PALEVO 1631-0683 Elsevier S1631-0683(15)00209-2 10.1016/j.crpv.2015.09.008 Research article Human Palaeontology and Prehistory (Prehistoric Archaeology) What is currently (un)known about the Chinese Acheulean, with implications for hypotheses on the earlier dispersal of hominids Ce qui est (mé)connu de l’Acheuléen chinois, avec implications sur les hypothèses de la dispersion précoce des homininés Coppens Yves Vialet Amélie Li Hao wits_ivpp@hotmail.com a b Kuman Kathleen b c Li Chaorong a Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 142, Xizhimenwai Street, Beijing 100044, China Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences 142, Xizhimenwai Street Beijing 100044 China School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg WITS 2050, South Africa School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies, University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg WITS 2050 South Africa Evolutionary Studies Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg WITS 2050, South Africa Evolutionary Studies Institute, University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg WITS 2050 South Africa 17 1-2 S1631-0683(18)X0003-7 Hominins and tools. Expansion from Africa towards Eurasia / Homininés et outils. Expansions depuis l’Afrique vers l’Eurasie 120 130 © 2015 Académie des sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 2015 Académie des sciences Full (PDF)

Progress in research on the different handaxe-bearing regions of China is making study of the Acheulean a dynamic field in the Chinese Palaeolithic. Given the separate history of these developments, in this paper we integrate the latest achievements in the four key Acheulean regions in China (namely, Dingcun, Bose, Luonan and Danjiangkou Reservoir Region). Based on this, and combined with our own observations of materials from these four regions, we summarize what is currently known about the Chinese Acheulean and propose those questions that are still awaiting resolution. Finally, we consider five arguments that are highly relevant to the origins of the Acheulean techno-complex in China. From this synthesis, we suggest that the technological transmission hypothesis might be a suitable explanation for the emergence of Chinese handaxe technology, and we provide supporting data for the migration of Acheulean hominids from west to east in the Early Palaeolithic period.

Le progrès des découvertes effectuées dans les régions livrant des bifaces en Chine fait de l’étude de l’Acheuléen un champ de recherche dynamique au sein du Paléolithique chinois. En donnant le détail de ces développements dans cet article, nous intégrons les dernières réalisations provenant des quatre régions clé pour l’Acheuléen en Chine (à savoir Dingcun, Bose, Luonan et région du Danjiangkou Reservoir). Sur cette base et celle de nos propres observations effectuées sur le matériel de ces quatre régions, nous synthétisons les connaissances de l’Acheuléen chinois et nous soulevons les questions irrésolues jusqu’à présent. Finalement, nous considérons cinq arguments, nous semblant particulièrement pertinents, concernant les origines du techno-complexe acheuléen en Chine. À partir de cet état de la question, nous suggérons que l’hypothèse de la transmission technologique est une explication valable pour l’émergence de la technologie bifaciale chinoise et nous apportons des données qui soutiennent l’idée d’une migration des homininés acheuléens depuis l’ouest vers l’est au début du Paléolithique.

 Acheulean techno-complex, Handaxes, China, Hominid dispersals, Migration hypothesis Techno-complexe acheuléen, Bifaces, Chine, Dispersion des homininés, Hypothèse de migration presented Handled by Amélie Vialet Introduction

Research on the Acheulean or Acheulean-like techno-complex in China has been a significant but also controversial issue since the first discovery of such tools in the Dingcun localities during the 1950s (Jia, 1955, Jia, 1956 and Pei et al., 1958). Before then, an apparent absence of handaxe technology in China was the observed wisdom, indicative of isolation, stagnation and cultural inferiority (Movius, 1944 and Movius, 1948). Through sustained efforts in recent decades, a number of handaxe-bearing regions have now been documented, in addition to the earlier finds in Dingcun. Among them, Bose in the south and Luonan in central China are most well-known to western researchers. In addition, the Danjiangkou Reservoir Region (DRR) in central China has recently been studied in detail, and the findings published by the authors of this paper. All these studies have contributed to a better understanding of the Acheulean techno-complex in China.

In this paper, we first present a comprehensive review and summary of the four major Chinese Acheulean regions (namely, Dingcun, Bose, Luonan and DRR; see Fig. 1), with particular emphasis on recent achievements in each region. Based on this, and combined with our own observations of materials from these four regions, we summarise what is currently known about the Chinese Acheulean and propose those questions that need to be further resolved. Finally, we discuss the potential significance of the Chinese Acheulean materials for understanding the dispersal of, and communication between, early hominids from a global perspective.

 The key Acheulean regions in China Dingcun

The Dingcun localities are situated in Shanxi province, northern China (Fig. 1). This region is ∼ 11 km long from north to south and ∼ 2 km wide from west to east. Currently, more than 30 Palaeolithic localities have been found since the earliest discovery in 1953. These sites are distributed in the sand and gravel layers of three different terraces (terrace four, terrace three and terrace two) of the Fen River, a tributary of the Yellow River. The various chronological studies show that the age of the Dingcun localities extends from Middle Pleistocene times (terraces four and three) to a late stage of the Late Pleistocene (terrace two) (Chen et al., 1984, Li, 2001, Wang et al., 1994, Wang, 2014, Wu and Liu, 2002, Yang et al., 2014, Zheng, 1989 and Zhou, 1989).

It is around the findings in Dingcun that scholars developed the first round of arguments for Acheulean technology in China. Even today, the debate about the significance of Dingcun is ongoing. Here, we provide examples mainly from two recent studies to show the progress of this discussion. One study was conducted by Yang et al. (2014). They restudied 1177 artifacts that were both excavated and surface-collected in the field season of 1953 and 1954. The techno-typological analysis of these artifacts shows that the typical Acheulean tool types, i.e. handaxes, cleavers and picks, occur in the assemblage, and moreover, an incipient Middle Palaeolithic technology can be argued on the basis of the various light-duty tools and the prepared cores in the assemblage. Overall, Yang et al. (2014) conclude that the Dingcun industry belongs to the Late Acheulean techno-complex, as previously suggested by Breuil and Freeman (Henri Breuil's opinion is in Freeman, 1977 and Pei, 1965). We agree with Yang et al.’s opinion that the Dingcun assemblage can be ascribed to the Acheulean. However, detailed study of the in situ assemblages is needed to examine if a transitional technology is present at Dingcun.

Another study was conducted by Y.R. Wang (2014). He systematically analysed the artifacts retrieved from 1976 to 1980, the second period of large-scale surveys and excavations conducted at Dingcun after the 1950s. The artifacts were both surface collected and excavated from three different terraces of the Fen River, including six localities on terrace four, six localities on terrace three and one locality on terrace two. Based on the large number of lithics, Wang's (2014) study further confirms some conclusions reached by Yang et al. (2014) and also provides new insights into the Dingcun industry.

First, the study expands the chronological and spatial range of the Dingcun culture. The original discoveries of the 13 Palaeolithic localities in the 1950s are all situated on the third terrace (older than 128 ka and younger than 336 ka; see Yang et al., 2014). The new findings show that a consistent lithic industry is also present in the older fourth terrace (> 336 ka, as suggested by Yang et al., 2014), with continuity in the younger second terrace (late Late Pleistocene; Wang, 2014). Secondly, the Kombewa method is used; this is considered a skilful technique, which uses large flakes as core to produce flakes with bi-convex profiles and sharp edges. Some Kombewa flakes were further shaped into cleavers, which is also suggested by Yang et al. (2014). Thirdly, from a typological perspective, knives were identified as a new tool type in the Dingcun assemblage (Wang, 2014). The knife is regarded as a representative type in the Large Cutting Tools of the African Acheulean (Clark, 1974, Clark, 2001, Isaac, 1977 and Kleindienst, 1962). In China, it has only been previously reported in the Luonan Basin (Wang, 2007). Another point of consensus between Yang et al. (2014) and Wang (2014) is that the Dingcun industry is not dominated by chopper-chopping tools; on the contrary, chopper-chopping tools were not actually an important type in the Dingcun industry.

