ZHOUKOUDIAN (Choukoutien):
UPPER CAVE (Shandingdong)
LOCATION
Two small intersecting solution cavities directly above
the Zhoukoudian Locality 1 site on the northern
slope of Longgu-Shan (“Chicken Bone Hill”) near
the village of Zhoukoudian (Choukoutien), some
42 km SW of Beijing, China.
DISCOVERY
Excavations (of Locality 1) directed by W. Pei, 1930
MATERIAL
Cranial and postcranial remains of several individu-
als, notably the “Old Man” skull (Upper Cave Skull
101), and the “Two Women” crania (Upper Cave
Skulls 102 and 103). These were also lost in 1941.
DATING AND STRATIGRAPHIC CONTEXT
The bulk of the Upper Cave deposits appear to be
fissure-fill; use of the site by humans apparently did not
occur until late in its history, and the majority of the
human remains found there, including the three
famous crania (101, 102, and 103) from Level 4, date
from this late time. Conventional radiocarbon dates of
about 19 Ka (for Level 5) and 11 Ka are thought more
or less to bracket the occupation period (Wu and
Zhang, 1985). More recent AMS dates run from 30 Ka
to 13 Ka (Hedges et al., 1988); however, the prove-
nance of the samples is not precisely recorded and, as
with TL and U-series dates from this site, it is probably
wise to treat them with caution (see discussion by
Kamminga, 1992). Culturally, Levels 1 and 2 (with at
least one burial) and Level 3 are closely similar to Level
4, and the artifacts support a relatively late date, proba-
bly around 11-12 Ka, for the ensemble.ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT
The Upper Cave appears to have been a burial rather
than an occupation site (Pei, 1934), and lithics (rather
nondescript) are few. Artifacts throughout Levels 1-4
are mostly items of personal adornment; they include
a necklace of invertebrate shells, fish vertebrae, and
carnivore teeth (Pei, 1939), and at least one large bone
needle.PREVIOUS DESCFUPTIONS AND ANALYSES
Rather remarkably, Weidenreich (1939) perceived
three “racial types” in the three modern Homo sapiens
crania from the Upper Cave: Ainu (101), Melanesian
(102), and “Eskimoid” (103). More recent scholars
have rejected this notion, preferring to see differences
between the crania as evidence of intrapopulation
variability (see discussion by Kamminga, 1992). Most
post-World War I1 discussion of these fossils, in the
absence, alas, of the originals, has focused on their po-
tential significance as evidence for regional continuity
in China between Middle Pleistocene and modern
populations (e.g., Coon, 1962; Wolpoff et al., 1984).
Both Kamminga and Wright (1988) and Howells
(1989) have, however, contested the notion of Mon-
goloid affinities for the 101 “Old Man” cranium (the576