Perspectives on Hominid Behaviour and Settlement Patterns: a
study of the Lower Palaeolithic sites in the Luonan Basin, China, By S. Wang
Archaeopress 2005 (British Archaeological Reports,
International Series S1406), 248pp, 54 b&w illustrations, 54 tables; ISBN 1-84171-849-1
(£35.00)
The long-standing debates regarding the nature of the earlier (ie, pre-Upper) Palaeolithic
occupations of central and south-east Asia have frequently centred upon the Movius
Line concept and the validity (or not) of claims for handaxes to the south and east
of this line (eg, Petraglia 1998; Corvinus 2004; Norton et al. 2006). It
is therefore very pleasing to see this publication of new sites and handaxe-bearing
lithic assemblages from China, and particularly as part of the BAR International
Series which should assist in the exposure of the material reported here to a wide
audience.
The volume, seemingly derived essentially from Wang’s doctoral thesis, is logically
organised into four sections, discussing (respectively) the background to the study;
geological context, site formation processes, and taphonomy; the lithic assemblages;
and a comparison and conclusion. The study is essentially focusing upon the cave
site of Longyadong and a series of surface/ shallowly buried findspots from the
surrounding landscape of the Luonan Basin, China. TL dating and the recovered fauna
suggests that the lithic assemblages date to the middle–late Middle Pleistocene
(c. 500–250 kya). Ash beds, burnt bones, and burning traces on the cave
walls are interpreted as evidence of intentional burning and fireplaces: it would
have been helpful to have included photographic evidence of the ‘burnt marks indicative
of a fireplace’. Wang’s analysis of the faunal and lithic material has highlighted
a number of interesting patterns, including the usage of a wide range of raw material
types all derived from local (within 2km) fluvial sources, the preferential use
of different percussion techniques with different raw materials, an association
between particular tool types and raw materials (eg, quartzite for producing handaxes),
and the presence of handaxes in the region and their absence of handaxes from the
Longyadong cave. All of this material is interesting with regards to Lower/Early
Palaeolithic behaviour and possible similarities and differences with the Acheulean
records of Africa, Europe and western Asia.
However there are also a number of serious limitations in this work, with regards
to the implementation of the fieldwork, the interpretation of the data, the contents
of the volume, and its presentation. In terms of the implementation of the fieldwork,
there are some approaches whose absences are surprising: for example, in light of
the diversity of raw materials utilised within the lithic assemblages, it might
have been expected that the author would have sampled the river floodplain and terrace
deposits to assess the relative availability of the different raw material types.
I have a number of concerns regarding the interpretation of the data. At a most
basic level the author makes persistent reference to Lower and Middle Palaeolithic
concepts and models, without at any point acknowledging the ‘Early’ and ‘Late’ Palaeolithic
model applied to East Asia (and especially China and Korea) by Gao & Norton (2002).
With specific regards to the lithic analysis (chapter 8), I was left uncertain as
to the rationale and principles behind the chosen analytical methods: in some cases
it appeared that methods had been derived from previous studies, yet in other areas
there no references to previous work of this type. Some of the technological and
typological terminology and classifications used were also rather unfamiliar (at
least to me), and it would have been helpful to know more details about their origins.
Moreover, since the author himself acknowledges that many of the methods widely
used by western Palaeolithic archaeologists have rarely been applied in China, the
lack of detail regarding the methods used in this study is all the more frustrating.
I was also extremely surprised by the limited discussion of the handaxes: only the
most basic morphological and technological information is included. The absence
of a more detailed typological and/or morpho-metric scheme (as developed by Roe
(1968) and Wymer (1968) for British handaxes assemblages for example) was particularly
surprising in light of the recent discussions as to whether the key contrast across
the Movius ‘Line’ is one of handaxe refinement (eg, Norton et al. 2006).
