关键词: 手斧;中国

Abstract: For a long time, biface (coup-de-poing) has been considered a typical and monopolistic category of tool in Europe, Africa, Middle East and Indian peninsula during the Early Paleolithic, but East and South Asia have been considered as the part where biface is completely absent or rare. However this concept became less and less confirmed by increasing discoveries in archaeology.
In fact, biface is not absent or rare in China. Temporarily, this category of tool had occurred since the end of Early Pleistocene or the beginning of Middle Pleistocene (ca. I m. y. ) to Early Holocene. However, most of them appeared during Middle Pleistocene. Geographically, it has been found in China from the South to the North and Northeast especially in the "Fen-Wei Graben"of the North, the Hanshui Valley and the Baise Basin of the South.
Bifaces from China were retouched not only by pebble, but also by flake. Technologically, most of them were flaked alternately by hammerstone, while some of them may be retouched by soft hammer. As far as the rool's group, biface together with chopper-chopping tool, bolas, unifacial heavy pointed tool, cleaver, etc. constituted certain stone assemblages in China. This phenomenon is obvious in several Early Paleolithic industries such as those from the "Fen-Wei Graben", the Hanshui Valley and the Baise Basin. These industries are in sharp contrast with the other types such as the Peking man culture from Zhoukoudian and the Guanvindong culture from Guizhou province. In the latters, scrapers and points retouched by smaller size of flakes are numerically more significant.
As in China, in other parts of East and South Asia there were certain Paleolithic bifacebearing industries, for example, the Chongoknian in Korea peninsula, the Patjitanian in Java, the Soan culture in northwestern India-Pakistan subcontinent and the Tampanian in Malay peninsula, etc. In addition, bifaces were also found in Central Asia area of USSR and Mongolian plateau.
To summarize, biface should not be of neglected component of Paleolithic culture in East and South Asia. Speaking of typology and technology there are no essential differences between the West and East bifaces. The Paleolithic biface-bearing industries found in East and South Asia are strongly suggested that this area was not "an isolated and self-sufficient area, closed to any major human migratory wave"as Teilhard de Chardin said (Teilhard, 1941) , and biface may be such an evidence for the communication existing between West and East. By any means, Movius' "Two Culture theory”needs to be reevaluated indeed. Equally, an universal and unili- near evolutionary framework is also not feasible because it is contradictory with what happend in reality of the Paleolithic world. Instead, it seems to me that a framework which different traditions interlaced and set in is a logical hypothesis.

Key words: Biface; China