@article {314695,
	title = {Evidence of Hominin Use and Maintenance of Fire at Zhoukoudian},
	journal = {Current Anthropology},
	volume = {58},
	year = {2017},
	note = {<p>doi: 10.1086/692501</p>
},
	month = {2017/08/01},
	pages = {S267 - S277},
	abstract = {<p>Evidence for "controlled use of fire"\&nbsp;by Homo erectus pekinensis at Zhoukoudian Locality 1 was initially discovered in the early 1930s and was widely accepted as the earliest such record in human evolutionary history for more than half a century. However, since the mid-1980s, this evidence has been questioned. Some of the questions were based on new research results, including geochemical and taphonomic studies conducted in the 1990s. Others are hypothetical and to some extent stem from a theoretical shift in ideas about early hominin subsistence capabilities, including hunting big game and using fire. Limited access to Chinese archaeological collections and literature, limited geological sampling, and postdepositional disturbance might all contribute to the results of these recent investigations. A thorough review of original field notes, excavation reports, and research papers leads to the conclusion that fossils, cultural materials, and traces of fire use in certain horizons at the site are abundant, unambiguous, and mutually supportive. New field investigations and laboratory analyses at Locality 1, ongoing since 2009, have yielded new evidence that indicates that Layer 4 contains clear-cut evidence for in situ use of fire. Future research may well reveal similar evidence for Layers 8?9 and 10, potentially resolving this ongoing debate comprehensively.Evidence for ?controlled use of fire? by Homo erectus pekinensis at Zhoukoudian Locality 1 was initially discovered in the early 1930s and was widely accepted as the earliest such record in human evolutionary history for more than half a century. However, since the mid-1980s, this evidence has been questioned. Some of the questions were based on new research results, including geochemical and taphonomic studies conducted in the 1990s. Others are hypothetical and to some extent stem from a theoretical shift in ideas about early hominin subsistence capabilities, including hunting big game and using fire. Limited access to Chinese archaeological collections and literature, limited geological sampling, and postdepositional disturbance might all contribute to the results of these recent investigations. A thorough review of original field notes, excavation reports, and research papers leads to the conclusion that fossils, cultural materials, and traces of fire use in certain horizons at the site are abundant, unambiguous, and mutually supportive. New field investigations and laboratory analyses at Locality 1, ongoing since 2009, have yielded new evidence that indicates that Layer 4 contains clear-cut evidence for in situ use of fire. Future research may well reveal similar evidence for Layers 8?9 and 10, potentially resolving this ongoing debate comprehensively.</p>
},
	isbn = {0011-3204},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1086/692501},
	url = {http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/692501},
	author = {Gao, Xing and Zhang, Shuangquan and Zhang, Yue and Chen, Fuyou}
}
