A. P. Derevyanko, Institute of Archeology and Ethnography SB RAS

17 Akademika Lavrentieva Ave., Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia

E-mail: derev@archaeology.nsc.ru

UDC 903.21

Introduction

In the 1940s, Movius (1949) hypothesized that two large cultural and historical provinces existed in the Early Paleolithic: one with chopper and chopping tools covered Southeast and East Asia, and the other with hand axes or choppers covered the rest of Eurasia. Over the past 60 years, hundreds of Paleolithic sites have been discovered and studied in East and South-East Asia, and a huge amount of factual material has been obtained, which allows us to take a new approach to evaluating the industry of the East of Eurasia. During this time, researchers have repeatedly considered the problem of two cultural and historical provinces, the so-called Movius line, in various aspects. One of the first meaningful discussions took place in connection with the publication in Current Anthropology of an article by Yi Seonbok and D. Clark (1983). This discussion, as well as many others, focused mainly on criticizing hypothesis X. Movius. Indisputable evidence of the existence of both chopper-chopping and bifacially processed tools in the Paleolithic of East and Southeast Asia was presented. A large number of articles have been written on this issue. In them, the authors cite more and more facts that indicate the presence of tools such as choppers in the Paleolithic sites of eastern Eurasia.

Currently, it is obvious to everyone that in East and South-East Asia, bifacial technology appeared very early. This was also known to H. Movius (1949). He allocated 153 rubles in the Patjitan industry, which amounted to 6.32% of the gun set. Choppers are outnumbered by choppers (17.8%). The collection also includes choppers (3.68%). What is the ratio between bilaterally processed and chopper-chopping tools to give a qualitative assessment of the industry as a whole? There is no and, from my point of view, cannot be a definite answer to this question. In the Patjitan complex, in addition to choppers, there are 3.59% hand adzes and 8.06% protohandaxes, which are typologically closer to hand saws than to choppers and choppers.

Knowing about the presence of bilaterally processed tools in the Patjitan industry, H. Movius was the first to note the difference between the Paleolithic complexes of Southeast and East Asia and those of the rest of Eurasia. Why he did this remains a mystery to me. However, over the past 60 years, a large amount of new material has been accumulated, which gives grounds for distinguishing the Paleolithic of East and Southeast Asia in the Paleolithic of Eurasia (Derevyanko, 2005, 2006a-b). The criteria for this are somewhat different from those proposed by X. By Movius. From the first appearance of the oldest human populations of 1.8-1.3 million years AGO in East and Southeast Asia, there was a continuous development of both the physical type of man and his culture. In the specified chronological range, two migration waves to the east of Eurasia from Africa are recorded: with the Olduvai industry and the microindustry. This is especially evident in the materials of Early Paleolithic localities in China (Derevyanko, 2006a-b).

The work was carried out within the framework of the thematic plan (R & D 1.17.08) and AVCP " Development of the scientific potential of the Higher School of Economics (2006-2008) (project RNP 2.2.1.1. 2183) Rosobrazovanie".

From my point of view, later than 1 million BC, there were no more large migrations of ancient people of a different physical type with a fundamentally different industry to this territory. In China and, apparently, throughout East and Southeast Asia, Homo erectus and related forms developed further towards sapienization. It was on the basis of the autochthonous population in this territory that Homo sapiens sapiens was formed.

The presence of bifacial technology in East and Southeast Asia in the Early Paleolithic seems to exclude the possibility of such a hypothesis. Over the past 40 years, a large number of Paleolithic sites (from the Early to Late Paleolithic) have been discovered in China, where bifacially processed tools have been found. Huang Weiwen (1987) was one of the first authors to publish a consolidated work on bifaces in the Early Paleolithic complexes of China. He identified three major areas of distribution of such tools: the Fen River basin, the Hanshui River valley, and the Baise Basin in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. The researcher considers biface from the Pinliang site on the Gongwangling Hill 2 km west of the Lantian human site to be the oldest in East Asia. Stratigraphically, this tool was located below the horizon with the remains of the Lantian man, and, according to Huang Weiwen, its age is more than 1 million years. Systematization of information about the distribution of bifaces in China leads the researcher to the conclusion that a group of tools of this type in the industries of China "has a lot in common with bifaces in the complexes of Europe and Africa. The above-mentioned discoveries are gradually blurring the "border" between They point to the fact that contacts between the cultures of these two large regions could have existed already in the Early Paleolithic " [Ibid.]. This conclusion is very important. But it would be naive to assume that the identification of bifaces in the Early Paleolithic complexes of China and the recognition of their proximity to similar tools in Africa and Europe solve the problems of qualitative assessment of contacts and mutual influences of Paleolithic cultures of the East and West. Bifaces are certainly one of the diagnostic features in Early Paleolithic industrial complexes, and it is very important to establish the time of their appearance in China and compare the technical and typological characteristics of these tools and chops with the rest of Eurasia strictly in accordance with the chronostratigraphic descriptions of Early Paleolithic sites. It is even more important to compare all the features and indicators of primary and secondary processing, i.e. a comparative analysis of the industry as a whole, rather than of individual tools, to determine the similarity and difference between biface sites. I am absolutely convinced that localities, industries, and Paleolithic cultures cannot be recognized as related solely on the basis of the similarity of any one category of products.

Many researchers of the Paleolithic of China, based on the presence in Paleolithic complexes of bifacial tools such as hand choppers, as well as so-called cleavers, pikes, and spheroids, compare and sometimes even identify the early Paleolithic in this territory with the Acheulean of Eurasia. The article by Huang Weiwen, Hou Yamei, and Song Hengyong (2005) provides the most complete summary of the presence of bifaces, cleavers, and peaks at early Paleolithic sites in China. In conclusion, the authors conclude that "in the course of recent studies on the Baise plateau, convincing evidence of the existence of a stone industry in the southern part of East Asia, similar to the western angel industry, was obtained no later than 0.8 million years ago" [Ibid., p. 12].

From my point of view, the appearance of bifacial tools such as hand choppers and jib-type tools in East Asia is explained not by the infiltration of archanthropes with the angelic industry into this territory, but by convergence [The Paleolithic..., 1998; Derevyanko, 2006a-b]. The periodic appearance and disappearance of bifacial products in China for almost 1 million years was determined by changes in the ecological situation and new adaptation strategies of the oldest population in this territory. And this is a phenomenon of convergent order. Let's take a closer look at the problem.

Paleolithic sites with bifacial technology in china in the Neo-Pleistocene

Many Paleolithic researchers traditionally distinguish two main zones in China: the southern and northern ones, the border between which runs along the Qinling Mountain range (34° N). We will consider the appearance of bifacial equipment and tools such as jib and peak in China not on a geographical basis, but in chronological terms. The earliest evidence for the appearance of cleavers and peaks is found in the Lungupo Cave (Huang Weiwen, Hou Yamei, and Son Hengyong, 2005). The cave is located in the area of Three Gorges on the Yangtze River near Chongqing. During fieldwork, a large number of mammalian bones, about 40 stone tools, a fragment of a human lower jaw with a premolar and molar, and a chisel were found. Based on faunal data, the age of the finds was estimated at 2 million years. years. EPR dates seem to confirm these chronological definitions [Huang et al., 1995]. The Lungupo cave site is one of the controversial Early Paleolithic sites in China, in terms of stratigraphy, artefacts, and dating.

Figure 1. Stone artefacts from locations in Lantian (1, 2) and Yunxian (3) counties.

1 - hand chopper, Pingliang (according to [Dai, 1966]); 2-pebbles with chips, Chenjiawo (according to [Abramova, 1994]); 3-hand chopper (according to [Yunxian Man, 2001]).

Some publications about Lungupo mention two artefacts found at considerable distances from each other and in different paleomagnetic zones. They may have entered the underlying horizons together with seeping water and ended up among ancient faunal remains by accident (Wang Qian, 1996). There are also doubts about the classification of these finds as man-made tools (Ranov, 1999). Other publications report the presence of pikes and cleavers among 40 stone tools. The drawing of the so-called cleaver does not convince us that this artifact can be classified in this category (Huang Weiwen, Hou Yamei, and Son Hyeongyeon, 2005).

One of the earliest Paleolithic sites in China is a site in Yunxian County in the upper reaches of the Hanipui River in the northwest of the Prov. Hubei (Li et al., 1998; Zhu Hengfu, 1999; Yunxian Man, 2001). At this site, two complete Homo erectus skulls and 146 stone tools were found buried in fine brown sand and clay. 61 artifacts were also found in the overlying layer of red-brown clay. Among the stone tools, choppers, a chopper-shaped product, jibs, etc. are distinguished. One product, undoubtedly, has bifacial processing (Fig. 1, 3). It is made of pebbles. One side of the product is decorated with large chips over the entire surface with a finer touch-up at the edges, the opposite side is processed by two-thirds. Paleomagnetic studies of the layer underlying the culture-bearing horizon revealed the Jaramillo episode. Consequently, the sediments containing the artifacts are ca. 1 million years old.

A series of bifacial tools were found in the Baihe and Laochihe River basins in the Gongwangling Upland area and in nearby places in Lantian County, China. Shanxi. Back in the late 1950s, geologists and paleontologists studied Cenozoic deposits in this area. In 1963, employees of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology of the Academy of Sciences of the People's Republic of China found the lower jaw of an ancient human near the village of Gongwangling. The work was continued in 1964-1966, and then resumed in 1973. In total, approx. 20 localities where more than 200 stone tools, teeth, upper jaw, and cranial cap of Homo erectus were found (Kucera, 1996). Archaeological and paleoanthropological finds from different localities are not timely, but they all belong to the early stage of the Paleolithic. The age of the finds, which has been revised several times, is from 600 thousand to 1 million years. The results of subsequent paleomagnetic studies, supported by data from the analysis of loess-soil sequences and faunal remains, made it possible to attribute the most ancient culture-containing horizon to the Lantian horizon.Homo erectus, stone tools from the Jaramillo episode, and date the finds to within 1.15 Ma BP (An and Ho, 1989).

Stone tools at Paleolithic sites in Lantian are mainly made of quartzite, less often of quartz, sandstone and silicon. Primary cleavage is associated with the use of large pebbles, from which flakes of various shapes, including lamellar ones, were chipped. There are also polyhedral nuclei with a radial splitting principle. One and two impact pads were used without pretreatment. In Lantian, not a single split with a faceted platform is known. On some flakes there is a retouch in the form of small chips.

The gun set is represented by scrapers, flakes with and without retouching, choppers, pegs, etc.-

2. A chopper from Lantian County (according to [Larichev, 1985]) (1) and a three-sided tool from Kehe (according to [Abramova, 1994]) (2).

kami, bifacially processed products (Gai Pei, Yu Yuzhu, 1976). Scrapers of various sizes with one straight working edge, with two blades forming an obtuse or acute angle, semicircular. Their surface was treated with chips, the blade was corrected with irregular retouching, sometimes it had a jagged shape. Choppers were made from pebbles. They are relatively small in size. One side was treated with chips almost all over the surface. A special category should include peaked and bifacially processed products. There are several pointed guns. They have a sub-triangular shape. One side was treated with chips, and the edge was additionally retouched.

In the Chenjiawo area, a triangular quartzite pebble was found. On one side of it, there are negatives of large chips all over the surface. At the initial stage, pebbles could be used as a nucleus. The impact pad was a pebbly surface without additional touch-up. At least five chips were chipped from the shingle. In the future, its edges were subjected to additional processing with small chips. The product was transformed into a tool like a pointed scraper. It shows a uniform treatment, which is typical for spikelets in Lantian (Figs. 1, 2).

Bifacially processed tools are also known at the Lantian localities. In the Pingliang area, 2 km east of the Gongwangling Hill, a ruby-shaped object made from a large quartzite flake was extracted from a layer of red-colored clays dating back to 1.15 million years AGO and lying deeper than the buried soil containing fragments of the Homo erectus skull (Figs. 1, 1). The tool has a sub-triangular shape with a rounded base (heel). One side is decorated with large chips with a touch-up of smaller ones along the edge, the opposite side is partially treated with chips. The lower part of the product retains the gall crust. A bifacial article was also found in red-colored sediments in the Laochihe River basin in Lantian County (Figs. 2, 1). Both planes of sub-triangular pebbles were chipped. Only in the extended part (heel) does the gall crust remain. An episodic retouch is applied along the edge of the blade. Several other chopping tools made of pebbles with a partially treated surface and fine chips along the working blade are close to the chopper-like products. There is no doubt that there are bifacial and unifacial techniques in the Lantian industry.

The Kehe industry belongs to the Early Paleolithic period. Fieldwork was carried out in this area in 1960, 1962-1963, and 1978, mainly at two locations: Kehejian and Nangou Dutou. A total of approximately 140 artefacts were found, including 53 nuclei and 53 flakes, which allow reconstructing the primary cleavage technique (Jia Lanpo, 1984). The tools include 19 artifacts. Nuclei are divided into four groups: single-site, similar in shape to triangular ones; cuboid or polyhedral with several impact pads; disc-shaped and pebble-shaped without a prepared impact pad. In Kehe, three main techniques are well reconstructed in the primary cleavage, which can be traced to varying degrees in almost all Neo-Pleistocene Paleolithic localities in China: bipolar, direct impact, and block-on-block. The flakes removed from the nuclei have different shapes, but the predominant ones are massive ones with an unfastened area forming an obtuse angle with the cleavage plane. The largest flakes, with the greatest splitting angle, were obtained when a pebble hit an anvil or another pebble. When a hard bump was used, the flake had a smaller split angle and a relatively small impact bump. Some flakes have traces of use and occasional retouching.

