New discoveries from the early Late Pleistocene Lingjing site (Xuchang)

Journal Pre-proof New discoveries from the early Late Pleistocene Lingjing site (Xuchang) Qingpo Zhao, Huanhuan Ma, Christopher J. Bae PII:

S1040-6182(19)30934-6

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2019.12.010

Reference:

JQI 8090

To appear in:

Quaternary International

Received Date: 28 August 2019 Accepted Date: 12 December 2019

Please cite this article as: Zhao, Q., Ma, H., Bae, C.J., New discoveries from the early Late Pleistocene Lingjing site (Xuchang), Quaternary International, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2019.12.010. This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1

New discoveries from the early Late Pleistocene Lingjing site

2

(Xuchang)

3 4 5

Qingpo Zhaoa,b, Huanhuan Maa*, Christopher J. Baec*

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

a.

Institute of Cultural Heritage, Shandong University, Qingdao, 266000 , China

b.

Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Heritage and Archaeology, Zhengzhou, 450000 , China

c.

Department of Anthropology, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA

*Corresponding authors, Email address: [email protected] (H. Ma), [email protected] (C. Bae)

Abstract The applicability of the three stage Paleolithic sequence (Lower, Middle, Upper) in eastern Asia that is used in the western Old World has long been a debated issue. The crux of the discussion is whether a distinct “Middle Paleolithic” (“MP”) is present in the eastern Asian record, especially north China. Recently, the artifacts from the Lingjing site (2005-2016), in northern China, have been argued to be potential representative of a “Chinese Middle Paleolithic” (“CMP”). In this paper, we introduce a thorough analysis on a newly discovered lithic assemblage from the 2017 excavation of the Lingjing site. We found that simple free-hand hard hammer percussion is the dominant core reduction strategy with only a very small frequency of atypical, bi-conical discoidal cores. When considering other contemporary sites in northern China (e.g., Xujiayao and Banjingzi), Lingjing belongs to a small tool tradition that is widespread throughout northern China. The Lingjing artifacts do display some obvious differences in core reduction and lithic retouching techniques from those typical of the Lower/Early Paleolithic (or Mode 1) assemblage pre-40 ka in the Chinese Paleolithic. The diversity of characteristics of lithic technology from Lingjing and other contemporary sites in north China show the complexity of the Chinese Early Paleolithic, rather than a simple monotonous stone tool tradition. Keywords: North China; Lingjing site; Middle Paleolithic; Lithic technology.

35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

Introduction The applicability of the three stage Paleolithic sequence (Lower, Middle, Upper) in eastern Asia that is used in the western Old World has long been a debated issue. The crux of the discussion is whether a distinct “Middle Paleolithic” is present in the eastern Asian record (Ikawa-Smith, 1978; Gao and Norton, 2002; Norton et al., 2009; Yee, 2012; Gao, 2013; Li, 2014; Seong and Bae, 2016; Li et al., 2019a). There are two widely disparate viewpoints regarding the presence/absence of a “Middle Paleolithic” in eastern Asia. First, because lithic technology did not change much in eastern Asia, particularly China where it has been the most studied, some scientists (e.g., Ikawa-Smith, 1978; Gao and Norton, 2002; Seong and Bae, 2016) have postulated that a distinct Middle Paleolithic is absent and that the three stage Paleolithic behavioral model should be collapsed into a two stage sequence: Early and Late Paleolithic, specific to the eastern Asian record. The Chinese Early Paleolithic is widely accepted to be represented by two distinctly different lithic traditions: a pebble industry tradition in South China and a small tool tradition in North China (Zhang, 1999；Liu, 2014). Pebble industry tradition in South China are characterized in large-size stone artifacts (≥100mm), preferring pebbles or cobbles for blanks. Heavy tools are much more than light tools, with choppers the overwhelming type, followed by hand-axes and picks. While, the main features of the small tool tradition in North China is that the majority of the artifacts are small (< 40mm) and are usually produced on flakes rather than chunks for blanks. Tool types are very diverse and are dominated by scrapers, followed by points, borers, and burins. Heavy duty tools like choppers and spheroids are relatively rare (Zhang, 1999；Liu, 2014). The Late Paleolithic is represented by blade and microblade technologies (Gao and Norton, 2002; Bae and Bae, 2012). To further support this argument, it was observed that typical European Levallois-Mousterian technology does not actually appear in China until after 40 ka, such as at sites like Shuidonggou Locality 1 (Li et al., 2013a, b) and Jinsitai (Li et al., 2018). The alternative view is that a distinct Middle Paleolithic is present (Yee, 2012). In support of this argument, the lithics from the Guanyindong cave site (170-80 ka) in southern China are argued to be produced using typical Levallois technology (Hu et al., 2019; but see Deng et al., In Press for what appears to be a valid explanation for the apparent “sudden” and isolated appearance in Guanyindong, however, a newly published paper from Li et al. (2019c) shows a refutation of the typical Levallois technology from the site). Levallois technology has also been suggested to be present at the late Middle Pleistocene Dadong cave site in Guizhou Province, also in southern China (Otte et al., 2017). Thus, some recent cases might have been put forth to support a distinct Middle Paleolithic in China, and presumably broader eastern Asia, though, the nature of their lithic technology is still in doubt.Typical European Mousterian technology and Levallois preparation core technology has typically been considered absent in northern China until 40 ka (Brantingham et al., 2001; Gao and Norton, 2002; Li et al., 2013b, 2018). This is despite the fact that well-made classic discoid cores and regional innovations in types of retouched tools at some sites dated

