Current Research in Chinese Pleistocene Archaeology 9781841715469, 9781407325859

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Contributors
Dedication
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments
Preface
Current Research in Chinese Pleistocene Archaeology: an Introduction
Davidson Black and His Role in Chinese Palaeoanthropology
Retrospect of Fifty Years of Palaeolithic Archaeology in China
Biostratigraphy, Taphonomy, Palaeoenvironment and Hominid Diet in the Middle and Late Pleistocene of China
New Palaeolithic Discoveries in the Middle Yangzi River Region, Southern China
New Evidence of Hominid Behaviour from Xiaochangliang, Northern China: Site Formation and Lithic Technology
Taphonomy of an Early Pleistocene Archaeofauna from Xiaochangliang, Nihewan Basin, North China
Faunal Approaches to Site Formation Processes at Panxian Dadong
Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) Dating of Mammalian Tooth Enamel at Panxian Dadong Cave, Guizhou, China
ESR Dating of Early Pleistocene Archaeological Sites in China
The Jinniushan Hominid in Anatomical, Chronological, and Cultural Context
Remarks On Chinese Pleistocene Archaeology

Citation preview

BAR  S1179  2003  

Current Research in Chinese Pleistocene Archaeology

SHEN & KEATES (Eds)  

Edited by

CURRENT RESEARCH IN CHINESE PLEISTOCENE ARCHAEOLOGY

Chen Shen Susan G. Keates

BAR International Series 1179 B A R

2003

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1179 Current Research in Chinese Pleistocene Archaeology © The editors and contributors severally and the Publisher 2003 The authors' moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841715469 paperback ISBN 9781407325859 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841715469 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2003. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Contributors Deborah A. Bakken Department of Anthropology The Field Museum of Natural History Roosevelt Road at Lakeshore Drive Chicago, IL 60605-2496, USA [email protected]

Weiwen Huang Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology Chinese Academy of Social Sciences P.O. Box 643 Beijing 100044, P. R. China

Chun Chen Department of Cultural Relics and Museology Fudan University Shanghai, 200433, P. R. China [email protected]

Heather L. Jones School of Geography and Geology McMaster University Hamilton, ON, L8S 4M1, Canada [email protected]

Qi Chen 624C Hibbard Dr. Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA [email protected]

Panagiotis Karkanas Ephorate of Palaeoanthropology-Speleology Ardittou 34b Athens 11636, Greece [email protected]

Tiemei Chen Department of Archaeology Peking University Beijing 100871, P. R. China [email protected]

Susan G. Keates Institute of Biological Anthropology University of Oxford 58 Banbury Rd. Oxford OX2 6QS, UK [email protected]

Wanyong Chen Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology Chinese Academy of Social Sciences P.O. Box 643 Beijing 100044, P. R. China

Zun'Er Lu Department of Archaeology Peking University Beijing 100871, P. R. China

Julie L. Cormack Anthropology/Archaeology Department of Behavioural Sciences Mount Royal College 4825 Richard Road SW Calgary, AB, T3E 6K6, Canada [email protected]

Sari Miller-Antonio Department of Anthropology/Geography California State University Stanislaus 801 W. Monte Vista Avenue Turlock, CA 95382, USA [email protected] Christine Kanani Paraso Department of Anthropology University of Arizona P.O. Box 210030 Tucson, AZ 85721-0030, USA [email protected]

Yamei Hou Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology Chinese Academy of Social Sciences P.O. Box 643 Beijing 100044, P. R. China

i

Christian E. Peterson Department of Anthropology University of Pittsburgh 3H01 Posvar Hall Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA [email protected]

Richard Shutler Jr. Department of Archaeology Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC, V5A 1S6, Canada [email protected]

Daniel Richter Instituto Tecnológico e Nuclear Estrada Nacional 10 Química, Apartado 21 2686-953 Sacavém, Portugal

Yingjun Tang Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology Chinese Academy of Social Sciences P.O. Box 643 Beijing 100044, P. R. China

W. Jack Rink School of Geography and Geology McMaster University Hamilton, ON, L8S 4M1, Canada [email protected]

Youping Wang Department of Archaeology Peking University Beijing 100871, P. R. China [email protected]

Lynne A. Schepartz Department of Anthropology University of Cincinnati P.O. Box 210380 Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA [email protected]

Quan Yang Department of Archaeology Peking University Beijing 100871, P. R. China

Chen Shen Department of Near Eastern and Asian Civilizations Royal Ontario Museum Toronto, ON, M5S 2C6, Canada [email protected]

ii

We dedicate this book to

Professor Wei Qi for his life-long research on the geoarchaeology, biostratigraphy and Palaeolithic Archaeology of the Nihewan Basin.

iii

iv

Table of Contents Contributors ................................................................................................................................. Acknowledgments

i

.......................................................................................................................

vii

Preface Ofer Bar-Yosef ..........................................................................................................................

ix

Current Research in Chinese Pleistocene Archaeology: an Introduction Chen Shen and Susan G. Keates ..............................................................................................

1

Davidson Black and His Role in Chinese Palaeoanthropology Julie L. Cormack .......................................................................................................................

9

Retrospect of Fifty Years of Palaeolithic Archaeology in China Chun Chen ................................................................................................................................

21

Biostratigraphy, Taphonomy, Palaeoenvironment and Hominid Diet in the Middle and Late Pleistocene of China Susan G. Keates .......................................................................................................................

37

New Palaeolithic Discoveries in the Middle Yangzi River Region, Southern China Youping Wang ..........................................................................................................................

57

New Evidence of Hominid Behaviour from Xiaochangliang, Northern China: Site Formation and Lithic Technology Chen Shen and Chun Chen ......................................................................................................

67

Taphonomy of an Early Pleistocene Archaeofauna from Xiaochangliang, Nihewan Basin, North China Christian E. Peterson, Chen Shen, Chun Chen, Wanyong Chen and Yingjun Tang ...............

83

Faunal Approaches to Site Formation Processes at Panxian Dadong Lynne A. Schepartz, Deborah A. Bakken, Sari Miller-Antonio, Christine K. Paraso and Panagiotis Karkanas ......................................................................................................................

99

Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) Dating of Mammalian Tooth Enamel at Panxian Dadong Cave, Guizhou, China W. Jack Rink, Lynne A. Schepartz, Sari Miller-Antonio, Weiwen Huang, Yamei Hou, Deborah Bakken, Daniel Richter and Heather L. Jones ............................................................... 111 ESR Dating of Early Pleistocene Archaeological Sites in China Qi Chen, Tiemei Chen and Quan Yang ..................................................................................

119

The Jinniushan Hominid in Anatomical, Chronological, and Cultural Context Zun'er Lu ................................................................................................................................. 127 Remarks on Chinese Pleistocene Archaeology Richard Shutler Jr. ................................................................................................................... 137 v

vi

Acknowledgments The editors of this book worked at the same archaeological sites in the 1990s - Xiaochangliang and Donggutuo - in the Nihewan basin of northern China. Although we never participated in the same field projects, both of us were accompanied and assisted by a warm and intellectual scholar, Professor Wei Qi of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (the IVPP), to whom this book is dedicated. Wei Qi, who has worked in the Nihewan basin for more than 30 years and is now searching tirelessly for Early Pleistocene hominids, is eulogized as China's ‘Leakey’ by his colleagues. He has taught the editors of this book about the archaeology, geology, and biostratigraphy of the Nihewan, and with no reservations has provided first-hand data for the collaborative research that the editors have participated in on different occasions. Here, we would like to take the opportunity to offer our sincere appreciation for the kindness, assistance, and knowledge that we received from Wei Qi over the past decade. This book is derived from a symposium entitled 'Theory and Practice in Chinese Pleistocene Archaeology' at the 65th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology 2000, in Philadelphia, PA. The idea of organizing such a symposium at the SAA, which has rarely had presentations on the Chinese Palaeolithic, was met with enthusiasm and encouragement from Dr. Ofer Bar-Yosef (Harvard University, USA.), who served as a discussant and provided many useful suggestions. The Royal Ontario Museum Foundation, which has supported the ROM-China Palaeolithic research project in the past years, provided funding for Chinese participants coming to North America for their presentation. The symposium was well received, thanks to many of our colleagues who participated in the conference and made great comments. Special thanks to Dr. Sara Nelson (University of Denver, USA), Dr. Kathryn Linduff (University of Pittsburgh, USA), and Dr. Yuan Kuen Lee (Harvard University, USA) for their encouragement and support in publishing these proceedings. David Davidson for the British Archaeology Reports (the BAR) has taken our proposal into his production schedule in a very speedy way. The editors would like to thank all of our contributors for their outstanding work that no doubt collectively make this book so significant. We thank them as well as our publisher for their patience and tolerance to this longdelayed production, due mainly to one of the editors (CS) whose recent extended research involved a major Chinese Bronze Age archaeology travelling exhibition at the ROM and his current commitment to the overhaul of the Museum's Chinese Art and Archaeology Gallery. We would also like to acknowledge with thanks the following individuals who generously devoted their precious time to discuss, review, and comment on the papers in this book. Some of them offered editorial assistance. They are Peter Bleed (University of Nebraska, USA), Michael Chazan (University of Toronto, Canada), Donald O. Henry (University of Tulsa, USA), Sandra L. Olsen (Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, USA), Alistair Pike and Edward Rhodes (Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, UK), and Pamela Wace (Donald Baden-Powell Quaternary Research Centre, University of Oxford, UK), and two anonymous reviewers. We thank Nicholas Marquez-Grant (Institute of Archaeology, University of Oxford, UK) for his very useful assistance in clarifying the morphological description of the Jinniushan hominid presented in Zun'Er Lu's chapter. Julie Cormack generously offered editorial assistance for final proofreading. Last but not least, the editors would like to thank the many Chinese colleagues who have assisted us in the past in our field and laboratory research in China, on which the foundation of this book is based. They are Chen Xingcan (The Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences), Gao Xing (the IVPP), Huang Weiwen (the IVPP), Wang Jian and Wang Yiren (Institute of Archaeology, Taiyuan), Wang Youping (Peking University), Yue Leping (Institute of Loess, Xian), Zhou Guoxing (Beijing Natural History Museum), and the late Zhou Mingzhen (Beijing Natural History Museum).

vii

viii

Preface Every palaeoanthropologist has more than just a few joyous moments when new data sets become available -- be they from a new or old and well excavated site, the discovery or publication of a new human fossil, a new site report, some scientific analysis of material elements, or any other detail that provides potentially useful information. Once the information becomes available, the palaeoanthropologist accepts the proposed interpretations or attempts to incorporate the new information into his or her own. Often one tries to determine whether the new evidence fits within a global or regional scope, or sheds light on a controversial issue. This is true for newly available data sets for every region of the world but particularly for regions that are less well known. The volume in front of us does exactly that. It provides a wealth of data and interpretations for the Chinese Palaeolithic, a period and a vast region we all wish to know more about. The Chinese Palaeolithic sequence, chronology and lithic industries have remained for many years in the shadow of the famous human fossils from Zhoukoudian and others that have been found since, such as Lantian, Dali, Jinniushan. The current volume aims to correct this situation and provide us with fresh information in part derived from recent research conducted by both Chinese and international scholars. The content of the papers that resulted from a session at the annual meeting of Society for American Archaeology are summarized by the editors of this volume, so there is no need to repeat it here. What I find to be a useful effort, as someone who participated in the Zhoukoudian joint project aimed at searching for the presence of ashes in the remaining western section of the site, are the comments made by Chinese colleagues at the time the paper in Science was published. These Chinese scholars present viewpoints that raise important additional questions. Furthermore, the reports addressing controversies concerning the dating of sites assumed to be older than 1.8 mya are vital for those who cannot read the Chinese publications. Hence this volume provides us with information that is not accessible otherwise. The same can be said about the new research and dating of Panxian Dadong in South China, the new data sets from Xiaochangling in the Nihewan basin, the information from the Jinniushan hominid site or the new discoveries in the Middle Yangzi River valley. All are crucial for a broader knowledge and better understanding of the cultural processes in China, that as some of the writers stress correctly, cannot be simply defined in terms used in western Eurasia or Africa. By providing a Middle and Upper Pleistocene context to these newly studied sites, one can appreciate the advances made in unveiling the prehistory of this country that occupies a major place in the Old World. It would be superfluous to stress the importance of this region for placing events and processes of human evolution in their proper worldwide geographic context. There is no need to repeat the controversies about the cultural meaning of the Movius Line that marks the northernmost distribution of bifaces. This suggestion has in recent years triggered several joint field projects including the one in Bose basin in southern China. In addition, everyone who has traveled in China and examined museum collections in this country knows that one can find a few handaxes here and there, and I have seen some material that was found on the terraces of the Yangzi River, but the identification of the objects is not enough as their presence raises the issue of dating and mapping the regional distribution. In this context we should remind ourselves that a large portion of central and eastern Europe was also behind the Movius Line. Hence spread of the Acheulian bifaces, even if it was limited geographically across Eurasia could have a different meaning than the connotation attributed to this phenomenon before. We now have solid evidence for the presence of Homo erectus in Dmanisi, at the foothills of the Lesser Caucasus, by 1.7 mya. These hominids, as far as we know, produced only a flake and core industry and did not shape any handaxes. The conclusion is that early hominids did not need bifaces in order to successfully colonize Eurasia. Whether the creators of the handaxes constituted the next wave of 'out of Africa' is still a debated issue. In sum, every volume that brings new information on the Palaeolithic sequence from the Chinese world is a welcome event. If one were to create a 'wish list' for this region, surely it would include more knowledge of dated sites and industries, a proliferation of drawings and photos that would inform us on the late Middle Pleistocene (what in other parts is known as the Middle Palaeolithic) as well as illustrations and photos relevant to the late Upper Pleistocene. The major advancement in dating techniques reflected in this volume should encourage the editors and other colleagues to provide more data concerning the Upper Palaeolithic and the transition from foraging to farming. In other parts of the world, the arteficial division between the Palaeolithic and Neolithic has hampered the progress of research. By adopting techniques used in Neolithic sites to study Palaeolithic sites and vice versa and by encouraging Paleolithic archaeologists to engage in digging Neolithic sites, we will all gain insights into the important prehistoric past of China. Ofer Bar-Yosef Harvard University

ix

x

Current Research in Chinese Pleistocene Archaeology: an Introduction Chen Shen and Susan G. Keates

For most Western researchers studying Chinese Pleistocene archaeology, it is exciting to witness the wealth of archaeological materials discovered in the past few decades, which are re-shaping our views on human evolution and behaviour in the Far East. In the meantime, however, western researchers are frustrated due to the difficulty of accessing original data published in Chinese. Most of the literature on Chinese Palaeolithic archaeology and anthropology is available only in the Chinese language. Apart from the relatively small number of journal articles, of the few books which have been published in English, the two most notable and influential ones are by Aigner (1981) and Wu and Olsen (1985). In Archaeological Remains in Pleistocene China, Jean Aigner provided an extensive survey and perhaps the most critical appraisal of the archaeological evidence then known, the first ever of this kind of research in a western language. Palaeoanthropology and Palaeolithic Archaeology in the People's Republic of China, edited by Rukang Wu and John W. Olsen, presented a thorough summary of archaeological data and syntheses up to the early 1980s by a group of Chinese anthropologists and archaeologists from the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (the IVPP), a national institution in Beijing which conducts major projects on Pleistocene archaeology in China. The Wu and Olsen volume has fast become the most frequently cited literature in research papers in western languages on related subjects. Although most papers in Wu and Olsen's volume tend to be descriptive rather than interpretative, it was the first time that a complete framework of Chinese Pleistocene archaeology was brought into the mainstream of research.

In the year of 1992 alone, three PhD dissertations were completed in North America on Chinese Palaeolithic archaeology. Miller-Antonio (1992) from the University of Arizona, examined Late Pleistocene lithic industries of North China, while Leng (1992, see also Leng 2001) from Washington University, compared Lower Palaeolithic technologies from China and India, including the use of replication experiments. Chen (1992) from McGill University, provided comprehensive analyses on microblade cores from North China in relation to northwestern North American microblade technology. In subsequent years, PhD research tended to focus on lithic assemblages from particular sites – a further step towards our understanding of Chinese Pleistocene technology. For example, Keates (1995, see also Keates 2000) from the University of Oxford, studied the Early Pleistocene lithic assemblages from Xiaochangliang and Donggutou; Brantingham (1999), University of Arizona, analyzed samples of the Upper Palaeolithic Shuidongguo lithics; and Gao (2000a, 2000b) also from the University of Arizona, examined the Lower Palaeolithic technology from Zhoukoudian Locality 15. Most recently, Wang (2002) from Latrobe University in Australia, completed a study of Lower Palaeolithic hominid behaviour and settlement patterns in the Luonan basin of southern Shaanxi province, northern China. Along with these studies, a growing number of articles on Chinese Pleistocene archaeology have appeared in major western journals like Antiquity, Current Anthropology, Asian Perspectives, and the newly inaugurated Journal of East Asian Archaeology.

Undoubtedly, both books stimulated intensified interest in Chinese archaeological research in the West in the following decade. Although data and syntheses may soon be out-of-date, these books still serve as invaluable references to, as well as a foundation of, much research as demonstrated in the papers of this book. Since the late 1980s, academic exchanges between the West and China have been so effective in advancing field investigations and laboratory analyses in China that interpretations of archaeological materials can now be evaluated from a global perspective. As a result, a number of students have devoted their academic careers to the field of Chinese Pleistocene archaeology. Some of them are

Clearly, these studies have brought changes in interpretations of Chinese archaeological materials and re-evaluations of early discoveries. By the end of the 1990s, we felt that the time had come to bring together a group of international scholars who are actively conducting their field research in China to present their results; this would represent the latest forum on Chinese Pleistocene archaeology. Therefore, a symposium entitled 'Theory and Practice in Chinese Pleistocene Archaeology' was organized for the 65th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology in Philadelphia in April 2000. The main aim of the symposium was to discuss theoretical and methodological approaches to current studies

among the authors of the chapters in this book.

1

C. Shen and S.G. Keates and interpretations of on-going field investigations and laboratory analyses. Papers in this book were proceedings of original presentations with extensive modifications. While one of the speakers (Rainer Grün) withdrew his paper for publication because of time constraints, we added two papers that were not included in the symposium presentations. These papers deal with a number of issues rarely discussed previously, and offer first-hand data from on-going field projects.

of archaeological materials have occasioned a re-evaluation of this model. Chun Chen in this volume (Retrospect of Fifty Years of Palaeolithic Archaeology in China) provides a detailed review of early discoveries that laid the foundation of Jia's model, and gives a critical evaluation of this model from an historical perspective. Chen examines the underlying basis of the two-traditions model and demonstrates that its basis is in many ways flawed, because it ignores significant aspects including depositional contexts and has exaggerated differences between lithic assemblages. It now appears that the two-traditions model is redundant, but it has certainly played an important role in the study of the Chinese Palaeolithic. According to Wang (2002), this model marked the shift from description to interpretation in Chinese Palaeolithic research, although constructing this model and its early evaluations still largely relied on descriptive typology. Chen points out that typology alone without consideration of other factors such as raw material quality cannot advance our knowledge of hominid behaviour, and he advocates the application of the chaîne opératoire to the study of Chinese assemblages.

The purpose of our proceedings is to present to the world community of archaeological research a collective work on some important aspects including historical perspectives (Chun Chen, Julie Cormack, Richard Shutler Jr.), palaeoenvironment (Susan Keates), anthropology and human evolution (Zun'Er Lu), taphonomy (Susan Keates, Lynne Schepartz et al., Peterson et al.), lithic technology (Youping Wang, Chen Shen and Chun Chen), Palaeolithic settlement (Youping Wang), and archaeometric dating (Jack Rink et al., Qi Chen et al.). Interestingly, the study of Pleistocene archaeology in China was initiated through international collaborations. A number of foreign scientists in the early twentieth century who conducted antiquity explorations, or made field trips with interests in anthropology, archaeology and palaeontology, were the main contributors to the foundation of Chinese Palaeolithic and palaeoanthropological research. One of the most influential anthropologists in China was Davidson Black, a native of Canada, and Julie Cormack (Davidson Black and His Role in Chinese Palaeoanthropology) provides a historical perspective of Black's research and his work with Chinese and other colleagues. Black was instrumental in organising funding and bringing together various disciplines in the Zhoukoudian Locality 1 excavations, without which we would lack the largest sample of Homo erectus fossils from a single site and a tremendous amount of data on hominid behaviour, chronology, and the palaeoenvironment. Other localities at Zhoukoudian, including the Upper Cave, were also excavated during Black's tenure as Honorary Director of the Cenozoic Research Laboratory (the precursor of the IVPP). The significant role that Black and his colleagues played at Zhoukoudian, the national monument of China, should not be underestimated because the process of the early Zhoukoudian investigations trained Wenzhong Pei (W.C. Pei) and Jia Lanpo, both of who were responsible for Chinese Palaeolithic field research in the following decades. Cormack's paper offers a vivid picture of how Chinese Palaeolithic research has come to age. Today the Zhoukoudian Palaeolithic localities have once again become a focus of international research interests (Weiner et al. 1998, 2000).

Chen also relates how China's 'Open Door' Policy in the early 1980s was to introduce a new era of cooperation between Chinese and Western researchers. Here it is worth mentioning that previously few Western researchers had visited post-1949 China to become better acquainted with the increasing wealth of archaeological discoveries. In 1973, Ralph von Koenigswald, noted for his palaeoanthropological investigations in Java (Indonesia) and who had also worked in China in the 1930s, was invited by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (von Koenigswald 1973). In 1975, the American (U.S.) Paleoanthropology Delegation 1975, examined the current state of geology, palaeontology, physical anthropology, archaeology, and palaeobotany (see Howells and Tsuchitani 1977). In the past twenty years, a growing number of cooperative projects have been conducted in China, and papers in this volume directly reflect the outcomes of these collaborations. These projects introduced new excavation methodologies and techniques and theoretical approaches to the study of Chinese materials. For many Chinese scholars, especially those who have been educated at Western universities, advances made in the West have also highlighted the need to design and prepare in detail research on a multidisciplinary scale before field investigations are carried out, and to employ methods such as knapping experiments, microwear analyses, and subsistence and settlement pattern studies. One is reminded of how Wenzhong Pei, as a result of his training in Paris under Henri Breuil, carried out taphonomic analyses in China.

Almost three decades ago, after a number of years of discoveries and data collection, Jia Lanpo (Chia et al. 1972) formulated the concept of the small and large tool traditions to explain an apparent dichotomy in tool types found at Pleistocene sites in China. New discoveries and research using current approaches to the interpretation

A more critical approach to archaeological discoveries has also led to re-evaluations of several localities, and Chen assesses the various opinions put forward. This includes the Longgupo and Renzidong localities in central-southern China, purported to be the earliest evidence for hominids in China, but increasingly indicated 2

Introduction to be problematic in terms of artefacts and hominid morphology. Whether or not fire was used by the Zhoukoudian Locality 1 H. erectus will probably remain a contentious issue until new excavations and studies are conducted. Chen's review of these on-going debates suggests a growing awareness of how a scientific problem should be addressed today by the younger generation of researchers in China. He believes that Chinese Palaeolithic archaeology is "at the crossroads of paradigm transition," which forecasts a promising future for Chinese Pleistocene archaeology.

ioural (e.g., subsistence, technology, settlement) and biological (i.e., Homo spp. anatomy and genetics) data become available and a more detailed critical evaluation of the Chinese Palaeolithic has been made (see also Olsen and Miller-Antonio 1992; Keates 1997). Ecological approaches to hominid behaviour have been given increasing attention in the study of Chinese Pleistocene materials. However, given the sometimes problematic methods of recovery, the fact that when faunal remains have poor depositional context, some of the conclusions reached seem less convincing. Keates in this book (Biostratigraphy, taphonomy, palaeoenvironment and hominid diet in the Middle and Late Pleistocene of China) explicitly addresses this problem and reviews some of the evidence available for interpretations of several Middle and Late Pleistocene localities. She points out that the evidence usually includes only fragmentary fauna, often from fluvial deposits, complicating attempts to place these in relatively accurate chronological and environmental contexts, and evaluating hominid activity. Another factor is that most of the fauna from these localities has not been subjected to taphonomic analysis. Nevertheless, the high frequencies of some animal species at several localities, particularly those dated to the Late Pleistocene, indicate active hominid procurement of animals, and possibly hunting.

It seems to be the custom of many Chinese researchers to repeatedly evaluate, or more precisely, to refute, the classic concept of the 'Movius Line' whenever new discoveries are made which appear to indicate links between Western and Eastern traditions in the Pleistocene. While some scholars continuously try to prove the existence of Acheulian-type handaxes in China (Huang 1987, 1990; Hou et al. 2000), others argue that the East Asian Palaeolithic should be evaluated independently in terms of human evolution and adaptation to the environment (Pope and Keates 1994; Wang 1997; Zhang 1990, 1997). Recently, Gao and Olsen (1997) suggested that the differences between the West and the East in the Lower Palaeolithic should not only be assessed along the lines of Movius's Acheulian versus chopper-chopping tool traditions, in that both regions have their own variation of material cultures resulting from adaptations to different environments. They correctly imply that Chinese Pleistocene technology is by no means represented only by chopper-chopping tools, or by any single generalized tool tradition. It remains a fact that since Movius's time Chinese hominids produced cultures quite dissimilar to those of their counterparts in Europe and Africa. Searching for evidence of East Asian hominid activities that created such unique material complexes and interpreting how and why these developed will be of interest to archaeological research for years to come.

That the archaeology of southern China is now becoming better known, is demonstrated by Youping Wang's paper (New Palaeolithic Discoveries in the Middle Yangzi River Region, Southern China) and by Schepartz et al. (see below). Our increasing knowledge of hominid behaviour is partly due to the large number of surveys and excavations that have been carried out in the Yangzi river region, connected with the construction of the Three Gorges dam over the past decade. Dozens of Late Pleistocene sites have been identified along the riverbank of the Three Gorges, and a few of these have been excavated (see Li and Chen 1999; Pei 2002). The density of these Palaeolithic sites is so high that this region could become one of the best case studies for researching regional settlement patterns in the Late Pleistocene. The investigations in the South have discovered localities in areas previously unknown to archaeology, with material cultures consistently characterized by large core tools (choppers and chopping tools), manufactured from river cobbles or pebbles (Pei 2002; Wang 1997). The most recent Palaeolithic discoveries in South China include the Lingfengdong and Chuanfandong cave sites from southeastern coastal Fujian province (Chen et al. 2001; Li et al. 2001).

