Paleolithic site (35-39ka) discovered in Hong Kong

[Daryl Habel]

Chinese scientists have announced the discovery of paleolithic tools, approx. 35,000-39,000 years old, on the island of Hong Kong.  Previously, all archaeological discoveries from Hong Kong were Neolithic or later.     

New archaeological discovery rewrites Hong Kong's history of human activity
         
Archaeologists have discovered a new site of human activity in remote antiquity in Sai Kung, Hong Kong.

Zhang Shenshui, researcher of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, told Xinhua here Wednesday that the important archaeological discovery not only rewrites the history when Hong Kong began having human activity, but also puts forward new topics of research for archaeologists.

More than 6,000 artifacts have been unearthed at the site, which is located at the Wong Tei Tung of Sai Kung, covering 8,000 square meters. The site was a field for stone artifacts making in the Paleolithic era ranging from 35,000 years to 39,000 years ago.

The significance of the discovery lies in the fact that, as the only discovery in Hong Kong from the Paleolithic era, it changes the traditional view that Hong Kong had no human activity until the Neolithic era............(more)

Read the rest of the story CLICK HERE

The article is from the Chinese People's Daily Online and is credited to the Chinese news service, Xinhua, and gives few actual details, including nothing about when or where this discovery might be published in a scientific journal.  As such, I'm posting it here as an item of interest to keep in mind for future news.

Dar

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Chinese scientists have announced the discovery of paleolithic tools, approx. 35,000-39,000 years old, on the island of Hong Kong.  Previously, all archaeological discoveries from Hong Kong were Neolithic or later.     

New archaeological discovery rewrites Hong Kong's history of human activity
         
Archaeologists have discovered a new site of human activity in remote antiquity in Sai Kung, Hong Kong.

Zhang Shenshui, researcher of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, told Xinhua here Wednesday that the important archaeological discovery not only rewrites the history when Hong Kong began having human activity, but also puts forward new topics of research for archaeologists.

More than 6,000 artifacts have been unearthed at the site, which is located at the Wong Tei Tung of Sai Kung, covering 8,000 square meters. The site was a field for stone artifacts making in the Paleolithic era ranging from 35,000 years to 39,000 years ago.

The significance of the discovery lies in the fact that, as the only discovery in Hong Kong from the Paleolithic era, it changes the traditional view that Hong Kong had no human activity until the Neolithic era............(more)

Read the rest of the story CLICK HERE

The article is from the Chinese People's Daily Online and is credited to the Chinese news service, Xinhua, and gives few actual details, including nothing about when or where this discovery might be published in a scientific journal.  As such, I'm posting it here as an item of interest to keep in mind for future news.

Dar

Dar,

Thanks for picking this up and passing it on. I just want to add that checking out the Hong Kong Prehistoric Society site (HERE) does provide one with a few additional details regarding what appears to be a rather exciting new site.

Jacques

[Daryl Habel]

Dar,

Thanks for picking this up and passing it on. I just want to add that checking out the Hong Kong Prehistoric Society site (HERE) does provide one with a few additional details regarding what appears to be a rather exciting new site.

Jacques

Indeed, thanks for the lead to the HK Prehistoric Society site, quite a few more details, principally that they have concluded (preliminarily) that the site contains "artifacts of two different perioids, one as early as 40,000 years bp while the other dating from 7,000 years bp".   They hint of  "bifacial processing, bipolar processing, sophisticated retouching of edges (Mousterian-like technique) and Levalloisian technique..." as well as "prepared cores", a few bearing traits of what they call "Sumatralith cores" (whatever that means?).  However, in spite of these hints, I cannot determine from the HK Prehistoric Society  Newsletter site which of the hinted techniques apply to the  estimated 40ka occupation and which apply to the estimated 7 ka occupation.   Tantalizing stuff, and I sure hope we hear more from this site in the future. 

Dar

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Dar,

Thanks for picking this up and passing it on. I just want to add that checking out the Hong Kong Prehistoric Society site (HERE) does provide one with a few additional details regarding what appears to be a rather exciting new site.

Jacques

Indeed, thanks for the lead to the HK Prehistoric Society site, quite a few more details, principally that they have concluded (preliminarily) that the site contains "artifacts of two different perioids, one as early as 40,000 years bp while the other dating from 7,000 years bp".   They hint of  "bifacial processing, bipolar processing, sophisticated retouching of edges (Mousterian-like technique) and Levalloisian technique..." as well as "prepared cores", a few bearing traits of what they call "Sumatralith cores" (whatever that means?).  However, in spite of these hints, I cannot determine from the HK Prehistoric Society  Newsletter site which of the hinted techniques apply to the  estimated 40ka occupation and which apply to the estimated 7 ka occupation.   Tantalizing stuff, and I sure hope we hear more from this site in the future. 

