Steep-edged flaking technology of stone tools and adaptation and diffusion of populations in South China during the Middle to Late Pleistocene
Received date: 2025-01-06
Accepted date: 2025-06-06
Online published: 2025-12-15
In recent years, new archaeological discoveries in Southwest China have gradually revealed the adaptability of ancient humans to diverse environments and their cultural complexity during the Middle and Late Pleistocene in East Asia. In particular, the newly discovered Quina-type lithic artefacts in northwestern Yunnan Province have provided new evidence for understanding the cultural connotations of the Middle Palaeolithic in East Asia. Among them, the technological features of Quina-type scrapers with unidirectional multi-tiered retouch are particularly striking. On the other hand, it is noteworthy that some cobble tools bearing characteristics of the Hoabinhian technocomplex previously reported in southwestern Yunnan, as well as those steep-edged cobble tools found in the Lingnan region (i.e., south to the Five-Ranges) and Mainland Southeast Asia, also exhibited multi-tiered stepped flake scars on a nearly vertical flaking surface. Despite their very different morphologies and their production concepts, the two types of products share a technological strategy of unidirectional multi-tiered retouch on the margin(s) of a blank, resulting in steep-edged lithic artefacts. Therefore, this article aims to review the archaeological finds of steep-edged lithic artefacts from Southwest China and the Lingnan region, and try to explore the development of both types of steep-edged lithic artefacts in this vast area, the adaptation of ancient hominins to diverse environments, and possible cultural diffusion among them.
This article focuses on two types of steep-edged lithic artefacts. The first type is on thick flake blanks. Taking the ventral surface of a thick flake as a striking platform, after continuous unidirectional flaking on the margin(s), multi-tiered retouch would normally be seen on the dorsal surface with edge angle(s) gradually increasing. Those flake scars usually end in the shape of a step or a hinge, wherein earlier flake scars tend to be large and wide while later ones tend to be small and short. Recently in western and eastern Yunnan Province, there found some Quina-like scrapers and semilunar-shaped stone tools respectively, bearing features of multi-tiered retouch scars and nearly steep edge angles. They are representatives for the first type of steep-edged lithic artefacts. Such type of scrapers is currently only found in Southwest China. For example, the Longtan open-air site and Tianhuadong cave site in Heqing, northwestern Yunnan, around 60-50 ka BP, are thought to have yielded lithic artefacts of the Quina system, wherein scrapers clearly show the technological features of unidirectional multi-tiered retouch. The Dahe cave site in Fuyuan, eastern Yunnan, around 50~30 ka BP, also found multi-tiered stepped flake scars on dorsal surface of thick flake blanks.
The second type is on shaping cobbles. Taking a relatively flat surface of a cobble as a striking platform, after continuous unidirectional flaking on one side or around the periphery of a cobble, multi-tiered retouch would also be seen on a vertical flaking surface with nearly steep edge angle(s). Similarly, those flake scars end in the shape of a step. The end choppers and side choppers found in the limestone cave sites in the Lingnan region from the 1950s to 1960s are representatives for the second type of steep-edged lithic artefacts. Such type of steep-edged cobble tools is widely distributed in a vast area covering Southwest China, the Lingnan region, as well as Mainland Southeast Asia.
