32 Number 74, June 2012 Abstract The ‘Movius Line’ is the putative technological demarcation line mapping the easternmost geographical distribution of Acheulean bifacial tools. It is traditionally argued by proponents of the Movius Line that ‘true’ Acheulean bifaces, especially handaxes, are only found in abundance in Africa and western Eurasia, whereas in eastern Asia, in front of the ‘line’, these implements are rare or absent altogether. Here we argue, however, that the Movius Line relies on classifying undated surface bifaces as Acheulean on typological grounds alone, a long-standing and widely accepted practice in Africa and western Eurasia, but one that is not seen as legitimate in eastern Asian contexts. A review of the literature shows that bifaces are relatively common as surface inds in Southeast Asia and on this basis we argue that the Movius Line is in need of reassessment. Introduction … the evolution of lint technology through prehistory was a cumulative process: new tricks were added, but there were no extinctions (Johansen and Stapert 1995:1). Acheulean biface technology emerged in East Africa ca 1.76 million years ago (Ma) (Lepre et al. 2011) and the extent of its subsequent distribution has important implications. It has long been argued that a technological boundary, the ‘Movius Line’, separates Acheulean technologies of Early and Middle Pleistocene Africa/western Eurasia from simpler, ‘least-effort’ core-and-lake industries of equivalent age in eastern Asia (Dennell 2009; Keates 2002; Lycett and Bae 2010; Lycett and Gowlett 2008; Lycett and Norton 2010; Mulvaney 1970; Norton and Bae 2009; Norton et al. 2006; Petraglia and Shipton 2008; Pope and Keates 1994; Schick 1994; Simanjuntak et al. 2010; Wang 2005) (Figure 1). The manufacture of Acheulean bifaces, especially handaxes, is said to require complex production routines and the ability to fashion tools into preconceived designs, implying advanced cognitive capabilities (Gowlett 2006; Wynn 1995, 2002). Core- and-lake assemblages, alternatively, are widely thought to relect the simplest approach to stone tool manufacture (Pelegrin 2005; Roche 2005; Shea 2006; Wynn 2002). Few researchers today would support Movius’ (1948) contention that the apparently uncomplicated lithic technologies of Pleistocene eastern Asia indicate ‘cultural retardation’; however, it is generally agreed that early hominin tool-making in this region was technologically simpler than that in Palaeolithic Africa/western Eurasia (Clark 1992, 1998; Lycett and Bae 2010). This view is based on various lines of evidence (cf. Moore 2010, in press), but to many researchers the purported absence of Acheulean artefacts east of the Movius Line remains the decisive factor (Corvinus 2004; Dennell 2009; Keates 2002; Lycett and Bae 2010; Norton and Bae 2009; Pope and Keates 1994; Schick 1994). This paper critiques the Movius Line and the key evidence used to deine it: the purported lack of bifaces in Southeast Asian Palaeolithic assemblages. The Movius Line is widely accepted to represent a signiicant pattern in the empirical data (Lycett and Bae 2010). However, we argue here that it continues to be deined largely on the basis of African and western Eurasian bifaces found outside stratigraphic contexts and ascribed to the Acheulean on typological grounds alone. This is not seen as a legitimate practice in Southeast Asia and elsewhere in the Far East, where bifaces are common as undated surface inds but, lacking a dated context, are routinely considered products of modern human cultures. Dating African and western Eurasian surface inds as Acheulean while dismissing similar Southeast Asian and Far Eastern artefacts is a case of shifting the goalposts, one that potentially distorts Acheulean evidence in the Palaeolithic Old World. Acheulean Bifaces The term ‘Acheulean biface’ encompasses a range of large bifacial forms, including handaxes, cleavers, picks, knives, lanceolates and unifaces (Clark and Kleindienst 2001; Kleindienst 1962; McNabb et al. 2004) (Figure 2). Handaxes, cleavers and picks are the classic types. Handaxes are deined by a polythetic set of BIFACE DISTRIBUTIONS AND THE MOVIUS LINE: A Southeast Asian perspective Adam Brumm 1 and Mark W. Moore 2 1 Centre for Archaeological Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong NSW 2522, Australia abrumm@uow.edu.au 2 Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology, University of New England, Armidale NSW 2351, Australia mmoore2@une.edu.au Figure 1 Map showing the Movius Line and key localities mentioned in the text. The received idea is that ‘true’ Acheulean bifaces only occur behind the Movius Line, in Africa and western Eurasia, and are absent to the east and southeast of the demarcation boundary. Stone artefacts resembling Acheulean bifaces have been recovered in situ from non-modern hominin contexts in (1) the Bose Basin of southern China, (2) Ngebung 2 at Sangiran, Java, and at (3) Wolo Sege and (4) Liang Bua on the island of Flores, eastern Indonesia.