The author also makes reference to significant patterns without any recourse to
basic statistical testing of those patterns. With regards to the question of artefact
use I was left wondering whether abrasion, as defined and measured here, should
be expected to reveal such evidence. Perhaps most importantly, I was concerned at
the lack of attention given to the questions of the time depth and possible time
averaging of the assemblages, and whether or not (and at what scales) the assemblages
from the open air sites and the cave can be considered to be contemporary. These
issues are clearly critical to some of Wang’s discussion sections (eg, regarding
the possibility of two ‘cultural traditions’ in the Lower Palaeolithic (see comments
above) of north China, and the reconstruction of hominin behaviour in the Luonan
Basin) yet do not seem to be given sufficient attention.
With regards to the content, I was frequently left frustrated by the degree of detail
and the balance of the material. Too often the sections and chapters seem to be
too brief, with limited or even superficial discussions of the key issues and comparative
data sets (this is particularly true of the chapters in part II). The balance of
the volume also seems rather uneven: for example the key lithic analysis chapters
(9 and 10) dominate the volume, with a particular emphasis upon basic data description,
while there is only limited coverage of the geological context and the site geomorphology.
This is particularly frustrating, since given the geographical location of the sites
and the potential readership of the volume a more in-depth discussion of the geological
and geomorphological context would have been extremely beneficial for those unfamiliar
with the locality and/or the region. There are a number of other frustrating absences:
the lack of photographs or drawings illustrating the deliberately broken bones and
cut marks; the absence of photographs of the various lithic raw material types and
the key artefact types; and the failure to present the burnt and cut marked bone
data by both species and body part are just some of these. There are also a number
of minor errors in the discussion of the material, for example some of the age ranges
for marine isotope stages are misquoted. A number of key and up-to-date references
also appear to be missing, and their absence contributes to the overall impression
that the work is somewhat flawed.
With regards to its presentation unfortunately the text is littered with grammatical
and typographic errors. While I am entirely sympathetic to grammatical inconsistencies
from an author not writing in their first language, the profusion of typographic
errors is not acceptable and would seem to indicate an absence of appropriate proof-reading
and/or editorial involvement. I do not feel that this is simply a case of nit picking:
these errors reduce the readability and usability of the volume, and in some cases
the basic meaning of sentences and paragraphs becomes unclear. The poor presentation
is also indicated by other errors, such as inconsistencies between the citations
and the bibliography, and an occasionally rather clumsy page layout. The nature
of the text is particularly frustrating in light of the generally clear formatting
of the volume’s tables, although it is rather more in-keeping with the quality of
one or two of the photographs, which in the worst instances are almost entirely
uninformative.
In conclusion, this is an extremely frustrating volume, not least because I was
more than once left with the feeling that there is potentially very good work here.
The underlying material is clearly of interest, both at regional level (the Earlier
Palaeolithic of China) and at a global level (the distribution of the Acheulean
and the validity of the Movius Line concept). Unfortunately there are also a number
of notable flaws (both in terms of the analytical work undertaken and in the presentation
of the material) which raise question marks over some of the conclusions, leave
the reader frustrated as to unanswered questions and ignored issues, and limit the
wider accessibility of the work.
Dr Rob Hosfield
University of Reading
References
Corvinus, G. 2004. Homo erectus in East and Southeast Asia, and the questions
of the age of the species and its association with stone artifacts, with special
attention to handaxe-like tools. Quaternary International 117, 141–151
Gao, X. & Norton, C.J. 2002. Critique of the Chinese ‘Middle Palaeolithic’. Antiquity
76, 397–412
Norton, C.J., Bae, K., Harris, J.W.K. & Lee, H. 2006. Middle Pleistocene handaxes
from the Korean Peninsula. Journal of Human Evolution 51(5), 527–536
Petraglia, M.D. 1998. The Lower Palaeolithic of India and its bearing on the Asian
record, in M.D. Petraglia & R. Korisettar (eds) Early Human Behaviour in Global
Context: The Rise and Diversity of the Lower Palaeolithic Record.London:
Routledge Press, 343–390
Roe, D.A. 1968. British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic handaxe groups. Proceedings
of the Prehistoric Society 34, 1–82
Wymer, J.J. 1968. Lower Palaeolithic archaeology in Britain, as represented by the
Thames Valley. London, John Baker
Review Submitted: December 2006
The views expressed in this review are not necessarily those
of the Society or the Reviews Editor.
|