Evolutionary Anthropology 18:247–260 (2009)
ARTICLES
The Evolution of Modern Human Behavior in East
Asia: Current Perspectives
CHRISTOPHER J. NORTON AND JENNIE J.H. JIN
Behavioral modernity is considered one of the defining characteristics separating modern humans from earlier hominin lineages. Over the course of the past
two decades, the nature and origins of modern human behavior have been
among the most debated topics in paleoanthropology.1–7 There are currently two
primary competing hypotheses regarding how and when modern human behavior arose. The first one, which we shall term the saltational model, argues that
between 50–40 kya modern human behavior appeared suddenly and as a
‘‘package’’; that is, the entire range of traits appeared more or less simultaneously. The proposed reason most often cited for this sudden change in behavior
is a genetic mutation, possibly related to communication,7 that occurred around
50 kya. The second major hypothesis, which we shall term the gradualistic
model, argues that modern human behavior arose slowly and sporadically over
the course of the past 150,000 years and may be related to increasing population pressure.2 In general, many European scholars subscribe to the saltational
model, while many Africanists seem to prefer the gradualistic model. As
McBrearty and Brooks2 noted, the disagreement may be related to different developmental histories underlying the research traditions in Europe and Africa.
Generally accepted evidence of
modern human behaviors are art
and ornamentation; burials; blade
technology; worked biological implements such as bone and antler tools;
Dr. Christopher J. Norton is a paleoanthropologist at the University of Hawaii
at Manoa. He is involved in paleoanthropological research projects in East Asia
focusing on the topics of Out of Africa I
and modern human origins.
E-mail: [email protected].
Jennie Jin is a doctoral candidate at the
Pennsylvania State University. Her doctoral dissertation is a taphonomic analysis of an Early Holocene faunal collection
from Yunnan Province, China.
E-mail: [email protected].
Key words: East Asia; Late Pleistocene; behavioral evolution
C 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
V
DOI 10.1002/evan.20235
Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com).
long-distance exchange; standardized
lithic technology; effective predation
of large mammals; successful use of
harsh environments; and fishing and
fowling, among others (see Henshilwood and Marean,4 Table 1). All of
these traits would involve effective
communication skills, particularly
the abilities to express abstract
thought and/or teach how to produce
composite and complex objects. We
add to this list crossing large bodies
of open water, because it requires
the ability to produce some type of
watercraft and successfully navigate
to locations that are not necessarily
visible to the naked eye, as Davidson
and Noble8 originally noted.
Many paleoanthropologists agree
that the one overarching trait that
can truly be considered evidence of
modern human behavior is ‘‘symbolically organized behavior,’’ further
defined as ‘‘behavior that is mediated
by socially constructed patterns of
symbolic thinking, actions, and communication that allow for material
and information exchange and cultural continuity between and across
generations and contemporaneous
communities.’’4:635
Although
we
agree with Henshilwood and Marean4 about the importance of ‘‘symbolically organized behavior,’’ we
suggest that this type of behavior
does not present itself until populations increase to the point of which
different foraging groups find the
need to distinguish themselves from
each other. This may or may not be
related to access constraints to valuable resources such as mates. Thus, it
may be possible for other traces of
modern human behavior to appear
earlier than the evidence of symbolically organized behavior.
Behavioral modernity should not be
confused with morphological modernity.9 Current evidence indicates that
modern human behavior and morphology do not appear in the record
simultaneously.2,4,7 For
example,
detailed studies in Africa indicate that
modern humans appear about 195
kya10 and that modern human behavior appears by 150 kya.2,11 Although
we wholeheartedly acknowledge the
importance of the integrated approach
to modern human origins research,12
we have chosen here, because of disparities in the data, particularly in
East Asia, to focus on the behavioral
record. Thus, in this paper we do not
imply that the East Asian behavioral
data support any of the major modern
human origins models such as
replacement,13 multiregionalism,14 or
assimilation.15
Although some such as Henshilwood and Marean,4 question the
trait-list approach, we suggest that
OSL
?
70 ka
60–28 ka
Hebei Province
(China)
Yunnan
Province
(China)
Guangxi
Zhuang
Autonomous
Region
(China)
Laishui
Lijiang
Liujiang
Jingshuiwan
AMS
15–11 ka
Jiangxigou
Qinghai
Province
(China)
Three Gorges
Region
(China)
U-series, ESR
U-series
67 ka
227–
101 ka
>100, 150 ka
Biostratigraphy?
Late
Pleistocene
C
14
C
14
100–40 ka
Qinghai
Province
(China)
Heimahe
U-series
?
Huanglongdong Hubei Province
(China)
Guizhou
(China)
Guanyindong
Late
Pleistocene
Method
AMS
Guizhou
(China)
Chuandong
Age (BP)
?
?
?
Early
Paleolithic
Late
Paleolithic
Early
Paleolithic
Late
Paleolithic
Early
Paleolithic
?
Assignment
Cultural
?
Stone tools
?
Hearth, 107
stone
artifacts
910 core &
flake tools
22 core & flake
tools; bone
artifacts
Hearth & stone
tools
2,323 core &
flake tools
Stone & bone
tools
Artifacts
Hominin Fossils
Oriental faunas None
typical of
tropical
subtropical
environs
?
Modern H.
sapiens
(?): Almost
complete
skeleton
Oriental faunas Modern H.
typical of
sapiens: 1
tropical
cranium
subtropical
environs
Oriental faunas Modern H.
typical of
sapiens: 1
tropical
cranium &
subtropical
post-cranial
environs
elements
Mid-size
None
ungulates &
small
mammal
bone
fragments
Oriental faunas Modern H.
typical of
sapiens:
tropical and
Teeth
subtropical
environs
158 Artiodactyl None
specimens
Modern Homo
sapiens: 2
crania
Oriental faunas None
typical of
tropical/
subtropical
environs
?
Fauna
TABLE 1. Descriptive Data for Sites Mentioned in Text
Layer 2: 57ka
Layer 4:
119ka Layer
5: 80 – 104
ka Layer 8:
115 ka
15–11 ka
Location
Site
Dating
Questions
about
context and
age
Questions
about
context and
age
Site & fossils
unpublished
None
None
Questions
about
context and
age
None
89
15, 99
15, 99
88, 90
80
46
82
46
15, 81, 100
None
References
15, 99
Comments
No reported
age
40 ka
Xiaogushan
100–80 ka
Henan
Province
(China)
Shanxi
Province
(China)
Xuchang
Xujiayao
125–104 ka
150–120 ka
Xinglongdong Three Gorges
Region
(China)
Liaoning
Province
(China)
14
C
C
14
C
14
C
14
U-series
OSL
U-series
C
14
AMS
AMS
38–16,7 ka
42–39 ka
Tianyuandong Beijing (China)
Ningxia Hui
Autonomous
Region
(China)
AMS
Shuidonggou
AMS
C, U-series
14
Method
Dating
>1945 A.D.;
200
25,5 ka
Inner Mongolia 50–37 ka
(China)
Salawusu
Age (BP)
Location
Site
Early Paleolithic
Early Paleolithic
Early Paleolithic
Paleolithic
None
Late
Paleolithic
Late
Paleolithic
Assignment
Cultural
Palearctic/
Oriental
Palearctic
Palearctic
Fauna
Modern H.
sapiens: 34
cranial &
post-cranial
elements
Modern H.
sapiens: 5
teeth, 1
juvenile
femur
None
Modern H.
sapiens:
craniodental &
postcranial
elements
Fossils
Hominin
>10,000 stone
Palearctic
artifacts,
perforated
animal
teeth, bone
needles, &
harpoon
20 core & flake Oriental faunas Homo sp.
tools
typical of
tropical
subtropical
environs
Stone & bone
30,000
Modern H.
tools?
specimens
sapiens: 16
cranial
fragments
1,3650 stone
Palearctic
Archaic H.
artifacts
sapiens: 16
cranial
fragments &
isolated
tooth
None
Stone artifacts
400 stone
artifacts
Artifacts
TABLE 1. (Continued).
