Further Evidence of Organic Soft Hammer Percussion and Pressure Retouch from Lingjing (Xuchang, Henan, China)

Abstract

Opinions on the nature and distinctiveness of the Chinese Paleolithic differ between those who assign early Late Pleistocene lithic technologies to some peculiar facies of the Middle Paleolithic, and those who interpret them as reflecting the persistence of essentially Lower Paleolithic traditions. The absence of Levallois debitage and organic soft hammers are often used as arguments, amongst others, in favor of the second hypothesis. Here, we report new supporting data for the use of bone retouchers and pressure flakers in knapping activities. The specimens were found at the Lingjing site, Xuchang County, Henan, in a layer dated between 105 and 125 ka. This discovery emphasizes the importance of combining evidence from a variety of aspects of material culture, including anthropogenically modified faunal remains, in order to accurately define Chinese Paleolithic technological traditions.

A Paleolithic bird figurine from the Lingjing site, Henan, China

“…They bear a mosaic of morphological features interpreted as indicating both regional continuity and interregional population dynamics [33,36]. Analysis of faunal remains from layer 11 identified the earliest known evidence for pressure flaking [37], the first bone retouchers from East Asia [38], and the use of metapodials as organic soft hammer for marrow extraction [39]. Two weathered bone fragments bearing parallel engraved lines and traces of ocher were also found in this layer [15].…”

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

“…When osseous technology is concerned, and leaving aside bone retouchers, which have received much attention (e.g., Verna and d'Errico, 2011;Mallye et al, 2012;Moncel et al, 2012;Mozota Holgueras, 2012;Blasco et al, 2013;Moigne et al, 2016;Costamagno et al, 2018;Daujeard et al, 2018;Doyon et al, 2018;Hutson et al, 2018a;Doyon et al, 2019;Pérez et al, 2019 and references therein), the identification of expedient bone tools still heavily relies on the presence of use wear associated with flaking scars (Hardy et al, 2014;Julien et al, 2015;Baumann et al, 2020;Kozlikin et al, 2020), accidental fracture and crushing of the working edges and surfaces (Burke and d'Errico, 2008;Tartar, 2012;van Kolfschoten et al, 2015;Hutson et al, 2018b), or a combination of these factors (Backwell and d'Errico, 2001, 2008Stammers et al, 2018). Faunal remains bearing only flake scars, however, have been somewhat overlooked.…”

“…In decreasing order, the herbivores also include Coelodonta antiquitanis, Sus lyddekeri, Cervus elaphus, Procapra przewalskii, Cervus (Sika) sp.. Other taxa, e.g., Palaeoloxodon sp., Dicerorhinus mercki, Hydropotes pleistocenica, Elaphurus davidianus, and Sinomegaceros ordosianus, are present but in very small proportions, i.e., usually less than five elements per species (van Kolfschoten et al, 2020). Modifications by carnivore, e.g., pits and scores as well as surface etching owing to digestion, were seldom observed on the faunal remains (<1%), which suggests they played a limited role in the accumulation of the assemblage (Zhang et al, 2009(Zhang et al, , 2011a(Zhang et al, , 2011b(Zhang et al, , 2012Doyon et al, 2018Doyon et al, , 2019. The main anthropogenic modifications recorded on the faunal remains consist of cut marks generated during butchery activities, and percussion scars likely resulting from the breaking of diaphysis to extract bone marrow.…”

“…Perhaps the most documented amongst this tool category are bone hammers and retouchers, i.e., knapping implements respectively used to remove flakes from lithic cores and to retouch the edges of stone tools. The earliest known instances of these tool types date back to 2.1-1.5 Myr at Olduvai Gorge, Africa (Backwell and d'Errico, 2004), to MIS18 (Marine Isotopic Stage) at Gesher Benot Ya'aqov in the Levant (Goren-Inbar, 2011), MIS13 at Boxgrove in Europe (Smith, 2013) and MIS5 at Lingjing in East Asia (Doyon et al, 2018(Doyon et al, , 2019. From MIS9, bone retouchers become an integral part of the cultural repertoire of Neanderthals (Moncel et al, 2012;Blasco et al, 2013;Daujeard et al, 2014Daujeard et al, , 2018Moigne et al, 2016) and reach during MIS5 a high degree of standardization (Verna and d'Errico, 2011;Costamagno et al, 2018;Daujeard et al, 2018).…”

Engraved bones from the archaic hominin site of Lingjing, Henan Province

“…The lithic assemblage from layer 11 comprises mostly quartz and quartzite artefacts. The presence of cores, flakes, formal tools and debris, plus the identification of use wear on some artefacts (Li 2007; Li et al 2019), of bone retouchers, organic soft hammer and pressure flakers (Doyon et al 2018, 2019), suggest that knapping activities, including tool manufacture and use, occurred at the site. The two engraved bone fragments described in this study also derive from layer 11.…”