Fig 1.
Schematic map showing the Chinese Loess Plateau, Nihewan basin, the main Early Paleolithic sites mentioned in the paper (modified from Zhu et al.[9], and Ao et al.[32]), and stratigraphic section of FL site.
(a) Nihewan basin in North China; (b) Sketch map of the Nihewan basin; (c) relevant sites in the eastern part of the Nihewan basin; (d) View of the FL trenches (from the southeast). e) Composite sections of T1, T2, T3, and TOK, correlated with the Feiliang Type Section. BU-basal unit, LU-lower unit, TBSU-thick brown sand unit, UU-upper unit. C-clay, S-silt, SA-sand, CB-cobble and breccia.
Fig 2.
Lithostratigraphy and magnetic polarity stratigraphy of the Donggutuo (Wang et al.[34]) and Feiliang (Deng et al.[33]) sections, and their correlations with the geomagnetic polarity timescale (GPTS) (Cande and Kent [35]).
B, Brunhes; M, Matuyama; O, Olduvai; J, Jaramillo; VGP Lat., latitude of the virtual geomagnetic pole. DGT and FL refer to the Donggutuo and Feiliang artifact layers, respectively.
Fig 3.
Horizontal and vertical distributions of excavated remains of the FL trenches.
A) T1. B) T2. C) T3. D) TOK.
Table 1.
Main features of major trenches at the Feiliang site complex (FL).
*Only lithics.
Fig 4.
A) Stone tool abrasion in the FL assemblages. B) Ratios of flaked pieces: detached pieces. Unmodified blocks are excluded. C) Percentage of main lithic categories in the FL assemblages. Unmodified blocks are excluded. D) Shape of whole flakes in the FL assemblages, based on Width/Length, and Thickness/Width ratios. E) Distribution of raw materials in the FL site complex. F) Different raw materials exploited in the FL assemblages.
Table 2.
Breakdown of lithic categories in the FL site complex.
Surface and stratified artifacts are included.
Fig 5.
A) T1 stone tools and fossils (N = 138), B) T 2 stone tools and fossils (N = 547), C) T 3 stone tools and fossils (N = 450), D) TOK fossils (N = 716). E) TOK stone tools (N = 447). F) debitage size distribution patterns (T1, N = 124; T2, N = 71; T3, N = 82; TOK, N = 602), with reference to Schick’s (1986) experimental curve.
Fig 6.
A-C) Plan view (A), and sagittal y, z (B) and transversal x, z (C) cross-sections of refit connections in TOK. D) Examples of refit sets in the FL assemblage.
Fig 7.
(a) Fish pharyngeal teeth (T2), (b) left proximal bird coracoid (T2), (c) Pachycrocuta licenti, left mandible fragment (T2); (d) Bison palaeosinensis, horn core fragment (TOK), (e) Bovidae gen. et sp. indet., lower m1/2, left (T3), (f) Bovidae gen. et sp. indet., upper M1/2, right (T3); (g) Cervus sp., lower m1/2, right (T3), (h) Rhinocerotide gen. et sp. indet., tooth fragment (T3), (i-k) Equus sanmeniensis, upper cheek teeth (i-T3, j-TOK, k-TOK), (l-m) Equus sanmeniensis, lower cheek teeth (l- TOK, m- TOK), (n) Proboscidipparion sp., lower molar, right (3), (o-q) Fresh fractures on bones (o-T3, p-T2, q- TOK).
Table 3.
Summary of taxonomic groups, diet, body parts, and suggested environments represented in the FL bone assemblages.
Table 4.
Size (mm) and weight (grams) of the main lithic categories in the FL assemblages.
Table 5.
Core morpho-types of the FL lithic assemblages.
Table 6.
FL flaking modes.
Fig 8.
Core attributes in the FL assemblages.
A) Core size ranges (mm). B) Number of flake scars on cores (scars per core average: Trench 1 = 8; Trench 2 = 7.2; Trench 3 = 6.3; TO-TOK = 8.8). C) Percentage of cortex. D) Core blank.
Fig 9.
Selected cores from T1, T2, and T3.
Upper (T1): (a) Bifacial chopper with BSP exploitation; (b) Core scraper showing UAP exploitation; (c) Unifacial discoid with UP exploitation; (d) Polyhedron with Multifacial exploitation. Middle (T2): (e) unifacial chopper with USP exploitation; (f) Polyhedron with Multifacial exploitation. Lower (T3): (g)-(h) Core scrapers showing UAP exploitation; (i) Polyhedron with Multifacial exploitation.
Fig 10.
(a) and (c) Polyhedron with Multifacial exploitation; (b) Unifacial chopper with USP exploitation; (d) Bifacial discoid with BP exploitation; (e) Core scraper with UAP exploitation; (f) Bifacial discoid with BSP exploitation; (g) Bifacial discoid with BALT exploitation; (h) Core scraper with UAT exploitation.
Table 7.
Absolute and relative frequencies of FL core knapping methods.
Fig 11.
Flake attributes in the FL assemblages.
A) Flake size ranges (mm). B) Number of scars on platforms. C) Percentage of cortex on dorsal faces and striking platforms, according to Toth’s (1982) types. D) Number of scars on dorsal face of flakes. E) Frequencies of cortical area on dorsal face of flakes. F) Frequencies of scar patterns on dorsal face of flakes.
Fig 12.
Selected flakes from T1, T2, T3, and TOK of the FL site.
A) T1; B) T2; C) T3; D) TOK.
Fig 13.
Selected retouched flakes from T1 and TOK.
A) T1; B) TOK.
Table 8.
Summary of Early Pleistocene archaeological site contexts excavated in the Nihewan basin.
Table 9.
Breakdown of lithic artifacts of Early Pleistocene sites in the Nihewan basin.
UM: unmodified material.
Fig 14.
Comparisons of Early Pleistocene sites in the Nihewan basin.
A) and B) Excavated area; C) and D) Number of items; E) and F) Stone artifact density; G) and H) Ratios of flaked pieces versus detached pieces; I) and J) Artifact category. All data from Tables 8 and 9.