Comments
Questions
about age
Site & fossils
unpublished
Questions
about
context &
age
Questions
about
context and
age
None
None
Questions
about
context and
age
References
China Daily 28/
01/2008;
china.org.cn
29/01/2008
15, 26, 99
61
15, 59, 60, 100
101
86
15, 46, 100
85
15, 99, 100
Musashidai Tokyo (Japan)
Tategahana Nagano
(Nojiriko)
Prefecture
(Japan)
Dokso
Kyunggi-do
(Korea)
Hopyeong
Kyunggi-do
(Korea)
Turubong
ChungcheongbukCave
do (Korea)
(Hungsu
Cave)
Late Paleolithic
14
AMS
Biostratigraphy
31,2 ka 6 900
40 ka
C
14
C
14
AMS
37–36 ka
C
14
C
AMS
14
Early Paleolithic
Late Paleolithic
Late Paleolithic
Late Paleolithic
Early/Late
Paleolithic
Tephrochronology Early Paleolithic
C, U-series,
AMS 14C
Assignment
Cultural
Method
Dating
32–30 ka
49–41 ka
115–84 ka
Iwate Prefecture
(Japan)
Kanedori
Age (BP)
34–10 ka
Location
Zhoukoudian Beijing (China)
Upper
Cave
Site
Fauna
?
Modern H.
sapiens: 3
complete
crania &
postcranial
elements
None
Fossils
Hominin
Scrapers,
denticulates
Blades
Oriental faunas
typical of
tropical/
subtropical
environs
None
None
None
Question
about the
nature of
artifacts
None
None
Questions
about age
Comments
73
73
33, 102
35, 40
34, 35
15, 53
References
Modern Homo Questions
57, 73
about the
sapiens:
nature of
almost
artifacts and
complete
cranium &
age
postcranium
of a 5-6,
year old
child
None
?
?
None
Assorted bone Palaeoloxodon,
None
& stone flake
Sinomegaceros
tools
Blades
None
None
Stone tools?
25 stone
Palearctic
artifacts,
perforated
animal teeth
& shells
Artifacts
TABLE 1. (Continued).
ARTICLES
compiling a list of region-specific evidence of perceived modern human
behaviors is still the necessary first
step before we can move on to
attempts to address broader questions. Regional reviews of the evidence of modern human behavior
include coverage of Europe,16,17
Africa,2 Levant,18,19 South Asia,20 and
Australasia.21,22 Although East Asia is
important to the debate about the origin of modern human behavior, it is a
region that has yet to be synthesized
in this light. Indeed, in many of the
major edited compilations on the
topic, including those by Mellars and
Stringer1 and Mellars and coworkers,6 the East Asian record is
only briefly touched on or completely
neglected. We argue that the primary
reason for this discrepancy is that
there has been a lack of synthesis of
what is known and unknown in East
Asia. This paper provides the necessary synopsis from which the East
Asian record can now be considered
in discussions of the evolution of
modern human behavior.
We offer here a review of the current early evidence of modern
human behavior in East Asia and
evaluate how this evidence contributes to the debates regarding modern
human behavior. This review covers
East Asia, which encompasses the
modern-day political entities of
China, Korea, and Japan. ‘‘East Asia’’
should not be confused with ‘‘eastern
Asia’’ or ‘‘eastern Eurasia,’’ which
would also include Siberia and mainland and island Southeast Asia. We
are restricting our review to East
Asia sensu stricto. East Asia encompasses roughly 12,000,000 km2, an
area approximately 15% larger than
Europe. Topographically, to the west,
the most notable geographical landmark is the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau,
which, beginning during the Miocene, would have formed a formidable dispersal barrier. Moving from
west to east, the altitude decreases
substantially, to the point where
much of lowland eastern China is less
than 200 meters above sea level
(MASL). During extreme glacial periods, various land connections would
have been present between eastern
China, the Korean peninsula, and the
Japanese archipelago. East Asia com-
The Evolution of Modern Human Behavior in East Asia 251
prises two biogeographic zones, with
the Palearctic in the north and Oriental in the south. Throughout the Quaternary, this biogeographic boundary
was fairly fluid, moving southward
during glacial periods and northward
during interglacial periods.23
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES
Ideally, it would be constructive to
evaluate every modern human behavioral trait listed by McBrearty and
Brooks2 and Henshilwood and Marean.4 However, suitable data from
East Asia for many of these traits are
either lacking or absent. Therefore,
from among the array of generally
accepted modern human behaviors,
we review the evidence of watercraft;
use of harsh environments (in this
case, adaptation to high altitudes);
burials; art and symbolism; networks
of long-distance exchange; and
stone-tool specialization. The sites
mentioned here are presented in Figure 1 and Table 1. Although ‘‘successful exploitation of large mammals’’ is usually included in this
suite, we feel that, given the plethora
of new taphonomic and isotopic data
published in the last decade by, for
example, Marean and Kim,24 Richards and coworkers,25 Norton and
Gao,26 it may no longer be considered a defining characteristic of
modern human behavior. Instead of
‘‘successful use of harsh environments,’’ we prefer to use ‘‘successful
adaptation
to
high
altitudes’’
because, as we will discuss, successful occupation of the QinghaiTibetan Plateau involved a wide
range of physiological and behavioral
adaptations.
Watercraft
Long-distance sea voyaging has often been cited as evidence of early
modern behavior, usually in reference to the peopling of Australasia.8
Nevertheless, it has been suggested
that the Middle Pleistocene Mata
Menge site on Flores could only have
been occupied by sea voyaging Homo
erectus.27 However, paleobathymetric
reconstructions of the region (see,
for example, Anton,28 Fig. 6 and
Pettitt,29 Fig. 4.32) indicate that at
least during several Middle Pleistocene glacial periods, Flores could
have been connected to the Southeast Asian mainland. Thus, it is still
not clear that Homo erectus had deep
sea voyaging capabilities.
The best evidence of early sea voyages in East Asia is directly related
to the earliest peopling of the Japanese archipelago. Modern-day Japan
is comprised of four major islands,
Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku, and
Kyushu. Paleobathymetric and vertebrate paleontological studies indicate
that only during major glacial periods
was the Japanese archipelago connected to the Asian mainland.30–35
The last two accepted land bridges
were during the Middle Pleistocene,
when Stegodon orientalis arrived during marine isotope stage (MIS) 16
(0.63 Ma) and MIS 12 (0.43 Ma),36
when
Palaeoloxodon
naumanni
arrived (see Fig. 2 for description of
the MIS stages). The Korea/Tsushima
Strait, which separates the southern
part of the Korean Peninsula and
southern Japan, is 130 meters deep.
It is unclear whether, during the
LGM, the region was dry land forming a land bridge.37–39
The timing of the earliest peopling
of the Japanese archipelago is still a
subject of open debate.31,33–35 For
instance, Matsufuji34 has suggested
that the earliest peopling of Japan
occurred sometime during MIS 6
(186–127 kya). In support of this
hypothesis, Matsufuji34 proposes that
the artifacts from stratum IV of the
Kanedori site located in northeastern
Honshu were found in deposits (for
example, Aso-4, K-Tz) containing
tephra that dated between 115 and
84 kya (within MIS 5). Because MIS
5 is considered to be an interglacial
period and a time interval that would
have relatively high sea levels, Matsufuji34 suggests that it would have
been easier for hominins to have
arrived in Japan during MIS 6, a glacial period with substantially lower
paleobathymetry. Questions do exist,
however, concerning the artifactual
nature of the Kanedori fractured
stones from stratum IV. Kanedori
aside, there is no current evidence of
hominin occupation of the Japanese
archipelago before the advent of MIS
3 (54–25 kya).31,33,35 The earliest
ARTICLES
252 Norton and Jin
Figure 1. Sites mentioned in the text. 1. Chuandong, 2. Chang Tang, 3. Dokso, 4. Guanyindong, 5. Heimahe, 6. Hopyeong,
7. Huanglongdong, 8. Jiangxigou, 9. Jingshuiwan, 10. Kanedori, 11. Kozushima, 12. Laishui, 13. Lijiang, 14. Liujiang, 15. Musashidai,
16. Oketo, 17. Salawusu, 18. Shirataki, 19. Shuidonggou, 20. Tategahana, 21. Tianyuandong, 22. Turubong (Hungsu) Cave,
23. Xiaogushan, 24. Xinglongdong, 25. Xuchang, 26. Xujiayao, 27. Zhoukoudian.
site in Japan that is widely accepted
is the Tategahana, Nojiriko site
located in western Honshu, with accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS)
14
C dates from the lowest stratum
ranging between 49 and 41 kya.40
Irrespective of which is the earliest
site in Japan, Kanedori (MIS 5) or
Tategahana (MIS 3) both represent
periods when there were no land
connections between the Asian mainland and the Japanese archipelago.