Among the tools at the Kehe localities are choppers, choppers, scrapers and bifacially processed products. Choppers and choppers can also be classified as nuclei, which were then converted into chopping tools. Products with bifasi-

3. Yujiang River valley.

4. Fengshudao Monument in the lake district. Chengbihu.

They are represented by a sharp tip and a fragment of a three-sided tool, processed from all sides (Figs. 2, 2). They are classified differently by different authors. But the point is not in the purpose of objects (it can only be determined by tracological analysis), the most important thing is the presence of bifacially processed products in the Kehe industry.

One of the earliest versions of Lantian and Kehe, in which it is already possible to identify a system of primary splitting and a diverse set of tools, is characterized by two fundamentally important features: 1) the system of primary splitting is dominated by three main techniques used by ancient craftsmen throughout almost the entire Paleolithic; 2) bifacial and unifacial processing of tools originated in China more than 1 million years ago.

One of the largest areas of concentration of Early Paleolithic localities, whose materials clearly show bifacial processing of tools, is the Baise Basin, located in the western part of the Guangxi Zhuan Autonomous Region on the eastern edge of the Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau. In the south, this territory borders with Vietnam. In the west, the basin starts from the town of Baise and stretches east to the town of Sylyn. Its length from northwest to southeast is about 90 km, and its width is 15 km. The main waterway in this area, the Yujiang River, originates from the confluence of the Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau Siyanjiang and Tonyanjiang Rivers and crosses the basin from west to east (Figure 3).

The first finds in the Baise basin were collected in 1973 by employees of the Chinese Academy of Sciences ' IPPIP, the Museum of the Guanxi Zhuan Autonomous Region, and the oil exploration team in this area. In the same year, Zeng Xiangwang, a worker at the Xinzhou coal mine, discovered seven Paleolithic sites southeast of Baise. In 1979, the museum staff began exploration work in the Baise basin. They discovered several new sites and collected a large number of stone tools on the surface, and during the excavation of the Changsheling site, four artifacts were extracted from the culture-containing horizon. For more than a quarter of a century, the Guangxi Zhuan Autonomous Region Museum, the Natural History Museum of this region, the Chinese Academy of Sciences IPPiP, the Yujiang Museum of Nationalities, and the Department of Archaeology of the University of Guang-chuan have been conducting field research in the Baise Basin. Sun Yat-sen and other scientific organizations. A large number of works have been published in China and abroad [Archaeological Group..., 1983; Li Yanxian, Yu Yuzhu, 1975; Huang Weiwen, Qi Guoqin, 1987; Huang Weiwen, Zhang Zhenhong, 1991; Huang Weiwen, Xi Naihang, Sagawa Masatoshi, 2001; Xie Guangmao, Li Qiang, Huang Qishan, 2003; Hou et al, 2000; Lin Shenglong and He Naihan, 1995].

In 30 years, the Baise basin has opened approx. 4-6), where more than 7,000 artefacts were found in the surface area, during excavations - about 1,000 (Xie Guangmao, Li Qiang, Huang Qishan, 2003). Unfortunately, the finds are dispersed in several research centers: about 1,500 artifacts are kept in the Guangxi Museum; 5,000 - in the Yujiang Museum of Nationalities and Baise Museum; about 600 - in the museums of Tiandong and Tanyang Counties; about 300 - in the Guangdong Provincial Museum and the Guangzhou Institute of Archaeology; about 1,000 - in the IPPiP of the Academy of Sciences of the People's Republic of China. This dispersion makes it difficult to study all the materials from this area. The most complete generalizing work on the Paleolithic of the Baise basin is the collective monograph

5. Inspection of the Fengshudao Monument.

6. Stratigraphic trench. Fengshudao.

Xie Guangmao, Li Qiang, and Huang Qishan [2003], which analyzes almost all the finds, with the exception of the collection kept at the IPPiP of the Academy of Sciences of the People's Republic of China.

Chinese scientists have different opinions about the geology and geomorphology of the Baise Basin. The number of terraces identified here varies from four to seven, and there is no unity in determining their heights, which is explained by neotectonic processes in this area during the Early and Middle Neo-Pleistocene (Yuan Baoyin and Hou Yamei, 1999).

Most of the Paleolithic sites in the Baise basin are collection points for stone tools in the surface area. Of particular importance are the four locations where culture-containing horizons are revealed.

The Baigu parking lot is located 15 km east of Baise at an altitude of 210 m above sea level, on the fourth terrace. 70 m ² was excavated to a depth of up to 3 m. From the culture-containing horizons, approx. 70 finds. It is very important that tektites were found at this site along with artifacts. The finds were found in the first and second layers, which are laterites with a mosaic pattern of brown color, indistinct in the first and clear in the second. The thickness of the layers is about 2 m. There is no clear boundary between them, and they probably form a single whole by their origin. In the upper horizon, in contrast to the lower one, there are more humus impurities. A pebble layer lies below the laterite member.

The Gaolingpo parking lot is open near the village. Tanhe of Tiandong County on the fourth terrace (Fig. 7). Because of Sil-

7. Gaolingpo site (slope of a high peak).

Due to erosion and deflation of laterites at this locality, many stone products are collected on the surface. Excavations were carried out in 1991, 1993 and 1998. In the first two years, more than 100 artifacts were found in the cultural horizon. In 1998, 20 ^m2 were opened and 433 objects were recovered; 98% of them are small flakes and chips, on the basis of which it was suggested that the excavation covered part of the site where the primary processing was carried out. The stratigraphy is as follows (from top to bottom):

layer 1 - sandy loose clay of gray-brown color. It contains a lot of humus residues, plant roots, iron and manganese nodules. Power approx. 20 cm;

layer 2 - yellow-brown dense clay. It contains a smaller number of plant roots, but a lot of small carbonaceous inclusions. Power 20 - 25 cm. Rounded, bifacially processed products and flakes were found in the layer;

layer 3 - dense, brown-yellow loam with inclusions of a small number of small pebbles. Power 65 cm. A large number of artifacts were found in the lower part of the layer.

Laikui Parking lot is located near Laikuicun village in Tanyang County. The area is overgrown with mango trees that form a small turf cover. In some places, it is absent and laterites are exposed, on the surface of which stone tools lie. In 1997, the site was excavated at four locations on the hillsides. The total area of the excavated part is 161 ^m2. The top layer is sod cover - gray-brown sandy clay with a thickness of 15-30 cm with a large number of organic inclusions; below-a dense layer of brown-yellow loam with a thickness of 50 to 70 cm with the inclusion of plant roots; the third layer is laterites with a mosaic pattern of red, yellow and white colors, 120 - 130 cm thick. All stone tools (141 copies) were found in this layer. According to the composition and nature of sedimentation, layers 2 and 3 differ little from each other, and between them, according to researchers, it is difficult to draw a clear boundary.

Posilin parking lot is located in the village. Si Lin of Tiandong County on the fourth terrace of the Yujiang River at an altitude of 40 m (Li Qiang, 2002). In 1994, the most extensive field work was carried out in connection with the construction of the railway in this area. 800 m ² was uncovered; 244 artefacts were recovered from kulyu-containing horizons: bifacially processed tools, pikes, scrapers, chippers, nuclei and flakes. The loose sediments in this area are thin, and due to deflation in many places, artifacts were collected on the surface. During excavations, three layers are highlighted (from top to bottom): 1) humusized

a layer of loose gray-yellow clay, thickness 6-20 cm; 2) dense brown-yellow clay, thickness 35-72 cm; most stone tools were extracted from this horizon; 3) dense laterite with a mosaic pattern, a large number of nodules of iron and manganese; no artifacts were found.

A number of facts do not allow us to attribute the excavated stratified sites in the Baise basin to simultaneous ones. First, in most cases, stone tools were located at a shallow depth and, since the sedimentation process in the second half of the Middle and Late Pleistocene was very slow, and deflation and erosion of loose sediments were sometimes very intense, a significant part of the artifacts ended up on the surface. Secondly, the location of parking lots at different heights above the river level does not exclude the possibility of deploying them on the third and fourth terraces. Third, the stone inventory was found both in laterites with a mosaic pattern and in other deposits, which most likely indicates its different timing. This is confirmed by the presence of artefacts at the same site in different lithological horizons, as well as a large vertical spread of finds in one horizon. We can not exclude the possible movement of artifacts in cultural horizons. The researchers note that at the Gaolingpo site, bifacially processed tools and flakes were found in layers 2 and 3, which were separated vertically by a distance of more than 50 cm.

According to technical and typological parameters, the Early Paleolithic localities in the Baise basin are fairly homogeneous. Therefore, all the material collected on the surface and extracted from the culture-containing horizons is considered by most Chinese scientists as a single whole. Xie Guangmao, Li Qiang, and Huang Qishan [2003] divided it into several categories according to its significance. The materials stored in the Guangxi Museum are divided into hoisting materials (approx. 1000 copies) and those obtained during the excavation of the Posilin and Laikui sites (approx.400 copies). Among the uplift finds, they single out those collected with or without sampling and from outcrops, noting that artifacts found by different researchers and stored in different research centers have different significance and not all the material can be used for system analysis.

Tools were mostly made from pebbles. Quartzite, quartz, sandstone, flint, and siliceous rocks were used, much less often volcanic ones. The most commonly used materials were quartzite and sandstone, of which 73% were made.

In the collections studied, Xie Guangmao, Li Qiang, and Huang Qishan [Ibid.] identified 970 artifacts, which were divided into eight main types:

In the materials raised and extracted from cultural horizons, there is a small percentage of artifacts related to the primary processing of stone. This can be explained by the fact that the tools were made mainly of pebbles. Nuclei are divided into three groups: one-site, two-site, and orthogonal. Large pebbles were used for single-site nuclei. Their impact pad retained a pebbly surface. Several large flakes with a large impact bump were chipped from the nuclei. Often their width exceeded the length. The angle of the impact pad is 55-90°. A round, flat quartzite pebble was used for one of these nuclei (Figs. 8, 6). Large flakes were chipped off from two opposite sides. The angle of the impact pad is 55° or more. Flakes were chipped from the pebble surface without additional processing. The second single-site nucleus is a quartzite pebble with one flat side, which is located on the surface of the rock.-

8. Fig. Stone tools from the Boise Basin (according to Xie Guangmao, Li Qiang, and Huang Qishan, 2003). 1, 4 - bumpers; 2, 3, 6-nuclei; 5-chopper.

9. Choppers (from Xie Guangmao, Li Qiang, and Huang Qishan, 2003).

8, 2). Large flakes were chipped along one long side. Two-site nuclei are mainly of the O-rib type (Figs. 8, 3). Oval pebbles were selected for them. One of its sides was used as a shock pad. Flakes were chipped from two flat sides. Blows were applied alternately, and the point of impact fell on the edge of the negative of the previously removed chip. The impact area was winding, and its angle was approaching a straight line. Multi-site nuclei are mostly large. Some of them weigh more than 15 kg. Large flakes were chipped from such nuclei without any system, and both the pebble surface and the negative of the previously removed flake were used as the impact pad. Chipping from all types of nuclei was carried out in three ways: bipolar, using a bump and hitting a pebble on an anvil. Sub-rectangular and round pebbles served as bumpers. As an example, Chinese scientists cite bumpers, which were later turned, most likely, into scraper-type tools (Fig. 8, 1,4 ).

The absolute majority of flakes in the described collection retain a pebbly surface; no specimens with a faceted impact pad were found in the Baise industry. This indicates that the nuclei were used extremely inefficiently, mainly for a single removal of flakes. The chipping angle of 80% of the flakes is 110-120°. For more than half of them, the width exceeds the length. Flakes larger than 10 cm make up 13%, especially large ones have dimensions of more than 20 cm. According to Chinese researchers, about 30% of flakes bear traces of use. But this conclusion is made on the basis of visual observation, and not traceological analysis. No traces of undisputed retouching were found on the flakes.

The most numerous group among the tools are chopping ones. They are divided into four groups: processed at one end on one side (choppers), at one end on two sides (choppers), multi-sided and disc-shaped. Choppers allocated 301 copies, or 82% of the number of chopping tools. They are divided into three groups: with a straight, convex and concave blade.

Choppers of the first group (48 copies) have end and side blades. One is made of oval flinty pebbles (Figs. 8, 5). The end of it is treated with large chips, and smaller ones along the edge give the working blade a jagged shape. The other chopper is made of elongated quartzite pebbles. Its blade is decorated with large chips and corrected with small ones along the edge (Fig. 9, 1). Some products of this type were first used as nuclei, and then turned into chopping tools or scrapers by additional correction [Ibid., il. 10]. Most straight-blade choppers have a treatment on a small portion of the shingle. But there are instances that are designed more carefully. They have almost the entire surface treated on one side, and the blade is additionally corrected with small chips.

There are 241 convex-bladed choppers. This is the most common category of weapons. Chinese scientists divide them into choppers with a wide and narrow arc-shaped blade. One is made of round sandstone pebbles, meaning-

10. Choppers (from Xie Guangmao, Li Qiang, and Huang Qishan, 2003).

11. Chopper (1) and chopping (2, 3) (from Xie Guangmao, Li Qiang, and Huang Qishan, 2003).

the upper part of which is treated with chips. Their negatives are wide, some more than 6 cm (Fig. 9, 2). Along the edge there is a stepped undergrowth of the blade with small chips. The other chopper is made of elongated quartzite pebbles (Fig. 9, 3). One end of it is treated with large chips. The working blade has a rounded-convex shape. Among this group of products, there are instances where on one side almost the entire surface is treated with large chips with additional touch-up along the edge (Fig. 9, 4). The working blade has a toothed shape. Pebble crust remained on the heel and the opposite treated side.

Choppers with a concave blade 12 copies. One of them is made of flattened quartzite pebbles (Fig. 10, 2). The blade is decorated with large chips with fine adjustments along the edge. At the same end, on the other side, a protrusion in the form of a point is highlighted by large chips. This tool is typologically close to the products "with a spout". Among the choppers, there are instances that are processed on one side along two adjacent faces (Fig. 10, 1,3 ). In addition to the end ones, there are longitudinal choppers with a working blade designed on one of the long sides of the pebbles (Fig. 10, 4). Some of them, with an additional touch-up of the blade, could be used as scrapers (Fig. 11, 1).

Chopping tools of the chopping type, where the blade was cut from both sides, are few in the collection (Fig. 11, 2,3 ). For their design, the same techniques were used as for choppers.

A special category should include the chopping tools selected by Chinese scientists, processed from three sides [Ibid.]. In addition to treating one of the pebble surfaces with large chips, the longitudinal blade has a well-defined touch-up with a large retouch (Fig. 12, 2,4 ). These tools should be classified as scrapers.

For the Baise industry, products that have received the name "peaks" (175 copies) are quite typical. They were designed mainly on pebbles. Peaks made from large flakes are rare. Quartzite (39.8%), sandstone (39.8%), siliceous rocks (7.5%), and quartz (13%) were used as the starting material. The peaks were made mainly in a uniform way: one side of the pebbles was treated with chips over the entire surface, and then one of the ends was additionally pressed on the other side. There are also copies without registration of the tip on both sides (Fig. 12, 1). Often, the peak category includes products that retain a significant part of the pebbles with a gall crust (Fig. 12, 3). The shape of the peaks is divided into 10 groups [Ibid.]:

12. Peaks (1,3 ) and scrapers (2, 4) (according to [Xie Guangmao, Li Qiang, Huang Qishan, 2003] - choppers).

13. Peaks (according to Xie Guangmao, Li Qiang, and Huang Qishan, 2003).

This division should be considered very conditional, because, for example, the olive and oval shapes differ slightly. It is necessary to mention another very important circumstance, from my point of view. Part of the so-called peak is not much different from chopping tools such as choppers, choppers and scrapers (Fig. 13). They have a more clearly defined tip and on one side most of the surface is beaten. Peak-shaped instruments are of considerable size. The length of the smallest is 12.5 cm, the largest is 38 cm, and its weight is 7.4 kg. The average size ranges from 15-20 cm, and the weight is 1-2 kg.

Bifacially processed tools give a special flavor to the Early Paleolithic industry of Baise (Fig. 14). They were made from pebbles, used nuclei, and large flakes. The source material is quartzite (49%), sandstone (38.8%), and siliceous rocks (12.2%). Chinese researchers, who call these products rubilami [Ibid., il. 1-3], divided bifacially processed tools (64 copies) into eight types:

The proposed classification, as well as the pik-type guns, is very conditional. When describing bifaces (in my opinion, this is the correct way to call them), it is very important to consider the technology of their manufacture. They were processed with large chips; many of them have a width greater than the length. The tip and edges of the product rarely have a touch-up. In some specimens, only the tip is chipped on one side, while the remaining part retains a pebbly surface (Figs. 15, 1,3 ). These weapons are typologically closest to choppers. Conditionally, bifaces, izgo, etc. can be attributed to rubies.-

Fig. 14. Felling from the Baise basin.

15. Hand choppers (according to Xie Guangmao, Li Qiang, and Huang Qishan, 2003).

made from pebbles, where a significant part of the surface is treated with chips and there is a touch-up at the tip and partially along the edges of the tool (Fig. 15, 2,4 , 5). 16, 4). The Chinese authors themselves note that most of the tools have only one-sided processing, and there are relatively few broken ones on both sides. Processing of products is simple and rough. In most cases, the two-sided padding is limited only to the upper half of the guns; there are very few fully processed samples. The blade rarely has an additional touch-up [Ibid., p. 83]. The differences in the size of bifacial tools are large. The smallest have a length of 12 cm and a weight of 620 g, the largest - respectively more than 23 cm and 4 kg. Choppings, pikes, and bifaces are very similar in shape and technique, and researchers working with collections from the Baise Basin often refer the same items to different types.

16. Cleavers (1-3) and hand choppers (4) (according to Xie Guangmao, Li Qiang, and Huang Qishan, 2003).

17. Scrapers (1,2 ) and cleavers (3, 4) (according to Xie Guangmao, Li Qiang, and Huang Qishan, 2003).

In the Baise industry, Chinese scientists distinguish cleavers (18 copies), which were made from pebbles (65%) and flakes (35%). The source material is sandstone (44.1%), quartzite (38.9%), siliceous rocks (11.1%) and quartz (5.6%). Almost all products have one-sided processing. Some, according to Chinese researchers, have traces of use.

Consider a few so-called shingle cleavers. One copy is made of quartzite. An arc-shaped blade is formed with large chips on one side (Fig. 16, 3); its correction is minimal. A significant part of the surface of pebbles retains a gall crust. Two products are made of elongated sandstone pebbles (Figs. 16, 1, 2). The blades are decorated with several large chips, while one has a minimal touch-up. A tool made of flinty pebbles has a more thorough treatment (Fig. 17, 3). Two adjacent sides are chipped with large chips. The edge of the blade shows a touch-up with small chips. All so-called pebble cleavers with a blade designed at one end and on one side are typologically not much different from choppers. Only some products in appearance resemble jib-type guns.

The most convincing examples given as cleavers are tools made from large flakes (Figs. 17, 4). A flake with a length of 18.6 cm, a width of 14.9 cm, and a thickness of 5.9 cm has one end chipped with large chips. At the opposite end, the ventral part forms an acute angle with the opposite pebble surface. There is a rough retouching along the edge of this sharp blade. This product, unlike many others, is typologically closest to the jib class.

The largest share of tools from the Baise collection is made up of scrapers - 171 copies, or 17.6%. For 48 products, large flakes were used as blanks, for 120 - pebbles, three are decorated on pieces of rock. They were made mainly of sandstone, as well as quartzite, quartz, siliceous rocks and flint. Chinese scientists have divided the scraper into four types [Ibid.]:

Among the selected scrapers, some of them are difficult to distinguish from choppers by technical and typological indicators. But in the Baise collection there are products that can be properly attributed to pebble scrapers (Fig. 18). The blade was processed with large chips, and then corrected with a large retouch. In relation

18. Scrapers (from Xie Guangmao, Li Qiang, and Huang Qishan, 2003).

with the use of this technique, many scrapers have a jagged, and sometimes notched shape.

Unfortunately, the materials from the Baise basin are scattered and it is not certain that they will ever be published in full with a detailed description and use of tracology. Numerous Early Paleolithic sites are concentrated in this area, and their further comprehensive study will provide many interesting ideas and will allow us to significantly better represent the Early Paleolithic not only of China, but also of the entire East and Southeast Asia in the Paleolithic system of Eurasia.

Based on the available materials, we can draw some conclusions about the industry of Early Paleolithic sites in the Baise basin. Primary cleavage is associated with pebble-type nuclei. Their impact pad has no special treatment. The vast majority of flakes partially preserve the pebble surface. When the principle of removing from the edge was used, the negative of the previous chip served as an impact pad. The removal of flakes was carried out in three ways: counter-shock, or bipolar, using a bump and hitting a pebble on an anvil. Many of the flakes that were chipped from large pebble nuclei had a width that exceeded the length.

The weapon set is dominated by pebble chopping tools: choppers, choppers, bifaces, pikes. Bifacially processed products are very specific, and although some of them are typologically close to Acheulean rubies, their appearance in the Baise industry can only be explained by convergence. There are no real cleavers here either.

One of the debatable issues is the dating of the Baise industry. For a long time, some researchers considered it relatively late and expressed doubts about the belonging of artifacts to cultural horizons, believing that all the finds were found in the surface occurrence. A breakthrough in solving these major problems was made in 1993, when researchers from the Chinese Academy of Sciences ' Institute of Natural Sciences and archaeologists from the Guangxi Zhuan Autonomous Region discovered tektites along with stone tools during excavations at the Baigu and Gaolingpo sites in the cultural horizon. The age of tektites from the Baigu site (0.732 ± 0.039 Ma) was determined using the track method.

Clay-pebble horizon under a layer of laterite with a mosaic pattern is the main culture-containing horizon in the Baise Basin in southern China. Here, the paleomagnetic method obtained a date close to the Jaramillo episode. According to the results of re-dating by the track method of tektites extracted from the culture-containing horizon, their age is 0.733 Ma [Gao et al., 1997], and according to ³⁹ Ar/⁴⁰ Ar, it is 0.803 Ma [Hou et al., 2000; Huang Weiwen, Hou Yamei, and Son Hengyong, 2005]. Since the culture-containing horizons were located in different geological layers, the difference between the upper and lower boundaries may be relatively large (Xie Guangmao, Li Qiang, and Huang Qishan, 2003).

In 2005, I was able to visit a number of sites in the Baise basin and get acquainted with the collections. I have no doubt that Kulturo is on fire-

19. Lower Paleolithic tools from the Lishui River, prov. Hunan.

umbrellas are found in laterites, especially since some stone products have traces of laterite with a mosaic pattern. Despite existing disagreements on a number of issues, including dating, the discovery of an Early Paleolithic industry in Baise is one of the most important discoveries of Chinese archaeologists at the end of the last century.

In prov. Hunan, in the Lishui River basin on the western shore of Lake Baikal. More than 70 Early Paleolithic sites have been discovered, including sites with a culture-containing layer in laterites with a mosaic pattern [Ibid.]. The primary processing at these localities is characterized by pebble nuclei. The pebbles were processed by bipolar and impact methods using a hard bump. The flakes retain a pebbly surface. Most of the tools are worked on one side, and the opposite side has a pebble crust. The products are large, many more than 20 cm. Among the tools, Chinese archaeologists distinguish choppers, choppers, pikes (large spiky points), choppers (chopper-shaped tools), spheroids, and scrapers (Fig. With the exception of some features, the Baise industry and the Lishui River basin are very close.

Since 1980, in the Hanzhong basin in the upper reaches of the Hanshui River, in the prov. Shaanxi, a whole series of Paleolithic sites have been discovered. The most interesting results were obtained in the study of the Lianshan site (Huang Weiwen and Qi Guoqin, 1987; Tang Yingjun, Zong Guanfu, and Lei Yulu, 1987). The sites in the Hanzhong Basin, as well as in Baise, contain hundreds of stone tools made from alluvial pebbles consisting of quartz, quartzite, sandstone, and siliceous limestone. Shock and bipolar splitting principles were used for primary processing with a rigid bump. Most nuclei retain a pebbly surface. Guns were made mainly of pebbles. Most of them have a one-sided treatment and the pebble crust is largely preserved. The guns are large. Among them are choppers, choppers, spheroids, spikelets, scrapers, spikes, and bilaterally processed products. Chronologically, the localities belong to the Middle Neo-Pleistocene (Huang Weiwen and Qi Guoqin, 1987).

Some of the most famous Paleolithic monuments in China are located in the Zhoukoudian city area. Field research began there in 1933. 27 items were identified, the most important of which are 1, 13 and 15. Some researchers in the Zhoukoudian stone industry distinguish hand-hewers from bilaterally processed tools (Huang Weiwen, Hou Yamei, and Song Hengyong, 2005).

The most numerous collection of stone tools (approx. finds) were obtained during the excavation of point 1, where 13 lithological horizons were identified, most of which are culturally significant. All researchers note the homogeneity of Zhoukoudian's industry. It is characterized by the use of mainly quartz (89%). Small size nuclei. They were processed in three ways: bipolar, using a bump and hitting a pebble on an anvil. The chipped flakes were small, without faceted areas.

Zhoukoudian's industry is dominated by tools made from flakes with minimal secondary processing. The tool set is dominated by scrapers and scrapers, points, a small series of "beak-shaped" products, there are also chopping tools such as choppers and choppers.

Initially, the Zhoukoudian industry was characterized as a pebble industry with a large number of pebble chopping tools. This is due to the fact that culturoso-

20. Bifacial tools from point 1 of Zhoukoudian (according to [Black et al., 1933]).

the supporting horizons are mainly breccias of varying degrees of cementation. During field work, large-sized tools were first removed. Later, when they began to disassemble the breccia, it turned out that the industry was split off, with a predominance of small tools.

The Zhoukoudian site was dated in a wide chronological range: from the end of the Lower to the end of the Middle Neo-Pleistocene. Using various methods, a series of dates was obtained: layers 11 and 13 - more than 730 thousand years ago (thermoluminescent); 11-460 (amino acid); 10 - 462 ± 45 (track) and 592-417 (thermoluminescent); layers 8.9 - 390 (amino acid); 7-400-370 (thermoluminescent); 4th-310 - 290 (thermoluminescent); 3rd - 270 (amino acid); layers 1 - 3 -220 - 290 thousand years of life (based on the uranium series). There are other variants of Zhoukoudian geochronology.

Some artefacts from items 1 and 13, originally defined as choppings, nuclei, etc., are attributed by Huang Weiwen, Hou Yamei, and Song Hyeongyeon (2005) to bifacial tools such as hand chops (Fig. 20). In the gun kit from item 15, they distinguish choppers, choppers, spheroids, jibs, small products resembling disks and Levallois points.

A whole series of localities where bifacial technology is well represented in China belongs to the end of the Middle Neo-Pleistocene, the Dingcun-Dali period (Riess-Wurm). The most famous among them are the Dingtsun localities. According to some data, 13 items are combined under this name, while others contain more than 20 items. All localities are located on the third terrace of the Fenhe River (one of the tributaries of the Yellow River) in the south of the strait. Shanxi. Some of them contained only faunal remains, some-stone tools, and most - both [Pei et al., 1958; Movius, 1956; Wang J., Tao, Wang Y. R., 1994; Abramova, 1994; Kucera, 1996; Huang Weiwen, Hou Yamei, Son Hyegen, 2005]. In total, more than 2000 Dingsun products are known. Most of them (1,566 specimens) were extracted from crop-bearing horizons, while the rest were located in the surface area. The raw materials were cornea, black metamorphosed rock, and, more rarely, shale, quartzite, basalt, and others. Alluvial pebbles were mainly used as the starting material.

Nuclei (10% of the entire collection) can be divided into orthogonal ones with several impact pads; pebble ones - with a minimum number of removals and close in shape to disc-shaped ones. Most of the flakes were obtained using the anvil technique (Pei et al., 1958). The shock method was also used. Massive flakes mostly without a faceted impact pad. The splitting angle of most of them is from 110 to 130°. A small number of flakes have traces of occasional tweaking and use.

For the Dingcun industry, the most typical are side scrapers on massive flakes, convergent ones on transverse flakes, and double ones with alternative processing (Figs. 21, 4-6). Their blades are straight, jagged and convex. Some scraper-like tools are made on small flakes and are classified as scrapers. Choppers, choppers, and spheroids are also highlighted among the tools. A special group consists of small-sized peaked tools and pointed tools made on flakes (Fig. 21, 1-3). Retouching them on one side was formed by the tip and edges. "Dingcun points", or peaks, were made from large flakes and special blanks. There are also bifacially processed tools in the collection (Fig. 22, 3, 4), as well as jib-type items (Fig. 22, 1, 2).

Until now, the problem of dating the Dingtsun localities remains debatable. It is obvious that they are of different times and belong to the end of the Middle Pleistocene, to the Riess-Wurmian or Dinzun interstadial, i.e. their age is 90-120 thousand years. The horizon with human bones dates back to 90-70 thousand years ago. Some researchers refer the Dingcunian industry to the late Middle Pleistocene (Huang Weiwen, Hou Yamei, and Song Hengyong, 2005).

In terms of technical and typological parameters, the Dingcun sites are similar to those in the area of Sanmenxia, in the middle reaches of the Yellow River, on a 60-meter terrace (Huang Weiwen, 1964; Larichev, 1985). Huang Weiwen

21. Spikelets (1-3) and scrapers (4-6) from Dingtsun (according to Abramova, 1994).

22. Cleavers (1, 2) and hand choppers (3, 4) from Dingsun (according to [Pei et al., 1958]).

He identified two localities in this area - Shuigou and Huixingou, located 200 m from each other, and then combined them into one Sanmenxia site (Huang Weiwen, Hou Yamei, Son Hengyong, 2005). The culture-bearing horizon was located in a layer of gray-green and sandy clay overlain by Lisha loess dating from the end of the Middle Pleistocene. Alluvial pebbles from igneous rocks, quartz, quartzite, and siliceous shale were used for the production of stone tools at this site. Among the tools selected are chopping and scraper-shaped tools such as choppers and choppers, pebble scrapers, spheroids, bifacially processed products, pikes and jib-type tools.

In this part of the study, not all sites of the late Middle and early Upper Pleistocene period, where bifacially processed products, peaks and pinnacles were found, are considered. Some archaeologists (Xie Guangmao, Li Qiang, and Huang Qishan, 2003) note such localities in the basins of the Shuiyangjiang River (in the Southern Anhui and Anhui provinces) and the Hanshui River (prov. Hubei) and other parts of China.

The considered Early Paleolithic localities of China allow us to draw several conclusions. The earliest sites where the bifacial technique has been identified are Yunxiang and Pingliang in the Lantian region; their age is more than 1 million years. In the north of China, bifacial equipment is represented by single opus-

for days. The most numerous localities with bifacially processed products are found in the south, in the Baise basin. On the Paleolithic sites of China, dating from about 800-600 thousand years AGO, in addition to bifaces, there are spiky points, peaks, and products that Chinese archaeologists call cleavers. There are a small number of tools that have bifacial or unifacial processing, and they are found in individual localities in single copies. Primary processing at all Early Paleolithic sites is associated with bipolar, percussive techniques and the impact of pebbles on an anvil. Among the chopping tools, pebbles predominate - such as choppers or choppers. Bifacially processed products at Paleolithic sites do not show continuous dynamics in their development and continuity. They occur in a wide chronological range, and researchers determine them by technical and typological indicators. In no region of China, even in the south, is it possible to single out a region where bifacial tools, jib bars, and pikes have been manufactured in large numbers for a long time.

In the chronological range of the late lower-first half of the upper Neo-Pleistocene, bifaces appear and then disappear in various areas of China. From my point of view, for example, there is no technical and typological continuity between the bifaces from the Baise basin and the Dingtsun Basin. But we will discuss all these problems in more detail below.

The origins of bifacial technology in China

The term "chopper" was first coined in Chinese literature by Jia Lanpo in 1956, when bifacially worked stone tools were found in Dingpong (Jia Lanpo, 1956). A. Breuil (1965), who was well acquainted with the European angelic choppers, did not see their fundamental difference from Asian ones, and did not agree with Pei Wenzhong, who, taking into account the totality of the industrial Dingcun complex, was not based on the similarity or difference in the typological and morphological characteristics of the bifaces themselves, and saw the fundamental differences of the stone industry in China and Europe. To date, there is no consensus among Chinese scientists in the terminology and definition of the functional purpose of bifacially processed tools. Some call them hand choppers and identify complexes containing bifaces with the Acheulean Acheulean (Huang Weiwen, 1987, 1993; Huang Weiwen, Zhang Zhenhong, 1991; Huang Weiwen, Hou Yamei, and Song Hengyong, 2005; Xie Guangmao, 1991, 2002; Xie Guangmao, Li Qiang, and Huang Qishan, 2003) others refer double-sided beaten products to nuclei and axes (Lin Shenglong and He Naihan, 1995) or protorubils (An Zhimin, 1990). There is also a lack of unity among Chinese scientists in the typological and functional definition of cleavers and peaks.

The main problem is not in disagreements about the terminology or typological definition and functional purpose of certain tools that are associated with the Acheulean Acheulean, but in solving the problem of ancient migration flows of human populations from west to east and from east to west in the neo-Pleistocene. If the appearance of bifaces, cleavers, and pikes is associated with the Acheulean industry, then it is necessary to determine when the penetration of ancient human populations from the west to East Asia occurred and to what extent the Early Paleolithic industries of the West and East are close.

Let us first consider the chronological aspect of the problem. If we accept the point of view of Chinese scientists and accept the validity of the dating of the finds in the Lungupo cave (ca.2 million years ago) and the presence of cleavers and peaks there (Huang Weiwen, Hou Yamei, Son Hengyong, 2005), then they are certainly the oldest in the world. In the Odduvai, jibs with a wide working blade appear in Layer IV, i.e. in the Late Olduvai-Early Angelic period (Leakey, 1951), and the oldest Ternifin jibs appear later than 500 Ka BP (Brezillon, 1971). Bifacial processing of tools in China was first recorded at the Yunxian and Pingliang sites. Yunxian is located in southern China; its age is approx. 1 million years old. Here, choppers, bifaces, peaks, and cleavers were found in the culture-bearing horizon (Huang Weiwen, Hou Yamei, and Son Hyeongyeon, 2005). In northern China, at the Pingliang site in a culture-bearing horizon dating back to the Jaramillo episode, one large flake tool with bifacial processing was found. Localities in Lantian County dating from the chronological range of 800-600 thousand years AGO have also been found to contain single items such as pikes, spikelets, and tools with bifacial and unifacial processing. The most numerous sites with bifacially processed artifacts dating back to the same time are studied in the Baise Basin, where Chinese researchers identified 18% of peaks, 6.6% of tools with double-sided processing, and 18% of cleavers in the tool kit. A complex of Middle Pleistocene Paleolithic sites in the Lishui and Hanshui River basins is close to the Baise industry. In northern China, at points 1 and 13 of Zhoukoudian, several bilaterally processed tools were also found. Among the localities of the end of the Middle - beginning of the Upper Neo-Pleistocene, where two-sided obras were found.-

23. Hand choppers from the Bori site (India) (according to Mishra et al., 1995).

botany tools, spikelets, pikes, and items that Chinese researchers call cleavers are most definitely found in Dingcong and the Sanmenxia area.

According to Chinese scientists, jib-type products appear on the territory of China ca. If we accept that these tools really have a connection with the Acheulean industry, then it is necessary to answer the question of which adjacent territories were in transit.

Early Acheulean or advanced Olduvai artefacts have been found at the Sterkfontein and Swartkranz sites in South Africa, roughly dated to about 1.8-1.6 million years ago. Several stone tools with partial double-sided processing were identified, which allowed this industry to be attributed to the Early Acheulean (Brain et al, 1988; Clark, 1985; Clark and Schick, 1988). The first undisputed cuttings were recorded in Olduvai II and Congo Gardula, which are about 1.4 Ma old (Leaky, 1971; Asfaw et al, 1992).

The earliest site with rubies in Eurasia is Ubeidiya in Israel, which dates back to about 1.4 million years AGO (Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar, 1993; Tchernov, 1987, 1988, 1992). Further east, on the territory of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, no Paleolithic sites with rubies older than 400 thousand years were found.All this indicates that the spread of bifacial technology to the east of Asia could not have occurred earlier than this time.

In India, in the last 20 years, early pre-Ashelian localities have been discovered with bilaterally worked tools that are typologically close to rubies. At the Bori site in Maharashtra, culture-containing horizons are studied in gravel included in the tephra layer, for which a date of 0.67 ± 0.03 Ma was obtained from ³⁹ Ar/⁴⁰ Ar. Here, six bilaterally processed tools were found in the layer with choppers (nuclei) and polyhedra (Mishra et al., 1995). Typologically and in terms of processing technique, they differ from typical Acheulean chops, which are widely distributed in India at Early Paleolithic sites dating from 350-300 thousand years AGO and later (Figure 23), and belong to the industrial tradition of China and Southeast Asia.

It should be noted that the earliest bifacial tools in China are rare and a number of researchers do not include them in the class of hand choppers. In this case, it is logical to assume that the two-way processing technique appears convergently in this area earlier than 1 million years ago. More numerous bilaterally processed tools, pikes, and articles attributed by some Chinese scientists to jibs are known in complexes dating from the chronological range of 800-600 thousand years ago. However, according to available data, there are no Acheulean localities of this age in South and Central Asia, which does not confirm the possibility of penetration of ancient populations with Acheulean industry from the west to East Asia at such an early time. Known localities in China with undisputed bilaterally worked tools belong to the Late Middle-early Upper Pleistocene.

It is equally important to consider the possibility of the emergence of the Acheulean industry in China in the context of the Early Paleolithic industrial tradition in this region. Hand choppers and pebble chopping tools such as choppers and choppers in the Early Paleolithic industries of the western regions of Eurasia are certainly a vivid indicator of the uniqueness of technological complexes and one of the indicator elements. Their presence and correlation are particularly important for separating the Olduvai and Acheulean localities. In Acheulean, the quantitative characteristics of hand chops and pebble cutting tools are not always decisive for the industry as a whole.

The predominance or absence of one of these types of products in the complexes is determined by many reasons: the specifics of economic activity, the quality of raw materials, the paleoecological situation, changes in adaptation strategies, etc. In Africa, choppers and cleavers are among the main indicators of the Acheulean. But here, too, in different areas, there is a different ratio of chopping tools such as choppers, jib and chopper-chopping products. Especially significant is the combination of bifaces with choppers and choppers in North Africa (Balout, Biberson, Tixier, 1967; Alimen, 1978). Thus, at the well-researched Ternifin site in Algeria, out of 652 guns, 12 pieces were classified as choppers, 107 pieces as cleavers, and 331 pieces as choppers. [Balout, Biberson, Tixier, 1967]. The situation is even more complicated in the Early Paleolithic of Europe, where a large percentage of choppers are found in angel complexes, as well as in parallel with Acheulean industries such as Buda and Clecton. This allows us to draw a very important conclusion: choppers and choppers are certainly an important indicator element in some Early Paleolithic industries, but when comparing complexes, determining their specifics, and determining the dynamics of the industry in time and space, the combination of macro - and microforms, the nature of primary splitting, secondary processing, and specialization and variability of the tool set as a whole are diagnostic. However, some researchers in the study of Early Paleolithic complexes continue to pay hypertrophied attention to the presence and ratio of chops and chopper-chopping tools.

