Assemblages with bifacial tools in Eurasia (second part). What is going on in the East? Data from India, Eastern Asia and Southeast Asia

(1)

HAL Id: hal-01316476

https://hal.sorbonne-universite.fr/hal-01316476

Submitted on 17 May 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 - NonCommercial - NoDerivatives| 4.0

Asia and Southeast Asia

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

Sémah, Valéry Zeitoun

To cite this version:

Marie-Hélène Moncel, Marta Arzarello, Éric Boëda, Téphanie Bonilauri, Benoît Chevrier, et al.. As- semblages with bifacial tools in Eurasia (second part). What is going on in the East? Data from India, Eastern Asia and Southeast Asia. Comptes Rendus Palevol, Elsevier, 2018, 17 (1-2), pp.61-76.

�10.1016/j.crpv.2015.09.010�. �hal-01316476�

(2)

Please cite this article in press as:Moncel, M.-H., et al., Assemblages with bifacial tools in Eurasia (second 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 (second part).

What is going on in the East? Data from India, Eastern Asia and Southeast Asia

Assemblanges à outils bifaciaux en Eurasie (deuxième partie). Que se passe-t-il à l’Est ? Données sur l’Inde, l’Asie de l’Est et l’Asie du Sud-Est Marie-Hélène Moncel

^a,∗

, Marta Arzarello

^b

, Éric Boëda

^c

, Téphanie 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

cUniversityParisOuestNanterre/LaDéfense,Paris,France

dProfesseuruniversitédeWuhan,SchoolofHistory,WuhanUniversity,430072Wuhan,China

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

fUniversityofGeneva,LaboratoireArchéologieetPeuplementdel’Afrique,rueGustave-Révilliod,12,CH-1211Geneve4,Switzerland

a rt i c l e i n f o

Articlehistory:

Received1^stJune2015

Acceptedafterrevision30September2015 Availableonlinexxx

HandledbyAmélieVialet

Keywords:

Bifacialtools India China

South-easternAsia Technology

a b s t r a c t

Thissecondpaperispartofawiderreviewoflithiccomplexeswithbifacialtechnology,and isdevotedtotheAsiansector,fromIndiatothesouth-easternmainlandandthearchipela- gosandChina.ForIndia,sitessuchasAttirampakham,Isampur,MorgaonandSingi-Talav aredescribedindetail.ForChina,sitesintheBoseBasin,butalsoLiangshan,Longgangsi andHoufangareincludedindiscussionsoftechnologicalstrategiesthatarefoundalong wayfromEastAfricanroots.FortheSoutheast,discoveriesfromThailandandCambodia arepresented,asaresomemajorIndonesiansites(forinstanceNebungandtheSangiran dome).

by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Motsclés: Outilsbifaciaux Inde

Chine

r é s um é

Cettedeuxièmepartieconcernel’Inde,leSud-Estasiatique(continentetarchipels)etla Chine.Pourl’Inde,lessitesd’Attirampakham,Isampur,MorgaonetSingi-Talavsontdétail- lés.PourlaChine,lessitesdubassindeBose,maiségalementLonggangsietHoufang, permettentdediscuterdesstratégiestechnologiquesloindesracinesafricaines.Pourle

∗ Correspondingauthor.

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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crpv.2015.09.010

(3)

Please cite this article in press as:Moncel, M.-H., et al., Assemblages with bifacial tools in Eurasia (second AsieduSud-Est

Technologie Sud-Est,lesdécouvertesenThaïlandeetauCambodgesontexaminées,demêmequecelles surcertainssitesmajeursindonésiens,commeNgebungetledômedeSangiran.

by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

Thissecondpaperisdevotedtowhatisgoingoninthe East.RecentdiscoveriesinAsiaindicatethatassemblages withbifacialtoolscoverlargeareasofAsiafromtheMid- dlePleistocenetotheUpperPleistocene,from800kato 40ka(Fig.1).TheseseriesareassignedtotheAcheulean orlocaltraditionsalthoughthequestionoftheiroriginis subjecttowidespreaddebate(Movius,1944,1948,1949).

Despiteattimesthelackofreliabledata,keysiteshave beenselectedinIndia,SoutheastAsiaandChinainorderto reviewthedifferenttechnologicalstrategiesinrelationto theirchronologicalandstratigraphicframeworks.

2. BifacialtoolseastoftheLevant(secondpart)

2.1. SouthAsia

Acheuleansitesoratleast“Acheulean”occurrencesare numerousinSouthAsia(Gaillard,2006).Theyarechar- acterisedbyhandaxesandcleaverscomparabletothose foundin Africa. Although they have been known for a longtime,thecrucialquestionoftheirchronologyremains unresolvedin most cases; due togenerally thin strati- graphicsequencesandpoorfaunalpreservation.However, improvementsinﬁeldworkandprogressindatingmeth- ods over thepast two decades point towards a Lower Pleistocenetimeframe for the onset of theSouth Asian Acheulean.

Interestingly,oneofthemainsitesdescribedoneand a half centuriesago (Foote,1868) hasrecently become thereferencepointfortheearlyoutofAfricaAcheulean.

ThePaleolithiclocalitiesalongtheAttirampakkamStream, a small tributary of the Kortallayar River, have been underreinvestigationsince1999(Pappu,2001)andseveral trenchesandhorizontalexcavationshavebeenopened.The deepesttrenchesyieldedquartziteartefactsandmeasure- mentsofthe²⁶Al/¹⁰Beratioofthesetoolsassesstheirburial age.Theresultsprovideanaverageageof1.51±0.07Ma, corroborated by reverse paleomagnetism (Pappu et al., 2011).

At Attirampakkam, the Acheulean industry is made fromlocalﬁnetocoarsequartzite.Apartfromthelarge coresfromwhich largeﬂakesweredetached,whichare missingfromthesite,allthestagesof lithicproduction arepresent.TrenchT8,forexample,provided3528arte- factsfromAcheuleanlevels(layers6to8),ofwhich95%

areordinarydebitageproducts(<10cm),alongsideafew ﬂakesresultingfromhandaxeshaping.Theremaining5%

aremostlylargeﬂakes(>10cm),halfofwhichwereshaped intohandaxes(1.4%oftheassemblage),orcleavers(0.6%) withafewtrihedrals(n=6),whiletheotherhalfwasmin- imallyretouchedorused(Pappuetal.,2011).