This indirectly implies that some
type of watercraft was used in order
to colonize the archipelago.35
Additional indirect evidence of
early use of watercraft derives from
obsidian sourcing studies from
Kozushima, a small island off the
east coast of Honshu, Japan.33
Kozushima is currently 54 km from
the coast of Honshu. During the
LGM, it is estimated to still have
been some 40 km distant.41 Obsidian
excavated from late MIS 3 Late Pale-
olithic sites in the Kanto Plain in
and around Tokyo has been sourced
to Kozushima.33,42 For instance, obsidian that originated from Kozushima was excavated from the Musashidai site stratum X, which has
been 14C dated to 32–30 kya and has
been identified from at least six other
sites from eastern Honshu, all older
than 28 kya, and may be coeval with
Musashidai stratum X (see IkawaSmith,33 Table 1).
Adaptation to High Altitudes (Use
of Harsh Environments)
Hominin movement into higher
elevations occurred sometime during
the latter half of the Late Pleistocene,43 suggesting that cultural and
physiological requirements for successful exploitation of such environments were relatively severe. In East
Asia, human dispersal into the Qing-
hai-Tibetan Plateau (average 5,000
MASL) did not occur until the latter
half of the Late Pleistocene and
probably not until the latter stage of
MIS 3 (<30 kya).43–46 It is likely that
the primary reason for the late dispersal of hominins into higher altitudes was the decreasing amount of
oxygen with the shift toward higher
elevations, so that hypoxia became a
problem.43,47,48 High-altitude hypoxia
has been defined as a ‘‘severe physiological stress caused by lowered barometric pressure.’’48:423
Studies comparing low- and highaltitude populations from the Andes
and Tibet47,48 indicate a range of variation between these different populations. For instance, compared with
indigenous low-altitude groups, populations assimilated to life in high
altitudes have lower birth rates and
birth weights, reduced exercise ability, and shorter stature, though variation exists even between these
ARTICLES
The Evolution of Modern Human Behavior in East Asia 253
Figure 2. Marine Isotope Stages (MIS), indicating glacial periods. Sites are from Japan that are mentioned in the Watercraft and Long
Distance Exchange sections. MIS data drawn from the North Greenland Ice Core Project (http://www.gfy.ku.dk/www-glac/ngrip/
index_ eng.htm).
groups.47,48 Humans dispersing into
higher altitudes for the first time
thus would have faced diverse challenges in order to overcome these
initial physiological stresses. Accordingly, the ability not only to disperse
into, but to survive successfully in
this novel environment would have
involved a wide range of behaviors
including the ability to track and
hunt game successfully, manage controlled use of fire, and some form of
clothing.49 Indeed, evidence of at
least footwear in East Asia dates to
at least 40 kya, as studies of the Tianyuandong modern Homo sapiens
skeleton suggest.50 As a consequence,
humans probably were not physiologically adapted to move into
a hostile environment like the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau before late in
MIS 3.
Recent studies44–46 have divided the
Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau into areas of
low elevation (<3,000 MASL), middle
elevation (3,000–4,000 MASL), and
high elevation (>4,000 MASL). Analysis of an array of optically stimulated
luminescence (OSL) and AMS 14C
dates derived from diverse sites from
the region indicate that human occupation of the low-elevation areas
began during MIS 3 during highwater stands, when wild ungulates
would have been abundant.46 Occupation appears in the middle elevation region during MIS 2, but only
ephemerally. Small test excavations
at the middle elevation sites of Heimahe and Jiangxigou (15–11 kya)
revealed evidence of hearths and
small concentrations of artifacts (for
example, microblades, bifacial thinning flakes, and cores).46 The small
artifact and bone concentrations suggest that these sites were short-term,
possibly single-visit foraging camps
for small hunter-gatherer groups.45,46
It was not until after 6,000 cal. yr BP
when permanent occupations were
established at elevations above 3,000
MASL.43,45,46 Before this, foraging
groups would have been restricted to
below the 3,000 MASL boundary.
Only short-term visits above that
boundary would have been feasible. It
has been suggested that this coincided with or was facilitated by the
advent
of
animal
domestication,43,45,46
which
would
have
resulted in a reliable food and clothing source. In part, at least, increasing population pressure at the lower
elevations likely forced hunting and
gathering groups into the higher-elevation regions.44–46
Burials
Ritualized treatment of the dead,
often in the form of burials, has long
been considered to be evidence of
modern human behavior.2,4 Two
sites in East Asia, Zhoukoudian
Upper Cave, China, and Hungsu
Cave, Korea, have been proposed as
Paleolithic human interments.
Zhoukoudian, a limestone hill
located 50 km southwest from Beijing, China, contains a series of cave
localities. The best-known site is the
Middle Pleistocene Locality 1, which
yielded abundant remains of Homo
erectus and is commonly known as
the ‘‘cave home of Peking Man.’’51
The second most publicized locality
at Zhoukoudian is Upper Cave, which
is best known for the presence of
numerous modern human fossils, at
least some of which are thought to
ARTICLES
254 Norton and Jin
have been purposely interred.52,53
Multiple lines of evidence support the
claim for human burials at Upper
Cave. In particular, the human fossils
were found partially articulated, suggesting minimal taphonomic disturbance after deposition, and were covered with ochre. Composite necklaces, consisting of perforated stone,
shells, and bone were purportedly
found near the neck of at least
one individual.52,53 Although the
wider scientific community generally
accepts that Upper Cave represents
Late Paleolithic burials (34–20 kya),
the age of deposition and cultural
affiliation are still in question. For
example, some scientists, among
them Kamminga and Wright54,55
argue that the burials are Early Holocene (10 kya). We suggest that the
case for Zhoukoudian Upper Cave
dating to the Late Paleolithic is fairly
strong, particularly given the number
of extinct faunas found in association
with the human skeletons.53
A nearly complete skeleton of a
modern human child thought to have
been interred in Late Pleistocene sediment was discovered in the Hungsu
Cave site in the Turubong Cave Complex in the central region of modernday South Korea.56–58 Based on tooth
eruption, the Hungsu child is estimated to have been between 5 and 6
years old at the time of death.58 Based
on the associated paleontological
remains, the excavators suggested a
40 kya age for the burial.56 Nevertheless, it has been suggested that the
burial may be intrusive from overlying Holocene layers.
Art and Symbolism
Since the 1930s, the best-known
evidence of Paleolithic art and symbolism in East Asia has come from
Zhoukoudian Upper Cave.52,53 The
artifacts include seven perforated
white calcareous stone beads, which
were found near the Zhoukoudian
Upper Cave 102 cranium. One hundred and twenty-five perforated animal teeth and three Arca shells were
excavated from the deposits. Many
of these artifacts were dyed in red
ochre. The majority of these ornaments were excavated from Layer 4,
the source of the human burials.52,53
In 1983, five teeth and one juvenile
femur of modern Homo sapiens, as
well as lithic and bone artifacts, were
excavated from the Xiaogushan site
in Liaoning Province, Northeast
China.59,60 The perforated carnivore
and cervid teeth and three bone needles from Xiaogushan are similar to
the osseous implements from Zhoukoudian Upper Cave. One of the
most interesting aspects of the Xiaogushan materials is a finely crafted
composite bone harpoon that displays similarities to those from the
European Magdalenian cultures (Fig.