Thus far, all observations by Wang (2014), in our opinion, are appropriate and pertinent. However, regarding the use of terminology to define the most representative tools in the Dingcun assemblage, Wang (2014) suggests using two types – trihedral points and big points. As a consequence, Wang argues that the similarity of trihedral points and big points to the typical western Acheulean types of pick and handaxes (respectively) can be regarded as technological convergence. We have discussed the misuse of the term point in the Chinese Palaeolithic elsewhere (Kuman et al., 2014). Based on our observation of a large sample of so-called trihedral points and big points stored in the Shanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology and the Dingcun Culture Museum, we suggest that these tools are clear examples of handaxes and picks in the western sense, and there is no necessity to deny their technological attributes as Acheulean.

 Bose

Twenty years after the first discovery of Dingcun in 1953, archaeologists launched a field survey in a river basin in the western Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, southern China (Li and You, 1975; see Fig. 1). It is this area, the Bose Basin, that scholars soon identified as another important handaxe-bearing region (Huang, 1987 and Zeng, 1983). Currently, more than 110 Palaeolithic sites have been found in an area of ∼ 800 km2, and all of the Large Cutting Tools (LCTs, i.e. handaxes, picks, cleavers) have been collected from the fourth terrace of Youjiang River (Hou et al., 2000, Huang, 2003, Huang et al., 2012 and Wang and Bae, 2015). In addition, several sites on terrace four have been systematically excavated in recent years and LCTs have been unearthed in situ (Gao et al., 2014, Hou et al., 2011, Lin, 2002, Pei et al., 2007, Wang et al., 2008, Wang et al., 2014b and Xie and Lin, 2008). The age of these sites has been dated to ∼ 0.83 Ma using the 40Ar/39Ar dating method on tektites discovered together with the artifacts (Hou et al., 2000, Koeberl et al., 2000, Wang et al., 2008, Wang et al., 2014b and Wang and Bae, 2015). We accept that their earliest appearance in Bose can be traced back to ∼ 0.8 Ma, as several excavations have confirmed the coexistence of handaxes and tektites in the same stratigraphic layer, and importantly, these tektites have not been re-worked (Wang et al., 2008, Wang et al., 2014b and Wang and Bae, 2015; and personal communication with G.M. Xie).

The Bose LCTs became widely known by western researchers after the publication of the Hou et al. (2000) paper, which also immediately aroused a new round of discussion about the Acheulean phenomenon in China. Some scholars argue that the findings in Bose Basin demonstrate that people ∼ 0.8 Ma years ago in China were flaking tools that are as sophisticated as anything made in Africa (Bar-Yosef and Wang, 2012, Hou et al., 2000, Huang et al., 2005, Huang et al., 2009, Shen, 2008 and Zhang et al., 2010). On the other hand, other scholars think that it is unwise to press too close a cultural connection of the Bose LCTs with western Acheulean examples. Their reasons include: the Bose LCTs are dominated by unifacial flaking (65% of LCTs) and only a quarter of the bifacially flaked tools are made on large flakes; there is no evidence of true cleavers (contra Huang, 2003); the morphological attributes (especially the thickness) of the Bose handaxes are different from handaxes in the western Acheulean; and the sample from the various sites taken together is too small (Corvinus, 2004, Dennell, 2009, Gao, 2012, Lycett and Bae, 2010, Lycett and Norton, 2010, Norton and Bae, 2008, Norton et al., 2006, Schick, 1994, Wang et al., 2014b and Wang et al., 2012). In addition to the intensive arguments on lithic technology and morphology, the age of the Bose LCTs has also been highly debated (see Langbroek, 2015 and Wang and Bae, 2015 for the latest discussion).

Based on our observation of the Bose materials stored in Y.M. Hou's office in IVPP (Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences) and our related comparative studies (Kuman et al., 2014, Li et al., 2014a and Li et al., 2014b), we would argue that the Bose LCTs possess technological characteristics comparable with typical Acheulean. The materials stored in IVPP are mainly the surface-collected LCTs published by Hou et al. in 2000 in Science. Although the morphology of Bose handaxes, mainly the thickness, is out of the range of variability for typical Acheulean handaxes, we suggest this is the result of regional adaptation. The context of the Bose location should be carefully considered, e.g., the type and quality of the raw materials and the specifics of subsistence ecology. The thick body of the Bose handaxes is likely related to the use of large and/or poor quality river cobbles as raw material, and to the emphasis on heavy-duty woodworking activities that took place in the local subtropical environment (Kuman et al., 2014, Li et al., 2014a and Yuan et al., 2008).

 Luonan

Luonan Basin is situated in Shannxi province, central China (Fig. 1). It covers an area of ∼ 70 km long from west to east, and 20–30 km wide from north to south. More than 300 open-air Palaeolithic sites have been found since the first field survey in 1995. These sites are distributed along the different terraces (from terrace six to terrace two) of the South Luo River, a tributary of the Yellow River. Hundreds of LCTs, including handaxes, picks, cleavers and knives, have been collected from the terraces (Shaanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology et al., 2007, Wang, 2005, Wang, 2006, Wang, 2007, Wang et al., 2005 and Wang et al., 1997). Recent excavations on terrace two have unearthed LCTs in situ, which confirm the primary stratigraphy of the abundant LCTs that were surface-collected from the second terrace of the Luonan Basin (Wang et al., 2011, Wang et al., 2013 and Xing, 2014). Multiple analyses of the chronology indicate that the first occupation of the Luonan Basin was from ca. 0.8 Ma ago, but most of the LCTs are associated with the younger terrace two ca. 0.25 Ma, and they continue to be present during the early part of the Late Pleistocene (Lu et al., 2011, Lu et al., 2007, Lu et al., 2012, Sun et al., 2014, Wang, 2005, Wang and Huang, 2001 and Xing, 2014; and personal communication with S.J. Wang).

LCTs found in the Luonan Basin have been regarded as exhibiting a technology most similar to the typical Acheulean in Africa and western Europe. One main reason is because this is currently the only area in China with numerous typical cleavers (Gao, 2012, Petraglia and Shipton, 2008 and Wang, 2006), in addition to the findings in Dingcun. Moreover, the extensive use of large flake blanks and bifacial shaping in making LCTs are evidence of a true Acheulean techno-complex in Luonan (Gao, 2012, Wang, 2005 and Wang et al., 2005). Despite these similarities to Acheulean technology, different opinions still exist. Some scholars believe that both the technology and morphology of the Luonan LCTs fit comfortably within the Acheulean range of variation, and this may mean that hominids with knowledge of Acheulean tool making strategies dispersed into East Asia from a western source (Bar-Yosef and Wang, 2012, Gao, 2012, Petraglia and Shipton, 2008, Shipton and Petraglia, 2010, Wang, 2005 and Xing, 2014). In contrast, other scholars point to the fact that handaxes in Luonan Basin are generally thicker than classic western Acheulean forms, and the bifacial components of the lithic collections are proportionally very small (Norton and Bae, 2008). They therefore argue that the material should not be used to support scenarios involving the intrusion of western Acheulean traditions into this region during the Middle-Late Pleistocene (Lycett and Bae, 2010).

Our inter-regional comparative study of the thickness variability of handaxes has shown that the Luonan handaxes overlap with examples from some typical Acheulean sites, e.g., Doornlaagte in South Africa and Mudnur VIII in India (Kuman et al., 2014, Li et al., 2014a and Li et al., 2014b). We have also proposed that the number of handaxes in a site is not a good criterion by which to judge the attributes of an industry; rather this should be seen as a by-product of behavioural (or social) processes (Li et al., 2014b and Li et al., 2014c). Therefore, overall, we agree with S.J. Wang's opinion that LCTs found in the Luonan Basin do demonstrate the existence of the real Acheulean techno-complex in this area (Wang, 2005).