79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111

to about 100 ka indicates obvious differences in core reduction and lithic retouching techniques from those of typical Lower/Early Paleolithic (or Mode 1) assemblages (Gao and Norton, 2002; Ren et al., 2018）. However, recently the artifacts from the Lingjing site, in northern China, have been argued to be potential representative of a “Chinese Middle Paleolithic” (Li et al., 2019a). Lingjing (Xuchang), in Henan Province in northern China, is best known for the presence of two hominin crania dated to between 125-105 ka (Li et al., 2017; Trinkaus and Wu, 2017) and early bone tools and engravings (Doyon et al., 2018; Li et al. 2019b) (Fig. 1). The primary reason why Li et al. (2019a) do not assign Lingjing to the typical Middle Paleolithic is the clear absence of typical Levallois cores and flakes. However, some of the evidence Li et al. (2019a) use to support their argument for a potential “Chinese Middle Paleolithic” is the presence of few cores with centripetal asymmetrical recurrent flaking and some small bi-conical discoidal cores, which they consider to be different from typical Early Stone Age and Lower Paleolithic discoidal cores which are generally larger. Further, being produced on smaller blanks, the Lingjing stone tools are well-retouched and generally smaller than typical Mode 1 artifacts, and points that are retouched at the basal ends could represent evidence of hafting technology (Li et al., 2019a). Presence of bone retouchers at Lingjing has also been used to suggest the site may be representative of the Middle Paleolithic (Doyon et al., 2018). It should be noted that besides any evidence of hafting technology that was not identified some twenty years ago when Gao and Norton (2002) evaluated the “Chinese Middle Paleolithic”, they had earlier made some of these same observations on other lithic assemblages (e.g., Xujiayao, Dali, Zhoukoudian Locality 15). However, in the case of Gao and Norton (2002) not enough evidence was present at the time to argue confidently that a distinct Middle Paleolithic was present. Here, we aim to present a thorough analysis on newly excavated lithic materials from the 2017 field season from the same Lingjing site that Li et al. (2019a) studied earlier that focused on materials excavated between 2005 and 2016. As discussed below, some differences appear. In order to get a better understanding of advantages and complexity of lithic technology of Lingjing site, a preliminary comparison among Lingjing site and other contemporary sites in North China will also be conducted in the discussion part.

112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122

2. The site The Lingjing site (34°04’08.6’’N, 113°40’47.5’’E, 117 m above sea level) is located to the west of the town of Lingjing, in Xuchang City, Henan Province (Fig. 1). Xuchang is located north of the Qinling Mountain Range, the geographic boundary often used to separate north and south China. The site was first discovered in 1965 by Zhou Guoxing (Zhou, 1974), but not formally excavated until 2005. During the first excavation, the site became known as the “Lingjing Paleolithic site” (Li, 2007). Beginning in 2007, various hominin fossils were discovered that were later refit to represent at least two separate archaic Homo crania. Following the discovery of these hominin fossils the site was renamed the “Lingjing Xuchang Man site”, which it is

123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138

commonly referred to now (Li et al., 2017). Up through 2018 Lingjing was excavated during 14 field seasons. Besides the hominin fossils, thousands of vertebrate fossils and bone and stone tools were discovered (Li et al., 2017, 2019a; Doyon et al., 2018). The stratigraphic profile of Lingjing is 9 meters deep and can be divided into 11 distinct layers (Fig. 2, a; Li et al., 2017), which belong to two units: upper and lower. The upper unit contains Layers 1-4 and dates from the Neolithic Yangshao Culture to the Han and Song dynasties. The lower unit contains Layers 5-11, which are the Paleolithic deposits. Layer 5 has an average date of 13.5 ka (Li and Ma, 2016). Layers 6-9 are almost sterile so that no exact dates are provided. Only one Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) sample collected from Layer 10 has been dated to ~93 + 5 ka (Li et al., 2017), and 5 OSL samples from Layer 11 were dated to ~125-105 ka (see Li et al., 2017). According to the lithological and elevational comparisons, stratigraphic layers excavated from the 2017 season are equivalent to the lower part of Layer 10 and Layer 11. According to published OSL dates we use a general age of 125-95 ka for deposits, equivalent to the warm Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 5 (Fig. 1, c; Bradley, 2015; Li et al., 2018).

139 140

[Insert Figure 1 about here]

141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152

Lithics and vertebrate fossils from previous excavation seasons (2005-2016) were primarily excavated from Layer 11, and only a small percentage of artifacts were found in the lower part of Layer 10 (Li et al. 2019a). The two archaic human crania were unearthed from Layer 11 (Li et al., 2017). The focus of the present study is the artifacts collected specifically from the 2017 season. During the 2017 season, the excavation started directly in the lower part of Layer 10 because the upper part of Layer 10 had already been removed many years ago. Excavation was stopped about 5 cm below Layer 11 because it was sterile. The upper ~60 cm is assigned to the lower part of Layer 10 (hereafter, simply referred to as “Layer 10”), while the lower ~50 cm is assigned to Layer 11. The latter layer is where the human crania were discovered (Li et al., 2017).

153 154

[Insert Figure 2 about here]

155 156

3. Materials and methods

157 158 159 160 161 162

This analysis is restricted to lithic artifacts recovered during the 2017 excavation season. Although the 2017 excavation covered a relatively small area, 9 m2 in T13 (Fig. 2, d)], the artifact density (186.3/m2) was higher than the average density from the previous seasons (27/m2, 14862/551m2) (Li et al., 2019a). The excavation area was arranged in 1 x 1 m2 units, with the pits dug down in 5 cm arbitrary horizontal intervals. The deepest pits reached about 1.1 m deep. Thus, 22 horizontal levels,

163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198

numbered as L1-L22, were recorded. During the excavation, all finds were photographed, mapped, and numbered with unique catalogue numbers. The total number of stone artifacts plotted with a total station was 1,308. These form the foundation of the analysis presented here. An additional 369 artefacts were discovered during sieving (Li et al., 2018). However, due to lack of three dimensional provenance information, they were excluded from this analysis. The methods used to describe the lithic assemblage roughly follow other such studies typical in eastern Asia (e.g., Wang, 2005a; Norton et al., 2006; Braun et al., 2010; Lycett and Norton, 2010; Pei et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2014). Although it would be informative to apply a more intensive data analytical method (e.g., Wang et al., 2012), it is beyond the scope of the current study. Further, in order to analyze size variation, we applied the Wei (1994) method, which is widely accepted in Chinese Paleolithic research because it is conductive to comparative studies across broader swathes of time and space in China. Thus, according to the maximum length of the artifacts, the lithic assemblage will be divided into five categories: micro size (<20mm); small size (≥20mm，＜50mm); medium size（50mm，＜100mm）; large size (≥100mm, <200mm); and giant size (≥200mm)(Wei, 1994). However, the last two categories are excluded from this analysis due to the absence of large or giant size artifacts. A refitting analysis will be conducted to provide information about lithic reduction techniques, site formation processes, and spatial distribution of artifacts within the site (Cziesla, 1990; Schurmans, 2007). In this study, we follow the refitting method described by Cziesla (1990), where there are three types of refits: production sequences refit; break refit; and modification or resharpening refit. Production sequences refit represent those artifacts produced from the production process (e.g., when flakes are taken off a core). Break refits are when artifacts are broken through natural processes, such as when the proximal and distal ends of the same flake fracture or different parts of a chunk are produced by cleavage rupture. Modification or resharpening refits are usually the product of retouched tools and refined debris (Cziesla, 1990). Break refits differ from the other kinds of refits in several aspects. For example, pieces of a break refit can be produced simultaneously during the production or depositional stages. The other two types of refits are normally the by-products of different core reduction processes or tool-modification sequences (Wang, 2005b).