Dar

What little I have read about "Sumatralith cores" or, more generally speaking, "Sumatraliths", usually presents them as characteristic of the Hoabinhian. Intially identified as a “culture” spanning mostly the Early and Middle Holocene, the latter is now perceived by many as a “technocomplex” of which many of the elements (including the “Sumatraliths”) manifest themselves over a large area of Southeast Asia and in many “cultures”. Not having seen the stuff in the flesh, as it were, that's pretty much all I can say at this time. At any rate, the mention of “Sumatraliths” is likely to refer to the later manifestations (i.e., Pleistocene/Holocene boundary and later Holocene).

By the way, a Google [particularly Scholar] search for "Hoabinhian" can result in a number interesting leads.

Jacques

Addendum:

Note that I have made a few corrections to the original post. Note also that the Spring 2005 issue of Asian Perspectives (HERE) provides one with quite a bit of pertinent contextual (geographical, cultural, and referential) information.

[lagarvelho]

Jacques, Dar, and all:


I had a rather quick look at both articles.  i'm familiar, unfortunately, with Xinhua's usual lack of detail; OTOH, they publish a lot of stuff about Paleolithic China from time to time.  The other paper was a *lot* more comprehensive.  But I wonder if this is the first time they've found any (earlier) Paleolithic materials in Hong Kong, because little prehistoric archaeological work has been done there, until recently?  I'm happy to be corrected if this impression is wrong.
Anne G

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Jacques, Dar, and all:


I had a rather quick look at both articles.  i'm familiar, unfortunately, with Xinhua's usual lack of detail; OTOH, they publish a lot of stuff about Paleolithic China from time to time.  The other paper was a *lot* more comprehensive.  But I wonder if this is the first time they've found any (earlier) Paleolithic materials in Hong Kong, because little prehistoric archaeological work has been done there, until recently?  I'm happy to be corrected if this impression is wrong.
Anne G

Anne,

"Quick looks" can be deceiving.The answer to your question can be found in the People's Daily article. Fourth paragraph down from the top. More specifically:

The significance of the discovery lies in the fact that, as the only discovery in Hong Kong from the Paleolithic era, it changes the traditional view that Hong Kong had no human activity until the Neolithic era.

Jacques

[Daryl Habel]

Jacques, Dar, and all:


I had a rather quick look at both articles.  i'm familiar, unfortunately, with Xinhua's usual lack of detail; OTOH, they publish a lot of stuff about Paleolithic China from time to time.  The other paper was a *lot* more comprehensive.  But I wonder if this is the first time they've found any (earlier) Paleolithic materials in Hong Kong, because little prehistoric archaeological work has been done there, until recently?  I'm happy to be corrected if this impression is wrong.
Anne G

Anne,

"Quick looks" can be deceiving.The answer to your question can be found in the People's Daily article. Fourth paragraph down from the top. More specifically:

The significance of the discovery lies in the fact that, as the only discovery in Hong Kong from the Paleolithic era, it changes the traditional view that Hong Kong had no human activity until the Neolithic era.

Jacques

Jacques,

I think there is some  confusion here.  I believe Anne's question was not whether this was the first Paleolithic site from HK, but rather if the reason why it is the first paleolithic site is because there has been little previous work there (Hong Kong) looking for paleolithic evidence.  This is a reasonable question, for which I have no answer.

Quick looks can be deceiving,
Dar

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Jacques, Dar, and all:


I had a rather quick look at both articles.  i'm familiar, unfortunately, with Xinhua's usual lack of detail; OTOH, they publish a lot of stuff about Paleolithic China from time to time.  The other paper was a *lot* more comprehensive.  But I wonder if this is the first time they've found any (earlier) Paleolithic materials in Hong Kong, because little prehistoric archaeological work has been done there, until recently?  I'm happy to be corrected if this impression is wrong.
Anne G

Anne,

"Quick looks" can be deceiving.The answer to your question can be found in the People's Daily article. Fourth paragraph down from the top. More specifically:

The significance of the discovery lies in the fact that, as the only discovery in Hong Kong from the Paleolithic era, it changes the traditional view that Hong Kong had no human activity until the Neolithic era.

Jacques

Jacques,

I think there is some  confusion here.  I believe Anne's question was not whether this was the first Paleolithic site from HK, but rather if the reason why it is the first paleolithic site is because there has been little previous work there (Hong Kong) looking for paleolithic evidence.  This is a reasonable question, for which I have no answer.

Quick looks can be deceiving,
Dar

Confusion? I don't think so. I think the little "quote" says it all.

Jacques

[Daryl Habel]

Confusion? I don't think so. I think the little "quote" says it all.

Jacques

Jacques,

I  don't think so (politely).
The little quote" is:

The significance of the discovery lies in the fact that, as the only discovery in Hong Kong from the Paleolithic era, it changes the traditional view that Hong Kong had no human activity until the Neolithic era.

