The Liujiang skeleton, consisting of a well preserved cranium and limited postcranial material, was discovered in a small cave at Tongtianyan in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region in 1958 by people collecting fertilizer (Wu 1959). Liujiang was initially described by Wu (1959), with Wu and Zhang (1985) providing additional comparative anatomical information. TheAiluropoda- Stegodon fauna found in association with Liujiang were interpreted as being of Middle Pleistocene age but the contemporaneity of the fauna and human skeletal remains have not been established. Wu (1959) did not support a Middle Pleistocene age for the human skeletal materials arguing that the morphology of the cranium suggested a more recent date. This is supported by morphological and metrical comparison with other East Asian crania, for instance Minatogawa 1 (Suzuki, 1982; Wu, 1992; Hanihara, 1994). More recently a Uranium series date of 67,000 +6000-5000 was reported for Liujiang (Wu 1988, 1990, 1992) which would make it the earliest example of modern Homo sapiens from the East Asian region. However, the stratigraphic relationship of the dated stalactite layer and the human skeletal materials can not be confirmed (Chen and Zhang 1991). At present it must be said that the Liujiang skeleton remains undated.
By both modern and Neolithic standards Liujiang has a long and low cranial vault, with an occipital bun, little obelionic flattening and no sagittal keel. The facial skeleton is short but relatively broad for its height. The superciliary ridges are moderately developed, with some depression of the root of the nose and low, rectangular orbits. Facial prognathism is greater than the average amongst modern and late Neolithic Chinese but is similar to the early Neolithic male average. The mastoid processes are extremely small, and along with the pelvic morphology makes me uncertain as to the male sex of Liujiang (Brown In Press). Both teeth and palate are moderate in size, with congenitally absent third molars, a small odontome in the center of the palate and a shovel shaped right lateral incisor.
There is nothing particularly East Asian about the facial skeleton of Liujiang. While the nasal bones are flattened, the nasal aperture is not very tall and the antero-lateral surfaces of the malars are not rotated forwards like in Chinese Neolithic and modern facial skeletons. Low, rectangular orbits are common in the Late Pleistocene and early Holocene throughout the world and this should be disregarded when determining East Asian affinity. Unlike Upper Cave 101 only limited statistical comparisons have been conducted with Liujiang. Both Suzuki (1982) and Wu (1992) place Liujiang closer to Minatogawa 1 than Upper Cave 101, with the former study also distinguishing Liujiang from modern East Asians.
A study of the endocast of Liujiang was under taken Wu XiuJie and colleagues in 2008. As the interior of the Liujiang's cranial vault has some adhering matrix, they used ct scan data to digitally remove the matrix and expose details of the endocranial surface. Not surprisingly, they found that endocast details of Lijiang were consistent with other modern humans, although a cranial capacity of 1567 cc was greater than the average of contemporary Chinese people. These authors still argue for a Pleistocene age for Liujiang, although in other places, the first author has suggested an early Holocene age is more likely.
XiuJie Wu, Wu Liu, Wei Dong, JieMin Que, YanFang Wang. 2008. The brain morphology of Homo Liujiang cranium fossil by three-dimensional computed tomography. Chinese Science Bulletin
Brown, P. 1998. The first Mongoloids: another look at Upper Cave 101, Liujiang and Minatogawa 1. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 17 (4):255-275.
Brown, P. In Press. Modern human origins in East Asia: a view from the late Pleistocene and Neolithic of China and Japan. In K. Omoto (ed.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Origins of the Japanese, pp. International Research Center for Japanese Studies, Kyoto.
Chen, T. and Zhang, Y. 1991. Palaeolithic chronology and possible coexistance of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens in China. World Archaeology 23:147-154.
Hanihara, T. 1994. Craniofacial continuity and discontinuity of Far Easterners in the Late Pleistocene and Holocene. Journal of Human Evolution 27: 417-441.
Suzuki, H. 1982. Skulls of the Minatogawa Man. In H. Suzuki and K. Hanihara, The Minatogawa Man, pp. 7-49. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo.
Wu, R. 1959. Human fossils found in Liukiang, Kwangsi, China. Gu Jizhuidongwu yu Gu Renlei 1:97-104.
Wu, X. 1988. The relationship between Upper Palaeolithic human fossils of China and Japan. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 7:235-238.
Wu, X. 1990. The evolution of humankind in China. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 9:312-322.
Wu, X. 1992. The origin and dispersal of anatomically modern humans in East and Southeast Asia. In T. Akazawa, K. Aoki and T. Kimura (eds) The evolution and dispersal of modern humans in Asia, 373-378. Hokusen-sha, Tokyo.
Wu, X. and Zhang, Z. 1985. Homo sapiens remains from Late Palaeolithic and Neolithic China. In R. Wu and J. W. Olsen, Palaeoanthropology and Palaeolithic Archaeology in the People's Republic of China, pp. 107-133. Academic Press, London.
Wu, X.-Z. 1992. The origin and dispersal of anatomically modern humans in East and Southeast Asia. In T. Akazawa, K. Aoki and T. Kimura (eds.), The evolution and dispersal of modern humans in Asia, pp. 373-378. Hokusen-sha, Tokyo.
Table 1. Comparative dimensions of Upper Cave 101, Liujiang and Minatogawa 1.
|Variable list||Upper Cave 101||Liujiang||Minatogawa|
|max. cranial breadth||144||143||147|