TherichcomplexofsitesintheHunsgiandBaichbalval- leysallowsresearcherstotracetechnicalevolutionfrom theEarlytoLateAcheuleaninthissectorofnorth-western Karnataka (Paddayya, 2008) and topresent hypotheses regarding the seasonalmovements of LowerPaleolithic populations(Paddayya,2014).Quartziteisnotavailablein thesevalleys,exceptintheformofpebblesfromtheover- lookingTrappeanplateau.Siliciﬁedlimestoneisthusused instead,especiallyatIsampurintheHunsgiValley.Afew faunalremainshavebeenpreservedandtheESRdatingof threeenamelsamplesfrombovineteethresultedinamean ageof1.2Ma.

Trench 1 yielded 13,043artefacts, of which 92% are

“incidental” products(flakesand debrisincludingprod- ucts>5mmfromsieving).Theindustryresultsfromthe exploitation ofsilicifiedlimestoneslabs,upto1mlong, directly quarriedat thesite itself. Knappersstarted the reductionsequenceonprotrudingslabcornersandthese openingremovalsontheprofilethen servedasstriking platformsforflakeproduction,usingunifacialorbifacial methods. Theresultingflakes (excludingthe“incidental products”)aremostlyside-struck(technicallyshort).Alto- gether,theyaverage18cmlong.Theshapedtoolsinthis assemblagecomprise48handaxes,15cleavers,18knives, 3discoids,14chopping-toolsand65scrapers.Halfofthe handaxes(26/48) aremadefromslabsorcobbles,while theotherhalf (22/45)are madeonflakes.Cleavers and knivesareonflakes,excepttwocleaversonslabs.These larger toolsare mostly in silicified limestonewhile the scrapers,usuallyonflakes(49/65),areinchertorquartzite (Paddayyaetal.,2002,2006).

Isampurisoneofthe“coreactivityspots”intheHunsgi Valleybesidemanysmallsitesand“non-sites”(occurrence of one or several artefacts). Acheulean-making human groupssettleddirectlyonrawmaterialsources.Cleavers aremadeonﬂakes,whereashandaxesareoftenmadeon otheropportunisticblanks.

Morgaon(Punedistrict,Maharashtra)isoneoftherare AcheuleansitesintheDeccanTrapregion,asbasaltisgen- erallysubjecttoweatheringandtheslightestreworking completelydestroysbasaltartefacts(Mishra,1982).They canthusonlybepreservedinsitu(Deoetal.,2007;Mishra etal.,2009).Thestratigraphicsequenceisofalluvialori- ginsuggestingthatAcheulean-makingpopulationssettled nearastream.ThemainAcheuleanlevelisatthesurfaceof blackﬁssuredclay,about2mthick.Afewmorefreshand abradedartefactsoccurredinsandypebblygravelabove theclay,includingtwowell-preservedcleavers.Belowthe clay liesgravel withcobbles and boulders where some lateritepebblesindicateformerlateriticformations,now eroded away from the landscape. Such formations are widespreadinthewesternpartoftheDeccanTrapsand oftenyieldAcheuleanartefacts(Rajaguruetal.,2004).They usuallylieonweatheredbasalticbedrock,asatMorgaon.

(4)

Please cite this article in press as:Moncel, M.-H., et al., Assemblages with bifacial tools in Eurasia (second Fig.1.MapofEastEurasiashowingthelocationofthesitesmentionedinthetext(accordingtothetypeofblankforthebifacialtools).

Fig.1. Cartedel’Eurasieorientaleaveclalocalisationdessitesmentionnésdansletexte(selonletypedesupportpourlesoutilsbifaciaux).

Lensesoftephraoccurbelowandwithintheblack-ﬁssured clay.Paleomagneticstudiesshowthattheblackclayand the overlying levels have registered at least two mag- neticimprintsconsideredtobeMatuyamaandBruhnes.

ThetephraisearlierthantheAcheuleanoccupation,but not much earlier given its position in the stratigraphy.

Datingattemptsconcludethatitisabout800kaandcorre- spondstotheOldTobaTephra(HaslamandPetraglia,2010;

Westawayetal.,2011).

Besides the surface collection, 180 artefacts were unearthedfroma 4×8mtrench atthetop oftheblack clay(Fig.2).Theyweremadefromlocalbasaltavailablein theformof“corestones”resultingfromtheweatheringof originallyprismaticbasaltblocks.Theassemblageismainly characterisedbylargeﬂakes,eitherdirectlystruckfrom

“corestones” (doublepatina),or fromverylargeﬂakes, implyingKombewareduction.Afewoftheselargeﬂakes wereroughly shapedintocleavers.Somerare handaxes werefoundonthesurfaceonly.

Acheuleanartefactswerecollectedfromseveralplaces aroundDidwana(Nagaurdistrict,Rajasthan)(Mishraetal., 1982; Mishraand Rajaguru, 1986).Theﬁrst discoveries occurredincalcretequarries,especiallyatSingi-Talav(Did- wana)andintheneighbouringvillageofAmarpura(3km apart). These calcretes result from pedogenic processes andcalciumcarbonateprecipitationwithinoriginallysilty clayeysedimentswithsomelensesofsand(Dhir,1995), suggesting a landscape withabundant bodies of water

(inheritedfromadrainagesystemdisrupted bytectonic tiltingintheLateTertiary).Theclimatewasalreadysemi- aridwithalternatingdryerandslightlywetterphases.In Amarpura,thecalcreteformationreachesathicknessof 12m.Onemeterbelowthetopofthisformation,asam- plewasdatedto800ka(Kailathetal., 2000).TheSingi Talavsequencehasbeencorrelatedwiththemiddleofthe Amarpurasequenceonthebasisoftopograpyandlithol- ogy.

Acheuleanpopulationssettlednearapossiblyseasonal lake.Thetwomainlayers(3and4)haveyieldedAcheulean industrymadefrommetamorphicrocks,mainlyquartzite, broughtfrom 3km away (Fig.2). However, a few cob- bleswerealsoused,which appeartocome from20km away,basedontheclosestknownsourcetoday(Gaillard etal.,1983,1986,2010).Theassemblagesfromthetwo Acheuleanlayersdonotdiffermuch,exceptforadecrease intheproportionofhandaxes intheupperlayer(3%in layer4asopposedto1%inlayer3,among891and401 artefactsrespectively),andaconcomitantincreaseincores.