Chinese scholars have now come to a general agreement that Pleistocene technology did not change qualitatively until the end of the Late Pleistocene, although regional variability of lithic industries did exist (Wang 1997; Zhang 1997; Shen and Wei in press). Wang's study of lithic technology in southern China (Wang 1997) suggests that the pebble-core tool technology persisted throughout the Pleistocene with some regional variations, which Wang attributes to regional differences in the sub-tropical palaeoenvironment. As a result, Gao (1999) criticized the traditional sequence of Lower, Middle, and Upper Palaeolithic that was adopted in China using the criteria of Western Palaeolithic terminology. He believes that, from a technological perspective, the 'Middle Palaeolithic' is no longer a valid concept in the study of Chinese Pleistocene material culture, and proposes that it be made obsolete. It is more appropriate, in our opinion, to use a geochronological terminology (i.e., Early, Middle, and Late Pleistocene) in the study of Chinese materials until sufficient behav-

Wang in this book details some of the evidence from the stratified middle Yangzi river open air sites, including the Quyuanhekou (Yunxian) site which has yielded the earliest hominid fossils from this region. At Jigongshan the characteristic tools until the later Late Pleistocene are large core tools, including picks and scrapers. In his paper, Wang confirms the differences in stone tool manufacture between northern and southern China, yet also 3

C. Shen and S.G. Keates shows that in the Late Pleistocene, including Jigongshan, small flake tools and use of non-local raw materials became increasingly characteristic at sites in the South. Wang also challenges traditional opinions that southern Chinese tools (and therefore hominid behaviour), are unsophisticated. What has often been overlooked is that activity patterns and therefore tool kits differ. There is still a paucity of direct evidence of hominid subsistence at these sites. Hopefully, the recent announcement by the Chinese government to increase funding for institutes conducting palaeontological and palaeoanthropological research, including the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (Normile 2001), will help to allocate sufficient funds for taphonomic analyses.

Pleistocene sites in China (see also Chun Chen, this volume). Reconstruction of the depositional history of Xiaochangliang based on sedimentary analysis, artefact distribution, and fossil abrasion indicates that Xiaochangliang is a secondary deposit. The sedimentary matrix also points to repeated inundation of this locality by fluctuating lake levels. As part of this joint research, Peterson et al. (see below) also examined taphonomic aspects of the fauna collected during the same field season in 1998. Another focus of Shen and Chen's paper is the lithic technology used by early hominids at Xiaochangliang. There used to be many complaints about the majority of Chinese lithic studies in so far that they were subjective or narrative descriptions of tool types and that there was a lack of statistical data in the presentation of results (see, for example, Keates 1997). This has gradually changed over the past decade. Experimental studies (e.g., Li 1992; Shen and Wang 2000), refitting analyses (Xie and Li 1994; Xie et al. 1995), and lithic raw material sourcing studies (e.g., Pei and Hou 2001) have been successfully employed in various research projects concerned with interpretations of reconstructions of hominid behavioural patterns. In these studies, the presentation of data is statistically sound enabling the possibility of independent evaluations and even re-modelling. In this volume, Shen and Chen's techno-typological study of artefacts found during their 1998 excavation and samples from the 1990-97 excavations concludes that hominids employed an expedient technology, a conclusion also reached by some previous workers. Lowpower microscopic analysis of selected artefacts identified only a small number of specimens with definite use wear, most of which appear to have functioned as scrapers. Working of animal tissue constitutes the majority of identified materials. Interestingly, all of the artefacts with use wear are unmodified flakes. Shen and Chen suggest that modified/shaped artefacts may have been used for light-duty activities. This is the first time microscopic use wear analysis has been conducted in the Nihewan and on Early and Middle Pleistocene artefacts in China. This analysis clearly shows potential for such studies here and elsewhere in China. The functional analysis at Xiaochangliang demonstrates that without microscopy and use wear experiments we would be missing significant behavioural data.

What is extraordinary about the southern discoveries reported by Wang are the well-preserved settlement features dating to the Late Pleistocene. Directly benefitting from modern excavation methods and strategic research plans, sites like Jigongshan reveal stone structures of hunter-gatherers. Most importantly, Fang et al. (2001) have reported a semi-circle structure made of pebbles at Maozhushan, a Middle Pleistocene site in Anhui province. Excavated in 1997, this pebble structure, composed of approximately 1,100 pebbles, is believed to have been deliberately constructed as a living shelter or an activity area. Here, 154 stone artefacts were recovered. Further investigation is needed to confirm the function of sites with living-floor features such as those found at Jigongshan and Maozhushan. Nevertheless, the study of early hominid behaviour in China is very promising, when data like these are discovered and validated. Searching for evidence of hominid behaviour is also the subject of Shen and Chen's paper in this book (New Evidence of Hominid Behaviour from Xiaochangliang, Northern China: Site Formation and Lithic Technology). This paper is a detailed report of the 1998 excavation at the well-known Early Pleistocene site of Xiaochangliang in the Nihewan Basin, northern China. The Nihewan ('muddy river bend') is an extinct palaeolake basin with extensive Pliocene to Holocene deposits. It was identified in the 1920s as a palaeontological area by Emile Licent, George Barbour and Teilhard de Chardin (e.g., Barbour et al. 1927). Resumption of field investigations in the 1970s found unequivocal evidence of Pleistocene culture in the basin. Since the 1980s, the Nihewan has been a focus of Palaeolithic research in China, and has attracted a number of international research collaborations. Research by Shen and Chen, as well as by Schepartz and her colleagues, represented in this volume, are examples of how productive and successful joint research projects can be in China. Shen and Chen's paper demonstrates how the use of modern methods of field and laboratory investigations can lead to reevaluations of previously accepted interpretations. While the excavation method they used involved a standardized field recording system that has long been de rigueur for archaeologists working in many other countries, this has not been the case with the vast majority of

In Chinese faunal studies, there is now a trend to make taphonomy an integral part of archaeological investigations. With few exceptions in the last two decades, including Lu Zun'Er's (1985) studies at Jinniushan and Binford and Ho's (1985) and Binford and Stone's (1986) re-analysis of some of the Zhoukoudian Locality 1 fauna, taphonomy has not been a major issue in Chinese archaeology, even though Wenzhong Pei initiated taphonomic studies in China in the 1930s (e.g., Pei 1938). The research by Peterson et al. (Taphonomy of an Early Pleistocene Archaeofauna from Xiaochangliang, Nihewan Basin, North China) and Schepartz et al. (Faunal Approaches to Site Formation Processes at 4

Introduction Panxian Dadong) are case studies in how taphonomic analyses employing modern standards of archaeological research can contribute to our understanding of site formation and hominid behaviour. Peterson et al.'s scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis of a sample of fossils excavated in 1998 from Xiaochangliang found no evidence for hominid modification and only limited non-hominid activity. The sedimentary abrasion on the fragmented fossils provides substantial evidence for redeposition by water activity, supported by the almost total lack of conjoinable elements.

Pleistocene Archaeological Sites in China), reflects the progress made in this field in China. Chen et al. selected Early Pleistocene localities for ESR dating. At Xiaochangliang, the enamel and dentine of the dated teeth were found to contain substantial amounts of uranium, and with the exception of one date, all EU and LU estimates are younger than those generated by palaeomagnetic dating. The dates of teeth from the Renzidong cave/fissure locality are much younger than the c. 2.6 mya faunal age, although one estimate is c. 2.4 mya. As the authors point out, an obstacle to a more accurate ESR chronology could be the high radiation from the sediment, making ages younger. The authors provide no information which layer(s) the dated samples from Renzidong derive from. Chen et al.'s dating of Longgupo (Wushan) place the late levels of this fissure locality between the Jaramillo and Olduvai Subchron, and argue that the earlier levels could therefore, also taking palaeomagnetic results into consideration, date to the Olduvai Subchron.

The Sino-American investigations of the Panxian Dadong cave in the uplands of Guizhou province, provide an example in taphonomic research from southern China. Schepartz et al.'s paper shows that the numerous fossils from this huge Middle Pleistocene cave were modified by hominid, carnivore and rodent activities. The preliminary analyses of fossils in the four fossil concentration zones have identified a predominance of fragmentary, large mammal fossils and postcranial elements. In Zone B, however, teeth represent almost twothirds of the fossils. Fossil preservation, non-hominid modification and sedimentary characteristics indicate no diagenetic differences across the zones. Most of the faunal species are not characteristic cave dwellers. The authors suggest that large teeth could have been introduced into the cave by hominids as raw material for tools, also considering the poor quality stone used at the cave.

Lu Zun'Er is perhaps best known for his discovery of the Jinniushan hominid in Liaoning province, northeastern China. In his contribution to this book (The Jinniushan Hominid in Anatomical, Chronological, and Cultural Context), Lu provides an update on the dates generated for the fauna found associated with the hominid and a brief overview of the cultural materials. The main part of his paper is an analysis of the cranial morphology and some of the postcranial bones. The Jinniushan hominid is an archaic H. sapiens and the oldest hominid fossil evidence so far from northeastern China. The late Middle Pleistocene date of Jinniushan prompted some authors to suggest that H. erectus and H. sapiens were contemporary populations in China (e.g., Chen et al. 1994). However, a series of TIMS dates for layers 1-2 at Zhoukoudian Locality 1 indicate ages in excess of 400 ka (Shen et al. 1996), while the H. erectus cave site of Hexian has been redated to a range of 542-289 ka using ESR and U-series (Grün et al. 1998; see Keates 2001 for a review). Lu describes many of the cranial traits of this archaic H. sapiens specimen as intermediate between H. erectus and modern humans, a conclusion also reached by other authors (e.g., Pope 1992; Wu and Poirier 1995). The Jinniushan innominate is shown to be most compatible with that of female anatomy. Previously, the Jinniushan individual had been identified as a male based on the overall robusticty of the cranium (with the exception of the very thin cranial bones, for example). It is also worth mentioning that the cranial anatomy of Jinniushan, while mostly showing traits also found in other Chinese hominids (such as the anteriorly facing zygomatic bones and shovel-shaped incisors), also diverges from the local pattern (such as a shallow incisura malaris). The mosaic pattern of archaic H. sapiens morphology in China is perhaps indicative of interregional gene flow (e.g., Wu 1990; Pope 1992). Here we would like to mention the very useful compendium published in 1995 by Xinzhi Wu and Frank E. Poirier on the fossil hominids and apes of China. Lithic artefacts at Jinniushan are not numerous compared to the thousands

As a legacy of China's political and academic isolation, geology, biostratigraphy and stone tool typology, have for most of it's research history provided the means for dating archaeological sites. The exceptions were radiocarbon dating, introduced to China in 1965, and palaeomagnetic dating beginning in 1977. The chronology of Chinese fossil hominids is becoming better established, with methods such as uranium-series (U-series). Two papers in this volume describe the use, problems and application of electron spin resonance (ESR) dating. Rink et al. (Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) Dating of Mammalian Tooth Enamel at Panxian Dadong Cave, Guizhou, China), have dated mammalian teeth from Panxian Dadong. These were found to preserve no uranium in the enamel and moderate concentrations in the dentine. The later Middle Pleistocene dating results agree with the stratigraphic position of the teeth and biostratigraphic evaluation. Depending on whether the early uptake (EU) or late uptake (LU) mean ages are used, hominid activity at the cave occurred either during interglacial or glacial times. In order to examine which uptake model is more realistic, Rink et al. are conducting U-series dating of the same teeth. The authors also briefly discuss the dating results of some other Chinese sites, including the archaic H. sapiens locality of Jinniushan in northeast China. They argue that the old models used for ESR dates underestimate the EU age of the Jinniushan site. The work by Chen et al. (ESR Dating of Early 5

C. Shen and S.G. Keates of faunal fossils. The fauna is mostly represented by one species, namely deer. Of particular interest is the evidence (described elsewhere in more detail, see, for example, Lu [1996]) for hominid modified fauna — cut marked, crushed and burnt bones — and what Lu describes as "ash patches." These ash patches include burnt bones and might formally be described as hearths. One of these preserves what appears to be evidence of construction with stones and clay. In an environmental context, with reference to some of the fauna and cave occupation during an interglacial period, fire might have been primarily used for cooking meat.

Arizona, Tucson. Chen, C., 1992. A Comparison of Microblade Cores from East Asia and Northwestern North America: Tracing Prehistoric Cultural Relationships. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, McGill University, Montreal. Chen, ZW., JJ. Li and SF. Yu, 2001. A Paleolithic site at Chuanfandong in Sanming City, Fujian Province. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 20(4), 256-269. Chen, T., Q. Yang and E. Wu, 1994. Antiquity of Homo sapiens in China. Nature 368, 55-56. Fang, YS., YP. Huang, RY. Liang, Y. Chen and DQ. Peng, 2001. Discovery of Early Paleolithic relics at Maoshushan site in Ningguo, Anhui Province. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 20(2), 115-124. Gao, X., 2000a. Explanations of Typological Variability in Paleolithic Remains from Zhoukoudian Locality 15 (China). Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tuscon. Gao, X., 2000b. Core reduction at Zhoukoudian Locality 15. Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 3(3), 2-12. Gao, X. and J.W. Olsen, 1997. Similarity and variation within the Lower Paleolithic: East Asia, Western Europe, and Africa compared. In Evidence for Evolution - Essays in Honor of Prof. Chungchien Young on the Hundreth Anniversary of His Birth, eds. Y. Tong, Y. Zhang, W. Wu, J. Li and L. Shi. Beijing: China Ocean Press, pp. 63-76. Grün, R, P. Huang, W. Huang, F. Mc Dermott, A. Thorne, C.B. Stringer and G. Yan, 1998. ESR and U-series analyses of teeth from the palaeoanthropological site of Hexian, Anhui Province, China. Journal of Human Evolution 34, 555-564. Hou, Y., R. Potts, B. Yuan, Z. Guo, A. Deino, W. Wang, J. Clark, G. Xie and WW. Huang, 2000. MidPleistocene Acheulean-like stone technology of the Bose Basin, South China. Science 287, 1622-1626. Howells, WW. and P. Tsuchitani (eds.), 1977. Paleoanthropology in the People’s Republic of China. Committee on Scholarly Communication with the People’s Republic of China 4. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. Huang, W., 1987. Bifaces in China. Acta Anthropologica Sinica VI, 61-68. Huang, W., 1990. Bifaces in China. Human Evolution 4(1), 87-92. Keates, S.G., 1995. The Significance Of The Older Palaeolithic Occurrences in the Nihewan Basin, Northern China, in the context of important Early and Middle Pleistocene northern Chinese localities. Unpublished D.Phil. dissertation, School of Anthropology, University of Oxford,

As Richard Shutler Jr. points out, in the final remarks of this book (Remarks on Chinese Pleistocene Archaeology), "Chinese Palaeolithic archaeology is coming of age." Shutler's more than three decades of palaeoanthropological research in Southeast Asia and China will, as the editors of this book believe, give our readers a sense of how Pleistocene archaeology in these countries has undergone painstaking experiences and has finally made many achievements. Shutler's personal account of research bears witness to the progress made in archaeology, and he praises the current state of research of Chinese Pleistocene archaeology as demonstrated in this book. Certainly, we have much more to expect from research results of Chinese Pleistocene archaeology in the years to come. It is also true that our book is just the beginning of a new era reflecting new forums for Chinese Palaeolithic data and interpretations. Joint projects conducted by our Western and Chinese colleagues will raise more serious questions and hopefully stimulate future investigations that lead to in-depth examinations of data relating to hominid origins and behaviour in Asia. Only with an effort to understand the practices and the framework in which Chinese research is conducted, can a consensus on hominid adaptations to Pleistocene environments in a global sense be reached with minimal academic biases.

REFERENCES Aigner, J.S., 1981. Archaeological Remains in Pleistocene China. München: C.H. Beck. Barbour, G.B., E. Licent and P. Teilhard de Chardin, 1927. Geological study of the deposits of the Sangkanho Basin. Bulletin of the Geological Society of China 6(3), 263-278. Binford, L.R. and C.K. Ho, 1985. Taphonomy at a distance: Zhoukoudian, “The cave home of Beijing man”? Current Anthropology 26(4), 413-442. Binford, L.R. and N.M. Stone, 1986. Zhoukoudian: A closer look. Current Anthropology 27(5), 453475. Brantingham, J., 1999. Astride the Movius Line: Late Pleistocene Lithic Technological Variability in Northeast Asia. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of 6

Introduction Oxford. Keates, S.G., 1997. Analysing modern human origins in China. In Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research, eds. G.A. Clark and C.M. Willermet. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, pp. 294-303. Keates, S.G., 2000. Early and Middle Pleistocene Hominid Behaviour in Northern China. BAR International Series 863. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Keates, S.G., 2001. An examination of culture and evolution of Middle Pleistocene Chinese hominids. In Human Roots – Africa and Asia in the Middle Pleistocene, eds. L. Barham and K. Robson Brown. Bristol: Western Academic and Specialist Press, pp. 159-185. Koenigswald, G.H.R. von, 1973. Remains of Early Man in China: A report; 1-4. Unpublished letter sent to the Wenner-Gren Foundation, New York. Leng, J., 1992. Early Paleolithic Technology in China and India. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis. Leng, J., 2001. Early Paleolithic Technology in Eastern and Southern Asia. BAR International Series 924. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Li, WD., 1992. Experimental study of flint points. Archaeological Research 1, 90-115. Li, Y. and Y. Chen, 1999. Reports of Paleolithic sites in the Three Gorges Reservoir. In New Advances in Prehistoric Archaeology, eds. Q. Xu, F. Xie and J. Wang. Beijing: Science Press, pp. 111-124. Li, J., Z. Chen and S. Yu, 2001. Lingfengdong - the first Lower Paleolithic site found in Fujian Province. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 20(4), 248-255. Lu, Z., 1985. The Exacavtion and Significance of the Jinniushan Site. Beijing: Peking University Archaeological Department Publication. Lu, Z., 1996. The fruits and inquiry of era of Jinniushan site excavated in 1993 and 1994. In Paleolithic Culture in Northeast Asia. Shanyang, Liaoning: Institute of Prehistory of Chungbok National University, Korea and Institute of Archaeology, Liaoning Province, China, pp. 131-144. Miller-Antonio, S., 1992. Lithic Variability and the Cultural Elaboration of Upper Pleistocene North China. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. Normile, D., 2001. Research kicks into high gear after a long, uphill struggle. Science 291, 237-238. Olsen, J.W. and S. Miller-Antonio, 1992. The Palaeolithic in southern China. Asian Perspectives 31(2), 129-160. Pei, SW., 2002. The Upper Pleistocene Environment and Lithic Industries in the Three Gorges Region. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing. Pei, SW. and YM. Hou, 2001. Preliminary study on raw material exploration at the Donggutuo site,

Nihewan Basin, North China. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 20(4), 271-281. Pei, W.C., 1938. Le rôle des animaux et des causes naturelles dans la cassure des os. Palaeontologia Sinica Whole Series 118, New Series D, 7, 1-16. Pope, G.G., 1992. Craniofacial evidence for the origin of modern humans in China. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 35, 243-298. Pope, G.G. and S.G. Keates, 1994. The evolution of human cognition and cultural capacity: A view from the Far East. In Integrative Paths to the Past, eds. R.S. Corruccini and R.L. Ciochon. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, pp. 531-567. Shen, C. and SJ. Wang, 2000. A preliminary study of the anvil-chipping technique: experiments and evaluations. Lithic Technology 25(1), 81-100. Shen, C. and Q. Wei, in press. Lithic technological variability of the Middle Pleistocene at the eastern end of the Nihewan Basin, northern China. Asian Perspectives. Shen, GJ., T.-L. Ku, B. Gahleb and Z. Yuan, 1996. Preliminary results on U-series dating of Peking Man site with high precision TIMS. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 15(3), 210-217. Wang, YP., 1997. Pleistocene Environment and Paleolithic Culture in South China. Beijing: Peking University Press. Wang, SJ., 2002. Perspectives on Hominid Behaviour and Settlement Patterns: A Study of the Lower Palaeolithic Sites in the Luonan Basin, China. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology, School of Historical and European Studies, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Weiner, S., Q. Xu, P. Goldberg, J. Liu, and O. Bar-Yosef, 1998. Evidence for the use of fire at Zhoukoudian, China. Science 281, 251-253. Weiner, S., O. Bar-Yosef and P. Goldberg, 2000. Evidence for the use of fire at Zhoukoudian. Acta Anthropologica Sinica (Supplement) 19, 218-223. Wu, RK. and J.W. Olsen (eds.), 1985. Palaeoanthropology and Palaeolithic Archaeology in the People’s Republic of China. Orlando: Academic Press. Wu, X., 1990. The evolution of humankind in China. Acta Anthropologica Sinica IX(4), 312-321. Wu, X. and F.E. Poirier, 1995. Human Evolution in China. New York: Oxford University Press. Xie, F. and J. Li, 1995. The refitting application in the comprehensive analysis of the Cenjiawan lithic artifacts. Journal of Chinese Antiquity 1, 25-38. Xie, F., K.D. Schick, N. Toth and J.D. Clark, 1994. A refitting study of lithic artifacts recovered from the 1986 excavation at Cenjiawan. Journal of Chinese Antiquity 3, 86-102. Zhang, S., 1990. Regional industrial gradual advance and cultural exchange of the Paleolithic in North China. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 9(4), 322333. Zhang, S., 1997. On the problems of seeking the earliest 7

C. Shen and S.G. Keates (about 2 ma) human remains in China. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 16(2), 87-95.

8

Davidson Black and His Role in Chinese Palaeoanthropology Julie L. Cormack site supervisory responsibilities were shared by numerous members of the scientific community from Beijing including Birger Bohlin, Pei Wenchung, Père Teilhard de Chardin, and Yang Zhongjian (C.C. Young). And yet, the historical value of the excavations, which began in 1927 under the direction of Black and the international and Chinese team, was that this research programme represented the first international multidisciplinary field programme in human origins.

INTRODUCTION In spring 1918, Dr. Davidson Black accepted a professorship in Embryology and Neurology at the Peking Union Medical College in Beijing, China. It was at this institution that Davidson Black was given the opportunity, working in conjunction with other foreign and Chinese scholars, to initiate a series of collaborative field and laboratory programmes in anthropology. His decision to take this academic position in China was influenced by his growing interest and curiosity in anthropology as well as the late 19th and early 20th century’s focus on Asia as being fundamental to human origins research. This focus was clearly centred on China with scientific contributions by Père Teilhard de Chardin, France, J.G. Andersson, Sweden, and Walter Granger and Roy Chapman Andrews of the American Museum of Natural History, New York, United States. Through Black’s professional and personal contacts in Beijing, he participated in several field programmes but concentrated particularly on the Peking Man site of Zhoukoudian (previously, Chou Kou Tien). This participation, plus collaboration with Swedish geologist, Johann Gunnar Andersson, links between the Peking Union Medical College and the Geological Survey of China, and, most importantly, his unique appreciation of his Chinese colleagues gave Davidson Black his broad knowledge and cultural understanding that would become fundamental in his role of helping to develop the study of Chinese prehistory.

At the PUMC memorial for Davidson Black in 1934, the former Director of the Geological Survey of China, V.K. Ting, described Black in the following way: Black was [a] man of very wide learning. ... A student of medicine, he specialized in human anatomy, but few anatomists possess Black’s thorough knowledge of vertebrate morphology. In fact it was the latter that impressed me most when I first met him. There is of course anthropology. He was not only a master of orthodox physical anthropology, but also of biometry, for he always tried to apply mathematical analysis to his physical data in a way very few anatomists are able to do. ... Once I was out in the field with him and was very much struck by his practical knowledge of field geology. ... In certain aspects of theoretical geology he was one of the best read men I know (Geological Society of China 1934:1718).

Davidson Black was a pioneer in the field of palaeoanthropology in China. Initially with Otto Zdansky, Black recognized the significance of three fossil teeth from the site discovered by Zdansky in 1921 and 1923 and by Bohlin in 1927 (Black 1926, 1927; Zdansky 1923, 1927). The fossil teeth came to represent our human ancestor - Sinanthropus (Black and Zdansky) (Black 1927). As the Honorary Director of the Cenozoic Research Laboratory, a facility that Black was instrumental in building, he was deeply involved in the grand organization of the Zhoukoudian research. His contribution to the research was as a liaison between his institution (PUMC), the Geological Survey of China, and the Rockefeller Foundation - an agency that was convinced through Black’s enthusiasm and persistence of the site’s potential to go beyond their medical mandate and provide funds for palaeoanthropological work in China. During Black’s association with Zhoukoudian, the daily

This quote highlights the value and appreciation of Black’s extensive training to his various research pursuits in China. It is important to view his contributions to Chinese prehistory in terms of his broad-based education and to recognize that after his death on March 15, 1934, members of the Peking Union Medical College and the Rockefeller Foundation took eight months to find a suitable successor (Rockefeller Archives 1934). In the end, a German-American anatomist, Dr. Franz Weidenreich, accepted the position that Black held at the College. Although the Sino-Japanese conflict and World War II interferred with field and laboratory work, Weidenreich’s strong training in anatomy helped to champion the evolutionary fate of Homo erectus initially recognized by Davidson Black. 9

J. Cormack May 13 “cast more brains...worked all day (mostly) with Chief [Elliot Smith] at Piltdown model.” May 14 “finished casting at Art School 58 casts!” May 16 “The chief & I worked all day at Piltdown...aft too!” May 18 “cast Piltdown - 2 casts.” May 19 “bath & hair wash!”

THE EARLY YEARS When Davidson Black accepted the position of Professor of Embryology and Neurology at the Peking Union Medical College in spring 1918 (Rockefeller Archives 1918a), there was already a profound interest in human origins in Asia. Events like the discoveries of human fossils in Indonesia and the collection of fossil bones from Chinese apothecary shops were circumstances that Black did not witness but which would eventually lead to the broadening of his interest into anthropology. It is hard to judge what specific event or discovery initially convinced Davidson Black to move from his training in anatomy and neurology to anthropology, but this move was not a quick conversion. It was one of continuing influences involving his insatiable scientific curiosity and his interactions with many Chinese and international colleagues, two essential factors that directly helped Black contribute to the beginning stages of Chinese prehistoric research.

“This work marks the start of Black’s attraction to anthropology and a turning point in his career [my emphasis] and it seems possible that Black’s outstanding contributions in the field of anthropology might never have been made if he had not come under the influence of Elliot Smith at this time” (Dawson 1938:155-156). In May of the same year, Black travelled to the British Museum (today, the Natural History Museum) in London, to examine the original Piltdown remains and to visit Arthur Keith, a leading British authority on brain anatomy and the Keeper of Geology. This visit led to a one day trip by Black to the Piltdown gravel pit where he found part of an upper molar tooth of a rhinoceros (Woodward 1948). His conversion to anthropology was complete!

Davidson Black was born in Toronto, Canada, on July 25, 1884. Growing up in Ontario and spending summers in cottage country north of Toronto, he developed a strong interest in natural history - knowledge that became very useful in his employment with the Hudson Bay Company and the Geological Survey of Canada. In 1906, he received his medical degree (Baccalaurei in Medicinâ) from the University of Toronto and then returned to the University to complete a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1911. Immediately upon graduating with his BA (with courses in Biology, World History, English, Latin, and scientific French and German), he was hired by Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, where he was responsible for teaching anatomy and neurology courses.