In China, in the Early Paleolithic, in industries such as Lantian and Kehe, a system of primary splitting was formed, which is characterized by three techniques: impact with the use of a hard bump, bipolar and the impact of pebbles on an anvil. No nuclei with prepared impact sites have been found at any Early Paleolithic site in China. Flakes were chipped from the pebbly surface of the cores. Only when using the principle of removing from the edge, when the negative of the previous chip served as the impact pad, there is no pebble crust. The nuclei are mostly pebbly, of various shapes; a small number of flakes have been chipped from them, and in most cases they also retain a pebbly surface. Among the nuclei, there are a few disk-shaped and polyhedral ones. According to the type, and most importantly, the technique of primary cleavage, the nuclei in China are fundamentally different from the nuclei in the western regions of Eurasia.

When comparing the early bilaterally processed tools of China and the hand-hewn ones of Eurasia, fundamental differences are also visible both in the shape of the products and in the technique of their processing. Numerous works have been devoted to the typology of hand-cut saws and their processing system, both regionally and globally. The reason is obvious: hand choppers were used for a long time, almost 1.5 million years, and in a significant part of the Old World. They were produced by at least two hominid taxa: Homo erectus and Homo sapiens neandertalensis, or Archaic Homo sapiens. Some researchers believe that the ancient master had a certain pattern in his head when making hand chops, and the evolution of chops is associated with the development of mental abilities in early hominids.

A hand chopper is a large, elongated, pointed tool on both sides. In the early chops, a significant part of the pebbles or billet in the form of a large flake remained unprocessed. Over time, the bifacially processed part increases, the chopper becomes smaller, the outline becomes oval, almond-shaped. This is the general scheme. In reality, Old World hand choppers are very diverse, both in shape and processing strategy. Wynn and Tierson (1990) studied 1,100 hand-hewers from 17 localities located in Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and India. They pointed out three possible reasons for the differences in wood chips by region: the variability and quality of raw materials, different times and regional cultural characteristics.

Many researchers believe that the choppers were re-formed and that the shape of the product found during the excavation is the final result of reduction. There is no consensus on another question: is the chopper a tool, or a nucleus, or both at the same time? One thing is clear: the shape of the chopper represents the stages of a continuous reduction process.

Bifacial products in China are large in size, and they were processed mainly at one end with large chips. Most of these products can be attributed to nuclei, from which chipping was carried out on the principle of from the rib, but the special sharpness of the so-called chops and peaks indicates that they could be used as chopping tools or for digging up the roots of edible plants. The question of the functional purpose of bifacially processed products in China remains completely unresolved. Most likely, they were both nuclei and tools. Only a few items are fitted on all sides and have an additional touch-up of the sharp end and edges. The shape, and most importantly, the processing techniques fundamentally distinguish bifacial products of China from angelic products of the western part of Eurasia.

The cleavers distinguished by Chinese scientists in terms of shape and processing system are also fundamentally different.

they differ from the Acheulean ones. This category includes tools on flakes or pebbles not only with a transverse, but also with a side blade. Many of these items from locations in the Baise basin can no less reasonably be classified as choppers and scrapers. Allocation of cleavers in China in the chronological range from 2 million tons. until 100 thousand years AGO and later, and their attribution to the Acheulean of Eurasia also does not hold water. It is quite likely that in the early Paleolithic of China, especially in the Southern One, peculiar chopping tools were formed on pebbles and flakes, but typologically, according to the processing system, and most importantly, by their origin, they are in no way connected with the Acheulean of Eurasia. When comparing the Lower - Middle Neo-Pleistocene finale industry in China with complexes in the western regions of Eurasia, fundamental differences in the primary cleavage system, types of stone tools, and their design are obvious. After the initial settlement of Southeast and East Asia by Homo erectus, the development of the stone industry here occurred independently of Western traditions for a long time. In the early Paleolithic of Afro-Eurasia, human populations occupied the most favorable ecological niches due to their small size, without forming a zone of continuous settlement, and were largely isolated from each other. The apparent monotony of Early Paleolithic technologies can be explained not by the fact that close cultures developed from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, but by the limited capabilities of primitive man, which caused slow progress in the development of stone processing techniques, on the one hand, and a small variability in the technical methods of primary processing, types and methods of tool design, on the other. Regardless of the distance, the Acheulean localities do not differ much from each other in the composition of the gun set. Differences are observed only in the forms and types of tools, the nature of retouching, specific methods of stone processing, which was determined by the initial raw materials, changes in environmental conditions and the need to develop new adaptation strategies.

It is reasonable to assume that ancient populations separated by a considerable distance could have independently arrived at the same tool shape. And should everything new in the technique and types of stone tools be reduced to the spread of innovations from only one area? If we accept this assumption, then the question arises: was the invention itself transmitted from one population to another, or was the "progressive" population moving to other territories? Without excluding the possibility of the most ancient migrations, I still consider it preferable to transfer innovations by relay in regions of "continuous" settlement and convergent appearance of the same types of tools in populations that lived in isolated groups. The very model of the appearance of a manual hack is extremely simple: over time, the area of the chopping surface is gradually increasing and the finishing of the working part of the tool is being improved. Such an evolution in stone processing is quite natural and logical, therefore, double-sided beaten products could have appeared in the Early Paleolithic on any territory. While allowing for the possibility of convergent development of some types of stone tools, it is important not to go to the other extreme: all innovations should be reduced only to the local basis and convergence. A reliable criterion here is the analysis of the primary fission system, as well as the tool kit, and their comparison with materials from earlier locations in a given territory and in adjacent areas. This will provide reliable information about the genesis and origins of all innovations in the industries of ancient man.

Convergent appearance on the territory of China, as well as in the whole of East and South-East Asia, of tools with double-sided processing at one end, such as pikes, chops, jib about 1 million years AGO, is quite natural. The same process took place in the Hindustan peninsula, where bifacially processed tools appeared long before the arrival of human populations with the Acheulean industry.

The entire Early Paleolithic industrial complex of China is a homogeneous unit. Primary processing is fundamentally different from that in the neighboring western regions of Eurasia, and the appearance of large chopping tools, including those with bifacial processing, is explained by the ecological situation and adaptation strategies of ancient populations.

In the north of China, chopping tools are not so numerous, where the chip industry mainly developed. Bilaterally processed items are rare at Paleolithic sites, with the exception of Dingtsun. Choppers, choppers, bifacial tools, pikes, jib bars are mainly found in Southern China, as well as in Southeast Asia. In the early and Middle Pleistocene, tropical and subtropical vegetation with a wide variety of forest associations prevailed here. Quite rightly, Pope (1988, 1989) hypothesized that in areas of South-East Asia rich in forests, ancient populations created their own industry, which was dominated by chopping tools necessary for wood processing. Especially important role in human life was played by bamboo, which was used not only for food, but also mainly for the manufacture of various tools. The areas of bamboo forests coincide with the areas where chopping tools are widely distributed (Pope, 1983). Tasadai and Andamanese tribes living in

In the forest regions of Southeast Asia, until recently, bamboo was used to make knives, spears, digging sticks, and other tools.

In the tool set from the Baise basin, 37.8% are chopping tools such as choppers and choppers, 18% are pikes, 6.6% are so-called choppers, and 17.6% are scrapers. All of them could be used for cutting and processing bamboo, from which various tools were made. Chopping tools were also used, apparently, to dig up edible plant roots. It is very important to note that in many areas of Southern China and Southeast Asia, there was a lack of raw materials that gave a good cutting edge when splitting. In the Baise basin, quartz, quartzite, sandstone and, to a lesser extent, siliceous and volcanic rocks were mainly used. It was difficult to make a high-quality weapon from such raw materials. Therefore, for a long time, during the early and middle Neo-Pleistocene, there were industries in this region of Eurasia that combined large chopping and flaking tools, and bamboo. H. Movius and a number of his followers see this as a certain lag and regression of culture, and Homo erectus itself as a hominid with limited abilities, which does not correspond to reality at all. The sapient level, the level of intellectual capabilities of ancient human populations, is determined by their ability to adapt to a certain environment, developing the necessary adaptation strategies. Asian Homo erectus and similar early and late synanthropes were able not only to adapt, but also to independently adopt cunifacial and bifacial techniques for processing stone tools, to create their own industrial base, which was effective for hundreds of thousands of years.

Acheulean industry in the eastern regions of Eurasia and the problem of the Middle Paleolithic in China

The Acheulean industry, which originated in Africa and spread to large parts of Eurasia, played a huge role in the development of human culture. This was the second global migration wave of ancient human populations [Derevianko, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006a-b; Derevianko, 2001].

In Europe, the earliest occurrence of the Acheulean industry is recorded at the sites of Carpentier Quarries - about 600 thousand years AGO (Tuffreau and Antoine, 1995), Notarchirico-more than 600 thousand years ago (Belli et al, 1991), Fontana Ronucio-earlier than 400 thousand years ago (Segre and Ascenzi, 1984), Atapuerca-ca. 450 thousand bp [Carbonell et al., 2001].

No later than 450-400 thousand years AGO, the Acheulean industrial tradition began to move from the Middle East to the east of Eurasia, associated with a new migration flow of ancient human populations. It was accompanied by the spread of the Late Assyrian industry with the Levallois system of primary splitting and bifaces. In many territories, the new human population met the descendants of the first global migration wave (Homo erectus), and therefore there was a process of acculturation: a mixture of two cultures - autochthonous and Late Ashelian. In Asia, it manifests itself in different ways: in some territories, more Acheulean elements can be traced in primary and secondary processing, in others - autochthonous. East and South-East Asia were not involved in this process.

In Southern Arabia, the Acheulean industry of the Ubaydi-Latham tradition spread a little earlier than 400 thousand years ago. Its main diagnostic indicators are the abundance of chops, flake tools, a small number of choppers, the absolute dominance of the technique of a single-site nucleus of the parallel principle of chipping of the Levallois type, and the absence of cleavers (Amirkhanov, 2006).

One of the most important territories through which global human migrations from Africa and the Middle East took place was the Iranian Highlands. But, unfortunately, the territory of Iran, with the exception of Zagros, is very poorly studied. In 2006, participants of the Russian-Iranian expedition discovered one location of the pre-Ashel stage (Derevyanko et al., 2006a, b). Over the past 10 years, international expeditions have discovered Early Paleolithic sites in several regions of Iran with few rubies, but without precise geochronological references.

The early Paleolithic of Afghanistan is also poorly understood. Two localities discovered by L. Dupri in the Darraidadil Gorge and on the lake. Dashtinavur sites are dated by him to the Lower Paleolithic (Dupree, 1980), but there are doubts about the validity of attributing them to sites associated with human activity. It is hard not to agree with one of the outstanding researchers of the Paleolithic of Asia, V. A. Ranov, who got acquainted with the collection from the Darraidadil Gorge and came to the conclusion that these are just fragments of pebbles that have been in a strong water flow. In 2004, he visited this gorge and collected similar objects "which, however, were certainly of natural origin" (Ranov and Karimova, 2005). According to V. A. Ranov, the end of the Early Paleolithic in Afghanistan can be attributed to the artifacts collected by the Italian archaeological mission on the ancient day surface in the Khazarsum Valley. Among them there are Clecton-type flakes and two or three bifaces.

The most striking manifestation of the Acheulean industry can be traced to the Indian Subcontinent. The first Paleolithic tool in India was found by R. B. Foote on May 30, 1863, at Pallavaram, near Madras, in Tamil Nadu. This well-formed log was located in gravel deposits of detrital laterite (Rarri, 2001).

There are three main cultures in the Hindustan peninsula: Soan, Madras and Mahareva. This paper does not raise the question of the validity of identifying these crops, their characteristics, or other aspects. The main problem is the ratio of angelic and pebble components in them. Soan and Mahareva cultures are widespread in the north of Hindustan, mainly in Punjab and in the Narmada river basin. Industrial complexes are dominated by pebble chopping tools such as choppers and choppers. In the central and southern parts of Hindustan, the Madras culture is widespread, with a predominance of chops and jibers. Thus, Acheulean elements dominate in the south and chopper - chopping products dominate in the north (Jayaswal, 1978, 1982). Most researchers of the Paleolithic period of Hindustan believe that all three cultures contain both. The predominance of certain tools is explained by various reasons: the characteristics of raw materials, different adaptation strategies, different environmental conditions in the Middle Neo-Pleistocene, etc.

Until recently, paleontological, geological, and geomorphological data were used to date Paleolithic sites in India. In the last two decades, thorium-uranium, potassium-argon, and thermoluminescent methods have been used. At the Maharashtra site, volcanic ash is dated to 670-530 Ka BP; at the Edurwadi (Kornotaka State), Didwana (Rajasthan State), and Nevasa (Maharashtra State) localities, dates > 350 Ka BP, > 390 and > 350 Ka BP were obtained, respectively (Rarri, 2001). The most recent Acheulean sites are dated to the Late Pleistocene. For example, the Adi Chadi Vao locality has been dated by the thermoluminescent method to 69,000 ± 3,800 BP. The Pope of Acheulis dates in the chronological range 600-66 Ka BP (Rarri, 2001). Well-known researcher Sh. Mishra at a symposium in Novosibirsk showed slides with bilaterally processed tools, which, in her opinion, are more than 1 million years old. years. Perhaps, one of the problems of the early Paleolithic of South, East and South-East Asia is solved here: the development of industry in these territories was convergent from the first appearance of ancient human populations here.

