보이지 않는 선 지우기

Abstract

Hallam Movius is the most cited and controversial scholar among East Asian Paleolithic researchers. Criticisms of the Movius theory that have been raised so far have often been developed in such a way that the ‘Movius line’ is not valid because there are ‘Acheulean (type) handaxes’ in East Asia and Southeast Asia. However, it is not so easy to clearly answer the question, ‘To what extent does it resemble a true Acheulean hand axe?’ Therefore, rather than examining the validity of the Movius theory through ‘formal similarity’, this study attempted to criticize the Movius theory at a more fundamental level by retracing the genealogy of the core theories that form the intellectual foundation of the Movius theory. The analysis revealed that the Movius theory is based on the ‘old intellectual legacy’ of modern Western academia that is no longer accepted by current academic circles. Theories that Movius relied on, such as Transformisme, Orthogenesis, Presapien theory, and Alpine glacial chronology, have now been discarded in the natural science and archaeology communities, and the culture-historical archaeology is also a controversial methodology in terms of its validity. In other words, considering the current level of academia, the intellectual foundation theories of the Movius doctrine are anachronistic. Therefore, the Movius model, which logically stands against old theories and concepts that no longer have a future, cannot help but be evaluated as anachronistic. Recent research has revealed that Movius’ survey of the Burma region had several critical stratigraphic errors and that there were also problems with stone tool determination. The basis of the Movius line is uncertain in that Movius built his theory based on uncertain data. Bifacial processing technology is a phenomenon that appears universally in the Old Continent, and is not a special phenomenon that appears only in certain regions such as Africa and Europe. However, we cannot lump them all together and name them ‘Acheulean’. This is because so much technological diversity is hidden within the morphological unity of ‘bifaces.’ From that perspective, the ‘Movius Line’ not only has no substance, but also fails to properly explain the Paleolithic culture of East Asia and Southeast Asia, as well as the Paleolithic culture of Europe and Africa. Therefore, the insubstantial Movius line should be discarded.