In July 1917, Black’s colleague from the University of Toronto, Edward Cowdry, took up a professorship of anatomy at the newly established Rockefeller-funded Peking Union Medical College, in Beijing. Nine months after starting his own tenure at the College, Cowdry made an enquiry to the Rockefeller Foundation Trustees about the suitability of hiring Black for a new teaching position at the College (Rockefeller Archives 1918b). Almost a year and a half after Cowdry’s original enquiry, Black started his new job in August 1919. Black was certainly aware of anthropological research in East Asia, in particular the intentions of a team based at the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York who were planning to search for the ‘missing link’ in China. Rumours of this undertaking abounded. In a letter dated October 31 to William Buttrick of the China Medical Board, Rockefeller Foundation, Black made an indirect reference to the AMNH’s plan and to his own future hopes - “the central Asiatic area is of such peculiar importance from the standpoint of vertebrate paleontology & mammalogy .... May it be my good fortune to begin my work in China soon!” (Rockefeller Archives 1918c). Eventually, Black would not only work in China, but in 1922, he would have the pleasure of joining the AMNH’s Central Asiatic Expedition under the direction of American associate, Roy Chapman Andrews. “I am going up to Urga [1] with Andrews and I have every hope that I shall be able to bring back a considerable amount of skeletal material

In 1914, Davidson Black spent much of his six-month sabbatical in Manchester, England, pursuing neurological studies under the tutelage of Grafton Elliot Smith. This experience plus learning casting techniques were crucial for his career as he soon became intensely curious about the recent finds at Piltdown through Elliot Smith’s active research on these unusual fossil fragments. It was this curiosity and Elliot Smith’s work in Manchester that set Davidson Black on his heels and into the realm of anthropology. Black’s interests in the investigation that Elliot Smith was conducting on the Piltdown cranial fragments made him change his attentions to the making and studying of endocranial casts. Entries from his 1914 journal (Black Archives 1914) illustrate Black’s delight and enthusiasm for his new found commitment. April 3 “had first lesson in casting in plaster of Paris.” April 6 “at Art School all day making cast of occipital bone.” April 7 “cast of occ. bone in plaster - broken in two.” April 20 “made first mold for Lemur brain.” May 5 “cast duplicate series of 7 human brains.” May 11 “cast in aft & eve.” May 12 “cast all day.”

1 Andrews focussed his Central Asiatic Expedition on the hopes of finding the ‘missing link’ in Mongolia and used the area around Urga (today, Ulan Bator) as his base of operations. His expedition never located any fossil human remains but it was responsible for the discovery of the first dinosaur bones in that region.

10

Davidson Black and His Role in Chinese Palaeoanthropology from the battle fields and massacre sites in that locality” (Rockefeller Archives 1922).

German palaeontologist, Professor Max Schlosser, for identification and description. Among the variety of materials, he noted an upper M3, which seemed to have human characteristics although it was very badly worn (Schlosser 1903). Schlosser (1903:20-21) described this tooth as ‘man-like’ and belonging to a new anthropoid genus, closer to humans than to apes, and with similarities to early fossils from Indo-Pakistan and to some of Dubois’ finds in Java.

THE INFLUENCES FROM DUBOIS AND SCHLOSSER’S DISCOVERIES Two early foreign expeditions to Asia - the discovery of fossil human remains in Indonesia by Eugène Dubois in the 1890s and the discovery of ‘dragon bones’ from Chinese apothecary shops described by Schlosser in 1903 - were fodder for Black’s curiosity about China.

Since Davidson Black was a young teenager when Dubois and Schlosser were active, he was probably not aware of their scientific contributions until further into his own career. In fact, in later writings by Black, he (like Dubois) noted the central role that the Siwalik fossil fauna contributed to Asian prehistory (Black 1925a). Although Dubois’ (1894) and Schlosser’s (1903) publications were fodder for Black’s belief in the palaeontological potential of Asia, Black did not refer to these papers until his own involvement in the description of ancient human fossils from Zhoukoudian (Black 1926). However, in an early publication on the brain of primitive man, Black (1915) refers to the brain size of Pithecanthropus as occupying an intermediate position between anthropoids and modern humans. From the citations given in that paper, this information probably came from Elliot Smith’s writings. But Black was clearly excited about the Indonesian fossils and in May 1929, while attending the Fourth Pacific Science Congress in Batavia (today, Jakarta), he took the opportunity to visit Dubois’ original locality at Trinil.

Eugène Dubois, a Dutch physician trained in traditional morphology, believed that the tropics should hold evidence for our human ancestors. Without explanation, he abandoned his anatomical research and suddenly left Holland on October 29, 1887, for the Dutch East Indies. Dubois agreed with Darwin’s 1871 belief that human ancestors probably inhabited the tropics and suggested that since our closest living relatives, the apes, lived in the tropics, it was probable that our primate predecessors occupied an environment like Southeast Asia. In his initial fieldwork, Dubois found strong similarities between the fossil animals of Borneo, Sumatra, and Java, with earlier fossil animal remains of the Siwalik Hills in (British) India, thus suggesting a migration from India southward (Theunissen 1989). Like some of his contemporaries, Dubois saw a close evolutionary kinship between humans and gibbons. Stressing this relationship, he focused on the geographical region in which gibbons lived, the Indo-Malayan archipelago. He also argued that fossil human remains would be found in caves (Theunissen 1989).

EARLY COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH IN CHINA Once Davidson Black and his wife, Adena, were settled in Beijing, Davidson Black spent his first days at the Peking Union Medical College preparing the course curriculum for teaching anatomy. To properly develop this programme at the newly-established College, the institute needed human skeletons for teaching purposes. This requirement was doubly important because of Black’s own research and training in neurology and brain development. To spur interest in anthropological research at the College, Black sought casts of collections materials from major scholarly institutions and started contacts with Chinese and foreign scholars in the scientific community.

On November 24, 1890, a few months after starting fieldwork on the island of Java, Dubois found the first of several fossil human remains. Almost a year later, in August 1891, he began digging at the site of Trinil in central Java and within a month found more hominid fossils. Dubois was well aware that he had made significant discoveries with the human finds of a right third molar (M3) and a skullcap. He later recognised an almost complete left human femur, found not far from the calotte. According to Dubois (Theunissen 1989:65), “an Anthropopithekos has become a Pithekanthropus... Pithecanthropus erectus is the transitional form which, according to the theory of evolution, must have existed between Man and the anthropoids; he is Man’s ancestor.”

Mingling with the local community was not difficult for Black. Within two months of his arrival in Beijing, he had the opportunity to meet with bureaucrats, Chinese and foreign scientists, members of the British and American legations, and political advisors to the current Chinese regime. Through these contacts, he received a collection of modern Chinese skulls from the Government Special Medical School in Beijing and palaeontological materials from the American Museum of Natural History (Rockefeller Archives 1919a). Both

Slightly later than Dubois’ discoveries, between 1899 and 1901, German physician and naturalist, K.A. Haberer, collected an extensive number of natural history specimens from China. This broad collection included tiger bones, rhinoceros horn, insects, bear, rabbit excrement, bats, turtle shells, fossil crabs, and brachiopods - over 1,600 items. On his return to Germany, some of these specimens were presented to the noted 11

J. Cormack of these donations provided the College with important and necessary comparative research and teaching castmaterials, the latter including representatives of the hominoids: Dryopithecus and Sivapithecus, and hominids: Pithecanthropus, Paleoanthropus heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, and Homo sapiens (Geological Society of China 1934:8).

Andersson had a strong interest in field sciences, but civil war in China restricted his geological responsibilities because of the inaccessibility of certain regions and the lack of funding due to the virtual collapse of the Chinese Government (Mateer and Lucas 1985). He therefore decided to approach V.K. Ting, Director of the Geological Survey of China, with the idea of collecting fossils and sharing them between the Survey and Swedish museums. This proposal would allow for the use of Swedish funds (through the Swedish China Research Committee), particularly from Andersson’s colleague, Axel Lagrelius (Andersson 1929, 1943; Mateer and Lucas 1985). “From the very outset of the fossil mammal collecting campaign I had devoted considerable attention to the possibilities of finding remains of early Man, ancestral forms or at any rate remains of the Stone Age people” (Andersson 1929:19).

Cowdry was an excellent contact for Black. As the first President of the Anatomical and Anthropological Association of China (Chen Kequan personal communication 1999), he kept Black informed of scientific activities of this group. In Cowdry’s absence, Black briefly took over responsibility as President for this association. However, Black was pursuing broader anthropological issues. At some early meetings of the Association, two of Black’s closest geological colleagues made anthropological presentations: V.K. Ting gave a paper on “The Native Races of Yunnan” and J.G. Andersson spoke on prehistoric Chinese culture based on his exploratory work of a Neolithic site southwest of the town of Mukden (today’s Shenyang, the provincial capital) in Fengtian (today’s Liaoning) Province.

Andersson’s ties to the geological community, particularly to the Geological Survey of China (GSC), and his cooperation with Black were fundamental in establishing Chinese prehistory research and establishing an anthropological link between the Geological Survey of China and the Peking Union Medical College. Black would be responsible for the description and analysis of various anthropological materials from Andersson’s field projects.

The timing for Black’s arrival in Asia was perfect. The strong interest of the Rockefeller Foundation in establishing medical and educational programmes in China meant that the Peking Union Medical College had solid financial and operational backing. A few months after arriving at the College, Black found that his interests were more in the direction of anthropology and he wrote to Roger Greene, the China Medical Board representative, to request a change in his official title replacing Embryology with Anthropology to become Professor of Anthropology and Neurology. In September 1920, Cowdry resigned as Head of the Department of Anatomy (Rockefeller Archives 1920a) and on July 1 the following year, Black formally replaced his colleague as the Head of the Department of Anatomy at the Peking Union Medical College (Rockefeller Archives 1921) until his death.

In March 1921, Andersson asked Black to describe some endocranial mammalian faunal remains that the Geological Survey of China and the University of Uppsala had collected (Black Archives, undated). In early June 1921, Andersson wired Black insisting that he come to Mukden in the Manchurian mountains of northeastern China to help with the discovery of Neolithic remains (Black Archives, undated). According to Black, these remains from the Sha Kuo T’un cave site represented the first evidence of Neolithic bones in China (Black Archives 1921a). “We obtained a very rich deposit of human material and six packing cases full are expected in the laboratory today” (Washington University Archives 1921). A report was to be jointly published by Black and Andersson in the Chinese journal Paleontologica Sinica (Black Archives 1921a), but instead Andersson put together a paper that focused mainly on the topography and cultural remains of the area (Andersson 1923). Black’s contribution of describing the human skeletal remains from Sha Kuo T’un would take on greater proportions in a later comparative descriptive monograph, which would be published in 1925 (Black 1925b). Black was also invited to share in the collection of palaeontological remains, particularly sabre-tooth cat fossils, from the Hipparion (three-toed horse) fossil bed deposits in Henan Province, central China (Black Archives 1921b).

Setting up the Department of Anatomy was Black’s main focus, but much of his time was spent on building the anthropological and comparative collections of the College in hopes of developing a clear anthropological research direction. This direction came from Swedish geologist, Johann Gunnar Andersson, an engineer who arrived in China in May 1914 to take up an appointment as a mining consultant and advisor to the Chinese Government. There is no clear indication of when Black and Andersson first met, but it is likely that they met through mutual colleagues involved in palaeontology within the small scientific community of foreigners in Beijing. In his journal entries for October 20 and 21, Black notes that he initiated contact with Andersson and arranged for him to visit the College (Black Archives 1919). Andersson and Black would collaborate on many projects, especially in the years 1921 and 1925, before the large-scale excavations at Zhoukoudian were begun.

The year 1925 marked a significant advancement in Black’s written contributions as he published several papers from Andersson’s earlier field programmes. In 12

Davidson Black and His Role in Chinese Palaeoanthropology November 1921, Black accompanied Andersson on an expedition to a major Neolithic site at Yang Shao village in Henan Province, of which he published the description of the human skeletal remains (Black 1925b, c).

and on March 22 and 23, Andersson visited the site and described it as follows: Chou K’ou Tien’s primary distinction is the numerous limestone quarries in the Ordovician limestone, and the bones are to be found in the middle of such an old quarry. The bone-bearing clay rises like a detached pillar from the bottom of the quarry (Andersson 1934:96).

Black was also responsible for describing over 100 Neolithic and early historic human skeletons from Andersson’s expeditions in Gansu Province, which ran between 1921 and 1924 (Andersson 1925; Black 1925d, 1928a). As part of his study of Neolithic human skeletons, Black (1925b, 1925c, 1928a) termed the phrase “North Chinese” (or Homo Asiaticus proprius) to refer to modern inhabitants whose physical traits were somewhat similar to those of individuals from Sha Kuo T’un, Yang Shao, and other prehistoric sites.

In June 1921, Otto Zdansky was sent from Sweden to Zhoukoudian to “excavate on Chicken Bone Hill in order to obtain some knowledge of conditions in Chinese country districts” (Andersson 1934). That August, Andersson, Zdansky, and Walter Granger (chief palaeontologist for Andrews’ Central Asiatic Expeditions) visited the site where they obtained fossil bones and quartz artefacts. But during their visit, a local man suggested that “Not far from here there is a place where you can collect much larger and better dragons’ bones” (Andersson 1934:97). Andersson (1934:97) described this new location as follows: It appeared that the new discovery also lay in an abandoned quarry 150 metres west of, and at a higher level than, the railway station at Chou K’ou Tien. In an almost perpendicular wall of limestone, about 10 metres high, which faced north, the man showed us a filled-up fissure in the limestone consisting of pieces of limestone and fragments of bones of larger animals, the whole bound together by sintered limestone.

Davidson Black was Andersson’s authority on anatomy and as such he was responsible for describing many of the human skeletal remains collected during Andersson’s field exploits. They occasionally worked in the field together and in 1925, they planned a major programme for an extensive joint field project in western China in an area known as the Xinjiang Autonomous Region. Funding delays and organizational difficulties resulted in this project never coming to fruition. Although they lost the opportunity to work in Xinjiang, it is ironic that when their close relationship ended Black was left in the Beijing scientific community in which Andersson had first introduced him. Another irony is that Black became responsible for the Zhoukoudian site, the site that Andersson first recognized as having palaeontological potential. Upon initially visiting the site in 1921, Andersson in conversation with an Austrian palaeontologist, Otto Zdansky, anticipated that “there lie here the remains of one of our ancestors and it is only a question of your finding him. Take your time and stick to it till the cave is emptied, if need be” (Andersson 1934:101).

This Lao Niu Kou locality, today, is the main deposit at Zhoukoudian, known as Locality 1. The initial discovery, a pillar containing bird bones is identified as Locality 6 today (Black et al. 1933).

The scientific collaboration between Black and Andersson ‘formally’ ended in July 1925 (Andersson 1929) when Andersson returned to Stockholm to take a position as Professor of Geology at the University of Stockholm and later to become Director of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities in Stockholm, a museum founded on many of his own collections brought from China (Mateer and Lucas 1985). He returned to China later, but never to be involved to the extent of his previous collecting activities.

During the first year of excavation, Zdansky uncovered 1.3 metres of the uppermost deposit (Mateer and Lucas 1985), but was forced to stop when further excavation proved too dangerous without scaffolding. Zdansky completed the 1921 field season by the end of the summer and as part of the Swedish-Chinese collaboration, the fossil materials were sent to Professor Wiman in Uppsala, Sweden. In 1923, Zdansky returned to Zhoukoudian at the invitation of Andersson to continue his search for fossil remains, but as Andersson (1928:64) noted “at the end of his gathering season, he [Zdansky] wrote and reported that he had seen no trace of the anthropoid, which I had hoped for.”

THE DISCOVERY OF THE ZHOUKOUDIAN SITE The story of Zhoukoudian begins in February 1918 when Andersson was told by a local chemistry professor, Dr. J. McGregor Gibb, of an area outside of Beijing known as ‘Chicken Bone Hill’ or ‘Chi Ku Shan’ (Andersson 1919, 1928). McGregor Gibb returned from this area with numerous fragments of bone-bearing clay

A HISTORIC DAY - OCTOBER 22, 1926 In late summer 1926, Andersson requested analysis of some of the palaeontological materials from 13

J. Cormack Zhoukoudian, which would be presented to a scientific conference during Swedish Crown Prince Gustav IV Adolf’s visit to Beijing later that year. The proposed scientific conference would allow various scholars an opportunity to talk about their current work and would give Andersson the chance to speak about the important Chinese fossil materials currently being prepared and described in Uppsala.

Is it not exciting about the finding of early man so near Peking? It is the first step in the right direction but only two teeth have so far been recovered. Now it is up to us to find a bit more of his nibbs. There are good chances that this can be done for a large part of the original deposit remains undisturbed by wars, political turmoils or even quarry men (Rockefeller Archives 1926).

In his request for information from Sweden, the resulting report by Professor Wiman provided some startling news - the discovery of two human-like teeth, a molar and a premolar, in the collection being prepared by Zdansky (Andersson 1928, 1934; Mateer and Lucas 1985). The two teeth, one probably belonging to an adult and the other, less worn, from a younger individual (Andersson 1928) were definitely human in form. These two teeth were described initially in Zdansky (1927), including a provisional label of ?Homo sp. I decline absolutely to venture any far-reaching conclusions regarding the extremely meagre material described here, and which, I think cannot be more closely identified than as ?Homo sp. .... Leaving until a future date the publication of a detailed description of the fossil fauna from Chou K’ou Tien, my purpose here is only to make it clear that my discovery of these teeth (which are of Quaternary age) should be regarded as decidedly interesting but not of epochmaking importance [my emphasis] (Zdansky 1927:284).

In contrast, in a letter to Andersson, Père Teilhard de Chardin was not convinced of the teeth’s human traits (Andersson 1934:104-105): I am not fully convinced of their supposed human character. Even the rootless assumed pre-molar, which at first sight seemed most convincing, may be one of the last molars of some carnivore, and the same is true of the other tooth, unless the roots are distinctly four in number. Even if, as I hope, it can never be proved that the Chou K’ou Tien teeth belong to a beast of prey, I fear that it can never be absolutely demonstrated that they are human. Out of this critical October meeting a new relationship developed between the Geological Survey of China and the Peking Union Medical College. Black, who was responsible for human skeletal material, represented the College and in February 1927, an official agreement was drafted that formalized the responsibilities of these two institutions concerning research at Zhoukoudian. Thus began the long-term cooperative international excavation programme at the site involving Chinese, Swedish, French, American, and Canadian collaboration.

Andersson’s prediction to Zdansky in 1921 of fossil hominid materials had come true! This realization coincided well with the October 22, 1926, College’s special reception for Crown Prince Gustav IV Adolf at which the two hominid teeth from Zhoukoudian were formally announced. The scientific conference held in the auditorium of the College was opened by the Director of the Geological Survey of China, Dr. Wong Wenhao, and attended by various dignitaries and scientists. In the audience sat Davidson Black.

SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATION The collaboration between the Geological Survey of China and Davidson Black led directly to the creation of a cooperative institute between the College and the Geological Survey of China. The institute, which was formally founded in 1929 by Black and his Chinese colleagues, V.K. Ting and Wong Wenhao, was named the Cenozoic Research Laboratory. Later, this institute was recreated into the centralized Beijing research agency in 1957 under the Chinese Academy of Sciences, known today as the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP).

Black’s involvement with the Peking Man site began on that day in October 1926. Almost immediately, he published an article on the two teeth in which he confirmed that “The Chou Kou Tien discovery therefore furnishes one more link in the already strong chain of evidence supporting the hypothesis of the central Asiatic origin of the Hominidae” (Black 1926:734). He wrote with confidence that “The actual presence of early men in eastern Asia is therefore now no longer a matter of conjecture” (Black 1926:733) and compared the finds to the tooth described by Schlosser (1903).

Black and Wong Wenhao signed a memorandum of understanding between the Peking Union Medical College and the Geological Survey, in the creation of a new shared Cenozoic Research Laboratory. The two documents drafted by Wong Wenhao and Davidson Black entitled, ‘Constitution of the Cenozoic Research

Black expressed his enthusiasm in a letter to Miss Eggleston, a Rockefeller Foundation secretary: 14

Davidson Black and His Role in Chinese Palaeoanthropology Laboratory of the Geological Survey of China’ and ‘Detailed Understanding with the P.U.M.C. and Dr Davidson Black’ outlined the following highlights (Jia and Huang 1990:53-58): • Cenozoic Research Laboratory of the Geological Survey of China created with V.K. Ting as Honorary Director of Cenozoic Research Black as Honorary Director of Laboratory Père Teilhard de Chardin as Advisor Yang Zhongjian as Assistant Director Pei Wenchung in charge of Zhoukoudian Pien Meinan as Assistant • Administration under control of Director of Geological Survey • Special fund granted by Rockefeller Foundation to be dispersed through PUMC for expenses of Cenozoic Research • All materials collected to belong to Geological Survey of China; nothing exported out of China • All geological papers and publications to be published in series of Geological Survey or Geological Society of China; Black's anthropological studies can be published elsewhere with Director’s consent, but same paper should be published in Palæontologia Sinica • Yang Zhongjian [C.C. Young] and Pei Wenchung’s payment from a special fund • Cenozoic Research Laboratory has continued use of Lockhart Hall of PUMC; Survey is free to remove part or all of the materials stored at their compounds in the West City [of Beijing] • Director of Laboratory (Black) to supervise fieldwork and make annual reports

His contact with anthropology was further cultivated when Dr. Aleš Hrdlicka from the United States National Museum (Smithsonian Institution) accepted the College’s invitation to visit Beijing in November 1919 “for the purpose of cooperating in anthropological studies” (Rockefeller Archives 1919b). Another member of the circle of international scholars in Beijing was Dr. Amadeus Grabau, an AmericanGerman professor from Columbia University. Grabau had travelled to China to take a lectureship at Yenching (Peking) University, where he founded the Department of Geology. Although Black and Grabau apparently did not work together, they did meet at social events and shared in one extremely significant contribution - the interpretation of Sinanthropus pekinensis. Black is known for his identification of this human ancestor from China, but he did not name it. In Black’s original description of this fossil, Grabau is credited for providing the name: In view therefore of the unique charactars [characters] distinguishing the Chou Kou Tien lower molar, of the undoubted and great antiquity of the specimens and of their zoogeographic importance, I believe the circumstances justify the proposal made herewith that the immature Chou Kou Tien hominid be regarded as the holo-type and the adult as a cotype (v. Grabau, 4, p. 918) of a new genus of the family Hominidae to be named Sinanthropus. ... I am much indebted to that veteran coiner of apt terms Dr. A. W. Grabau for his kindness in suggesting a generic name of such zoogeographic significance (Black 1927:21).

The aim of the Laboratory was to carry out an extended plan of human palaeontological research and to collect, study, and describe fossils of the Tertiary and Quaternary ages in China. In a sense, with the welltimed and extensive fossil discoveries at Zhoukoudian, this Laboratory became the distribution centre and processing outlet for all of Peking Man’s riches. And yet, according to the Laboratory’s Constitution, “Cenozoic Research has no special interest in cultural studies and will not collect archaeological artifacts. Whatever artifacts of historic periods may be accidentally found, they shall be handed over to the proper Chinese museum” (Jia and Huang 1990:53).

It was Black’s enthusiasm that convinced his dear friend from Manchester, Grafton Elliot Smith, to accept an invitation to visit Zhoukoudian and to view in person the successful activities of the Cenozoic Research Laboratory. As Black described his visit, Elliot Smith would “return to London via Japan and America carrying the flaming cross for the Survey and Sinanthropus” (Rockefeller Archives 1930). One of Black’s closest associates and dearest friends was the French Jesuit priest, Père Teilhard de Chardin. In May 1923, this former graduate student of Marcellin Boule was sent to China to work with Père Emile Licent on various archaeological and palaeontological sites throughout China. He focused much of his time on the northern China plain of the Ordos Desert (Teilhard de Chardin 1926), but also supervised one field season at Zhoukoudian. It was during the extensive fieldwork at Zhoukoudian in the late 1920s and 1930s that Père Teilhard de Chardin and Davidson Black became the closest of friends.

Although Black and his Chinese associates had a formal collaboration in terms of the Cenozoic Research Laboratory, through the work at Zhoukoudian, Black developed a strong rapport with several international scholars. His interest in Chinese prehistory initially developed from meeting Père Florent de Preter, a Jesuit priest with the Missions Belges, who recommended that Black examine some human burials in eastern Manchuria. This trip was Black’s first major anthropological excursion. 15

J. Cormack Although Davidson Black was not at Zhoukoudian on a daily basis, he kept in contact with his supervisory staff. Of the Swedish palaeontologist, Birger Bohlin, who supervised the excavation team in 1927, Black said that he “displayed the keenest industry and devotion to his work ... I have come to entertain a very high regard for him both personally and as a scientific worker.” In his report to the Rockefeller Foundation, Black also spoke very highly of Pei Wenchung. “Mr. W.C. Pei of the Survey’s staff who has been closely associated with the [sic.] most of Dr. Bohlin’s work in the past season has given evidence of ability in the field as an executive. He further appears to be an enthusiastic worker who should prove to be a valuable palaeontologist after some further years of professional training” (Rockefeller Archives 1929).

Black was convinced that all three human teeth came from the same ancient genus. It was Bohlin’s tooth discovery that Black formally described in 1927 as representing a new genus and species of our human ancestor - Sinanthropus pekinensis (Black 1927; cf. Andersson 1943). In a letter dated October 29 to Andersson he speaks candidly about the discovery: We have got a beautiful human tooth at last! It is truly glorious news, is it not! ...... ... That night which was October 19th when I got back to my office at 6:30 from my meeting there I found Bohlin in his field clothes and covered with dust but his face just shining with happiness. He had finished the season’s work in spite of the war and on October 16th he had found the tooth; being right on the spot when it was picked out of the matrix! My word, I was excited and elated! Bohlin came here before he had even let his wife know he was in Peking he certainly is a man after my own heart and I hope you will tell Dr Wiman how much I appreciate his help in securing Bohlin for the work in China (Jia and Huang 1990:49).

ZHOUKOUDIAN EXCAVATIONS With the overwhelming success and interest of the October meeting, funding was required for an expanded excavation at Zhoukoudian. As a member of the Rockefeller-funded College, Black successfully acquired $13,000.00 from the Foundation. This money was used for “a SPECIAL FIELD STUDY IN ANTHROPOLOGY in the vicinity of Chou Kou Tien under the auspices of the department of anatomy of the College in co-operation with the Geological Survey of China, such field study to cover a period of approximately two years ending not later than December 31, 1929” (Rockefeller Archives 1927). It is a tribute to Davidson Black that he was able to convince the Foundation’s Trustees of the great potential of Zhoukoudian based simply on the anatomy of two fossil teeth.

Excitedly, he sent word home to his wife: I have the Chou Kou Tien Man on my desk. Bohlin came back today with it - one perfect lower molar tooth ... There is not the smallest particle of doubt it is HOMO this time!!!! I think I shall name it H. pekingensis or H. choukoutiensis....its going to be announced almost within the year since our Oct 22 Crownprince announcement! (Black Archives 1927)

The first field season began on March 27, 1927, but with political chaos caused by local warfare by Chinese warlords field activities were often interrupted and research would shift back and forth from the site to the city. Funding from the Rockefeller Foundation was used to hire and train local peasant farmers in excavation techniques. The Chinese geologist and co-supervisor, Li Jie created a 1:2000 topographical sketch map of the entire site (Li 1927), and field responsibilities for this first season were to open up the areas where Zdansky made his tooth discovery (Bohlin 1927). By June, fifty boxes of fossil material had arrived in Peking and Black waited at the College for Bohlin’s help before tackling the onerous task of unpacking, identifying, and cataloguing the fossil contents. In total, over 3,000 cubic metres of sediment was removed (Bohlin 1927).

