A 115,000-year-old expedient bone technology at Lingjing, Henan, China

Abstract

Activities attested since at least 2.6 Myr, such as stone knapping, marrow extraction, and woodworking may have allowed early hominins to recognize the technological potential of discarded skeletal remains and equipped them with a transferable skillset fit for the marginal modification and utilization of bone flakes. Identifying precisely when and where expedient bone tools were used in prehistory nonetheless remains a challenging task owing to the multiple natural and anthropogenic processes that can mimic deliberately knapped bones. Here, we compare a large sample of the faunal remains from Lingjing, a 115 ka-old site from China which has yielded important hominin remains and rich faunal and lithic assemblages, with bone fragments produced by experimentally fracturing Equus caballus long bones. Our results provide a set of qualitative and quantitative criteria that can help zooarchaeologists and bone technologists distinguish faunal remains with intentional flake removal scars from those resulting from carcass processing activities. Experimental data shows marrow extraction seldom generates diaphyseal fragments bearing more than six flake scars arranged contiguously or in interspersed series. Long bone fragments presenting such characteristics can, therefore, be interpreted as being purposefully knapped to be used as expediency tools. The identification, based on the above experimental criteria, of 56 bone tools in the Lingjing faunal assemblage is consistent with the smaller size of the lithics found in the same layer. The continuity gradient observed in the size of lithics and knapped bones suggests the latter were used for tasks in which the former were less or not effective.

Animals for Tools: The Origin and Development of Bone Technologies in China

“…Therefore, future studies should be articulated along two main axes. First, more experimental programs must be implemented to test the criteria suggested to recognize intentionally modified osseous fragments (e.g., Backwell and d'Errico, 2004;Doyon et al, 2021). Such criteria would allow zooarchaeologists and taphonomists to quickly identify faunal remains that should be subjected to a thorough technological analysis.…”

“…Likewise, when comparing the dimension of the stone tools and the bone fragments with flake removal scars interpreted as expedient tools, a morphometric continuum is demonstrated, which appears to indicate a functional complementarity between the two aspects of material culture. Given the site function, it was hypothesized these bone tools may have been used in butchery and carcass processing activities (Doyon et al, 2021). Collectively, the results from Lingjing suggest we are in presence of a longlasting tradition.…”

“…Furthermore, two large mammal rib bone fragments bearing a pattern consisting of sequential linear incisions-one of them preserves remnants of ochre residues between and within the lines on its surface-suggest the visitors at the site may have intended to permanently record information on these remains or express some form of symbolic behaviors while producing the patterns (Li et al, 2019). During the 2005-2018 excavations of layer 11, some osseous fragments were isolated owing to the multiple flake removal scars they bear and, in some cases, the presence of an unusual polish Shen, 2010, 2011;Doyon et al, 2021). Experimentation in fracturing horse long bones for marrow extraction evidenced this activity could not account for the number and relative position of the flake removal scars observed on many archaeological specimens.…”

“…Experimentation in fracturing horse long bones for marrow extraction evidenced this activity could not account for the number and relative position of the flake removal scars observed on many archaeological specimens. It was therefore suggested that a sub-sample of 56 items were deliberately modified and could be interpreted as expedient bone tools (Doyon et al, 2021). Finally, morphometric comparison of these tools yielded surprising results.…”

Taphonomic and technological analyses of Lower Palaeolithic bone tools from Clacton-on-Sea, UK

“…Although the oldest bone tools are found at Olduvai 9 , 10 as early as 2.1 million years ago (Ma) and slightly later between 1 and 2 Ma at sites in southern Africa 11 – 13 , it isn’t until the later part of the Middle Pleistocene that bone tools become more widespread with examples from sites in the Near East and Europe. Recent studies 14 – 25 have shown that Middle Pleistocene hominins used a variety of antler and bone implements as hammers and anvils to shape and re-sharpen flint tools. The adoption of soft hammers is a significant technological advance that allowed greater precision and refinement in lithic tool production usually associated with later Acheulean handaxes (Mode 2) and Levallois and Mousterian flake tools (Mode 3).…”