 DRR

The Danjiangkou Reservoir Region (DRR) is located at the southeastern edge of the Qinling Mountains and is fed by the Han River, the longest tributary of the Yangtze River (Fig. 1). The archaeological work in this region actually started as early as the 1970s with the discovery of human fossils and stone artifacts in some cave sites (Qiu et al., 1982, Wu and Dong, 1980 and Wu and Wu, 1982). The most important findings in this area are two human crania discovered in the open-air Xuetangliangzi site (or Yunxian Man site), Yunxian county in 1989 and 1990 respectively (Li and Etler, 1992, Li and Feng, 2001 and Li et al., 1991). The site is located on the fourth terrace of the Han River and has been dated by palaeomagnetism and fauna to an approximate age of 0.936/0.8 Ma (Chen et al., 1997, Chen et al., 1996, Huang and Li, 1995, Li and Feng, 2001, de Lumley and Li, 2008 and Yan, 1993). In addition to the two crania, abundant animal fossils and stone artifacts were unearthed from this site, with one handaxe found in situ and 13 LCTs collected from the surface near to the site (Feng, 2008 and de Lumley and Li, 2008).

The most intensive discovery of LCTs in DRR occurred in 1994. In cooperation with the construction of the national South-to-North Water Transfer Project, the field team of IVPP (Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences) conducted a systematic survey around the margin of the Danjiangkou Reservoir. Fifty-six open-air Palaeolithic sites (from terrace four to terrace two) were discovered associated with LCTs such as handaxes, picks and cleavers (Huang et al., 1996, Li, 1998 and Li et al., 2009). In addition, local museums also carried out investigations and collected numerous stone artifacts (including LCTs) from this region (Shiyan Museum, 2011, Shiyan Museum and Danjiangkou Museum, 1999, Zhu, 1999 and Zhu, 2001). In 2004, the field team from IVPP conducted a second large-scale Palaeolithic survey in DRR. Through this investigation, the number of the Palaeolithic sites in DRR increased to more than 110, and many more LCTs were surface-collected (Li et al., 2012). The number of LCTs used in our study is approximately 200 (Kuman et al., 2014 and Li et al., 2014c). From 2006, systematic excavations in this region began, and currently more than 30 Palaeolithic sites have been excavated, such as Pengjiahe (Pei et al., 2008a), Beitaishanmiao (Zhou et al., 2009), Songwan (Niu et al., 2012), Beitaishanmiao II (Fang et al., 2012), Guochachang II (Li et al., 2013), Shuiniuwa (Chen et al., 2014), and Maling 2A (Pei et al., 2015). Comprehensive chronological analyses indicate that LCT sites in this region have persisted for a long period, from the late Early Pleistocene to the early part of the Late Pleistocene (Chen et al., 1996, Huang and Li, 1995, Huang et al., 1996, Li et al., 2014b, Liu and Feng, 2014, de Lumley and Li, 2008, Pei et al., 2015, Shen, 1956, Yan, 1993 and Zhu, 1955).

Because of these intensive surveys and excavations, the DRR has now become one of the most important areas in Chinese Palaeolithic research. Through a detailed study from typological, technological and morphological perspectives, we have now achieved some significant understanding of the Acheulean techno-complex in DRR, especially its regional variability and adaptation compared with other Acheulean regions in China (Kuman et al., 2014, Li et al., 2014a, Li et al., 2014b, Li et al., 2015, Li et al., 2014c and Li et al., 2014d). The major results of our DRR research are discussed in the section below.

 What is currently known about the Acheulean in China

Our updated understanding of the Chinese Acheulean through research in the four key regions – Dingcun, Bose, Luonan and DRR – can be summarised as follows.

First, although raw material can be the cause of the technological and morphological variability of LCTs found in different regions, it is not an impediment to the production of LCTs. The types of raw material in the Chinese sites are varied: quartzite is the most commonly used raw material in Bose and Luonan, while in Dingcun, hornfels dominates, and in DRR, quartz phyllite and trachyte dominate. All these raw materials are locally available. The quality of the raw materials also varies. Generally speaking, raw materials in Luonan and Dingcun are of good quality, whereas the Bose and DRR raw materials are of poor quality, with coarse grain sizes for quartzite in Bose and platy structure and internal joints for the materials in DRR. In addition, the original size of raw materials varies in the different regions. In those areas where giant-sized raw materials can be easily found, namely Luonan and Dingcun, most of the LCTs are made on large flakes. In contrast, in regions where large flakes could not easily be produced from the raw materials, namely Bose and DRR, large proportions of LCTs were made directly on river cobbles, and in the case of these two sites, the number of cleavers is also small. A similar paucity of cleavers has also been observed in many sites in the western Acheulean where suitable raw materials are absent (Santonja and Villa, 2006 and Villa, 1983). This inter-regional variability of raw materials in China, on the other hand, demonstrates the stability of an Acheulean technological tradition in the East, and it also shows great flexibility in raw material exploitation.

Second, the ability to detach large flakes and make LCTs (i.e. handaxes, picks, cleavers, knives) in the four regions is comparable to that found in the typical Acheulean techno-complex in the western part of the Old World. This is the main reason that we suggest using the term Acheulean for the LCT-bearing sites in China. However, the question of Acheulean technology in China originating from a western source is still only a hypothesis, and the exact origins of the Chinese Acheulean still need to be further explored.

Third, we argue that although the concept of Acheulean tool-kits existed in the maker's mind, there was no standardized morphological concept for the end products. The same situation also applies to Acheulean in the western part of the Old World (McNabb et al., 2004). Variability in the final morphology of the LCTs can be caused by multiple factors, e.g., the quality of raw materials, degree of reduction intensity, individual skill and interest, etc.

Fourth, the quantitative inter-continental comparison of handaxe morphologies, especially with regard to thickness, shows that the handaxes from DRR fall very close to the range of typical western Acheulean handaxes, while those from Luonan show only a small overlap with some Acheulean assemblages but are less thick than the rest from East Asia (Kuman et al., 2014, Li et al., 2014a and Li et al., 2014b). Therefore, we suggest that morphological difference is not a very reliable variable for demonstrating handaxe differences between the East and the West.

Fifth, the low proportion of LCTs in all complete tool assemblages is a consistent observation for in Bose, DRR and Luonan. In Bose and DRR, the total number of stone artifacts is also small for the size of the excavation area, good examples being the sites of Fengshudao and Nanbanshan (Wang et al., 2008 and Wang et al., 2014b) in Bose, and Shuangshu and Guochachang (Li et al., 2014b and Li et al., 2013) in DRR. However, for the sites located at higher latitude, the situation seems to be different. In the Luonan Basin, although the number of LCTs per site is generally low, the total number of artifacts is much higher than at the sites in Bose and DRR. The Zhanghuokou site located on the second terrace of the South Luo River in Luonan can be used as an example. More than 23,000 artifacts were unearthed from 170 m2 area (Wang et al., 2011). To the north of Luonan, the proportion of LCTs at some of the Dingcun sites is higher than in all three other regions. For example, at the terrace three 80:01 Locality in Dingcun, a total of 403 artifacts was discovered. Among them, 118 artifacts were defined as formal tools, including five unifacially flaked heavy trihedral points (picks in our definition), three big points (handaxes in our definition, with one unifacial, one bifacial and one partly bifacial handaxe according to the illustrations in Wang, 2014), 12 cleaver-like tools (cleavers in our definition), and nine large knives. In addition, of the 14 choppers, most were bifacially flaked and were called bifaces by the author (Wang, 2014). Our observation of the illustrations in Wang (2014) indicates that some bifacial choppers can actually be classified as handaxes. In addition to the large number of LCTs in this locality, six heavy-duty scrapers and 38 spheroids were also documented (Wang, 2014). Therefore, we suggest that there is a perceptible change in the proportion of LCTs as the geography and/or chronology changes.

