ID 83725, USA. Email: [email protected] The growth and significance of scientific research into the origins of agriculture in China calls for fresh examination at scales large enough to facilitate explanation of cultural evolutionary processes. The Paleolithic to Neolithic transition (PNT) is not yet well-understood because most archaeo- logical research on early agriculture cites data from the more conspicuous and common early Neo- lithic sites. In this, the first of two papers, we synthesize a broad range of early Neolithic archae- ological data, including diagnostic artifacts, settlement patterns, site structure, and biological remains, to consider agriculture as a system-level adaptive phenomenon. Although farming by this period was already well-established in much of North China and the middle Yangtze River basin, echoes of the foraging past can be found in the persistence of hunting-related artifacts in North China’s Loess Plateau and aquatic-based intensification and vegeculture in South China. Our analysis of the growing body of Chinese data and projections using Binford’s hunting and gathering database indicate that agriculture was differentially developed, adopted, or resisted by foragers according to measurable, predictable initial conditions of habitat that influenced diet breadth.
    [Show full text]
  • Jade Huang and Chinese Culture Identity: Focus on the Myth of “Huang of Xiahoushi”
    Journal of Literature and Art Studies, June 2016, Vol. 6, No. 6, 603-618 doi: 10.17265/2159-5836/2016.06.003 D DAVID PUBLISHING Jade Huang and Chinese Culture Identity: Focus on the Myth of “Huang of Xiahoushi” TANG Qi-cui, WU Yu-wei Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China This paper focus on the myth of “Huang of Xiahoushi” (夏后氏之璜), focusing on the distribution of Jade Huang (玉璜) since the early neolithic and its process of pluralistic integration. The paper explores the story of ethnic group, cultural identification and the significance of Jade Huang in the discourse construction of etiquette civilization behind the mythic narrative based on multi-evidence method and the local meaning of literature in ancient Chinese context. Keywords: Jade Huang, Huang of Xiahoushi, unified diversity, Chinese identity, etiquette civilization, multi-evidence method Introduction Modern archeological relics including potteries, jades and bronzes bring back the lost history; the process of how Chinese unified diversity took shape in general and the great tradition of jade culture in eight thousand in particular. The handed-down documents echo each other at a distance provide solid evidences for the origin of civilization of rite and music and the core values based on jade belief. Jade Huang is an important one of it. It is illuminated by numerous records about Jade Huang in ancient literature, as well as a large number of archaeology findings past 7,000 years. The paper seeks to focus on the following questions: what is the function of Jade Huang in historic and prehistoric period? Moreover, what is the function of “Huang of Xiahoushi”, which belonged to emperor and symbolized special power in historic documents and myths and legends in ancient china? Jade Huang: Etiquette and Literature Jade Huang (Yu Huang, Semi-circular/annular Jade Pendant) is a type of jade artifact which is seemed to be remotely related to etiquette and literature.
    [Show full text]
  • Biface Distributions and the Movius Line: a Southeast Asian Perspective
    University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Science - Papers (Archive) Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health 2012 Biface distributions and the Movius Line: A Southeast Asian perspective Adam Brumm University of Wollongong, [email protected] Mark W. Moore University of New England Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/scipapers Part of the Life Sciences Commons, Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Brumm, Adam and Moore, Mark W.: Biface distributions and the Movius Line: A Southeast Asian perspective 2012, 32-46. https://ro.uow.edu.au/scipapers/4441 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Biface distributions and the Movius Line: A Southeast Asian perspective Abstract The ‘Movius Line’ is the putative technological demarcation line mapping the easternmost geographical distribution of Acheulean bifacial tools. It is traditionally argued by proponents of the Movius Line that ‘true’ Acheulean bifaces, especially handaxes, are only found in abundance in Africa and western Eurasia, whereas in eastern Asia, in front of the ‘line’, these implements are rare or absent altogether. Here we argue, however, that the Movius Line relies on classifying undated surface bifaces as Acheulean on typological grounds alone, a long-standing and widely accepted practice in Africa and western Eurasia, but one that is not seen as legitimate in eastern Asian contexts. A review of the literature shows that bifaces are relatively common as surface finds in Southeast Asia and on this basis we argue that the Movius Line is in need of reassessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Paleolithic Era Jiùshíqì Shídài ​旧石器时代 C
