The East Asian Middle Paleolithic Reexamined Christopher J. Norton, Xing Gao, and Xingwu Feng Abstract The criteria to define the Middle Paleo- lithic in East Asia have traditionally been presence/ absence of archaic Homo sapiens fossils, biostrati- graphy, lithostratigraphy, the Middle-Late Pleisto- cene transition, and lithic technology. In this paper, we examine the use of the Middle-Late Pleistocene shift as a valid criterion for characterizing the Mid- dle Paleolithic in East Asia. Our review indicates that the most representative ‘‘Middle Paleolithic’’ sites in China (Zhoukoudian Locality 15, Dingcun, Xujiayao, Dali) all have chronometric ages that bracket the Middle-Late Pleistocene transition. However, the age range for these sites is extremely wide, extending from the middle Middle Pleistocene (c. 500 ka) to the middle Late Pleistocene (75 ka). This very large chronometric span suggests that the Middle-Late Pleistocene transition (140–100 ka) is of little use for defining a distinct Middle Paleolithic in East Asia. Other evidence to support a distinct East Asian Middle Paleolithic is also not strong, particularly distinct changes in lithic technology. Accordingly, we argue that an ‘‘Early’’ Paleolithic, representing the originally designated Lower and Middle Paleolithic sites, is more applicable to the uniqueness of the East Asian archaeological record. Keywords East Asia  Early Paleolithic  Lower- Middle Paleolithic transition  Middle-Late Pleistocene transition Introduction Identifying behavioral transitions are a necessary, though sometimes frustrating part of organizing human prehistory, particularly because it is often difficult to develop a model applicable across all spatio-temporal facies. This is especially relevant early in archaeology when prehistorians first began synthesizing our behavioral trajectory from the beginning of time to the present day (Daniel 1981; Trigger 2006). The three-stage model of cul- ture history (e.g., Christian J. Thomsen’s division of archaeological materials into three stages: Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age) forms the foundation from which to divide human behavioral variation. As time progressed, archaeologists devised more detailed distinctions (Trigger 2006). A good exam- ple is the Old World Paleolithic period, which was divided into three stages, Lower, Middle, and Upper (for Africa, Early, Middle, Late Stone Ages) (Klein 1999; Trigger 2006). The Lower Paleolithic is defined by simple core and flake tool technology beginning c. 2.6 Ma, with more refined handaxes and cleavers appearing after c. 1.6 Ma (Toth and Schick 2005). In some regions of the Old World such as East Asia, the presence/absence of typical Acheu- lian handaxes and cleavers is still debated (see Corvinus 2004; Norton et al. 2006; Lycett 2007; Norton and Bae 2008; Petraglia and Shipton 2008). The Middle Paleolithic (c. 250–40 ka) is generally defined by the Levallois, or prepared core technique, which is a more advanced stone knapping methodology. The Upper Paleolithic (c. 40–10 ka) is characterized by the presence of blade and microblade technology (Toth and Schick C.J. Norton (*) Department of Anthropology, University of Hawai’i, Honolulu, HI, USA M. Camps, P. Chauhan (eds.), Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-76487-0_15, Ó Springer ScienceþBusiness Media, LLC 2009 245