According to Black (1928b:136), this unworn left lower molar, “leaves no room for doubt as to its hominid status.” By the end of 1927, two facts had emerged about Zhoukoudian: the site was much more extensive than ever thought and another year - if not two - would be necessary to complete the excavation. The year 1928 was Black’s sabbatical year. He decided to travel and take the Bohlin tooth on a world tour, while back home excavations continued. Unlike Dubois who endured scorn and disbelief at his discovery of human fossils in Indonesia, Black received a kind, albeit somewhat hesitant, reception from experts whom he showed the tooth. Black was absolutely convinced of the significance of the Zhoukoudian finds. “The discoveries

A few days before closing the site for the winter, a third tooth, a left lower molar, was found in situ by Bohlin. Black believed that this lower molar was from the same jaw as Zdansky’s premolar find (Black 1928b)! By the end of the season, over 500 crates of fossil specimens were removed from the site (Jia and Huang 1990) and 16

Davidson Black and His Role in Chinese Palaeoanthropology already made at Chou Kou Tien will necessitate the radical readjustment of many current and widely accepted theories regarding human origins and dispersal. A complete interruption of such work at its present stage would thus effectively block a new source of information of the highest importance to the scientific world at large” (Rockefeller Archives 1928). Black received support for Sinanthropus pekinensis from various European (Arthur Keith, Grafton Elliot Smith, Carl Wiman, and J.G. Andersson) and American scholars (W.K. Gregory and Milo Hellman).

long skirt of his ta kua ’erh (Chinese scholar’s gown). A minor civil war was in progress that month, and the front line lay between C.K.T. [Choukoutien] and Peking. But Pei rightly guessed that no sentry would challenge a college student going home for the weekend with his dirty linen. Pei covered the thirty-five miles safely and delivered his trophy to Davidson Black at the P.U.M.C. well before dusk (Barbour 1965:50, 52).

Meanwhile, Bohlin and the palaeontologist, Yang Zhongjian (C.C. Young), supervised the Zhoukoudian excavations, the same year that the geologist, Pei Wenchung first worked on site. The 1928 field season focused on areas east of the previous year’s work in Locality 1 (Jia and Huang 1990). The last 24 weeks of the season resulted in the removal of 2,800 cubic metres of deposits and the collection of 575 boxes of fossil materials (Jia and Huang 1990)! Several fragmented Sinanthropus pekinensis skeletal remains had been found along with thousands of animal fossils.

The initial description and illustrations of this calotte (known as Skull III) were published in Black (1929). In this article, Black referred to making an exact cast of the exposed skull cap, probably using the techniques he learned in Manchester. This discovery put China on the anthropology map and secured fame and respect for the whole Zhoukoudian team. Excavations continued at Zhoukoudian on an annual basis until the interruptions of the 1930s (Black’s death, the Sino-Japanese conflict, and World War II). Sinanthropus fossils, animal and plant remains, and archaeological evidence abounded, and visits to the site by international scholars supported the work and interpretations of the Zhoukoudian team. Although Black did not work on site, his visits to view the excavation were regular and he continued to publish and describe the skeletal remains of Sinanthropus. During his sojourns, he would take numerous still photographs and films. Professor Jia Lanpo who worked at Zhoukoudian as a young man recalled many warm occasions when Davidson Black brought food to the site and took a sincere interest in the excavations (Jia Lanpo personal communication 1999).

The year 1929 was an exciting time for Black and the Zhoukoudian team. First, the Rockefeller Foundation committed $80,000 for research, which meant that the Cenozoic Research Laboratory would now be wholly supported. Second, Pei Wenchung, now field supervisor, found a human calotte! So at noon on December 2, Pei paid the workers at his room in the village, and climbed up the hill for the last time to measure the exact dimensions of the hole. From these he could report the number of cubic metres taken out since work began at the end of the summer monsoon season. Probing with a yard-stick in the sand under a limestone overhang, he suddenly exposed the smooth dome of a skull, embedded in cave travertine. Loosening the block with a hammer and chisel, Pei saw at once that the top of the cranium was larger than that of any ape so far unearthed. He carried it back to his room with care. A battery of candles from the village store had given just enough light for a time exposure of the find in situ. He got another photograph of his prize wrapped in burlap soaked with flour paste, and balanced above three braziers so that it could dry out during the night. By dawn, it was ready for the trip to Peking, without fear of shedding fragments on the road. Pei wrapped the treasure in his soiled linen, bargained with a ricksha puller, and set out for the city, the precious bundle between his feet hidden by the

CONCLUSION Collaborative research between the Chinese scientific community and Davidson Black and other foreign scientists helped to establish the study of Chinese prehistory during a vibrant period of extensive field opportunities. Black was fully devoted to the science of anthropology. But, most of all, Black appreciated the skills and knowledge of his local Chinese colleagues by inviting them to participate in roles of responsibility and decision making. He recognized the importance of training Chinese scholars to carry out scientific research in the fields of anatomy, anthropology, geology, and palaeontology as shown by the scholarly expertise of Pei Wenchung, Yang Zhongjian, and Jia Lanpo. Such a cooperative effort had never before been developed between Chinese scholars and foreign scientists. In his own words, Black wrote to Greene, “Whether one calls it museum work or not it is the work that counts, for we are here to help the West to understand and appreciate 17

J. Cormack the East, and to do so we must collect facts” (Rockefeller Archives 1920b). It was Black’s devotion to knowledge from the smallest of details to the largest of questions and the sharing of this knowledge with the whole scientific community that allowed the study of Chinese prehistory to develop so smoothly and so rapidly.

cere and most gracious thanks the generosity and time that various members of the Black family have provided in giving me open access to their family history.

REFERENCES Andersson, J.G., 1919. Preliminary description of a bone-deposit at Chow-kou-tien in Fang-shanhsien, Chili Province. Geografisker Annaler 1, 265-268. Andersson, J.G., 1923. The cave-deposit at Sha Kuo T'un in Fengtien. Palaeontologia Sinica and Geological Survey of China, Series D I(1), 1-59. Andersson, J.G., 1925. Preliminary report on archaeological research in Kansu. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of China, Series A 5. Andersson, J.G., 1928. Hominid-fyndet vid Peking [translated: The discovery of remains of a hominid near Peking]. Ymer (Stockholm) 48, 61-68. Andersson, J.G., 1929. The origin and aims of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities. Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 1, 11-27. Andersson, J.G., 1934. Children of the Yellow Earth, Studies in Prehistoric China. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd. Andersson, J.G., 1943. Researches into the prehistory of the Chinese. Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 15, 1-304. Barbour, G., 1965. In the Field with Teilhard de Chardin. New York, N.Y.: Herder and Herder. Black, D., 1915. Brain in primitive man. The Cleveland Medical Journal XIV(3), 177-185. Black, D., 1925a. Asia and the dispersal of primates. A study in ancient geography of Asia and its bearing on the ancestry of man. Bulletin of the Geological Society of China IV(2), 133-183. Black, D., 1925b. The human skeletal remains from the Sha Kuo T'un cave deposit in comparison with those from Yang Shao Tsun and with recent north China skeletal material. Palaeontologia Sinica and Geological Survey of China, Series D I(3), 1148. Black, D., 1925c. The Aeneolithic Yang Shao people of north China. A brief resume of the works done and in progress on the physical characters of this ancient people: their distinction and their apparent ethnic relations. Transactions of the 6th Congress of the Far Eastern Association of Tropical Medicine, Tokyo, Japan, 1925. Vol. 1, pp. 11111114. Black, D., 1925d. A note on the physical characters of the prehistoric Kansu race. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of China, Series A 5, 52-56. Black, D., 1926. Tertiary man in Asia: The Chou Kou Tien discovery. Nature 118, 733-734. Black, D., 1927. On a lower molar hominid tooth from the Chou Kou Tien deposit. Palaeontologia Sinica and Geological Survey of China, Series D VII(1), 1-26. Black, D. 1928a. A study of Kansu and Honan

His two closest Chinese colleagues remember Davidson Black this way: I wish to speak especially of my remembrance of Black’s kind spirit of cooperation in working with the Chinese Geological Survey. He himself voluntarily offered to have the Cenozoic Research Laboratory organized under the Geological Survey, all the original papers first read in and published by the Geological Society, and to let the Geological Survey have the right of possession and disposition of all the specimens excavated and collected by the Cenozoic Research Laboratory. He had always been kindly disposed toward his Chinese colleagues (spoken by Wong Wenhao, Geological Society of China 1934). In his [Black’s] dealings with his Chinese colleagues, he forgot nationality or race, because he realised that science was above such artificial and accidental things (spoken by V.K. Ting, Geological Society of China 1934:19).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper is drafted from the text of a scientific biography on Dr. Davidson Black currently being written by myself. I would like to acknowledge and thank various institutions that have provided archival resource material for this project including the Peking Union Medical College and the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing, the Rockefeller Archive Center in New York, and the Washington University Medical School Archives in St. Louis. My thanks to Dr. Spencer Lucas (University of New Mexico) for providing details on Sweden’s role in Chinese prehistory, Dr. Marianne Lindvall (University of Alberta) for Swedish translations, and Sabine Stratton for German translations. Discussions with Professor Chen Kequan of the Peking Union Medical College, and particularly the narratives told by the late Professor Jia Lanpo and Professor Hu Chengzhi have brought the story of Davidson Black to life - thank you. This paper is dedicated to the memory of the late Professor Jia Lanpo. My thanks also to Dr. Susan Keates and Dr. Chen Shen (and two anonymous reviewers) for giving me this opportunity to include this paper as part of their publication. Most importantly, I would like to acknowledge with my sin18

Davidson Black and His Role in Chinese Palaeoanthropology Aeneolithic skulls and specimens from later Kansu prehistoric sites in comparison with north China and other recent crania. I. On measurement and identification. Palaeontologia Sinica and Geological Survey of China, Series D VI(1), 183. Black, D., 1928b. Discovery of further hominid remains of lower Quaternary age from the Chou Kou Tien deposit. Science 67, 135-136. Black, D., 1929. Preliminary notice of the discovery of an adult Sinanthropus skull at Chou Kou Tien. Bulletin of the Geological Society of China VIII(3), 207-231. Black Archives, 1914. Black Archives: journal entries. Black Archives, 1919. Black Archives: journal entries. Black Archives, 1921a. Black Archives: correspondence dated July 10, 1921. Black Archives, 1921b. Black Archives: correspondence dated July 17, 1921. Black Archives, 1927. Black Archives: correspondence from Black to his wife dated October 16 (written October 19) 1927. Black, D., P. Teilhard de Chardin, C.C. Young, and W. Pei (eds.), 1933. Fossil man in China. The Choukoutien cave deposits with a synopsis of our present knowledge of the Late Cenozoic in China. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of China, Series A 11, 1-168. Bohlin, B., 1927. Excavation of the Chow k’ou tien deposit. Bulletin of the Geological Society of China VI, 345-346. Dawson, W.R. (ed.), 1938. Sir Grafton Elliot Smith. A Biographical Record by his Colleagues. London: Jonathan Cape. Dubois, E., 1894. Pithecanthropus erectus: Eine menschenaehnliche Uebergangsform aus Java. Batavia, Java: Landesdruckerei. Geological Society of China, 1934. Davidson Black 1884-1934. In Memorium. Geological Society of China & Peking Society of Natural History. Jia, LP. and WW. Huang, 1990. The Story of Peking Man. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press and Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Li, C., 1927. The Chow Kou Tien fossil deposits. Bulletin of the Geological Society of China VI, 337-344. Mateer, N.J. and S.G. Lucas, 1985. Swedish vertebrate palaeontology in China: A history of the Lagrelius Collection. Bulletin of the Geological Institute, University of Uppsala 11, 1-23. Rockefeller, 1918a. Rockefeller Archives: correspondence from Black to McLean dated May 18, 1918. Rockefeller, 1918b. Rockefeller Archives: correspondence from Cowdry to McLean dated March 9, 1918. Rockefeller Archives, 1918c. Rockefeller Archives: correspondence from Black to Buttrick dated October 31, 1918. Rockefeller Archives, 1919a. Rockefeller Archives: correspondence from Black to Kirk dated May 30, 1919.

Rockefeller Archives, 1919b. Rockefeller Archives: correspondence from Houghton to Greene dated March 5, 1919. Rockefeller Archives, 1920a. Rockefeller Archives: correspondence from Houghton to Vincent dated September 21, 1920. Rockefeller Archives, 1920b. Rockefeller Archives: correspondence from Black to Greene dated March 29, 1920. Rockefeller Archives, 1921. Rockefeller Archives: correspondence from Vincent to Pearce dated March 4, 1921. Rockefeller Archives, 1922. Rockefeller Archives: correspondence from Black to Pearce dated April 10, 1922. Rockefeller Archives, 1926. Rockefeller Archives: correspondence from Black to Eggleston dated October 30, 1926. Rockefeller Archives, 1927. Rockefeller Archives: correspondence from Greene to Houghton dated January 13, 1927. Rockefeller Archives, 1928. Rockefeller Archives: report by Black dated January 11, 1928. Rockefeller Archives, 1929. Rockefeller Archives: report by Black dated January 7, 1929. Rockefeller Archives, 1930. Rockefeller Archives: correspondence from Black to Eggleston dated June 30, 1930. Rockefeller Archives, 1934. Rockefeller Archives: correspondence from Eggleston to Mason dated November 3, 1934. Schlosser, M., 1903. Die fossilen Säugethiere Chinas nebst einer Odontographie der recenten Antilopen. Akademie der Wissenschaft. II XXII(I), 1-220. Teilhard de Chardin, P., 1926. Fossil man in China and Mongolia. Natural History XXVI, 238-245. Theunissen, B., 1989. Eugène Dubois and the Ape-Man from Java, the History of the First 'Missing Link' and its Discoverer. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Washington University Archives, 1921. Washington University Archives: correspondence from Black to Cowdry dated July 12, 1921. Woodward, A.S., 1948. The earliest Englishman. London: Watts & Co. Zdansky, O., 1923. Ueber ein Säugerknochenlager in Chou K’ou Tien, Provinz Chihli. Bulletin of the Geological Society of China IV(5), 83-89. Zdansky, O., 1927. Preliminary notice on two teeth of a hominid from a cave in Chihli (China). Bulletin of the Geological Society of China V(3-4), 281-284.

19

20

Retrospect of Fifty Years of Palaeolithic Archaeology in China Chun Chen

adigm adopted the methodology of the natural sciences, its goal has been quite close to the traditional approach of Chinese archaeology, that is, trying to reconstruct the human history of the Pleistocene. For example, Quaternary geology and vertebrate palaeontology have basically played the role of chronology and lithic analysis and human fossils have been used as the evidence to trace the cultural and physical evolution of humans (Chen 1999a). Generally, Chinese Palaeolithic research has been culture-historically oriented with unilinear development and diffusionism commonly employed to explain cultural change.

INTRODUCTION The founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949 symbolized the beginning of the 'Golden Age' of archaeology in China with the government providing substantial funding to support archaeological research. The project at Zhoukoudian Locality 1 was resumed in 1949 after a dozen years of interruption, and the Cenozoic Research Laboratory was reorganized into the Laboratory of Vertebrate Paleontology in 1953, which in 1957 became the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Jia 1980)1. Since then, the IVPP has been the centre of Palaeolithic research in China.

ACHIEVEMENTS IN CHINESE PALAEOLITHIC ARCHAEOLOGY FROM 1950 TO 1980

The introduction of scientific archaeology in the early 1920s is considered to be the result of the 'New Cultural Movement' and to have been stimulated by the controversy between 'Doubters of the Old' and traditional historians. Both skeptics and traditionalists came to realize the potential of archaeological fieldwork in solving historical disputes. Because of the different approaches to investigations, prehistoric archaeology in China has basically followed two directions. Differing from the historiographically oriented Neolithic and Bronze Age archaeology, Palaeolithic archaeology has been basically a part of the study of human evolution.

Major Discoveries The first thirty years after the establishment of the People's Republic of China (PRC) witnessed an increase in archaeological discoveries in both North and South China (Table 1). Some of the more important discoveries are. In 1951, an almost complete human skull of an elderly H. s. sapiens female was found during railway construction on the right bank of the Huangshanxi River, Ziyang District, Sichuan Province (Pei and Wu 1957; Wu and Zhang 1985). In 1954, large excavations were conducted at 14 localities in the Dingcun area, Xiangfen County, Shanxi Province, yielding a total of 2,005 stone artefacts and a fossilized human parietal and three teeth (Pei et al. 1958; Wu and Wu 1985; Qiu 1985). Uranium-series (U-series) dating of animal teeth from Locality 54.100 gave a time range of between 160,000 and 210,000 BP (Chen et al. 1984).

The Zhoudoudian site complex was the cradle of the first generation of Chinese Palaeolithic archaeologists. Chinese Palaeolithic archaeology was strongly influenced by the French tradition in the 1920s and the 1930s. Ironically, in the later years Chinese colleagues knew little either about the progress made by the French archaeologist Francois Bordes in the fields of typology and flintknapping experiments or new approaches in North America for a fairly long period of time because of China's political and academic isolation.

In 1957 and 1958, a mandible of Peking Man (H. erectus) along with many lithic artefacts were unearthed at Zhoukoudian Locality 1 (Chia 1959). In 1961, a large excavation at Shiyu, Shouxian County, Shanxi Province, yielded an occipital fragment of H. s. sapiens, more than 15,000 lithic artefacts and mammalian fauna (Chia et al. 1972). A single radiocarbon date of 28,135±1330 BP was obtained (Laboratory of the Institute of Archaeology 1977; Wu and Wang 1985).

Pei Wenzhong (also known as W.C. Pei), who received his professional training in France (1935-1937), set up a so-called 'four legs walking’ paradigm for Chinese Palaeolithic archaeology, i.e. lithic analysis, Quaternary geology, vertebrate palaeontology, and palaeoanthropology. Until recently, this paradigm was still the foundation of Chinese Palaeolithic research. Although the par-

At the turn of the 1960s, a lithic industry dominated by large stone artefacts and a mammalian fauna dated to the Lower Pleistocene were unearthed at Kehe, Ruicheng County, Shanxi Province (Chia et al. 1962). From 1960

1 Jia Lanpo is the same author as Chia Lan-Po. The spelling was changed according to the official standardization of the Chinese phonetic alphabet.

21

C. Chen to 1962, about 30 stone artefacts, a Lower Pleistocene mammalian fauna and a few burnt animal bones were found at Xihoudu, Ruicheng County, Shanxi Province. The site has a palaeomagnetic age of 1.9 mya (Chia and Wang 1978). Pei Wenzhong and Zhang Senshui (1985) criticized the interpretation of Xihoudu, claiming that although there were a few Palaeolithic industries much earlier than the Peking Man industry, their man-made nature was very suspicious because of stratigraphic problems. Huang Weiwen and Hou Yamei (1996) argue that the lithic artefacts and the V-shaped cut mark on an antler found at Xihoudu were difficult to be regarded as the products of natural dynamics. In a more recent article, Zhang Senshui (1998a) reclaimed his position, arguing that the so-called Palaeolithic artefacts from Xihoudu might have been produced by hydrodynamics, the burnt mammalian bones might have been caused by natural fire, and the cut mark on the antler could have been produced by alluvial transportation. In response, Wei Qi (2000a) argues that while the lithic artefacts show traces of water polish and transportation, their man-made nature is not in doubt because of clear evidence of flake detachment. Based on an analysis of the percussion pattern, it is certain that these attributes were produced by human behaviour rather than natural dynamics (Wei 2000a).

In 1963, a huge stone workshop was found at E'maokou, Huairen County, Shanxi Province, covering an area of about 20,000 m2. The age of the workshop was tentatively dated to the early Holocene (Chia and You 1973). In 1964 and 1965, more than 3,000 stone artefacts and about 20 mammalian species were found at Guanyindong cave, Qianxi County, Guizhou Province, South China (Li and Wen 1978). The U- series dates are 57,000 BP for Layer 2, 119,000 BP for Layer 4, 80,000104,000 BP for Layer 5, and 115,000 BP for Layer 8 (Yuan et al. 1986). In addition, sporadic discoveries of archaeological materials were reported from cave deposits in Jiangxi, Hunan, Shandong, Guangxi, Ninxia, Qinghai, and Inner Mongolia during this period (Qiu and Li 1978). In 1923, P. Teilhard de Chardin and E. Licent discovered a rich lithic assemblage and mammalian fossils at the Shuidonggou site, Lingwu County, Ningxia Province. Since the 1960s, Chinese scholars have conducted several excavations at this site. In 1923, H. Breuil remarked that the Shuidonggou culture resembled a highly developed Mousterian and an incipient Aurignacian culture, or a combination of the two (Boule et al. 1928). On the basis of their examination, Chinese scholars have argued that a more reliable estimate of the site's age is Upper Palaeolithic (Chia et al. 1964). During an excavation in 1980, two cultural layers were identified at the Shuidonggou site. The upper layer yielded chipped stone tools, ground stone tools and potsherds. The age of the Palaeolithic assemblage is based on radiocarbon dates of 17,250±210 BP and 26,230±800 BP and on Useries dates of 38,000±2000 BP and 34,000±2000 BP (Ningxia Provincial Museum and Regional Geological Team 1987; Chen et al. 1984). Recently eight samples obtained by a 1999-2000 Sino-American collaboration yielded AMS 14C dates in the range of 27,000 - 25,000 BP (Gao et al. 2002; Madsen et al. 2001).

The Sjara-osso-gol (Salawusu) site on the Ordos Plateau in Inner Mongolia yielded one sub-adult tooth, more than 200 stone artefacts and mammalian fossils in 1922. From the 1950s to the 1980s, more data were collected in this area, which is dominated by small artefacts due to the available local raw materials (Wu and Wu 1999). An approximate age between 30,000 and 50,000 BP has been suggested for the archaeological assemblage (Yuan et al. 1983; Wu and Wang 1985). Subsequently, U-series dating of two horse teeth produced dates of 38,000±2000 BP and 34,000±2000 BP (Chen et al. 1984).

During the 1960s, sporadic Palaeolithic artefacts were reported from 10 localities in the area covering Sanmenxia City, Shanxian, Lingbao, and Mianchi Counties in Henan Province. The majority of these are large and heavy-duty tools made of river gravels, such as choppers, big triangular points, large scrapers and bolas. The age of these remains is uncertain and tentatively assigned by the researchers to the Middle Pleistocene (Huang 1964; Zhang 1989).

Excavations conducted at Xiaonanhai, Anyang City, Henan Province, in 1960 and 1978, discovered a large number of stone artefacts, mammalian fossils, burnt bones and charcoal (An 1965; Huang 1989). The radiocarbon dating results of samples collected from the lower and upper deposits in the cave provided three ages of 24,100±500, 13,075±220 and 11,000±500 BP (Laboratory of the Institute of Archaeology 1977, 1980), while U-series dating of animal teeth from Layer 6 gave two results of 21,400±1300 BP and 18,900±1500 BP (Chen et al. 1984).

In 1965, two H. erectus incisors from the same individual, 22 stone artefacts, and a Pliocene and Lower Pleistocene mammalian fauna were found at Shangnabang, Yuanmou County, Yunnan Province (Wen 1978; Wu and Wu 1999). Palaeomagnetic dating of Yuanmou originally indicated an extremely early age of 1.7 mya (Cheng et al. 1977; Li et al. 1976). However, recently accumulated biostratigraphic, lithostratigraphic and magnetostratigraphic data suggest the fossils may be no older than the Brunhes-Matuyama boundary (i.e. about 0.780 mya) and may possibly be only 500,000600,000 BP old (Liu and Ding 1983). In 1966, the

In 1963 and 1964, a calotte, fragmentary facial bones and teeth from Gongwangling and a mandible from Chenjiawo belonging to H. erectus were recovered in Lantian County, Shaanxi Province (Chia 1965). Archaeomagnetic determination yielded a range of 0.75 to 0.80 mya for the Gongwangling locality and roughly 0.65 mya for the Chenjiawo locality (Ma et al. 1978; Wu and Dong 1985; Wu and Wang 1985).

22

Retrospect of Fifty Years of Palaeolithic Archaeology in China resumed excavation at Zhoukoudian Locality 1 yielded human fossils, including skull fragments (frontal and occipital) and many lithic and faunal remains (Qiu et al. 1973).

Meipu, Yunxian County, Hubei Province (Wu and Wu 1999). In 1975 and 1976, an Upper Palaeolithic locality called Shibazhan in Heilongjiang Province yielded a lithic assemblage dominated by microblade remains (Qiu and Li 1978).

In 1971 and 1972, a Lower Palaeolithic industry was discovered at Shilongtou, Dayi County, Hubei Province (Li et al. 1974). U-series dates Layer 1 to around 284,000 BP (Yuan et al. 1986). In 1972, human teeth assigned to archaic H. sapiens, 12 coarsely retouched scrapers, a few fragments of burnt bones and many mammalian fossils were found in a cave site in Tongzi County, Guizhou Province (Qiu 1985; Wu et al. 1975). The morphological features of the Tongzi dentition seem more primitive than those of Dingcun, although these fossils are roughly contemporary (Wu and Wu 1985). U-series dates of 113,000±11,000 115,000±7,000 BP and 181,000±10,000 BP were generated for the human fossils, but the age of the stone artefacts is uncertain (Yuan et al. 1986).

In the 1970s, surveys and excavations at the Xiachuan site, Qinshui County, southern Shanxi Province, recovered a large quantity of microblade remains (Wang et al. 1978). Radiocarbon dates range from 21,700±1,000 BP (ZL-384) to 19,600±600 BP (ZK-434) (Jia and Huang 1985a). A series of large excavations conducted at Xujiayao (Locality 74093), Yanggao County, Shanxi Province, in the 1970s, recovered nearly two hundred thousand stone artefacts, 17 fragmentary specimens of archaic H. sapiens fossils, several bone and antler implements, and a large quantity of mammalian fossils (Chia and Wei 1976; Chia et al. 1979; Qiu 1985). U- series dating provided an interval concordant 230Th/234U age of roughly 100,000 BP as the youngest possible age for the deposit (Chen et al. 1982). In addition, radiocarbon dating yielded a date of only 16,920±2000 BP (ZK-670-0) (Laboratory of the Institute of Archaeology 1981). A Useries date of a rhinoceros tooth from the sediment 8 m below the ground surface gives a time range of between 104,000 and 125,000 BP (Chen et al. 1984).

From 1972 to 1974, nine Upper Palaeolithic localities were found at Hutouliang, Yangyuan County, Hebei Province, yielding a large number of microblades and microcores and Upper Pleistocene mammalian fossils (Gai and Wei 1977). The single radiocarbon date of 11,000±210 BP (PV-4) indicates a terminal Pleistocene age for the site (Jia and Huang 1985a). The Fulin site in Hanyuan County, Sichuan Province, was found in 1960 (Yang 1961), and an excavation conducted in 1971 yielded more than 5,000 stone artefacts, as well as a number of mammalian fossils and charcoal (Zhang 1977). Simple direct percussion and small artefact size characterize the industry. Based on biostratigraphic data, the Fulin industry is thought to date to the last phase of the Upper Palaeolithic (Jia and Huang 1985a).

