12 research outputs found

    Diversité et homogénéité : la technologie lithique dans le sud-ouest de la Chine de la fin du PléistocÚne au début de l'HolocÚne et son implication pour la Préhistoire de l'Asie du Sud-Est

    No full text
    Le PlĂ©istocĂšne tardif a Ă©tĂ© tĂ©moin de l'Ă©mergence des Humains Anatomiquement Modernes (AMHs) dans le sud de la Chine, entre 120 et 100 ka. Cependant, culturellement et comportementalement, ces AMHs semblent trĂšs diffĂ©rents de leurs homologues occidentaux d'un point de vue technique. En effet, leur culture matĂ©rielle est souvent caractĂ©risĂ©e par les outils sur galets, ce qui leur donne des accents «archaĂŻques», pour certains, -savoir-faires hĂ©ritĂ©s du PlĂ©istocĂšne infĂ©rieur et moyen dans cette rĂ©gion du le monde (e.g., Longgupo et Bose). A la fin du PlĂ©istocĂšne (~40-10 ka), le technocomplexe hoabinhien Ă©merge et se gĂ©nĂ©ralise avec les outils sur galets. Un vĂ©ritable phĂ©nomĂšne technique Hoabinhian a commencĂ© Ă  prendre forme dans la province du Yunnan, sud-ouest de la Chine, vers 40 ka, puis s'est probablement Ă©tendu aux provinces chinoises voisines puis Ă  toute l'Asie du Sud continentale. Cependant, l'identitĂ© techno-culturelle de ces groupes de chasseurs-cueilleurs dans les provinces chinoises du Yunnan, du Guizhou et du Guangxi est encore peu connue en raison d'un manque d'Ă©tudes technologiques approfondies sur les matĂ©riaux archĂ©ologiques. Et les seules Ă©tudes connues sont typologiques et ont Ă©tĂ© appliquĂ©es Ă  la maniĂšre europĂ©enne, ce qui n'a pas donnĂ© beaucoup de rĂ©sultats car elle n’est pas adaptĂ©e Ă  l'Ă©tude du matĂ©riel asiatique. Les industries chinoises ont une trĂšs longue histoire d'outils de galets, dessinant une trajectoire technologique unique datant de plus de 2 Ma. Dans ce projet de recherche, nous avons choisi d'Ă©tudier les assemblages lithiques de six sites avec une stratigraphie relativement claire et bien datĂ©e entre 40 et 8 ka. Deux rĂ©gions principales ont Ă©tĂ© choisies: cinq sites dans le sud-ouest de la Chine et un site Hoabinhien dans le sud de la ThaĂŻlande. Notre mĂ©thodologie est basĂ©e sur des principes d'analyse technologique. L'objectif est d'identifier qualitativement et quantitativement les diffĂ©rents produits taillĂ©s prĂ©sents dans les sites sĂ©lectionnĂ©s, ce qui permettra de comparer les diffĂ©rents assemblages entre eux selon des critĂšres identiques. Nos premiers rĂ©sultats montrent que les sites chinois prĂ©sentent une grande variabilitĂ© au niveau productionel et fonctionnel. Bien qu'ils appartiennent tous gĂ©nĂ©ralement Ă  l’industrie sur galet, chaque site semble diffĂ©rent des autres tout en prĂ©sentant certaines similitudes. Les similitudes et les diffĂ©rences se reflĂštent dans quatre aspects: les types de matiĂšres premiĂšres, les systĂšmes de production, les structures d'outils et les tranchants. Les concepts de dĂ©bitage et de façonnage coexistent presque dans tous les sites, mais parfois les distinctions entre les diffĂ©rents sites sont assez Ă©videntes. Certains sites ont des caractĂ©ristiques exceptionnelles. À travers la recherche publiĂ©e, nous avons comparĂ© dix autres sites contemporains. Cinq d'entre eux sont en Chine et cinq en Asie du Sud-Est. AprĂšs la comparaison entre les sites, nous avons principalement distinguĂ© quatre zones techno-culturelles dans cette rĂ©gion, reprĂ©sentĂ©es par la techno-culture Tangzigou, la techno-culture Maomaodong, Sonvian et Hoabinhian. Cette division est basĂ©e sur les caractĂ©ristiques techniques du site, mais il existe des similitudes et des gĂ©nĂ©ralitĂ©s entre les diffĂ©rents sites. Il semble maintenant raisonnable d'appeler le sud-ouest de la Chine la "Hoabinhian Homeland" au lieu des rĂ©gions montagneuses du nord du Vietnam. Les groupes Hoabinhian