Sixth, in Dingcun, Luonan and DRR, the technological characteristics of the LCTs from the Middle Pleistocene to the Late Pleistocene are consistent, which shows the conservatism of the Acheulean technological tradition over a relatively long period, which is also a western Acheulean trait (e.g., see Sharon et al., 2011). But, there is one interesting phenomenon at the late Late Pleistocene site of Dingcun, namely the 77:01 Locality. At this site, microliths were unearthed together with the LCTs, which clearly shows that at the time this Late Palaeolithic technology emerged, the previous Acheulean technological tradition had not disappeared (Wang, 2014). This may imply contact between two different population groups in northern China.

Seventh, the LCT-bearing sites in these four regions were all found in open-air river terrace deposits. And so far, all scattered finds in other regions are also at open-air sites, e.g., the Middle and Late Pleistocene handaxe-bearing sites at the Lantian area (Wang et al., 2014a; Fig. 2). In contrast, all the cave sites situated in the same region as LCT sites have shown only the small-sized core and flake technology, e.g., Longyadong Cave in the Luonan Basin, and Bailongdong Cave and Huanglongdong Cave in the DRR (Pei et al., 2008b, Wang and Huang, 2001, Wu et al., 2006, Wu et al., 2009 and Wu et al., 2007; see Fig. 2). This is interesting in the light of current discoveries. While it may demonstrate that the Acheulean hominids conducted different activities in different contexts (cave sites vs. open-air sites), it could equally well indicate that there were two different hominid groups living in the same region at similar times, but with different cultural or subsistence practices. A detailed comparative study between cave sites and open-air sites in the future should provide a satisfactory answer to this interesting contrast.

Eighth, because of the findings of Luonan and DRR, which are situated between the Bose sites in southern China and the Dingcun sites in northern China, the distributional range of the Acheulean techno-complex in China has now been expanded. Consequently, discussion of the migration and dispersal routes of the hominids possessing Acheulean technology is becoming possible.

 The unresolved questions

As a result of the current studies, some significant but still unanswered questions about the Chinese Acheulean are being taken on board.

First, when did LCTs first appear in China? This is an important question for understanding the earliest origins of the Chinese Acheulean. Currently, the earliest LCTs have been reported from the fourth terrace sites of Bose (∼ 0.803 Ma) and in the late Early Pleistocene Yunxian Man site in DRR (ca 0.936/0.8 Ma) (Hou et al., 2000, Li and Feng, 2001, de Lumley and Li, 2008, Wang et al., 2014b and Wang and Bae, 2015). Although we agree with the age of the LCT sites in Bose, further dating work, in our opinion, is still very necessary to settle all controversy. For the Yunxian Man site, the original report states that all bifacially shaped tools were actually collected from the nearby surface (Li et al., 1998). Therefore, further excavation work on terrace four is needed to reveal the earliest origin of the Acheulean technology in DRR. In addition, at the Lantian Man site (1.15 Ma according to An and Ho, 1989; and ca. 1.62 Ma in Zhu et al., 2015), the report of a single handaxe that may be associated with the Lantian cranium also needs to be further examined because of the different proveniences of this handaxe with the Lantian cranium (∼ 2 km east of the Lantian Man site; see Dai, 1966).

Second, as we have already mentioned, how do we interpret the co-existence of open-air LCT sites and the cave sites with core and flake technology. In addition to the abundant open-air sites found along the river terraces, the cave sites are also important findings in both DRR and Luonan, e.g., the Middle Pleistocene Bailongdong cave and the Late Pleistocene Huanglongdong cave at DRR, and the Middle Pleistocene Longyadong cave at Luonan (see Fig. 2). Preliminary studies of the lithic artifacts from these cave sites show that unlike the LCT technology displayed in the open-air sites, only simple core and flake technology was used in these cave sites (Pei et al., 2008b, Shaanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology and Museum of Luonan County, 2008 and Wang, 2005). A detailed comparative study of the two different types of sites in the future should provide answers for this co-existence phenomenon, particularly if the non-LCT technologies are contrasted.

Third, why was the Acheulean techno-complex in DRR, Luonan and/or Dingcun not replaced by Levallois technology or other forms of advanced technology during the Late Pleistocene? What does this tell us about the origins of modern humans in China? For example, current dating evidence shows that the LCT sites in DRR persisted until the early stage of the Late Pleistocene (Liu and Feng, 2014). Nevertheless, in the western part of the Old World, this is a time period characterised by the use of innovative Levallois technology. We are not expecting to answer these questions in the short term, but it is now the time to carefully consider them and intentionally collect the data to address such questions.

Fourth, what is the real distribution pattern of the Acheulean sites in China? Currently, only four major Acheulean regions are discussed. But from the scattered findings at other places reported in Chinese journals (Fig. 1 and Fig. 3), we are confident that there are more regions of the Acheulean techno-complex awaiting discovery. For instance, a small number of LCTs is reported in the Lishui valley, Hunan Province (Chu, 1998 and Yuan, 1996; see Fig. 1 and Fig. 3). This region is situated between the DRR in central China and Bose in southern China and may play an important role in linking the two regions. Another good example is the new finding of LCTs from the Nanjiang valley, Guangdong Province (Li, 2014; see Fig. 1), which is located in the same river system as the Bose Basin, about 500 km east of it. This new finding clearly indicates a wider distribution of the Acheulean techno-complex in southern China. Therefore, we suggest that it is necessary to pay more attention to these promising areas to better understand the distribution pattern of LCT-bearing sites in China.

 Implications of the Chinese Acheulean for the early dispersal of hominids in Eurasia

From the review of current progress in each region, we can see that the most debatable question about the Chinese Acheulean is probably: how did this new techno-complex originate? Did it evolve indigenously, or it was brought into China from the West? If the latter hypothesis is correct, it would indicate that hominids possessing Acheulean technology migrated from the west to the east. Either way, study of the Chinese Acheulean can benefit our understanding of early hominids’ migration history in Pleistocene Eurasia. Here, from an integrated perspective, we are inclined to favor the migration hypothesis for the Acheulean technology in China. But, we recognize that further study in the future may confirm or reject this hypothesis.

Five aspects should be incorporated into our analysis: lithic technology, palaeoanthropology, palaeoenvironment, chronological relationships and distribution patterns of the Acheulean sites in China. The first has been sufficiently described, and it has been shown that LCT technology in China is comparable with the western Acheulean, especially when compared with the complete sequence of Acheulean in Africa. For the second aspect, the earliest finding of human fossils associated with Acheulean technology is currently reported from the Yunxian Man site in DRR (Feng, 2008 and de Lumley and Li, 2008). Study of the two late Early Pleistocene Yunxian crania indicates that they possess some sapiens-like features and are more advanced than the classic Homo erectus crania from the Middle Pleistocene cave site of Zhoukoudian Locality 1 in Beijing (see Fig. 1), where only small-sized core and flake technology is present (Etler and Li, 1994, Li and Etler, 1992, Vialet et al., 2010 and Vialet et al., 2005; and personal communication with A. Vialet). Taking this evidence together, we think that it is much more likely that the Yunxian hominids represent either a new human group that migrated from the West, or admixture of such a people with local populations.

