Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-fbg9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-09-14T16:11:50.461Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A critique of the Chinese ‘Middle Palaeolithic’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Xing Gao
Affiliation:
Department of Paleoanthropology, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology & Paleoanthropology, Academia Sinica, PO Box 643, 142 Xizhimenwai Dajie, Beijing 100044, People's Republic of China
Christopher J. Norton
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, 336a Science Building, William Paterson University, Wayne NJ 07470, USA.k_s_g@hotmail.com

Extract

The Chinese Palaeolithic has traditionally been divided into three distinct cultural periods: Lower, Middle, and Upper. Analysis of four stone tool criteria (raw material procurement, core reduction, retouch, and typology) to determine if a distinct Middle Palaeolithic stage existed in China suggests that very little change occurred in lithic technology between the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic. Accordingly, a two-stage progression is proposed: Early and Late Palaeolithic. The transition between these two cultural periods occurred with the development of more refined stone tool making techniques (e.g. introduction of blade and microblade technology) and the presence of other archaeological indicators of more modern human behaviour (e.g. presence of art and/or symbolism) (c. 30,000 years ago).

Information

Type
Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable