Assemblages with bifacial tools in Eurasia (third part). Considerations on the bifacial phenomenon throughout Eurasia

(1)

HAL Id: hal-01325860

https://hal.sorbonne-universite.fr/hal-01325860

Submitted on 2 Jun 2016

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- entific research documents, whether they are pub- lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution| 4.0 International License

Eurasia

Marie-Hélène Moncel, Marta Arzarello, Éric Boëda, Stéphanie Bonilauri, Benoît Chevrier, Claire Gaillard, Hubert Forestier, Li Yinghua, François

Sémah, Valéry Zeitoun

To cite this version:

Marie-Hélène Moncel, Marta Arzarello, Éric Boëda, Stéphanie Bonilauri, Benoît Chevrier, et al..

Assemblages with bifacial tools in Eurasia (third part). Considerations on the bifacial phenomenon

throughout Eurasia. Comptes Rendus Palevol, Elsevier, 2016, �10.1016/j.crpv.2015.11.007�. �hal-

01325860�

(2)

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Comptes Rendus Palevol

www . s c ie n c e d i r e c t . c o m

Human Palaeontology and Prehistory

Assemblages with bifacial tools in Eurasia (third part).

Considerations on the bifacial phenomenon throughout Eurasia

Assemblages d’outils bifaciaux en Eurasie (troisième partie).

Considérations sur le phénomène bifacial à travers l’Eurasie

Marie-Hélène Moncel

^a,∗

, Marta Arzarello

^b

, Éric Boëda

^c

, Stéphanie Bonilauri

^c

, Benoît Chevrier

^c,f

, Claire Gaillard

^a

, Hubert Forestier

^a

, Li Yinghua

^d

,

Franc¸ ois Sémah

^a

, Valéry Zeitoun

^e

aUMR7194,CNRS,DepartmentofPrehistory,NationalMuseumofNaturalHistory,Institutdepaléontologiehumaine, 1,rueRené-Panhard,75013Paris,France

bDipartimentodiStudiUmanistici,LTTekneHubUniversitàdegliStudidiFerrara,C.soErcoleId’Este32,44100Ferrara,Italy

cUniversityParisOuest,92000Nanterre/LaDéfense,France

dProfesseurUniversitédeWuhan,SchoolofHistory,WuhanUniversity,Wuhan430072,PRChina

eUMR7207–CR2P–CNRS–MNHN–UniversitéParis-6,SorbonneUniversités,UniversitéPierre-et-Marie-Curie,75005Paris,France

fUniversityofGeneva,LaboratoryArchéologieetPeuplementdel’Afrique,rueGustave-Révilliod,12,1211,Genéve4,Switzerland

a rt i c l e i n f o

Articlehistory:

Received1^stJune2015

Acceptedafterrevision6March2016 Availableonlinexxx

HandledbyAmélieVialet

Keywords:

Bifacialtools Eurasia Hominins Origins Diffusion

a b s t r a c t

Eurasianbifacialseriespresentsomecommonfeatures,butarechieﬂycharacterizedby wide-rangingdiversityintermsofbifacialtechnologyandblanktypes,whereastheheavy- dutycomponentpresentsalimitednumberoftypesorcategories.Heavy-dutytoolsare presentthroughoutthegeographicalareasbutthefrequencyofhandaxesand/orcleavers isgenerallylow,exceptinsomeregions,wheretheyaremadeonﬂakesand/orcobbles/

pebbles,onsiliceousstonesorotherrocktypes.Sofar,itappearstobegenerallyaccepted thatbifacialtechnologybecamewidespreadfrom800to700kaonwards,bothforEurope andAsia,exceptforsomeearlieroccurrencesintheLevantandIndia.Itwouldthusberea- sonabletoinferthatbifacialtechnologyﬁrstreachedtheLevantfromAfricabeforemoving towardAsia,thenEurope.However,theexistingdatapointtoamuchmorecomplexreality, suggestingcontemporaneoustechnologicalworlds,withorwithoutlinksbetweenthem.

Inthestateofcurrentknowledge,andbasedonthemethodologyusedforanalysinglithic series,itisimpossibletoclearlyargueinfavourofeitherauniquephenomenonwithmove- mentsofhomininsor/andideasfromanAfricansource,ortopointtoevidenceofseveral onsetsofbifacialtechnologyovertimeonalocalsubstratum.Thepalaeoanthropological backgroundshowsthedifﬁcultiesinvolvedincharacterizingthefewavailablehominin fossilsandclearlyrelatingthemtobifacialtechnology.Thecurrentcontextsuggeststhat eachareashouldbeanalysedindependently.Accumulativetechnologicalprocessesinsome areasduetosuccessivearrivalsandtheinﬂuenceofthelocalsubstratum,andlocalonsets

∗ Correspondingauthor.

E-mailaddress:moncel@mnhn.fr(M.-H.Moncel).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2015.11.007

creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

(3)

mustbeconsidered,asthesecontributetothediversityofthestrategiesencounteredand thevariedformsofbifacialtechnology.

by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Motsclés: Outilsbifaciaux Eurasie Homininés Origines Diffusion

ré s u m é

Selonleszonesgéographiquesetselon lessériescomparées,l’Eurasielivredesséries bifacialesquipartagentdestraitscommuns,mais,dansletempsetdansl’espace,c’est ladiversitéquilescaractérise.Lesoutilsbifaciauxsonttoujoursprésents,maisavecdes fréquencesréduites.Ilssontfaçonnésselondesstratégiesvariées,surdessupportsetdes matériauxeux-mêmesvariés.Lesdonnéesrécentesattestentqu’ilssegénéralisentàpartir de800à700kaàlafoisenEuropeetenAsie,exceptéquelquestémoignagesplusanciens auLevantetenInde.Ilseraitfaciled’admettrequelatechnologiebifacialeatoutd’abord atteintleLevantavantl’Asieorientaleetl’Europe.Laréalitéestpluscomplexe,suggérant desmondestechnologiquescontemporainsétantounonenrelation.Lesdonnéesdont nousdisposonsnepermettentpasàl’heureactuelledeconcevoirununiquephénomène ayantaboutiàladiffusiond’unAcheuléenest-africainpardesmouvementsdepopulations oud’idées.Selonlesméthodologiesemployées,despreuvesd’émergencelocalenesont pastoujoursclairesselonleszonesgéographiques,parmanquededonnéesoudedata- tions.Lesdonnéespaléoanthropologiquesconfirmentladifficultéderelierdeshommes auxoutilsbifaciauxetàlesnommer.Laréalitéestquechaquesecteurdoitêtreétudié indépendamment,certainslivrantdes«outilsbifaciaux»,d’autresdes«bifaces».Destrans- formationslocalesoubienissuesdel’influencedenouvellesidéesoudegroupeshumains différentssontautantdepossibilitésetscénariospourexpliquerladiversitédesstratégies rencontrées,démontrantlaplasticitédelatechnologiebifaciale.