From the palaeoenvironmental perspective, the Ailuropoda-Stegodon fauna persisted in southern China during most of the Pleistocene (Li and Feng, 2001, Qiu et al., 1982, Wu et al., 2009 and Wu et al., 2008). In addition, the influence of the East Asian winter monsoon on southern China was generally more limited than it was on northern China, although climate fluctuations did take place in South China (Ji, 1982, Xie et al., 2003 and Zhao and Yang, 1995). Therefore, we argue that there was no environmental pressure leading to the origin of Acheulean technology at Bose, which is located in the more stable subtropics of southern China. Fourth, from the perspective of chronology, the earliest Acheulean technology appeared in China at around 0.8 Ma (e.g. Bose and DRR; Hou et al., 2000, Koeberl et al., 2000, Li and Feng, 2001, de Lumley and Li, 2008, Wang et al., 2008, Wang et al., 2014b and Wang and Bae, 2015). In Southeast Asia, the earliest LCT-bearing site is currently Ngebung in Indonesia, which has also been dated back to about 0.8 Ma ago (Simanjuntak et al., 2010). And in India, numerous Early and Middle Pleistocene Acheulean sites have been found (Gaillard et al., 2010, Paddayya et al., 2002, Pappu et al., 2011 and Petraglia, 2006). So, it seems that Acheulean hominids dispersed into Southeast and East Asia at about 0.8 Ma, possibly with a dispersal route from the south. However, a northern route that crossed through central Asia also has the potential to be examined in greater detail. Currently all that is known is that after 0.35 Ma, Late Acheulean sites (along with typical Levallois technology) are found in the southern Caucasus and central Asia (Derevianko and Shunkov, 2014 and Doronichev, 2008).

Lastly, considering the current distribution pattern of handaxe-bearing sites within China itself, it seems that there were two migratory routes for the transmission of Acheulean technology. One is a south-north route along the transitional zones between the mountains and the plains; the other is a west-east route along the Yangtze River and its tributaries (Fig. 3). Regardless of which hypothesis is adopted for the initial origins of Chinese Acheulean technology (indigenous vs. intrusive), we suggest that the transmission of this technology from a regional source (in or outside of China) is the most likely explanation, rather than the repeated invention of Acheulean technology in different regions. Future investigation and excavation work in the regions along these two routes will further test this inference.

 Conclusions

The progress achieved on research at the different handaxe-bearing regions of China is making study of the Acheulean an exciting and important field in the Chinese Palaeolithic. In this paper, we have integrated the latest achievements in four key Acheulean regions in China and, importantly, we have summarized what is currently known about the Chinese Acheulean. On the other hand, the questions that are still awaiting resolution were also discussed. Finally, through the synthesized consideration of five aspects that are highly pertinent to the origins of the Acheulean techno-complex in China, we suggest that the case for a technological transmission hypothesis might be stronger, which would indicate the migration of Acheulean hominids from the West to the East.

The Acheulean techno-complex found in China explicitly demonstrates the technological diversity and variability in the East Asian Early Palaeolithic (EAEP), and furthermore it shows that with deeper research on the EAEP, our relevant understanding will be deeper as well. In addition, the migration of early hominids in the Pleistocene time period should not be restricted today by too close a national focus; only by considering the EAEP from a global perspective can we correctly understand the migration history of our ancestors. We therefore hope that the advances in the study of Chinese Acheulean described in this paper will come to be known by more English readers, which will further promote academic communication between us.

 Acknowledgements

This research has been funded by: the CAS Pioneer Hundred Talents Program http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004602 ; the Chinese Government Graduate Student Overseas Study Program (grant number [2013]3009); the Chinese Natural Science Foundation http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100007219 (grant number 40972016); the Cultural Relics Protection Research Project of Hubei Reservoir Area of South-North Water Diversion Foundation (grant number NK02); the China-South Africa Bilateral Programme in Palaeosciences, through grants provided by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China to Prof. Liu Wu ( Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100003882 , grant number 2007DFB20330) and by the National Research Foundation of South Africa http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001321 to Prof. R.J. Clarke (University of the Witwatersrand, grant number 68625). We thank them for their support and interest in the archaeology. Current funding is provided by grants in the same programme to Prof. Gao Xing (IVPP) and to K. Kuman (NRF grant number 88480). We thank Amélie Vialet for her invitation to contribute to this issue and her help in the French translation in this paper.

