Luobi Cave, South China: A Comparative Perspective on a Novel Cobble-Tool Industry Associated with Bone Tool Technology during the Pleistocene–Holocene Transition

Reduction Sequences During the Hoabinhian Technocomplex in Cambodia and Thailand: A New Knapping Strategy in Southeast Asia from the Terminal Upper Pleistocene to mid Holocene

“…As a systematic methodology, it can reveal the chaînes opératoires and tool structures of the lithic industry (Boëda et al, 1990;Inizan et al, 1999;Soressi & Geneste, 2011), and thus provides a uniform criterion for intra-and inter-site comparisons. An increasing number of sites in Southeast Asia and southern China have been (or are being) revisited with this approach (Bodin, 2011;Boëda & Hou, 2011;Forestier, 2000Forestier, , 2020Forestier, 2020;Forestier et al, 2005bForestier et al, , 2013Forestier et al, , 2017aForestier et al, , 2017bLi, 2011;Li et al, 2009;Li et al, 2014Li et al, , 2019aLi et al, , 2019bLi & Bodin, 2013;Wei et al, 2017;Zeitoun et al, 2008Zeitoun et al, , 2019Zhou, 2021;Zhou et al, 2019Zhou et al, , 2020, and researchers now confirm that it is a scientifically robust and efficient method for revealing and discussing lithic variability and distinguishing different technological ideas and systems. In this paper, the technological analysis of two Hoabinhian sites has clearly demonstrated variability in reduction sequences and tool types.…”

A technological perspective on the lithic industry of the Bailiandong Cave (36–7 ka) in Guangxi: An effort to redefine the cobble-tool industry in South China

“…In this sense we need to further question the real meaning of "cobble-tool industry" if not abandon it, since it doesn't and can't give us clear information about lithic production but only a descriptive term of raw material. It also renders comparative study difficult on a regional scale especially within southern China and the neighboring mainland Southeast Asia where river cobble was also frequently used during the late Late Pleistocene to the Early Holocene (Forestier 2010;Forestier et al 2017a, b;Li et al 2019;Pawlik 2009;White 2011;Zeitoun et al 2008). A technological perspective appears to be an efficient and concise way to clarify the ambiguity surrounding the so-called "cobble-tool industry" as indicated by detailed technological analysis on Hoabinhian techno-complex in Southeast Asia during the past 20 years (Forestier 2000(Forestier , 2010Forestier et al 2015Forestier et al , 2017aForestier and Zeitoun 2005;Zeitoun et al 2008).…”

“…Literally, the "cobble-tool industry" implies that the raw materials used to produce tools are river cobbles or pebbles, however the technological information regarding the organization, structure and method applied on this type of raw material in the lithic production process is almost totally lost when using this term. Due to that cobble tools are usually studied with a typological method which aims at classification of tools rather than understanding the process of realization of tools and the real objectives of prehistoric knappers, thus the comparative study became difficult if not impossible between this region and the adjacent mainland Southeast Asia which is also a world of "cobble-tool industry" during the Paleolithic period (Forestier 2010;Forestier et al 2017a, b;Li et al 2019;Pawlik 2009;Zeitoun et al 2008). Especially when the widely dispersed Hoabinhian techno-complex in Indochina is concerned (Forestier et al 2017a;Moser 2001;Zeitoun et al 2008), suspicion about its existence/absence in southern China such as Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region and Guangdong Province was aroused (Bowdler 2006;Dai 1988;Deng 1992;Trinh 1992;Zhang and Qiu 1998) because these regions are very close to northern Vietnam where Hoabinhian sites are abundant during the same time period (Chung 2008;Colani 1926Colani , 1927Colani , 1939Forestier et al 2017a;Ha Van 1992;Moser 2001;Zeitoun et al 2008).…”

“…Recent excavation and research suggested that Hoabinhian techno-complex may originate from the upper reaches of Mekong River in Yunnan Province of Southwest China since about 40 ka, as the discovery of Xiaodong Rockshelter indicated (Ji et al 2016), and it was also present at some localities in the western border area of Yunnan (Collective 2017), which seemed to make South China the potential technological cradle for mainland Southeast Asia late Paleolithic cultures (Forestier et al 2017a). However, the question of whether Hoabinhian techno-complex also expanded to Guangxi and Guangdong regions of southern China remains to be clarified (Li et al 2019).…”

Hoabinhian variability in Mainland Southeast Asia revisited: The lithic assemblage of Moh Khiew Cave, Southwestern Thailand

“…In Southern China, dozens of archaeological sites dating from the Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene have been reported by previous researchers in Yunnan, Guangxi, Hainan, and Guizhou, but most of them have not been studied with a technological approach. Preliminary work of this type has been launched in recent years, and several studies of lithic assemblages have been published, such as Luobidong (Li et al 2019), Bailiandong (Zhou et al 2019a) and Tangzigou (Zhou et al 2019b), while Zengpiyan (Collective 2003) and Maomaodong (Cao 1981) are currently being studied. Although these sites include a cobble-tool industry, they could not be defined as Hoabinhian, since the underlying technological concepts and final toolkits are more or less different from those of Hoabinhian sites.…”