199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206

4. Results A total of 1,308 lithic artifacts (Table 1) were piece-plotted (Fig. 2, b), including cores (n=45, 3.4%), flakes (n=189, 14.4%), tools (n=74, 5.7%), chunks (n=300, 22.9%), and debitage (n=700, <20mm in size without any clear feature, 53.6%). . The assemblage is clearly dominated by small (72.3%) and micro (25.3%) classes, with only a small percentage of medium stone artifacts (2.4%) (see also Fig. 3). The dominance of small and micro artifacts is likely related to the original size of the raw

207

materials utilized.

208 209

[Insert Figure 3 about here]

210 211 212 213

4.1 Raw material variation

214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235

The artifacts are mainly manufactured from quartz (n=1146, 87.6%), followed by quartzite (n=98, 7.5%), sandstone (n=54, 9.7%) and basalt (n=10, 5.7%) (see Table 1). Quartz was also the dominant raw material of the artifacts (95.92%) from the 2005-16 seasons that were studied earlier from Lingjing (Li et al. 2019a, Table 2). According to the archeological survey along the Ying River (Li et al. 2019a), quartz and quartzite pebbles are very common in the riverbed of the lower reaches, the closest source of raw materials to Lingjing. During the 2017 field season, we made a more concerted effort to identify the stratigraphic layer a particular artifact derived from. As a result, we were able to determine that raw material composition varied between Layer 10 and Layer 11. In particular, the percentage of quartz declines from 98.2% (Layer 11) to 83.2% (Layer 10). While the representation of quartz artifacts declines, other kinds of raw materials, such as quartzite (2.3% to 9.7%) and sandstone (0.05% to 5.7%) increase. Basalt appears in low numbers in Layer 10 (n=10, 1%). Previously, only 1 out of 14,862 artifacts uncovered from Lingjing between 2005~2016 was identified as basalt (Li et al. 2019, Table. 2). Three kinds of good quality raw materials were recorded in the 2005-2016 collections, including chert (n=2), agate (n=1) and chlorite (n=1) (Li et al. 2019, Table. 2). However, these raw materials were not found in the 2017 assemblage. Sandstone represents a relatively high percentage (4.1%) of the raw materials from 2017 season, just following quartz and quartzite. Thus, it seems odd to find no sandstone artifacts from the previous seasons (Li et al. 2019, Table. 2).

236

[Insert Table 1 about here]

237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247

Quartz is kind of a hard-utilized raw material, fragile and easy to break. But once quartz is smashed into small blanks, their texture could be very fine. Although quartzite provides a homogenously hard character, quartzite pebbles (<5cm) are hard to flake. That could be the reason why only a small proportion of artifacts made of quartzite were uncovered. Sandstone has a relatively coarse grain and is not good for knapping. Even when flakes are successfully detached from sandstone cores, they are still hard to further modify. The extremely low frequency of basalt may just be a case of probability. In sum, the primary utilized raw materials from Lingjing are locally available.

248

[Insert Table 2 about here]

249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270

4.2 Core reductions The proportion of cores (3.4%) is quite small and they are also generally small in size (including small- and micro-sized cores, n=41, 91.1%)(Fig. 3). Again, this is likely related to the original size of the raw materials. Five types of cores were identified: single-platform cores (n=25, 55.6%); double-platform cores (n=10, 22.2%); multi-platform cores (n=6, 13.3%); discoidal cores (n=3, 6.7%) and bipolar core (n=1, 2.2%)(Table 2). On average, about 2-4 flake scars could be observed on most single-platform and double-platform cores (n=35, 77.8%). This could indicate an inefficient use of the raw materials generally, but could also simply be related to the overall small size of the original raw materials. Flaking patterns on the multi-platform cores suggest multidirectional flaking, suggestive of a more efficient use of the cores. Free-hand hard hammer percussion is dominant (91%) with most of the cores, which is characteristic of expedient simple flake manufacture. The frequency of small-sized, bi-conical discoidal cores (Fig. 4, 4-5) discovered during the 2017 season is much lower when compared with that from the 2005-2016 seasons (77, 21.3%). This led Li et al. (2019a) to regard the discoidal flaking system to be the most common and standardized form at Lingjing. In fact, they are atypical bi-conical discoidal cores because only half of the body was reduced bi-conically and the other half was not considered suitable for flaking at all.

271 272

[Insert Figure 4 about here]

273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288

The flakes (n=189, 88 are complete flakes) fall within the same size range and display morphological and technological features of simple flake percussion. They are of various forms, using cortex or flake scars as platforms. The majority of the complete flakes (n=66, 75%) have dorsal sides full of flaking scars, some of which are detached uni-directionally or multi-directionally (n=22). Some complete flakes (n=19) have both cortex and flake scars on the dorsal side. Very few (n=3) of the flakes are completely covered with cortex on the dorsal side. Flakes detached by free-hand hard hammer percussion (n=75, 85.2%) are dominant, followed by soft hammer percussion flakes (n=6) and bipolar flakes (n=7). Some of the soft-hammer percussion flakes are relatively large in size. These large flakes could not be produced by small pieces of long bones, thus, there might be heavier and larger soft-hammers in the site. Several small elongated flakes (n=4) are present. Given the paucity of any evidence for blade technology in layers 10 and 11 in all likelihood these flakes were produced by accident during knapping and not the result of a conscious effort to

289 290 291 292 293 294 295

produce blades. Flakes are mostly produced on quartz (72 out of 74) with only two exceptions (one is quartzite and the other is sandstone). As expected from the original size of the raw material, the size of the flakes is relatively small (Table 3), with average length, width, thickness, and weight measurements of 29.3 mm, 28.4 mm, 20.9 mm, and 36.1 g.

