Important Archaeological Remains from North China

Pleistocene Faunal and Cultural Stations in South China

“…4 Presumably post-Tiglian: probably early Mosbachium in Miiller-Beck's terminology. 5 Evidently Early Würm equivalent; also note that some Chinese schema place the Riss-equivalent, considered a pluvial phase, in the Chinese Upper Pleistocene (see Chang 1968; Aigner 1969Aigner , 1972b Yenchingkuo (27), Chihchin (7), Hsingan (15) (11) a I have suggested an earlier dating based upon the faunal remains and the morphology of the hominid fossils scaled against morphologically relevant forms more securely dated from Europe and North China (see Table 2). (3), Ch'ienhsi = Chihchin (7), Lingyen (12), Chihchiang (28), Yangchiachung (22), Tsaotienfen (32), Kaoyao, Loting, Fengk'ai (17), Shaochin (18) Mid-Middle Pleistocene Yungshan?…”

“…A relative sequence of faunal collecting stations is attempted in order to provide a tentative framework for dating archaeological remains with associated faunas. Such attempts are more successful for North China where climatic alterations during the Pleistocene were more marked and affected the local vegetational, and as a consequence faunal, histories and distributions (Aigner 1969(Aigner , 1972b.Archaeological sites and surface collecting stations are listed in a regional and provincial sequence with some attempt to maintain natural regions when these cross-cut the provincial boundaries. Annotations cite locational, geological, faunal, human paleontological, and cultural data whenever these are available.…”

“…A relative sequence of faunal collecting stations is attempted in order to provide a tentative framework for dating archaeological remains with associated faunas. Such attempts are more successful for North China where climatic alterations during the Pleistocene were more marked and affected the local vegetational, and as a consequence faunal, histories and distributions (Aigner 1969(Aigner , 1972b.…”

“…are recorded (rarely) in Yunnan and Kwangtung. Recent evidence from North China suggests that Stegodon is a form which ranged there (at Lantian and K'oho) well into the Middle Pleistocene (during interglacials) and cannot be considered strictly a southern form (Aigner 1969(Aigner , 1972b. P'ei made three temporal divisions of the Stegodon-Ailuropoda fauna, recognizing a Lower Pleistocene 2 assemblage containing Pliocene relicts such as Chalicotherium and mastodon (Liuch'eng fauna) and a Middle Pleistocene fauna including S. orientalis, Megatapirus augustus, and Rhinoceros which are recorded at nearly all of the known faunal stations.…”

Chronological and typo-technological perspectives on the Palaeolithic archaeology in Lantian, central China

“…China has long been recognized as a key area for the study of human evolution and hominid behavioral adaptation during the Pleistocene (e.g., Aigner and Laughlin, 1973;Aigner, 1978Aigner, , 1981Yi and Clark, 1983;Pope, 1988;Schick and Dong, 1993;Wu and Poirier, 1995;Wang, 2005b;Dennell, 2009;Bar-Yosef and Wang, 2012). However, there has been a conventional notion that it was difficult to compare Palaeolithic cultures between China and Europe because of the great differences in their lithic technologies (Pei, 1939).…”