 An Z.S. Ho C.K. New magnetostratigraphic dates of Lantian Homo erectus Quat. Res. 32 1989 213–221 Bar-Yosef O. Wang Y.P. Paleolithic archaeology in China Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 41 2012 319–335 Chen Q.J. Chen X.Y. Fang Q. A preliminary report on the excavation of the Shuiniuwa Paleolithic site in the Danjiangkou Reservoir Region Acta Anthropol. Sin. 33 1 2014 27–38 Chen T.M. Yang Q. Hu Y.Q. Bao W.B. Li T.Y. ESR dating of tooth enamel from Yuxian Homo erectus site, China Quat. Sci. Rev. 16 1997 455–458 Chen T.M. Yang Q. Hu Y.Q. Li T.Y. ESR dating on the stratigraphy of Yunxian Homo erectus, Hubei, China Acta Anthropol. Sin. 15 2 1996 114–118 Chen T.M. Yuan S.X. Gao S.J. The study on uranium-series dating of fossil bones and an absolute age sequence for the main Paleolithic sites of North China Acta Anthropol. Sin 3 3 1984 259–269 Chu Y.X. The preliminary study of the handaxe-like tools in the middle valley of Yangtze River J. Chin. Antiquity 2 1998 35–39 Clark J.D. Kalambo Falls Prehistoric Site, Vol. II. The Later Prehistoric Cultures 1974 Cambridge University Press Cambridge Clark J.D. Kalambo Falls Prehistoric Site, Vol. III. The Early Cultures: Middle and Earlier Stone Age 2001 Cambridge University Press Cambridge Corvinus G. Homo erectus in East and Southeast Asia and the questions of the age of the species and its association with stone artifacts, with special attention to handaxe-like tools Quatern. Int. 117 2004 141–151 Dai E.J. The Paleolithic found at Lantian man locality of Gongwangling and its vicinity Vert. PalAsiatica 10 1 1966 30–32 Dennell R. The Paleolithic Settlement of Asia 2009 Cambridge University Press Cambridge Derevianko A.P. Shunkov M.V. Northern and central Asia: culture during the Lower Paleolithic era Smith C. Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology 2014 Springer New York New York 5475–5489 Doronichev V.B. The Lower Paleolithic in eastern Europe and the Caucasus: a reappraisal of the data and new approaches PaleoAnthropology 2008 2008 107–157 Etler D. Li T. New archaic human fossil discoveries in China and their bearing on hominid species definition during the Middle Pleistocene Corruccini R.S. Ciochon R.L. Integrative Paths to the Past, Paleoanthropological Advances in Honor of F. Clark Howell 1994 Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 639–675 Fang Q. Chen Q.J. Lu Y. A preliminary report on the excavation of the Beitaishanmiao Paleolithic site 2 at Danjiangkou, Hubei province Acta Anthropol. Sin. 31 4 2012 343–354 Feng X.B. Technological characterization of China and Europe Lower Paleolithic industry from 1 Ma to 400,000 years: similarity and difference between the Yunxian Hominid culture and European Acheulean Anthropologie 112 2008 423–447 Freeman L.G. Paleolithic archaeology and Paleoanthropology in China Howells W.W. Tsuchitani P.J. Paleoanthropology in the People's Republic of China, CSCPRC, No. 4 1977 Printing and Publishing Office, National Academy of Sciences Washington, DC 79–113 Gaillard C. Mishra S. Singh M. Deo S. Abbas R. Lower and Early Middle Pleistocene Acheulian in the Indian sub-continent Quatern. Int. 223–224 2010 234–241 Gao L.H. Yuan J.J. Hou Y.M. Paleolithic artifacts from the Gaolingpo site in the Bose Basin Acta Anthropol. Sin. 33 2 2014 137–148 Gao X. Characteristics and significance of paleolithic handaxes from China Acta Anthropol. Sin. 31 2 2012 97–112 Hou Y.M. Gao L.H. Huang W.W. Xie G.M. Lin Q. Wang W. Tian F. A report on the 1993 excavation of the Gaolingpo Paleolithic site in the Bose Basin Acta Anthropol. Sin. 30 1 2011 3–14 Hou Y.M. Potts R. Yuan B.Y. Guo Z.T. Deino A. Wang W. Clark J. Xie G.M. Huang W.W. Mid-Pleistocene Acheulean-like stone technology of the Bose Basin, South China Science 287 2000 1622–1626 Huang P.H. Li W.S. Landscape, quaternary strata and buried environment at estuary of the Quyuan River in Yunxian county, Hubei province Jianghan Archaeol. 4 1995 3–86 Huang Q.S. Bose Paleolithic Industry 2003 Cultural Relics Press Beijing Huang S.M. Wang W. Bae C.J. Xu G.L. Liu K.T. Recent Paleolithic field investigations in Bose Basin (Guangxi, China) Quatern. Int. 281 2012 5–9 Huang W.W. On a collection of Paleoliths from Sanmen area in western Honan Vert. PalAsiatica 8 2 1964 162–177 Huang W.W. Bifaces in China Acta Anthropol. Sin. 6 1 1987 61–68 Huang W.W. Hou Y. Seong H.K. The pebble-tool tradition in China Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 21 1 2005 2–15 Huang W.W. Hou Y.M. Gao L.H. “Western elements” in the Chinese Paleolithic as viewed in a framework of early human cultural evolution Acta Anthropol. Sin. 28 1 2009 16–25 Huang W.W. Qi G.Q. Preliminary observation of Liangshan Paleolithic site Acta Anthropol. Sin. 6 3 1987 236–243 Huang X.S. Zheng S.H. Li C.R. Zhang Z.Q. Guo J.W. Liu L.P. Discovery of vertebrate fossils and Paleolithic artifacts in Danjiang submerging area and its implications Vert. PalAsiatica 34 3 1996 228–234 Isaac G.L. Olorgesailie: Archaeological Studies of a Middle Pleistocene Lake Basin in Kenya 1977 University of Chicago Press Chicago Ji H.X. The living environment of the Quaternary mammalian faunas in South China Vert. PalAsiatica 20 2 1982 149–154 Jia L.P. The report of Dingcun Homo fossil and lithic artifacts in Xiangfen district, Shanxi Province Chin. Sci. Bull. 1 1955 46–51 Jia L.P. Handaxes discovered in China China Sci. Bull. 12 1956 39–41 Kleindienst M.R. Component of the East African Acheulian assemblage: an analytic approach Mortelmans G. Nenquin J. Actes du IV Congrès Panafricain de Préhistoire et de l’Étude du Quaternaire, Leopoldville, 1959 1962 Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale Tervuren, Belgie Annalen 81–108 Koeberl C. Glass B.P. Keates S.G. Potts R. Huang W.W. Deino A. Yuan B.Y. Guo Z.T. Clark J. Tektites and the age paradox in Mid-Pleistocene China Science 289 2000 507 Kuman K. Li C.R. Li H. Large cutting tools in the Danjiangkou Reservoir Region, central China J. Hum. Evol. 76 2014 129–153 Langbroek M. Do tektites really date the bifaces from the Bose (Baise) Basin, Guangxi, southern China? J. Hum. Evol. 80 2015 175–178 Li C.R. Stone artifacts discovered in Danjiangkou Reservoir Region J. Natl. Museum Chin. Hist. 1 1998 4–12 Li C.R. Feng X.W. Li H. A study of the stone artifacts discovered in the Danjiangkou Reservoir Area in 1994 Acta Anthropol. Sin. 28 4 2009 337–354 Li C.R. Xu C.Q. Paleoliths from the Liao River area in Anyi, Jiangxi province Acta Anthropol. Sin. 10 1 1991 35–43 Li H. Kuman K. Li C.R. Re-examination of the morphological variability of East Asian handaxes from a comparative perspective World Archaeol. 46 2014 705–733 Li H. Li C.R. Kuman K. Chen J. Yao H.T. Li Z. The Middle Pleistocene Acheulean site of Shuangshu in the Danjiangkou Reservoir Region, central China J. Archaeol. Sci. 52 2014 391–409 Li H. Kuman K. Li C.R. Quantifying the reduction intensity of handaxes with 3D technology: a case study of handaxes in the Danjiangkou Reservoir Region, central China PLoS One 10 9 2015 e0135613 Li H. Li C.R. Feng X.W. A study on the stone artifacts from 2004 field investigation in Danjiangkou Reservoir Area, Hubei and Henan, China Acta Anthropol. Sin. 31 2 2012 113–126 Li H. Li C.R. Kuman K. A preliminary report on the excavation of the Guochachang II Paleolithic site in the Danjiangkou Reservoir Region, Hubei province, China Acta Anthropol. Sin. 32 2 2013 144–155 Li H. Li C.R. Kuman K. Rethinking the “Acheulean” in East Asia: Evidence from the recent investigations in the Danjiangkou Reservoir Region, central China Quatern. Int. 347 2014 163–175 Li H. Li C.R. Kuman K. Cleavers retrived from the field investigations in the Danjiangkou Reservoir Region, Central China Acta Anthropol. Sin. 33 2 2014 162–176 Li T.Y. Stone tools discovered at Shanwan in Xiangyang Jianghan Archaeol. 1 1983 39–42 Li T.L. A study of the age of the Dingcun formation using loess-paleosol sequence analysis J. Stratigraphy 25 2001 102–107 Li T.Y. Etler D.A. New Middle Pleistocene hominid crania from Yunxian in China Nature 357 1992 404–407 Li T.Y. Feng X.B. Yunxian Man 2001 Hubei Science and Technology Press Wuhan Li T.Y. Wang Z.H. Li W.S. Feng X.B. Hu K. Liu W.C. Investigation and the trial excavation of Quyuanhekou site in Yunxian, Hubei province Jianghan Archaeol. 2 1991 1–14 Li Y.X. Ji H.X. Li T.Y. Feng X.B. Li W.S. The stone artifacts found in the Yunxian Man site Acta Anthropol. Sin. 17 2 1998 94–120 Li Y.X. You Y.Z. Discovery of Palaeolithic artifacts in Bose, Guangxi Vert. Palaeontol. 13 1975 225–228 Li Z. The first discovery of Early Palaeolithic sites in Guangdong Province 2014 Chinese Relics Newspaper Lin Q. A preliminary report on excavations at the Poxiling Paleolithic site in Tiandong county, Guangxi Acta Anthropol. Sin. 21 1 2002 59–64 Liu Y. Feng X.B. Handaxes of 100–50 ka B.P. found in Yunxian County, Hubei Weekly of Chinese Cultural Relics 2014 Lu H.Y. Zhang H.Y. Wang S.J. Cosgrove R. Xun X.F. Zhao J. Sun D.H. Zhao C.F. Shen C. Wei M. Multiphase timing of hominin occupations and the paleoenvironment in Luonan Basin, central China Quat. Res. 76 2011 142–147 Lu H.Y. Zhang H.Y. Wang S.J. Richard C. Zhao C.F. Thomas S. Zhao J. A preliminary survey on loess deposit in Eastern Qinling Mountains (Central China) and its implication for estimating age of the Pleistocene lithic artifacts Quat. Sci. 27 4 2007 559–567 Lu H.Y. Zhang H.Y. Sun X.F. Wang S.J. Richard C. Shen C. Zhang W.C. Zhang X.B. Wang X.Y. Yi S.W. Ma X.L. Wei M. Landform, loess deposit and paleoenvironmental changes in the South Luohe River (Central China) during the hominin occupations Quat. Sci. 32 2 2012 167–177 Lumley H. de Li T.Y. Le site de L’Homme de Yunxian 2008 CNRS Éditions Paris Lycett S.J. Bae C.J. The Movius Line controversy: the state of the debate World Archaeol. 42 4 2010 521–544 Lycett S.J. Norton C.J. A demographic model for Palaeolithic technological evolution: the case of East Asia and the Movius Line Quatern. Int. 211 2010 55–65 McNabb J. Binyon F. Hazelwood L. The large cutting tools from the South African Acheulean and the question of social traditions Curr. Anthropol. 