Abstract: The nine specimens which were considered as handaxes by some archaeologists (Huang, W., 1989) were restudied. The primary results are as follows:
1. Specimen P.3468 from Pingliang (Fig.2)
It is a heavy, pointed tool made on a cobble, with a minimum bifacial primary flaking and retouch. There is an oblique rideg on either face of the tool. The larger part of the upper face and the butt still remains the natural surface. The lenght of the edge is about 54% of the whole circumference. The butt is thick, robust and is also the most thick part of the tool. There is a prominent, flattish tip in the frontal end. Longitudinal section tends to be wedge-shaped, while cross-section is subtriangle.
2. Specimen P.2768 lrom Sanmenxia (Fig.4)
A sturdy, pointed implement made on a large and thick flake, with a minumum bifacial marginal retouch. There is a prominent, sharp tip in the distal end. The butt end is particularly thick with a steep retouch. The length of the edge is about 60% of the whole circumference. Longitudinal section is wedge-shaped, while cross-section approzimately subtriangle.
3. Specimen P.0684 from Dingcun (Fig.S)
A trihedral, pointed tool with a minimum trimming, with emphasis upon the tip. The base is flat and there is a dorsal mdeian ridge extending from point toward butt for the whole length of the tool. The tip is slightly constrained and was worked on all three faces. Longitudinal section is wedge-shaped, while cross-section is triangle. The edge is planoclinal.
4. Specimen P.5786 from Qianxian (Fig.11,1)
A large and sturdy tool, with a minimum bifacial primary flaking and retouch and dorsal median ridge extending from point toward butt for most of the length of the tool. The tip is absent. The length of the edge is about 60% of the whole circumference in the present state. Longitudinal section is wedge-like shaped, while cross-section is thick and irregular quadrilateral. The main functional part of the tool is the frontal end.
5. Specimen P.8203 from Baise Basin(Fig.11,4)
A very large and heavy tool the weight of whick is 4125g., made on a cobble, with a minmum bifacial primary flaking and retouch. The side edges are irregular. The butt is left completely unworked. The cross-section is thick. The main functional part of the tool is the frontal end which is round and blunt.
6. Specimen P.4171 from Liangshan, Hanshui Valley (Fig.11,2)
A pointed implement made on a cobble, with a minimum bifacial primary flaking and trimming. The cortex still remains on the whole butt. There is a prominent and sharp tip at the frontal end. It is similar to the "untrimmed butt" pick defined by Kleindienst(1962).
7. Specimen from Shanugou (original specimen P.1889 from Dingcun) (Fig. 9)
This specimen is a biface-like implement identified by Professor Pei et al. (1958). The problem is that it was collected on the ground surface of Shanugou, 5km east of Dingcun, with no accurate level and reliable age. Particularly the archaeologists had found a stone tool factory at the Dagudui mountain 2km east of Shanugou. The age of the Dagudai mountain culture is estimated between the end of the Paleolithic and the early period of the Neolithic. So I think, it is difficult to regard this specimen as an artifact of Dingcun Industry, and we should call it as "Biface-like implement from Shanugou", with a note of "original specimen P.1889 from Dingcun".
8. Specimen P.1844 from Dingcun (Fig.10)
Collected from the heap of the gravel-sand whick was digged by the local farmers in the past, this specimen was identified to a multi-edged chopper by Professor Pei et a1.(1958). It was made on a chunk, wiith a bifacial alternating flaking, and with the chopping edges around much of the circumference (nearly 83%). Cross-section is thick in relation to the size. There is a broken plan at one end. Longitudinal section is wedge-shaped.
9. Specimen from Laozhihe (Fig. 11,3)
Collected from the ground surface of Laozhihe, the original researchers did not described it in detail, and also did not provided the longitudinal section and cross-section. I don't see the specimen and can not ascribe it to the accurate type.
Table 1 is the compilation of some data of nine specimens.
Based on above descriptions, the present author considers that the opinions of original researchers about some specimens should be maintained, i.e., specimens of Pingliang P.3468, Sanmenzia P.2768 and Liangshan P.4171 are picks, specimen P.0684 from Dingcun is a trihedral pick, specimen from Shanugou (Original specimen P.1889 from Dingcun) is a biface-like implement, specimen P.1844 from Dingcun is a multi-edged chopper. The author tends to consider the specimens P.5786 from Qianzian and P.8203 from Baise Basin as the core-axes. The accurate type of specimen from Laozhihe can not be determined for the present.
So no typical hand axes with the accurate level, reliable dating and associated artifacts had been collected from the formal excavation in the specimens in consideration. This may suggest that there are very few true hand axes or hand axe-like implements, even through not completely absent, in the Chinese Palaeolithic. The, author thinks, so far as Chinese materials are concerned, Movius' theory about the two cultural traditions between the Orient and the West is still applicable.

Key words: Handaxe; Paleolithic; China; Movius's theory