CHAPTER TITLE 10 Chinese Middle Pleistocene hominids and modern human origins in east Asia Peter Brown INTRODUCTION While synthesis and interpretation were not the primary In China the study of human origins and evolution, now goal of Wu and Poirer they make it clear that they known as palaeoanthropology, began with the discovery support Franz Weidenreich’s (1946) interpretation of of a worn and fossilised hominid molar tooth at the relationship between Middle Pleistocene Homo Zhoukoudian, 48 km southwest of Beijing, by the erectus and modern Chinese people (1995:234). For Austrian geologist Otto Zdansky in 1923. Subsequent Weidenreich, the ancestors of modern east Asians could work at the cave deposit between 1927 and 1937 by be identified in the Sinanthropus remains from Locality 1 European, North American, and Chinese scholars, includ- at Zhoukoudian. Evidence for this was provided by the ing Johan Andersson, Davidson Black, Pei Wenzhong presence of regional patterns in skeletal morphology and Franz Weidenreich, recovered a large number of which persisted through time. hominid fossils and associated cultural remains (Wu & Wu 1997). Detailed description and comparison of the . man has evolved in different parts of the old Sinanthropus pekinensis,now Homo erectus, skeletal and world. The Australian natives have some of the dental materials by Weidenreich (1935, 1936, 1937a, characteristics in common with the fossil Wadjak- 1937b, 1939a, 1941, 1943), and the Sinanthropus arte- Keilor man and with Homo soloensis . Some of the facts by Pei & Zhang (1985), combined with faunal and characteristic features of Sinanthropus appear in palaeoenvironmental information (Jia 1978; Hu 1985; certain Mongolian groups of today. Kong 1985), and efforts to date the Locality 1 deposits (Weidenreich 1946:138) (Liu et al 1977; Chen et al 1984; Liu et al 1985; Guo et al 1991; Huang et al 1991; Shen & Jin 1991) have Weidenreich’s interpretation of the significance of geo- ensured Zoukoudian’s position as the most important graphic variation, and the association between Homo Middle Pleistocene locality in China. However, while erectus and Homo sapiens, has formed a central tenet Weidenreich’s monographs and the controversy over the within Chinese indigenous palaeoanthropology and is loss of the original Sinanthropus material (Shapiro 1974) the foundation of the multiregional school of modern have ensured that the ‘Peking Man Site’ is well known, human origins (Thorne & Wolpoff 1981; Wolpoff et al outside of China more recently discovered Middle and 1984; Wolpoff 1989). One of the challenges to be faced Late Pleistocene localities remain relatively obscure.This by future generations of Chinese palaeoanthropologists is particularly unfortunate given the importance of the is the limited support provided for Weidenreich’s model Chinese hominid fossil record to the ongoing debate by an expanding Pleistocene fossil record (Bräuer & over the origins and dispersion of our own species Mbua 1992; Li & Etler 1992; Brown 1999), studies of (Wolpoff et al 1984; Stringer 1985; Bräuer & Mbua regional variation in more recent human populations 1992; Wu 1992; Stringer & Bräuer 1994; Brown 1999). (Lahr 1994, 1996), and genetic data from fossil and Up until 1995, information on Middle Pleistocene living humans (Krings et al 1997; Underhill et al 2001). China was restricted by the minimal amount of public- Over the last 20 years there have been some sig- ation in languages other than Chinese, the research nificant additions to the Chinese Middle Pleistocene opportunities and interests of western palaeoanthro- hominid fossil record. These include Hexian , Yunxian pologists, and the limited travel opportunities available and Nanjing Homo erectus localities and the Jinniushan to the Chinese scientific community. This situation was ‘archaic’ Homo sapiens skeleton. In association with the dramatically changed in 1995 with the publication of Wu excavation of new sites there has been an intensive effort and Poirier’s Human evolution in China. For the first time to date the Chinese sequence (Chen et al 1994, 1997) morphological and metrical descriptions of all of the (figure 10.1). This has not been without some contro- major Chinese Pleistocene hominids were available in a versy, particularly with claims of an Early Pleistocene single volume. A remarkable achievement given the age for Yuanmou (Cheng et al 1977; Li et al 1979; Liu & obstacles to completing a project of this type in China. Ding 1983; Qing 1985; Pan et al 1991; Qian et al 1991), 135 AFTER ‘AFTER THE AUSTRALOPITHECINES’ Gongwangling (An & Ho 1989; Wu et al 1989; An et al exception is Longgupo Cave, also known as Wushan 1990) and Longgupo Cave (Huang, W, et al 1991; Liu (Huang et al 1991; Liu et al 1991; Huang et al 1995), et al 1991; Huang et al 1995). Debate over the Early where there is doubt over the hominid status of some of Pleistocene age of most of these localities hinges on the skeletal remains (Schwartz & Tattersal 1996; Wu