296

[Insert Table 3 about here]

297

[Insert Figure 5 about here]

298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329

4.3 Tool assemblages No heavy duty tools were recovered and except for 2 medium sized tools, the rest are all small or micro sized. The artifacts are usually retouched uni-directionally. The number of retouched tools (n=74, 34 from Layer 11 and n=43 from Layer 10) represents only a small percentage (5.8%) of the overall lithic collection. Various kinds of tools from Lingjing were identified, including scrapers (n=55), notches (n=4), points (n=8), denticulates (n=5) and borers (n=2) (Fig. 5). A few tools are well modified with systematic, regular and similar sized modification scars, which might be the result of pressure flaking (Fig. 5: 1-3, 7). Other tools have irregular modification scars. The majority of blanks are flakes (n=61, 82.4%) of various sizes and morphologies rather than chunks (n=13, 17.6%). This differs from the earlier analysis that found chunks (n=536, 68.2%) were much more common than flakes (n=250, 31.8%) for tool blanks (Li et al. 2019a, Table 4). 4.4 Refitting analysis Quartz is the dominant raw material from Lingjing, but very difficult to include in a refitting analysis. Therefore, we chose artifacts made on quartzite, sandstone, and basalt (n=162, 12.3% of the entire collection). Four groups of artifacts (n=8) were refit. Each of the four refit groups are comprised of two pieces: two complete flakes taken consecutively off a single core; and two incomplete flakes or the proximal end and distal end of a single flake. According to Cziesla (1990), refits from Lingjing would be classified as two break refits and two production sequence refits. Two break refits and one production refit came from Layer 10, and the other production refit came from Layer 11. Group 1 are two sandstone specimens (Fig. 6, No. 1) that were separated from each other by about 200 cm horizontally and 18 cm vertically. They were discovered in Layer 10. One is a flake fragment (17L321) with pebble cortex on the dorsal side and no distinct features on the ventral side. The other (17L024) is the right half of a

330 331 332 333 334 335

flake with an obvious striking point, bulb of percussion, and a pebble cortex platform, clear evidence of hard-hammer percussion. The dorsal side of the broken flake and the platform of the right half flake both have cortex and refit well with each other. As such, the right half flake was detached from the core earlier than the broken flake, and the group is classified as a production sequence refit.

336

[Insert Figure 6 about here]

337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372

Group 2 (Fig. 6, No. 2) and Group 4 (Fig. 6, No. 4) are classified as break refits, as they both are comprised of a proximal end and a distal end of a complete flake. Group 2 is made of quartzite, with the two pieces located about 140 cm horizontally and 5 cm vertically away from each other in Layer 11. Group 4 is made of basalt, with the two pieces much closer to each other, only about 11 cm horizontally and 1 cm vertically away from each other in Layer 10. Group 3 (Fig. 6, No. 3) is another production sequence refit represented by two complete quartzite flakes. One flake (17L337) is larger in size, with a relatively large area with ambiguous striking traces on the platform, an obvious lip along junction of platform and ventral side and at least two uni-directional flaking scars on the dorsal side. The other flake (17L933) is much smaller and has a relatively small platform, an obvious lip along junction of platform and ventral side, and a concentrated, though relatively large area that has traces of striking. Clear lip along junction of platform and ventral side of both flakesmay indicate the flakes were detached by a large-sized soft hammer (Lin, 1994). Although pieces of animal long bones were likely used as retouchers in Lingjing (Doyon et al., 2019), experiments showed that these bone retouchers were probably not heavy enough to percuss large flakes, such as those discussed here. Nevertheless, the ventral side of the larger flake (17L337) refits perfectly with the dorsal side of the smaller one (17L933), suggesting the former was detached from the core earlier than the latter one. Because two uni-directional flaking scars are present on the dorsal side of the larger flake, it is apparent that at least three consecutive flakes were removed from the core by a large-sized soft hammer. The two pieces were found 75 cm horizontally and 9 cm vertically away from each other in Layer 10. 5. Discussion The Lingjing artifacts excavated during the 2017 field season reflect features of simple flake core technology and belong to the small tool tradition in northern China. However, some variation is present. For instance, the discoidal cores indicate a certain degree of organization and planning of flake percussion, and pressure flaking identified by consistent retouch on the edges of some of the tools is different from simple retouching techniques utilized at other contemporary Paleolithic sites in China (Ma et al., 2011；Ren et al., 2018). Although several sites in China associated with early modern humans have been dated to the early Late Pleistocene, some of them do

373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414

not have any evidence of lithic technology. For example, modern human teeth were recently reported from Fuyan Cave in Dao County, Hunan Province that purportedly dates to between 120-80 ka (Li et al, 2013; Liu et al., 2015; Michael et al., 2016) and a partial human mandible and teeth were discovered in Zhiren cave from Chongzuo County, Guangxi Province in deposits dating to between 113-100 ka (Liu et al. 2010a). Unfortunately, no stone artifacts have been reported from either of these sites. Seven human teeth have been discovered from Huanglong cave in Yunxi, northern Hubei Province, dating to about 100-70 ka that were found in association with some lithics. However, only a preliminary study of the associated lithic assemblage has been published (Wu et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2010b). A few artifacts have been reported from the early Late Pleistocene Luna Cave in Bubing Basin, Guangxi that has two human teeth, though no detailed study has been conducted (Bae et al., 2014, 2017; Bae, 2017). Important mid-Pleistocene Homo1 fossils and lithics were found in association in the Middle-Late Pleistocene Xujiayao site which is located in the Nihewan Basin, Hebei Province (Norton and Gao, 2008; Ma et al., 2011). A diversity of stone tools and vertebrate fossils were uncovered from Banjingzi site in 2015 in Hebei Province that date to 90-80 ka (Ren et al., 2018). Given their more extensive lithic collections Xujiayao and Banjingzi in north China are the most suitable sites to compare to Lingjing. A more complete comparative study of the assemblages from these three sites is currently under preparation by the authors. Here, we provide the basic framework for comparative study of the lithics from these three sites. Although tens of thousands of lithic artifacts were uncovered from Xujiayao, only 1765 of them have been formally published (Ma et al., 2011) and could be used for comparison. A total of 2563 stone artifacts were discovered from the main layer of the Banjingzi site during the 2015 field season (Ren et al., 2018). The primary similarities and differences between these three sites are as follows. 1. Raw materials from these sites are usually easily obtained locally. As with the situation of Lingjing the dominant raw material at Xujiayao is quartz and quartzite (83%). Good quality raw materials, like chert and agate, represent only a small percentage of the total collection (3%). Other materials including a few limestone, volcanics, dolomite, sandstone and granite are present as well (Ma et al., 2011). Banjingzi differs quite noticeably from the other two sites. Among the 2563 reported artifacts, 2183 were produced on chert (85.2%), followed by quartz (n=136, 5.3%), sandstone (n=87, 3.4%), dolomite (n=66, 2.6%), quartzite (n=42, 1.6%) and a few other materials (n=49, 1.9%)(Ren et al., 2018). Thus, for Lingjing and Xujiayao, quartz and quartzite are the primary raw materials but for Banjingzi, chert is dominant, followed by quartz and quartzite. 2. Small sized cores are quite common at all of the sites. A small frequency of discoidal cores were found, 2 out of 140 (1.4%) and 15 out of 111 (14%) for Xujiayao and Banjingzi respectively. Most of the other cores are the product of free-hand hard-hammer percussion, including single-platform, double platform and 1