There is no stratigraphic evidence for the evolution of the typology or manufacturing technology of Acheulean tools in the Hindustan Peninsula. There are two stages: early Acheulean, characterized by rough processing, and late - with tools of the angelic type [Ibid]. Most of the early sites with bifaces are found in a buried state with good stratigraphy, while the later ones are mostly found in the surface. The Levallois system of primary cleavage is most typical of the Late Acheulean. Apparently, in the Hindustan peninsula, the technique of double-sided processing of chopping tools, as in China and Southeast Asia, appeared convergently ca. 1 million years AGO or slightly later. This is evidenced by bifaces from the Bori parking lot (see Fig. 23). Human populations with the Acheulean industry reached the Hindustan peninsula 400-300 thousand years AGO, meeting here an autochthonous population that already used the technique of bilateral tool processing.

In the Central Asian region, in the late-Early and Middle Paleolithic industries, Acheulean elements are most clearly traced in the territories of Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. In Turkmenistan, the oldest stone artefacts were found in the Yangaja-Karatengir complex of localities with Acheulean-type rubies (Lubin, 1984; Lubin and Vishnyatsky, 1985; Vishnyatsky, 1996). From my point of view, they belong to the Late Acheulean - Middle Paleolithic and have an age of no more than 300 thousand years.

In the western, southern, central, and northeastern parts of Kazakhstan, more than 10 localities with rubies and the Levallois principle of primary cleavage have been found (Medoev, 1964, 1970; Voloshin, 1988, 1990). A new area of Late Assel sites was discovered by a joint Russian-Kazakh expedition in 1999-2000 in the north, on the western slope of the Mugojar Mountains in the upper reaches of the Emba River. More than 10 open-type localities have been discovered here. They differ from each other in the amount and concentration of the material. Some were remnants of settlement complexes, while others were workshops at the raw material outlets (Derevyanko, Petrin, and Taimagambetov et al., 1999; Derevyanko, Petrin, and Gladyshev et al., 2001a, b).

The primary split in the Mugojara localities was mainly associated with the Levallois system. Levallois nuclei are represented by nuclei for removing tortoiseshell flakes, plates and points. The tool kit included scrapers of various modifications, toothed-notched, peak-shaped products, tools with a "spout" and a sharp spike, plates and flakes with retouching, combined tools; a large proportion were choppers (Figs. 24, 25). Thus, at the locations of Mugodzhary-3 - 6, 85 cuttings and bilaterally processed products were found. Choppers are divided into several types: heart-shaped, leaf-shaped, oval, sub-rectangular, in the form of

a comma, such as Les Pendus, with a truncated end, similar in type to jibs with an obushka.

The earliest artefacts at the Mugojara localities had a medium - to high-radiated surface. Their approximate age is 250-300 thousand years (Acheulean finale). According to a number of indicators, these technocomplexes differed quite well from earlier ones in this region and later ones in the Middle Paleolithic. It should be emphasized that the presence of rubil trees in the Mugojara localities reflects acculturation rather than convergence - a mixture of Acheulean and local industrial traditions of the Stone Age as a result of the migration of human populations with Acheulean-type industry to this territory.

Similar sites in Kazakhstan were discovered in the Northern Balkhash region in the Semizbugu Mountains, and the Late Assylian and Early Paleolithic industries are particularly clearly traced at the Semizbugu-2 and -4 localities (Derevyanko, Aubekerov, and Petrin, 1993; Artyukhova et al., 2001). According to the main technical and typological indicators, these complexes are close to Mugojarian, but they have more Middle Paleolithic elements in the tool set.

24. Woodcutters from points 1 (4) and 2 (1-3) of Mugojar-10 (according to Derevyanko, Petrin, Gladyshev et al., 2001a).

25. Woodcutters from point 1 of Mugodzhar-12 (according to [Derevyanko, Petrin, Gladyshev et al., 2001b]).

26. Chops (1-6) and chops (7) from Mongolia (according to Okladnikov, 1986).

3, 4, 6 -1 , Gobi bottom, point 2; 2, 5, 7-Yar.

On the territory of Tajikistan, industries belonging to the late stage of the Early and Middle Paleolithic show mainly pebble elements. Thanks to the selfless work of the ascetic scientist V. A. Ranov, some of the earliest localities in Asia were discovered here: Kuldara, Karatau-1, Obimazar-4, -6, Lahuti-1, etc., dating in the chronological range 900-500 thousand years AGO [Ranov, 1988, 1992, 2000; Ranov and Scheffer, 2000; Ranov and Karimova, 2005]. The period of 300-100 thousand years AGO is the least studied in Tajikistan. It is quite possible that Paleolithic localities with a Late Ashelian industry will be discovered in the lowlands and middle mountains in the future.

The process of acculturation can also be traced in Uzbekistan. The earliest stratified Paleolithic site here is the Selungur cave site. In this industry, pebble traditions predominate in primary and secondary processing, but cleavers, choppers, and limas are represented in small numbers in the lower horizons (Islamov and Krakhmal, 1995). Judging by geochronology, faunal and palynological data, the Tungur probably belongs to the Middle Neo-Pleistocene (Velichko et al., 1990). A new migration wave of ancient populations reached the territory of Uzbekistan, probably 350-300 thousand years ago.

One of the key areas where the arrival of migrants with the Late Ashel industry is recorded is Mongolia. Over the past 20 years, more than 1,000 Stone Age sites have been discovered in the Mongolian Altai and Southern Gobi (Derevyanko, Dorzh, Vasilevsky et al., 1990; Derevyanko, Petrin, Tseveendorzh et al., 2000; Derevyanko, Olsen, Tseveendorzh et al., 1996, 1998, 2000). The discovery of the Yarkh and Gobi Bottom localities allowed A. P. Okladnikov (1986) to pose the problem of the presence of bilaterally processed products in the early Mongolian industries (Figure 26). Workshop in the Bottom of the Gobi basin is a unique phenomenon. Its dislocation is associated with the outcrops of dark brown jasper, which was used as a raw material. Among the huge number of products with a high degree of reliability, we managed to single out one-time complexes. For the Gobi Bottom workshop, almond-shaped, sub-triangular, flattened-elongated choppers, as well as their blanks, are typical. This complex includes the discoid and Levallois nuclei. Large woodcutters can be identified with sufficient justification not only at the Yarkh and Dno Gobi localities, but also at others in Mongolia. In addition to the oldest complex, items with a lower degree of corrosion were found at the Nariin-gol-17 site. Among them, the most typical ones are Levallois and discoid nuclei. There are also two bifaces with double-sided processing. The whole complex has a well-defined Acheulean appearance. In terms of the nature of the corrosion and the source material, it differs from both the older and later ones - the Middle and Upper Paleolithic.

One of the most interesting complexes of the late Acheulean is the location of Baralgin-gol-1

on the territory of the Great Gobi Nature Reserve. It is characterized by Levallois nuclei, single-and double-sided radial nuclei, fan-shaped and parallel cleavage nuclei, sharp points, Levallois plates and flakes, scrapers, chips with an anchor, retouched plates with a natural edge with multi-row facial retouching, etc.

One of the most striking localities with a Late Assel industry is the Flint Valley in the south-east of the Arts-Bogdo range, discovered in 1995 (Derevyanko, Zenin, Olsen et al., 2002). Ancient surfaces here are overlain by Pliocene flint breccias, which in the Early and Middle Paleolithic were constantly used as a raw material base. In some areas, up to 600 finds per 1 ^m2 are found, and the area occupied by workshops is approx. 20 ^km2. This is a unique natural and man-made complex with millions of artefacts, which shows the evolution of the industry from the late Acheulean to the Late Paleolithic. On the Kremnevaya Dolina monument, complexes with rubies are identified, the surface of which is strongly, moderately, and weakly corroded (Fig. 27). Materials from these and other localities indicate that the bifacial technique, along with Levallois splitting, was undoubtedly used at the final stage of the Early Paleolithic and in the Middle Paleolithic.

Mongolia's industry is a vivid example of acculturation: with the arrival of a migration wave with Late Assyrian technology, the Levallois method of primary splitting and bifacial technique spread along with many elements of the pebble tradition.

On the territory of Southern Siberia, the most striking complex dating back to the pre-Muster period was opened near the border with Mongolia, 3 km from the village. Torgalyk, 30 km from the lake. Ubsu-Nur, which is part of the Mongolian Big Lakes Basin system (Astakhov, 1988, 1990). The finds were located on the surface of an alluvial-deluvial plume, which reaches a height of 22 m above the bed of the Kurbun-Shiwei River. The artifacts were moved and found over a large area (30 thousand ^m2), without forming clusters. Partial fees totaled approx. 500 copies.

Among the objects of primary cleavage, S. N. Astakhov identified about 100 nuclei and 31 atypical nuclei. Single-site elongated, flat, one-sided, much less shortened ones predominate, and there are also biface and spherical nuclei close to Levallois. Their sites are usually smooth, the chipping angle is blunt, and the negative impact bump is extensive. Among large flakes, elongated, massive, with smooth areas predominate.

S. N. Astakhov identified seven well-designed choppers: three protolimands, two almond-shaped ones, a limand and an oval one. The estuary is 12.7 cm long, 7.2 cm wide and carefully decorated. A flattened chopper has sinuous edges (Fig. 28, 2). Typical woodcutters are similar to the two-sided nucleoid processed products and chipped woodcutters with chips on both edges, forming

27. High-leaved articles from point 3 of the Flint Valley (according to Derevyanko, Zenin, Olsen et al., 2002).

28. Skreblo (1) and rubilo (2) from the Torgalyk Acheulean locality (according to Astakhov, 1995).

zigzagged blade. 28, 1). There are two massive scrapers at the ends of elongated flakes, triangular in cross - section points, notched, serrated, scraper-like tools and beak-shaped carvers.

In general, the Torgalyk complex is characterized by a primitive splitting technique; secondary processing is dominated by padding and large edge facial retouching, alternating, steep and medium. There is only one flat undergrowth. In some cases, bifaces were beaten from the sites. Notched products were designed as a single chip, and retouching or combined processing. Among the tools, bifaces are the most expressive. Most of the objects were heavily corroded; some of the retouching had disappeared completely, leaving only hard-to-read traces. According to the splitting technique, secondary processing, typology, and degree of corrosion, the complex from Southern Tuva was assigned by S. N. Astakhov to the Pre-Mousterian period.

In East and South-East Asia, the Levallois system of primary cleavage has not been recorded anywhere in the Paleolithic localities belonging to the end of the Middle - Upper Neo-Pleistocene. The ancient human populations of the second migration wave with the Late Ashelian industry did not penetrate further east than India and Mongolia. Chopping tools such as choppers and cleavers in East and South-East Asia in the chronological range of 200 - 100 thousand years AGO sporadically appear and disappear. They are, for example, recorded at the Jeongokni site on the Korean Peninsula, dating back to 120-70 thousand years AGO. The Jeongokni industry is similar in technical and typological parameters to the Dingtsun industry.

On the territory of China, in the chronological range of 200 - 30 thousand years AGO, the traditional technique of primary splitting - bipolar, direct impact and anvil (block-on-block) - continued to be used. As a result, here, as in the whole of East and South-East Asia, unlike in the rest of Eurasia, it is impossible to clearly distinguish Paleolithic industries due to the lack of convincing diagnostic features, on the basis of which it would be possible to distinguish the Middle Paleolithic as a new stage. In East and Southeast Asia, it stands out declaratively, similar to the rest of the Old World. This problem has already been considered by researchers [Schick and Dong Zhuan, 1993; Gao Xing, 1999].

In the Chinese assemblages in the chronological range of 200-30 thousand years AGO, not only are there no fundamental changes in the primary processing, but also fundamentally new forms and types of stone tools. D. Aigner (1981) rightly noted the isolation of the Paleolithic industry in China from Western influences. The Middle Paleolithic as a stage is distinguished in this area only chronologically, because there are no technical and typological differences in the Middle Paleolithic complexes from the Early Paleolithic ones. This, of course, does not mean monotony and backwardness in the technical-typological and cultural-historical aspects of the Paleolithic of East Asia in comparison with Europe. Ancient human populations in East Asia had their own adaptation models and different strategies for survival in their usual ecological conditions than in Western Eurasia. And it is no coincidence that in South-East Asia and southern China in the tool kit throughout the Paleolithic, along with tools on flakes, a significant share was chopping products such as choppers, choppers, bifaces, cleavers, which is associated with a large role in the economy of wood, as well as bamboo.

Conclusion

The initial settlement of Homo ergaster-Homo erectus in Eastern and Southeastern Asia took place around 1.8-1.5 million years ago. Paleolithic industries and the physical type of humans in this territory developed in a rather isolated environment without any significant influences from the ancient population of neighboring western regions.