45 2004 653–677 Movius H.L. Early man and Pleistocene stratigraphy in Southern and eastern Asia Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 19 (3) 1944 Harvard University Cambridge Movius H.L. The Lower Palaeolithic cultures of southern and eastern Asia Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. (New Series) 38 4 1948 329–420 Niu D.W. Ma N. Pei S.W. Peng F. A preliminary report on the excavation of the Songwan Paleolithic locality in the Danjingkou Reservoir Region Acta Anthropol. Sin. 31 1 2012 11–23 Norton C.J. Bae K. The Movius Line sensu lato (Norton et al., 2006) further assessed and defined J. Hum. Evol. 55 2008 1148–1150 Norton C.J. Bae K. Harris J.W.K. Lee H. Middle Pleistocene handaxes from the Korean Peninsula J. Hum. Evol. 51 2006 527–536 Paddayya K. Blackwell B.A.B. Jhaldiyal R. Petraglia M.D. Fevrier S. Chaderton D.A. II. Blickstein J.I.B. Skinner A.R. Recent findings on the Acheulian of the Hunsgi and Baichbal valleys, Karnataka, with special reference to the Isampur excavation and its dating Curr. Sci. 83 5 2002 641–647 Pappu S. Gunnell Y. Akhilesh K. Braucher R. Taieb M. Demory F. Thouveny N. Early Pleistocene presence of Acheulian hominins in South India Science 331 2011 1596–1599 Pei S.W. Chen F.Y. Zhang Y. Cao M.M. Huang X. Gao X. Preliminary report on the excavation of the Liuhuaishan Paleolithic site at Baise, South China Acta Anthropol. Sin. 26 1 2007 1–15 Pei S.W. Guan Y. Gao X. A preliminary report on the excavation of the Pengjiahe Paleolithic site in the Danjiangkou Reservoir Region Acta Anthropol. Sin. 27 2 2008 95–110 Pei S.W. Niu D.W. Guan Y. Nian X.M. Yi M.J. Ma N. Li X.L. Sahnouni M. Middle Pleistocene hominin occupation in the Danjiangkou Reservoir Region, central China: studies of formation processes and stone technology of Maling 2A site J. Archaeol. Sci. 53 2015 391–407 Pei S.W. Wu X.Z. Wu X.J. Preliminary study on lithic technology and adaptive behaviour of hominid at Huanglong Cave, Yunxi, Hubei Province Quat. Sci. 28 6 2008 1007–1013 Pei W.C. Prof. Henri Breuil, pioneer of Chinese Paleolithic archaeology and its progress after him Perella R. Mescelanaea en homenaja al Abate Henri Breuil, Vol. 2 1965 Instituto de Prehistoria y Arqueologia Barcelona 251–269 Pei W.C. Woo J.K. Chia L.P. Chow M.C. Liu H.T. Wang C.Y. Report on the Excavation of Palaeolithic Sites at Tingtsun, Hsiangfenhsien, Shansi Province, China 1958 Science Press Beijing Petraglia M.D. The Indian Acheulian in global perspective Goren-Inbar N. Sharon G. Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-making from Quarry to Discard 2006 Equinox Publishing Ltd London 389–414 Petraglia M.D. Shipton C. Large cutting tool variation west and east of the Movius Line J. Hum. Evol. 55 2008 962–966 Qiu Z.L. Xu C.H. Zhang W.H. Wang R.L. Wang J.Z. Zhao C.F. A human fossil tooth and fossil mammals from Nanzhao, Henan Acta Anthropol. Sin. 1 2 1982 109–118 Santonja M. Villa P. The Acheulian of Western Europe Goren-Inbar N. Sharon G. Axe Age: Acheulian Tool-Making from Quarry to Discard 2006 Equinox Publishing Ltd London 429–478 Schick K.D. The Movius Line reconsidered Corruccini R.S. Ciochon R.L. Integrative Paths to the Past: Paleoanthropological Advances in Honor of F. Clark Howell 1994 Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs 569–596 Shaanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology Cultural Relics Administrative Committee of Shangluo District Museum of Luonan County Huashilang (I): The Paleolithic Open-air Sites in the Luonan Basin, China 2007 Science Press Beijing Shaanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology Museum of Luonan County Longyadong Palaeolithic Cave Site in the Luonan Basin, China 2008 Science Press Beijing Sharon G. Alperson-Afil Goren-Inbar N. Cultural conservatism and variability in the Acheulian sequence of Gesher Benot Ya’aqov J. Hum. Evol. 60 2011 387–397 Shen C. Paleolithic cultures of China Pearsall D.M. Encyclopedia of Archaeology 2008 Elsevier/Academic Press 570–597 Shen Y.C. Landscape and its development history of Hanjiang River Valley Acta Geogr. Sin. 22 4 1956 295–321 Shipton C. Petraglia M.D. Inter-continental variation in Acheulean bifaces Norton C.J. Braun D.R. Asian Paleoanthropology: From Africa to China and Beyond 2010 Springer Press 49–55 Shiyan Museum Archaeological Anthology in Shiyan 2011 Changjiang Press Wuhan Shiyan Museum Danjiangkou Museum The Palaeolithic investigation in Danjiangkou Reservoir Area, Hubei Huaxia Archaeol. 2 1999 1–6 Simanjuntak T. Semah F. Gaillard C. The Paleolithic sites in Indonesia: nature and chronology Quatern. Int. 223–224 2010 418–421 Sun X.F. Lu H.Y. Wang S.J. Cosgrove R. Zhang W.C. Yu K.F. Zhuo H.X. Age of newly discovered Paleolithic assemblages at Liuwan site Luonan Basin, central China Quatern. Int. 347 2014 193–199 Vialet A. Guipert G. He J. Feng X. Lu Z. Wang Y. Li T. de Lumley M.-A. de Lumley H. Homo erectus from the Yunxian and Nankin Chinese sites: anthropological insights using 3D virtual imaging techniques C. R. Palevol 9 2010 331–339 Vialet A. Li T. GrimaudHervé D. de Lumley M.A. Liao M. Feng X. Proposition de reconstitution du deuxième crâne d’Homo erectus de Yunxian (Chine) C. R. Palevol 4 2005 265–274 Villa P. Terra Amata and the Middle Pleistocene Archaeological Record of Southern France. 1983 University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles Wang J. Tao F.H. Wang Y.R. Preliminary report on investigation and excavation of Dingcun Paleolithic sites J. Chin. Antiquity 3 1994 1–75 Wang S.J. Perspectives on Hominid Behaviour and Settlement Patterns: A Study of the Lower Palaeolithic Sites in the Luonan Basin, China 2005 British Archaeological Reports International Series 1406 Oxford Wang S.J. Cleavers collected from the open-air sites in Luonan Basin, China Acta Anthropol. Sin. 25 4 2006 332–342 Wang S.J. Knives collected from the open-air sites in Luonan Basin, China Acta Anthropol. Sin. 26 1 2007 26–33 Wang S.J. Huang P.H. Stratigraphy and TL dating of Paleolithic sites in the Luonan Basin, southern Shaanxi, China Acta Anthropol. Sin. 20 3 2001 229–237 Wang S.J. Lu H.Y. Zhang H. Sun X. Yi S. Chen Y. Zhang G. Xing L. Sun W. Newly discovered Palaeolithic artefacts from loess deposits and their ages in Lantian, central China Chin. Sci. Bull. 59 7 2014 651–661 Wang S.J. Shen C. Hu S.M. Zhang X.B. Lithic artefacts collected from open-air sites during 1995–1999 investigations in Luonan Basin, China Acta Anthropol. Sin. 24 2 2005 87–103 Wang S.J. Zhang X.B. Shen C. Lu H.Y. Zhang H.Y. Sun X.F. Guan Y. Zhang X.L. Zhanghuokou Palaeolithic site in the Luonan Basin, Shannxi Province (consulted November 2011) 2011 http://www.ccrnews.com.cn/102787/85702.html Wang S.J. Zhang X.B. Xing L.D. Zhang G.K. Lu H.Y. Sun X.F. Zhang W.C. Liu T. Palaeolithic sites in the Luonan Basin, Shannxi Province (consulted January 2013) 2013 http://www.ivpp.ac.cn/xwdt/kydt/201301/t20130125_3757191.html Wang S.J. Zhang X. Hu S. Zhang X. The Significance of the Palaeolithic Archaeological Work in the Luonan Basin 1997 Chinese Relics Newspaper Wang W. Mo J.Y. Huang Z.T. Recent discovery of handaxes associated with tektites in the Nanbanshan locality of the Damei site, Bose basin, Guangxi, South China Chin. Sci. Bull. 53 2008 878–883 Wang W. Bae C.J. Huang S.M. Huang X. Tian F. Mo J.Y. Huang Z.T. Huang C.L. Xie S.W. Li D.W. Middle Pleistocene bifaces from Fengshudao (Bose Basin, Guangxi, China) J. Hum. Evol. 69 2014 110–122 Wang W. Bae C.J. How old are the Bose (Baise) Basin (Guangxi, southern China) bifaces? The Australasian tektites question revisited J. Hum. Evol. 80 2015 171–174 Wang W. Lycett S.J. von Cramon-Taubadel N. Jin J. Bae C.J. Comparison of handaxes from Bose Basin (China) and the western Acheulean indicates convergence of form, not cognitive differences PLoS One 7 2012 e35804 Wang Y.R. Dingcun Palaeolithic Localities-complex: the Excavation Report of the Dingcun Localities-Complex Between 1976 to 1980 2014 Science Press Beijing Wu R.K. Dong X.R. Human fossil teeth discovered in Longgudong cave, Meipu, Yunxian, Hubei Vert. PalAsiatica 2 1980 142–179 Wu R.K. Wu X.Z. Human fossil teeth collected from Xichuan, Henan Vert. PalAsiatica 20 1 1982 1–9 Wu W.X. Liu T.S. Study on the loess-paleosol sequence of the Dingcun Paleolithic sites Seismol. Geol. 24 2 2002 241–248 Wu X.Z. Liu W. Gao X. Yin G.M. Late Pleistocene paleoanthropological site of Huanglong cave in Yunxi County, Hubei Chin. Sci. Bull. 51 16 2006 1929–1935 Wu X.Z. Pei S.W. Wu X.J. Qu S.M. Chen M.H. Hu Q. Liu W. A preliminary study of the Bailong Cave Paleoanthropological site in Yunxi County, Hubei Province Acta Anthropol. Sin. 28 1 2009 1–15 Wu X.Z. Wu X.J. Chen M.H. Qu S.M. Pei S.W. Liu W. The 2006 excavation of Huanglong Cave in Yunxi County, Hubei Acta Anthropol. Sin. 26 3 2007 193–205 Wu X.Z. Zhou X.M. Wang Y.F. A preliminary report of the Paleolithic site of Fulongguan from Yunxian, Hubei Acta Anthropol. Sin. 27 1 2008 33–37 Xie G.M. Lin Q. A preliminary report on the excavation of the Shangsong site Acta Anthropol. Sin. 27 1 2008 13–22 Xie S.C. Yi Z. Li Y.Y. Gu Y.S. Ma Z.X. Liu W.J. Wang X.Y. Liu G. Liang B. Zhu Z.M. The Pleistocene vermicular red soil in South China signalling the global climatic change: the molecular fossil record Sci. China (Series D) 46 11 2003 1113–1120 Xing L.D. A Preliminary Study on the Stone Artifacts of Shizilukou Paleolithic Locality in Luonan Basin, Central China (Unpublished MSc Thesis) 2014 University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology Beijing Yan G.L. A preliminary study on magnetic stratigraphy of the geological section with the fossil bed of Yunxian Homo of Hubei Earth Sci. J. China Univ. Geosci. 18 2 1993 221–226 Yang S.X. Huang W.W. Hou Y.M. Yuan B.Y. Is the Dingcun lithic assembly a “chopper-chopping tool industry”, or “Late Acheulian”? Quatern. Int. 321 2014 3–11 Yuan J.J. Wu C.H. Hou Y.M. Xie G.M. Wang W. Three-dimensional finite element stress analysis of tongue-shaped edge of Bose heavy-duty tools Acta Anthropol. Sin. 27 2 2008 111–119 Yuan J.R. The regional typologies and place of the Palaeolithic in Hunan province Hunan Cultural Relics and Archaeology Institute Collection of the Conference on the Prehistoric Culture at the Middle Valley of Yangtze River and the Third Asian Civilization 1996 Yuelushushe Press Changsha 20–47 Zeng X.W. New discovery of stone artifacts in Bose region, Guangxi Prehist. Res. 2 1983 81–88 Zhang P. Huang W.W. Wang W. Acheulean handaxes from Fengshudao, Bose sites of South China Quatern. Int. 223–224 2010 440–443 Zhao Q.G. Yang H. A preliminary study on red earth and changes of Quaternary environment in South China Quat. Sci. 2 1995 107–116 Zheng H.H. Fluvial-lacustrine face stratigraphy and the eolian loess in the Late Pleistocene, northern China Geochimica 4 1989 78–85 Zhou Y.H. Amino acid dating of Peking man and Dingcun man Acta Anthropol. Sin. 8 2 1989 177–181 Zhou Z.Y. Wang C.X. Gao X. A preliminary report on the excavation of the Beitaishanmiao Paleolithic site at Danjiangkou, South China Acta Anthropol. Sin. 28 3 2009 246–261 Zhu H.F. Two handaxes found in Shiyan, Hubei province Acta Anthropol. Sin. 18 1 1999 72–74 Zhu H.F. Three big points discovered in Shiyan, Hubei Acta Anthropol. Sin. 20 4 2001 314–315 Zhu R.X. Dennell R. Huang W.W. Wu Y. Rao Z.G. Qiu S.F. Xie J.B. Liu W. Fu S.Q. Han J.W. Zhou H.Y. Ou Yang T.P. Li H.M. New dating of the Homo erectus cranium from Lantian (Gongwangling), China J. Hum. Evol. 78 2015 144–157 Zhu Z.D. Valley landscape of Hanjiang river upstream between Danjiangkou to Baihe Acta Geogr. Sin. 21 3 1955 259–270