For discussion of the various terms to refer to these archaic human fossils see Bae (2010) and Xiao et

al. (2014).

415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458

multi-platform cores. Together with the very low frequency (3 out of 45, 6.7%) of discoidal cores from the 2017 season at Lingjing, we can see that free-hand hard percussion was the main core reduction strategy. This method results in more expediently produced flakes The presence of an extremely small percentage (7 out of 361, 1.9%) of radially flaked cores with bifacial centripetal flaking from the 2005-2016 seasons (Li et al., 2019a), typical Levallois cores have yet to be discovered at Lingjing. Overall, core reduction at Lingjing, based primarily on our observations from the 2017 field season lithic assemblage, is that Lingjing is similar to sites like Xujiayao and Banjingzi, and the majority of their lithic assemblages are typical of the small flake tool tradition of the Paleolithic in northern China (Gao and Norton, 2002; Ma et al., 2011; Ren et al., 2018). Lingjing does not have evidence of a typical core preparation technology that is reminiscent of the Levallois and Mousterian technologies common in the Middle Paleolithic in Europe or Middle Stone Age in Africa. Small-sized, bi-conical discoid cores at Lingjing do represent certain degree of well-organized and intentionally planned core reduction strategy, reflecing a technological change from the simple long-lasting flake-tool traditions (“Mode 1” technology) in the Chinese Early Paleolithic. However, this evidence seems not enough, in our opinion, to justify a distinct “Chinese Middle Paleolithic”. 3. The majority of stone assemblages from Xujiayao, Banjingzi, and Lingjing have clear features of small stone tool tradition common in northern China. For Xujiayao, small size retouched tools are the dominant type, and flakes (63.6%) are more often to be used for blanks than chunks (36.4%) (Ma et al., 2011). Light duty tools are the majority at Xujiayao, with scrapers the main type (n=67，51.5%), followed by notches (n=6, 4.6%), denticulates (n=3, 2.3%), points (n=10, 7.7%), burins (n=4, 3.1%), and borers (n=1, 0.8%). Some heavy duty tools, including spheroids (n=36, 27.7%) and choppers (n=3, 2.3%) are present as well. Among lithic assemblage from Banjingzi, there are 162 retouched tools, with light duty tools (142, 87.7%) the dominant, ranging from scrapers (n=68, 42%), denticulates (n=32, 20%), notches (n=32, 20%), and awls (n=10, 7%). No heavy duty tools were uncovered at either Banjingzi or from the 2017 field season at Lingjing. A few heavy duty tools (n=5, 0.7%) like spheroids (n=2) and choppers (n=3) were previously identified at Lingjing, but represent a very small percentage of the overall artifact collection (Li et al., 2019a). In the case of Lingjing, not many large cores appear to be present locally. 4. Similar retouching techniques are found in the three sites, with free-hand direct percussion the dominant retouching technique. Only in Lingjing, pressure-flaking technology was identified by consistent and intensified scars on the edges of well-modified tools from the site (Li et al., 2019a). Returning specifically to the Lingjing lithics, refitting analysis presented here indicates core reduction probably explains the distribution pattern of the artifacts. In other words, Lingjing likely served as a stone knapping site and likely a longer term base camp. Average horizontal distances between two flakes of the production sequence refits (137.5 cm) is larger than those between the proximal and distal ends of break refits (70.5 cm) (Fig. 6, a). Based on recent core reduction experiments (e.g., Li, 2010; Li et al., 2015) it was shown that lithics produced by core reduction

459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471

processes will normally be found within an area less than about 150 cm away from the knapping site. This is exactly the case for the production sequence refits from Lingjing, indicating the stone tools were deposited in situ without significant disturbance (see also Li et al., 2018). The horizontal distance between the two pieces from Group 4 is the shortest (11 cm). They are quite close to each other and probably remained in situ after fracturing. Further, 3 out of the 4 groups moved vertically less than 10 cm and the other only 18 cm. This suggests there was little post-depositional disturbance, perhaps a little by the local spring where the site is adjacent to. In summary, it would appear that both horizontally and vertically there was relatively little movement of the artifacts. Future research at Lingjing will be designed specifically to better understand the nature of the site formation processes and ultimately human behavior at the site.

472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502

6. Conclusion As a result, a number of new patterns in the stone tool data could be discerned, such as simple free-hand hard percussion being the dominant method, a preference for flakes rather than chunks for tool blanks, and atypical, bi-conical discoid cores were found in very low percentages. In the Li et al. (2019a: 3485) study, they concluded that the “discoidal flaking system are the most common and standardized form” in Lingjing. It should be noted that even in their study only about 21% of the cores were classified as discoidal, a percentage higher than what we found, but frankly speaking, still a relatively small percentage that could not represent the dominant of core reduction strategy of the site. Although the pressure flaking technique and possibly hafting was used at Lingjing, it’s still in doubt whether there are enough evidence from Lingjing currently to confidently argue a distinct “Middle Paleolithic” or “Chinese Middle Paleolithic” in north China exists. The majority of stone assemblage from Lingjing site, like Xujiayao and Banjingzi, have clear characteristics of the small tool tradition typical of northern China Paleolithic prior to the introduction of blade and microblade technologies after 40 ka (Gao and Norton, 2002; Ma et al., 2011; Bae and Bae, 2012; Bae, 2017). The Lingjing artifacts display some obvious differences in core reduction and lithic retouching techniques from those typical of the Lower/Early Paleolithic (or Mode 1) assemblage. The diversity of characteristics of lithic technology from Lingjing and other contemporary sites in north China show the complexity of the Chinese Early Paleolithic, rather than a simple monotonous stone tool tradition. The Lingjing site, with the hominin fossils found in clear association with the vertebrate fossils and lithic artifacts that have been dated to between 125 ka and 105 ka, will continue to be able to contribute to many debates in paleoanthropology, particularly when accounting for environmental context of the site occupation. Acknowledgements: We express gratitude to Professor Li Zhanyang from Shandong University, China

503 504 505 506 507 508

for the discovery of the site and useful advice for the draft. We thank Prof. Wang Wei for his help on the earlier manuscript. We are grateful to Dr. Li Hao from Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP), Chinese Academy of Sciences for his work in the excavation of 2017 season of the site.