peuvent migrer du nord au sud le long des fleuves Lancang-MĂ©kong.Cette recherche fournit une mĂ©thodologie systĂ©matique et un cadre pour la recherche comparative. Et c'est la premiĂšre Ă©tape pour d'autres Ă©tudes comparatives Ă  grande Ă©chelle entre la Chine du Sud et l'Asie du Sud-Est.The Late Pleistocene witnessed the emergence of Anatomically Modern Humans (AMHs) in southern China around 120-100 ka. However, culturally and behaviorally, these AMHs appear to be very different from their Western counterparts from a technical standpoint. Indeed, their material culture is often characterized by the "pebble-tools" (i.e., cobble-tool industry), which gives them "archaic" accents, for some, -savoir-faire inherited from the Lower and Middle Pleistocene in this region of the world (e.g. Longgupo and Bose).During the end of the Late Pleistocene (about 40-10 ka), the Hoabinhian technocomplex emerges and becomes generalized with the tools on cobbles. A real technical phenomenon Hoabinhian began to take shape in Yunnan province, southwest China, around 40 ka, then probably spread to the neighboring Chinese provinces and then throughout continental South Asia. However, the techno-cultural identity of these hunter-gatherer groups in the Chinese provinces of Yunnan, Guizhou and Guangxi is still little known due to a lack of in-depth technological studies of archaeological materials. And the only known studies are typological and have been applied in the European way, which has not given many results since they are not suitable for studying Asian material. Chinese industries have a very long history of cobble tools, drawing a unique technological trajectory dating back more than 2 Ma. In this research project, we chose to study the lithic assemblages of six excavated sites with relatively clear stratigraphy and well-dated between 40-8ka. Two main regions were chosen: five sites in southwest China and a major Hoabinhian site in southern Thailand. Our methodology is based on technological analysis principles. The objective is to qualitatively and quantitatively identify the different knapped products present in the selected sites, which will allow the different assemblages to be compared with each other according to identical criteria. Our first results show that the Chinese sites present a high variability of tools with different functional intentions and production systems. Although they all generally belong to a "cobble industry", each site appears to be different from the others while presenting some similarities. The similarities and differences are reflected in four aspects: raw material types, production systems, tool structures, and functional needs. The concepts of debitage and shaping almost coexist in all sites, but sometimes the distinctions between different sites are quite significant. Some sites have outstanding features. Through the published literature, we compared other ten contemporary sites. Five of them are in China, and five in Southeast Asia. After the comparison between the sites, we primarily distinguished four techno-cultural areas in Southwest China and Southeast Asia, represented by Tangzigou techno-culture, Maomaodong techno-culture, Sonvian, and Hoabinhian. This division is based on the site's technical characteristics, but there are some similarities and generalities among different sites. It now seems reasonable to call southwest China the "Hoabinhian Homeland" instead of the mountainous areas in northern Vietnam. Hoabinhian groups may migrate from north to south along the Lancang-Mekong Rivers. This research provides a systematic technological methodology and a framework for comparative research. And this is the first step for further large-scale comparative studies between South China and Southeast Asia