In fact, some researchers used to collect chopping tools with steep edge angles from river terraces in the western Hunan mountainous areas, wherein deposits are presumed to be around the late Middle Pleistocene-early Late Pleistocene. In the western part of the Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau, some core-axes were found in the Xiaodong rockshelter site in Cangyuan, exhibiting quite steep edge angles after shaping around the entire margin of a cobble, claimed to be as early as 43.5 cal ka BP. Thereafter steep-edged cobble tools became quite popular in Southwest China until Terminal Pleistocene, such as the Laohudong (Tiger Cave) site in Baoshan and the Maomaodong (Kitty Cave) site in Xingyi, Guizhou. While in the Lingnan region and Mainland Southeast Asia, steep-edged cobble tools seemed to occur during the MIS 2, such as the Qingtang and Niulandong cave sites in Yingde, Guangdong Province; Bailiandong and Fengyan cave sites in Liuzhou, Guangxi; the Dieu rockshelter site in northern Vietnam, and even reaching far east to the Taiwan Island. Till the Early Holocene, they were more widely distributed, involving the Hainan Island and western Thailand. It could be assumed that steep-edged cobble tools were widely distributed from southern China to Mainland Southeast Asia during the late Late Pleistocene, and that the preference for multi-tiered retouch on shaping cobbles may have gradually spread from north to south, and eastwards to the Taiwan Island.
The two types of steep-edged lithic artefacts differ greatly in both production concept and morphology, but the late Late Pleistocene lithic industries in the Southwest China-Lingnan region seem to share a technological preference for invasive multi-tiered retouch on lithic blanks. So far, it is difficult to associate all those lithic industries with certain populations, despite fossil and genetic evidence suggesting that a variety of population groups should have inhabited in this vast area during the late Middle Pleistocene-Late Pleistocene. This vast area covers a wide range of topographic and climatic environment, and the interrelationships with lithic industries or population groups remain to be explored.
It has been suggested that the European Quina system was a technological strategy developed by Neanderthals in response to specific environmental circumstances or economic needs. If the variability of Quina lithic industries in the Europe-Near East region is a manifestation of the adaptability of Neanderthals in responding flexibly to their surrounding environment, then the existence of regional variations in similar technological lithic assemblages is equally understandable in China. Prehistoric archaeologists have also pointed out that modern humans in different regions have creatively exploited diverse resources in their regions as their cognitive abilities improved and they adapted to new environments, thus demonstrating their unique behaviours and cultural modernity to varying degrees.