In the late 1970s, a series of Palaeolithic localities were found in the Nihewan Basin, Yangyuan County, Hebei Province. These localities were discovered in sediments of the Nihewan Fomation and date to the Early Pleistocene. Abundant lithic artefacts and mammalian fossils were unearthed from a thick alluvial deposit at the Xiaochangliang site (You et al. 1980). Since then, excavations have been conducted at this site by different institutions during the 1980s and 1990s (You 1983; Huang 1985). In 1981, another Early Pleistocene locality called the Donggutuo site was found at Xujiapo near Donggutuo village, yielding a large number of stone artefacts and bone fragments (Wei et al. 1985; Jia 1985). Based on the palaeomagnetic dating method, the age of both Xiaochangliang and Donggutuo is probably around 1.0 mya BP (Cheng et al. 1978).

In 1973, some important discoveries were made at Bose, Guangxi Province, southern China (Li and You 1975; Huang et al. 1988) and at the Gezidong (Pigeon Cave) site in Liaoning Province, northern China (Excavation Team of Gezidong 1975). The stone artefact collection from Bose is interpreted as a Lower Palaeolithic industry with Acheulian-like tradition (Yuan et al. 1999; Hou et al. 2000). The age of the Bose industry is still controversial. Fission-track dating of tektites associated with the artefacts has produced dates of 0.732 mya (Guo et al. 1996) and 0.803 mya (Hou et al. 2000). However, Koeberl and Glass (2000) and Keates (2000) have argued that these dates may not be reliable because of possible secondary deposition of the tektites.

In 1984, 1986 and 1988, excavations were conducted at the Banjingzi site on the third terrace of the Shanggan River, Yangyuan County, with more than 3,000 stone artefacts as well as faunal remains recovered. U-series dates these materials to 70,000 years BP (Li et al. 1991). In 1990, two Lower Pleistocene localities, Banshan and Feiliang, were found and excavated. The Banshan locality, situated near Chengjiawan, yielded about 130 stone artefacts and many mammalian fossils. Unfortunately, it is possible that the cultural remains from Banshan derive from secondary deposition (Wei 1994). At the Feiliang site, located between the Xiaochangliang and Donggutuo sites, 108 stone artefacts and many fragmentary mammalian fossils were found. The lithic assemblage includes cores, flakes, debitage and two

Beginning in 1974, excavations at the Jinniushan cave site, Yingkou County, Liaoning Province, recovered an archaic H. sapiens cranium with a partial skeleton, lithic and bone artefacts, mammalian fossils, and ashes (Coordinated Excavation Team of Jinniushan 1976, 1978). In 1975, three H. erectus teeth and many fragmentary mammalian fossils were found in a cave at 23

C. Chen

Table 1. Major Palaeolithic discoveries since the 1950s mentioned in the paper. Year

Site

Province

Dating results BP

1951

Ziyang

Sichuan

1953 1957-58

Dingcun Zhoukoudian Locality 1

Shanxi Beijing

39,300+2,500 to 6,550+120 210,000 - 160,000 500,000 - 200,000

1950s 1959-60 1960

Sjara-osso-gol (Salawusu) Kehe Xiaonanhai

Inner Mongolia Shanxi Henan

1960-62 1960 1960

Xihoudu Sanmenxia Shuidonggou

Shanxi Henan Ningxia

1960 1961

Fulin Shiyu

Sichuan Shanxi

1963-64

Lantian

Shaanxi

1963 1964-65

E'maokou Guanyindong

Shanxi Guizhou

1965

Yuanmou

Yunnan

1970

Xiachuan

Shanxi

1972

Shilongtou

Hubei

1972

Tongzi

Guizhou

1972-74 1973

Hutouliang Bose

Hebei Guangxi

50,000-30,000 not available 24,100+500 11,000+500 1.9 mya not available 26,230+800 17,250+210 38,000+2,000 34,000+2,000 not available 28,135+1,330 800,000-750,000 650,000 Early Holocene Layer 2: 57,000 Layer 4: 10 upper and lower molars 2 teeth lower molar fragment right antler fragment 2 mandibular fragments; some teeth right mandible 2 mandibular fragments; several teeth basal sections of two subadult antlers; teeth 2 antler fragments left mandible fragment with P 3 -M1 right horn fragment n.d. molar (M1 or M2 ) several molar fragments; bone fragment

? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 2, 3 2, 3 1 2, 3, 4 1 1 2, 3 2, 4

1 1 ? ? ? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ? 1 1

1 2, 3, 4 2, 3, 4 1 1 2, 3, 4 1 1 2, 3, 4 1 2, 3 2, 3, 4 1 1 1 3 2, 3 1

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

layer 5 fine sand, 6.2 m thick layer 4 coarse sand, 0.5 - 0 .8 m thick

layer 3 fine sand and gravel, 0.5 - 6.2 m thick

Equus sp. E. cf. sanmeniensis E. cf. przewalskyi Rhinoceros sp. Coelodonta sp. (C. antiquitatis?) Megaloceros pachyosteus Megaloceros sp. Pseudaxis cf. grayi Cervus sp. Gazella przewalskyi Gazella sp. Sus sp. Bubalus sp. Bovidae

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Notes: The authors provide data only for ELE (except for Han and Xu (1985) who provide no ELE data). The fossils described by Wu and You (1979) are a pooled collection from layer 3 of the hominid locality (78006 A), and 200 m to the northeast (locality 78009), with most fossils from 78006A.

40

Biostratigraphy, Taphonomy, Palaeoenvironment and Hominid Diet considered that DT18 represents a transitional fauna.

Table 4. Species from the Dali hominid locality (after TIASP and CPAM 1996: table 2 and p. 27).

The poor condition and small number of fossils at the Dali sites is most parsimoniously interpreted as the result of post-depositional fragmentation in a fluvially active environment; various other indicators of this include a number of abraded artefacts (see Keates 2001a, b), particularly evident on the more recently recovered specimens from locality DT 18 (see Plates XII-XXIX in TIASP and CPAM 1996). The deposit at the hominid site could have been disturbed by torrential rains cutting into the loess. It can be assumed that many fossils and also artefacts were washed away. At a locality about 20 m away there is a deposit with very fine layers of sand and clay (accumulated under lacustrine conditions) from which a stone artefact in unabraded condition was recovered by R. Shutler Jr. (personal observation), indicating the potential for primary context sites in this area (Figure 3.2).

Species __________________________

Rodentia Homo sapiens Palaeoloxodon cf. naumanni Palaeoloxodon sp. Equus sp. Dicerorhinus cf. mercki Coelodonta antiquitatis Megaloceros cf. pachyosteus Megaloceros sp. Pseudaxis cf. grayi Cervinae Gazella przewalskyi Bovinae _________________________ The archaeological materials were excavated from the c. 2.5 m thick greyish white gravel layer 2 and from the overlying 1.8 m thick greyish white, greyish coloured coarse gravel layer 3. A total of eight taxa were recorded, although species designation is in most cases unknown or uncertain (Table 5). The fossils are mostly fragmentary and usually comprise isolated teeth and partial long bones with bones varying in degree of fossilisation (TIASP and CPAM 1996:233). One taxon was found higher up in the section in layer 9, an 0.2-0.6 m yellow gravel (TIASP and CPAM 1996:8 and fig. 6; Table 5). Based on the composition of the fauna from layers 2 and 3, the inferred attribution of DT 18 to the Early Pleistocene cannot be supported fully: (1) Equus sanmeniensis and Sus cf. lydekkeri occur at Early (E. sanmeniensis, e.g., Xiaochangliang, Gongwangling; Sus cf. lydekkeri, e.g., Gongwangling) as well as Middle Pleistocene (both at e.g., Zhoukoudian Locality 1) localities. (2) Until definite species identification of the majority or all of the taxa is made, chronology based on the fauna can only be very approximate. It may also be

Also in central China, in the lower Fenhe river valley, Shanxi Province, more than 13 fossil and cultural localities comprise river terrace occurrences in the vicinity of the Huanghe river (Chia et al. 1964), which belong to the Kehe site complex (Keates 1995; Figure 1). The archaeological horizon is level 4, a slightly cemented and up to 1 m thick gravel. Most fossils and lithic artefacts were found at locality 6054 (Chia et al. 1964; Aigner 1981). Many of the fossils are strongly waterabraded (Chia 1963). This indication for post-depositional disturbance makes the stratigraphic integrity of fossils and artefacts uncertain (Aigner 1978:193), and may mean that the fossils derive from the lower (older) layer (Wei Qi personal communication 1993; Keates 2001a). The animal fossils have been studied as a pooled collection, which comprises 13 or 14 species: 12 or 13 species of mammals and one mollusc species. The condition of the fossils is mostly fragmentary with very few elements and a small minimum number of individuals (Table 6).

Table 5. Biostratigraphic profile of Dali locality DT18 with ELE and MNI frequencies (translated from and after TIASP and CPAM 1996:22-27). Species MNI Context ELE _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Layer 9 Palaeoloxodon cf. tokunagai 9 tooth plates ?

Layer 3

Rodentia

lower incisor

Layers 2 & 3 Rodentia Equus cf. sanmeniensis

1

2 lower incisors; partial humerus 1 left mandible with P2 -M3 and with extremity of right mandible: partial mandible with incisor; upper molar; lower molar; incisor; 3 partial lower molars; vertebra; partial shoulder blade; humerus; tibia; 2 right metatarsals; hoof 2 Coelodonta antiquitatis left P2 , M2 ; left footbone 1 Sus cf. lydekkeri left M 2 1 Axis sp. ?* left proximal antler fragment 1 Cervinae 4 partial antlers; lower molar; 2 distal tibia fragments 1 Gazella cf. blacki 2 partial antlers 1 1 Bovinae incisor; left M3 ; footbone; partial distal cannon bone _____________________________________________________________________________________________ *Also classified by the authors as Axis sp. and Axis cf. shansius (TIASP and CPAM 1996: Plate 6, 9 and p. 233).

41

S.G. Keates

1.

2.

Figure 3. 1. The Dali hominid locality showing part of excavated layers 1-3. 2. A locality close to the Dali hominid locality showing layer-cake stratigraphy. Table 6. Comparative ELE and MNI frequencies of the Kehe fauna (after Aigner 1981: table 14, pp. 177, 324; Chia et al. 1964).

Species

ELE

MNI

Localities 6051

6052

6054

6056

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Lamprotula antiqua n.d. ? + + + Rodentia indet. [gen. et sp.?] incisor fragment 1 + 1 Palaeoloxodon cf. namadicus M3 + 1 Stegodon chiai almost complete M3 + S. cf. orientalis ( S. chiai ?) broken M2 1 + Equus sp. few teeth; several foot bones 2 + + 1 Coelodonta sp. (C. antiquitatis ?) broken M3 + Sus sp. canine 1 + Megaceros pachyosteus maxilla fragment; several mandibles 2 + + M. flabellatus broken mandible 1 + Pseudaxis sp. (P. grayi ?) antler and limb bone fragments 1 + Cervinae antler fragments 1 + Bubalus sp. some teeth; limb bones 2 + + Bison sp. broken cranium; mandible 1 + _____________________________________________________________________________________________

42

Biostratigraphy, Taphonomy, Palaeoenvironment and Hominid Diet

Table 7. Stratigraphic profile of the Guanyindong locality with relative fossil and total artefact frequencies (translated from and after Li and Wen 1986:3-4, 30). Layer* Thickness (in metres) Sediment Artefact n† Fossils _____________________________________________________________________________________________ none none surface soil & black sandy clay 0.15 - 0.7 1 red clay, many rocks 0.4 - 2.4 879 2 few 3 loose brown yellow & grey yellow sandy clay, limestone pebbles & blocks 0.3 - 1.6 20 few 4 brown yellow & red yellow sandy clay, limestone pebbles & blocks 0.9 - 1.5 68 few many 5 grey sandy clay, limestone pebbles 0.1 - 0.15 801 many 6 red yellow sand 0.2 - 0.6 236 present 7 grey yellow sandy clay, limestone pebbles 0.15 - 0.7 139 8 brecciated coarse sand, limestone pebbles § 0.15 - 0.50 & blocks few 20 none none 9 coarse interbedded sand & clay with pebbles > 4.5 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ * Total thickness of layers 3 - 7 is 1.65 - 4.55 m.

†Total artefact number is 1,444.

§

Found on the surface of this layer.

pollen from the deposits contain more than 95% nonarboreal pollen, of which over 80% is represented by Artemisia (Zhou et al. 1990b:41). More than 5,000 horse (E. przwalskyi sinensis, E. dalianensis and E. hemionus) teeth were found with an MNI of 200 (Zhou et al. 1990a:80). Fu (2002) refers to the same tooth frequency though with an MNI of 140. Ho and Jiang (1993) report more than 6,000 horse teeth and an MNI of 250. Zhou relates many of the Gulongshan fossils to human activity (Wang Youping personal communication 2000). There are about 1,000 fossils of Coelodonta antiquitatis according to Kahlke's (personal communication 1999) analysis of 1990. The majority of these fossils represents isolated teeth and parts of upper and lower jaws heavily chewed by Crocuta (Kahlke personal communication 1999). Crocuta is also quite common in the upper layers, and, according to Kahlke's (personal communication 2001) interpretation, these reflect the use of Gulongshan as a hyena cave over long periods of time.

An early to late Middle Pleistocene age range has been proposed based on the biostratigraphy (Chia et al. 1964; Chia 1963; Chiu 1962): species classification of the majority of fossils has not been possible (Table 6). The geomorphology and stratigraphy have been interpreted to suggest a terminal Middle Pleistocene or early Late Pleistocene date, although the localities may not be contemporaneous (Wei 1992). Although water abrasion on archaeological specimens may not always be associated with transport (Behrensmeyer 1987), the fragmentary nature of the fauna, the dispersed distribution of fossils and artefacts, and the small frequency of artefacts (n. 138 from 11 localities; Chia et al. 1964), all indicate redeposition. It is possible that the materials from the ‘original’ Kehe locality (or localities) were displaced by water, and, in this respect, the many course shifts of the nearby Huanghe river through time (see e.g., Zhang 1986:115) could be relevant (and see Keates 2000). In northeastern China the Late Pleistocene Gulongshan cave fauna from Liaoning Province (Zhou et al. 1990a in Kahlke 1994:34; Figure 1) was excavated from the "upper parts of the deposit;" four layers have been recognised in the deposit of which the yellow clay and sand layer 1 and the clay mud layer 2 are the uppermost layers (Zhou et al. 1990b:37). This limestone cave was excavated in 1981-1982 (Kahlke personal communication 2001). The deposit of the main cave was not preserved and excavations recovered bone fragments and teeth from a long narrow passage within the cave (Wang Youping personal communication 2000). Stone and bone artefacts were also found associated (Zhou et al. 1990b:38). The fossils include 77 vertebrate species of late Late Pleistocene age, most of which are represented by rodents and carnivores (Zhou et al. 1990b:38-40). The radiocarbon date of 17,610 ± 240 correlates with the lower range of the U-series date of 40 - 20 ka (Zhou et al. 1990b:41; Figure 2.a). The approximate correlation of the radiocarbon and younger U-series date would place Gulongshan in OIS 2 (Figure 2.b), but more dates are needed to confirm this. The faunal collection is interpreted as a mainly temperate steppe fauna, and spore-

In southern China, the archaeological deposits at Guanyindong, Qianxi County in Guizhou Province, have yielded fossils and stone artefacts (Li and Wen 1978, 1986; Figure 1). These deposits are located at the west and main entrance of this cave. The main cave has dimensions of 90 m length and 2-4 m width (Li and Wen 1978, 1986). The fauna, which is referred to the Ailuropoda-Stegodon faunal complex, has been divided into two units according to its stratigraphic position: Group A fossils are from layer 2 and Group B fossils from the older layers 3-7 (Li and Wen 1978, 1986; Han and Xu 1985; Table 7). The Group A fauna is referred to the Middle Pleistocene by Li and Wen (1986) and Groups A and B date to the Middle Pleistocene or late Middle Pleistocene according to Han and Xu (1985), with a number of relict species present in layers 3-7. This chronology is, however, not completely in accord with U-series dating of rhinoceros teeth with an age of c. 57 ka for layer 2 and an age range of 119-76 ka for layers 3-7 (Yuan et al. 1986). U-series dating of speleothems produced younger ages for layers 2 and 3 (< 40 ka and < 50 ka, respectively) and mostly older 43

S.G. Keates ages for layers 4 to 8 ( 90%), with 25 cores, 47 unmodified flakes, and 12 retouched pieces. Most of the flakes and flake tools, made primarily on chert, are small, short, and wide. You et al. (1980) suggested that the Xiaochangliang lithic assemblage represents lithic technology related to the 'small-tool tradition' of northern China defined by Jia (Chia et al. 1972; see also Chen, this volume). They correctly pointed out that the dominant waste products in the Xiaochangliang assemblage were attributable to the poor quality of raw materials used for tool production. You (1983) further confirmed this view by studying an additional 150 surface-collected lithic artefacts. You (1983) noted that retouched tools include side-scrapers, end-scrapers, points, and drills, all of small size. More than a dozen unmodified flakes show evidence of some edge-damage; he thus classified these as 'utilized flakes' (You 1983). The simple composition of the toolkit and the lack of complex retouch were viewed as evidence of primitive tool manufacture, which You and his colleagues (You et al. 1980) apparently believed should be attributable to the primitive cognition of hominids who lived more than one million years ago.

In this regard, a qualitative and quantitative study of the lithic assemblage was accomplished for the first time by Keates in her PhD research based on samples collected from the early investigations (Keates 2000). An expedient technology is indicated at Xiaochangliang, according to Keates, based on attributes including "the apparently uneconomical use of stone, the location of the sites near large stone outcrops, the generally informal artefacts, and the rare occurrence of retouched flake and core platforms" (Keates 2000:42).

TYPO-TECHNOLOGICAL ANALYSIS In this technological analysis, we examined the entire lithic assemblage from the 1998 excavation as well as 1,258 selected pieces collected in the five 1990-97 field seasons that are now housed at the IVPP. All artefacts were sorted into five classes: nodule, core, formed type, debitage flake, and flaking debris (Table 1). Nodules are remains of raw materials with one or two flake scars generated by initial breakage. Seventy-one nodules (3.3% of the total sample) were discarded by the

Huang (1985) examined an additional 66 artefacts collected during later surveys, and argued that the advanced and sophisticated character of the Xiaochangliang lithic technology is represented by elongated flakes (or bladelike flakes), platform preparation, the complex typolog70

New Evidence of Hominid Behaviour from Xiaochangliang hominids, and not further used as cores, confirming the view that the readily available local raw materials were exploited by the Xiaochangliang hominids. The size of nodules varies from 28.8 cm to 175.7 cm in length, with a mean of 97.92 cm (sd = 43.4), indicative of the small size of the Xiaochangliang artefacts. Raw materials from the Xiaochangliang site consist of Archaean gneiss, Sinian dolomite, Jurassic andesite, tuff gravel, and other stones. A study conducted by Pei and Hou (2001) suggests that the two nearest sources of raw materials are located to the east, at a distance of about 400 to 1,000 metres.

The Xiaochangliang hominids do not appear to have been very much concerned with the quality and size of raw materials, and made stone tools without a mental template and preparation. No projective geometry or symmetry has been identified on the flakes and cores. A few blade-like flakes produced by direct percussion were found, as previously noted by Huang (1985); however, these specimens are clearly indicative of accidental production. In other words, the lithic industry exhibits only a pre-operational or preliminary operational intelligence of the hominids, equivalent to children around 5 - 8 years old (Wynn 1979, 1981, 1993). Xiaochangliang hominid behaviour reflects an expedient adaptation; they could have obtained sufficient cutting edges as long as they kept chipping with the abundant raw materials available. The Xiaochangliang lithic reduction model therefore can be characterized as random chipping. No standardization is evident in the secondary retouch or edge modification of flakes. Flakes were primarily selected for expedient use, which is confirmed by the following functional analysis.

Analysis of the core morphology, based on a sample of 69 cores recovered during the 1998 field investigation, suggests two reduction modes at Xiaochangliang: direct percussion and bipolar percussion. Nodules and large gravel stones were first shattered with a hammerstone using direct percussion. Blocks were then selected for further reduction by either direct or bipolar percussion. Any chunks unsuitable for direct percussion could have been used for bipolar percussion during the reduction process. Little attention was paid to the selection of platform edge angles. We noted single platform, opposite platform, and multiple platform cores (Figure 6). Average core length, width, and thickness are 53.3 cm (sd = 28), 41.8 cm (sd = 21), and 30.1 cm (sd = 15), respectively.

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS You (1983) observed possible use-wear marks on the edges of more than a dozen unmodified flakes recovered from the first season of excavation at the site. Keates (2000:44-46) claimed that all of the 47 pieces in her 'tool' category show 'use-wear.' These flakes were classified as 'utilized flakes' or 'tools' based merely on edge damage of flakes. However, both author's functional interpretations of the Xiaochangliang lithic assemblages are in fact preliminary observations of use-potential categories (for the term 'use-potential' see Schiffer 1976:108-121). Although the term 'use-wear' was employed, these studies did not present the criteria of use-wear and no clear indication of how use-wear is distinguished microscopically from non-use edge damages and retouch modification. Lithic experiments have demonstrated that the morphological criterion of 'utilized flakes' is a poor concept of lithic typology, and, in applying it, tool function would be misinterpreted (Young and Bamforth 1990; Shen 1999).

Less than 1% of the lithic artefacts examined were found to have secondary retouch. No formed type can be recognized except for small-sized choppers and modified flakes (Figure 7). The modification on these flakes is suggestive of expedient tool use at Xiaochangliang, confirming Keates' observation (Keates 2000:41). A total of 174 flakes were selected for the attribute analysis, including the following variables: percussion point, bulbar scar, cortex, and dorsal scar pattern. It is clear that the majority of flakes lack percussion points (82.8%) and bulbar scars (83%). This is consistent with the relatively high percentage of flake breakage (48.1%), suggesting that this was a result of shattering percussion during reduction. Only about 10% of the flakes have the original cortex preserved, and the majority of flakes have cortex covering less than 30% of the dorsal surface. Flakes containing 75% to full coverage of the dorsal surface account for 6.2% of the samples. Among those with cortex, the location of cortex is primarily on the dorsal surface and on the proximal end (platform). Data from the dorsal scar number reveals that there are extremely few flakes with more than three scars as a result of sequential reduction. Almost half of the flakes have only one or two dorsal scars, and the other flakes have no scars at all, only cortex. In addition, the majority of the Xiaochangliang flakes do not show distinct dorsal scar patterns (77%), while only 13.7% of flakes have clear parallel or nearly parallel dorsal scar ridge patterns. All of these data point to the conclusion that flake production at Xiaochangliang is suggestive of an expedient technology.

In this functional study, we employed the low-power use-wear technique, following the criteria and procedures developed by George Odell and his colleagues in the late 1970s (Odell 1977, 1981; Odell and OdellVereecken 1980). Lithic artefacts are examined under a stereoscopic microscope with reflective lighting at a magnification range from 20x to 400x. There has been a long history of discussion about the employment of the low-power use-wear technique versus the high-power microwear technique (Richards 1984; Odell 1985, 1990; Grace 1989; Grace et al. 1988). The latter, developed by Keeley (1980), employs a microscope with incident lighting or an scanning electron microscope with up to 2000x magnification, and concentrates on the polish wear type to determine use patterns. Although the highpower microwear technique can be more precise than 71

C. Shen and C. Chen the low-power technique in its ability to detect worked materials, the low-power use-wear technique in fact concentrates on the combination and configuration of both variables of microfractures and abrasion in order to assess how artefacts may have been used (Odell 1996; Shen 2001). The criteria used to determine wear types include microfracture and abrasion such as scar size, scar pattern, scar distribution, degree of rounding, direction of striation, formation of polish, etc. We have presented our preliminary use-wear analysis of lithic artefacts recovered in the 1998 excavation at Xiaochangliang elsewhere (Shen and Chen 2000, 2001; Chen et al. 2002). In this paper, we examine additional samples collected during the 1990-97 investigations. The results presented below combine the 1990-97 and 1998 samples.

although the total numbers of pieces examined are substantially different. In addition, about 10 % of the total specimens (n=15) have some ambiguous use-wear that is difficult to place into any category of use-tasks, and we thus classify them as possible used pieces. Because some flakes can have two or more used segments on a worked edge, the 'employed unit' (EdU) therefore becomes the basic analytic unit rather than the piece itself. The examination suggests 25 EdUs from 22 used pieces, with three pieces having two used segments. Among the 25 employed units, only four different tool motions were determined: cutting/sawing, slicing/carving, scraping, and drilling (Table 3). Scraping was slightly more important than cutting/sawing, accounting for 48% and 23%, respectively. All three drilling pieces were from the 1998 collection, while only scraping and cutting tool motions were identified on the five pieces from the 1990-97 collection.

Previously, 126 pieces from the 1998 collection were examined for use-wear. An additional 48 pieces were selected from the 1990-97 collections. The sample selection was based on the form and sharpness of an edge with macro-damages; pieces with such an edge may have had great use potential (or fall into the 'utilized flakes' category of other authors). Statistically they are not random samples; however, it can be assumed that if variations of use-tasks were to be determined, these selected pieces would possibly be representative of tool use-patterning. The results presented below, therefore, should be considered as a possible pattern of function, rather than a conclusive manifestation of stone tool use at the Xiaochangliang site.

The distribution of worked materials over these 25 EdUs is presented in Table 4. Unfortunately, because of limitations of the low-power use-wear technique (Shen and Chen 2001; Chen et al. 2002), for almost a quarter of the EdUs (24%), the worked material(s) could not be determined. Another quarter, however, were employed on soft animal substances such as fresh meat and/or animal skin, hide. About 20 % of EdUs are related to working on fresh or dry woods. Interestingly, one piece from the 1990-97 collection shows use-wear that was possibly caused by use contact with soft vegetal material like plant roots or grass, which was not identified in our previously studied samples. In general, most of the determined worked materials (52%) were animal substances in all resistance grades (soft, medium, and hard).

The combined samples comprise a total of 174 pieces, which we subjected to microscopic analysis. Twentytwo flake tools were determined to have positive usewear, accounting for 12.6 % (Table 2). The low use-rate was consistent between the two groups of samples,

When use-wear types were examined to determine tool

Table 2. Lithic artefacts determined as used or possible used.

Used (with positive use-wear) Possible used (with ambiguous use-wear) Non-used (with no use-wear)

1998 collection N % 17 13.5 10 7.9 99 78.6

Total sample examined

126

100

1990-97 collection N % 5 10.4 5 10.4 38 79.2 48

100

Combined N % 22 12.6 15 8.6 137 78.7 174

Table 3. Use-wear of tool motions.

Tool Motion indeterminate cutting/sawing slicing/carving scraping drilling Total

1998 collection N of EdU % 1 5.6 6 33.3 1 5.6 7 38.9 3 16.7 18 100

1990-97 collection N of EdU % 0 0.0 2 28.6 0 0.0 5 71.4 0 0.0 7 100 72

Combined N of EdU % 1 4.0 8 32.0 1 4.0 12 48.0 3 12.0 25 100

100

New Evidence of Hominid Behaviour from Xiaochangliang

Table 4. Use-wear of worked materials.