Flakesanddebris,inequalproportions,arethemaincom- ponentofthisindustry(80%).Theﬂakeswereusuallystruck fromratherhomogeneousquartzitewhilethelargecut- ting tools (mostly handaxes) were struckor split from schistosequartzite,yieldingslabsratherthanﬂakes.For thespheroids,polyhedronsandhammerstones,mediumto coarse-grainedquartzitecobbleswerepreferentiallyused.

Thehandaxesandrarecleaversaresometimesveryroughly

(5)

Please cite this article in press as:Moncel, M.-H., et al., Assemblages with bifacial tools in Eurasia (second Fig.2. BifacesfromSouthAsia:1to4,cleaversandahandaxefromMorgaon;5to8,handaxesandacleaverfromSingiTalav(atDidwana).

Fig.2. Bifacesdel’AsieduSud:1à4,hachereauxetbifacedeMorgaon(Inde);5à8,bifacesethachereaudeSingiTalav(Didwana).

worked,astheoriginalrectangularorrhombicshapeof theslabsprovidesreadymadethin,symmetricalandoften pointedtools(Gaillard,1993;Gaillardetal.,1983,1986).

Hominins probably established their camp at Singi Talavinthelate LowerPleistoceneduetonearbywater

availability. Lithic raw materials were totally absent in theimmediatesurroundingsand werecollectedatleast 3kmfromthesite.Thereisnoproductionorimportation of large ﬂakes, apart from two large ﬂakes or splits, transformedinto cleavers.The handaxesaremadewith

(6)

Please cite this article in press as:Moncel, M.-H., et al., Assemblages with bifacial tools in Eurasia (second Table1

Fengshudaoartifactcategories:frequenciesanddescriptivedata.

Tableau1

Catégoriesd’artefactsàFengshudao:fréquencesetdonnéesdescriptives.

Artifact n=155 L s.d. Wt s.d. T s.d. Wt s.d.

Core 11 105.98 48.20 83.41 38.76 56.59 18.30 662.64 743.04

Flake 17 71.10 34.72 53.18 21.29 19.86 8.75 93.94 97.59

Bipolarcore 4 43.22 12.17 27.46 8.72 23.10 8.69 27.25 19.96

Bipolarﬂake 13 29.90 11.12 22.55 11.17 10.32 10.32 7.39 11.54

Chopper 3 136.01 10.95 131.99 19.31 74.97 13.86 1372.00 154.03

Scraper 2 115.90 10.35 83.32 6.52 35.38 4.89 374.50 156.27

Pick 1 149.14 – 101.26 – 73.86 – 896.00 –

Handaxe 5 166.02 33.60 109.51 22.78 73.24 14.37 1116.40 445.82

Stonehammer 6 112.14 16.75 102.79 14.89 79.39 8.01 1322.00 551.29

Chipped-cobble 36 115.47 32.05 92.96 28.59 66.94 23.94 1109.89 1240.16

Debris 30 83.37 44.93 60.07 35.97 37.07 24.93 418.07 629.08

Manuports 27 130.21 40.42 103.85 34.49 74.92 31.22 1804.11 1954.07

AfterWangetal.,2014.

L:length;T:thickness;Wt:weight;s.d.:standarddeviation.

minimal technical investment from slabs of schistous quartzite,selectedfor thispurposeonly,while ordinary debitageisonisotropicquartzite.

The Late Acheulean is known, for instance, in the Hunsgi and Baichbal valleys(Karnataka), the Renigunta region(AndhraPradesh),BhimbetkaShelterIII-F-23,Mid- dleSonValley(MadhyaPradesh)andmanyothersitesin peninsularIndia.IntheMiddleSonValley,geologicaland archaeological studies began in the 1970s (Sharma and Clark,1982, 1983; Williams and Royce, 1983; Williams etal.,2006)andarestillinprogresstoday(Haslametal., 2012; Pal etal., 2005).Fourgeologicalformations have been identified,ranging fromtheMiddle Pleistoceneto theLateHolocene.Severallocalitieshavebeenexcavated, each yieldingseveraltens ofartefacts(Kenoyerand Pal, 1983,Mishraetal.,1983).RecentOSLdatingpointstoages fromtheendofMIS6andthebeginningofMIS5(Haslam etal.,2011).Artefactsseemtobeconfinedtothecollu- viumdepositsaccumulatedattheendofMIS6,inadryer climatethanduringMIS5. Theseassemblagesaremade fromlocalrocks,especiallyquartzite,collectedafewkilo- metresawayfromthesites.Theyarecomposedofafew cleaversandrefinedhandaxesalongsideabundantflakes andcoresofvarioustypes,includingdiscoidcores.Many of theflakes areretouched, mostlyinto scrapers.These assemblagesareconsideredasLatestAcheuleanorMiddle Palaeolithic,dependingontheauthors.

2.2. EastAsia:China

2.2.1. ThesitesintheBoseBasin

TheBoseBasin(westernGuangxiZhuangAutonomous Region,SouthernChina)comprisesacomplexof113Paleo- lithic sites (Huang etal., 2012; Lin and Xie, 2007).The bifaceswereﬁrstdiscoveredin1973(LiandYou,1975), yetitwasapaperbyHouetal.(2000),sometimelater, thatraisedcontroversyovertheageofbifaces,c.a.803ka, andthestratigraphyofbifacesinthisregion.Debatesfocus onwhethertheageofthetektitescorrespondstothatofthe bifaces(Langbroek,2015;WangandBae,2014).Amongthe recentlyexcavatedPaleolithicsitesintheBoseBasin,two providedfurtherevidenceconﬁrmingearlierconclusions

asregardstheageofthebifaces.Amongthesesites,two yieldedrelevantseries.

2.2.1.1. Fengshudao site. Fengshudao, one of thelaterite islands,was chosenfor excavation due tothepresence ofabundantbifacially-workedimplementsfoundonthe surface(Wang,2014;Wangetal.,2014a,b,c).Ninetek- titeswereexcavatedinsituinthesedimentsofTerrace4 (T4).Thesedimentaryandstratigraphiccontext,composi- tion,andmorphologyoftheFengshudaotektitessuggest thattheydidnotmoveveryfarafterlandingonthesite.