    Early prehistory of South America and population dynamics: Issues and hypotheses

    No full text
    International audiencePeople were in the Americas before, during, and immediately after the Last Glacial Maximum. Multiple data converge toward a deep chronology model for Homo genre exploration, dispersal, occupation, and settlement across the continent. South America is not an exception. This paper is an attempt to think of South America record in terms of population dynamics within a Paleolithic reflection: What are the anthropological implications of a longer and therefore slower peopling process? What modes of expansion, rhythms, adaptations, routes could be traced base especially in lithic records? What kind of archaeological manifestations should we expect in the different environments that make up an immense and highly diverse geography? What modes of technological continuity and change could be linked to these manifestations? Although further research is still needed to address these questions, our goal is to contribute to posing the problem in the most holistic way possible, linking climate, environment, and techno-cultural data within and beyond South America, in order to model how populations might have expanded and contracted at different periods throughout this subcontinent.L’Homme Ă©tait prĂ©sent dans les AmĂ©riques avant, pendant et aprĂšs le Dernier Maximum Glaciaire. De multiples donnĂ©es convergent vers un modĂšle de chronologie longue pour l’exploration, la dispersion, l’occupation et le peuplement du continent par le genre Homo. L’AmĂ©rique du Sud ne fait pas exception. Cet article propose de penser l’histoire de l’AmĂ©rique du Sud en termes de dynamique de populations dans une rĂ©flexion d’envergure palĂ©olithique : quelles sont les implications anthropologiques d’un processus de peuplement plus long et donc plus lent ? Quels modes d’expansion, de rythmes, d’adaptations, de routes pourraient ĂȘtre tracĂ©s notamment Ă  partir des assemblages lithiques ? À quelles manifestations archĂ©ologiques faut-il s’attendre dans les diffĂ©rents milieux qui composent une gĂ©ographie immense et trĂšs diverse ? Quels modes de continuitĂ© et de changements techniques pourraient ĂȘtre liĂ©s Ă  ces manifestations ? Bien que des recherches plus approfondies soient encore nĂ©cessaires pour rĂ©pondre Ă  ces questions, notre objectif est de contribuer Ă  poser le problĂšme de la maniĂšre la plus holistique possible, en reliant des donnĂ©es climatiques, environnementales et techno-culturelles Ă  l’intĂ©rieur et au-delĂ  de l’AmĂ©rique du Sud, afin de modĂ©liser les potentielles expansions et contractions dĂ©mographiques sur diffĂ©rentes pĂ©riodes dans ce sous-continent

    An integrative study of new environmental and cultural data from the Hoabinhian of Laang Spean Cave (Cambodia) including modern human remains

    No full text
    International audienceAlthough the Hoabinhian culture is renowned for its unifacial pebble tools and its discovery dates back more than a century, only a handful of sites provide complete information on this period. The site of Laang Spean, in Cambodia, has recently been described as a burial cave for the Neolithic period, but it was previously known as an emblematic Hoabinhian site for Cambodia. More comprehensive studies indicate that it offers a wide window onto the settlement of the Hoabinhian between 12900 and 5000 cal BP. The archaeological layer of the Hoabinhian culture at Laang Spean include faunal, human and lithic remains that enrich our understanding of the environment and way of life of this ancient culture. The faunal assemblage, dominated by bovines, tortoises, molluscs, and cervids, reflects a diverse ecosystem and the adaptability of the Hoabinhian people. The presence of both humid and dry forest indicators, alongside significant wetland areas, suggests their ability to exploit a variety of habitats. The lithic assemblage, characterized by a lower representation of unifaces and greater use of split cobbles, reflects a continuity in basic lithic reduction strategies with minor diachronic changes in raw material selection and tool production, possibly reflecting technological adaptations and increased intensity of occupation. The discovery of human remains, though challenging to contextualize precisely, contributes to understanding settlement patterns and cultural links in prehistoric Southeast Asia. The new data allow for a deeper interpretation of the environmental adaptations and hunting strategies of the Hoabinhian people, including their responses to climatic changes, such as the end of the Younger Dryas. This enhanced knowledge significantly contributes to our comprehension of the environmental dynamics and subsistence practices in prehistoric Southeast Asia and underscores the necessity of reassessing key Hoabinhian sites with modern excavation and dating techniques
    corecore