Paleolithic Archaeology of South China

A comparison study of three-dimensional geometry of handaxes from the Baise Basin and the Danjiangkou Reservoir Region

  • LEI Lei ,
  • YE Xin ,
  • Li Dawei ,
  • XIE Guangmao ,
  • LI Chaorong ,
  • LI Hao
Expand
  • 1. College of History and Ethnic Culture, Guiyang 550025
    2. Institute for History and Culture of Science & Technology, Guangxi University for Nationalities, Nanning 530006
    3. Guangxi Institute of Cultural Relics Protection and Archaeology, Nanning 530006
    4. Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100044
    5. State Key Laboratory of Tibetan Plateau Earth System, Environment and Resources (TPESER), Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Alpine Paleoecology and Human Adaptation Group, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101

Received date: 2024-10-18

  Accepted date: 2025-05-07

  Online published: 2025-12-15

Abstract

The Baise Basin and the Danjiangkou Reservoir Region (DRR) in South China stand as important areas where handaxe artifacts are concentrated, serving as invaluable resources for understanding the complex details of Acheulean technology in East Asia. These regions have witnessed the discovery of numerous handaxes, which have the potential to contribute to our understanding of the technological and cultural developments in this region. However, previous studies mainly focused on the morphological features of handaxes from particular areas. While such studies have provided valuable insights into the morphological and regional characteristics of these artifacts. Notably, a notable divergence in technological complexity and morphological characteristics across different regions.The absence of cross-regional comparison has limited our understanding of the variations and similarities of handaxes’ morphology across disparate areas. In order to compensate for this shortcoming of prior investigations, this study employs a systematic research methodology. Firstly, a three-dimensional (3D) scanning was applied to collected models of handaxes from both the Baise Basin and the DRR. Subsequently, the AGMT-3D software was utilized to analyze the 3D geometric morphology of these handaxes. Through the generation of heat maps, this software enables an intuitive visualization of the variation extent and characteristics. Heat maps provide a straightforward way to identify areas of high and low variation, allowing researchers to quickly grasp the overall morphological trends. Besides this, a series of advanced statistical methods were employed. Principal Component Analysis (PCA), correlation analysis of principal component scores and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was applied to reveal the morphological differences among handaxes between the two regions. The results of this study reveal several significant findings. It was found that the morphological variation of handaxes in the Baise Basin is notably higher than that in the DRR, indicating a greater diversity in the shape of handaxes produced in the Baise Basin. Moreover, significant morphological difference exist between the handaxes from the two regions. Specifically, the handaxes in the Baise Basin exhibit lower elongation, thinning index, and tip contraction compared to those in the DRR. Such differences in morphological characteristics may suggest that the handaxes from these two regions might have fulfilled different function, been crafted from different types of raw materials with distinct properties, or been influenced by different cultural traditions and chronological factors. In conclusion, this research offers key evidence for a more profound understanding of the morphological feature of Chinese handaxes and the diversity and variability within Acheulean in East Asian.

Cite this article

LEI Lei , YE Xin , Li Dawei , XIE Guangmao , LI Chaorong , LI Hao . A comparison study of three-dimensional geometry of handaxes from the Baise Basin and the Danjiangkou Reservoir Region[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2025 , 44(06) : 989 -997 . DOI: 10.16359/j.1000-3193/AAS.2025.0048