Therefore,anythingfoundinT4canbeconfidentlyassoci- atedwiththetektites,whichmeansthattheageofthesite shouldbearound803ka.Theexcavatedlithicassemblage iscomprisedof155artefacts,andalloftheartefactsare restrictedtoT4(level3ofthesite).Theartefactsinclude cores,wholeflakes,bipolarcores,bipolarflakes,scrapers, choppers,apick,bifaces(n=5),chippedcobbles,debitage andmanuports(n=27).Fivebifaciallyworkedimplements wereexcavatedinsitu,andclassifiedasbifaces.Theper- centageofbifaciallyworkedimplements(3.23%,calculated bytheauthor)atFengshudaoisrelativelyhighcompared withtheotherBoselocalities(Table1).

2.2.1.2. Damei Nanbanshan site. The Nanbanshan (NBS) localityoftheDameisiteislocatedintheupperpartofT4.

In2005,arescueexcavationwasundertaken(Wangetal., 2008).InthelateriteclaysoftheNBSlocality,155tektites werediscoveredandnoevidenceindicatessubsequenttek- titetransportationorre-deposition.Theirprimarycontext conﬁrmstheageoftheartefactsfoundinthetektitelayers (tobeabout803ka)(Wangetal.,2008).

176 stone pieces were recovered, including bifaces (n=2),picks(n=9),choppers,scrapers,ﬂakes,coresand stonehammers.Therawmaterialsusedarequartzite(32%), quartz(14%),sandstone(43%),chert(6%)andpyrolith(5%).

Bifaces, picksand choppersare relatively largein size.

Scrapersareusuallymadeonsmallcobblesorﬂakes.Flake shapesandsizesarevaried,butmostaresmall(thelargest is167mmlong)(Table2).

2.2.1.3. Lithic technological and techno-functional analy- sisof the Boselithic series. Six hundred and ninety-two

(7)

Please cite this article in press as:Moncel, M.-H., et al., Assemblages with bifacial tools in Eurasia (second Table2

ClassesofstoneartifactsfromtheNanbanshanlocalityoftheDameisite.

Tableau2

Classesd’objetsenpierredelalocalitéNanbanshandusiteDamei.

Type Handaxe Pick Chopper Scraper Flake Core Hammer

Amount 2 9 13 30 35 17 12

Size(mm)(L×W×T) 155×119×75 160×93×74 136×127×64 74×74×30 62×57×20 138×98×65 109×87×58

Weight(g) 1285 1221 1313 202 128 1233 771

AfterWangetal.,2008.

Table3

CompositionoflithicartifactsfromtheBoseBasin.

Tableau3

CompositiondesartefactslithiquesdubassindeBose.

Gaolingpo Nanbanshan Yangwu Total

Debris 16 6.5% 14 7.3% 0 0% 30 4.3%

Fracturedcobbles 0 0% 28 14.7% 3 1.2% 31 4.5%

Cobbleswithseveralremovals 9 4% 14 7.3% 0 0% 23 3.3%

Fragmentsofcobbles 1 0% 10 5.3% 0 0% 11 1.6%

Identiﬁablecores 4 1.6% 3 1.6% 4 1.6% 11 1.4%

Flakes 115 46.6% 44 23% 25 9.8% 184 26.6%

Fragmentsofﬂakes 24 9.7% 6 3.1% 5 2% 35 5.1%

Tools 78 31.6% 72 37.7% 217 85.4% 367 53%

Toolsoffac¸onnage 74 30% 67 35.1% 197 77.6% 338 48.7%

Toolsonblankofﬂakes 4 1.6% 5 2.6% 20 7.9% 29 4.2%

Total 247 100% 191 100% 254 100% 692 100%

AfterBodin,2011.

lithicartefacts wereobserved,including254piecescol- lectedfromthesurfacein2003nearYangwuvillage,247 piecesfromtheGaolingpo siteand191piecesfromthe DameiNanbanshansite,whichyieldedonebifacialpiece in stratigraphical context (Bodin, 2011) (Table 3). The rawmaterialswerealmostexclusivelycobbles,available in thebasal conglomerates of T5 through toT7, which wereexposedduringtheperiodofartefactmanufacture anddepositionontheT4fluvialflood-plainbeforeitwas uplifted (Hou et al., 2000). These cobbles consisted of quartzite,sandstone,silicifiedrock,quartz,chert,conglom- erateandbasalt(Xieetal.,2003).

Thefirstcharacteristicistherarityofdebitageoperative schemes.Weidentifiedveryfewlargeflakesusedaslarge toolblanks,andnocoresproducingsuchflakeswerefound intheselithicindustries.Othercoretypesareveryrareand onlyproduceaverysmallquantityofflakes.Shapingby- products(i.e.,flakes)wererarelyusedastoolblanks.Lithic productionintheBoseBasinmainlyfollowedtheshaping concept.

Thepresenceofbifacialknappingwasextremelyspo- radic in lithic production, occupying only 4.9% of the tools(Fig.3).Fourpiecesevidencebifacialknapping(two withmacro-denticulatedcuttingedgesandtwochopping- tools). Bifacial tools only make up 6% of the tools. In addition, such tools were intentionally selected during surfaceinvestigations.Ifwetakethedatafromthescientif- icallyexcavatedsitesintoconsideration(i.e.Nanbanshan site),thepercentageofbifacialpiecesintheassemblage does not exceed 2.7% and tools were characterised by unifacial knapping. However, marked variability is also apparent,withtwodistinctshapingconcepts:oneforuni- facialtoolswithtransversecuttingedgesandtheotherfor convergenttools,withunifacialorbifacialknapping,where

adistalextremityisassociatedwithoneortwolongitudinal cuttingedges(Fig.4).

2.2.2. LiangshanLonggangsiSite

Liangshan(NanzhengCounty,ShaanxiProvince,south of Hanzhong Basin, on the upper reaches of the Han- shuiRiverValley)containsdozensofPaleolithiclocalities (Hanshui,1985;Tangetal.,1987),includingDabagoulocal- ity(Tangetal.,1987)andLonggangsi,which isthebest knownsite(HuangandQi,1987;Yan,1980).Artefactswere mainlyfoundinLayers2and3onT3(HuangandQi,1987;

Tangetal.,1987).

TheLonggangsisiteisdatedbyTT-OSLtoaround600 ka(Sunetal.,2012).Thissiteyieldedmorethan120stone artefacts,whichmaynotberelatedtotheageof600ka.