3). The bone harpoon may have been
used in fishing and/or hunting activities, though fish remains were not
identified in the faunal assemblage.
The presence of extinct open-steppe
taxa (such as Crocuta ultima, Mammuthus primigenius, Coelodonta antiquitatis, Dicerorhinus mercki, and Megaloceros ordosianus) indicates a Late
Pleistocene age for the deposits.59,60
The only reported 14C date is 40
kya,15 though more research is currently being done to clarify the age.
The excavators have also suggested
Xiaogushan is similar in age to Zhoukoudian Upper Cave.59 Xiaogushan is
a site complex that warrants more
detailed multidisciplinary studies, particularly taphonomic reconstructions
of the site formation processes.
Because both Paleolithic and Neolithic
artifacts are present at the site, it is
crucial to evaluate the possibility that
the bone harpoon derives from the
overlying Neolithic layer and not from
the Paleolithic level.
In 2001, a Stegodon tusk with
markings interpreted as being hominin-made was excavated from Xinglongdong, a cave site in the Three
Gorges Region in southern China.61
This tusk is one of two representing
separate individuals that were excavated in situ about 50 meters inside
Xinglongdong. The site also yielded a
worn hominin tooth (Homo sp.)
from an aged individual, twenty
stone artifacts, and diverse faunal
materials. The size of the Stegodon
tusks precludes them from having
naturally washed into the cave, their
transport by nonhuman animals
seems unlikely. Thus, the marked
tusk is spatially associated with indisputable artifacts and a human
Figure 3. Bone harpoon from Xiaogushan
site in northern China. Reproduced with
permission from Huang Weiwen and the
Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and
Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of
Sciences.
tooth. The stratigraphic level from
which the tusks were excavated is
bracketed by two separate travertine
layers. However, because the travertine has insufficient amounts of calcite, U-series dating could not be
performed. Instead, U-series dating
was done on a Stegodon molar found
in association with the tusks, resulting in an age range between
150 and 120 kya.61 If if is confirmed that the markings on the tusk
were made by hominins, the Xinglongdong specimen may be the earliest evidence of symbolic behavior
in East Asia.
The Xinglongdong material warrants further discussion. The markings on the tusk are comprised of linear striations on the natural external
end of a tusk (Fig. 4). Trampling
experiments conducted by the excavators did not produce similar
ARTICLES
The Evolution of Modern Human Behavior in East Asia 255
Figure 4. Purported hominin-modified Stegodon incisor from the Xinglongdong site in central China. Reproduced with permission from Gao Xing and the Institute of Vertebrate
Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences.
marks, leading the excavators to suggest that the marks were produced
by human activity.61 Nevertheless,
the Xinglongdong markings do not
show a repetitive pattern like the
incised ochre from Blombos Cave
and Pinnacle Point in South
Africa11,62 and they are not recognizably figurative. Furthermore, there is
no evidence to suggest that the
marks could not have occurred while
still attached to the living elephant.
Elephants normally use their tusks
to carry out a variety of daily functions such as moving food and digging. More research is needed to verify the age and the evidence of ‘‘symbolic’’ behavior at Xinglongdong
before it can be confidently accepted.
In addition, most would argue that
evidence of symbolic behavior needs
to be repetitive. In other words, similar additional evidence needs to be
found either at Xinglongdong or
nearby penecontemporaneous sites.
Since the 1930s, the best evidence
of Paleolithic art and symbolism in
East Asia has been the material from
Zhoukoudian Upper Cave. When
the material from Xiaogushan and
Xinglongdong are better studied
and dated, further revisions of the
evidence for Paleolithic art and
symbolism in East Asia may be in
store.
Long Distance Exchange
Networks
The appearance of ‘‘exotic’’ materials (ones that are not perceived as indigenous to the site or region) is often used as evidence of long-distance
transport and possibly is indicative
of exchange interactions between different foraging groups.4 One of the
best archeological indicators of longdistance transport in East Asia
involves obsidian.
Hokkaido, the northernmost island
of the Japanese archipelago, and
Sakhalin, located just north, are separated by the Soya Strait, which is
55 meters in depth. This indicates
that during major glacial periods
(such as the LGM) these two islands
would have been landlocked.30,35
Paleontological studies32 support the
close relationship between the fauna
from these two regions. Sourcing
studies of obsidian from the southern part of Sakhalin date it to the
Late Paleolithic (c. 23 kya) and indicate that the raw material originated
from Shirataki, located in central
Hokkaido, a distance of approximately 300 km.63 Kuzmin, Glascock,
and Sato63 suggest that this is evidence of long-distance exchange
between different foraging groups
during the LGM and that there was
likely some type of interaction.
Although the chronometric age of
Zhoukoudian Upper Cave is still in
question, biological materials in the
form of three perforated seashells
(Arca sp.) were recovered during
excavations.52 Depending on which
date one uses for the Zhoukoudian
Upper Cave deposits, the seashells
could have been moved as little as
150 km, which is where the paleocoastline is estimated to have been
during the Early Holocene. Alternatively, if the Zhoukoudian Upper
Cave deposits date to the Last Glacial
Maximum, the paleocoastline could
have been some 500–600 km from
the site. Regardless of which paleocoastline one uses, it has long been
argued by Chinese scientists52 that
the appearance of the seashells in
the deposits was most likely the
result of exchange with coastal
hunter-gatherer groups.
Stone-Tool Specialization
Two stone tool types that are often
associated with modern human
behavior are blades and microblades.2,4 The East Asian Paleolithic
is well known for the paucity of
major technological innovations over
long periods of time (see Gao and
Norton,64 Norton, and coworkers,65
and references in Lycett and Norton66). The advent of blade and
microblade technologies is not an indigenous development in East Asia.
Blade technology appears first at
Kara Bom (43 kya) in the Siberian
Altai, then disperses southward into
Inner Mongolia, northern China,
Korea, and Japan.67–70 The type site
for early evidence of blade technology in East Asia is Shuidonggou, in
Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region in
ARTICLES
256 Norton and Jin
northern China, with AMS and OSL
dates ranging between 29 and 24
kya.46,68,71,72 However, blades with
earlier AMS dates have been identified in Korea in, for example,
Hopyeong (31 kya) and Dokso
(37–36 kya).73
At no time during the Pleistocene
does blade technology appear in
southern China or mainland Southeast Asia.74 Blade technology was
moved southward either by foraging
groups expanding southward in the
face of increasing glacial conditions
or through some type of exchange
interaction sphere; that is, technology diffuses, foraging groups do
not. We admit that trying to track
such movements by anisochronous
(time-transgressive) distributions of
blade industries is unlikely to be
as informative as are studies of variation in blade production methods
(that is, chaine operatoire analysis).
However, there is a relative paucity of
such detailed analyses of lithic technologies in East Asia (but see Brantingham and coworkers.68 See Box 1).
DISCUSSION
Most of the archeological evidence
evaluated here indicates a post-50kya appearance in East Asia (Fig. 5).
Before we discuss the implications of
these findings, it is important to
understand the behavioral record in
light of related fields of study. How
do the hominin fossil record and
chronological studies influence our
interpretations of the advent of modern human behavior in East Asia?