For more than a million years, the macro-and micro - tool industry has been widespread in East and Southeast Asia. In the primary split, three techniques were mainly used: anvil impact, bipolar impact, and direct impact. From the nuclei, which rarely had a prepared site, flakes were chipped off and various tools were made from them: scrapers, scrapers, incisors, punctures, etc.Choppers, choppers, bifaces are represented as chopping tools. On special blanks, tools such as pikes and spikelets were made out. Bifacial products appear on the territory of China about 1 million years AGO as a result of convergent development of the industry. According to archaeological materials throughout the entire Neo-Pleistocene, it is impossible to trace the arrival of a new migration wave to this territory with a different technique in primary and secondary stone processing.

The second global migration of ancient human populations with Late Assyrian industry, which was indicated by the Levallois system of primary cleavage, spread from the Middle East to most of Eurasia, but did not move east beyond India and Mongolia: in East and South-East Asia, no Levallois equipment was recorded at Paleolithic sites, and bifacial tools differ both in shape and shape. and in the technique of making from angelic choppers.

In China, unlike in other regions of Eurasia, it is impossible to distinguish the Middle Paleolithic as an independent stage and determine the time of the beginning of the formation of the Late Paleolithic, because there are no clear diagnostic signs in industries that allow us to speak about the onset of a new stage in the development of human culture. The formation of Homo sapiens sapiens in East and Southeast Asia was based on Asian Homo erectus and its later forms. This process was slow and evolutionary. Based on anthropological and archaeological materials, it is still difficult to say with certainty when Homo sapiens sapiens was formed here. But it is possible that this process ended rather early.

In the Sino-Malay zone, where it is impossible to distinguish the Middle Paleolithic of the same type as in the rest of Eurasia, the middle of the late Pleistocene is characterized by a significant increase in tools on flakes, including on small chips. In the Paleolithic of China and adjacent regions, due to the absence of the Levallois technique in the primary cleavage, the plate industry appeared later than 30 thousand years AGO due to the arrival of an ancient population from Mongolia and Southern Siberia.

A new stage, dating from 30-25 thousand years AGO, in the Paleolithic industries of China is associated with the appearance of plate technology here. There is a process of acculturation. In the period of 25-18 thousand years AGO, along with tools on flakes, tools on plates, and then on microplates, became widespread.

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my deep gratitude to Professor Tang Chun, Director of the Center for Chinese Archaeology and Arts and the Archaeological Museum of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, for inviting me to visit the Stone Age monuments of Southern China, to give an open lecture to students and specialists of the university, as well as for kindly providing us with photo documents; Professor Xie Guangmao, Head of the Laboratory of Prehistoric Cultures of the Guangxi Research Team for their assistance in organizing our work on the monuments on the Baise Plateau and the opportunity to get acquainted with the excavation materials; to Professor Huang Qishan, Director of the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Museum; to Professor Jiang Tingyu and all the Chinese colleagues and friends who accompanied us on the trip, for their constant support and assistance.

List of literature

Abramova Z. A. Paleolith of Northern China / / Paleolith of Central and Eastern Asia, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1994, pp. 63-138.

Amirkhanov Kh. A. The Stone Age of Southern Arabia, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 2006, 693 p.

An Zhimin. Chinese protorubila and their tradition / / Renleixue xuebao. - 1990. - N 9. - p. 303-311 (in Chinese).

Artyukhova O. A., Derevyanko A. P., Petrin V. T., Taimagambetov Zh. K. Paleolithic complexes of Semizbugu, item 4 (Northern Balkhash region). Novosibirsk: IAET SB RAS Publ., 2001, 120 p. (in Russian)

Archaeological team for the study of monuments of material culture of Guangxi / / Kaogu. - 1983. - N 10. - pp. 865-868 (in Chinese).

Astakhov S. N. On the correlation between the Paleolithic rocks of Tuva and the ancient Paleolithic of Central Asia. byul. Mezhdunar. associations for the study of Central Asian Cultures. - 1988. - Vol. 14. - p. 14-23.

Astakhov S. N. Otkrytie drevnogo paleolita v Tuve [Discovery of the ancient Paleolithic in Tuva]: Dokl. Mezhdunar. simp. / SB OF THE USSR Academy OF Sciences, IIFiF. Novosibirsk, 1990, pp. 40-43.

Astakhov S. N., Yamskikh A. F. Novye dannye o paleolite Tuva [New data on the Paleolithic of Tuva]. - SPb., 1995. - p. 4-9. - (Archeol. research; issue 24).

Wang Qian. Determination of the incisor of an ancient man from the Lungupo cave of Wushan county / / Acta Anthropologica Sinica. - 1996. - Vol. 15 (4). - P. 320-323 (in Chinese, English).

Velichko A. A., Arslanov Kh. A., Gerasimova S. A., Islamov U. I., Kremenetsky K. V., Markova A. K., Udar-

tsev V. P., Chicollini N. I. Stratigraphy and paleoecology of the Early Paleolithic cave site Sel-Ungur / / Chronostratigraphy of the Paleolithic of North, Central and Eastern Asia and America: Dokl. Mezhdunar. simp. / SB OF THE USSR Academy OF Sciences, IIFiF. Novosibirsk, 1990, pp. 76-79.

Vishnyatsky L. B. Paleolith of Central Asia and Kazakhstan. St. Petersburg: European House Publ., 1996, 213 p.

Voloshin V. S. Acheulean bifaces from the Vishnevka-3 locality (Central Kazakhstan) / / SA. - 1988. - N 4. - pp. 199-203.

Voloshin V. S. Stratigraphy and periodization of the paleolithic of Central Kazakhstan / / Chronostratigraphy of the paleolithic of North, Central and East Asia and America: Dokl. Mezhdunar. simp. / SB OF THE USSR Academy OF Sciences, IIFiF. Novosibirsk, 1990, pp. 99-106.

Gai Pei, Yu Yuzhu. Some features of Paleolithic stone tools found in the Lantian region of the Prov. Shaanxi / / Gujizhuidong yu guzhenlei. - 1976. - Vol. 14, N 3. - pp. 198-203 (in Chinese).

Gao Xing. On the question of the "Middle Paleolithic of China" / / Renleixue xuebao. - 1999. - N 1. - p. 1-13 (in Chinese).

Derevyanko A. P. Perekhod ot srednego k verkhnem paleolitu na Altae [Transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in the Altai]. - 2001. - N 3. - p. 70-103.

Derevyanko A. P. Two main migration waves of ancient human populations to Asia // Tr. of the Department of Historical and Philological Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 2003, issue 1, pp. 11-24.

Derevyanko A. P. Problemy antropogeneza i zaseleniya cheloveka vostochnoy chasti Evrazii [Problems of anthropogenesis and human settlement in the Eastern part of Eurasia]. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2004, pp. 52-72.

Derevyanko A. P. Drevneyshie migratsii cheloveka v Evraziyu i problema formirovaniya verkhnego paleolita [Ancient human migrations to Eurasia and the problem of Upper Paleolithic formation]. - 2005. - N 2. - p. 22-36.

Derevyanko A. P. Migrations, convergence, acculturation in the Early Paleolithic of Eurasia // Ethnocultural Interaction in Eurasia, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 2006a. - Book 1. - p. 25-47.

Derevyanko A. P. Paleolithic of China: results and some problems in studying. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 2006, 83 p. (in Russian)

Derevyanko A. P. Early Paleolithic microlithic industries in Eurasia: Migration or Convergence? // Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2006v. - N 1. - p. 2-32.

Derevyanko A. P., Aubekerov B. Zh., Petrin V. T. Paleolithic of the Northern Balkhash region (Semizbugu, point 2, Early - Late Paleolithic). Novosibirsk, 1993, 114 p. (in Russian)

Derevyanko A. P., Dorzh D., Vasilevsky R. S., Larichev V. E., Petrin V. T., Devyatkin E. V., Malaeva E. M. Paleolithic and Neolithic of the Mongolian Altai. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1990, 646 p. (Stone Age of Mongolia).

Derevyanko A. P., Zenin A. P., Gladyshev S. A., Krivoshapkin A. P., Zaidi M. Paleolithic of Northwestern Iran (Ardabil): Razvedochnye issledovaniya Rossiiskoi-Iranskoi arkheologicheskoi expeditsii v 2006 g. [Exploration studies of the Russian-Iranian archaeological Expedition in 2006] / / Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredel'nykh territorii: Mat-ly Godovoi utogovoi sessii IAET SB RAS, 2006 g. - Novosibirsk: Izd. IAET SB RAS, 2006a. - Vol. 12, ch. 1. - pp. 94-101.

Derevyanko, A. P., Zenin, A. N., Gladyshev, S. A., Krivoshapkin, A. I., and Zaidi, M., The First Russian-Iranian Archaeological Expedition: Results of the Study of the Paleolithic of the Southern Caspian Region in 2006, in Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredel'nykh territorii: Mat-ly Godovoi utogovoi sessii IAET SB RAS, 2006 . Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 2006b. - Vol. 12, part 1. - pp. 87-93.

Derevyanko A. P., Zenin A. P., Olsen D., Petrin V. T., Tseveendorzh D. Paleolithic complexes of the Silicon Valley (Gobi Altai). Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 2002, 296 p. (Stone Age of Mongolia).

Derevyanko A. P., Olsen D., Tseveendorzh D., Petrin V. T., Zenin A. P., Krivoshapkin A. I., Rivs R. U., Devyatkin E. V., Mylnikov V. P. Archaeological research of the Russian-Mongolian-American expedition to Mongolia in 1995-Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 1996. - 328 with.

Derevyanko A. P., Olsen D., Tseveendorzh D., Petrin V. T., Zenin A. N., Krivoshapkin A. I., Nikolaev S. V., Mylnikov V. P., Reeves R. U., Gunchinsuren B., Tserendagva Ya. Archaeological research of the Russian-Mongolian-American expedition to Mongolia in 1996-Novosibirsk: Publishing House of the Institute of Electric Power Engineering of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1998. - 343 p. (in Russian, English, and Mongolian).

Derevyanko A. P., Olsen D., Tsevaendorzh D., Petrin V. T., Gladyshev S. A., Zenin A. P., Mylnikov V. P., Krivoshapkin A. I., Reeves R. U., Brantingham P. D., Gunchinsuren B., Tserendagwa Ya. Archaeological research of the Russian-Mongolian-American expedition in Mongolia in 1997-1998. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 2000, 384 p. (in Russian, English, and Mongolian).

Derevyanko A. P., Petrin V. T., Gladyshev S. A., Zenin A. N., Taimagambetov Zh.K. Acheulean complexes of the Mugodzhar Mountains (North-West Asia). - 2001a. - N 2. - p. 20-36.

Derevyanko A. P., Petrin V. T., Gladyshev S. A., Zenin A. N., Taimagambetov Zh.K. Acheulean complexes of the Mugodzhar Mountains (North-West Asia). Novosibirsk, IAET SB RAS Publ., 2001, 136 p. (in Russian)

Derevyanko, A. P., Petrin, V. T., Taimagambetov, Zh.K., Zenin, A. P., and Gladyshev, S. A., Paleolithic complexes of the surface occurrence of the Mugodzhar Mountains, in Problemy arkheologii, etnografii, antropologii Sibiri i sopredel'nykh territorii: Mat-ly VII Godovoi utogovoi sessii IAET SB RAS. December 1999-Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SB RAS, 1999. - Vol. 5. - pp. 50-55.

Derevyanko A. P., Petrin V. T., Tseveendorzh D., Devyatkin E. V., Larichev V. E., Vasilevsky R. S., Zenin A. N. Paleolithic and Neolithic of the northern coast of the Valley of Lakes. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IAET SB RAS, 2000, 440 p. (Stone Age of Mongolia).

Islamov U. I., Krakhmal K. A. Paleoecology and traces of the oldest man from Central Asia. Tashkent: FAN Publ., 1995, 220 p. (in Russian)

Kucera S. The oldest and oldest history of China: Drevnekamennyi vek [The Ancient Stone Age], Moscow: Publishing House of the Eastern Literature Company of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1996, 432 p.

Larichev V. E. New materials on the Lower Paleolithic of China // Ancient cultures of China: Paleolithic, Neolithic and Metal Epoch. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1985, pp. 10-41.

Li Qiang. Brief report on archaeological excavations of the Posilin Paleolithic site in Tiandong County, prov. Guangxi / / Renleixue xuebao. - 2002. - N 21. - p. 59-64 (in Chinese).

Li Yanxian, Yu Yuzhu. Paleolithic discovery in Baise County, Guangxi Province / / Gujizhuidong yu guzhenlei, 1975, vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 225-228 (in Chinese).

Lin Shenglong, He Naihan. About Baise rubies / / Renleixue xuebao. - 1995. - N 14. - p. 118-131 (in Chinese).

Lyubin V. P. Paleolith of Turkmenistan / / SA. - 1984. - N 1. - Pp. 26-45.

Lubin V. P., Vishnyatskiy L. B. Otkrytie paleolita v Vostochnom Turkmenistanii [Discovery of the Paleolithic in Eastern Turkmenistan]. - 1985. - N 2. - p. 22-23.

Medoev A. G. Kamenny vek Sary-Ark v svete novykh issledovaniy [The Stone Age of Sary-Ark in the light of new research]. Izv. AN KazSSR. Ser.obshchestv, nauk. - 1964. - N 6. - p. 90-98.