by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

ThebifacialphenomenonaffectedvastEurasianareasat differenttimes.Historically,mostoftheserieswithbifacial toolswereassimilatedtotheAcheulean,whichwasini- tiallydeﬁnedattheendofthe19thcenturyintheSomme Valley,innorthernFrance.Gabriel deMortillet,in1872, andlaterVaysondePradennesinthe1920s,ﬁrstdescribed thebiface,which wasconsideredfor alongtime asthe

“fossiledirecteur”ofthistechnologicaltradition.However, theheavy-dutycomponent is relatively diversiﬁed, and alsoincludescleaversand otherlargemassivetools(for instance“rabots”).Recentstudiesoverthepastdecadein EastAfricaindicatethattheEarlyAcheuleanischaracter- izedbytheabilitytoproducelargeﬂakes,someofwhich aresubsequentlyusedforshapingtheselargetools,butalso bymultiplenewbehavioursasregardssubsistencestrate- giesandrawmaterialprocurement.Manyanalysespointto thenecessityofusingtheterm“Acheuleans”,ratherthan

“Acheulean”todescribethedifferentseriesandindicate thatthe solepresence ofbifacesor LargeCutting Tools (LCTs,cfKleindienst,1961)is insufﬁcientfordeﬁning a lithicassemblage.

DiscoveriesoverthepastdecadesindifferentEurasian areasindicatethatbifacialtechnologyextendsfrom1.5Ma to 40ka and covers major parts of Eurasia. European Acheuleanss.s.,“Moustériendetypeacheuléen”ortheCen- tralEuropeanMicoquianarenolongertheonlytraditions withbifacialtools.Theyarecontemporaneouswithmany other“traditions” involvingbifacial technology, particu- larlyineasternAsia.Inthisﬁnalpaper,ourgoalistotry

tounraveltheoriginsandexpansionofbifacialindustries inEurasia.

2. Thepalaeoanthropologicalbackground:human remainsv.bifacialtools

Palaeoanthropology relies onprehistoric archaeology to mitigate the lack of available anatomical data and reconstructthe dynamics ofhuman populations.As for prehistory, it questions the speciﬁcity of the biological entitiesthatcraftedlithicindustriesthroughouttime.The discourseproposingalinearmodelofprehistorictechnol- ogy,encompassingthenotionsofmodes1,2,3,and4,is toosimplistic.

Inpalaeoanthropology,weconsiderthatphylogenetic patterns areestablishedaccording torules ofcladistics.

This school of thought is based on genealogy and the observedresemblancesareconsideredtoresultfromthree phenomena:sharedprimitivecharacters,thoserepresent- ing shared derived characters and those resulting from homoplasy(reversionsandconvergences).Unliketheclas- sicevolutionarysystematicapproachandphenetics,only derivedcharactersareusedtoestablishphylogeneticpat- ternsincladistics.

It is important to explicitly define the influence of the history of science on the names of the various taxa. Historically,thefirst discoveriesare not necessar- ily the most characteristic specimens of each species and in addition, interpretations generally evolve over time, with the discovery of more complete fossils and

(4)

methodologicaldevelopments.AlthoughtheInternational CodeofZoologicalNomenclatureallowsforsuchchanges, thepalaeoanthropologicalcommunitycurrentlydoesnot respectthiscode(Zeitoun,2015).

Fortheperiodofinterest,from1.5Matoaround100ka inAsia,butfocusedonaround700–350kainEuropedueto thelargeamountofdata,consideringtheuncertaintysur- roundingthegeologicalagesofthehumanfossils,itisnot easytoestablishapreciseandconsensuallistofspecimens to be taken into consideration. Moreover, it is important torecognize that,froma taxonomicpoint ofview, this chronologicalinterval historically corresponds toa

“lumberroom”,i.e.H.erectussensulato,wherecertainspec- imenswereconsideredasarchaicH.sapiens,andafﬁliated toH.heidelbergensis,andsubsequentlytoH.antecessorin Europe.Finally,thisperiodalsoraisesquestionsaboutthe continuitybetweenH.erectussensustrictoandH.sapiensin ChinaandtheexistenceofH.soloensisinIndonesia(Zeitoun etal.,2010).

Fromageneralpointofview,itisdifﬁculttoattributean industrytoaparticulartaxon.Intermsofpotentialandsyn- chronicity,itisgenerallypossibletoassociateataxonwith anindustryinageographicalareaduringagivenperiod, butwhenwelookmoreclosely,thehumanfossilsconsid- eredhereareonlyveryrarelyassociatedwithstonetools.

Aswewillseebelow,insomecases,industrieswithbifa- cialpiecesoccurinlayersunderlyingandoverlyinglayers bearinghumanremains,butthelithicindustryisdifferent inthehumanfossil-bearinglayer(Table1).

2.1. TheEuropeanhumanbackground

Followingtheclassicevolutionarysystematicapproach, BermudezdeCastroetal.,1997deﬁnedH.antecessoronthe basisofbonefragmentsdiscoveredatlocalityTD6,Gran DolinaatAtapuerca,inSpain,andconsideredittobe“the lastcommonancestorforNeandertalsandmodernhumans”.

More recently, an older (1.2Ma) fragmentof mandible foundat SimadelElefante, alsoatAtapuerca, waslike- wise attributedtothis taxonbyCarbonellet al.(2008).

Itshouldbenotedthatlogically,thelastcommonances- torsofH.sapienssapiensandH.sapiensneanderthalensisare H.sapiens,iftaxa mustbemonophyletic.Thus following Bermudez deCastroetal.,1997,H.antecessorshouldbe equivalenttoH.sapiens.

H.heidelbergensiswasinitially describedonthebasis of a robust mandible discovered in 1907 at Mauer in Germany(Schoetensack,1908).Thisspecimenwasdated to700ka (Wagner et al., 2010), but noderived charac- terhadinitiallybeendescribedforthistaxon.Following RosasandBermudezdeCastro(1998),arecentanatom- ical study (Mounier et al., 2009) precisely diagnoses H.heidelbergensisusingalistofmostlyprimitivecharac- ters and three Neandertalderived traits, leading tothe same conclusion as Bermudez de Castro et al. (1997):

“The speciesH.heidelbergensisis thusonlyacceptablein a restricted sense asa Europeanchronospeciesdirectly ancestortoNeandertals”.Duetothelackofautapomorphy forH.heidelbergensis,H.heidelbergensiscanlogicallybeput intosynonymywithH.sapiensneanderthalensis.

