Discovery of Quina technology challenges view of ancient human development in East Asia

Researchers discovered a complete Quina technological system — a method for making a set of tools — in the Longtan site in southwest China, which has been dated to about 50,000 to 60,000 years ago. Quina technology was found in Europe decades ago but has never before been found in East Asia.

The team published its findings March 31 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“This is a big upset to the way we think about that part of the world in that period of time,” said Ben Marwick, co-author and UW professor of archaeology. “It really raises the question of, what else were people doing during this period that we haven’t found yet? How is this going to change how we think about people and human evolution in this area?”

The Middle Paleolithic, or Middle Stone Age, occurred about 300,000 to 40,000 years ago and is considered a crucial time in human evolution. The period is associated with the origin and evolution of modern humans in Africa. In Eurasia, it’s linked to the development of several archaic human groups such as Neanderthals and Denisovans. However, there is a widely held belief that development in China was sluggish during most of the Paleolithic.

The Quina system identified in China has been dated to 55,000 years ago, which is in the same period as European finds. This disputes the idea that the Middle Paleolithic was stagnant in the region and deepens the understanding of Homo sapiens, Denisovans and possibly other hominins.

The most distinctive part of the Quina system is the scraper — a stone tool that is typically thick and asymmetrical with a broad and sharp working edge that has clear signs of use and resharpening. Researchers found several of these, as well as the byproducts of their manufacture. Tiny scratches and chips on the tools indicate they were used for scraping and scratching bones, antlers or wood.

Marwick said the question now becomes: how did this toolkit arrive in East Asia? Researchers will work to determine whether there is a direct connection — people moving gradually from west to east — or if the technology was invented independently with no direct contact between groups.

It will help if researchers can find an archaeological site with a deep set of layers, Marwick said, so they can see what tools developed before the appearance of Quina technology.

“We can try to see if they were doing something similar beforehand that Quina seemed to evolve out of,” Marwick said. “Then we might say that development seems to be more local — they were experimenting with different forms in previous generations, and they finally perfected it. Alternatively, if Quina appears without any sign of experimentation, that suggests this was transmitted from another group.”

There are likely several reasons why Quina technology has just now been found in East Asia. One factor, Marwick said, is that archaeologists working in China are learning more about archaeology in other parts of the world and how to recognize their findings. He said the pace of research is also increasing, which means archaeologists are more likely to find rarer artifacts.

“The idea that nothing has changed for such a long time in East Asia also has a tight grip on people,” Marwick said. “They haven’t been considering the possibility of finding things that challenge that. Now maybe there are some scholars who are interested in questioning those ideas.”

Much of archaeological discovery relies on luck, Marwick said, but one goal for the future is to uncover human remains in the area.

“That could answer the question of whether these tools are the product of a modern human like you and me,” Marwick said. “There have never been any Neanderthals found in East Asia, but could we find a Neanderthal? Or, more likely, could we find a Denisovan, which is another kind of human ancestor? If we can find the human remains associated with this period, we might find something surprising — maybe even a new human ancestor that we don’t know about yet.”

Other co-authors were Qi-Jun Ruan, Hao L, Pei-Yuan Xiao, Ke-Liang Zhao, Zhen-Xiu Jia and Fa-Hu Chen of the Chinese Academy of Sciences; Bo Li of the University of Wollongong in Australia, Hélène Monod of the Universitat Rovira i Virgili in Spain; Alexander Sumner of DePaul University; Jian-Hui Liu of the Yunnan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology; Chun-Xin Wang and An-Chuan Fan of the University of Science and Technology of China; Marie-Hélène Moncel of the National Museum of Natural History in Paris; Marco Peresani and Davide Delpiano of the University of Ferrara in Italy; and You-Ping Wang of Peking University in Beijing.

The research was funded by the National Natural Sciences Foundation of China, the Open Research Fund of TPESER, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Australian Research Council and the University of Ferrara.