    ◀ Pakistan-China Relations Comprehensive index starts in volume 5, page 2667. Paleolithic Era Jiùshíqì shídài ​旧石器时代 c. 2 million y.b.p.– c. 10,000 y.b.p. China’s Paleolithic era, also known as the for- in Africa. Slightly later Homo erectus appeared in East aging era, started about 2 million years ago Africa. Their fossils were discovered in Asia as well. The and ended about 10,000 years ago. The large fossils of Homo erectus are the oldest human fossils dis- span of this era can be divided into the Lower, covered beyond Africa. Middle, and Upper periods, each generally correlating with significant change in hu- man evolution. As time went on, human-made​­ The Lower Foraging Era tools became more sophisticated and human Most of the lower foraging-era​­ human fossils and cultural population also increased. layers were found above ground. It is difficult, however, to determine whether stone objects from some early Pleis- tocene sites were human made or natural. he Paleolithic, literally the “Old Stone Age” (also known as the foraging era), is a prehistoric era Model for Banpo, a Neolithic (or New Stone Age) characterized by the use of percussion stone tools village dating to about 4,000 bce. The villagers by humans. In geological terms this period falls within of Banpo, despite their more advanced stage of the Pleistocene period, which began some 3 to 2 million civilization, still used many of the tools con- years ago. Archaeological materials suggest that China’s ceived during the Paleolithic era. Photo by Joan foraging era started some 2 million years ago and ended Lebold Cohen.
    [Show full text]
  • Stone Age Technology
    World’s Early People DIGGING UP DNA STONE AGE TECHNOLOGY IN PARTNERSHIP WITH Worlds_Early_People_FC.indd 1 2/7/17 11:22 AM 2 Who Lived in the Stone Age? When you think of “old,” what comes to But they helped hominins to thrive. mind? Last year’s shoes? Life before the The first species to make tools is from the Internet? Try a little earlier – 2.5 million genus (category) we call Homo (human). It years earlier! is known as Homo habilis, or “handy That’s about the time some of the first person.” It most likely lived in Africa 1.5 hominins, or humanlike species that walk to 2.4 million years ago. Homo habilis upright, started making tools from rocks. represented a big change. How big? Big Their tools were simple – mainly stones enough that we call its time the Paleolithic split to form a point or a sharp edge. era, or the Old Stone Age. l THE BRAINS ability to make of Homo habilis and use tools. were about Homo habilis’s half the size of tools and brain- present-day human power helped it brains. However, spread. Over the brains of Homo millennia, it habilis were larger adapted, or made than the brains changes that of the hominins helped it survive, to that came before live in regions that it. This may have earlier species had contributed to its found too harsh. d HOMO ERECTUS, or early as 2.5 million communities, hunt “upright person,” years ago, Homo for food, create art, was probably a lot erectus was at its and control fire like Homo habilis, peak about 1.9 for warmth and but taller and thin- million years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of the History of the Yi, Part II
    MODERNHarrell, Li CHINA/ HISTORY / JULY OF 2003THE YI, PART II REVIEW10.1177/0097700403253359 Review Essay The History of the History of the Yi, Part II STEVAN HARRELL LI YONGXIANG University of Washington MINORITY ETHNIC CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE 1980S AND 1990S The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is, according to its constitution, “a unified country of diverse nationalities” (tongyide duominzu guojia; see Wang Guodong, 1982: 9). The degree to which this admirable political ideal has actually been respected has varied throughout the history of the PRC: taken seriously in the early and mid-1950s, it was systematically ignored dur- ing the twenty years of High Socialism from the late 1950s to the early 1980s and then revived again with the Opening and Reform policies of the past two decades (Heberer, 1989: 23-29). The presence of minority “autonomous” ter- ritories, preferential policies in school admissions, and birth quotas (Sautman, 1998) and the extraordinary emphasis on developing “socialist” versions of minority visual and performing arts (Litzinger, 2000; Schein, 2000; Oakes, 1998) all testify to serious attention to multinationalism in the cultural and administrative realms, even if minority culture is promoted in a homogenized socialist version and even if everybody knows that “autono- mous” territories are far less autonomous, for example, than an American state or a Swiss canton. But although the party state now preaches multinationalism and allows limited expression of ethnonational autonomy, it also preaches and promotes progress—and thus runs straight into a paradox: progress is defined in objectivist, modernist terms, which relegate minority cultures to a more MODERN CHINA, Vol.
    [Show full text]