Quina lithic technology indicates diverse Late Pleistocene human dynamics in East Asia
Abstract
The Late Pleistocene of Eurasia is key for understanding interactions between early modern humans and different types of archaic human groups. During this period, lithic technology shows more diversity and complexity, likely indicating flexible adaptative strategies. However, cultural variability as expressed by technological types remains vague in large parts of eastern Eurasia, like in China. Here, we report a complete Quina technological system identified from the study of the Longtan site in Southwest China. The site has been securely dated to ca. 60 to 50 thousand years ago (ka), with compelling evidence of core exploitation, production of large and thick flakes, shaping and maintenance of scrapers exhibiting the whole Quina concept, typical of contemporary European Middle Paleolithic technologies developed by Neanderthal groups adapted to climatic oscillations during Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 4 and early MIS 3. The finding of a Quina lithic assemblage in China not only demonstrates the existence of a Middle Paleolithic technology in the region but also shows large-scale analogies with Neanderthal behaviors in western Europe. Longtan substantially extends the geographic distribution of this technical behavior in East Asia. Although its origin remains unclear, implications for Pleistocene hominin dispersal and adaptation to diverse ecological settings are considered. The Longtan lithic evidence also provides perspectives for understanding the cultural evolutionary situation before the large-scale arrivals of early modern humans in East Asia predating ~45 ka.
Article Details
Journal Info
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Sciences
Authors (17)
Qi-Jun Ruan
State Key Laboratory of Tibetan Plateau Earth System, Resources and Environment, Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Hao Li
Pei-Yuan Xiao
State Key Laboratory of Tibetan Plateau Earth System, Resources and Environment, Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Bo Li
Hélène Monod
Department of History and Art History, Universitat Rovira i Virgili
Alexandra Sumner
Department of Anthropology, DePaul University
Ke-Liang Zhao
Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Jian-Hui Liu
Yunnan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology
Zhen-Xiu Jia
State Key Laboratory of Tibetan Plateau Earth System, Resources and Environment, Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Chun-Xin Wang
Department for the History of Science and Scientific Archaeology, University of Science and Technology of China
An-Chuan Fan
Department for the History of Science and Scientific Archaeology, University of Science and Technology of China
Marie-Hélène Moncel
UMR 7194 CNRS-National Museum of Natural History
Ben Marwick
Department of Anthropology, University of Washington
Marco Peresani
Department of Human Studies, Prehistoric and Anthropological Science Unit, University of Ferrara
You-Ping Wang
School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking University
Fa-Hu Chen
State Key Laboratory of Tibetan Plateau Earth System, Resources and Environment, Institute of Tibetan Plateau Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Davide Delpiano
Department of Human Studies, Prehistoric and Anthropological Science Unit, University of Ferrara