Regardless of complex relationships among ancient hominin populations, the late Late Pleistocene lithic industries from Southwest China to the Lingnan region produced different types but relatively standardised forms of stone tools based on different kinds of raw materials, resources, and tasks. Such technological practices reflect a high level of creativity in the adaptation of ancient humans to different environments and their subsistence strategies during the Middle-Late Pleistocene in southern China. The technological preference for multi-tiered retouch on different types of blanks may be related to the adaptation of Middle-Late Pleistocene hominins to different environments and the exploitation strategy of diversified resources in southern China.
DENG Wanwen , LIU Suoqiang . Steep-edged flaking technology of stone tools and adaptation and diffusion of populations in South China during the Middle to Late Pleistocene[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2025 , 44(06) : 1060 -1071 . DOI: 10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2025.0089
| [1] | 四川省文物考古研究院, 北京大学考古文博学院. 四川稻城县皮洛旧石器时代遗址[J]. 考古, 2022, 7: 3-14 |
| [2] | 四川省文物考古研究院, 中国科学院古脊椎动物与古人类研究所. 中国科学院古脊椎动物与古人类研究所.四川资阳市濛溪河旧石器时代遗址[J]. 考古, 2024, 10: 3-16 |
| [3] | Zhang DJ, Xia H, Chen FH, et al. Denisovan DNA in Late Pleistocene sediments from Baishiya Karst Cave on the Tibetan Plateau[J]. Science, 2020, 370(6516): 584-587 |
| [4] | Zhang XL, Ha B, Wang SJ, et al. The earliest human occupation of the high-altitude Tibetan Plateau 40 thousand to 30 thousand years ago[J]. Science, 2018, 362(6418): 1049-1051 |
| [5] | 西藏自治区文物保护研究所, 中国科学院古脊椎动物与古人类研究所, 阿里文化局, 等. 世界屋脊上的远古家园——西藏阿里地区革吉县梅龙达普史前洞穴遗址[N]. 中国文物报,2024-01-19(008) |
| [6] | Ruan QJ, Li H, Xiao PY, et al. Quina lithic technology indicates diverse Late Pleistocene human dynamics in East Asia[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025, 22(14): e2418029122 |
| [7] | 阮齐军, 刘建辉, 胡越, 等. 云南鹤庆天华洞旧石器遗址石制品研究[J]. 人类学学报, 2019, 38(2): 166-181 |
| [8] | Ji XP, Kuman K, Clark RJ, et al. The oldest Hoabinhian technocomplex in Asia (43.5 ka) at Xiaodong rockshelter, Yunnan Province, southwest China[J]. Quaternary International, 2016, 400: 166-174 |
| [9] | 蔡奕芝, 刘春喜, 邱立诚. 英德青塘洞穴文化遗存的研究[J].见:英德市博物馆,中山大学人类学系,广东省文物考古研究所(编).英德史前考古报告[C].广州:广东人民出版社, 1999, 214-226 |
| [10] | 邱立诚, 宋方义, 王令红. 广东阳春独石仔新石器时代洞穴遗址发掘[J]. 考古, 1982, 5: 456-475 |
| [11] | 宋方义, 邱立诚, 张镇洪, 等. 广东封开黄岩洞遗址综述[A].见:封开县博物馆,广东省文物考古研究所,广东省博物馆,等(编).纪念黄岩洞遗址发现三十周年论文集[C].广州: 广东旅游出版社, 1991, 1-12 |
| [12] | 谌世龙. 桂林庙岩洞穴遗址的发掘与研究[A]. 见:英德市博物馆,中山大学人类学系,广东省博物馆(编).中石器文化及有关问题研讨会论文集[C]. 广州: 广东人民出版社, 1999, 150-165 |
| [13] | 中国社会科学院考古研究所. 桂林甑皮岩[M]. 北京: 文物出版社, 2003 |
| [14] | 广西柳州白莲洞洞穴科学博物馆. 柳州白莲洞[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2009 |
| [15] | Bui V. The Stone Age archaeology in Viet Nam: Achievements and general model[A]. In: Manguin PY (Ed.). Southeast Asian Archaeology 1994: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologist[C]. Hull: Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, University of Hull, 1994, 1: 5-12 |
| [16] | Hiscock P, Turq A, Faivre J, et al. Quina procurement and tool production[A]. In: Adams B, Blades BS (Eds.). Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies[C]. West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2009, 232-246 |
| [17] | 石晶. 云南富源大河遗址石制品研究[D]. 博士学位论文, 长春: 吉林大学, 2016 |
| [18] | Hu Y, Marwick B, Zhang JF, et al. Late Middle Pleistocene Levallois stone-tool technology in southwest China[J]. Nature, 2019, 565(7737): 82-85 |