DuetotheafﬁnityoftheMauerspecimenwiththeAT- 888mandibleandtheSH5skull(Mounieretal.,2009;Rosas and Bermudez de Castro, 1998), theabundant remains fromSima de LosHuesos atAtapuerca were attributed to H.heidelbergensis. Consequently, due to their initial description(Arsuagaetal.,1997,2014;Bischoffetal.,1997, 2003,2007;Parèsetal.,2000)andinagreementwiththe dentaldata(Martinón-Torresetal.,2012,2016),thespec- imensofAtapuercahavetobeplacedintheNeandertal lineage.

The fossils fromArago at Tautavel,southern France, onlypresentrathervariableNeandertalderivedcharacters dependingonthespecimens(inparticularthefaceofArago 21orthemandibleofArago2)(Falguèresetal.,2004,2015;

Lumley,1976,2015; Moigne etal., 2006).Lumley etal.

(1984)attributedthemtothesametaxonastheSimade LosHuesosfossils,leadingGuipertetal.(2014)toconsider themasH.heidelbergensis.Lumley(2015)attributesArago 21toH.erectustautavelensisconsideredtobedifferentfrom Mauer.ThefossilsfromSimadelosHuesosandAragoare clearlyassociatedwithbifacialpieces.

InItaly,thecaseoftheCepranocalvariumillustrates the effects of chronological sliding on taxonomy,with an initial date of around one million years (Ascenzi etal.,1996,2000;Clarke,2000)andasubsequentoneat 353±4ka(Nomadeetal.,2011).Initiallyconsideredasa lateH.erectus(Ascenzietal.,1996),Manzietal.(2001,2010, 2011)placeditbetweenwhattheycallH.erectus/ergaster andH.heidelbergensis(H.rhodesiensis),butconsideringthe chronologyandgeography ofthefossil,theyattributeit toH.antecessor(BrunnerandManzi,2005).Thisoriginal- itypromptedMallegni etal.(2003)tomake itthetype specimenforH.cepranensis.Subsequentpheneticalanaly- sesshowedonceagaintheoverallresemblanceofthisfossil toH.heidelbergensis(Manzi, 2004;Mounieretal.,2011), inthesensethatit presentsa stockofsimilarprimitive characterswithatendencytowards“neandertalisation”, butdoesnotpossessNeandertaloranatomicallymodern humanautapomorphies.Thestratigraphicpositionofthese fossilsdoesnotseemtobindthemdirectlytobifaciallithic artefacts.

At Castel di Guido, human remains are associated with Acheulean material (Mariani-Constantini et al., 2001).The human material from surface sampling and fromexcavationsseemstobestratigraphicallyconsistent (Mariani-Constantinietal.,2001;Micheletal.,2001).Sev- eralarchaicfeaturesinheritedfromH.erectusdistinguish thesebonesfromthoseofNeandertals,butotherslinkthem toanatomicallymodernhumans(Mallegnietal.,1983).In addition,theCdG5parietalfragmentﬁts ontotheCdG6 temporal (Mallegni andRadmilli,1988), which presents NeandertalderivedtraitsaccordingtoElyaqtine(1995).

FontanaRanuccioyieldedaﬁrstlowerincisorofHomo sp.indet.andadentalrootofuncertainattribution(around 450ka?)(Muttonietal.,2009;SegreandAscenzi,1984),as wellastwoadditionalmolarswithNeandertalcharacters accordingtoAscenziandSegre(1996).However,thestrict associationofbifacialpieces,faunaandthehumanremains transportedbyﬂuvialdeposits,cannotbetakenforgranted.

ForthesiteofPoﬁ,theonlyavailableanthropological informationconcernsthetibiaPoﬁ2,foundatCavaPompi,

(5)

Table1

EurasianHumanremainsintheirchronologicalandarchaeologicalcontext.

Tableau1

Resteshumainseurasiensdansleurcontextechronologiqueetarchéologique.

Site Humanremains Taxonomical

references

Dating Dating

references

Associationwith stoneartefacts

Bifacial pieces

SimadeLosHuesos(Spain) >320ka Bischoffetal.,

1997

Strictassociation Yes

Homoheidelbergensis Skull >200ka Parèsetal.,

2000

Isolated piece Neandertallineage Mandible Arsuagaetal.,

1997

400to500ka Bischoffetal., 2003 Postcranial

remains

Martinon- Torresetal., 2016

600ka Bischoffetal., 2007

Arago(France) 450ka Yokoyamaand

Nguyen1981

Skull Guipertetal.,

2014

450ka DeLumley

etal.,1984

Homoheidelbergensis Mandible 450ka Moigneetal.,

2006

Neandertallineage Postcranial >350ka Falguèresetal.,

2004

Ceprano(Italy) Noassociation Yes

LateHomoerectus Skull Ascenzietal.,

1996,Clarke, 2000

1Ma Ascenzietal.,

1996,2000 betweenHomoerectus,

ergasterandHomo heidelbergnsis

Manzietal 2001

>700ka Ascenziand Segre,1997

Homocepranensis Mallegnietal.,

2003

450+50–100 Muttonietal., 2009

Homoheidelbergensis Manzi,2004 430to385ka Manzietal.,

2010 Brunerand

Manzi,2005

353±4ka Nomadeetal., 2011 Mounieretal.,

2011

CasteldiGuido(Italy) 300ka Mallegnietal.,

1983

Strictassociation? Yes nonNeandertallineage Femur,occipital Mallegnietal.,

1983

Stade9 Mariani-

Constantini etal.,2001 Neandertallineage Temporal,

parietal

Mallegniand Radmilli,1988

442±7kato 250–170ka

Micheletal., 2001 Elyaqtine,1995

FontanaRanuccio(Italy) 458±5.7ka Biddittuetal.

1979

Uncertainty Yes

Neandertallineage Incisive Segrèand

Ascenzi1984

Neandertallineage Molar Ascenziand

Segrè1996

Poﬁ(Italy) 400ka Biddittuetal.

1979

Nostrict association

Yes

Ulna 400to350ka Biddittuand

Celletti,2001

Neandertallinneage? Skullvault MIS13to11 Manzietal.,

2011

Tibia Stringeretal.,

1998

Stade1110 Nomadeetal., 2011

VenosaNotarchirico(Italy) 359ka+154/–97 Lefevreetal.,

1994

?