Distribution of all currently known handaxe-bearing regions in China (plus IHRB in South Korea) and possible dispersal routes for spread of the Acheulean techno-complex. Black circles show the four major handaxe-bearing regions discussed in this paper.

Répartition des régions connues comme livrant des bifaces en Chine (plus IHRB en Corée du Sud) et les routes de diffusion possibles pour le techno-complexe acheuléen. Les cercles pleins noirs indiquent les quatre régions majeures livrant des bifaces en Chine.

The co-existence of core and flake technology cave sites (shown in white) and handaxe-bearing open-air sites (shown in yellow) around the Qinling Mountains, central China.

Coexistence des sites à technologie à débitage d’éclats (en blanc) et de ceux livrant des bifaces (en jaune) autour des monts Qinling, en Chine centrale.

Large cutting tools retrieved from the less-well studied regions of China: 1–2, from Lishui River valley, adapted from Chu (1998); 3–4, from Liaohe River valley, adapted from Li and Xu (1991); 5–6, from Xiangyang, adapted from Li (1983); 7–8, from Hanzhong, adapted from Huang and Qi (1987) and Huang (1987); 9–11, from Sanmenxia, adapted from Huang (1964); 12, from Shuiyangjiang River valley, adapted from Chu (1998).

Assemblages à grands éléments bifaciaux (large cutting tools [LCTs]) provenant des régions moins étudiées de Chine : 1–2, Lishui River valley, adapté de Chu (1998) ; 3–4, Liaohe River valley, adapté de Li et Xu (1991) ; 5–6, Xiangyang, adapté de Li (1983) ; 7–8, Hanzhong, adapté de Huang et Qi (1987) et Huang (1987) ; 9–11, Sanmenxia, adapté de Huang (1964) ; 12, Shuiyangjiang River valley, adapté de Chu (1998).