| [19] | 黄慰文, 侯亚梅, 斯信强. 盘县大洞——贵州旧石器初期遗址综合研究[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2012 |
| [20] | Li F, Li YH, Gao X, et al. A refutation of reported Levallois technology from Guanyindong Cave in South China[J]. National Science Review, 2019, 6: 1094-1096 |
| [21] | Li YH, Bo?da E, Forestier H, et al. Lithic Technology, typology and cross-regional comparison of Pleistocene lithic industries: Comment on the earliest evidence of Levallois in East Asia[J]. L’Anthropologie, 2019, 123: 769-781 |
| [22] | 李浩. 中国旧石器时代早、中期石器技术多样性研究的新进展[J]. 人类学学报, 2018, 37(4): 602-612 |
| [23] | 王幼平. 现代人扩散南线的考古学观察[J]. 南方文物, 2023, 3: 147-156 |
| [24] | 李昱龙. 岭南地区陡刃砾石石器的加工技术[J]. 考古, 2018, 5: 70-80 |
| [25] | Nguyen KS. Stone Age archaeology in Vietnam[J]. Vietnam Archaeology, 2007, 2: 53-64 |
| [26] | Nguyen GD. Results of recent research into the lithic industries from Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene sites in northern Vietnam[J]. Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Bulletin (Taipei Papers, volume 3), 2005, 25: 95-97 |
| [27] | 王幼平. 更新世环境与中国南方旧石器文化发展[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 1997 |
| [28] | Zhou YD, Forestier H, Wu Y, et al. Final Pleistocene-Early Holocene (-40-8 ka) lithic industries in Southern China and their implications for understanding the prehistory of Mainland Southeast Asia[J]. Lithic Technology, 2023, 49: 242-260 |
| [29] | 郝思德, 黄万波. 三亚落笔洞遗址[M]. 海口: 南方出版社, 1998 |
| [30] | van Heekeren HR, Knuth CE. The Thai-Danish Prehistoric Expedition 1960-62: Archaeological Excavations in Thailand, Vol. I, Sai-Yok, Stone Age Settlement in the Kanchanaburi Province[M]. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1967 |
| [31] | 臧振华. 八仙洞考古的新发现兼论台湾旧石器文化的年代与类缘问题[A].见: 陈光祖, 臧振华(编). 第四届国际汉学会议论文集:东亚考古的新发现[C].中国台北: 台湾“中央”研究院, 2013, 379-416 |
| [32] | Lien C. Chang-pin Culture of Taiwan and characteristics of its lithic industry[A]. In: Kaifu Y, Izuho M, Goebel T, et al (Eds.). Emergence and Diversity of Modern Human Behavior in Paleolithic Asia[C]. Texas: Texas A&M University Press, 2015, 239-249 |
| [33] | 阮齐军, 周建威, 和金梅, 等. 云南鹤庆龙潭旧石器遗址2019—2020年度发掘简报[J]. 南方文物, 2021, 1: 105-118 |
| [34] | 吉学平, 敖秀娟, 徐兴兰, 等. 云南富源大河出土一批莫斯特文化特征石制品[N]. 中国文物报,2006-08-18(002) |
| [35] | 朱之勇, 吉学平. 云南保山老虎洞旧石器遗址石器研究[A].见:教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地吉林大学边疆考古研究中心(编).边疆考古研究(第9辑)[C].北京:科学出版社, 2010, 1-8 |
| [36] | 曹泽田. 猫猫洞旧石器之研究[J]. 古脊椎动物与古人类, 1982, 2: 155-164 |
| [37] | 中国社会科学院考古研究所华南一队, 广西文物保护与考古研究所, 柳州白莲洞洞穴科学博物馆, 等. 广西柳州市凤岩遗址2023年发掘简报[J]. 考古, 2025, 2: 3-18 |
| [38] | 广东省文物考古研究所, 北京大学考古文博学院, 英德市博物馆. 广东英德市青塘遗址[J]. 考古, 2019, 7: 3-15 |
| [39] | 广东省珠江文化研究会岭南考古研究专业委员会, 中山大学地球科学系, 英德市人民政府, 等. 英德牛栏洞遗址:稻作起源与环境综合研究[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2013 |
| [40] | 谢光茂, 余明辉, 卢杰英. 广西隆安娅怀洞遗址发掘报告[J]. 人类学学报, 2025, 44(3): 365-388 |
| [41] | 袁家荣. 湖南旧石器时代文化与玉蟾岩遗址[M]. 长沙: 岳麓书社, 2013 |
| [42] | 吴小红, 伊莉莎贝塔·博阿雷托以, 袁家荣, 等. 湖南道县玉蟾岩遗址早期陶器及其地层堆积的碳十四年代研究[J]. 南方文物, 2012, 3: 6-15 |
| [43] | 湖南省文物考古研究所. 彭头山与八十垱[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2006 |
| [44] | 李宣民, 张森水. 铜梁旧石器文化之研究[J]. 古脊椎动物与古人类, 1981, 4: 359-371 |
| [45] | Debénath A, Dibble HL. Handbook of Paleolithic Typology, Volume One: Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe[M]. Philadelphia: University Museum University of Pennsylvania, 1994 |