The Hominin Fossils
Most of the currently reported
modern H. sapiens fossils in East
Asia are from northern China, Korea,
and Japan, with far fewer from
southern China.15,34,57 Taken at face
value, the paucity of modern H. sapiens in southern China apparently
conflicts with the genetic argument
that modern humans initially arrived
in southern China and then dispersed northward (Jin and Su,75 Shi
and coworkers76; but see Karafet and
coworkers77). Some geneticists75,76
have argued that the higher frequency of genetic polymorphisms in
Box 1: The Legacy of the Movius Line
Because of the presumed absence of bifacially worked heavy-duty tools
such as handaxes, cleavers and picks, Hallam Movius91 made the famous
comment that East and Southeast Asia constituted a ‘‘cultural backwater’’
for much of the Pleistocene. Movius’ comments prompted many Paleolithic archeologists working in East Asia to try and disprove what came to
be known as the ‘‘Movius Line.’’92 However, after more than 60 years of
research, we suggest that many of Movius’ original observations (not interpretations) still stand.65,66 Accordingly, rather than dedicating more time
searching for handaxes, we believe it is time to move forward and take a
closer look at what the East Asian lithics may tell us about early hominin
behavioral variability. In particular, more detailed studies of variation in
the core and flake implements that dominate all East Asian lithic assemblages is critical to understanding the behavioral variability that may or
may not be present in the East Asian Paleolithic. In other words, rather
than describing the East Asian Paleolithic as a stagnant, nondeveloping
Mode 1 technology with little innovation over the course of more than one
million years, it would be worthwhile to apply more modern analytical
methodologies to these lithic datasets. Indeed, recent vertebrate paleontological research by Wang and coworkers93 indicated that the amorphous
‘‘Ailuropoda-Stegodon’’ faunal complex, which often characterizes the Oriental biogeographic zone during the Quaternary, actually contains a great
deal of temporal variation. There is little reason to believe that, upon
closer analytical examination of the stone toolkits from East Asia, particularly southern China and Southeast Asia, the nature of behavioral variability during the Early Paleolithic cannot be better understood.
We recommend two avenues of research that analyses of East Asian
lithic assemblages could move toward. First, rather than basing analyses
of bifacial implements on univariate length, width, and thickness measurements, more detailed multivariate data should be collected. In this regard,
the recent multivariate morphometric investigations of Lycett,94,95 which
were based on 60 different quantitative metrics taken from core nuclei, is
more robust than the types of lithic analyses currently being done on East
Asian stone toolkits (but see Brantingham and colleagues68). Second, we
suggest that methodologies being developed and used for analyses of the
African Oldowan, which are designed to more closely examine behavioral
variability, could also be readily employed in East Asia. For example,
Braun and coworkers96,97 have been studying lithic sourcing (geochemical
ED-XRF) and core reduction sequences from Early Pleistocene sites in
Kanjera and Koobi Fora with very illuminating results. These studies are
particularly relevant to the East Asian record because it is a well-known
fact that Oldowan-type industries dominate the Early Paleolithic record.
Ultimately, as Shea98:226 has noted ‘‘recognizing the role that variability
may have played in Early Paleolithic stone-tool design is a significant step
toward more realistic models of early hominin subsistence.’’ More detailed
analyses of the East Asian lithic toolkits would more readily facilitate a
deeper understanding of early hominin lifeways, such as subsistence and
mobility patterning, particularly because the paleoecology appears to have
been so different from that in Europe and Africa throughout much of the
Quaternary.
the southern samples indicates an
older occupation. However, it has
also been noted that this genetic patterning may reflect greater population densities.78 All things being
equal, if humans lived in higher population densities in southern China
than in northern China during the
Late Pleistocene, then we might
expect to find more human fossils in
ARTICLES
The Evolution of Modern Human Behavior in East Asia 257
Figure 5. List of the appearance of modern human behaviors discussed in the text, with their associated chronological dates. Bold lines
indicate the earliest accepted appearance of a particular trait. Dashed lines represent how much farther back in time that particular
trait may appear in the archeological record, pending further studies. Zhoukoudian (‘‘ZKD’’) Upper Cave dates to either the Early Holocene (10 kya) or pre-Last Glacial Maximum (40–20 kya). The ZKD Upper Cave materials are particularly important when discussing
the early evidence of art and symbolism, burials, and long-distance exchange.
the former region. A hominin presence can be manifested by the presence or absence of archeological
materials, as well as by hominin fossils. If southern China did indeed
have higher population densities
than did northern China between
MIS 5 and 2, then this should be
reflected in the archeological record
in the form of higher site and artifact
densities. Further systematic field
work in southern China will likely
clarify the density of hominin occupations during the Late Pleistocene
and earlier periods.74,79
Though previous workers argued
that hominins did not occupy China
between 100 and 50 kya,75,76 recent
studies indicate a hominin presence
in this spatio-temporal point. For
instance, the recent discovery of a
modern H. sapiens cranium associated with vertebrate fossils and artifacts in Xuchang, Henan Province,
China, places modern humans in
East Asia between 100 and 80 kya,
based on initial OSL dates. The excavation report and analysis of the fossils and artifacts have yet to be for-
mally published, though news media
disseminated the story in early 2008
(see Table 1 for links). Other examples include the open-air site Jingshuiwan, located in the Three Gorges
Region in central China, where excavations revealed in-situ archeological
materials with the lowest stratigraphic level OSL-dated to 70
kya.80 Guanyindong, a cave site in
Guizhou Province with more than
2,300 lithic artifacts and a diversity
of Oriental faunas has an age range,
based on U-series dating analysis,
between 115 and 57 kya.81 Recent
excavations at Huanglongdong in
Hubei Province revealed modern H.
sapiens teeth in association with archeological materials. Although U-series dates suggest an age of 100
kya,82 the association between the
speleothem samples used for the Useries dating analysis and the modern human teeth is not clear.
Dating Issues
Dating is a persistent problem in
East Asian paleoanthropology. As
Trinkaus83 suggested, more attempts
at direct dating of hominin fossils is
needed because such studies in East
Asia can either reinforce current scientific thinking or raise questions
about how we currently interpret certain paleoanthropological sites and
associated materials. For instance,
direct dating of samples from Salawusu, which is thought to be Late
Pleistocene,84 indicates that some of
the human skeletal materials may
only be a few hundred years old.85
However, in another recent study of
Chinese materials, direct dating of
the Tianyuandong human fossils
found support for the argument that
the fossils date to the Late Pleistocene.86
The best known site in East Asia
where direct dating of the human fossils would serve to clarify a diversity
of paleoanthropological questions is
Zhoukoudian Upper Cave. Standard
14
C, thermoluminescence (TL), U-series, and AMS 14C methods were
applied to derive a general chronological framework for occupation
(Norton and Gao,53 Table 1). Chrono-
ARTICLES
258 Norton and Jin
metric dates vary widely, between 34
kya and 10 kya, for the primary cultural level (Layer 4) where the burials
originate. Most paleoanthropologists
agree that the burials from Zhoukoudian are from the Late Pleistocene
and likely date to the latter part of
MIS 3. However, noting that the integrity of the stratigraphic context of
some of the faunal remains is
questionable and that postdepositional
disturbance
more
likely
affected the smaller bones that were
used in deriving the AMS 14C dates,
Kamminga54,55 argued that the original 14C dates suggesting that Layer 4
was from c. 10 kya and the Lower
Recess c. 18 kya87 were more viable.
More detailed chronometric studies
are critically needed to better understand the role of Zhoukoudian Upper
Cave in Late Pleistocene human evolution in East Asia.
Other sites for which direct chronometric dates would be extremely
useful are Laishui88 and Liujiang.89
Laishui is best known for the nearly
complete skeleton of a hominin that
initial observations suggest is modern H. sapiens with a date of 28
kya88 or 60–30 kya.90 It is unclear
what dating method was applied to
the Laishui site. However, observations of the casts of the hominin fossils that are on display in the Sackler
Museum in Beijing indicate that the
skeleton is very robust, with pronounced supraorbitals,88,90 (CJN,
personal observation). Thus, it is
possible that the Laishui hominin
may actually be a late-appearing archaic H. sapiens, rather than a modern human. We await formal publication of the Laishui materials and dates.