Homosp. Femur Piperno,1999

Visogliano(Italy)

noNeandertallineage Mandibula Cattanietal., 1991

390ka Falguèresetal., 2008

Uncertainty ?

noNeandertallineage Teeth Mallegnietal., 2002

MalaBalanica(Serbia) >113+72/–43ka Roksandic

etal.,2011

Noassociation – archaicHomosp.no

Neandertallineage

Partial mandibula

Roksandic etal.,2011

525to397ka Rinketal., 2013

(6)

Table1(Continued)

references

Dating Dating

references

Bifacial pieces Vertesszöllös(Hungary)

noNeandertallineage Occipital Thoma,1966 185±25ka Schwarczand Latham,1984

Strictassociation No

Homoerectus Wolpoff,1977

noHomoerectusno Neandertal

Hublin,1988

Apidima(Greece) Twoskulls 400to105ka Harvatietal.,

2011

Noassociation –

Neandertallineage Skull2 Harvatiand

Delson,1999 betweenHomo

heidelbergensisandHomo neanderthalensis

Skull2 Harvatietal., 2009

Petralona(Greece) Noassociation Yes

Homorodhesiensis Cranium Stringer,1974 650±280to

127±35/198±50ka

Hennigetal., 1981

Homoheidelbergensis Hublin,1985 250to150ka Grün,1996

Neandertallineage DeBonisand

Melentis1982

>780ka Poulianos, 1981,2005 Harvatietal.,

2010

Bilzingsleben(Germany) Unknown Unknown

noNeandrtallineage Molar,frontal, parietal,occipital

Hublin,1988 414±45to 280ka

Schwarczetal., 1988 HomoerectuscfHomo

pekinensis

Mandibula Vlcek2000 <350ka Mallickand

Franck2002

Boxgrove(GreatBritain) Nostrict

association

archaicHomo Tibia Stringeretal.,

1998

Stade13 Robertsetal., 1994

Yes

Neandertal Stringeretal.,

1998 Homoheidelbergensis Incisors Hillsonetal.,

2010

Swanscombe(GreatBritain) Stewart,1964 MIS12-11 Bridglandetal.

2013

Unclear No

Neandertalian Twoparietaland

oneoccipital

SantaLuca, 1978 Hublin,1998

Kocabas(Turkey) 1.11±0.11Ma Enginetal.,

1999

Noassociation –

Homoerectus Skullcap Vialetetal.,

2012

510±5to 330±0.13ka

Kappelman etal.,2008 1.3to1.1Ma Lebatardetal.,

2014 NadaouiyehAïnAskar

(Syria)

Homoerectus Parietal Schmidetal.,

1997

450ka Schmidetal., 1997 Ubeidiya(Palestine)layer

K-30K-29

Yes Homosp.indet. Teethandcranial

gragments

Bar-Yosefand Goren-Inbar, 1993 Ubeidiya(Palestine)layer

I-26a

Homocfergaster Incisor Belmakeretal.,

2002

1.2Ma Rinketal., 2007 GesherBenotYa’aqov

(Palestine)

Homoerectus Fragmentof

femur

Geraadsand Tchernov,1983

900±150ka Goren-Inbar etal.,1992

(7)

Table1(Continued)

references

Dating Dating

references

Bifacial pieces

Tabùn(Palestine)layerE 350±30to

330±30ka

Mercieretal., 1995

Homosp.indet Fragmentof

femur

McCownand Keith,1939

200ka Grünetal.,

1991

200ka Grünand

Stringer,2000

Zuttiyeh(Palestine) Hublin,1976 Stade8to6 Bar-Yosef,1988 Strictassociation Yes archaicHomosapiens Frontaland

zygomaticbone

Vandermeersch, 1981

250to200ka Bar-Yosefand Vandermeersch, 1993

Modernhuman Bar-Yosefand

Vandermersch 1991 Zeitoun,2001

Hathnora(India) Nostrict

association

Yes Homoerectusnarmadaensis Halfcalvarium Sonakia,1985 <162±8ka Patnaiketal.,

2009

Homoerectus Lumleyand

Sonakia,1985

<407±21ka Patnaiketal., 2009

Homosapiens Zeitoun,2000

Cameronetal., 2004

Homosp.indet. Clavicula Sankhyan,

1997 ZhoukoudianLayer10

(China)

No

Sinanthropuspekinensis 1calvarium Black,1927 460ka Liu,1983

Homopekinensis Groves,1989 600ka Shenetal.,

2001 Tattersalland

Schwartz2000 ZhoukoudianLayer8-9

(China)

Nostrictassocation No Sinanthropuspekinensis Sevralcalvarium

teethand

Black,1927 420ka Liu,1983

Homopekinensis Postcranial

remains

Groves,1989 500»60ka Shenetal., 2001 Tattersalland

Schwartz2000

Homosapienspekinensis Zeitoun,2000

GongwanglingLayer6 (China)

Etler,1996 1.15Ma WuandPoirier, 1995

Noassociation –

Homoerectus Partialcranium 1.54to1.65Ma Zhuetal.,2015

Tangshan(China) 350ka Chenetal.,

1996

Noassociation – HomoerectuscfZhoukoudian 1tooth,cranial

fragments

Liuetal2005 620ka Zhaoetal., 2001 XuetangliangziLayer3

(China)

581±93ka Chenetal.

1997

Homosapiens Twoskull LiandEtler,

1992

936ka Lumleyetal., 2008

Chenjiayao(China) 500ka Wuetal.,1989

HomosapienscfModern lineage

Fragmentof mandible

650ka Anetal.,1990

Longtangdong(China) WuandDong,

1982

200ka Huangetal., 1981

Noassociation –

Homoerectus Parialskull Kidderand

Durband,2004

195+6/–16ka LiandMei, 1983 Wuetal.,2006 270to150ka Chenetal.,

1987

HomoerectuscfZhoukoudian 300ka Huangetal.,

1995 412+6/–25 Grünetal.,

1998

(8)

Table1(Continued)

references

Dating Dating

references

Bifacial pieces

DaliLayer3(China) Zhouand

Wang1982

Stade6to7 Wang,1985 Strictassociation No

Homosapiensdaliensis Skull Lumleyand

Sonakia,1985

230to190ka Wu,1991

Homoerectus Braüerand

Mbua,1992 archaicHomosapienscf

Modern

Zeitoun,2000 Xujiayao(China) Severalcranial

pieces, mandibula

Braüerand Mbua,1992

125to104ka Chenetal., 1984

ArchaicHomosapiens andteeth JinniushanLayer7(China) Calvariumand

postcranial

Braüerand Mbua,1992

280ka Lu,1989 Noassociation –

archaicHomosapiens Chaoxian(Chaohu)(China)

Homosapiens Occipital Xuetal.,1984 200to160ka Chenetal.,

1987

Noassociation –

Homosapiens Maxilla Xuetal.,1986

Maba(China)

HomosapienscfModern Incomplete calvarium

Zhouand Wang1982

130ka Wu,1991 Noassociation –

Wu,1983 135to129ka

archaicHomosapiens Braüerand

Mbua,1992

135to129ka Yuanetal., 1986

ZhirendongLayer2(China) 113to100ka Liuetal.,2010 Nostrict

association

– Homosapienssapiens Incomplet

mandibula

Liuetal.,2010

Liujiang(China) 73to62ka»

227to110ka

Yuanetal., 1986

Noassociation – Homosapienssapiens Calvarium Woo,1959 139to113ka Shenetal.,

2002

153ka Shenand

Michel,2007

Tubo(China) Lietal.,1984 220to94ka Shenetal.,

2001

Noassociation –

Homosapienssapiens Isolatedteeth 139to85ka Shenand

Michel,2007

Huanglong(China) 93.13to76.6ka Wuetal.,2007

inShenetal., 2013

Homosapienssapiens Isolatedteeth Liuetal.,2010b 103.71.6to 103.11.3

Liuetal.,2010 Wuetal.,2006 101to81ka Shenetal.,

2013 SangiranNgebung2

(Indonesia)

0.97to0.73 Sémahetal., 1992

NgebungensembleA Tooth 0.88to0.86 Falguèresand

Yokohama, 2001

Homoerectus Sémahetal.,

1992 butitwasnotfoundinstratigraphiccontext.Stringeretal.

(1998)aretheonlyresearcherstorelateittoaNeandertal sample.AtNotarchirico,afemurfragmentwasfoundinthe upperalphalayerwithoutbifacialtools(Piperno,1999).

SomehumanremainswerefoundatVisogliano(Cattani etal.,1991),wherethelithicassemblageonlyincludestwo core-likeproto-bifaces(Falguèresetal.,2008).According toMallegnietal.(2002),theabsenceofderivedNeandertal charactersimpliesthatthesefossilsarearchaicH.sapiens.

AtMalaBalanicainSerbia(Rinketal.,2013),theabsence ofaretro-molarspaceonthemandible,amentalforamen belowtheP4andaprominentialateralisinaforeposition, aredissimilartothederivedcharactersfoundonMaueror

onNeandertalsingeneral.ThesetraitsleadRoksandicetal.

(2011)toconsideritasanarchaicHomosp.,butnoartefact isassociatedwiththisspecimen.

At Vertesszöllös in Hungary, in a layer yielding a microlithicindustryandattributedtoMIS9(Schwarczand Latham,1984),anadultoccipitalisconsiderednottobear Neandertalcharacters.Thoma(1966)andWolpoff(1977) afﬁliatedittoH.erectus.Hublin(1988)distinguisheditfrom bothAsianH.erectusandNeandertals.

InGreece,twohumancraniumswerefoundatcaveAof Apidima.Thesecondskullwasrelativelymorecomplete and was described as showing Neandertal facial characters (Harvati and Delson, 1999). However, in a more

(9)

recent study, Harvati et al. (2009) placed it between H.neanderthalensis andH.heidelbergensis(s.l.). Thestone industry at this site is not directly associated with the humanremains.

ThestratigraphicoriginofthecraniumfromPetralona is disputed. It was found isolated on the cave ﬂoor, but according to Poulianos(1981, 2005), theskull was uncovered in layer 11, which includes most of the stonetools.Stringer(1974)attributedittoH.rhodesiensis, but Hublin (1985) includes it in a regional deﬁnition of H.heidelbergensis. The specimen shows somearchaic H.sapienscharacters,suchasthoseobservedontheKabwe skull(H.sapiensrhodesiensis),butitalsopresentsasetof facialtraitslinkingittotheEuropeanNeandertallineage (DeBonisandMelentis,1982;Harvatietal.,2010,2011;

Hennigetal.,1981).

The human remains found at Bilzingsleben (around 400ka), in the centre of Germany (Mania et al., 1994), displaynoNeandertalderivedcharactersbutarecompa- rabletotheiranatomicalcounterpartsfromVertesszöllös andPetralona,accordingtoHublin(1988).Thefragment ofamandiblefromathirdindividualpresentingneither Neandertalnoranatomicallymodernhumanderivedchar- acterswasdescribedbyVlceketal.(2000).Itwassaidtobe closertotheChinesespecimensfromZhoukoudianthanto theAragospecimens.Thelithicindustryhasnotyetbeen described.

AnisolatedtibialdiaphysiswasfoundinlocalityQ1/B at Boxgrove (MIS 13) in Great Britain (Roberts et al., 1994).ThisbonemaybeattributedtoarchaicHomo,espe- ciallyH.heidelbergensis,duetotemporalandgeographical proximity, but its robustness recalls that of Neander- tals (Stringer et al., 1998). More recently, two isolated incisorspresenting robustspatulatecrowns werefound andwereprovisionallyattributedtoH.heidelbergensisby Hillson et al. (2010). Nevertheless, although Acheulean artefactsarepredominantly concentratedinonelevelof thesite(RobertsandParﬁtt,1999),theirstrictconnection withthehumanremainscannotbetakenforgranted.An occipitalandtwoparietalbonesatSwanscombewerepre- viouslyconsideredtobelongtoa lastcommonancestor ofanatomicallymodernhumansandNeandertals(Sergi, 1953;Stewart,1964).However,itwaslaterconsideredto beaNeandertal(SantaLuca,1978).

2.2. TheNearEastpivot

InwesternTurkey,anincompletecalvariumdatedto morethan1.1MawasfoundatKocabas¸(Enginetal.,1999;

Kappelmanetal.,2008;Lebatardetal.,2014).Initiallyinter- pretedasaH.erectusbyVialetetal.(2012),thespecimen ismorepreciselyconsideredtobeclosertobothAfrican fossilsOH9andDaka(Vialetetal.,2014),whicharecon- sideredtobeatthebottomoftheH.rhodesiensis–H.sapiens lineage.Duetothelackofderivedtraits,theKocabas¸specimen couldalso be consideredas an archaic H.sapiens, accordingto ourcladistic viewpoint.No stone artefacts weredescribedinassociationwiththisspecimen.

A left humanparietal bone was foundin unit VII A at Nadaouiyeh Aïn Askar, in Syria(Jagher et al., 1997;

LeTensoreretal.,1997,2007;Schmidetal.,1997),with

Acheuleanartefacts.Theshapeoftheparietalbonecorre- spondstoaratherlowcranialvaultandeventhoughitis thick,thesefeaturestendtodistanceitfromtheNeandertal lineageandafﬁliateitmorecloselytoH.erectus.

AtUbeidiyainIsrael,at1.4–1.2Ma,bifaceswerefound inlayersK-30andK-29(Bar-YosefandGoren-Inbar,1993;

Sagi,2005).Severalhumancranialfragmentsandisolated teethwereinitiallyattributedtoHomosp.(Tobias,1966) and an isolated incisorfound in layer I-26a was more recentlyattributedtoH.cf.ergaster(Belmakeretal.,2002).

AtGesherBenotYa’aqov(800ka),twofemurfragments wereattributedtoH.erectus(GeraadsandTchernov,1983;

Goren-Inbaretal.,1992).