The "little quote" gives the significance - that being that the discovery changes the traditional view.  However, as I read Anne's question it is (omitting a phase in the middle, but a direct quote):

 "But I wonder if this is [....] because little prehistoric archaeological work has been done there, until recently?

To quote Anne directly :

But I wonder if this is the first time they've found any (earlier) Paleolithic materials in Hong Kong, because little prehistoric archaeological work has been done there, until recently?

I'll admit this question could have been expressed with better clarity, but her question is not of the significance, but rather a question whether the reason for this being the first is because archaeologists just haven't spent much previous effort looking for pre-Neolithic evidence at Hong Kong.

Dar

[Daryl Habel]

Three days later, the Chinese People's Daily online (Xinhua) has  an update on the Hong Kong discovery HERE
The  initial discovery (a couple of years ago) was accidental.  Although this update still lacks details I'd like to have answered, it is a more satisfying news story than we're accustomed to getting from Xinhua.  Perhaps an indication of the recognized significance of the discovery and its importance to an understanding of  the prehistory  40-35 ka along the southern Chinese coast, a region (so far as I know) without previously known sites of late paleolithic times.  I expect we will eventually get more detailed reports from here.

Dar 
(Added later:  After re-reading, I see from the news story that  over the past three decades dozens of paleolithic sites have been discovered in the Chinese southeastern coastal region, but apparently most of them haven't yielded much information about the late paleolithic of 40-30 ka)

[lagarvelho]

Dar and Jacques:

Again, I could be totally wrong.  But wouldn't the fact that there is little information about these sites be due to the fact that the results of these studies hasn't been published outside of China?
Anne G

[Daryl Habel]

Dar and Jacques:

Again, I could be totally wrong.  But wouldn't the fact that there is little information about these sites be due to the fact that the results of these studies hasn't been published outside of China?
Anne G

That could be, for all I know.  But one would think any sites bearing on a possible colonization by arriving anatomically modern humans (if one subscribes to the RAE theory) would generate enough interest to eventually be reported outside China.  I know of sites from Taiwan dated 15-10 ka , and some sites from Thailand, Vietnam, and interior southern China dating to the Late Paleolithic after 50 ka, but  I can't remember ever reading of any from the southeastern coast of mainland China.  Of course, I'm ignorant of a lot of things, and this might just reveal the extent of my ignorance.  The Xinhua news quote doesn't really specify what part of the Paleolithic period  (Lower, Middle, Upper or Late) these "dozens" of sites in the coastal provinces are dated.  Perhaps we can hope for a better answer from Jacques, or anyone else who might be better informed.
Dar

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Dar and Jacques:

Again, I could be totally wrong.  But wouldn't the fact that there is little information about these sites be due to the fact that the results of these studies hasn't been published outside of China?
Anne G

I think you a "totally" right. There is absolutely no reason why the Chinese archaeological (reporting) scene should be any different from what we find elsewhere. Regardless of language barriers, much of the archaeological information that circulates in the world lies in more or less obscure local/regional publications and/or in what has been called the "grey" literature. The kind of stuff that the high profile and highly competitve (mostly) English science media can hardly pick up.

Jacques

[lagarvelho]

Jacques and Dar:

Of  course you're both right.  Unfortunately.  And it's a shame that this stuff *isn't* picked up.  They should get people to translate this stuff.  Which might turn out to be *very* interesting.
Anne G

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Dar and Jacques:

Again, I could be totally wrong.  But wouldn't the fact that there is little information about these sites be due to the fact that the results of these studies hasn't been published outside of China?
Anne G

That could be, for all I know.  But one would think any sites bearing on a possible colonization by arriving anatomically modern humans (if one subscribes to the RAE theory) would generate enough interest to eventually be reported outside China.  I know of sites from Taiwan dated 15-10 ka , and some sites from Thailand, Vietnam, and interior southern China dating to the Late Paleolithic after 50 ka, but  I can't remember ever reading of any from the southeastern coast of mainland China.  Of course, I'm ignorant of a lot of things, and this might just reveal the extent of my ignorance.  The Xinhua news quote doesn't really specify what part of the Paleolithic period  (Lower, Middle, Upper or Late) these "dozens" of sites in the coastal provinces are dated.  Perhaps we can hope for a better answer from Jacques, or anyone else who might be better informed.
Dar

As of a few days ago, Jacques new zip/zilch about palaeolitic remains from South China and adjacent islands. As is the case for some of you, a frustratingly slow learning curve has been initiated.

This said, some background info on (the history of) Hong Kong prehistory can be found in the already mentioned Hong Kong Archaeological Society link (HERE), i.e., read the last article entitled “Hong Kong Prehistory” by William Meacham, 1995.

Further contextual/historical information can also be found in another report written by William Meacham and dealing with work carried out in the mid-90s (HERE). Unfortunately, no searchable references seem to be provided.

Jacques