The Liujiang modern human cranium
is one of the most important Late
Pleistocene fossils from southern
China. However, because of questions
related to the context and three-dimensional positioning of the skull, questions will persist about the age of the
deposits.89 Other important modern
human fossils from southern China,
such as Lijiang and Chuandong,15
have no reported chronometric dates.
Overall, the East Asian Late Pleistocene
hominin
fossil
record
presents a complex picture. More
modern H. sapiens fossils have been
discovered in northern China, Korea,
and Japan, which may suggest that
modern humans possibly arrived initially in Northeast Asia rather than
Southeast Asia, or were in higher
population densities in the former
region. Although more research
needs to be done regarding understanding the Late Pleistocene hominin fossil record, particularly in light
of the variation in chronometric dating and morphology, growing evidence suggests that modern humans
may have been present in East Asia
before 50 kya.
Although more research
needs to be done. . .
growing evidence
suggests that modern
humans may have been
present in East Asia
before 50 kya.
Future Directions
Traditionally,
publication
and
accessibility have been two major
hurdles in efforts to decipher the
East Asian record. In some cases,
major paleoanthropological finds
have been preliminarily reported in
newspapers or difficult-to-access scientific journals. A good example of
this is the Chinese Laishui hominin
fossil materials, which were discovered in the 1980s but still have not
been fully reported. Detailed and
timely publication of paleoanthropological materials is important to
fully understand what role the new
data play in paleoanthropological
debates.
Every year, as the world gets
smaller and smaller and scientists
from across the globe engage
increasingly in cross-comparative
studies between different regions,
accessibility is becoming a less difficult barrier to overcome. East Asian
scholars are usually keen in engaging
in collaborative research with their
Western counterparts, while at the
same time offering Western scientists
and student-scientists access to their
sites and materials for detailed
studies.
CONCLUSIONS
The apparent and substantial qualitative and quantitative differences
among the African, European, and
East Asian Late Pleistocene records
leads us to draw two primary conclusions from this review. First, based
on the current state of the evidence
from East Asia, we suggest that it is
premature to argue for or against the
saltational or gradualistic models.
Second, evidence of watercraft and
adaptation to higher altitudes should
receive greater consideration for
reconstructions of modern human
behavior, particularly in East Asia.
Interestingly, the evidence from
northern China, Korea, and Japan
lends more support for the saltational model, while the evidence for
southern China appears to corroborate the gradualistic model. We postulate that this may in part be
related to ecological differences
between the two regions, though
more detailed studies of the sites and
materials mentioned here should
clarify this.
If this review raises questions
about the nature of the East Asian
Paleolithic record and reinforces the
call for more detailed testing of
hypotheses in the future, then it has
served its purpose. The East Asian
record has much to offer major
debates
in
paleoanthropological
research. Only when full accessibility
and timely publication of research
results become the norm will the full
impact of what the East Asian record
has to offer be fully understood,
facilitating a deeper understanding
of the role East Asia plays in the
debate regarding modern human
origins.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This synthesis could not have been
completed without support over the
past several decades from numerous
colleagues in China, Korea, and Japan. We fully appreciate the support
of these scientists. We are grateful to
Pat Shipman, Stephen Lycett, and
the anonymous reviewers for many
constructive comments on an earlier
draft. In particular, we thank John
Shea for the initial invitation and his
ARTICLES
The Evolution of Modern Human Behavior in East Asia 259
many detailed comments on this
manuscript. We take full responsibility for any errors that may be present.
REFERENCES
1 Mellars P, Stringer CB, editors. 1989. The
human revolution: behavioural and biological
perspectives in the origins of modern humans.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
2 McBrearty S, Brooks A. 2000. The revolution
that wasn’t: a new interpretation of the origin
of modern human behavior. J Hum Evol
39:453–563.
3 Foley R, Lahr MM. 2003. Lithic technology,
human evolution, and the emergence of culture.
Evol Anthropol 12:109–122.
4 Henshilwood CS, Marean CW. 2003. The origin of modern human behavior: critique of the
models and their test implications. Curr
Anthropol 44:627–651.
5 Mellars P. 2006. Going east: new genetic and
archaeological perspectives on the modern
human colonization of Eurasia. Science 313:
796–800.
6 Mellars P, Boyle K, Bar-Yosef O, Stringer C,
editors. 2007. Rethinking the human revolution.
Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge.
7 Klein RG. 2008. Out of Africa and the evolution of human behavior. Evol Anthropol
17:267–281.
8 Davidson I, Noble W. 1992. Why the first colonization of the Australian region is the earliest
evidence of modern human behavior. Perspect
Hum Biol Archaeol Oceania 27:113–119.
9 d’Errico F. 2003. The invisible frontier. A
multiple species model for the origin of behavioural modernity. Evol Anthropol 12:188–202.
10 McDougall I, Brown FH, Fleagle JG. 2005.
Stratigraphic placement and age of modern
humans from Kibish, Ethiopia. Nature
433:733–736.
11 Marean CW, Bar-Matthews M, Bernatchez J,
Fisher E, Goldberg P, Herries AIR, Jacobs Z,
Jerardino A, Karkanas P, Minichillo T, Nilssen
P, Thompson E, Watts I, Williams HM. 2007.
Early human use of marine resources and pigment in South Africa during the Middle Pleistocene. Nature 449:905–909.
12 Mellars P. 2005. The impossible coincidence:
a single-species model for the origins of modern human behaviour in Europe. Evol Anthropol 14:12–27.
13 Stringer CB, Andrews P. 1988. Genetic and
fossil evidence for the origin of modern
humans. Science 239:1263–1268.
14 Wolpoff MH, Wu XZ, Thorne AG. 1984. A
general theory of hominid evolution involving
the fossil evidence from East Asia. In: Smith
FH, Spencer F, editors. The origin of modern
humans: a world survey of the fossil evidence.
New York: Alan R Liss. p 411–484.
15 Wu XZ. 2004. On the origin of modern
humans in China. Quaternary Int 117:131–140.
16 d’Errico F, Zilhao J, Julien M, Baffier D,
Pelegrin J. 1998. Neanderthal acculturation in
western Europe? A critical review of the evidence and its interpretation. Curr Anthropol
39:S1–S44.
17 Villa P, d’Errico F. 2001. Bone and ivory
points in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of
Europe. J Hum Evol 41:69–112.
18 Bar-Yosef O. 2000. The Middle and Early
Upper Paleolithic in southwest Asia and
neighboring regions. In: Bar-Yosef O, Pilbeam D,
editors. The geography of Neandertals and modern humans in Europe and the greater Mediterranean. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Bull No. 8. p 107–156.
19 Shea JJ. 2003. Neandertals, competition,
and the origin of modern human behavior in
the Levant. Evol Anthropol 12:173–187.
20 James HVA, Petraglia MD. 2005. Modern
human origins and the evolution of behavior in
the later Pleistocene record of South Asia. Curr
Anthropol 46:S3–S27.
21 O’Connell JF, Allen J. 2007. Pre-LGM Sahul
(Pleistocene Australia-New Guinea) and the
archaeology of early modern humans. In: Mellars P, Boyle K, Bar-Yosef O, Stringer C, editors. Rethinking the human revolution. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research. p 395–410.
22 Habgood PJ, Franklin NR. 2008. The revolution that didn’t arrive: a review of Pleistocene
Sahul. J Hum Evol 55:187–222.
23 Norton CJ, Jin CZ, Wang Y, Zhang YQ. n. d.
Rethinking the Palearctic-Oriental biogeographic boundary in Quaternary China. In:
Norton CJ, Braun DR, editors. Asian paleoanthropology: from Africa to China and beyond.
Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology
Series. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer
Press. In press.
24 Marean CW, Kim SY. 1998. Mousterian
large-mammal remains from Kobeh Cave. Curr
Anthropol 39:79–113.