AHomosp.femoralfragmentwasfoundinlayerEof TabùnCave(MIS8)(GrünandStringer,2000;Grünetal., 1991; McCown and Keith, 1939; Mercier and Valladas, 2003; Mercieret al.,1995)and wasassociated withan Acheulo-Yabrudianlithicassemblage(GardnerandBate, 1937).

In Galilee,theZuttiyeh fossil(MIS8 or6)wasorigi- nallyconsideredtobeaNeandertal(Keith,1927),thenan archaicH.sapiens(Hublin,1976).Apheneticstudy(Sohn andWolpoff,1993)moveditclosertotheChineseseries of Zhoukoudian.Its face distinguishesit fromNeander- tals, accordingtoHublinandTillier (1991),butsomeof thesecharactersareconsideredtobeprimitivebyStringer (1984). Finally a cladistic analysis (Zeitoun, 2001)con- ﬁrmeditsformerpresumedattributiontoH.sapienssapiens byVandermeersch(1981).ItsageisdisputedbutBar-Yosef andGisis(1974)indicatethatitwasdiscoveredatthebot- tomofaYabroudian–Acheuleanlayer.

2.3. TheIndiansubcontinent

AtHathnoraincentralIndia,ahumanhalfcalvarium isconsideredtobean“evolved”H.erectusbyLumleyand Sonakia(1985)and Sonakia(1985),and isattributedto NeandertalbyCameronetal.(2004),butacladisticanalysis placesthisspecimenclosertoH.sapiensthantoH.erectus, at thebaseoftheH.sapienslineage (Zeitoun,2000).An isolated clavicle uncovered in a horizon of theBoulder ConglomerateatHathnoradoesnotallowanyspeciﬁcattri- butionaccordingtoSankhyan(1997),buttheillustrations heprovidesdonotconvincinglydemonstratethatthefossil bonebelongstoanyhumantaxon(Patnaiketal.,2009).

2.4. China

From1.5Mato90ka,numeroushumanfossilsexistbut inmostcases,theydonotpresentanystrictassociation withlithicartefacts(Anetal.,1990;Chenetal.,1984,1987, 1996;Etler,1996;Grünetal.,1998;Huangetal.,1995;Li andMei,1983;Lu,1989;NortonandBraun,2010;Vialet etal.,2010;Wang,1985;WuandDong,1982;Wuetal., 1989;Xuetal.,1986;Yuanetal.,1986;Zhaoetal.,2001;

Zhuetal.,2015).

Nobifacialpieceswereuncovered atZhoukoudianin northern China (Liu, 1983; Shen et al., 2001), but it is nonethelessnecessary toexpose someoftheanthropo- logical elementsof thissite asthedeﬁnitionofChinese H.erectus was established on the basis of this series

(10)

(Wu, 1991). The Zhoukoudian specimens were initially describedasSinanthropuspekinensisbyBlack(1927).This taxonomicnamewaslaterchangedintoH.erectuspekinen- sis(cfCampbell,1963).However,thenameH.pekinensis wasalsorecognizedbyGroves(1989)andSchwartzand Tattersall (2002).It shouldalso be noted that a cladistic analysisreportsa differentphylogenetic positionfor thespecimenbelongingtotheolderlayerandthosefrom themore recent layers(Zeitoun,2000).Inthis analysis, thesespecimensareconsideredtobelongtoan“archaic”

H.sapiens.

At Gongwangling, in north-western China, a partial humanfossilwasuncovered inthe archaeologicallayer 6.Onaccountofextensivealterationsduetopostmortem erosionandbreakage(Woo,1966),itisdifficulttodeter- mineitstaxonomicaffiliation,butitisgenerallyattributed toH.erectus(Rightmire,2013).Alithicindustrywithout bifacialpieceswasfoundatthebottomoftheunderlying layer8andahandaxewasuncoveredonthesurface(Wu andPoirier,1995).Twofragmentaryhumancraniaanda toothwerefoundinacavenearTangshannearNanjing, easternChina(WuandPoirier,1995).Thefacialcharacters described byLiu et al.(2005)for thespecimenof Nan- jingnô1areclosetothoseobservableontheZhoukoudian series.Notoolwasfoundwiththesefossils.Inthesiteof Yunxian(Xuetangliangzi),twohumanskullswerefoundin layer3withlithicartefacts(EtlerandLi,1994;Vialetetal., 2010).Inspiteofpostmortemtaphonomicdeformation,it ispossibletoobservethepresenceofacaninefossaand otherfeatureswhichrelatethesespecimensmoretoearly H.sapiens and the anatomically modern human lineage thantotheNeandertallineage(LiandEtler,1992).Accord- ingtoFeng(2008),thelithicassemblageconsistsmainly ofchoppers,somepicksandpoorqualitybifacialpieces, butonlyonebifacialpiececomesfromthelayerunderly- ingthehumanfossil-bearinglayer,andotherbifaceswere uncoveredonthesurface.

AnincompletehumanmandiblewasfoundatChenji- ayao,ineasternChina.Thepresenceofamentaltrigone could relate this specimen to early anatomically modern humans. Only one crude scraper and three ﬂakes in quartz were found withthis fossil (Wu and Poirier, 1995).Afragmentaryanddeformedcraniumwasfound at Longtandong,insouthern China(Huang etal., 1981), presentingmorphologicalsimilaritiestotheZhoukoudian H.erectus(Day,1986;WuandDong,1982).Nevertheless, some“progressive”featureswerealsoobservedaftercom- parisonwiththeZhoukoudianseriesaccordingtoWuand Dong (1985).Nolithicindustry isassociatedwiththese humanremainsbutlargeﬂakesmadeofrhinocerosenamel were observed by Olsen and Miller-Antonio (1992). In theprovinceofShaanxi,theDalicalvariumwasfoundat thebottomofalate MiddlePleistocene(Li,1983)layer.

ItisatransitionalformbetweenH.erectusandH.sapiens according to Wu (1983), but cladistic analysis afﬁliates ittoH.sapiens(Zeitoun,2000).Somehumanfossilswere foundatXujiayao,innorthernChina(Wu,1980).Recent analyses of the remains point to a complex mosaic of primitiveandderivedfeatures,includingtraitsclassically identiﬁedinEurasianNeandertals,EarlyandMiddlePleis- tocenehominins,andevenLatePleistoceneanatomically

modernhumanfromAsia(Bar-Yosef,1988;Bar-Yosefand Vandermeersch,1993;KidderandDurband,2004;Wuand Trinkaus,2014).A dental studyconﬁrms this mosaicof primitive and derived features (Xing et al., 2015). Sev- eralthousandlithicpiecesassociatedwithbonetoolswere uncoveredatthesite,butnobifacialpieceswerenoted(Jia etal.,1979).

