Abstract

The cobble industry in southern Chinese provinces was for a long time called large and simple “chopper-chopping tool tradition,” which persisted from the Early Pleistocene to the Middle Holocene. This recognition is 50% true and 50% false because it does not reflect the entire archaeological reality. On the one hand, the so-called “chopper-chopping tool” category often characterizes or dominates the lithic assemblages; on the other hand, a “chopper” from site A could be different from another “chopper” in site B. This distinction is important since the typological names lost their validity when conducting comparative studies inter- and intra-sites. The cobble tool industry of the Zengpiyan cave site (Guilin City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China) is an excellent example of this terminological dilemma, which presents some extent of both simplicity and complexity, underestimated in its production strategies. We could also find substantial flexibility between the two ends (simplicity and complexity) during the selection and exploitation of the cobble/pebble blanks. Although chopper-chopping tools are predominant at the site, the variability of their morpho-structures and techno-functional organization indicate that they are not just simple chopper-chopping tools sensu stricto but have their specific characteristics which could not be found in their typological names. In this context, we need to re-evaluate the previously so-called “choppers” in south China with a techno-functional approach before comparing different lithic assemblages. Compared with other contemporary sites, the Zengpiyan technical system is not far from those found in South China and mainland Southeast Asia. For example, it has similarities with the Sonvian phenomenon in northern Vietnam and some other sites in southern China. While very different from the Hoabinhian technocomplex, the Zengpiyan assemblage raises questions about the kinship with other Late Pleistocene lithic facies. Further technological studies on a larger number of sites in these regions are still needed to understand better the prehistoric techno-cultural relationships between the industrial assemblages of southern China and those bordering the Far East.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.