Worked Material * indeterminate soft animal soft vegetal medium-soft vegetal medium animal medium-hard vegetal hard animal Total

1998 collection N of EdU % 5 27.8 6 33.3 0 0.0 2 11.1 2 11.1 2 11.1 1 5.6 18 100

1990-97 collection N of EdU % 1 14.3 0 0.0 1 14.3 0 0.0 1 14.3 1 14.3 3 42.9 7 100

Combined N of EdU % 6 24.0 6 24.0 1 4.0 2 8.0 3 12.0 3 12.0 4 16.0 25 100

* soft animal: fresh meat, skin/hide, etc.; soft vegetal: roots, grass, leaves, etc;. medium-soft vegetal: fresh/seasonal wood etc.; medium animal: like frozen meat, meat with fresh bone, etc.; medium-hard vegetal: dry wood etc.; hard animal: animal bone, fresh antler, etc.

motion and worked material, we discovered the following: four EdUs (three pieces) were used to scrape animal bones, three flake tools were employed to cut animal meat or hide, two pieces probably functioned to scrape meat off fresh animal bone, one piece was used to drill fresh animal bone, one to slice animal meat or hide, and one to scrape animal hide. An additional six use-tasks are related to woodworking: three pieces were used to saw fresh wood, one to saw dry wood, one to scrape dry wood, and one to work on plant roots or grass. Lastly, six EdUs were used as cutting/sawing, scraping/shaving, and drilling on unknown worked materials (Figure 8).

tion on the excavation floor occurs in a random pattern (Figure 9). No particular 'activity clusters', i.e., spatial concentrations of flake tools with a variety of use-wear, can be identified.

CONCLUSION During the 1998 field season at Xiaochangliang, the site was re-mapped, providing a basis for future systematic investigations at this significant Early Pleistocene hominid occupation site. The taphonomic study indicates that the stone artefacts and faunal remains were secondarily deposited at the site, as a result of fluvial inundation. The large quantity of flaking debris and the evidence from the use-wear analysis clearly imply that the Xiaochangliang site was a place of hominid activity, including the manufacture and utilization of flake tools, in a random or expedient fashion. However, an activity floor has not yet been identified.

The use-wear results confirm that unmodified flakes from Xiaochangliang were primarily used as tools (You 1983; Keates 2000). All of the use-wear was found on unmodified flakes. This does not, however, mean that the modified/shaped artefacts (normally classified into the 'tool' category) were not intentionally made for use. It may suggest that these specimens were expedient tools with light usage; as a result, use-wear might not have become established before these artefacts were abandoned. Our use-wear study also suggests that very limited use-task varieties occurred at the site, possibly indicative of the primitive ability of the hominids. Furthermore, the use-task pattern also clearly suggests that the activities conducted by the Xiaochangliang hominids were mostly related to animal meat processing, an implication of hominid scavenging behaviour. Although our use-wear results suggest some woodworking activities, the role of woodworking at the Xiaochangliang site needs to be further investigated.

In future investigations, we will aim to locate an activity floor on site. We hypothesize that the place of activitty is more likely to be located towards the southern boundary of the site, farther away from the ancient lake shore. In addition, in-depth study of lithic technology along with other studies, such as raw material petrologic study, refitting analyses, and geoarchaeology, will undoubtedly provide more evidence of hominid behaviour in northern China during the later Early Pleistocene.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The fact that for a large number of pieces the function cannot be determined with certainty is because these pieces were eroded and weathered to a degree at which the original use-wear is no longer identifiable. In addition, the low rate of used pieces at the site is possibly attributable to post-depositional site formation in which used flake tools were washed away from their original place of activity. The spatial pattern of all used pieces and the 'possible used' pieces indicate that their distribu-

This project was supported by the Royal Ontario Museum Foundation research grant to Chen Shen. The authors would like to thank Profs. Chen Wanyong, Tang Yingjun, and Wei Qi from the IVPP, Beijing, P.R. China, for their assistance in the field investigation. Thanks to Dr. John McAdrews of the Royal Ontario Museum for microbiological examination. We thank Wei Qi, Donald Henry, and Susan Keates for instructive comments and 73

C. Shen and C. Chen Studies, eds. B. Graslund, H. Knutsson, K. Knutsson and J. Taffinder. Societas Arch-aeologica Upsaliensis, AUN 14, Uppsala, Sweden. pp. 125-134. Odell, G.H., 1996. Stone Tools and Mobility in the Illinois Valley: from hunter-gatherer camps to agricultural villages. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Odell, G.H. and F. Odell-Vereecken, 1980. Verifying the Reliability of Lithic Use-Wear Assessments by 'Blind Tests': the Low-Power Approach. Journal of Field Archaeology 7(1), 87-120. Pei, SW. and YM. Hou, 2001. Preliminary study of raw material exploitation at the Donggutou Site, Nihewan Basin, northern China. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 20(4), 271-281. Pope, G.G., Z. An, S. Keates and D. Bakken, 1990. New discoveries in the Nihewan Basin, Northern China. The East Asian Tertiary/Quaternary Newsletter 11, 68-73. Pope, G.G. and S.G. Keates, 1994. The Evolution of Human Cognition and Cultural Capacity: a view from the Far East. In Integrative Paths to the Past: Paleoanthropological Advances in Honor of F. Clark Howell, eds. R.S. Corruccini and R.L. Ciochon. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, pp. 531-567. Richards, T., 1984. Searching High and Low: A Review and Comparison of Microwear Analysis Methodologies. Western Canadian Anthropologist 1, 18-25. Schick, K.D., 1998. A comparative perspective on Paleolithic cultural patterns. In Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia, eds. T. Akazawa, K. Aoki and O. Bar-Yosef. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 449-460. Schick, K.D. and Z. Dong, 1993. Early Paleolithic of China and Eastern Asia. Evolutionary Anthropology 2(1), 22-35. Schick, K., N. Toth, Q. Wei, J.D. Clark and D. Etler, 1991. Archaeological perspectives in the Nihewan Basin, China. Journal of Human Evolution 21, 13-26. Schiffer, M.B., 1976. Behavioral Archeology. New York: Academic Press. Shen, C., 1999. Were 'Utilized Flakes' Utilized? An Issue of Lithic Classification in Ontario Archaeology. Ontario Archaeology 68, 63-73. Shen, C., 2001. The lithic production of the Princess Point Complex during the transition to agriculture in southwestern Ontario, Canada. BAR International Series 991. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Shen, C. and C. Chen, 1999. 1998 Excavation of Xiaochangliang, an Early Pleistocene site in Northern China. Current Research in the Pleistocene 16, 71-73. Shen, C. and C. Chen, 2000. A use-wear study of lithic artefacts from Xiaochangliang and hominid activities in Nihewan Basin, Northern China. Acta Anthropologica Sinica (Supplement) 19,

insights. REFERENCES Chen, C., C. Shen, W. Chen and Y. Tang, 1999. Excavation of the Xiaochangliang site at Yangyuan, Hebei. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 18(3), 225-239. Chen, C., C. Shen, W. Chen and Y. Tang, 2002. Lithic Analysis of the Xiaochangliang Industry. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 21(1), 23-40. Cheng, G., J. Lin, S. Li and Q. Liang, 1978. A preliminary paleomagnetic survey of the Nihewan bed. Scientia Geologica Sinica 7(3), 247-252. Chia, L., P. Kai and Y. You, 1972. Excavation report of paleolithic site at Shiyu, Shanxi Province. Acta Archaeologica Sinica 1, 39-60. Huang, WW., 1985. On the stone industry of Xiaochangliang. Acta Anthropologica Sinica IV(4), 301-307. Grace, R., 1989. Interpreting the Function of Stone Tools: the Quantification and Computerisation of Microwear Analysis. BAR International Series 474. Oxford. Grace, R., K. Ataman, R. Fabregas and C.M.B. Haggren, 1988. A Multi-variant Approach to the functional Analysis of Stone Tools. In Industries Lithiques: Traceologie et Technologie, ed. S. Beyries. Oxford, pp. 217-230. Jia, LP., 1985. China's Earliest Palaeolithic Assemblages. In Palaeoanthropology and Palaeolithic Archaeology in the People's Republic of China, eds. R. Wu and J.W. Olsen. Orlando: Academic Press, pp. 135-145. Keates, G.S., 2000. Early and Middle Pleistocene Hominid Behaviour in Northern China. BAR International Series 863. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Keeley, L.H., 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Li, H. and J. Wang, 1985. Magnetostratigraphic study of several typical geologic sections in north China. In Quaternary Geology and Environment of China, ed. Quaternary Research Association of China. Beijing: China Ocean Press, pp. 48-55. Odell, G.H., 1977. The Application of Micro-wear Analysis to the Lithic Component of an Entire Prehistoric Settlement: Methods, Problems and Functional Reconstructions. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University. Odell, G.H., 1981. The mechanics of use-breakage of stone tools: some testable hypotheses. Journal of Field Archaeology 8, 197-209. Odell, G.H., 1985. On Evaluation "Blind Tests" in Lithic Use-Wear Research. Western Canadian Archaeologist 2, 26-30. Odell, G.H., 1990. Brer Rabit Seeks True Knowledge. In The Interpretative Possibilities of Micro-wear 74

New Evidence of Hominid Behaviour from Xiaochangliang 115-121. Shen, C. and C. Chen, 2001. Use-wear Analysis (Low Power Method): Research and Practice, a Case Study of Use-wear Examination of the Xiaochangliang Lithic Artifacts. Kaogu [Archaeology] 7, 62- 73. Tang Y., Y. Li and W. Chen, 1995. Mammalian fossils and the age of Xiaochangliang Paleolithic site of Yangyuan, Hebei. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 33(1), 74-83. Wei, Q., 1991. Geologic sequence of the archaeological sites in the Nihewan Basin, north China. In The Proceedings of the XIII International Congress of Quaternary Research, ed. IVPP. Beijing: Beijing Science and Technology Press, pp. 6173. Wei Q., 1997. The Framework of archaeological geology of the Nihewan Basin. In Evidence for Evolution - Essays in Honor of Prof. Chungchien Young on the Hundredth Anniversary of His Birth, eds. Y. Tong, Y. Zhang, W. Wu, J. Li, L. Shi. Beijing: China Ocean Press, pp. 193207. Wei, Q., 2000. Early Pleistocene sites in China. Wenwu Chunqiu 2, 1-14. Wei, Q., in press. Paleolithic archaeology of the Nihewan Basin, north China. In Synthesis of Chinese Palaeolithic in the Twentieth Century, ed. Z. Lu. Wei, Q. and F. Xie (eds.), 1989. Selected Treatises on Nihewan. Beijing: Cultural Relics Publishing House. Wynn, T., 1979. The intelligence of Late Acheulean. Man 14, 371-391. Wynn, T., 1981. The intelligence of Oldowan hominids. Journal of Human Evolution 10, 329-541. Wynn, T., 1993. Two developments in the mind of early Homo. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 12, 229-322. Xia, Z., 1992a. The study of the change of ancient lake shore in the Datong-Yangyuan Basin. Geographical Research 11(2), 53-59. Xia, Z., 1992b. Underwater loess and paleoclimate. Acta Geographica Sinica 47(1), 58-65. You, Y., 1983. New data from the Xiaochangliang Paleolithic site in Hebei and their chronology. Prehistory 1, 46-50. You, Y., Y. Tang and Y. Li, 1980. Palaeolithic Discoveries in the Nihewan formation. Chinese Quaternary Research 5(1), 1-13. Young, D. and D.B. Bamforth, 1990. On the macroscopic identification of used flakes. American Antiquity 55(2), 403-409. Zhu, R., K.A. Hoffman, R. Potts, C. Deng, Y. Pan, B. Guo, C. Shi, Z. Guo, B. Yuan, Y. Hou and W. Huang, 2001. Earliest presence of humans in northeast Asia. Nature 413, 413-417.

75

China

0

0

w

Ri v

St

500

500

1000

SOUTH CHINA SEA

a n i n

.)

76

The Study Region

Xiaochangliang Site

0 20

40 km

0

Sangganhe River

The Nihewan Basin

Lower Pleistocene Sites Middle Pleistocene Sites Upper Pleistocene Sites

Figure 1. Maps showing the location of the Xiaochangliang site.

1500 Kilometres

1000 Miles

el ann i Ch Bash

EAST CHINA SEA

YELLOW SEA

er

lo

Ha a ( x i Ha i zh o u Qi o n g

riv

ze

gt

Ya n

Ye l

Bo Hai Bay

ait Str an T aiw

er

Beijing

10 km

C. Shen and C. Chen

New Evidence of Hominid Behaviour from Xiaochangliang

Guanting Village

Xiaochangliang Stone Marker used as permanent datum

Q3: Upper Pleistocene Loess {

960 m.a.s.l.

Area B Area A

Q1: Lower Pleistocene Lithostratigraphic Formation

{

Cultural Deposit{

Jurassic Lithostratigraphic Formation

S

{

W O

330

O

E

346

256 m

208 0 10

S

50

North

100 m

m m 80

W

E

North

Area A

Area B

900

880

0

1998 Excavation Units

10

50 m

Previously Excavated Units

Figure 2. Maps showing the location of excavation areas at the Xiaochangliang site.

77

Level 5

Level 1

78 Faunal Remains

Level 7

Level 3

0

Figure 3. Artefacts plotted from 1998 excavation levels at Xiaochangliang.

level is by 10 cm arbitrary vertical excavation units

Lithic Artefacts

Level 6

Level 2

1 m.

N

Level 8

Level 4

C. Shen and C. Chen

120

120

100

100

80

80

LENGTH (mm)

LENGTH (mm)

New Evidence of Hominid Behaviour from Xiaochangliang

60

40

20

0

60

40

20

0 0

20

40

60

80

0

100

WIDTH (mm) Archaeological Samples N=560

20

40 WIDTH

60

80

100

(mm)

Experimental Samples N=463

Figure 4. Comparison of flake sizes between archaeological and experimental samples.

N

This side to the Archaic Lake Shore

0

1

level 5

level 4

Lithic Artefacts Faunal Remains

yellow sandy soil sediment pattern

Figure 5. Distribution of lithic artefacts and faunal remains in level 4 & 5 sediments.

79

2m

C. Shen and C. Chen

1

2

3

4

6

5

0

1

2 cm

Figure 6. Xiaochangliang artefacts (1. bipolar core 98090; 2. multiple platform core [325]90809; 3. blade-like flake 98915; 4. - 6.: bipolar flakes 98384, 98679, 98598).

1

0

1

2

2 cm

Figure 7. Modified flakes from Xiaochangliang (1. 98237; 2. [335]9089).

80

New Evidence of Hominid Behaviour from Xiaochangliang

A1. Experimental specimen #TO13, 14 x, used for drilling hard wood for 20 minutes, showing rotating motion fracture: bi-directional scaring, stepped terminated scars on the edge and rounding at the tip.

A2. XCL98037 from Xiaochangliang, 28x, showing rotating fracture use-wear. Scar pattern is bi-directional, stepped termination, diffused matte polish, and heavy rounding on ridges.

B1. Experimental specimen #ES06, 60x, used for scraping fresh wood for over 30 minutes. The contact surface (ventral side) displays a large area with diffused bright polish.

B2. XCL98272 from Xiaochangliang, 140x. the ventral side displays concentrated bright polish on the edge, but diffused towards the centre in directional fashion. The piece was used for scraping wood.

C. XCL98623, 28x, the dorsal side shows a diagnostic woodworking use-wear feature: roll-over scaring on the edge and a series of scars with feathered or stepped termination perpendicular to the rounded edge.

C1. Experimental specimen #ES13, 20x, dorsal surface, used for scraping dry hide for 25 minutes, displaying heavy rounding on the edge, a series of irregular scaring accumulated on the edge with feathered or stepped termination.

Figure 8. Use-wear images of lithic artefacts from Xiaochangliang as compared to experimental specimens.

81

C. Shen and C. Chen

N

This side to the Archaic Lake Shore

0

1

yellow sandy soil sediment pattern

2m

Lithic Artefacts with use-wear

Figure 9. Distribution of flake tools with use-wear plotted on the sediment pattern at level 4.

82

Taphonomy of an Early Pleistocene Archaeofauna from Xiaochangliang, Nihewan Basin, North China Christian E. Peterson, Chen Shen, Chun Chen, Wanyong Chen and Yingjun Tang

rious associations of unrelated lithics and fauna. Despite probable disturbance, if it can be established that fossil fauna and lithic artefacts recovered from Xiaochangliang are both products of hominid activity, then we can begin to investigate the patterned behaviours underlying their association. If, on the other hand, the site’s fauna bears no relationship whatsoever to the lithics recovered, then hominids cannot be said to have contributed to its accumulation.

INTRODUCTION The Early Pleistocene site of Xiaochangliang (41o13'N, 114o40'E) is located in the Nihewan Basin, Yangyuan County, northwestern Hebei Province, 120 km west of Beijing (Figure 1). Coined 'Eastern Asia's Olduvai Gorge' (Wei 1997), the Nihewan Basin has long been recognized as an important fossiliferous region in China (Barbour 1924; Barbour et al. 1927; Licent 1924; Teilhard de Chardin and Piveteau 1930). Numerous palaeontological and archaeological localities of PlioPleistocene age have been exposed from archaic lake sediments of the Nihewan Formation in the modern erosional arroyos carved by the Sanggan River and its tributaries (Nihewan Cenozoic Research Team 1974; Wei 1991, 1997; Wei and Xie 1989).

Since the nature of site formation at Xiaochangliang is potentially quite variable, rigorous and detailed attention to site taphonomy is indispensable. Toward this end, we examined certain aspects of the faunal assemblage excavated from Xiaochangliang in 1998, including: (1) its taxonomic composition; (2) its condition with regard to weathering and surface modifications; (3) the sedimentary matrix in which it was found; and (4) the spatial distribution of its constituent elements.

Xiaochangliang, a 1.67 to 0.97 mya (Cheng et al. 1978; Li and Wang 1985; Tang et al. 1995; Zhu et al. 2001; see also Pope and Keates 1994) palaeolakeside deposit with lithic artefacts and vertebrate remains (You et al. 1978; Xia 1992; Shen and Chen, this volume), is one of the earliest and potentially most important Palaeolithic sites in Eastern Asia (Huang and Hou 1997; Jia 1985; Keates 1994, 2000; Pope and Keates 1994; Schick and Dong 1993). Previously considered a hominid tool manufacture and kill/butchery site in primary archaeological context (You et al. 1978; Huang 1985; Keates 1994, 2000; Pope 1993; Pope and Keates 1994), recent reinvestigations of Xiaochangliang unfortunately suggest it very unlikely that the site represents an undisturbed in situ deposition (Chen et al. 1999; Shen and Chen 1999; Shen and Chen, this volume; see below). It could, however, consist of a hominid accumulation eroded from some nearby location, jumbled together, and redeposited.

THE ARCHAEOFAUNAL ASSEMBLAGE A total of 3,291 fossilized bones were recovered from Xiaochangliang in 1998. Of these, 454 (13.8%) were recovered in place and their provenience recorded. The bulk of the fossil assemblage, some 2,823 specimens (85.8%) were recovered through sieving of the excavated deposit. A further unprovenienced 14 fragments (0.4%) were retrieved during the excavation of test pits. Approximately 90% of the faunal assemblage consists of very small, highly fragmented bone unidentifiable to either taxon or element. The remaining 10% is comprised of more complete and identifiable dental fragments. Taxonomic identifications of the 1998 fauna include viverrid (Viverra sp.), felid (Felis sp.), straighttusked elephant (Palaeoloxodon sp.), two-horned rhinoceros (Coelodonta antiquitatis), three-toed horse (Hipparion sp.), and bison (Bison sp.) (Jing Changzhu, IVPP, personal communication 1998; see also Chen et al. 1999). Other taxa recovered during earlier investigations of the site include freshwater mollusk (Lamprotula sp.), indeterminate murid (Allophaiomys cf. pliocaenicus), vole (Mimomys chinensis), marten (Martes sp.), hyena (Hyaena licenti, Hyaena sp.), probiscidean (Elephas sp.), rhinoceros (Rhinoceros sp., Coelodonta sp.), three-toed horse (Proboscidipparion sp.), true horse (Equus sanmeniensis), camel (Camelus sp.), deer

Determining what set of conditions most likely produced a Palaeolithic faunal assemblage is of the utmost importance for its accurate interpretation (see Isaac 1983; Kroll and Isaac 1984). Both natural attrition and carnivore predation make animal carcasses available for potential preservation in the archaeological record. If hominid and carnivore activities overlap, these may produce material associations indistinguishable from real hominid accumulations. Energetic water flow in riparian and lacustrine settings - those potentially most favoured by early hominids - can similarly produce spu83

C.E. Peterson et al.

78°E

70°E

86°E

94°E

102°E

110°E

118°E

126°E

134°E 50°N

46°N

Miaohoushan Xiaochangliang

42°N

Jinniushan 38°N

Ye llo w

R

iv er

Zhoukoudian

C H I N A

Hexian

34°N

30°N

Wushan tze ng Ya

r ve Ri

26°N

24°N

1000 km

20°N

Figure 1. Locations of Chinese Palaeolithic sites mentioned in the text.

1

3 cm

Figure 2. Examples of ‘hominid-modified’ bone from Xiaochangliang (after You et al. 1978). These fragments and their modifications bear a striking resemblance to those examined in our study.

Figure 3. A subset of the 123 bone fragments that we examined for surface modifications (scale = 10 cm). 84

Taphonomy of an Early Pleistocene Archaeofauna from Xiaochangliang (Cervus sp.), gazelle (Gazella sp.), and indeterminate bovid (Keates 2000; You 1983; You et al. 1978; Tang et al. 1995).

Morlan 1983). Carnivore toothmarks (or gnawmarks) include tooth pits, scores, furrows, and punctures (Binford 1981:4449; Haynes 1980, 1983; Hill 1989; Shipman 1981; Shipman and Rose 1983). Tooth pits are shallow, conical depressions (Binford 1981:46; Blumenschine and Selvaggio 1988, 1991) that tend to cluster in rows, and occasionally display oblique tapering terminations (senior author's personal observation). They are distinguished from hammerstone percussion marks by their regular shape and lack of internal microstriae (Blumenschine and Selvaggio 1988, 1991; Capaldo and Blumenschine 1994). Tooth pits are frequently associated with tooth scores and furrows (Binford 1981:46). Scores are broad, U-shaped grooves lacking internal microstriae, but with borders that appear crushed or torn (Binford 1981:48-49; Haynes 1980, 1983; Shipman 1981; see also Shipman and Rose 1983). Cutmarks are differentiated from tooth scores by their more V-shaped appearance, presence of internal microstriae, and less ragged edges (Shipman and Rose 1983; see also Blumenschine and Marean 1993:280). Unlike cutmarks, tooth scores track the uneven contours of bone (Binford 1981:46-47, 169). Furrows refer to massive lineations that result in substantial bone removal (Binford 1981:48-49; Haynes 1980). Punctures, which often begin as furrows (Binford 1981:46), are localized perforations of the cortical surface (Binford 1981:44-46; Haynes 1983; Hill 1989). Carnivore gnawing of green bones may induce fractures and/or flake removals that are morphologically similar to those produced by hominid comminution (Binford 1981:56-58; Bunn 1989:302; Hill 1989; Potts 1988; contra Blumenschine 1988:487), albeit in much lower frequencies (Capaldo and Blumenschine 1994).

Some of this previously excavated Xiaochangliang fauna reportedly bear "unambiguous evidence of cutmarks" (Pope and Keates 1994:553; see also Keates 1994:144; Pope 1993:55), or other hominid modifications (You 1983; You et al. 1978) (Figure 2). These observations have not, however, been based on detailed examinations of the modifications themselves or rigorous comparison with those of other assemblages. If these could be substantiated, they would prove invaluable evidence for hominid involvement in the Xiaochangliang faunal assemblage. If much or all of the fauna recovered from Xiaochangliang entered the archaeological record as a result of hominid activities (presumably those same activities for which the recovered lithics were produced), then there ought to be ample and unambiguous evidence of cutmarked and percussion marked bones in the assemblage. However, if cutmarked or percussion marked bones are few to nonexistent at Xiaochangliang, then the faunal assemblage cannot be assumed to result from hominid activities. Therefore, it is important that potential evidence of hominid activity be verified as such through critical examination.

METHODOLOGY Robust morphological criteria derived from actualistic research (that based on contemporary observation and experimentation) must be used to identify and distinguish between different bone modifications diagnostic to agent (Blumenschine et al. 1996; Gifford-Gonzalez 1989, 1991). In addition to the naked eye, low power optical and scanning electron microscopy should be used, whenever possible, to examine modified bone surfaces (Bunn 1983:22-23; Fisher 1995:51-53; Olsen 1988:358). Four classes of bone damage are most relevant to any study of site formation: (1) stone tool cutmarks; (2) hammerstone percussion marks; (3) carnivore toothmarks; and (4) sedimentary abrasion.

Sedimentary abrasion typically produces a large number of fine, shallow striations on bone (Olsen and Shipman 1988; Shipman 1988:266; Shipman and Rose 1988; see also Behrensmeyer et al. 1986; Bromage 1984; Fiorillo 1989; Shipman 1981; Shipman and Rose 1983). These may occasionally display bulbous terminations marking loci of particulate ejection (senior author's personal observation). They may be variable (U to V-shaped) in cross-section (senior author's personal observation) and in orientation (e.g., parallel, sub-parallel, or random; see Fisher 1992), but are unlikely to be mistaken for cutmarks since they lack shouldering effects or internal striations (Behrensmeyer et al. 1986; Shipman and Rose 1983:79). Abraded bones may also display patches of sheen or gloss, smoothed surfaces and/or rounded features (Bromage 1984; Shipman and Rose 1983, 1988).

Stone tool cutmarks are short, narrow grooves of Vshaped cross-section often accompanied by fine internal striations (microstriae), 'shouldering effects,' and acute terminal barbs (Binford 1981:105, 169; Bunn 1981, 1983; Potts and Shipman 1981; Shipman 1981; Shipman and Rose 1983; Walker and Long 1977). These tend to cluster, be of similar orientation, and to bisect topographic features of bone (Binford 1981:105, 169). Hammerstone percussion marks, in contrast, are shallow, roughly circular surface depressions accompanied by dense patches of microstriae (Blumenschine and Selvaggio 1988, 1991; Capaldo and Blumenschine 1994). These are often associated with a high incidence of conchoidal flake scars and/or spiral fractures (Bunn 1989; Capaldo and Blumenschine 1994; Johnson 1985;

ANALYSIS The most obvious and heavily modified fauna recovered from Xiaochangliang in 1998 (see Figure 3 for some examples) were systematically included in a sample of 123 bones that we examined in detail. This sample like85

C.E. Peterson et al. ly preserves the full range of excavated modifications, but its composition almost certainly overstates the proportions of various modifications in the entire set of bones excavated. Despite this, we can begin our analysis by treating our sample as if it was randomly selected. The proportions of different modifications observed for our sample of modified bone are the best predictors of their relative abundance within its parent population, that consisting of all excavated and unexcavated modified bone at the site. Population proportions for observed modifications are estimated below at the 95% confidence level. The bias with which our sample was selected, however, certainly means that it contains a higher proportion of modifications than does the site as a whole. Thus, the estimates made by studying our sample as if randomly selected are maximal estimates. Real proportions of modifications in the total assemblage of modified and unmodified bone are surely much lower.