RecentworkbyWangetal.(2014)intheHanzhongBasin hasprovidednewdataontheserieswithbifacialtechnol- ogy.Therawmaterialsweredominatedbyquartzcobbles, followedbyquartziteandvolcanicrocks,whichwereall availableontheriverbedlocatedatthebottomofT3(Huang andQi,1987;Tangetal.,1987).Thelithicassemblagecom- prisedcores(26.45%),ﬂakes(19.83%),tools(53.72%)and stone hammers(1.65%). Thetoolsinclude choppersand chopping-tools,spheroids,picks,scrapers,notches,borers andbifaces,withapredominanceofheavy-dutytools(ca.

44%,calculatedafterLuetal.,2006).

Twotypesofdebitagesystemswereappliedtoobtain flakes. The first type, sometimes called “unipolar flak- ing”includedtwooperativeschemes.OperativeScheme 1(TypeC,Boëda,2013)consistedofremovingflakesfrom ovoidcobbles(6–10cmindiameter)alongtheperiphery of a flatnatural surface,mostly cortical, butsometimes alongfissures,whichservedasaplatform.Whenthisnat- uralplatformwasabsent,theblockwasusuallyfractured

(8)

Please cite this article in press as:Moncel, M.-H., et al., Assemblages with bifacial tools in Eurasia (second Fig.3. BifacialpiececollectedfromtheGaolingposite.S1,Transversesectiononmesialpart;S2,transversesectionondistalpart.Thetoolisthick,not elongated,withabi-plan/veryconvextransversesectiononthemesialpartandacuttingedgeonthedistalextremityassociatedwithtwolongitudinal cuttingedges.

Fig.3. PiècebifacialecollectéesurlesitedeGaolingpo.S1,Sectiontransversesurlapartiemésiale;S2,sectiontransversesurlapartiedistale.L’outil estépais,court,avecunesectiontransversebiplane/trèsconvexesurlapartiemésialeetuntranchantsurl’extrémitédistale,associéàdeuxtranchants longitudinaux.

intotwoparts,producingasinglelargenegativeremoval, which wasthen usedas a platform.The convexitywas formedmainlybynaturalcobblesurfacesandbyrecurrent removalsintersectingonthedebitagesurface.Operative Scheme2(discoidorTypeE1,Boëda,2013)consistedin

producingflakesfromaflattercobbleandchangingflak- ingdirectionmorefrequentlythaninoperativeScheme1.

Convexitywaslesspronouncedandusuallyformedbytwo surfacesorrecurrentnegativesintersectingonthedebitage surface.For both operative schemes,the debitageseries

Fig.4.VariabilityofmanufactureinthelithicproductionoftheBoseBasin:convergenttoolswithunifacialorbifacialknappingandunifacialtoolswith transversecuttingedges.

Fig.4. Variabilitédel’aménagementdesproduitslithiquesdesitesdubassindeBose:outilsconvergentsavecunfac¸onnageunifacialoubifacialetdes outilsunifaciauxavecdestranchantstransverses.

(9)

Please cite this article in press as:Moncel, M.-H., et al., Assemblages with bifacial tools in Eurasia (second Fig.5. BifacialandunifacialpiecesfromtheLiangshanLonggangsisite.S1,Transversesectiononmesialpart;S2,transversesectionondistalpart.1,Bifacial piecewithconvergentcuttingedge(P6211).2,Unifacialpiecewithconvergentcuttingedge(denticulatepick)(P6294).

Fig.5. PiècesbifacialesetunifacialesdusitedeLiangshanLonggangsi.S1,Sectiontransversesurlapartiemésiale;S2,sectiontransversesurlapartie distale.1,Piècebifacialavecdestranchantsconvergents(P6211).2,Pièceunifacialeavecdestranchantsconvergents(picdenticulé)(P6294).

Re-editedafterLuetal.,2006.

ona singlecorecomprise nomorethan seven (usually three)removalsandlessthanthreeﬂakesweregenerally obtainedinasingleﬂakingseries(Fig.5).

Asforshaping,severaloperativeschemeswereusedto manufactureheavy-dutytools,includingoperativeScheme 1(on a simple level matrix),operative Scheme2 (on a double-levelledmatrix),operativeScheme3(unifacially- knappedandwithaconvergentcuttingedgeonthedistal part),operativeScheme4(bifacially-knappedandwitha convergentcuttingedgeonthedistalpart)(Fig.4),opera- tiveScheme5(toolswithalongitudinalcuttingedge),and operativeScheme6(spheroids).ForoperativeScheme4 (evidencedbyonlyonetypicalbiface),theblankwasaflake withanaturallyconvexdorsalface.Fromtheventralface oftheflakeaseriesofunipolarflakeswereremovedina directionperpendiculartothemorphologicalaxisofthe flakeandthenthreesmallerremovalswereproducedto createaconvergentshapeonthedistalpart.Asaresult, thetransversesectionsonthemesialanddistalpartswere respectively biplan/convex (S1) and biplan/biplan (S2) (Fig.5).Retouchwasabsentbecausethecuttingedgewas suitableforuseassoonastheshapingprocesswasfinished.

2.2.3. TheHoufangsite

IntheHanshuiVally,tensiteshavebeenexcavatedand aconsiderablenumberofbifaceswerecollectedfromthe surfaces.WewillfocusontheexampleoftheHoufangsite (WangjiashanVillage,QingquTown,20kmwestofYunx- ianCountyinHubeiProvince),discoveredin1994during thesurveysundertakenbyIVPP(Li,1998).TheHoufang siteis situatedontheleftbankoftheupperreachesof theHanshuiRiver.Thegeologicalformationofthisregion ismainlymadeupofPaleozoicmetamorphicrockseries, overlainbyTertiaryredrockseriesnearYunxianCounty (Shen, 1956).Four Pleistoceneterracesdeveloped along thevalleynearthesite,closelyrelatedtotheQinghai-Tibet

PlateauupliftandthedevelopmentoftheHanshuiRiver.