509

References

510 511 512 513 514

Bae, C.J., 2017. Late Pleistocene human evolution in eastern Asia: Behavioral perspectives. Current Anthropology 58(S17), S514-S526. Bae, C.J., Douka, K., Petraglia, M.D., 2017. On the origin of modern humans: Asian perspectives. Science 358(6368), eaai9067.

515

Bae, C.J., Wang, W., Zhao, J.X., Huang, S.M., Tian, F., Shen, G.J., 2014.Modern

516

human teeth from Late Pleistocene Luna Cave (Guangxi, China). Quaternary

517

International 354, 169-183.

518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525

Bae, C.J., Bae, K.D., 2012. The nature of the Early to Late Paleolithic transition in Korea: current perspectives. Quaternary International 281, 26-35. Bae, C.J., 2010. The late Middle Pleistocene hominin fossil record of eastern Asia: Synthesis and review. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 53, 75-93. Bradley, R.S., 2015. Paleoclimatology (Third Edition): Reconstructing Climates of the Quaternary. Academic Press, New York. Brantingham, P.J., Kaivoshapkin, A.I., Li, J.-Z., Tserendagva, Y., 2001. The Initial Upper Paleolithic in Northeast Asia. Current Anthropology 42, 735-747.

526

Braun, D.R., Norton, C.J., Harris, J.W.K., 2010. Africa and Asia: Comparisons of the

527

earliest archaeological evidence. In: Norton, C.J., Braun, D. (Eds.), Asian

528

Paleoanthropology: From Africa to China and Beyond. Vertebrate Paleobiology

529

and Paleoanthropology Series. Springer Press, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp.

530

41-48.

531

Cziesla,1990. On refitting of stone artefacts[A]. In: Cziesla E, Eickhoff S, Arts N, et

532

al (eds). The big puzzle: International Symposium on Refitting Stone Artefacts

533

[C]. Bonn: Holos, 9-44.

534

Deng, W.W., Liu, S.Q., Wang, Y.P., In press. The late Late Pleistocene lithic industries

535 536 537

and related issues in Lingnan, southern China, Quaternary International. Doyon, L., Li, Z.Y., Li, H., D’Errico, F. , 2018. Discovery of ca 115,000-year-old bone retouchers at Lingjing, Henan, China. PLOS ONE 12(3) , e0194318.

538

Doyon L., Li, H., Li, Z.Y., Wang, H., Zhao, Q.P.,2019. Further Evidence of Organic

539

Soft Hammer Percussion and Pressure Retouch from Lingjing (Xuchang, Henan,

540

China). Lithic Technology 44(2),100-117.

541 542 543 544 545 546

Gao, X., 1999. A discussion on “Chinese middle paleolithic”. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 18 (1), 1–15. (in Chinese with English abstract) Gao, X., 2013. Paleolithic cultures in China: uniqueness and divergence. Current Anthropology 54 (S8), S358–S370. Gao, X., Norton, C.J., 2002. A critique of the Chinese “middle paleolithic. Antiquity 76, 397–412.

547

Guo, Y.J., Li, B., Zhang, J.F., Yuan, B.Y., Xie, F., Roberts, R.G. ,2016. Lumonescence

548

ages for three BMiddle Palaeolithic^ sites in the Nihewan Basin, northern China,

549

and their archaeological and palaeoenvironmental implications. Quaternary

550

Research 85, 456–470.

551

Hou, Y.M., Yang, S.X., Dong, W., Zhang, J.F., Liu, Y., 2013. Late Pleistocene

552

representative sites in North China and their indication of evolutionary human

553

behavior. Quaternary International 295, 183–190.

554

Hu, Y., Marwick, B., Zhang, J. F., Rui, X., Hou, Y. M., & Li, B. ,2019. Late Middle

555

Pleistocene Levallois stone-tool technology in southwest China. Nature 565, 82–

556

85.

557 558

Ikawa-Smith, F., 1978. The early Paleolithic tradition of East Asia. In: Ikawa-Smith, F.(Ed.), Early Paleolithic in South and East Asia. Mouton, The Hague, pp. 1-10.

559

Li, F., Kuhn, S.L., Gao, X., Chen, F.Y., 2013a. Re-examination of the dates of large

560

blade technology in China: a comparison of Shuidonggou Locality 1 and

561

Locality 2. Journal of Human Evolution 64 (2), 161–168.

562

Li, F., Gao, X., Chen, F.Y., Pei, S.W., Zhang, Y., Zhang, X.L., Liu, D.C., Zhang, S.Q.,

563

Guan,Y., Wang, H.M., Kuhn, S.L., 2013b. The development of upper paleolithic

564

China: new results from the Shuidonggou site. Antiquity 87, 368–383.

565 566

Li, F.,2014. Fact or fiction: the Middle Palaeolithic in China. Antiquity 88, 1303– 1309.

567

Li, F., Chen, F.Y., Li, G., Wang, S., Gao, X, 2015. Refitting analysis of stone artifacts

568

from the Xujiacheng site, Gansu Province, North China. Acta Anthropologica

569

Sinica 34 (2), 180-191. (in Chinese with an English abstract)

570

Li, F., Kuhn, S.L., Chen, F.Y., Wang, Y.H., Southon, J., Peng, F., Shan, M.C., Wang,

571

C.X., Ge, J.Y., Yun, T.L., Gao, X., 2018. The easternmost middle paleolithic

572

(Mousterian) from Jinsitai cave, north China. Journal of Human Evolution 114,

573

76–84.

574

Li, F., Li, Y.H., Gao, X., Kuhn, S.L., Boëda, E., Olsen, J.W. 2019c. A refutation of

575

reported Levallois technology from Guanyindong Cave in South China, National

576

Science Review, nwz115, https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwz115.