25 Richards MP, Pettitt PB, Trinkaus E, Smith
FH, Paunovic M, Karavanic I. 2000. Neanderthal diet at Vindija and Neanderthal predation:
the evidence from stable isotopes. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA 97:7663–7666.
26 Norton CJ, Gao X. 2008. Hominin-carnivore
interactions during the Chinese Early Paleolithic: taphonomic perspectives from Xujiayao.
J Hum Evol 55:164–178.
27 Morwood MJ, O’sullivan PB, Aziz F, Raza A,
1998. Fission-track ages of stone tools and fossils on the east Indonesian island of Flores. Nature 392:173–176.
28 Anton SC. 2007. Climatic influences on the
evolution of early Homo? Folia Primatol
78:365–388.
29 Pettitt P. 2009. The rise of modern humans.
In: Scarre C, editor. The human past, 2nd ed.
London: Thames and Hudson. p 124–173.
30 Millien-Parra V, Jaeger JJ. 1999. Island biogeography of the Japanese terrestrial mammal
assemblages: an example of a relict fauna. J
Biogeogr 26:959–972.
31 Ono A. 2004. Recent studies of the Late
Palaeolithic industries in the Japanese islands.
In: Yajima K, editor. Recent Paleolithic studies
in Japan. Tokyo: The Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan. p 28–46.
32 Kawamura Y. 2007. Last glacial and Holocene land mammals of the Japanese islands:
their fauna, extinction and immigration. Quater
Res 46:171–177.
33 Ikawa-Smith F. 2008. Living on the edge of
the continent: the Japanese archipelago 30,000–
8,000 cal. B.C. North Pacific Prehist 2:45–64.
34 Matsufuji K. n. d. When were the earliest
hominin migrations to the Japanese islands? In:
Norton CJ, Braun DR, editors. Asian paleoanthropology: from Africa to China and beyond.
Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology
Series. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer
Press. In press.
35 Norton CJ, Kondo Y, Ono A, Zhang YQ,
Diab M. 2009. The nature of megafaunal extinctions during the MIS 3–2 transition in Japan.
Quatern Int 211:113–122.
36 Konishi S, Yoshikawa S. 1999. Immigration
times of the two proboscidean species, Stegodon
orientalis and Palaeoloxodon naumanni, into the
Japanese islands and the formation of land
bridge. Earth Sci 53:125–134. (In Japanese).
37 Minoura K, Hoshino K, Nakamura T, Wada
E. 1997. Late Pleistocene-Holocene paleoproductivity circulation in the Japan Sea: sea-level
control on d13C and d15N records of sediment
organic material. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimat
Palaeoecol 135:41–50.
38 Park YA. 2001. Korean quaternary environment. Seoul: Seoul National University Press.
In Korean.
39 Lee EI, Kim SJ, Nam SI. 2008. Paleo-Tsushima Water and its effect on surface water properties in the East Sea during the last glacial
maximum: revisited. Quat Int 176–177:3–12.
40 Ono A, Sato H, Tsutsumi T, Kudo Y. 2002.
Radiocarbon dates and archaeology of the late
Pleistocene in the Japanese islands. Radiocarbon 44:477–494.
41 Ikeya N. 2005. Obsidian that crossed the
Kuroshio current: the Mitakadanma site. Tokyo: Shinsensha. (in Japanese)
42 Suzuki M. 1973. Chronology of prehistoric
human activity in Kanto, Japan. J Faculty Science, University Tokyo V:395–469.
43 Aldenderfer M, Zhang YN. 2004. The prehistory of the Tibetan Plateau to the seventh century AD: perspectives and research from China
and the West since 1950. J World Prehist 18:1–
55.
44 Brantingham PJ, Haizhou MA, Olsen JW,
Gao X, Madsen DB, Rhode DE. 2003.
Speculation on the timing and nature of
Late Pleistocene hunter-gatherer colonization
of the Tibetan Plateau. Chinese Sci Bull
48:1510–1516.
45 Brantingham PJ, Gao X, Olsen JW, Ma HZ,
Rhode D, Zhang HY, Madsen DB. 2007. A short
chronology for the peopling of the Tibetan
Plateau. In: Madsen DB, Chen FH, Gao X, editors. Late Quaternary climate change and
human adaptation in arid China: developments
in Quaternary science. Amsterdam: Elsevier. p
129–150.
46 Madsen DB, Ma H, Brantingham PJ, Gao X,
Rhode D, Zhang H, Olsen JW. 2006. The late
Upper Paleolithic occupation of the northern
Tibetan Plateau margin. J Archaeol Sci
33:1433–1444.
47 Moore LG, Niermeyer S, Zamudio S. 1998.
Human adaptation to high altitude: regional
and life-cycle perspectives. Yb Phys Anthropol
41:25–64.
48 Beall CM. 2001. Adaptations to altitude: a current assessment. Ann Rev Anthropol 30:423–456.
49 Aiello LC, Wheeler P. 2003. Neanderthal
thermoregulation and the glacial climate. In:
van Andel TH, Davies W, editors. Neanderthals
and modern humans in the European landscape during the Last Glaciation. Cambridge:
McDonald
Institute
for
Archaeological
Research, Cambridge. p 147–166.
50 Trinkaus E, Shang H. 2008. Anatomical evidence for the antiquity of human footwear: Tianyuan and Sunghir. J Archaeol Sci 35:1928–1933.
51 Jia LP. 1975. The cave home of Peking Man.
Beijing: Foreign Languages Press.
52 Pei WC. 1934. A preliminary report on the
Late Palaeolithic cave of Choukoutien. Bull
Geol Soc China 13:327–358.
ARTICLES
260 Norton and Jin
53 Norton CJ, Gao X. 2008. Zhoukoudian Upper
Cave revisited. Curr Anthropol 49:732–745.
54 Kamminga J, Wright RVS. 1988. The Upper
Cave at Zhoukoudian and the origins of Mongoloids. J Hum Evol 17:739–767.
55 Kamminga J. 1992. New interpretations of
the Upper Cave, Zhoukoudian. In: Akazawa T,
Aoki K, Kimura T, editors. The evolution and
dispersal of modern humans in Asia. Tokyo:
Hokusen-sha. p 379–400.
56 Park SJ, Lee YJ. 1990. A new discovery of
the Upper Pleistocene child’s skeleton from
Hungsu Cave (Turubong Cave complex) Ch’ongwon, Korea. Korean J Quatern Res 4:1–14. (in
Korean)
57 Norton CJ. 2000. The current state of Korean
paleoanthropology. J Hum Evol 38:803–825.
58 Park SJ. 2006. The Upper Pleistocene hominid in Korea. L’anthropologie 110:162–174. (in
French)
59 Zhang ZH, Fu RY, Chen BF, Liu JY, Zhu
MY, Wu HK, Huang WW. 1985. A preliminary
report on the excavation of Paleolithic site at
Xiaogushan of Haicheng, Liaoning Province.
Acta Anthropol Sinica 4:78–92. (in Chinese)
60 Chen C, Olsen JW. 1990. China at the Last
Glacial Maximum. In: Soffer O, Gamble C, editors. The world at 18, 000 BP, vol. 1: high latitudes. London: Unwin Hyman.276–295.
61 Gao X, Huang WB, Xu ZQ, Ma ZB, Olsen
JW. 2004. 120–150 ka human tooth and ivory
engravings from Xinglongdong Cave, Three
Gorges region, South China. Chinese Sci Bull
49:175–180.
62 Henshilwood CS, d’Errico F, Vanhaeren M,
van Niekerk K, Jacobs Z. 2004. Middle Stone
Age shell beads from South Africa. Science
304:404.
63 Kuzmin YV, Glascock MD, Sato H. 2002.
Sources of archaeological obsidian on Sakhalin
Island (Russian Far East). J Archaeol Sci
29:741–749.
64 Gao X, Norton CJ. 2002. Critique of the
Chinese ‘‘Middle Paleolithic.’’ Antiquity 76:397–
412.
65 Norton CJ, Bae KD, Harris JWK, Lee HY.
2006. Middle Pleistocene handaxes from the
Korean Peninsula. J Hum Evol 51:527–536.
66 Lycett SJ, Norton CJ. 2009. A demographic
model for Palaeolithic technological evolution:
the case of East Asia. Quatern Int 211:55–65.
67 Chen C, Wang XQ. 1989. Upper Paleolithic
microblade industries in North China and their
relationships with northeast Asia and North
America. Arctic Anthropol 26:127–156.
68 Brantingham PJ, Krivoshapkin AI, Li JZ, Ya
T. 2001. The initial Upper Paleolithic in Northeast Asia. Curr Anthropol 42:735–747.
69 Ikawa-Smith F. 2004. Humans along the Pacific margin of Northeast Asia before the Last
Glacial Maximum. In: Madsen DB, editor.
Entering America: Northeast Asia and Beringia
before the Last Glacial Maximum. Salt Lake
City: University of Utah Press. p 285–309.
70 Derevianko AP. 2005. The Middle to Upper
Paleolithic transition in the Altai (Mongolia and
Siberia). In: Derevianko AP, editor. The Middle
to Upper Paleolithic transition in Eurasia, hypothesis and facts. Novosibirsk: Institute of
Archaeology and Ethnography Press. p 183–
216.
71 Madsen DB, Li JZ, Brantingham PJ, Gao X,
Elston RG, Bettinger RL. 2001. Dating Shuidonggou and the Upper Palaeolithic blade
industry in North China. Antiquity 75:706–716.
72 Gao X, Pei S, Wang H, Zhong K. 2004. A report
on Paleolithic reconnaissance in Ningxia, north
China. Acta Anthropol Sinica 23:307–325.
73 Bae KD. 2009. Origin and patterns of the
Upper Paleolithic industries in the Korean Peninsula and movement of modern humans in
East Asia. Quatern Int 211:103–112.
74 Wang YP. 1998. Human adaptations and
Pleistocene environments in South China.
Anthropologie 36:165–175.
75 Jin L, Su S. 2000. Natives or immigrants:
modern human origins in East Asia. Nat Rev
Genet 1:126–133.
76 Shi H, Dong YL, Wen B, Xiao CJ, Underhill
PA, Shen PD, Chakraborty R, Jin L, Su B. 2005.
Y-chromosome evidence of southern origin of
the East Asian-specific haplogroup O3–M122.
Am J Hum Genet 77:408–419.
77 Karafet T, Xu LP, Du RF, Wang W, Feng S,
Wells RS, Redd AJ, Zegura SL, Hammer MF.
2001. Paternal population history of East Asia:
sources, patterns, and microevolutionary processes. Am J Hum Genet 69:615–628.
78 Relethford JH. 2008. Genetic evidence and
the modern human origins debate. Heredity
100:555–563.
79 Norton CJ, Gao X, Liu W, Braun D, Wu XJ.
n. d. Central-East China, a Plio-Pleistocene
migration corridor: the current state of
evidence for hominin occupations. In: Norton
CJ, Braun DR, editors. Asian paleoanthropology: from Africa to China and beyond. Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology Series. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. In
press.
80 Pei SW, Zhang JF, Gao X, Zhou LP, Feng
XW, Chen FY. 2006. Optical dating of the Jingshuiwan Paleolithic site of Three Gorges, China.
Chinese Sci Bull 51:1334–1342.
81 Chen C. 2003. Retrospect of fifty years of
Palaeolithic archaeology in China. In: Shen C,
Keates S, editors. Current research in Chinese
pleistocene archaeology. BAR Series 1179.
Oxford: Archaeopress. p 21–36.
82 Wu XZ, Liu W, Gao X, Yin GM. 2006.
Huanglong Cave, a new late Pleistocene hominid site in Hubei Province, China. Chinese Sci
Bull 51:2493–2499.
83 Trinkaus E. 2005. Early modern humans.
Ann Rev Anthropol 34:207–230.
84 Shang H, Wei Q, Wu X. 2006. An issue on
the date of fossil human remains from Salawusu, Inner Mongolia. Acta Anthropol Sin
25:82–86. (in Chinese)
85 Keates SG, Hodgins GWL, Kuzmin YV,
Orlova LA. 2007. First direct dating of a presumed Pleistocene hominid from China: AMS
radiocarbon age of a femur from the Ordos Plateau. J Hum Evol 53:1–5.
86 Shang H, Tong H, Zhang S, Chen F, Trinkaus E. 2007. An early modern human from
Tianyuan Cave, Zhoukoudian, China. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA 104:6573–6578.
87 Li X, Liu G, Xu G, Wang F, Qiu S, Cai L. 1985.
Radiocarbon dating of fossil mammal bones from
the Upper Cave and New Cave of Zhoukoudian.
In: IVPP, editors. Multidisciplinary study of the
Peking Man site at Zhoukoudian. Beijing: Science
Press. p 261–262. (in Chinese)
88 Etler DA. 1996. The fossil evidence for
human evolution in Asia. Ann Rev Anthropol
25:275–301.
89 Shen GJ, Wang W, Wang Q, Zhao JX, Collerson K, Zhou CL, Tobias PV. 2002. U-series
dating of Liujiang hominid site in Guangxi,
southern China. J Hum Evol 43:817–829.
90 Etler DA. 2004. Homo erectus in East Asia:
human ancestor or evolutionary dead-end?
Athena Rev 4:37–50.
91 Movius HL. 1944. Early man and Pleistocene stratigraphy in Southern and Eastern Asia.
Papers of the Peabody Museum of American
Archaeology and Ethnology 19.
92 Yi SB, Clark GA. 1983. Observations on the
Lower Palaeolithic of Northeast Asia. Curr
Anthropol 24:181–202.
93 Wang W, Potts R, Yuan BY, Huang WW,
Cheng H, Richards RL, Ditchfield P. 2007.
Sequence of mammalian fossils, including hominoid teeth, from the Bubing Basin caves, South
China. J Hum Evol 52:370–379.
94 Lycett SJ. 2007. Why is there a lack of Mode
3 Levallois technologies in East Asia? A phylogenetic test of the Movius-Schick hypothesis. J
Anthropol Archaeol 26:541–575.
95 Lycett SJ, Gowlett JAJ. 2008. On questions
surrounding the Acheulean ‘‘tradition.’’ World
Archaeol 40:295–315.
96 Braun DR, Plummer T, Ditchfield P, Ferraro
JV, Maina D, Bishop LC, Potts R. 2008. Oldowan behavior and raw material transport: perspectives from the Kanjera Formation. J
Archaeol Sci 35:2329–2345.
97 Braun DR, Tactikos JC, Ferraro JV, Arnow
SL, Harris JWK. 2008. Oldowan reduction
sequences: methodological considerations. J
Archaeol Sci 35:2153–2163.
98 Shea JJ. 2007. Lithic archaeology, or what
stone tools can (and can’t) tell us about early
hominin diet. In: Ungar PS, editor. Evolution of
the human diet. New York: Oxford University
Press. p 212–232.
99 Wu XZ, Poirier FE. 1995. Human evolution
in China. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
100 Wu RK, Zhang YY, Wu XZ. 1999. Nanjing
skull No. 1. In: Wu RK, Li XX, editors. Homo erectus from Nanjing. Nanjing: Jiangsu Science and
Technology Publishing House. p 261–273.
101 Chen TM, Yuan SX, Gao SJ. 1984. The
study on uranium-series dating of fossil bones
and an absolute age sequence for the main
Palaeolithic sites of North China. Acta Anthropol Sinica 3:259–269.
102 Warashina K,
Higashimura T. 1988.
Sourcing of lithic materials. In: Serizawa C,
editor. Festschrift for Professor Yoshima
Kamaki: archaeology and sciences. Okayama:
Institute of Anthropology, Okayama Science
University. p 447–491. (in Japanese)
C 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
V