Jinniushan (Liaoning Province, China) (Chinese data from Bakken 1997:21). Since numerous hominid and nonhominid bone surface modifications have been identified for these seven archaeofaunas (Bakken 1997; Blumenschine 1995; Blumenschine n.d., cited in Capaldo 1997:575; Bunn 1981, 1983; Bunn and Kroll 1986; Oliver 1994; Potts 1988; Potts and Shipman 1981), a strong case can be made for the visibility of like modifications on similarly weathered bones from Xiaochangliang.

Examination All specimens in our sample of 123 bones were examined for surface modifications by eye with the aid of a 10X hand lens (under strong directional light), and again under a binocular light microscope at 20-40X magnification. Classes and agents of bone modification were identified with reference to published actualistic data (cited above) and comparative osteological material (see Acknowledgments). In order to verify these results, 20 trace-fossils (on 17 specimens), representing the full range of modifications observed, were replicated (as per Rose 1983), and re-examined at distances of 2 mm to 500 µm with a scanning electron microscope (SEM). We observed complete correspondence between both sets of identifications. The condition, modification(s), and modifying agent(s) of each bone specimen examined is given in Appendix A. Categories of bone damage as presented are not mutually exclusive.

Sample Preservation Prior to intensive examination, the overall condition of our sample was assessed using Behrensmeyer's (1978) qualitative bone weathering index. Each specimen was assigned to a specific weathering stage (0=unweathered; 1=very slightly weathered; 2=slightly weathered; 3=moderately weathered; 4=heavily weathered; 5=very heavily weathered) based on friability and surface integrity (Figure 4). A low median value of weathering stage 1 was observed for our entire sample. This value compares favourably with median weathering stages of 0 and 1 observed for Plio-Pleistocene archaeofaunas from FLK 22 Zinjanthropus (Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania; recalculated from Potts 1988:52, table 3.6), Wushan (Chongqing, China), Zhoukoudian Localities 1 and 4 (Beijing, China), Miaohoushan (Liaoning Province, China), Hexian (Anhui Province, China), and

RESULTS Seventy-two separate incidents of prehistoric damage were identified for 66 of the 123 bone specimens examined. None of these, however, could positively be iden-

50

NISP

40 30 20 10 0

0

1 2 3 4 5 WEATHERING STAGE

Figure 4. The number of bones (NISP) in our sample assigned to each of Behrensmeyer’s (1978) weathering stages.

86

Taphonomy of an Early Pleistocene Archaeofauna from Xiaochangliang tified as stone tool cutmarks or as hammerstone percussion marks. All incidents of modification are attributable to either carnivore activity or sedimentary abrasion (see below, Table 1). The remaining 57 fragments we examined evidenced only recent (excavation and/or preparatory) damages. Table 1. Summary of bone modifications (BSM) observed in our sample of 123 bone fragments from Xiaochangliang. Categories of modification are not mutually exclusive. A total of 72 incidents of prehistoric modification were observed for 66 specimens. Another 57 specimens evidenced only recent (excavation and/or preparatory) damages. Error ranges (%ER) for each population proportion (%N) are estimated at the 95% confidence level.

Modification

n

%N

%ER

abrasion

62

50.4

± 8.9

carnivore toothmarks

10

8.1

± 4.9

cutmarks*

0

0.0

N/A

percussion marks*

0

0.0

N/A

72

58.5

± 8.7

17

13.8

± 6.2

89

72.4

± 7.9

Total BSM spiral fractures Total BSMspf

†

*Population proportions cannot be estimated for sample proportions equal to zero – application of a different statistic is required (see text). † BSM plus spiral fractures (BSMspf).

Although we failed to find cutmarks or percussion marks on any of the 123 bones in our sample, this is only a small fraction (3.7%) of the 3,291 bones excavated in 1998. Would evidence of hominid activity be discovered on some of these other bones if a detailed analysis of the entire set was undertaken? If we treat our sample as randomly selected, we can estimate how rare either modification must be in the archaeofaunal assemblage as a whole for us to find none in our sample (see Drennan 1996:255-259). Taking our 123 bones as a random sample, we could be 99.8% confident that the population from which it is derived consists of less than 5% cutmarks or percussion marks, or 91.7% confident that it consists of less than 2% cutmarks or percussion marks. As noted above, this is not a random sample, but one biased in favour of modifications and especially of possible hominid modifications; therefore, the real proportions of cutmarks and/or percussion marks in the entire assemblage of modified bone are surely far lower than these estimates. It is even plausible to argue that if there were even a single cutmark or percussion mark on the bones excavated in 1998, it is very likely to have been included in our sample. Our failure to find any clear cutmarks or percussion marks then, must mean that they are far rarer in the Xiaochangliang assemblage than they would be if any substantial fraction of it derived from hominid activity.

marked and/or percussion marked for us to consider Xiaochangliang a hominid accumulation? The following examples provide a comparative baseline. Proportions of cutmarks and percussion marks reported for the hominid/carnivore accumulated fauna from FLK 22 Zinjanthropus range between 6% and 19%, and 27% and 43%, respectively (Blumenschine 1995:32-33, table 3; Blumenschine n.d. cited in Capaldo 1997:575, table 8; Bunn and Kroll 1986:437, table 4; Oliver 1994:276, table 1) (Table 2). Taking our 123 bones as if they were a random sample, we can be more than 99.9% confident that the population from which it is derived consists of less than either 19% or 6% cutmarks, and less than either 43% or 27% percussion marks. For four of the six previously mentioned Chinese Pleistocene archaeofaunas (Zhoukoudian Localities 1 and 4, Hexian, and Jinniushan), cutmarks range between 6% and 13% of all bone modifications identified by Bakken (1997:21, table 2) (Table 3). (Frequencies of hammerstone percussion marks are not reported by Bakken [1997].) Each contains hominid remains and is considered to have been produced, at least in part, by hominid activity. The proportions cited by Bakken (1997) were obtained by dividing the frequency of cutmarks observed by the total number of modifications reported for each assemblage, rather than by the total number of examined bones as we have done here. To make our results comparable, we have recalculated the proportion of Xiaochangliang cutmarks in similar terms. As noted above, the 123 bone fragments we examined present a total of 72 separate incidents of surface modification. Taking these 72 modifications as if they were a random sample, we can be more than 99.9% confident that the population sampled consists of less than 13% cutmarks, or 98.8% confident that it consists of less than 6% cutmarks. Thus, we may conclude that even if cutmarked or percussion marked bones are present among the unexamined Xiaochangliang fauna, they would be insufficient in number to justify characterization of the assemblage as hominid-derived.

Carnivore Modification None of the examined fossil fauna previously recovered from Xiaochangliang can be confirmed as gnawmarked (Keates 2000:73-74). In contrast, our sample of faunal remains excavated in 1998 exhibits considerable carnivore damage. We observed broad, relatively shallow tooth furrows with U-shaped cross-sections and tapering terminations, none of which contained internal striations (Figure 5). These were often accompanied by rows of conical tooth depressions (Figure 6). Carnivore toothmarks are present on 8.1% (±4.9%) of the bones in our sample. The recovery of small and medium-bodied carnivore taxa from Xiaochangliang (Tang et al. 1995; You et al. 1978, 1980) raises the possibility of carnivore involvement in its accumulation, since carnivore bones tend to be well represented in carnivore collections, but rarer at hominid sites (Cruz-Uribe 1991; Klein 1975). While some fraction of sample fragmentation may be due to carnivore comminution (four gnawed specimens are also spiral fractured), it seems likely that were the

But what proportion of bones would need to be cut87

C.E. Peterson et al.

Table 2. Comparison of cutmark, percussion mark, carnivore toothmark, and sedimentary abrasion data for the Xiaochangliang and FLK 22 Zinjanthropus archaeofaunas. Proportions of bone modifications (%BSM) presented were obtained by dividing the number of marks (n) by the total number of analyzed bones (N) reported for each assemblage. Percussion Marks

Cutmarks

FLK 22 Zinjanthropus

n

%N

Abrasion

Toothmarks

N n

%N

n

Source

n

%N

%N

50

6.0

840

a

172

6.2

2787

b

122

6.3

1947

c

74

8.8

840

d

252

9.0

2787

e

178

9.1

1947

f

233

12.2

1914

g

124

14.8

840

h

424

15.2

2787

i

300

15.4

1947

j

137

18.7

731

k

731

p

Xiaochangliang

0

200

27.4

817

42.7

0.0

0

0.0

1914

l

400

14.4

2787

n

321

16.8

1914

o

444

60.7

10

8.1

731

m

183

15.0

1220

q

62

50.4

123

Sources: (a) small bovid microsample, Bunn and Kroll (1986:437, table 4); (b) combined small/large bovid microsample, Bunn and Kroll (1986:437, table 4); (c) large bovid microsample, Bunn and Kroll (1986:437, table 4); (d) small bovid macrosample, Bunn and Kroll (1986:437, table 4); (e) combined small/large bovid macrosample, Bunn and Kroll (1986:437, table 4); (f) large bovid macrosample, Bunn and Kroll (1986:437, table 4); (g) Oliver (1994:276, table 1); (h) combined small bovid macro/microsample, Bunn and Kroll (1986: 437, table 4); (i) total small/large bovid macro/microsample, Bunn and Kroll (1986:437, table 4); (j) combined large bovid macro/microsample, Bunn and Kroll (1986:437, table 4); (k) Blumenschine n.d., cited in Capaldo (1997:575, table 8); (l) Blumenschine (1995:32-33, table 3); (m) Oliver (1994:276, table 1); (n) Bunn and Kroll (1986:433, 450); (o) Oliver (1994:276, table 1); (p) Blumenschine (1995:32-33, table 3); (q) Potts (1988:64, table 4.1).

Table 3. Comparison of cutmark and carnivore toothmark data for the Xiaochangliang and six other Chinese Pleistocene archaeofaunas (after Bakken 1997:21, table 2). Proportions of bone modifications (%BSM) presented were obtained by dividing the number of cutmarks or toothmarks (n) by the total number of bone surface modifications (Total BSM) reported for each assemblage.

Cutmarks Locality

Toothmarks Total BSM

n

%BSM

n

%BSM

25

6.6

166

43.6

381

Jinniushan

1

6.3

13

81.3

16

Miaohoushan

0

0.0

6

100.0

6

Zhoukoudian 1

12

12.6

63

66.3

95

Zhoukoudian 4

1

11.1

2

22.2

9

Wushan

0

0.0

21

29.2

72

Xiaochangliang

0

0.0

10

13.9%

72

Hexian

88

Taphonomy of an Early Pleistocene Archaeofauna from Xiaochangliang extensive polish of cortical and/or medullary surfaces. These data imply prolonged or repeated contact with fine particulates. Taking our 123 bones as a random sample produces the estimate that 50.4% (±8.9%) of the modified fauna from Xiaochangliang exhibits evidence of sedimentary abrasion (although this is certainly an overestimate, as noted above). If we contrast this estimate with that of the 16% reported for FLK 22 Zinjanthropus (Potts 1988:64, table 4.1) (Table 2), a well-preserved archaeofauna (see above) relatively unaffected by flowing water (Kroll and Isaac 1984; Potts 1986, 1988:57-80; Petraglia and Potts 1994:245246), it is clear that the fossil fauna from Xiaochangliang has been subject to a comparatively high degree of abrasion and/or transport. Although abrasion has been known to erase evidence of cutmarks and other modifications (Olsen and Shipman 1988; Shipman and Rose 1983, 1988), our success in identifying carnivore damage suggests there is little possibility that cutmarks or percussion marks have been erased. In our opinion, abrasive modifications, in both kind and degree, are those most illustrative of the process(es) responsible for the association of lithics and fossil fauna at Xiaochangliang.

Figure 5. SEM micrograph of a gnawmarked bone specimen (XCL98101) from Xiaochangliang.

Figure 6. SEM micrograph of a toothmarked bone specimen (XCL98104) from Xiaochangliang.

assemblage largely the result of carnivore activity it would show a much higher proportion of carnivore modification than the 8.1% estimated. Proportions of carnivore-modified bone reported for FLK 22 Zinjanthropus range between 14% and 61% (Blumenschine 1995:32-33, table 3; Oliver 1994:276, table 1) (Table 2), much higher than we observed for Xiaochangliang. Recalculating our estimate of carnivore modification for Xiaochangliang in similar terms to those of Bakken (1997) yields a proportion of 13.9%. Even so inflated, this proportion is far less than any of those reported by Bakken (1997:21, table 2) (Table 3), which range between 22% and 100%. The biased selection of our sample casts even further doubt on interpreting the assemblage as a carnivore accumulation, since the real proportion of carnivore toothmarks in the total population of modified and unmodified bone is surely far less than either the 8.1% or 13.9% estimated.

Figure 7. SEM micrograph of an abraded bone specimen (XCL98348) from Xiaochangliang.

SITE FORMATION As previously mentioned, recent studies of site formation at Xiaochangliang suggest substantial post-depositional disturbance. Circular and semicircular horizontal formations of subaqueously deposited loess suffuse the cultural deposits at Xiaochangliang, indicating repeated inundation of the site by palaeolake waters (Chen et al. 1999; Shen and Chen 1999, this volume). It seems likely that the abrasion observed for bones in our sample was effected by contact with, and/or transport in, one or more of these fine-grained suspensions. Many artefacts and faunal remains, some deposited vertically (Figure 8), were recovered in place near the outer margins of these intrusive formations, evidence for their introduction and/or relocation under moving water (Chen et al. 1999; Shen and Chen 1999, this volume). Since

Sedimentary Abrasion We most frequently observed fine, shallow, parallel and sub-parallel striations with rounded profiles, bulbous terminations, and broad surface coverage (conforming to bone contours; Figure 7), for bones in our sample. Many specimens also display a marked or total loss of cancellous material, edge rounding, and moderate to 89

C.E. Peterson et al. ken bones (for example, around 4% of the identifiable bones from FxJj 50 Koobi Fora and FLK 22 Zinjanthropus have proven conjoinable (see Bunn et al. 1980:126, table 4; Kroll and Isaac 1984:21). (Because the sample of fauna analyzed from Xiaochangliang is relatively small, there is likely little significance to differences in these low proportions [1.6% and 4% respectively] of conjoinable bones.) Collapsing data from all excavated levels to adjust for the vertical displacement of surface remains during hydraulic processing, nearly equal frequencies of fragmented bones were recovered from each excavation unit in 1998 (Shen and Chen, this volume), thus affirming the near total absence of nonrandom intrasite spatial patterning of fossil fauna at Xiaochangliang. Together, these data suggest that the 1998 archaeofauna represents a hydrodynamically transported assemblage.

Figure 8. Excavation of a vertically-deposited bone fragment from Xiaochangliang in 1998 (scale=10 cm).

hydraulic processes are known to preferentially sort bones according to their size and mass (Behrensmeyer 1975, 1988; Boaz and Behrensmeyer 1976; Hanson 1980; Shipman et al. 1981; Voorhies 1969), we measured and weighed each of the 123 bone fragments in our sample (data presented in Appendix A). The means of these measurements are small (Figure 9). Although 10% of the bones recovered from Xiaochangliang in 1998 are substantially larger and heavier than those in our sample (as noted above), this seems a low proportion for an assemblage that includes many large-bodied taxa (including four of six species excavated in 1998). Moreover, we were able to conjoin only one set of two bones preserving evidence of ancient breakage (1.6% of our sample). If Xiaochangliang were an in situ deposit, we ought to be able to conjoin many more sets of bro-

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Although Xiaochangliang preserves unambiguous evidence of stone tool manufacture, hominid involvement in the formation of the faunal assemblage cannot be substantiated given a lack of cutmarked or percussion marked fauna among that recovered in 1998. The low incidence of carnivore remains and/or carnivore modified bone recovered from Xiaochangliang also indicates that it is very unlikely that carnivores were significant agents of faunal accumulation at the site. Rather, our study of bone taphonomy suggests Xiaochangliang most likely represents a jumble of hydraulically processed

50

70 60

40

NISP

NISP

50 40 30

30 20

20 10

10 0

0 0

50

100 150 LENGTH (mm)

200

30

0

10

20 30 WIDTH (mm)

40

0

10

20 30 WEIGHT (g)

40

70 60 50

NISP

NISP

20

10

40 30 20 10

0

0 0

5 10 15 THICKNESS (mm)

20

Figure 9. Distributions of weights and measures for our sample of 123 bones.

90

Taphonomy of an Early Pleistocene Archaeofauna from Xiaochangliang lithics and fauna.

REFERENCES

Even though we cannot use its archaeofauna for reconstructing hominid behaviour, we can use Xiaochangliang for purposes of comparing sites in similar depositional environments, and in prospecting for sites with more favourable preservation of hominid behaviour. Future investigators working in the Nihewan Basin should pay special attention to the sedimentary matrix from which concentrations of lithics and fossil fauna are recovered. If these materials derive from contexts similar to those described for Xiaochangliang (for example, see Clark and Schick 1988; Schick et al. 1991), they should be cautious in interpreting these associations in behavioural terms. The likelihood that potential in situ occupations have been subject to serious post-depositional disturbance can be quickly assessed by intensive analysis of a sample of site fauna (as we have done here) prior to investing in full-scale excavation. A hominidproduced archaeofauna should include a relatively high proportion of hominid-modified bones. If these include more complete and identifiable elements, then we may be able to say something about hominid selection and utilization of prey species. 'What were hominids doing?' is the question we are most interested in answering with an in situ deposit. That is, can we take a set of lithic artefacts to have been those used to procure, butcher, and/or otherwise process the animals whose remains were recovered with them? Stone tool cutmarks and hammerstone percussion marks are important evidence necessary to make firm these associations. Once in possession of these data we can begin to investigate what subsistence behaviours early hominids did or did not engage in in this part of the world. Drawing comparisons between African hominids and those adapted to extra-African environments is, in our opinion, one of the most compelling reasons for continued and rigorous investigation of the Chinese Pleistocene archaeological record.

Bakken, D.A., 1997. Taphonomic parameters of Pleistocene hominid sites in China. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 16, 1326. Barbour, G.B., 1924. Preliminary observation in Kalgan area. Bulletin of the Geological Society of China 3(3), 167-168. Barbour, G.B., E. Licent and P. Teilhard de Chardin, 1927. Geological study of the San Kan Ho Basin. Bulletin of the Geological Society of China V, 263-278. Behrensmeyer, A.K., 1975. The taphonomy and paleoecology of Plio-Pleistocene vertebrate assemblages east of Lake Rudolf, Kenya. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 146, 473578. Behrensmeyer, A.K., 1978. Taphonomic and ecologic information from bone weathering. Paleobiology 4, 150-162. Behrensmeyer, A.K., 1988. Vertebrate preservation in fluvial channels. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 63, 183-199. Behrensmeyer, A.K., K.D. Gordon and G.T. Yanagi, 1986. Trampling as a cause of bone surface modification and pseudo-cutmarks. Nature 319, 768-771. Binford, L.R., 1981. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. New York: Academic Press. Blumenschine, R.J., 1988. An experimental model of the timing of hominid and carnivore influence on archaeological bone assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 15, 483-502. Blumenschine, R.J., 1995. Percussion marks, tooth marks, and experimental determinations of the timing of hominid and carnivore access to long bones at FLK Zinjanthropus, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Journal of Human Evolution 29, 2151. Blumenschine, R.J. and C.W. Marean, 1993. A carnivore’s view of archaeological bone assemblages. In From Bones to Behavior, ed. J. Hudson. Carbondale, IL: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, pp. 273-300. Blumenschine, R.J. and M.M. Selvaggio, 1988. Percussion marks on bone surfaces as a new diagnostic of hominid behaviour. Nature 333, 763-765. Blumenschine, R.J. and M.M. Selvaggio, 1991. On the marks of marrow bone processing by hammerstones and hyenas: their anatomical patterning and archaeological implications. In Cultural Beginnings: Approaches to Understanding Early Hominid Life-Ways in the African Savanna, ed. J.D. Clark. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, pp. 17-32. Blumenschine, R.J., C.W. Marean and S.D. Capaldo, 1996. Blind tests of inter-analyst correspondence and accuracy in the identification of cut

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was financially supported by the Bishop White Curatorial Fund of the Royal Ontario Museum (awarded to C. Shen), and a Chinese Natural Science Grant (no. F980308, awarded to W.Y. Chen, Y.J. Tang). We thank the Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, for use of comparative collections housed in the Howard Savage Memorial Faunal ArchaeoOsteology Laboratory. Max Friesen (Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto) kindly allowed C.E. Peterson and C. Shen to examine his collection of experimentally broken bone. C.E. Peterson gratefully acknowledges the support of Sandra Olsen (Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, PA) and Joseph Suhan (SEM Laboratory, Mellon Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA) in carrying out our SEM analysis. Christine Beaule, Robert Drennan, Mikael Haller, Gregory Indrisano, Susan Keates, and Sandra Olsen read and made valuable comments on various drafts of this paper. 91

C.E. Peterson et al. marks, percussion marks, and carnivore tooth marks on bone surfaces. Journal of Archaeological Science 23, 493-507. Boaz, N.T. and A.K. Behrensmeyer, 1976. Hominid taphonomy: transport of human skeletal parts in an artificial fluviatile environment. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 45, 5360. Bromage, T.G., 1984. Interpretation of scanning electron microscope images of abraded forming bone surfaces. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 64, 161-178. Bunn, H.T., 1981. Archaeological evidence for meateating by Plio-Pleistocene hominids from Koobi Fora and Olduvai Gorge. Nature 291, 574-577. Bunn, H.T., 1983. Evidence on the diet and subsistence patterns of Plio-Pleistocene hominids at Koobi Fora, Kenya, and at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. In Animals in Archaeology: 1. Hunters and Their Prey, eds. J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson. BAR International Series 163, 21-30. Oxford. Bunn, H.T., 1989. Diagnosing Plio-Pleistocene hominid activity with bone fracture evidence. In Bone Modification, eds. R. Bonnichsen and M.H. Sorg. Orono: Center for the Study of the First Americans, pp. 299-315. Bunn, H.T. and E.M. Kroll, 1986. Systematic butchery by Plio/Pleistocene hominids at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Current Anthropology 27, 431-452. Capaldo, S.D., 1997. Experimental determinations of carcass processing by Plio-Pleistocene hominids and carnivores at FLK 22 (Zinjanthropus), Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Journal of Human Evolution 33, 555-597. Capaldo, S.D. and R.J. Blumenschine, 1994. A quantitative diagnosis of notches made by hammerstone percussion and carnivore gnawing on bovid long bones. American Antiquity 59, 724748. Chen, C., C. Shen, W. Chen and Y. Tang, 1999. 1998 excavation of the Xiaochangliang site at Yangyuan, Hebei. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 18(3), 225-239. Cheng, G., J. Lin, S. Li and Q. Liang, 1978. A preliminary paleomagnetic survey of the Nihewan bed. Scientia Geologica Sinica 7(3), 247-252. Clark, J.D. and K.D. Schick, 1998. Context and content: impressions of Palaeolithic sites and assemblages in the People's Republic of China. Journal of Human Evolution 17, 439-448. Cruz-Uribe, K., 1991. Distinguishing hyena from hominid bone accumulations. Journal of Field Archaeology 18, 467-486. Drennan, R.D., 1996. Statistics for Archaeologists: A Commonsense Approach. New York: Plenum Press. Fiorillo, A.R., 1989. An experimental study of trampling: implications for the fossil record. In

Bone Modification, eds. R. Bonnichsen and M.H. Sorg. Orono: Center for the Study of the First Americans, pp. 61-72. Fisher, J.W., Jr., 1992. Observations on the late Pleistocene bone assemblage from the Lamb Spring site, Colorado. In Ice Age Hunters of the Rockies, eds. D.J. Standford and J.S. Day. Niwot: Denver Museum of Natural History and University Press of Colorado. pp. 51-81. Fisher, J.W., Jr., 1995. Bone surface modifications in zooarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2(1), 7-68. Gifford-Gonzalez, D., 1989. Modern analogues: developing an interpretive framework. In Bone Modification, eds. R. Bonnichsen and M.H. Sorg. Orono: Center for the Study of the First Americans, pp. 43-52. Gifford-Gonzalez, D., 1991. Bones are not enough: analogues, knowledge, and interpretive strategies in zooarchaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10, 215-254. Hanson, C.B., 1980. Fluvial taphonomic processes: models and experiments. In Fossils in the Making, eds. A.K. Behrensmeyer and A.P. Hill. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 156181. Haynes, G., 1980. Evidence of carnivore gnawing on Pleistocene and Recent mammalian bones. Paleobiology 6, 341-351. Haynes, G., 1983. A guide for differentiating mammalian carnivore taxa responsible for gnaw damage to herbivore limb bones. Paleobiology 9, 164-172. Hill, A., 1989. Bone modification by modern Spotted Hyenas. In Bone Modification, eds. R. Bonnichsen and M.H. Sorg. Orono: Center for the Study of the First Americans, pp. 169-178. Huang, W., 1985. On the stone industry of Xiaochangliang. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 6(4), 301-307. Huang, W. and Y. Hou, 1997. Archaeological evidence for the first human colonization of East Asia. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 16, 3-11. Isaac, G.L., 1983. Bones in contention: competing explanations for the juxtaposition of early Pleistocene artefacts and faunal remains. In Animals in Archaeology: 1. Hunters and Their Prey, eds. J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson. BAR International Series 163, 3-19. Oxford. Jia, LP., 1985. China's earliest Paleolithic assemblages. In Paleoanthropology and Paleolithic Archaeology in the People's Republic of China, eds. RK. Wu and J.W. Olsen. Orlando: Academic Press, pp. 135-145. Johnson, E., 1985. Current developments in bone technology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 8, ed. M.B. Schiffer. New York: Academic Press, pp. 157-235. Keates, S.G., 1994. Archaeological evidence of hominid behaviour in Pleistocene China and Southeast 92