577

Li, H., Li, Z.Y., Lotter, M., Kuman, K., 2018. Formation processes at the early Late

578

Pleistocene archaic human site of Lingjing, China. Journal of Archaeological

579

Science 96, 73-84.

580

Li, H., Li, Z.Y. , Gao, X., Kathleen, K., Alexandra, S., 2019a. Technological behavior

581

of the early Late Pleistocene archaic humans at Lingjing (Xuchang, China).

582

Archaeological and Anthropological Science 11(7), 3477–3490.

583

Li, Y.Y., Pei, S.W., Tong, H.W., Yang, X.X., Cai, Y.J., Liu, W., Wu, X.J., 2013. A

584

Preliminary Report on the 2011 Excavation at Houbeishan Fuyan Cave,Daoxian,

585

Hunan Province. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 32, 133-143. (In Chinese with

586

English abstract)

587

Li, Z.Y., 2007. A primary study on the stone artfacts of Lingjing site excavated in

588

2005. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 26 (2), 138-154. (In Chinese with English

589

abstract)

590 591

Li, Z.Y., 2010. The excavation report of Lingjing site on 2006. Acta Archaeologica Sinica 1, 73-100 (In Chinese with English abstract).

592

Li, Z.Y., Ma, H.H., 2016. Techno-typological analysis of the microlithic assemblage at

593

the Xuchang Man site, Lingjing, central China. Quaternary International 400,

594

120–129.

595 596

Li, Z.Y., Wu, X.J., Zhou, L.P., Liu, W., Gao, X., Nian, X.M., Trinkaus, E. ,2017. Late Pleistocene archaic human crania from Xuchang, China. Science, 355, 969–972.

597

Li, Z. Y., Doyon, L., Hao, L., Wang, Q., Zhang, Z.Q., Zhao, Q.P., d’Errico, F., 2019b.

598

Engravings on bone from the archaic hominin site of Lingjing (Xuchang, Henan,

599

China). Antiquity, https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2019.81.

600 601

Lin, S.L., 1994. Discussion on soft hammer technique of Paleolithic cultures in China and the western world. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 13(1), 83–92.

602

Liu, W., Jin, C.Z., Zhang, Y.Q., Cai, Y.J., Xing, S.,Wu, X.J., Cheng, H., Edwards, L.,

603

Pan, W.S., Qin, D.G, An, Z.S., Trinkaus, E., Wu, X.Z., 2010a. Human remains

604

from Zhirendong, South China, and modern human emergence in East Asia.

605

PNAS 107(45), 19201–19206.

606 607

Liu, W., Wu, X.J., Wang, Q., 2010b. Huanglong Cave:A Late Pleistocene human fossil site in Hubei Province, China. Quaternary International 211, 29-41.

608

Liu, W., Martinón-Torres, M., Cai, Y.J., Xing, S., Tong, H.W., Pei, S.W., Sier, M.J.,

609

Wu, X.H., Edwards, R., Cheng, H., Li, Y.Y., Yang, X.X., de Castro J.M.,Wu,

610

X.J. ,2015. The earliest unequivocally modern humans in southern China. Nature

611

526, 696–699.

612 613

Lycett, S.J., Bae, C.J., 2010. The Movius Line controversy: the state of the debate. World Archaeology 42(4), 521–544.

614

Ma, N., Pei, S.W., Gao, X., 2011. A Preliminary Study on the Stone Artifacts

615

Excavated from Locality 74093 of the Xujiayao Site in 1977. Acta

616

Anthropologica Sinica, 32, 275-288. (In Chinese with English abstract)

617

Michel, V., Valladas, H., Shen, G., Wang, W., Zhao, J.X., Shen, C.C., Valensi, P., Bae,

618

C.J., 2016. The earliest modern Homo sapiens in China? Journal of Human

619

Evolution 101, 101-104.

620 621

Norton, C.J., Bae, K.D., Harris, J.W.K., Lee, H.Y., 2006. Middle Pleistocene handaxes from the Korean Peninsula. Journal of Human Evolution 51, 527-536.

622

Norton, C.J., Gao, X., 2008. Hominin-carnivore interactions during the Chinese Early

623

Paleolithic: Taphonomic perspectives from Xujiayao. Journal of Human

624

Evolution 55, 164-178.

625

Norton, C.J., Gao, X., Feng, X.W., 2009. The east Asian middle Paleolithic

626

reexamined. In: Sourcebook of Paleolithic transitions: methods, theories, and

627

interpretations. Springer New York, 245–254.

628 629

Otte, M., Weiwen, H., Hu, Y.,

Hou, Y.M., 2017. Panxian Dadong and the Chinese

Levallois. L’Anthropologie 121, 255–269.

630

Pei, S.W., Gao, X., Wu, X.Z., Li, X.L., Bae, C.J., 2013. Middle to Late Pleistocene

631

hominin occupation in the Three Gorges Region, South China. Quaternary

632

International 295, 237-252.

633

Ren, J.C., Li, F., Wang, X.M., 2018. Preliminary report on excavation of Banjingzi

634

Paleolithic site in Yangyuan County, Hebei in 2015, Archaeology 121, 3-14. (In

635

Chinese)

636

Schurmans, U.A., 2007 Refitting in the Old and New World. In: Schurmans U, De Bie

637

M (eds). Fitting Rocks: Lithic Refitting Examined[C]. Oxford: Hadrian, 7-23

638

Seong, C., Bae, C.J., 2016. The eastern Asian BMiddle Palaeolithic revisited: view

639

from Korea. Antiquity 90(353), 1151–1165.

640

Shen, G.J., Wu, X.Z., Wang, Q., Tu, H., Feng, Y.X., Zhao, J.X., 2013. Mass

641

spectrometric U-series dating of Huanglong Cave in Hubei Province, central

642

China: evidence for early presence of modern humans in eastern Asia. Journal of

643

Human Evolution 65, 162–167.

644 645

Soriano, S., Villa, P.,2017. Early Levallois and the beginning of the Middle Paleolithic in central Italy. PLoS One 12(10), e0186082.

646

Trinkaus, E., Wu, X.J. ,2017. External auditory exostoses in the Xuchang and

647

Xujiayao human remains: Patterns and implications among Eastern Eurasian

648

Middle and Late Pleistocene crania. PLoS ONE 12, e0189390.