Thesefourterracesarerespectivelysituated 50m,40m, 25mand 10mabove theoldriverlevel. Except forthe firstterrace,thefluvialgravelbedandcoarsefluvialsands underlieAeoliansoilsvaryinginthickness:2–10monthe secondterrace,1–5monthethirdand20monthefourth terrace.Theloess-paleosolsequencesareparticularlyclear onthefourthterrace,inwhich5–6paleosollayerswere identified.ThestoneartifactsofHoufangsiteareburiedin theAeoliansoilsofthesecondterrace.Thefourthterrace canthusbeattributedtolateEarlyPleistoceneandearly MiddlePleistocene.TheHoufangsitewasburiedinthesec- ondterrace,thesurfaceofwhichis185mabovesealevel, withthegravelbed170–175mabovesealevel.Thealtitude ofallstoneartefactsislimitedbetween180mand185m ThusitcanbeinferredthattheHoufangsitewouldhave formedfromthelateMiddlePleistocenetotheearlyLate Pleistocene,whichcorrespondswelltothedatingresults.

ArtefactswereunearthedrespectivelyinLayers2and 3.Weusedthethermallytransferredopticallystimulated luminescence(TT-OSL)techniquefordatingquartz.This technique wasﬁrstused byWanget al.(2006a,2006b, 2007),thensubsequentlymodiﬁedtoresolvesometech- nical problems(Adamiecetal.,2010;Porat etal.,2009;

Stevensetal.,2009;Sunetal.,2010,2012,2013;Tsukamoto etal.,2008).FortheHoufanhsite,Layer2containingbifaces wasdatedto110-90kaandLayer3appearstobeyounger than180ka.

Atotalof162stoneartefactswithrelativelysharpand freshedgeswereunearthed fromthesetwolayers.Two pieceswerereﬁtted,indicatinginsitudeposition.Theraw materialswereexclusivelylocalwaterrounded cobbles.

The majority of raw materials were quartz, represent- ing more than 70% of thewhole assemblage, following by quartz sandstone, siltstone, quartz siltstone, arkose andsandstone.Thelithicassemblageismainlycomprised

(10)

Please cite this article in press as:Moncel, M.-H., et al., Assemblages with bifacial tools in Eurasia (second of cores, ﬂakes, retouched tools, bifaces, picks, chop-

pers, hammers, hammer-anvils, chunks, fragments and unworkedcobbles.Theheavy-dutyshapingtoolsinclude bifaces,picksandchoppers,mostofwhichwereunearthed inLayer2(n=7).Theknappingtechniquewassolelydirect hardhammerpercussion.

Twotypesofﬂakingmethodswereusedtoproducefor- maltoolblanks;unipolarandbipolar.Theyareexclusively made from quartz, generally on medium-sized blanks.

Retouchedtoolsweremadefrombipolarproducts,unipo- larﬂakesandcores,chunks,fragmentsandﬂakesremoved during the production of shaped heavy-duty tools.Un- workedcobblesweretransportedbyhomininstothesite.

Heavy-duty tools consisted of unifacial and bifacial pieces,classiﬁedintochoppers,picks,backedbifacesand typical bifaces. The raw materials are exclusively non- quartzrocks, namelysiltstoneandquartzsandstone.All thesetoolsarelargeinsize,withameanlengthof147mm.

Thechoppersweremanufacturedonquadrangularﬂat cobbles.Mostofthesurfaceiscorticalandonefaceserves asastrikingplatform.Forthepick,bifacialknappingwas appliedtonon-symmetricalsurfaces.Ononeface,aseries ofremovalsintentionallyproduceda ﬂatsurface, which served as a basic platform to create the cutting edge.

The mesial part of the pick presents an approximately triangular(convex/plan)transversesectionandaregular triangular sectiononthepoint. The bifacialtool witha backshowsanirregularlytrapezoidaltransversesectionon themesialpartandatriangulartransversesectiononthe pointandbearsanirregularlylongtriangularprofile.The twotypicalbifaceswereproductsofsymmetricallybifacial shaping(Figs.6and7).Bothofthespecimensarethick,with awidth/thicknessratioofapproximately1.4.Nearly1/3of thesurfaceiscortical.Afteraseriesofbifacialknapping,the finaltoolspresentadouble-wedgedtransversesectionon themesialpartandthesagittalface,anirregulardouble- wedgedtransversesectiononpartofthecuttingedgeand adouble-wedgedprofile.Bothofthespecimenspresenta convergentoutlineonthe(subsequentlybroken)pointand twoindependentcuttingedgesonthemesialpart.

In general,unipolar andbipolarknappingwere both applied,whiletheheavy-dutyshapedtoolswerelargely presentinLayer2andnearlyabsentinLayer3.Itisclear thattheknapperdidnotspendmuch energyinitializing raw materialsbut investedconsiderabletime andeffort into cobbleselectionbeforethe operation. Theselected cobbles presented some suitable natural characteristics thatweretakenadvantageofafterknappingbegan.

2.2.4. TheYunxianMansite

Inadditiontochronometricanalysis,geomorphologic investigationwasalsoconductedaroundthesite.Inthe upper reaches of the Hanshui River (from Shiquan to Danjiangkoucity),about fourﬂuvialterraces werewell developed and comparable in different regions (Shen, 1956).ThefourterracesatQuyuanhekou(neartheYunxian Mansite),veryclosetotheHoufangsite,canserveasaref- erence.Geomorphologicalandsedimentanalysisrevealed thatthecraniumsandlithicartifactsofYunxianManwere buriedinthefourthterrace,thesurfaceofwhichis200m abovesealeveland50mabovetheoldriverlevel.

TheYunxian Mansite islocated1.5km southof the Houfang site. Two hominin skulls were discovered in 1989 and 1995. Fieldwork in the 1980s provided data onthepaleoenvironmentalcontext ofthecraniums (de Lumley and Li, 2008). According to paleomagnetic and ESRdating,thesedimentsattheYunxianMansitewere deposited duringthe 830–870 ka (Yan,1993), 984–780 ka(deLumleyand Li,2008)or 581±93ka timeperiod (Chenetal.,1997).RecentworkbyGuoetal.(2013)shows thatthelevelsoftheYunxianhomininfossilsand other mammalian remains were formed around 800–785 ka.

Homininslivedduringaglacialtointerglacialclimatictran- sition.

2.3. ContinentalSoutheastAsia:ThailandandCambodia Duringthelate1960s,P.Sorensenclaimedthatearly humanswerepresentinnorthernThailand.IntheLanna area, he highlightedan “archaic”assemblage withpeb- blesandscrapersmadeofsiliciﬁedwood(Sorensen,1981, 2001).ThisThaiPaleolithicculturewascalledthe“Lan- natian” and was controversially attributed to between 900–600ka.

Fewerthan tenpebbletools, choppersand quartzite ﬂakeswerediscoveredbyG.PopeattheLampangopen- air site (Ban DonMun and Ban Mae Thae, Pope et al., 1981,1986,1987),aboveabasalticlevelestimatedat700 kabypaleomagnetism(Keates,2002).TheBanDonMun site(Lampang)wasrecentlyre-analysedandsurveyed,and assignedaminimumageof550kabyK/Ardatingofthe basalticlevel(Forestieretal.,2008;Zeitounetal.,2013).

Pebbletoolswerelocatedabovethislevel.Recentdiscov- eriesof 25newartefacts wereaddedtotheﬁrst series.

Theyincludenumerouschopperswithconvex,convergent ortransversecuttingedges,fewchopping-tools,raresmall ﬂakes(<10cmlength),brokenpebblesandonlyonetrihe- dralpick.

SaoDinisanotheropen-airsiteinNortheastThailand (NaNoiBasin,seealsoFig.8.2).Itpresentsanupperand loweralluvialterracesystemcomprisingnumerousstone artefacts. Zeitoun et al. (2008, 2012a, b) refer to more than300piecesinthelowerpartoftheerodedsection, 20 of which are stratigraphically located below a layer dated at 300 ka (minimum age estimated from paleomagnetism,ESR and OSL,Chenglong, pers.comm).This pebbletoolassemblageshowsthesametechnicalpattern astheoneobservedontheBanDonMunartefacts,with theproductionoflargechoppers(20cmlong)withtrans- verse,convergentorlateralcuttingedgesonsandstoneand quartzitepebbles,rarelyonquartz.Thesestonetoolsare moremassivethantheLampangtoolsandareassociated withchopping-tools,largeﬂake-tools(scrapers,denticu- latesandnotches),massiveandheavyprismaticcoresand someatypical tools witha bilateralpointed shape. The majorityof theSao Dinartefacts areunifacial,although severalarebifacial.

Thesemassive unifacial pebbletoolsin theNorth of ThailandhavenoequivalentinothermainlandSoutheast Asian countries, despite therecent discoveriesof stone tools on the Quaternary terraces of the Mekong River (Forestieretal.,2014).

(11)

Please cite this article in press as:Moncel, M.-H., et al., Assemblages with bifacial tools in Eurasia (second Fig.6. PhotographanddiacriticaldiagramoftypicalbifacefromLayer2oftheHoufangsite(2010YHIT1 15).S1,Transversesectiononmesialpart;S2, transversesectionondistalpart.

Fig.6. Photographieetdiagrammediacritiqued’unbifacetypiqueduniveau2dusitedeHoufang(2010YHIT1 15).S1,Sectiontransversesurlapartie mésiale;S2,sectiontransversesurlapartiedistale.

Generally,PaleolithicstonetoolsfrommainlandSouth- east Asia are dominated by choppers, i.e. unifaces, and include few handaxes (Gorman, 1972; Heekeren et al., 1967; Heider, 1958; Higham, 2014; Marwick, 2007;

Matthews,1964;Moser,2001;Mus,1977;Schoocongdej, 2006).

2.4. TheislandsofSoutheastAsia:theIndonesian archipelagoandbeyond

ThelithicassemblagesfromtheIndonesianarchipelago pointtocomparabletechno-typologicalbehaviourtothe continentalseries,includingthepresenceofpebbletools

(12)

Please cite this article in press as:Moncel, M.-H., et al., Assemblages with bifacial tools in Eurasia (second Fig.7.PhotographanddiacriticaldiagramoftypicalbifacefromLayer2oftheHoufangsite(2010YHIT1 50).S1,Transversesectiononmesialpart;S2, transversesectionondistalpart.

Fig.7. Photographieetdiagrammediacritiqued’unbifacetypiqueduniveau2dusitedeHoufang(2010YHIT1 50).S1,Sectiontransversesurlapartie mésiale;S2,sectiontransversesurlapartiedistale.

(Fig.8).Theyalsoincludeaclassicbut‘exoticandtropical’

Acheuleantoolkit.

JavaIsland,famousforitspaleoanthropologicalrecord since the discovery of ‘Pithecanthropus’ remains at the

end of the 19^th century (Dubois, 1994; Koenigswald, 1936, 1940), lacked stratigraphicallycontrolled archaeological data for Homo erectus, until recent decades, apart from isolated discoveries (see for instance

(13)

Please cite this article in press as:Moncel, M.-H., et al., Assemblages with bifacial tools in Eurasia (second Fig.8.LithicartefactsfromIndonesiaandThailand.1.SouthSumatrabiface(OganRiver).2.UnifacialpebbletoolfromSaoDin(NorthThailand).3.Patjitanian biface(BaksokoRiver,EastJava).4.CleaveronalargeandesiticKombewaﬂake,Ngebung(SangiranDome,centralJava).1,3,4:PicturesMuséumnational d’histoirenaturelle/IndonesianNationalCentreofArchaeology(drawings:1byHubertForestier;4byDayatHidayat).2:CourtesyofCNRS/Silpakorn University(Bangkok)prehistoricmission.

Fig.8. Artefactslithiquesd’IndonésieetdeThailande.1.BifaceduSudSumatra(OganRiver).2.OutilsurgaletunifacialdeSaoDin(NordThailande).3.Biface duPatjitanian(BaksokoRiver,EstJava).4.HachereausurungrandéclatKombewaenandésite,Ngebung(SangiranDome,CentreJava).1,3,4:Photosdu Muséumnationald’histoirenaturelle/IndonesianNationalCentreofArchaeology(dessins:1parHubertForestier;4parDayatHidayat).2:Permissiondu CNRS/SilpakornUniversity(Bangkok)Missionpréhistorique.

(14)

Please cite this article in press as:Moncel, M.-H., et al., Assemblages with bifacial tools in Eurasia (second Koenigswaldetal.,1973;Sémahetal.,2014a,b;Widianto,

2006).

The“Patjitanian”industrywasdiscoveredinthesouth- ernmountainsofJavabyKoenigswald(1936),anddefined by thepresence of numerouschoppers, chopping-tools, small and largeflakes, and cores(including somegiant cores,withvolumesofmorethan100dm³).Ithassince becomeclearthathandaxesexistedonpebblesorflakes associated with a broad spectrum of artefacts in chert andsilicifiedwood(fromerodedMioceneseries),volcanic stone(andesite)andsilicifiedbreccia.

Although the age of the Patjitanian industry is still unknown,severalmarkerstendtoattributeittotheMid- dlePleistocene,inrelationwiththeoldestﬂake-and-core assemblagesdiscoveredin thesurroundingcaves ofthe GunungSewu karstichills (e.g.SongTeruscave,Sémah etal.,2004,datedtothesecondhalfoftheMiddlePleis- tocene).

Foralongtime,thefamousSangirandomehominid- bearingsiteyieldedsmallﬂakes(called“SangiranFlakes”, seevonKoenisgwaldandGosh,op.cit.)madefromsmall siliceous pebblescollectedfromalluvialformations.The ﬁrstdiscoveriesof “heavy-dutytools” arerelatedtothe discoveryofbolasandachopperinmetamorphicrockat Ngebung(Soejono,1982).Inthenorth-westernpartofthe dome,excavationsconductedattheNgebungopen-airsite (Sémahetal.,1992),datedataround800ka(Sémahand Sémah,2012;Sémahetal.,2011),yieldedmanyandesitic pebblesormanuports,butalsopolyhedrons,spheroidsand bolas withpeckedtracks(shapingtraces and usewear).

Someartefacts weremadewithraw materialscollected tensofkmaway:largeﬁne-grainedsuitableandesitepeb- bles(usuallylackinginthelocallahars)ormilkyquartz.The toolkit includes cleavers, massive scrapers (“horsehoof”

type),choppersandafewflakes.Surveysandexcavations at theSangiran domeconfirmedthe behaviouraldiver- sity ofHomo erectus groups atthe dawnof the Middle Pleistocene,mostprobablyreflectingrepetitiveexchanges withthemainland owingtothe drasticsealeveldrops thatoccurredduringthisperiod(SémahandSémah,2012;

Sémahetal.,2014a,b).

OtherdiscoveriesintheSundaIslandsarelessdetailed.

It is important tomentiontheartefacts foundin South SumatraintheAirTawarandSemuhonRivers,notfarfrom theOganRiverinthekarsticregionofBaturaja(Forestier, 2007;Forestieretal.,2005).Allthematerialfromthisseries ismassive,madeinlocalchertandcomposedofhandaxes withtriangularandtrapezoidsections(>30cmlong),and cleavers.Italsoincludeschoppersonlimestoneorandesitic pebbles,prismaticcoresandlargeﬂake-tools(scrapersand denticulates).Thequalityandmorphologyoftherawmate- rialvaries,withblocksofchert,glossysandstone,breccia orsiliciﬁedwood(Forestier,2000,2007;Simanjuntakand Forestier, 2009).Therefore, inaddition toJava, Sumatra providesevidenceofLowerPaleolithicoccupationsshow- ingthetoolkitdiversityoftheseearliestislanders.

TheevidencebeyondtheWallacelineisrestrictedtoa coupleofsites,theoldestoneprobablybeingthec.1Ma- oldartefactsdiscoveredintheSoaBasinonFloresIsland (Brummetal.,2010).Wemayalsomentionthetoolscol- lectedontheterracesof theWalanae River,atCabenge

(SouthSulawesi), includingpartialorcomplete triangu- larhandaxes,unifacialtoolswithabruptretouch,pebble tools(choppersandchopping-tools),andﬂakesandcores (Bartstra,1976,1977;Keates,2004;KeatesandBartstra, 2001).Sofar,thebifacialartefactsdiscoveredatthesite ofAruboontheislandofLuzonraisethequestionofearly humansettlementinthePhilippines(Dizon andPawlik, 2010).

3. Conclusion

TheSoutheastAsianPaleolithiclithicseriesseemtodis- provethemodelof linearityintheAcheuleantradition.

Thereiswidespread disparitybetweentheseseriesand whatwecalltheAcheuleanoutsideEurope.

ThebifacialphenomenoninAsiacoversanextensive period of time and the recently discoveredKorean LCT assemblagesdemonstratethedurationofthistechnology andthedifﬁcultiesinvolvedintracingatechnologicalhis- tory,originandﬁliationovertime(BaeandBae,2012;de Lumley etal., 2011;Nortonand Bae, 2008;Nortonand Braun,2010;Nortonetal.,2006).Itisthesamecaseinthe ChineseLuonanBasinwherehandaxesandabundanttyp- icalcleaverssimilartoEastAsiansamples,aredatedfrom 800to100ka,andmainlyfrom250to50ka(Wang,2005).

While lithic series with bifacial technology are well representedinIndiabyhandaxesandcleavers,andoften assimilatedtotheAcheulean,theyaremorecontroversial in Chinaasthey arerare and werediscovered recently (Movius, 1948, 1949). The Indian ﬁndings are characterised by tools madeby few removals and mainly on ﬂakes.TheyarefrequentlyassimilatedtotheLFA(Large FlakeAssemblages)describedinAfricaandtheLevant,and thustotheAcheuleanworldwhichwouldhavedeveloped fromAfricanroots(Gaillardetal.,2010;Kleindienst,1961;

Sharon,2007).ForChina,bifacialtoolsarealsorareinthe threemajorregionsinopen-airsiteswithalowdensity ofartefacts.Unifacialheavy-dutytoolsarepredominant, regardlessofrawmaterialquality andclimaticcontexts throughouttime.Theyareoftenmadeonthickcobblesby fewremovals,andminimallyshaped,leadingtoconﬂicting discussions:AcheuleanornotAcheulean(BarYosef,2015;

Houetal.,2000;Kumanetal.,2014;Wangetal.,2014a,b, c)?

Acknowledgements

Theseanalyseswerecarriedoutaspartofan“Action thématiqueduMuséum”(ATM),Paris,France,devotedto

“Acheulean”behaviour.Theywerealsopartofprojectssup- portedbytheFrenchForeignMinistryforSoutheastAsia andtheFrenchMinistryofResearchforChina.TheEnglish versionwaseditedbyLouiseByrne,ofﬁcialtranslator.

WewouldliketothankthetworeviewersandAmélie Vialet,theeditor,fortheirrelevantandconstructivecom- mentswhichreallyhelpedustoimprovethepapers.

References

Adamiec,G.,Duller,G.A.T.,Roberts,H.M.,Wintle,A.G.,2010.Improving theTT-OSLSARprotocolthroughsourcetrapcharacterisation.Radiat.

Meas.45,768–777.