References

[1] Breuil H. L’ état actuel de nos connaissances sur les industries paléolithiques de Choukoutien[J]. L’ Anthropologie, 1935, 45: 740-746
[2] Pei WC. A Preliminary Study on a New Pal?olithic Station known as locality 15 within the Choukoutien Region[J]. Bulletin of the Geological Society of China, 1939, 19(2): 147-187
[3] 贾兰坡. 在中国发现的手斧[J]. 科学通报, 1956, 12: 39-41
[4] 贾兰坡, 王择义, 王建. 山西芮城匼河旧石器时代初期文化遗址[J]. 考古, 1961, 8: 395-397+393
[5] 李炎贤, 尤玉柱. 广西百色发现的旧石器[J]. 古脊椎动物与古人类, 1975, 13(4): 225-228+277-278
[6] 阎嘉祺. 陕西省汉中地区梁山龙岗寺首次发现旧石器[J]. 考古与文物, 1980, 4: 1-5
[7] 曹传松. 湖南澧水下游三处旧石器遗址调查报告[J]. 江汉考古, 1992, 1: 11-18
[8] 房迎三. 安徽省宣州市陈山旧石器地点 1988 年发掘报告[J]. 人类学学报, 1997, 2: 11-21
[9] Yang SX, Huang WW, Hou YM, et al. Is the Dingcun lithic assembly a “chopper-chopping tool industry”, or “Late Acheulian”?[J]. Quaternary International, 2014, 321: 3-11
[10] 山西省考古研究所. 丁村旧石器时代遗址群:丁村遗址群1976-1980年发掘报告[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2014
[11] 王社江, 沈辰, 胡松梅, 等. 洛南盆地 1995-1999 年野外地点发现的石制品[J]. 人类学学报, 2005, 24(2): 87-103
[12] Wang SJ. Cleavers Collected from the Open-air Sites in Luonan Basin[J]. China Acta Anthropologica Sinica 2006, 25(4): 332-342
[13] Kuman K, Li CR, Li H. Large cutting tools in the Danjiangkou Reservoir Region, central China[J]. Journal of Human Evolution, 2014, 76: 129-153
[14] Li H, Li C, Kuman K. Rethinking the “Acheulean” in East Asia: evidence from recent investigations in the Danjiangkou Reservoir Region, central China[J]. Quaternary International, 2014, 347: 163-175
[15] 裴树文, 关莹, 高星. 丹江口库区彭家河旧石器遗址发掘简报[J]. 人类学学报, 2008, 27(2): 95-110
[16] 董哲, 裴树文, 袁四方. 安徽水阳江流域2017年旧石器考古调查简报[J]. 人类学学报, 2019, 38(2): 223-231
[17] 郑喆轩, 冯玥, 谭培阳. 四川稻城县皮洛旧石器时代遗址[J]. 考古, 2022, 7: 723-734
[18] 贺存定, 张瑾, 高磊, 等. 重庆市西北涪江流域旧石器考古调查[J]. 人类学学报, 2023, 42(6): 815-826
[19] Roe DA. The British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic: some problems, methods of study and preliminary results[J]. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. Cambridge University Press, 1964, 30: 245-267
[20] Roe DA. British Lower and Middle Paleolithic handaxe groups[J]. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 1969, 34: 1-82
[21] Bordes F. Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et Moyen[M]. Bordeaux: Publications de l’ Institut de Préhistoire de l’ Universit de Bordeaux, Mémoire No.1, 1961
[22] Roe DA. A metrical analysis of selected sets of handaxes and cleavers from Olduvai Gorge[A]. In: Leakey MD, Roe DA(eds). Olduvai Gorge, Vol 5. Excavations in Beds III, IV and the Masek Beds, 1968-1971[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994, 5: 1968-1971
[23] McNabb J. Looking backwards, looking forwards: Evaluating the Roe handaxe methodology in the twenty-first century and the introduction of a new ‘Roe-type’ index[J]. Lithic Technology, 2022, 47(3): 183-202
[24] 雷蕾, 贺乐天, 李大伟, 等. 三维几何形态测量方法在石制品分析中的应用[J]. 人类学学报, 2021, 40(6): 970-980
[25] Hou YM, Potts R, Yuan BY, et al. Mid-Pleistocene Acheulean-like stone technology of the Bose Basin, South China[J]. Science, 2000, 287: 1622-1626
[26] Koeberl C, Glass BP, Keates SG. Tektites and the age Paradox in Mid-Pleistocence China[J]. Science, 2000, 289: 507
[27] Li H, Li CR, Kuman K, et al. The Middle Pleistocene Acheulean site of Shuangshu in the Danjiangkou Reservoir Region, central China[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2014, 52: 391-409
[28] Pei SW, Niu DW, Guan Y, et al. Middle Pleistocene hominin occupation in the Danjiangkou Reservoir Region, central China: studies of formation processes and stone technology of Maling 2A site[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2015, 53: 391-407
[29] Ashton N, McNabb J. Bifaces in Perspective[A]. In: Ashton N, David A (eds). Stories in Stone[C]. London: Lithic Studies Society, 1994, 182-191
[30] White MJ. On the significance of Acheulean biface variability in southern Britain[J]. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. Cambridge University Press, 1998, 64: 15-44
[31] White MJ. Raw materials and biface variability in Southern Britain: a preliminary examination[J]. Lithics, 1995, 15: 1-20
[32] McPherron SP. Handaxes as a measure of the mental capabilities of early hominids[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2000, 27(8): 655-663
[33] McPherron SP. A re-examination of the British biface data[J]. Lithics-The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society, 2016, 16: 47-63
[34] McPherron SP. Ovate and pointed handaxe assemblages: two points make a line[J]. Préhistoire Européenne, 1999, 14: 9-32
[35] McNabb J, Cole J, Hoggard CS. From side to side: Symmetry in handaxes in the British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2018, 17: 293-310
[36] Saragusti I, Sharon I, Katzenelson O, et al. Quantitative analysis of the symmetry of artefacts: Lower Paleolithic handaxes[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 1998, 25(8): 817-825
[37] Iovita R, Tuvi-Arad I, Moncel MH, et al. High handaxe symmetry at the beginning of the European Acheulian: the data from la Noira (France) in context[J]. PLoS One, 2017, 12(5): e0177063
[38] Shipton C, Clarkson C, Cobden R. Were Acheulean bifaces deliberately made symmetrical? Archaeological and experimental evidence[J]. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 2019, 29(1): 65-79
[39] Hodgson D. Evolution of the visual cortex and the emergence of symmetry in the Acheulean techno-complex[J]. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 2009, 8(1): 93-97
[40] Hodgson D. The symmetry of Acheulean handaxes and cognitive evolution[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 2015, 2: 204-208
[41] Wynn T. The evolution of spatial competence[M]. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1989
[42] 王庭辉, 王喜, 秦耀辰, 等. 丹江口库区生态系统服务价值与人类活动时空关联分析[J]. 长江流域资源与环境, 2021, 30(2): 330-341
Outlines

/