palaeomagnetic interpretations of Matuyama or Bruhnes 2000) and an Early Pleistocene date. There are several epoch associations. There is also some uncertainty other Middle pleistocene localities recognised by Chinese associated with the use of uranium series and electron Palaeoanthropologists but the majority of these are spin resonance (ESR) on many of the Middle Pleisto- represented by isolated teeth, or are of less certain age cene sites.While some of the uranium series dates are on and provenance. capping flowstones, for instance Hulu Cave (Zhou et al 1999), the majority are on mammal bone recovered CHINESE MIDDLE PLEISTOCENE HOMINID from the hominid deposits. There is always some SITES uncertainty about the contemporaneity of the faunal, hominid and archaeological materials, and the choice of Longgupo Cave (Wushan) uranium uptake model and dating procedure can have Longgupo Cave in Wushan County, eastern Sichuan substantial implications for results. Problems of this type Province, was excavated by a team from the Institute of contribute to the range of uranium series dates from Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology and the Hexian (Chen et al 1987; Grün et al 1998) and Chongqing National Museum between 1985 and 1988 Zhoukoudian locality 1 (Zhao et al 1985; Huang et al (Gu & Fang 1991; Huang,W, et al 1991; Liu et al 1991). 1991; Shen et al 1996) (Figure 10.1). The excavation recovered some claimed early hominid However, given the difficulties associated with dating dental remains, and stone artefacts, in association with predominantly cave and river terrace deposits the an early Pleistocene fauna. This fauna included Giganto- Chinese Middle Pleistocene is now as securely dated as pithecus teeth and Ailuropoda microta (pygmy giant the same time period in western Europe. With one panda). A mandibular body fragment containing a exception, all of the sites discussed below contain Homo second premolar and first molar, and an unassociated erectus, or ‘archaic’ Homo sapiens, skeletal materials with maxillary lateral incisor were assigned to early Homo, support for a Middle Pleistocene association. The either H. habilis or H. ergaster (Huang et al 1995). Figure 10.1 Range of dates reported for Chinese homo erectus and ‘archaic’ Homo sapiens localities. 136 CHINESE MIDDLE PLEISTOCENE HOMINIDS Magnetostratigraphy indicated that the hominid-bearing of modern east Asians (Mizoguchi 1985). It is possible layers of the deposit, layers 7–8, corresponded with the that both the incisor tooth and stone artefacts could have Olduvai event at 1.96 to 1.78 Ma (Huang,W, et al 1991; moved to the lower Pleistocene layers at Wushan from Liu et al 1991; Huang et al 1995). Electron Spin younger sediments, after falling down cracks or some Resonance (ESR) dates on cervid tooth enamel from form of reworking of the deposit (bioturbation, treadage layer 4 ranged from 0.75DŽ0.09 Ma using an early or water flow). uptake model to 1.02DŽ0.12 Ma using a linear uptake model. Huang et al (1995) argue that the linear uptake Yuanmou model generally provides ages closer to independent The two Yuanmou maxillary central incisor teeth were estimates. This would place layer 4 sediment within the found in 1965 on a small hill near Yuanmou city, Yunan Matuyama reversed epoch and support their palaeo- Province. Excavations of the area by the Institute of magnetic interpretation for the age of the lower Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in 1973 hominid-bearing layers. ESR dating of the hominid recovered faunal material but no artefacts or additional teeth, or teeth of demonstrated contemporaneity with hominid remains. The hominid teeth were described by the hominid teeth, would put this issue beyond doubt. Hu (1973) and Zhou and Hu (1979). On the basis of The Longgupo left mandibular body fragment their size, morphology and presumed age the teeth were assigned to Homo by Huang et al (1995) contains the assigned to Homo erectus. An initial reliance on palaeo- second premolar, first molar and part of the alveolus for magnetic dating and a complicated site stratigraphy has the second molar. The corpus is nearly complete below contributed to a prolonged debate over the age of the the first molar, with a corpus height of 21 mm and width deposit (Cheng et al 1977; Li et al 1979; Liu & Ding of 13.5 mm, making this fragment extremely small by 1983; Qing 1985; Pan et al 1991; Qian et al 1991). The Asian Homo erectus standards (Zhoukoudian and precise location of the teeth in the deposit and their Sangiran). Huang et al (1995) argue that the mandible relationship to the dated horizons and faunal remains is more closely resembles African Homo habilis and Homo unclear, and reworking of the deposit may also be an ergaster. The two mandibular teeth have moderate issue as they are of fluvial and diluvial origin. Liu and occlusal and interproximal wear, exposing dentine and Ding (1983) noted that the faunal sequence at the site removing details of crown morphology.