Medoev A. G. Arealy paleoliticheskikh kul'tury Sary-Arka [Areas of Paleolithic cultures of Sary-Arka]. Alma-Ata: Nauka KazSSR Publ., 1970, pp. 200-216.

Okladnikov A. P. Paleolithic of Mongolia. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1986, 231 p. (in Russian).

Ranov V. A. The oldest pages of the history of mankind. Moscow: Prosveshchenie Publ., 1988, 154 p. (in Russian)

Ranov V. A. Genezis i periodizatsiya pamyatnikov kamennogo veka v Tadzhikane [Genesis and periodization of Stone Age monuments in Tajikistan]. Dushanbe: [Hisor], 1992, pp. 28-48.

Ranov V. A. Ranniy paleolit Kitayi (izuchenie i sovremennoe predstavlenie) [The Early Paleolithic of China (study and modern representation)]. Moscow: INQUA, 1999, 110 p.

Ranov V. A. Loess-soil formation in Southern Tajikistan and loess paleolith / / Archaeological works in Tajikistan in 2000-Dushanbe, 2000, issue 27, pp. 21-49.

Ranov V. A., Karimova G. R. Stone age of the Afghan-Tajik depression. Dushanbe: Devashtich Publ., 2005, 252 p.

Ranov V. A., Schaeffer Y. Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2000. - N 2. - p. 20-32.

Xie Guangmao. Izuchenie rubil Baise [Study of Baise rubil] / / Collection of articles dedicated to the 30th anniversary of the discovery of the Huanyandong parking lot. Guangzhou: [B. I.], 1991, pp. 32-41 (in Chinese).

Xie Guangmao. K voprosu o rubilakh Baise [On the question of Baise rubies]. - 2002. - N 21. - p. 65-73 (in Chinese).

Xie Guangmao, Li Qiang, Huang Qishan. Paleolithic industry of Baise. Beijing: Wenwu Publ., 2003, 180 p. (in Chinese).

Tang Yingjun, Zong Guanfu, Lei Yulu. New finds of Paleolithic tools in the upper reaches of the Hanshui River / / Renleixue xuebao. - 1987. - Vol. 6, N 1. - pp. 55-60 (in Chinese).

Huang Weiwen. Paleolithic stone tools from the Sanmenxia region, Western Henan / / Vertebrata Pal Asiatics-1964. - Vol. 8, N 2. - pp. 162-177 (in Chinese, English).

Huang Weiwen. Chinese choppers / / Renleixue xuebao. - 1987. - Issue 6, N 1. - pp. 61-68 (in Chinese).

Huang Weiwen. Typology of massive tools of the Initial Paleolithic period of East and Southeast Asia: a critique of the Movius classification system. - 1993. - N 12. - p. 297-304 (in Chinese).

Huang Weiwen, Xi Naihan, Sagawa Masatoshi. Comprehensive study of hand-hewers found at Baise sites in Guangxi, China. Beijing: Wenwu Publ., 2001, 201 p. (in Chinese).

Huang Weiwen, Hou Yamei, and Song Hyeongyeon. Pebble tools in the Paleolithic of China / / Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia. - 2005. - N 1. - p. 2-15.

Huang Weiwen, Qi Guoqin. Primary studies of the Paleolithic site of Liangnan / / Renleixue xuebao. - 1987. - N 6. - p. 236-243 (in Chinese).

Huang Weiwen, Zhang Zhenhong. Industry of laterite stone tools of Southern China / / Collection of articles dedicated to the 30th anniversary of the discovery of the Huanyandong site. Guangzhou: [B. I.], 1991, pp. 18-26 (in Chinese).

Jia Lanpo. A new look at the stone tools of the Peking man / / Kaogu Tongsun. - 1956. - N 6. - p. 1-8 (in Chinese).

Jia Lanpo. Features of microlithic tools in China, their traditions, origin and distribution / / Jiushizi shidai kaogu lunwen xuan (Selected articles on Paleolithic archeology). Beijing: Wenwu Publ., 1984, pp. 194-201 (in Chinese).

Zhu Hengfu. Two hand-hewers were discovered in Shiyan, Hubei province / / Renleixue xuebao. - 1999. - N 2. - p. 72-74 (in Chinese).

Yuan Baoyin, Hou Yamei. Some issues of environmental change in the Paleolithic monuments of Baise / / Renleixue xuebao. - 1999. - N 18. - p. 215-222 (in Chinese).

Aigner J. S. Archaeological Remains in Pleistocene China. - Mimchen: Verlag C. H. Beck, 1981. - 351 p.

Alimen H. L'evolution de l'Acheuleen en Sahara Nord-Occidental Saoura, Ougarta, Tabelbala. - Meudon: CNRS, 1978. - 596 p.

An Z. S., Ho C. K. New Magnetostratigraphic Dates of Lantian Homo erectus // Quaternary Research. - 1989. - Vol. 32. - P. 213 - 221.

Asfaw B., Beyene Y., Suwa G., Walter R. C., White T. D., Woldegabriel G., Yemane T. The earliest Acheulean from Kongo-Gardula // Nature. - 1992. - N 360. - P. 732 - 735.

Balout L., Biberson P., Tixier J. L'Acheuleen de Ternifme (Algerie), gisement d'Atlantrope // L'Anthropologie. - 1967. - T. 71, N 3 - 4. - P. 217 - 268.

Bar-Yosef O., Goren-Inbar N. The Lithic Assemblages of Ubeidiya: A lower palaeolithic site in the Jordan Valley. - Ierusalim: The Heprew University of Ierusalim, 1993. - 265 p.

Belli G., Belluoomini G., Cassoli P. F., Cechi S., Cucarzi M., Delitala L., Fornaciari G., Mallegni E., Piperno M., Segre A. G., Segre-Naldini E. Decouverte d'un femur humain acheuleen a Notarchirico (Venosa, Basilicate) // Anthropologic. - 1991. - Vol. 95. - P. 47 - 88.

Black D., Chardin T. de, Young C. C., Pei W. C. Fossil man in China. - Peking: Geological surwey of China, 1933. - 162 p. - (Geological Memoirs. Ser. A (11)).

Brain C. K., Churcher C. S., Clark J. D., Grine F. E., Shipman P., Susman R. L., Turner A., Watson V. New evidence of early hominids, their culture and environment from the Swartkrans cave // South African J. of Science. - 1988. - N 84. - P. 828 - 833.

Breuil H. Comment on Dingcun stone industry // Pei W. Professor Henri Breuil, pioneer of Chinese Paleolithic archaeology, and its progress after him. - Barcelona: [S.n.], 1965. - P. 251 - 271. - (Miscellanea en Homage a L'Abate Henri Breuil; vol. 2).

Brezillion M. N. La de nomination des objects de Pierre taillee // Archaeology. - P., 1971. - Vol. 24, N 1. - P. 127 - 272.

Carbonell E., Mosquera M., Olle A. Rodriquez X. P., Sahnocini M., Sala R., Verges J. M. Structure morpholotechnique de L'industrie lithique du Pleistocene inferieur et moyen d'Atapuerca (Burgos, Espagne) // Anthropologie. - 2001. - Vol. 105. - P. 281 - 299.

Clark J. D. Early Acheulian with Homo habilis at Sterkfontein // Hominid evolution: Past, present and future: Proceedings of the Taung Diamond jubilee Intern. Symp., Johannesburg and Mmabatho, Southern Africa (27.01 - 04.02. 1985). - L.: Liss, 1985. - P. 287 - 298.

Clark J. D., Schick K. D. Context and content: impressions of Paleolithic sites and assemblages in the People's Republic of China // J. of Human Evolution. - 1988. - Vol. 17. - P. 439 - 448.

Dai E. J. The Paleolithic found at Lantian man locality of Gongwangling and its vicinity // Vertebrata Pal Asiatica. - 1966. - Vol. 10(1). - P. 30 - 32.

Derevianko A. R. Two Major Waves of the Early Human Population Migration into Asia // The 6^th International Symposium: Suyanggae and Her Neighbours. - Chongjoo, 2001. - P. 33 - 60.

Dupree L. Afghanistan. - Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Univ. Press, 1980. - 778 p.

Gao X., Huang W, Hao X., Chen B. Fission track dating of ancient man site in Baise, China, and its significances in space research, paleomagnetism and stratigraphy // Radiation Measurements. - 1997. - Vol. 28(1/6). - P. 565 - 570.

Hou Yamei, Potts R., Yuan Baoyin, Guo Zhengtang, Deino A., Wang Wei, Clark J., Xie Guangmao, Huang Weiwen. Mid-Pleistocene Acheulean-like Stone Technology of the Bose Basin, South China // Science. - 2000. - Vol. 287, N 5458. - P. 1622 - 1626.

Huang Wanpo, Ciochon R., Gu Y. M., Larick R., Fang Q. R, Schwarz H., Yonge C., Vos I., Rink W. Early Homo and associated artifacts from Asia // Nature. - 1995. - Vol. 378(6554). - P. 273 - 278.

Jayaswal V. Palaeohistory of India: A Study of the Preparated Core technique. - Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan, 1978. - 243 p.

Jayaswal V. Chopper-Chopping Component of Palaeolithic India. - Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan, 1982. - 180 p.

Leakey M. D. Olduvai Gorge: Areport on the evolution of the Handaxe culture in Beds I-IV. - Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. press, 1951. - 117 p.

Leakey M. D. Olduvai Gorge: Excavations in Beds I and II, 1960 - 1963. - Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. press, 1971. - Vol. 3. - 306 p.

Li W. S. Feng X. P., Li T. Y., Ji H. X., Li Y. X., The stone artifacts from the Yunxian nan site / / Acta Anthropologica Sinica. - 1998. - Vol. 17(2). - P. 94-120 (in Chinese, English).

Mishra S., Venkatesan T. R., Rajagurus S. N., Somayajulu H. Earliest Acheulian industry from Peninsular India // Current Anthropology - 1995. - Vol. 36, N 5. - P. 847 - 852.

Movius H. The Lower Paleolithic cultures of Southern and Eastern Asia // Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. New Ser. - 1949. - Vol. 38 (4). - P. 329 - 420.

Movius H. L. New palaeolithic sites, near Ting-T'sun in the Fen River, Shansi province, North China // Quaternaria. - 1956. - Vol. 3. - P. 13 - 26.

Pappu R. S. Acheulian Culture in Peninsular India. - New Delhi: D. K. Printworld (P) Ltd., 2001. - 170 p.

Pei W., Wu R., Jia L., Zhou M., Liu X., Wang Z. Report on the excavation of Palaeolithic Sites at Ting-tsun, Hsiangfenhsien, Shansi province, China // Memoirs of the Inst, of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeanthropology. Ser. A. - 1958. - N 2. - P. 1 - 111.

Pope G. G. Evidence on the Age of the Asian Hommonidae // Proc. Natl. Acad. Science USA. - 1983. - Vol. 80. - P. 4988 - 4992.

Pope G. G. Recent advances in Far Eastern Paleoanthropology // Annual Review of Anthropology. - 1988. - N 17. - P. 43 - 77.

Pope G. G. Bamboo and Human Evolution // Natural History. - 1989. - Vol. 10. - P. 49 - 56.

Schick K., Dong Zhuan. Early Paleolithic of China Eastern Asia // Evolutionary Anthropology. - 1993. - Vol. 2(1). - P. 22 - 35.

Ascenzi A. Segre A., Fontona Ronuccio: Italy's earliest Middle Pleistocene hominid site // Current Anthropology - 1984. - Vol. 25. - P. 230 - 233.

Tchernov E. The age of Ubeidiya Formation, an Early Pleistocene hominid site in the Jordan Valley, Israel // Isr. J. Erth Scie. - 1987. - Vol. 36. - P. 3 - 30.

Tchernov E. The biogeographical history of the Southern Levant // The zoogeography of Israel. - Dordrecht: Junk, 1988. - P. 159 - 250.

Tchernov E. Eurasian-African biotic exchanges through the Levantine corridor during the Neogene and Quaternary: Mammalian migration and dispersal events in the European Quaternary // Courier Forsch. Inst. Senckenberg. - 1992. - Bd. 153. - S. 103 - 123.

The Paleolithic of Siberia: New Discoveries and Interpretations / Eds. A. P. Derevianko, D. B. Shimkin, W. R. Powers. - Urbana: Chicago Univ. of Illinois Press, 1998. - 406 p.

Tuffreau A., Antoine P. The earliest occupation of Europe: Continental Northwestern Europe // The earliest occupation of Europe. - Leiden: Univ. of Leiden, 1995. - P. 147 - 165.

Wang Y. R. Tao F. H., Wang J., Preliminary Report on Investigation and Excavation of Dingcun Paleolithic Sites // J. of Chinese Antiquity. - 1994. - Vol. 3. - P. 1 - 75.

Wynn T., Tierson F. Regional Comparison of the Shapes of Later Acheulean Handaxes // American Anthropologist. - 1990. - Vol. 92. - P. 73 - 84.

Yi Seonbok, Clark G. A. Observations on the Lower Paleolithic of Northeast Asia // Current Anthropology. - 1983. - Vol. 24, N 2. - P. 181 - 202.

Yunxian Man / Eds. T. Y. Li, X. P Feng. - Hubei: Science and Technique Press, 2001. - 218 p.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 12.11.07.

Permanent link to this publication: