Life without the Movius Line: The structure of the East and Southeast Asian Early Palaeolithic

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA.The starting point of this paper is that the Movius Line is no longer an appropriate way of studying the Early Palaeolithic of East and Southeast Asia, and should be disregarded. Instead, it is argued that the Early Palaeolithic of East and Southeast Asia needs to be seen as comparable to that in the rest of Eurasia, rather than the product of an isolated backwater. Contra Movius, East Asia was not isolated throughout the entire Early and Middle Pleistocene, but open to immigration during interglacials, as is indicated by its fossil hominin record. As in Europe and Southwest Asia, both bifacial and non-biface assemblages are present in China and Korea, thus indicating the presence of an Acheulean component, although the lack of agreement over how the Acheulean should be defined creates difficulties in establishing its extent in Southeast Asia. Regarding non-biface assemblages, Zhoukoudian was an unfortunate choice of an East Asian site that lacked bifaces, as bifaces are also rare or absent in a number of caves in Southwest Asia and Europe. Additionally, the absence of bifaces in some sites is not convincingly demonstrated because of the small size of the lithic assemblage. Finally, the simple flake industries in Southeast Asia are likely contemporary with Upper Pleistocene, Middle Palaeolithic and microlithic assemblages in India rather than with Middle Pleistocene, Acheulean assemblages, as proposed by Movius

Occupying Cave-Sites: A Case Study from Azokh 1 Cave (Southern Caucasus)

peer reviewedThe Caucasus is an important intercontinental passageway for fauna and hominin dispersal from Africa to Eurasia. Numerous Pleistocene sites emphasise the importance of this region for the study of human evolution and hominin ‘Out of Africa’ dispersals. The Azokh 1 site in the Southern Caucasus provides a stratigraphic sequence, the renewed excavations of which have shown the presence of well-contextualised lithic and faunal assemblages dated between 300 and 100 ka associated with hominin remains (Homo heidelbergensis and Homo neanderthalensis) also found in the site. Faunal assemblages are dominated by cave bear (Ursus spelaeus) remains resulting from their hibernation at the rear of the cave. Recent taphonomic studies indicate the in-situ exploitation of some of these remains. Other faunal remains, mainly herbivore, some showing signs of human activity, were most likely introduced into the cave by hominins. The study of lithic artefacts suggests an incomplete operative chain for all raw materials with a general absence of knapping debris, unknapped cobbles/pebbles, rare cores and refits. Techno-typologically, these assemblages display characteristics that link them to Late Acheulean or Early Mousterian and Levallois Mousterian traditions. The faunal and lithic assemblages originate from the rear of the cave. Research results, including some preliminary data on lithic use-wear, along with analyses of spatial distribution and post-depositional modification, indicate that occupation of the cave was short and seasonal in character. Cave bears were an important factor affecting the duration of hominin occupation of the cave. The characteristics of the lithic assemblages suggest mobile toolkits, with some isolated evidence of in situ knapping and retouching activities

Influence of handaxe size and shape on cutting efficiency: a large-scale experiment and morphometric analysis

Handaxes represent one of the most temporally enduring and geographically widespread of Palaeolithic artifacts and thus comprised a key technological strategy of many hominin populations. Archaeologically observable variation in the size (i.e., mass) and shape properties of handaxes has been frequently noted. It is logical to ask whether some of this variability may have had functional implications. Here, we report the results of a large-scale (n = 500 handaxes) experiment designed to examine the influence of variation in handaxe size and shape on cutting efficiency rates during a laboratory task. We used a comprehensive dataset of morphometric (size-adjusted) shape variables and statistical methods (including multivariate methods) to address this issue. Our first set of analyses focused on handaxe mass/size variability. This analysis demonstrated that, at a broad-scale level of variation, handaxe mass may have been free to vary independently of functional (cutting) efficiency. Our analysis also, however, identified that there will be a task-specific threshold in terms of functional effectiveness at the lower end of handaxe mass variation. This implies that hominins may have targeted design forms to meet minimal (task-specific) thresholds, and may also have managed handaxe reduction and discard in respect to such factors. Our second set of analyses focused on handaxe shape variability. This analysis also indicated that considerable variation in handaxe shape may occur independently of any strong effect on cutting efficiency. We discuss how these results have several implications for considerations of handaxe variation in the archaeological record. At a general level, our results demonstrate that variability within and between handaxe assemblages in terms of their size and shape properties will not necessarily have had immediate or strong impact on their effectiveness when used for cutting, and that such variability may have been related to factors other than functional issues

Signs of impact on the dorsal and lateral/broken surfaces intersection of secondary knapped flakes in archaeological and experimental assemblages.

<p>Signs of impact on the dorsal and lateral/broken surfaces intersection of secondary knapped flakes in archaeological and experimental assemblages.</p

Archaeological assemblages.

<p>Signs of an anvil impact.</p

Experimental assemblages.

<p><b>Secondary knapped flakes.</b> The “retouch” was accidentally produced by an anvil impact. Pieces 1,2,3,4,5,8,10 exhibit signs of the hammerstone impact on the dorsal faces. <u>Morphology:</u> 2,3,5,6,9,10– Pointed pieces; 1,7– Clactonian notches; 8– Flake with retouch-like scars.</p

Secondary knapped flakes with the signs of dorsal impact in Bizat Ruhama assemblages.

<p>1. Pointed piece with (a) point of percussion, crushing and crack-lines on the dorsal surface; 2. Broken flake with (a) signs of impact and crushing directed from the dorsal surface, (b) signs of impact and crushing directed from the ventral surface; 3. Clactonian notch with (a) opposite point of percussion and crushing on the dorsal surface; 4. Flake with retouch-like scars with (a) opposite scars and crushing on the dorsal surface directed from the ventral surface.</p