Asforthelastchronologicalrangeoftheoccurrenceof bifacialpiecesinChina,i.e.110to80ka,thisperiodcould includemanysiteswithanatomicallymodernhumanfos- silsalthoughtheirdatingisstilldisputedandnobifacial lithicartefactisstrictlyassociatedwiththeseremains.At Jinniushan,acraniumisattributedtoarchaicH.sapiensby BraüerandMbua(1992).AtChaoxian,humanfossilsare attributedtoearlyH.sapiensbyXuetal.(1984)andthe MabacalvariumisalsoconsideredtobeanearlyH.sapiens (Wu,1983;Zhouetal.,1982).Nolithicartefactsareassoci- atedwiththehumanremainsatthesethreesites.Isolated teethand amandible fragmentbearinga mental trigon wereunearthedinlayern^o2ofZhirendongCave,insouth- ernChina(Liuetal.,2010).Thisspecimen,aswellasthe remainsofLiujiangMandiscoveredinTongtianyan(Woo, 1959),areconsideredtobetheoldestanatomicallymod- ernhumanremainsinChina(Shenetal.,2002)buttheir strictstratigraphiccontextisunknown.

AtLongdonCave,H.sapiensremainswerefoundinboth disturbedandundisturbedcavedeposits.Onehundredand seventy-onestoneartefactscollectedfromLocality54100 andothersitesinthevicinityofthiscavewerestudiedbut nobifacialpieceswereobserved(OlsenandMiller-Antonio, 1992).In thedepositsof GanqianCave, severalisolated humanteethwereuncoveredandattributedtoH.sapiens (ShenandMichel,2007)butwithnoassociatedlithicarte- facts(Lietal.,1984;Wangetal.,1999).Theseven-hominin teethfrom HuanglongCave were assigned toH.sapiens by Liu et al.(2010). These remains are associated with alithicindustrypresentingtransitionalfeaturesbetween thearchaeologicalculturesofsouthernandnorthernChina (Wuetal.,2006).

2.5. TheIndonesiancradleofmankind

Twointerpretationsarecurrentlyappliedtoregional chronologyinIndonesia:a longchronologyand a short chronology,i.e. Sémah(2001)versusLaricketal. (2001) fortheSangiransites,aswellasforTrinilorPerning.This presentstheadditionaldifﬁcultyofchoosingtherangeof humanfossilstotakeintoaccount.Nevertheless,forthese sites,inthedifferentlocalitiesandstratigraphiclevels,all thefossilsareattributedtoH.erectus(Zeitounetal.,2010).

InIndonesia,lithicpiecescompatiblewithAcheuleantra- ditionswerefoundoutofstratigraphiccontextinsouthern SumatraoratthebottomoftheKabuhFormationatNge- bung2 inSangiran (Semahet al.,1992). AtNgebung, a humanfemur was foundin the Grenzbank conglomer- aticlayeratthebaseofthestratigraphy(Grimaud-Hervé etal.,1994),aswellasahumanrightmolarstrictlyassoci- atedwithlithicartefactsinlayerA.Theoccupationlayer yieldedtypicalcleaverswithﬂakes, choppers, hammer- stones,polyhedronsandbolas(Sémah,2001;Sémahetal., 2003).

(11)

Fig.1.AnthropologicalphylogenyaccordingtoV.Zeitoun(2000),modiﬁed.

Fig.1. Phylogénieanthropologique,selonZeitoun(2000),modiﬁé.

2.6. ConclusionregardingEurasianpalaeoanthropology By applyingthe logical argumentation developed by Vandermeersch (1989), based on the postulate that it is not biologicallyconceivable that speciationoccurs in several places, except in the case of multiple conver- gence, the available data indicate that H.sapiens is not the direct descendant of H.erectus but its sister-group.

Onthisbasis,H.sapiensshouldalsoappearasaveryold taxonwithseveralregionalsubtaxa,inkeepingwiththe recommendations of Bonde (1989). Based on cladistics, Zeitoun(2000)demonstratedbothformerhypothesesand showedthat,apartfromtheAfricanKnmwt15000speci- men,theH.erectuscladeincludesthewholeTrinil-Sangiran serieswhileotherso-calledH.erectussensulargoshouldbe attributedtoseveralH.sapienssubtaxa.Thisinterpretation reconcilesthe“multiregional”and “Outof Africa”mod- elsandexplainsthesigniﬁcantpolymorphismobserved, particularlyinEurope(Zeitoun,2004).Ouranthropologi- calassessmenthighlightsgeneralsynchronicitybetween humansandartefacts,asfarasbifacialindustriesarecon- cerned.FortheNearEast,H.erectusorarchaicH.sapiensare thecraftsmen ofsuchindustries while,inEurope,these artisansare archaic H.sapiens related to theNeandertal lineage.InIndonesia,onlyH.erectusseemstoberelated tobifacial industriesbut inChina,wesuggest thatonly

“archaicH.sapiens”and“anatomicallymodernhuman”lin- eagesareinvolved(Fig.1).

3. Chronologicalandtechnologicalconsiderations 3.1. InEurope

In westernEurope,bifacial technologyappears from 1to0.9Ma(LaBoella,Spain,Vallverduetal.,2014),but thescarcityofbifacialtoolsandpartialtoolshapingmay indicatealocalonsetat thattime.TheFrenchsite ofla

Noira (700ka),withitsdiversifiedandelaboratebifacial toolkit,providesthemostconvincingevidenceofarrivals so far (Moncel et al., 2013). The sporadic archaeologi- calevidencebetween800and500karaisesquestionsas to the significance of the assemblages using this technology: do theyonly representepisodic arrivalsofnew hominin groups with this technology (assuggested by theelaboratebifacesatlaNoira),aninfluxofnewideas or needs, or local origins (despite the lack of dates to assessthat)?Italsocallsintoquestiontheuseanddefi- nitionofthetermAcheulean.“Acheuleans”wouldbemore relevant to describethe observeddiversity. Bifaces and cleaversalwaysoccurinverylowfrequenciesandthese tools appear to be a marginal component of tool kits.

From 500ka onwardsin Westernand SouthernEurope, assemblages withbifacial technologycover both south- ernandnorthernlatitudeswithsomedegreeofregional standardization in keeping with site functions (bifaces v. bifacial tools).Filiations over time are not well evi- denced by current data. Raw material components are very differentin the North and theSouth, withmainly ﬂint in the form of nodules in the North, and various rock typesavailable as largestone blocks in theSouth.

This may account for the presence of some tool types, suchascleaversonﬂakes, withnolinkswiththeLarge FlakeAssemblages(LFA)describedintheLevant(Sharon, 2007).Traditionswithbifacialtechnologyappeartohave ﬁrstcontinuouslyoccupiednorthernlatitudesfrom500ka onwards.