Taphonomy of an Early Pleistocene Archaeofauna from Xiaochangliang Asia. In 100 Years of Pithecanthropus - The Homo erectus Problem, ed. J.L. Franzen. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 171, 141-150. Keates, S.G., 2000. Early and Middle Pleistocene Hominid Behaviour in Northern China. BAR International Series 863. Oxford: BAR Publishing. Klein, R., 1975. Palaeoanthropologial implications of the nonarchaeological bone assemblage from Swartklip 1, South-Western Cape Province, South Africa. Quaternary Research 5, 275-288. Kroll, E.M. and G.Ll. Isaac, 1984. Configurations of artifacts and bones at early Pleistocene sites in East Africa. In Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, ed. H.J. Hietala. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 4-31. Li, H. and J. Wang, 1985. Magnetostratigraphic study of several typical geologic sections in north China. In Quaternary Geology and Environment of China, ed. T. Liu. Beijing: China Ocean Press, pp. 48-55. Licent, E., 1924. Voyage aux terrasses du Sang Kan Ho. Publications du Musée Hoang Ho Pai Ho (Tien Tsinn) 4, 1-14. Morlan, R.E., 1983. Spiral fractures on limb bones: which ones are artificial? In Carnivores, Human Scavengers and Predators: A Question of Bone Technology, eds. G.M. LeMoine and A.S. MacEachern. Calgary: Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, pp. 241-269. Nihewan Cenozoic Research Team, 1974. Observation on the late Cenozoic of Nihewan Basin. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 12(2), 99-110. Oliver, J.S., 1994. Estimates of hominid and carnivore involvement in the FLK Zinjanthropus fossil assemblage: some socioecological implications. Journal of Human Evolution 27, 267294. Olsen, S.L., 1988. Applications of scanning electron microscopy in archaeology. Advances in Electronics and Electron Physics 71, 357-380. Olsen, S.L. and P. Shipman, 1988. Surface modification on bone: trampling versus butchery. Journal of Archaeological Science 15, 535-553. Petraglia, M.D. and R. Potts, 1994. Water flow and the formation of Early Pleistocene artifact sites in Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13, 228-254. Pope, G.G., 1993. Ancient Asia's cutting edge. Natural History 102(5), 54-60. Pope, G.G. and S.G. Keates, 1994. The evolution of human cognition and cultural capacity: a view from the Far East. In Integrative Paths to the Past: Paleoanthropological Advances in Honor of F. Clark Howell, eds. R.S. Corruccini and R.L. Ciochon. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, pp. 531-567. Potts, R., 1986. Temporal span of bone accumulations at Olduvai Gorge and implications for early

hominid foraging behavior. Paleobiology 12(1), 25-31. Potts, R., 1988. Early Hominid Activities at Olduvai. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Potts, R. and P. Shipman, 1981. Cutmarks made by stone tools on bones from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Nature 291, 577-580. Rose, J.J., 1983. A replication technique for scanning electron microscopy: applications for anthropologists. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 62, 255-261. Schick, K.D. and Z. Dong, 1993. Early Paleolithic of China and eastern Asia. Evolutionary Anthropology 2(1), 22-35. Schick, K., N. Toth, Q. Wei, J.D. Clark and D. Etler, 1991. Archaeological perspectives in the Nihewan Basin, China. Journal of Human Evolution 21, 13-26. Shen, C. and C. Chen, 1999. 1998 excavation of Xiaochangliang, an Early Pleistocene site in northern China. Current Research in the Pleistocene 16, 71-73. Shipman, P., 1981. Applications of scanning electron microscopy to taphonomic problems. In The Research Potential of Anthropological Museum Collections, eds. A.-M.E. Cantwell, J.B. Griffin, and N.A. Rothschild. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 376, 357385. Shipman, P., 1988. Actualistic studies of animal resources and hominid activities. In Scanning Electron Microscopy in Archaeology, ed. S.L. Olsen. BAR International Series 452, 261-285. Oxford. Shipman, P., A.J. Johnson and S. Stahl, 1981. Hydraulic behavior of bones and the fossil record. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 54, 277. Shipman, P. and J. Rose, 1983. Early hominid hunting, butchering, and carcass-processing behaviors: approaches to the fossil record. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2, 57-98. Shipman, P. and J. Rose, 1988. Bone tools: an experimental approach. In Scanning Electron Microscopy in Archaeology, ed. S.L. Olsen. BAR International Series 452, 303-335. Oxford. Tang, Y., Y. Li and W. Chen, 1995. Mammalian fossils and the age of Xiaochangliang Paleolithic site of Yangyuan, Hebei. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 33(1), 74-83. Teilhard de Chardin, P. and J. Piveteau, 1930. Les mammiferes fossiles de Nihowan (Chine). Annales de Paléontologie 19, 1-134. Voorhies, M.R., 1969. Taphonomy and Population Dynamics of an Early Pliocene Vertebrate Fauna, Knox County, Nebraska. Contributions to Geology, Special Paper No. 1. Laramie: University of Wyoming Press. Walker, P. and J.C. Long, 1977. An experimental approach to the morphological characteristics 93

C.E. Peterson et al. of tool marks. American Antiquity 42, 605-618. Wei, Q., 1991. Geologic sequence of the archaeological sites in the Nihewan Basin, North China. In Contributions to the XIII INQUA, ed. Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology. Beijing: Beijing Scientific and Technological Publishing House, pp. 61-73. Wei, Q., 1997. The framework of archaeological geology in the Nihewan Basin. In Evidence for Evolution ‘Essays in Honor of Prof. Chungchien Young on the Hundredth Anniversary of His Birth’, eds. Y. Tong, Y. Zhang, W. Wu, J. Li and L. Shi. Beijing: China Ocean Press, pp. 193-207. Wei, Q. and F. Xie (eds.), 1989. Selected Treatises on Nihewan. Beijing: Cultural Relics Publishing House. Xia, Z., 1992. The study of the change of ancient lakeshore in the Datong-Yangyuan (Nihewan) Basin. Chinese Geographic Research 11(2), 52-59. You, Y., 1983. New data from the Xiaochangliang Paleolithic site in Hebei and their chronology. Chinese Prehistoric Research 1, 46-50. You, Y., Y. Tang and Y. Li, 1978. Paleolithic discoveries in the Nihewan Formation. Chinese Quaternary Research 1(5), 1-13. You, Y., Y. Tang and Y. Li, 1980. New Discovery of palaeoliths in the Nihewan formation. Quaternaria Sinica 5(1), 1-13. Zhu, R., K.A. Hoffman, R. Potts, C. Deng, Y. Pan, B. Guo, C. Shi, Z. Guo, B. Yuan, Y. Hou and W. Huang, 2001. Earliest presence of humans in northeast Asia. Nature 413, 413-417.

94

Taphonomy of an Early Pleistocene Archaeofauna from Xiaochangliang

Appendix A. Record of observations made for our sample of 123 bones from Xiaochangliang. TP=test pit; CD=cultural deposit; BWS=bone weathering stage; L=length; W=width; Th=thickness; Wt=weight; ABR=abraded; CTM=carnivore toothmarked; SPF=spiral fractured; CJN=conjoined; R/V=replicated and viewed under SEM. Measurements are given in millimetres (mm), weights in grams (g).

Provenience Data

State

Cat. No.

Unit

Level

BWS

XCL980018 XCL980019

TP TP

CD CD

XCL980020 XCL980021 XCL980022

TP TP TP

XCL980023 XCL980024

Measurement Data

Bone Modifications

L

W

Th

Wt

0 1

71.0 49.5

39.4 19.9

18.2 0.7

CD CD CD

1 1 0

34.2 53.0 31.9

23.5 13.9 22.6

TP TP

CD CD

2 1

34.9 50.3

XCL980025 XCL980047 XCL980056

TP T9805 T9808

CD 1 1

0 2 0

XCL980059 XCL980061 XCL980066

T9818 T9818 T9818

1 1 1

XCL980069 XCL980071

T9818 T9818

XCL980084 XCL980085 XCL980089

SEM

ABR

CTM

SPF

28.4 0.4

X X

X

X X

X X

14.0 13.1 10.6

0.7 0.6 0.7

X X X

X

X X X

26.0 20.5

0.6 0.6

0.3 0.5

X X

31.8 25.1 51.4

18.0 11.8 15.7

0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.1 0.2

X X X

0 1 1

73.0 22.4 24.8

32.9 11.0 11.3

14.2 0.7 0.4

26.4 0.1 0.9

X X

1 1

1 0

21.2 27.4

20.7 17.6

0.6 0.5

0.1 0.3

X X

T9813 T9816 T9817

1 1 1

0 0 2

36.8 23.8 50.8

25.6 11.6 22.2

14.1 0.9 10.8

0.9 0.2 10.1

X

XCL980101 XCL980104 XCL980106

TP T9810 T9806

CD 1 1

0 0 1

38.8 52.4 28.8

12.3 29.5 24.9

0.5 18.2 14.4

0.2 14.4 0.4

XCL980107 XCL980111

T9810 T9810

1 1

0 0

27.7 85.0

15.1 21.3

13.8 14.7

0.4 15.4

XCL980116 XCL980121 XCL980123

T9816 T9812 T9816

2 2 2

0 1 2

21.4 22.6 38.2

11.1 0.9 0.8

0.6 0.4 0.3

0.1 0.6 0.1

XCL980124 XCL980126 XCL980130

T9816 T9813 T9816

2 2 2

0 1 0

18.3 20.6 34.2

0.9 10.8 23.0

0.2 0.5 0.9

0.2 0.3 0.3

X

XCL980131 XCL980133

T9813 T9812

2 2

2 2

40.7 31.6

13.0 11.7

12.8 10.6

0.7 0.3

XCL980134 XCL980141 XCL980160

T9812 T9817 T9811

2 2 2

0 1 0

52.0 54.1 52.2

11.4 23.5 17.5

0.8 0.7 0.6

0.5 0.7 0.4

XCL980162 XCL980170 XCL980172

T9811 T9810 T9806

2 2 2

2 0 1

29.7 27.8 21.4

12.0 0.7 18.6

0.8 0.5 0.8

0.3 0.1 0.2

95

X X

CJN

R/V

X X

X

X X

X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X X

X

X X

C.E. Peterson et al.

(Appendix A Continued) Provenience Data

State

Cat. No.

Unit

Level

BWS

XCL980176 XCL980177 XCL980178

T9813 T9806 T9810

2 2 2

XCL980188 XCL980190 XCL980193

T9814 T9819 T9818

XCL980197 XCL980205

Measurement Data Th

Bone Modifications

L

W

0 2 1

20.5 18.8 21.0

11.8 13.3 10.8

0.5 0.8 0.4

0.1 0.1 0.3

2 2 2

2 0 1

41.5 73.5 39.1

22.0 24.0 29.6

12.7 14.3 0.5

0.9 18.8 0.1

T9818 T9807

2 2

0 0

24.1 19.3

15.6 10.3

10.5 0.4

0.3 0.2

X

XCL980226 XCL980250 XCL980270

T9809 T9818 T9807

2 2 2

0 1 2

31.6 26.2 30.2

26.6 18.9 12.0

10.8 0.3 0.5

0.4 0.5 0.2

X X X

XCL980275 XCL980326 XCL980348

T9814 T9818 T9814

2 3 3

1 0 2

24.6 20.1 25.0

23.0 14.0 10.6

10.5 0.7 0.4

0.1 0.1 0.8

X

XCL980369 XCL980375

T9814 T9815

3 3

1 1

34.3 25.1

10.7 10.7

0.6 0.9

0.2 0.2

X X

XCL980400 XCL980414 XCL980430

T9812 T9813 T9810

3 3 3

0 1 1

43.3 22.1 43.8

14.7 12.0 18.4

0.6 0.4 11.2

0.3 0.8 0.5

X X X

X

XCL980443 XCL980456 XCL980485

T9811 T9807 T9804

3 3 3

2 2 1

24.2 33.5 32.5

13.0 11.2 10.2

0.2 0.6 0.3

0.6 0.2 0.7

X

X

XCL980496 XCL980536

T9810 T9812

3 4

0 1

63.2 78.7

14.6 22.0

0.5 12.0

0.2 13.6

X X

XCL980539 XCL980540 XCL980541

T9813 T9812 T9812

4 4 4

0 0 0

20.2 35.0 57.3

14.7 14.6 21.2

0.4 0.6 14.2

0.1 0.2 10.9

X

XCL980542 XCL980545 XCL980550

T9817 T9817 T9811

4 4 4

0 3 2

46.1 23.0 44.6

16.4 0.8 20.9

0.7 0.4 0.8

0.4 0.6 0.4

X

XCL980585 XCL980588

T9808 T9804

4 4

2 2

35.8 49.9

18.8 20.4

0.4 18.5

0.3 0.8

X

XCL980595 XCL980639 XCL980640

T9805 T9814 T9818

4 4 4

0 1 0

28.0 31.2 39.0

18.7 13.3 12.0

0.8 0.6 0.8

0.3 0.1 0.2

XCL980641 XCL980642 XCL980643

T9819 T9809 T9815

4 4 4

0 2 2

25.2 42.5 1.7

11.2 12.0 14.0

0.9 11.2 10.6

0.1 0.4 0.1

X

XCL980646 XCL980650

T9818 T9815

4 4

2 2

31.2 38.4

18.6 18.7

0.9 17.8

0.3 0.5

X

XCL980665 XCL980666

T9804 T9808

5a 5a

1 0

25.5 38.7

0.7 15.8

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.4

96

Wt

ABR

CTM

SPF

X

X

SEM CJN

R/V

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

Taphonomy of an Early Pleistocene Archaeofauna from Xiaochangliang

(Appendix A Continued) Provenience Data

State

Cat. No.

Unit

Level

BWS

XCL980683 XCL980684 XCL980689

T9812 T9812 T9809

5a 5a 5a

XCL980690 XCL980718 XCL980736

T9813 T9816 T9807

XCL980737 XCL980751

Measurement Data

Bone Modifications

L

W

Th

0 0 1

46.6 30.8 31.1

15.1 15.0 11.5

12.6 0.8 0.5

0.6 0.5 0.1

5a 5a 5a

2 0 1

35.1 22.2 29.9

10.6 13.3 18.8

0.5 0.5 0.4

0.2 0.9 0.2

T9807 T9806

5a 5a

0 3

32.3 29.6

13.1 0.9

0.7 0.7

0.2 0.1

XCL980752 XCL980755 XCL980757

T9815 T9810 T9815

5a 5a 5a

2 2 1

20.5 30.2 39.0

15.9 11.2 13.9

0.5 0.7 0.7

0.1 0.2 0.2

XCL980758 XCL980759 XCL980760

T9806 T9815 T9809

5a 5a 5a

2 2 1

25.0 23.5 34.0

0.8 0.8 0.9

0.5 0.5 0.8

0.8 0.9 0.2

XCL980798 XCL980805

T9805 T9816

5b 5b

1 1

18.2 26.0

15.7 11.1

0.8 0.6

0.1 0.1

XCL980825 XCL980827 XCL980830

T9816 T9817 T9814

5b 5b 5b

1 3 2

32.8 37.9 32.9

11.0 19.0 18.4

0.6 11.5 0.8

0.2 0.5 0.3

X

XCL980831 XCL980833 XCL980837

T9816 T9818 T9813

5b 5b 5b

1 1 0

21.7 28.3 31.6

12.0 14.2 14.1

0.5 10.9 0.9

0.9 0.2 0.1

X X X

XCL980841 XCL980850

T9818 T9814

5b 5b

0 0

24.4 72.2

12.3 29.2

0.3 0.9

0.7 14.3

X

XCL980880 XCL980883 XCL980904

T9819 T9807 T9811

5b 5b 5b

1 0 0

39.9 28.0 17.9

13.6 12.2 12.0

10.4 0.9 0.3

0.4 0.2 0.6

X X X

XCL980905 XCL980910 XCL980923

T9807 T9808 T9809

5b 5b 6a

1 0 2

27.1 27.6 29.9

16.5 0.7 12.8

0.9 0.5 12.5

0.2 0.1 0.1

XCL980924 XCL980925

T9805 T9812

6a 6a

2 2

34.1 30.8

12.2 12.1

0.8 0.6

0.2 0.1

XCL980953 XCL980954 XCL980956

T9816 T9812 T9812

6a 6a 6a

1 3 3

57.5 41.0 153.5

16.8 21.8 24.6

0.6 11.6 12.2

0.4 0.7 23.8

XCL980981 XCL980982 XCL981023

T9812 T9810 T9814

6a 6a 6b

2 0 1

44.4 64.4 57.2

11.2 15.1 28.3

11.0 0.9 10.2

0.5 0.7 13.3

XCL981033 XCL981034

T9804 T9819

6b 6b

2 0

49.3 43.8

13.2 32.0

0.9 11.8

0.6 12.8

XCL981037 XCL981039

T9818 T9818

6b 6b

1 0

23.8 52.9

14.8 15.0

0.9 10.8

0.1 0.6

97

Wt

ABR

CTM

SPF

SEM CJN

R/V

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

98

Faunal Approaches to Site Formation Processes at Panxian Dadong Lynne A. Schepartz, Deborah A. Bakken, Sari Miller-Antonio, Christine K. Paraso and Panagiotis Karkanas ous karstic caves. Dadong is the middle cave in a series of three interconnecting caverns stacked within a 230 metres (m) high hill. The entrance is presently located 32.4 m above the valley floor as a result of recent uplift of the plateau. At the time of its prehistoric occupation, the entrance would have been closer to the valley floor and near the confluence of three small rivers that drained into the porous limestone of the lower cave. Today, the valley lies 1,630 m above sea level.

INTRODUCTION A principal research objective for investigators of Palaeolithic cave sites is to understand site formation processes and use of caves by hominids and other animals. One of the key sources of information is found in the accumulated faunal materials. Faunal analysis has proven to be an important element in site formation studies, particularly when bioturbation and diagenesis obscure finer-level stratigraphic distinctions within travertines, breccias or clays, and no site structures or features are discernible.

The main cave extends back from an enormous opening roughly midway up the side of the hill. Dadong's 8,000 m2 main chamber (Figure 2) contains deposits of bedded sandy travertines, clays, breccias, and large limestone blocks. The archaeological levels have stone tools in association with animal bones and teeth (Huang et al. 1995). Five human teeth were discovered; two specimens, found prior to the excavations discussed here, were described by Liu and Si (1997). The description and taxonomic status of the other specimens (locations shown in insert, Figure 2) is currently under review. Our excavations focus on a cleared area toward the north wall. Though far back from the entrance, this area is still well within the reach of daylight. Several 2 x 2 m squares have been excavated, after clearing approximately one metre of disturbed sediments, to a maximum depth of almost four metres. Uranium-series (U-series) dates (Shen et al. 1997) and electron spin resonance (ESR) dates (Rink et al., this volume) of tooth enamel suggest that most of the Dadong deposits are between 130 - 250 ka.

Faunal materials provide several lines of information. Because they tend to be abundant, faunal assemblages are often the largest data set from a Palaeolithic cave site. These data can be used to evaluate taxonomic representation, which may be indicative of the local environment at the time of deposition, or provide estimates of the relative age of the assemblage. The physical condition and differential representation of elements yields information regarding the transport of material into the cave. Evidence of stone tool cut marks reveals the actions of hominids, while carnivore and rodent activities are marked by their own distinctive patterns of damage to bone (see Lyman 1994). Faunal analysis in these varied forms was important in Chinese archaeology from the very beginning, as seen in the path-breaking taphonomic research of Pei (1936, 1938) at Zhoukoudian and other localities. Since that time, though faunal samples have received extensive palaeontological study (see Han and Xu 1985, 1989; Xue and Zhang 1991), few sites have been excavated with priority given to other aspects of faunal analysis and taphonomy. Clearly, this trend is changing, as several papers in this volume indicate. In this study, we investigate whether the spatial distribution of faunal specimens, the most plentiful material found in Dadong, can help us understand site formation processes.

The Dadong faunal sample consists of a variety of species that are characteristic of the AiluropodaStegodon faunas of Middle Pleistocene southern China (Table 1). It includes primates (macaques, colobines and hominids), a range of ungulates (cervids, small and large bovids, pigs), and carnivores (mustelids, foxes, hyenas, tigers, leopards). The porcupine genus Hystrix, an important agent of bone collection, is also represented. Other notable genera are large-bodied animals that would not ordinarily inhabit caves, such as Stegodon, Rhinoceros, and the giant tapir Megatapirus. This range of species suggests that the Pleistocene environment was a mixed woodland, as indicated by the presence of giant tapir, musk deer, barking deer and rhinoceros. The occurrence of pandas, bamboo rats and colobine monkeys (Pan and Yuan 1997) suggests some densely forested areas with the availability of bamboo. The range of

PANXIAN DADONG SETTING AND ENVIRONMENT Dadong is a large karst cave located in a small valley on the western Guizhou Plateau (25o37'38"N, 104o44'E; Figure 1). The plateau is mountainous, and it is dominated by continuous ranges of peaks containing numer99

L.A. Schepartz et al. habitats represented at Dadong is characteristic of montane environments with varying elevations. Table 1. Taxonomic representation at Panxian Dadong (Zhang et al. 1997; Pan and Yuan 1997; Liu and Si 1997).

BONE AND TOOTH CONCENTRATIONS

Insectivora Crocidura wongi Pei 1936 C. cf. russula Herman 1780 Rodentia Sciurotamias sp. indet. Belomys pearsoni Gray 1842 Trogopterus xanthipes Milne-Edwards 1867 Trogopterus sp. indet. Rhizomys sp. indet. Hystrix subcristata Swinhoe 1870 Atherurus sp. indet. Mus sp. indet. Micromys cf. minutus Pallas 1771 Apodemus chevrieri Milne-Edwards 1868 Niviventer anderssoni Thomas 1911 N. confucianus Milne-Edwards 1871 Leopodamys edwardsi Zheng 1991 Rattus rattus Linnaeus 1775 Primates Macaca arctoides M. cf. assamensis Colobinae gen. et sp. indet. Homo sp. indet. Carnivora Vulpes vulpes Linnaeus 1758 Canis lupus Linnaeus 1758 Ursus thibetanus Cuvier 1823 Ailuropoda melanoleuca fovealis Matthew et Granger 1923 Mustela sibirica Pallas 1773 Viverra sp. indet. Hyaena sp. indet. Felis chinensis Gray 1837 Felis sp. indet. Panthera sp. indet. Proboscidea Stegodon orientalis Owen 1870 Perissodactyla Megatapirus augustus Matthew et Granger 1923 Rhinoceros sinensis Owen 1870 Artiodactyla Sus australis Han 1987 Sus sp. indet. Moschus sp. indet. Muntiacus sp. indet. Cervus (Rusa) unicolor Kerr 1792 Pseudaxis sp. indet. Capricornis sumatraensis Bechstein 1935 Naemorhedus goral Hardwicke 1825 Megalovis guangxiensis Han 1987 Bubalus sp. indet. Bison sp. indet.

Figure 3 is a plan view of several excavation squares (see insert, Figure 2). Similar maps showing the distribution of piece-plotted tooth and bone were generated daily during excavation. While they are helpful for documenting progress and planning the excavation strategy, plan views are not particularly useful when studying patterning. Any possible patterning is obviously subject to over-interpretation, which often results in the discussion of 'living floors' or 'occupational levels.' Without clear stratigraphic distinctions, or archaeological features and conjoinable elements that might be used to group materials (Villa 1982), the horizontal spatial distribution of materials is not very informative. In addition to the possibility that horizontal movement might occur, the potential for artefacts and faunal elements to be vertically displaced by natural processes (bioturbation, cryogenic action) or trampling may obscure real distributions or even create false patterns. According to experimental work on trampling, material is easily vertically displaced over many centimetres in sandy cave sediments (Villa and Courtin 1983). Even with these identifiable difficulties, the spatial distribution of material can provide useful information providing the role of natural processes and trampling are considered when interpreting the results. At Dadong, three other factors complicate the application of spatial analysis to identify patterning in the artefact and faunal distributions. Firstly, there is a low density of lithics and a relatively low density of fauna, as indicated by the following data. In the 1996, 1998 and 1999 excavation seasons, a total of 2,152 piece-plotted specimens (artefacts: 29.1%, bone: 48%, and teeth: 17.8%) were recovered from 83.9 m3 of sediments. A small number of additional specimens were later recovered during screening and sorting of the sediments. The number of piece-plotted items per unit square by 10 cm level ranges from 0 to 67, with most levels containing fewer than 30. Secondly, there are few useful distinctions within the larger stratigraphic blocks comprising the bedded travertines, clays and breccias. This is true for many portions of the sequence. A final factor complicating spatial analyses at Dadong is the lack of conjoinable lithics and the low frequency of associated or conjoinable faunal elements. On the other hand, one possible advantage of the compact nature of the Dadong sediments is that vertical movement of elements is probably reduced. For this analysis we decided to evaluate profile views, which provide some control over the vertical displacement of elements (Figure 4). Because of the low densities referred to above, a north composite profile is most informative. This cumulative profile represents the sum of profiles across eight 2 x 2 m squares (see insert, 100

Faunal Approaches to Site Formation Processes nary identifications (e.g., large cervid). This proportion does vary by zone, principally because teeth are easier to classify than highly fragmented bony elements. Correspondingly, Zone B has the highest percentage of elements identifiable to taxon (66%), while Zone C has the lowest (26%). In all zones, bovids and cervids make up the largest proportion of identifiable material, followed by rhinoceroses, giant tapirs and stegodonts. The representation of carnivore specimens is very low (between 2% and 7%) for all zones.

Figure 2) over a maximum depth of approximately three metres of sediments. The analysis includes our entire data set of piece-plotted fauna from the 1996, 1998 and 1999 field seasons. From the cumulative profile, we identified four horizontal concentration zones based on the distribution of faunal elements (Figure 5): A, an upper zone of dense bones and teeth; B, a thin zone of sparser concentration with apparently fewer bones; C, another zone of dense bones and teeth; and D, a zone characterized by sparser representation of bones and teeth. Zone B is of particular interest because it seems, from this plot, to contain proportionally more teeth.

Another way to compare the zones is to evaluate the representation of animals classified by size class. This has proven to be a valuable 'in the field' method for assessing the composition of the fauna as we pursue more detailed identification of elements. The size class categories have been given numeric values: 4 (average adult body weight 400 kg or more), 3 (between 20 kg and 399 kg), 2 (between 7 kg and 19 kg), and 1 (6 kg or less). Ranges are intentionally broad, and size class 1 is intended to incorporate a very broad range of small mammals. The size class representation for each zone is shown in Figure 7, which shows that larger sized animals predominate in all zones.

The zones clearly differ by sample size (Figure 6). Zone A has the greatest sample size of both bones and teeth, followed by Zones C and D. A comparison of sample sizes alone, however, is biased by the differing amount of sediment volume for each zone. To standardize the samples, the total number of elements is divided by the volume of sediment (Table 2). Following this procedure, it is apparent that Zone A still has the highest concentration of bones and teeth, and that the densities in Zones B and C are not much lower. The density in Zone D is appreciably lower.

Where the zones clearly differ is in the relative representation of postcranial, dental and cranial portions (Figure 8). Cranial material is scarce for all zones, but it is more frequent in Zone C (9%). Zones A and D are most similar in terms of their distributions. They contain predominantly postcranial bones, which are roughly 70% of the faunal elements in both zones. The most striking difference is seen in Zone B, where teeth predominate and the proportions are 59% dental, 40% postcranial and 1% cranial.

BODY SIZE AND BODY PORTION REPRESENTATION To investigate whether there are any differences in the fauna among zones, we compared them for several faunal and taphonomic measures. The first comparison involves the representation of taxa in each zone. Table 3 shows the relative proportions of grouped categories that include Bovids/Cervids, Rhinos/Tapirs, Stegodonts, Carnivores, and other animals (including primates, rodents, and birds). At the time of writing, about 36% of piece-plotted fauna can be identified to generic or specific level (e.g., Cervus unicolor), hence the use of broader categories to encompass elements with prelimi-

Are these differences due to chance? Is there a relationship between zone and representation of teeth? To test this, differences in tooth and bone (combining postcrania and crania) between zones were compared using Chi-square tests (Table 4). The differences in tooth and

Table 2. Density of bones and teeth in concentration zones.

N Volume (m 3 ) Std. sample size

Zone A 518 9.0 58

Zone B 89 2.12 42

Zone C 180 3.48 52

Zone D 118 10.08 12

Table 3. Representation of taxonomic grouping by zone. Taxa Bovids/Cervids Rhinos/Tapirs Stegodonts Carnivores Other

Zone A 54% 27% 9% 5% 5%

Zone B 44% 32% 12% 7% 5% 101

Zone C 56% 30% 7% 7% 0%

Zone D 45% 41% 10% 2% 2%

L.A. Schepartz et al.

Table 4. Results of Chi-Square tests.

Zone A Zone B

Zone A Zone D

p-value

31.7

1

0.9

161 37 198

180 89 269

67.8

1