649

Wei, Q., Wu, X.J., 2012. Approach to stratigraphy of the Xujiayao-Houjiayao site in

650

Nihewan Basin, China. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 31, 151–163. (In Chinese

651

with English abstract)

652

Wang, S.J., 2005a. Perspectives on Hominid Behaviour and Settlement Patterns: A

653

Study of the Lower Palaeolithic Sites in the Luonan Basin, China. Archaeopress,

654

Oxford.

655

Wang, S.J., 2005b. The Refitting of Lithic Artefacts from the Longyadong Cave ,

656

Luonan Basin, China. Acta Archaeologica Sinica 24(1), 1-17. (In Chinese with

657

English abstract)

658

Wang, S.J., Lu, H.Y., Xing, L.D., 2014. Chronological and typo-technological

659

perspectiveson the Paleolithic archaeology in Lantian, central China. Quaternary

660

International 347, 183–192.

661

Wang, W., Lycett, S.J., von Cramon-Taubadel, N., Jin, J., Bae, C.J., 2012.

662

Convergence of functional form, not hominin cognition, explains similarities and

663

differences between handaxes from Bose Basin (China) and the western

664

Acheulean. PLoS ONE 7(4), e35804.

665

Wei, Q., 1994, Preliminary research on early Pleistocene Paleolithic Banshan site in

666

Nihewan Basin, Acta Anthropologica Sinica 3, 223-238. (in Chinese with

667

English abstract)

668

Wu, X.J., Liu, W., Gao, X.,2006. Huanglong Cave, a new Late Pleistocene hominid

669

site in Yunxi of

670

2493-2499.

Hubei Province, China. Chinese Science Bulletin 51,

671

Xiao, D.F., Bae, C.J., Shen, G.J., Delson, E., Jin, J., Webb, N.M., Qiu, L.C., 2014.

672

Morphometric analysis of hominin fossils from Maba (Guangdong, China).

673

Journal of Human Evolution 74, 1-20.

674 675

Yee, M.K. 2012. The Middle Palaeolithic in China: a review of current interpretations. Antiquity 86, 619–626.

676

Zhang, S.S., 1990. Regional industrial gradual advance and cultural exchange

677

ofPaleolithic in north China. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 9, 322–334. (in Chinese

678

with English abstract)

679

Zhang, S.S., 1999. On the important advancement of the Paleolithic archaeology in

680

China since 1949. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 18, 193–214. (in Chinese with

681

English abstract)

682

Zhang, S.S., 2002. Advances in Chinese Paleolithic archaeology in the past 20 years

683

and some comments. Quaternary Sciences 22, 11–19. (in Chinese with English

684

abstract)

685 686

Zhou, G.X., 1974. Paleolithic and Neolithic remains from Lingjing site in Xuchang,Henan province. Archaeology 2, 91-108. (In Chinese)

687 688

Captions

689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697

Fig. 1 a. Geographical location of the Lingjing site (Xuchang County, Henan Province, China); b. Aerial photo of Lingjing site, the red rectangular showing the protection area of the site (viewed from northwest of the site), and little red square representing the excavated area of 2017 season.

698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717

Fig. 2 The Lingjing site. a. Schematic profile of the geo-cultural deposits (adopted from Li et al. 2017) ; b. Site stratigraphy during excavation of 2017 season and vertical distribution of stone artifacts in this study; c. OSL dating results (cited from Li et al., 2017 ) ; d. Excavation grid. Fig. 3 Sizes of stone artifacts unearthed from the Lingjing Site Micro size < 20 mm; 20mm < Small size < 50mm; 50mm < medium size Fig. 4. Cores and flakes from the Lingjing site. 1 single-platform core; 2 and 3 complete flakes; 4 and 5 discoid cores; 6 “small elongated flake” by accident. Fig. 5. Retouched tools from the Lingjing site. 1-3, 5, 6, 8. Scraper; 4. borer; 7. denticulate; 9. notch; 10. point (losing pointing end) Fig. 6. a, b. Horizontal and vertical distributions of refit artifacts (dotted line represents the boundary of Layer 10 and Layer 11) Table 1 Artifact types and raw materials for artifacts from the Lingjing site. Table 2 Classification of cores and measurements (in mm) and weight (in grams) for each subtype. Table 3 Classification of tools and measurements (in mm) and weight (in grams) for each subtype.

Table 1 Artifact types and raw materials for artifacts from the Lingjing site

Types

Quartz Quartzite basalt sandstone Total %

Core Complete flake Flake fragments Small elongated flakes Tool Chunk Debitage Total %

34

10

33

31

43

24

3

1

72 279 682 1146 87.6

1 13 18 98 7.5

1

45

3.4

3

21

88

6.7

7

23

97

7.4

4

0.3

1 8 10 0.8

54 4.1

74 5.7 300 22.9 700 53.6 1308 100

Table 2 Classification of cores and measurements (in mm) and weight (in grams) for each subtype.

Types Single platform core Double platform core Multiplatform core Discoidal core Bipolar core Total

Number

%

Mean length

Mean width

Mean Mean thickness weight

25

55.6

24.2

23.7

17.9

29.6

10

22.2

31.9

31.5

19.3

29.4

6

13.3

39.4

31.2

24.5

67.5

3

6.7

30

34.4

28.1

42.6

1

2.2

21.3

21.1

14.7

6.3

45

100

29.3

28.4

20.9

35.1

Table 3 Classification of tools and measurements (in mm) and weight (in grams) for each subtype.

Types

Number

%

Scraper Notch Denticulate Point Borer Total

55 4 5 8 2 74

74.3 5.4 6.8 10.8 2.7 100

Mean length 19.2 22.9 19.7 25.2 23 29.3

Mean width 19.2 15.6 18 16.9 20.3 28.4

Mean thickness 10.1 9.3 6.4 10.5 9.35 20.9

Mean weight 7.2 3.9 2.46 4 3.85 35.1

Conflict of interest We declare that we have no financial relationships with other people or organizations that can inappropriately influence our work, there is no professional interest of any nature or kind in any product, service and/or company that could be construed as influencing the position presented in the manuscript entitled, “New discoveries from the early Late Pleistocene Lingjing site (Xuchang)”. However, because this paper exhibits a different opinion from what Dr. Hao Li from Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP), Chinese Academy of Sciences stated before, here we believe it’s fairer to exclude him as a reviewer.