Technologicaldiversitywouldthusbedue:

•torepeated wavesof homininexpansion from700ka onwards(yieldinganimpressionoftechnologicalstasis), thentoregionalhistoriesorevolutionafterMIS12,with innovationsand/orstability;

•toalocalonsetinrareandsofarpoorlydemonstrated cases;

(12)

•to varied activities or traditions accounting for the absence of unessential bifaces (Ashton et al., 1992;

Monnieretal.,2001).

Obviously,thesigniﬁcanceofassemblageswithbifaces willbesomewhatelucidatedwhenthefunctionofthese tools,theroleofactivitiesandrawmaterialswillbebetter known,sincetheirtechnologicalandmorphologicalvari- abilitydoesnotseemtohavechronologicalorgeographical connotations.

3.2. RegardingSouthAsia

InSouthAsia(India),theearlyAcheuleanassemblages, datedto1.5Ma,aresimilartotheAfricanAcheuleandue tothelargeflakecomponent(cf.LargeFlakeAssemblage tradition[LFA],Sharon,2007).However,thistypicalcom- ponentisnotsystematically produced.Veryoften,large cuttingtoolsaremadefromothertypesofblanks,likeslabs orcobbles,especiallyifthelatterarereadilyavailableinthe localenvironment.Localrawmaterialsareusedinprior- ityandareofdiversequalityandshape(quartzite,basalt, silicifiedlimestone).Itisimportanttomentionthepres- enceofcleaversonflakes(LCTs)inmostoftheseries,in addition tospheroidsand polyhedrons.The bifaceratio is low; between 1 and 2%. Bifacial technology is often crude,withfewremovalsformingpointedandsymmetrical tools.

This is also the case for the Chinese sites of Bose, SouthChina,orelsewhere,wherebothbifacesandunifaces (pointedorwithatransversaltip)areoftenmadeoncob- bles.Ratiosofbifacesorbifacialtoolsarelow(lessthan5%).

Mostoftheseriesarecomposedofthickheavy-dutytools on pebbles and cobbles (choppers and chopping-tools, picks,spheroids).InChina,theearliestevidenceoccursas earlyas1.5Ma,thenataround800kaandcontinuesuntil 90ka.Thistechnologysuggestsmore bifacialtools than

“Acheulean”tools,asdescribedinEurope.However,some assemblagessharecommonfeatureswiththeAfricantech- nology(HaoandKuman,2016).Debatesarestillheatedin recentpapers,opposingresearchersconsideringtheChi- neseﬁndsasAcheuleanandothersattributingthemtoa localonset(Kumanetal.,2014;WangandBae,2014;Wang etal.,2014).TheIndianserieswouldbethefarthestdiscov- eriesof“Acheulean”-typeartefactsfromEastAfricaandthe Levant.

Itisimportanttobearinmindthattheproductionof largeflakesrequiressuitableformsofrawmaterials,such asoutcropsorverylargeblocks.Ifthesearenotavailable, craftsmenwillsettleforcobblesorslabs.Conversely,ifcob- blesorslabsarelackingintheenvironment,largeflakes havetobeproducedfromoutcrops.Theseenvironmental constraintsinducetechnicalhabitsandskillsthatmaylead knapperstopreferspecificrawmaterials,evenwhenafull rangeofpossibilitiesbecomesavailable.

3.3. RegardingEastAsia

Aswehaveaimedtodemonstratethroughtheselec- tion ofsites, in EastAsia,severalanalytic aspects must beconsideredbeforeanyattemptsatinterpretation.The

ﬁrstaspectconcernstherepresentationofthebifacialtool withinthedifferentassemblages.Thisrepresentationcan varyfrommorethan80%atmanysitesintheNearEast (Boëdaetal.,2004;Jagher,2011;LeTensorerandMuhesen, 1995),tolessthan 5%inEastAsia(Bodin, 2011;HaoLi andKuman,2016;HouandLi,2007;Li,2011;Li,2015;Li andSun,2013;Lietal.,2014;Nortonetal.,2006;Wang and Bae, 2014; Wang et al., 2008, 2014). In an assem- blagewherebifacesrepresentthemajorityofthetools,it islogicaltosupposethattheyactasblanksfordifferent kindsofworkingedgesandarenotsimplytherepetition ofthesametooltype.Thebifacethusactsasa“matrix”, whichrequiresfunctionaltechnicaltraitsforitstransfor- mative(preparedarea)and prehensile parts.The active edgesarearrangedonthismatrixaccordingtotheintended function.

TheEastAsianexamplesclearlyillustratetheneedto takeintoaccounttheassemblageasawhole.Thecontra- dictorydebatesregardingthefamousMoviuslineprovidea goodexampleofthis(Dennell,2016;GambleandMarshall, 2001;HaoLietal.,inpress,LycettandBae,2010;Norton etal., 2006;Wangand Bae, 2014).In thesites selected to represent East Asia between 800 and 90ka, bifaces areextremelyrare,andappeartorepresentspeciﬁctools, ratherthanmulti-purposetools.

Letusﬁrstconsidertherawmaterials.Themaincom- mondenominatorformostlithicrawmaterialsusedinEast Asia,regardlessofpetrographicdetermination,istheform inwhichtheywereused:thecobble.Inthis,Movius(1948) wascorrectinunderliningthisattribute.

Letusnowconsidersimpleknappingprinciples.When a block of stone is knapped,“predetermined” removals areproduced,someofwhichcorrespondtointendedend products,whichareimmediatelyuseableorrequiresec- ondaryprocessing(forinstanceretouch).Thesought-after criteriamayrequirespecificpreparation oftheblockof stone to create the necessary conditions for producing theseendproductsormayalreadybenaturallypresent duetotheselectionofappropriate forms.Somecobbles beartheflat/convexsurfacesrequiredtoproduceoneto three successiveremovals.The sitesof LiangshanLong- gangsiandHoufangshowthis patternofpredetermined removals,termed type C (Boëda, 2013; Bodin, 2011; Li etal.,2014).However,itis commontoseethis typeof artefactclassifiedintheindeterminatecategoryof“core/

tools”.

Whena toolismade,regardlessoftype,thetechno- logicalpurposeisorientedtowardsitsfunctionalization, requiring the preparation of a prehensile part, a trans- formativepartandaworkingedge.Whenshapingisthe chosentechnicalsolution,therearetwopossibilities:using thenaturalpartoftheblockorpreparationofthetransfor- mativepartbyﬂaking.Asaresult,whenacobbleisused, theprehensilepartisheldnaturally.Preparationmainly concernsthetransformativepart.

Shapingcanaffectoneorbothfacesofthetool.Atthe siteofBose,mostofthetoolsareunifaces.Whysomany unifaces?Isthisasingletooltypeoracontinuouslypro- ducedchopper?Thetechnologicalanalysisofthesetools indicatesthreephases. Theﬁrst entailsselectinga cob- blewithanaturalprehensilepartsuitableforholdingand