GAO Xing
Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100044 China
FIRST PARAGRAPH: The nature of Paleolithic “handaxe” in China and East Asia is a highly debatable research issue. During the last three decades, “handaxe” have been discovered at some claimed Middle Pleistocene localities in southern and central China and regarded as evidence to invalidate the hypothesis of the so-called “Movius Line” and to suggest that there is no obvious technological and typological difference between the East and the West. In the meantime, some scholars insist that those finds are in fact not real handaxes and should have nothing to do with the contemporaneous western Acheulian industry; Early Paleolithic industries in East Asia do exhibit fundamental differences with these of the west. To some extent, such debates are superficial, for most of the discussions are stuck on terminology and description of some selected samples, and different researchers adopted different criteria to classify those artifacts, and most of the illustrated samples are surfaces finds, without clear stratigraphy and chronology, therefore, arguments based on such materials are hardly convincing.
Recieved: Oct.10, 2010 Accepted: Dec.2, 2010 Corresponding: gaoxing@ivpp.ac.cn
《现代人类学通讯》第四卷e47篇 第211-212页 2010年12月16日网上发行
会议摘要
中国旧石器时代的“手斧”
高星
中国科学院古脊椎动物与古人类研究所,北京 100044
首节:旧石器时代的“手斧”在中国乃至东亚是一个具有高度争议性、引发诸多学术争鸣的话题。一些学者认为中国乃至东亚存在真正的、可与西方阿舍利技术体系相提并论的手斧,因而将东西方旧石器文化与技术体系分割开来的“莫维斯线”可以被彻底抹去。另一些学者认为东亚的这些发现并非真正的手斧,与西方阿舍利文化没有任何联系,二者的形态相似是文化趋同的结果,东西方史前文化仍然存在本质的区别。这些探讨很大程度上停留在学术语言的层面上,不同研究者对手斧的界定采用不同的标准,所涉及的标本很多是采集品,缺乏地层和年代依据,因而难有说服力。
参考文献 References
1. Bordes F (1961)
Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et Moyen.
Publications de l’Institut de Préhistoire de
l ’Universit de Bordeaux, Memoire no. 1.
Boreaux: Imprimeries Delmas.
2. Clark JD (1994) The Acheulean industrial
complex in Africa and elsewhere. In:
Corruccini RS, Ciochon RL (eds) Integrative
Paths to the Past. Prentice Hall: 451-469.
3. Covinus G (2004)
Homo erectus in East and
Southeast Asia and the questions of the age
of the species and its association with
stone artifacts, with special attention to handaxe-like tools. Quat Int 117: 141-151.
4. Erjian D (1985)
The bifaces of the Old
World and the ancient cultural tradition of
the orient. Acta Anthropologica Sinica
4:215-222.
5. Gao X, Pei SW (2006)
An archaeological
interpretation of the Chinese Paleolithic
technology and human adaptation. Quat Sci
26: 504-513
6. Hou YM, Potts R, Yuan BY, Guo ZT, Deino
A, Wang W, Clark J, Xie GM, Huang WW (2000)
Mid-Pleistocene Acheulean-like stone
technology of the Bose Basin, South China.
Science 287: 1622-1626.
7. Huang W (1987)
Bifaces in China. Acta
Anthropologica Sinica 6:61-68.
8. Huang W (1989) The early Paleolithic of
China. Quat Res 28: 237-242.
9. Jia LP (1956) Handaxes found in China.
Chin Sci Bull (12): 39-41.
10. Lin S (1994)
Restudy of nine hand-axe
specimens and the applicability of Movius’
theory. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 13:
189-208.
11. Lin S, He N (1995) On the hand-axe from
Baise Basin. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 14:
118-131.
12. Movius H (1948) Lower Paleolithic
culture of Southern and Eastern Asia.
Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society 38: 329-420.
13. Howells WW (1969) Lower Paleolithic
archaeology in Southern Asia and the Far
East. Studies in Physical Anthropology No.1.
New York: Hamanities Press.
14. Schick KD (1994) Movius line
reconsidered: perspectives on the earlier
Paleolithic of Eastern Asia. In: Corruccini
RS, Ciochon RL (eds) Integrative Paths to
the Past. Prentice Hall: 569-596.
15. Wang S (2005)
Perspectives on hominid behaviour and settlement patterns: A study
of the Lower Palaeolithic sites in the
Luonan Basin, China. Oxford: BAR
International Series 1406.