| [46] | Bordes F. Mousterian Cultures in France[J]. Science, 1961, 134(3482): 803-810 |
| [47] | Stringer C. Coasting out of Africa[J]. Nature, 2000, 405: 24-27 |
| [48] | Anil D, Chauhan N, Ajithprasad P, et al. An early presence of Modern human or convergent evolution: A 247 ka Middle Paleolithic assemblage from Andhra Pradesh, India[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2022, 45: 103565 |
| [49] | Blinkhorn J, Achyuthan H, Petraglia M, et al. Middle Paleolithic occupation in the Thar Desert during the Upper Pleistocene: the signature of a modern human exit out of Africa?[J]. Quaternary Science Reviews, 2013, 77: 233-238 |
| [50] | Blinkhorn J, Ajithprasad P, Mukherjee A, et al. The first directly dated evidence for Palaeolithic occupation on the Indian coast at Sandhav, Kachchh[J]. Quaternary Science Reviews, 2019, 224: 105975 |
| [51] | Clarkson C, Harris C, Li B, et al. Human occupation of northern India spans the Toba super-eruption -74,000 years ago[J]. Nature Communications, 2020, 11: 961 |
| [52] | Field J, Petraglia MD, Lahr MM. The southern dispersal hypothesis and the South Asian archaeological record: examination of dispersal routes through GIS analysis[J]. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 2007, 26: 88-108 |
| [53] | 于建军, 王幼平, 何嘉宁, 等. 新疆吉木乃县通天洞遗址[J]. 考古, 2018, 7: 3-14 |
| [54] | Li F, Kuhn SL, Chen F, et al. The easternmost Middle Paleolithic (Mousterian) from Jinsitai Cave, North China[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2018, 114: 76-84 |
| [55] | Li F, Petraglia M, Roberts P, et al. The northern dispersal of early modern humans in eastern Eurasia[J]. Science Bulletin, 2020, 65(20): 1699-1701 |
| [56] | Nguyen DT, Clarkson C. Typological transformation among Late Paleolithic flaked core tools in Vietnam: An examination of the Pa Muoi assemblage[J]. Journal of Indo-Pacific Archaeology, 2016, 40: 32-41 |
| [57] | Liu W, Martinon-torres M, Cai Y, et al. The earliest unequivocally modern humans in southern China[J]. Nature, 2015, 526: 696-699 |
| [58] | 金昌柱, 潘文石, 张颖奇, 等. 广西崇左江州木榄山智人洞古人类遗址及其地质时代[J]. 科学通报, 2009, 54(19): 2848-2856 |
| [59] | Demeter F, Shackelfor LL, Bacon A, et al. Anatomically modern human in Southeast Asia (Laos) by 46 ka[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2012, 109(36): 14375-14380 |
| [60] | Demeter F, Shackelfor LL, Westaway KE, et al. Early modern humans from Tam Pa Ling, Laos[J]. Current Anthropology, 2017, 58(Supplement 17): S527-S538 |
| [61] | Demeter F, Zanolli C, Westaway KE, et al. A Middle Pleistocene Denisovan molar from the Annamite Chain of northern Laos[J]. Nature Communications, 2022, 13: 2557 |
| [62] | Curnoe D, Ji XP, Herries AIR, et al. Human remains from the Pleistocene-Holocene transition of Southwest China suggest a complex evolutionary history for East Asians[J]. PLoS ONE, 2012, 7(3): e31918 |
| [63] | Turq A. Approche technologique et economique du facies Mousterien de type Quina[J]. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise, 1989, 86: 244-256 |
| [64] | 曲彤丽. 世界不同地区现代人及现代行为的出现与区域特征[J]. 人类学学报, 2012, 31(3): 269-278 |
| [65] | 李浩. 探究早期现代人的南方扩散路线[J]. 人类学学报, 2022, 41(4): 630-648 |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |