Li y Shen - Use-Wear Analysis Confirms the Use of Palaeolithic Bone Tools by The

8/13/2019 Li y Shen - Use-Wear Analysis Confirms the Use of Palaeolithic Bone Tools by The

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/li-y-shen-use-wear-analysis-confirms-the-use-of-palaeolithic-bone-tools-by 1/8

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010 csb.scichina.com www.springerlink.com

r c e

SPECIAL TOPICS:

Geology July 2010 Vol.55 No.21: 2282−2289

doi: 10.1007/s11434-010-3089-4

Use-wear analysis confirms the use of Palaeolithic bone tools by the

Lingjing Xuchang early human

LI ZhanYang1,4 & SHEN Chen2,3,4*

1 Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Zhengzhou 450000, China; 2 The Joint Laboratory of Human Evolution and Archaeometry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100044, China;3 The Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto ON M5S2C6, Canada; 4 Oriental Archaeology Research Center of Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China

Received July 6, 2009; accepted October 14, 2009

During 2007−2008 excavations at the Lingjing site near Xuchang, Henan Province, dated back to around 100−80 ka ago, a

large quantity of mammalian fossil remains were recovered along with a remarkable cluster of Early Modern Human (EMH)

skull fragments in situ. Observably some of those animal bones were probably modified into tools. A use-wear analysis was

carried out to examine the functions of modified bone tools. The results suggest that Lingjing bone tools were used for drilling,

penetrating, and scraping animal substances, and that some might have been hafted during the use. This study confirms that

early existence of intentionally-modified bone tools at human occupations of the early Late Pleistocene in northern China. This

discovery suggests making and use of bone tools were inevitably a part of early human behaviors and cultural development, as

such of stone tools.

Lingjing site, replica experiment, use-wear analysis, bone tools

Citation: Li Z Y, Shen C. Use-wear analysis confirms the use of Palaeolithic bone tools by the Lingjing Xuchang early human. Chinese Sci Bull, 2010, 55:

2282−2289, doi: 10.1007/s11434-010-3089-4

The Lingjing site near Xuchang, Henan Province, is one of

the greatest discoveries in Palaeolithic archaeology in recent

years. During the years 2005−2009, archaeologists from the

Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology

undertook continuously excavations at the site, recovering

more than 30000 stone artifacts and faunal remains (Figure

1). Most importantly, a cluster of Early Modern Human(EMH) skull fragments, which may belong to a single indi-

vidual, was unearthed in situ during the excavations in 2007

and 2008. Preliminary reports on the Lingjing stone artifacts

and faunal remains have been published elsewhere [1−3].

Based on the faunal analyses, Li and Dong [4] believe

that the mammalian assemblage at Lingjing is similar to that

at the Xujiayao site, indicating the site age should be of

early Late Pleistocene. According to the preliminary Optical

*Corresponding author (email: [email protected])

Spectrum Luminescence (OSL) dating, Zhou [5] estimates

the cultural deposit where the EMH skull fragments were

found in situ should be somewhere between 100 and 80 ka

ago.

The cultural deposit at Lingjing is primarily of lake

sediments, thus artifacts and faunal remains were probably

buried at a speedy accumulation, preserving fossils fromerosion to a great degree. Based on our preliminary obser-

vation, there is a total of 103 bone objects that were proba-

bly modified into bone tools [6]. According to the conven-

tional morphological typology, these objects were classified

into tool function categories such as scrapers, points, knives,

and burins. In order to verify the existence of Palaeolithic

bone tools at the Lingjing site, we applied the use-wear

analysis to a trial examination on the samples of these

modified bone objects. It is the first time that a microscopic

examination on bone objects is conducted for functional



LI ZhanYang, et al . Chinese Sci Bull July (2010) Vol.55 No.21 2283

Figure 1 Map showing the location of the Lingjing site.

study of Palaeolithic bone assemblages in China so far.

1 Research objectives and methods

Animal fossil is one of most common remains at archaeo-

logical remains; either complete specimens or fragmentary

pieces are somehow important archaeological records. Bone

artifacts were the products of human intentional modifica-

tion, products made into various types of tools to be used in

subsistent procurement and meat process in the Palaeolithic

age. Thus, not all bone objects were made intentionally as

tools; only those objects that were modified intentionally forcertain functional purposes by human beings can be identi-

fied as bone tools. Therefore, the first and foremost question

for this research is: did Xuchang early human purposefully

make and use bone tools at 100−80 ka BP?

Archaeological records from any parts of the world sug-

gest that early human utilized animal bones for survivals as

early as in the Early Palaeolithic [7]. Previous identification

of bone tools relies primarily on the morphological forms of

faunal remains, and functional assessments were inferred

based on the modified shapes [8]. However, modification of

animal bones occurred whenever taphonomic conditions,

natural erosion, and human/animal trampling were applied.

Clearly, modification and morphology of bone artifacts are

not the best indicator for bone tools’ manufacturing and

utilizations. In order to understand the formation of bone

breakage and distinguish human modification from natural

process of bone artifacts, we apply the use-wear study to

microscopically examining the bone artifacts recovered

from archaeological sites. With the aids of lower-power or

high-power microscopes, various wear types from bone

artifacts can be recognized based on the combinations, di-

rections, and distributions of striation, rounding, polishing,

and microfracture scarring [9].

The method of use-wear analysis was initiated by Rus-

sian archaeologist Semenov in the 1930s, then the techniquehad been widely applied to functional study of stone tools in

Europe and North America since the later 20th century

[10−14]. Clearly, the success of the use-wear study in the

field of lithic analyses led to its application in other areas

including bone analyses [15−21]. In the past two decades,

the use-wear study of bone artifacts has progressed dra-

matically in western academics; subsequently a number of

good case studies have been published [22−24].

Although a few exploring investigations on bone artifacts

have been carried out in China, some of which focused on

the reasons of bone breakage and surface modification

[25,26], application of use-wear analysis on bone artifacts toassessing human modification of bone tools has not yet be-

gun. Therefore, in this study, we set forth two objectives.

First, we apply the use-wear analysis to examinations of

different wears on bone artifacts recovered from the Ling-

jing site and to assessments of possible use functions of

bone tools. Second, we will try to understand the formation

of bone breakage and wearing and to further develop the

methodology for bone tool study.

2 Observations of experimental bones

The foundation of the use-wear analysis is replica experi-

ments [27]. The identification and recognition of bone

wears must be through the comparisons with wears develo-

ped on similar materials and with a similar process. Thus

the interpretations of bone functions should be validated

with experimental data.

Our experiments in this study have two parts. First, we

used a stone and a metal knife to work on bones, such as

chopping, scraping, and trampling, in order to observe the

formation of bone wear caused by different activities. Sec-

ond, we would utilize the bone tools on other materials, in

order to observe use-wear produced on bone objects through



2284 LI ZhanYang, et al . Chinese Sci Bull July (2010) Vol.55 No.21

application of tool motions.

2.1 Experimental process

The experimental specimens include six pieces of animal

bones (numbered EXP001−EXP006). All are parts of fresh

sheep scapula, but were stored in the deep freeze for three

days. The bones, when used, still have a sheet of meat with

fats. The modification process is observed as follows. Step

one, we utilized one dull stone pebble to scrape meat off the

two scapula (EXP001−EXP002). The process continued

until the meat was completely cleared off the bones, and

scraping wear was observed on the surface of the bone. Step

two, we used a middle-sized stone pebble to chop two

scapulas (EXP003−EXP004) in order to obtain bone frag-

ments that are suitable for bone tool making. Meanwhile the

scapula should remain chopping marks. Step three, both

remaining scapulas (EXP005−EXP006) were placed inside

a sandbox to rotate the samples continuously, intervened

with trampling, in order to observe such unpurposeful sur-

face modifications.

In the second part of the experiment, we selected two

objects from the above as bone tools. First, we utilized

EXP002 as a drilling tool to penetrate and bored the hide for

12 min. Subsequently, the side edge of the object was util-

ized to rubber the animal hide for additional 10 min. Second,

a similar process was applied on EXP003 tip and edges for

12 min, in order to compare the results.

2.2 Microscopic examination of experimental specimens

Modification wears of these experimental specimens can be

microscopically observed under 30−40× magnifications.

Clusters of paralleling lines were formed on EXP001 ob-

jects, on which scraping pressure was applied. Under

14−25× magnifications, polishing and fracture scars, which

resulted from chopping and scraping surface, appeared ob-

viously (Figure 2(a)). A series of middle-to-small-sized

scarring can be observed on specimen EXP003 under 14×

magnifications (Figure 2(b)). The tip of EXP002, which was

used for drilling hide, retained bright polish and heavy round-

ing. Similar wears also appeared on specimen EXP003 which

was utilized in the same drilling way. Interestingly noted, be-

cause EXP003 had less use time than that of EXP002, its wears

were displayed less obviously than the latter.

The use-wear experiment of bone objects enables us to dis-

tinguish human modification or use-wear of bone objects from

that of non-human, natural process production. This recogni-

tion has been verified by a number of experiments carried out

by western colleagues [22−24]. Apparently, the experimental

data provides us with a better understanding of human modifi-

cation and use-wear of Xuchang Lingjing bone tools.

3 Use-wear analysis of Lingjing bone tools and

results

3.1 Description of individual tools

The study collection in this research is bone artifacts that

are recovered from 2005 excavation at Lingjing (Figure 3),

and our use-wear analysis was carried out in April 2006, at

the Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Ar-

chaeology. The microscope we used at the time for the

on-site examination is Beijing Fukai stereoscopic micro-

scope with maximal magnification up to 40×. Due to the

limited time and the equipment, we randomly selected only

11 specimens based on their morphological shapes which

are assigned to the “bone tool” category in the original re-

port. The result confirms use-wear and human modificationof these bone tools at the site, along with identification of

other natural or non-human modification. We will first de-

scribe the nature of the use-wear and modification from the

use-wear analysis. In our descriptions, the orientation of the

object will be as follows: the out-surface is up towards the

observer, while the upper or lower parts of the objects will

be judged by the illustration shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2 Photomicrograph of experimental bone wears. (a) Specimen EXP002 displaying polish wear after scraping activities; (b) specimen EXP003

showing a series of middle-to-small sized fracture scarring after chopping.




Figure 3 Illustration of bone objects with indication of use-wears. The

solid line indicates the use-wear segment of the edge, while the dotted line

indicates human-intentional retouch/modification.

Specimen 5L442. The tip displays continuous scarring

characterized by middle-size, feathered- and hinged-termin-

ations, along with heavy rounding and bright polish. Stria-

tions appear in parallel vertically and horizontally, indica-

tive strongly of used wear. The middle section of the sur-

face also exhibits polish, which, however, might result from

weathering. On the left edge shows medium used rounding,

while right working edge retains natural appearance of no

human action. The large scars appearing at the upper part of

the bone could result from chopping activities. In summary,

we believe that the bone tool has two functions, one relating

to a downward cutting motion and another relating to sur-

face scraping. Two segments of the objects were utilized;

the left working edge and the tip, respectively.

Specimen 5L219. The surface of the object exhibits

weathering polish. The middle section of right edge has a

row of large scars with feathered-termination, within which

a cluster of small-sized scars were distributed closely. The

inner surfaces corresponding to the same location display

used polish and light rounding. If these wear can be con-

firmed at the higher magnification, this bone tool should beused for scraping soft substances.

Specimen 5L217. The typical use-wear identified in this

object is a series of striations in parallel as well as across on

the surface. Two tips at both the upper and bottom ends

display ambiguous use-wear. The use-wear of the upper tips

is characterized by a few of fracture scars and directional

striation. Such nature of use-wear points to a possible func-

tion of engraving (Figure 4). The tip at the bottom shows

snapped middle-sized scars, along with a few small scars

with directional features that resulted from rotation motions.

Polish also occurred on the same location. The combination

of these wear characteristics suggests that the lower tipmight have been used as a drilling tool.

Specimen 5L212. This specimen displays a complicate

use-wear combination. For the purpose of comparison, each

wear is described as follows: (1) The snapped scars on the

Figure 4 Use-wear of Specimen 5L217 bone tool. On the tip, heavy rounding, middle-sized snapped scars, with directional scars towards internal surface,

and polish.



2286 LI ZhanYang, et al . Chinese Sci Bull July (2010) Vol.55 No.21

tip resulted from active human use, with polish extending

towards internal surface. (2) The upper working edge dis-

plays a set of matt and bright used polish. (3) The right bot-

tom working edge has a series of middle-to-small scars with

feathered-termination, resulting from a purposefully retouch

by early human. (4) On the right side of the surface shows a

group of paralleling striation, resulting probably from the

initial bone-working process by scraping the bone. The

use-wear shown on Figure 5 is similar to the experimental

wear produced on EXP001. (5) The breakage of the bottom

is probably a result of human chopping action, but confir-

mation is needed from future high-power examination. (6)

Interestingly noted, on the middle of the surface there is a

bit of carnivore’s gnawing mark. In summary, this specimen

has been modified extensively with human and non-human

agencies. The primary function of this bone tool is of en-

graving action at the tip. The tool might have been working

on hard animal substances, leaving a trace of heavy round-

ing and polish.Specimen 5L224. The right edge shows medium round-

ing along with a series of small-sized scars on the edge. The

combined features are very similar to prehensile wear

(hafting) identified on stone tools [28]. In addition, the pol-

ish on the inner surface of the bone probably is also related

to hafting elements. A series of small-sized scars are also

distributed on the left edge, corresponding to those on the

right, indicative of hafting. All four ridges of the tip were

heavily rounded, while scars appeared there to be rotational,

suggesting that the bone tool was employed for drilling

(Figure 6). However, whether this bone drilling tool could

have been hafted for the utilization or not needs to be con-firmed in future study.

Figure 5 Use-wear of Specimen 5L212 bone tool. The surface was

cleaned at the initial stage of the bone process by stone tools, resulting in

groups of paralleling striation, similar to those produced by experiments

EXP001 (upper right).

Specimen 5L168. Microscopic examination does not

detect wears of human modification and used traces; how-

ever, heavy erosion weathering is displayed on the bonesurface, while the edge was broken off as a natural cause.

Figure 6 Use-wear of Specimen 5L224 bone tool. On the right showing the tip with use-wear of drilling, while the left bottom image suggests hafting wear

similar to those in stone tool experiments.




Specimen 5L213. The use-wear concentrates on the up-

per section of left edge, displaying bright polish, heavy

rounding, and a series of small-sized and featered-termin-

ation scars. The inner portion of the edge was also rounded

with a few striations paralleling with the edge, suggesting

the segment of the edge was probably used for slicing or

scraping. Presence of snapped scars at the edge also indi-

cates strong force used on tool motion, probably in dealing

with hard substances of worked materials. Possible hafting

wear is identified on the low part of right edge. In addition,

the marks of early stage surface cleaning, in order to pre-

pare for making the bone tool, are shown on the surface,

which is indicated by groups of paralleling scratches

(probably by stone tools). This used mark is verified by the

experimental data from EXP001.

Specimen 5L004. The retouch marks of human modifi-

cation in shaping the edge of the bone tool are clearly iden-

tified on the right side working edge. On the surface, there

are marks of cutting wear as well as carnivores’ gnawing.

Importantly, the tip was used as a drilling device, leaving

traces of heavy rounding with striations (Figure 7).

Specimen 5L004. The tip is the primary functional seg-

ment, evidenced by its heavy use rounding and small-sized

snap scars. The forces of tool motions used were so strong

as to form a crash edge on the right ridge of the tip.

Specimen 5L858. The tip was modified intentionally to

form a workable device. The use-wear exhibits heavy

rounding and polish. The back edge of the tip is formed

with clamped scarring consisting of large-sized and stepped-

termination scars, probably caused by penetration forces.

On the right are continuous small-sized feathered termina-

tion scars, along with short striation paralleling with the

working edge, which indicates a possible hafting use-wear

combination. In sum, this tool was intended to be made for

penetrating function. Whether the tool was hafted during the

use is also a subject for future research.

3.2 Functional interpretations

The microscopic analysis suggests that there are three

causes for the formation of surface modifications of bone

objects: physical cause (erosion and watering), biological

cause (gnawing and rooting), and human cause (manufac-

turing and use). The result of our use-wear analysis con-

firms that early human at the Lingjing site had intentions to

make and use bone tools on purpose. Among the 11 samples

selected for the microscopic examination, eight objects ex-

hibit positive use-wear evidence, accounting for 73%. One

object has clear manufacturing marks, but no use-wear. Two

samples show no human modification at all.

Within the used bone tools, two were employed for cut-

ting, one for scraping, two for engraving, and one for pene-

trating. Three tools exhibit wears of the initial stage of bone

surface cleaning for preparing tool manufacturing. Accord-

ing to the combination of use-wear data, the worked materi-

als of these used tools ranged from soft, medium, to hard

Figure 7 Use-wear of Specimen 5L004 bone tool. The tip showing heavy rounding and directional scaring, with matt polish, and used as drilling tool.




tional Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, 1996

13 Shen C, Chen C. Use-wear analysis (Low Power Method): Research

and practice, and a use-wear examination of the Xiaochangliang

Lithic artefacts (in Chinese). Archaeology, 2001, 7: 62−73

14 Shen C．The Lithic Production System of the Princess Point Complex

during theTransition to Agriculture in Southwestern Ontario, Canada.

BAR International Series 991, 2001. 45−53

15 St-Pierre C G, Walker R B. Bones as Tools: Current Methods andInterpretations in Worked Bone Studies. Oxford: BAR International

Series 1622. 2007

16 Newcomer M. Study and replication of bone tools from Ksar Akil

(Liban). World Archaeol, 1974, 6: 138−153

17 Olsen S L. Identification of stone and metal tool marks on bone arti-

facts. In: Olsen S L, ed. Scanning Electron Microscopy in Archae-

ology. Oxford: BAR International Series 452, 1988. 337−360

18 Olsen S L. Introduction: Applications of scanning electron micros-

copy to archaeology. In: Olsen S L, ed. Scanning Electron Micros-

copy in Archaeology. Oxford: BAR International Series 452, 1988.

3−7

19 Runnings A L, Bentley D, Gustafson C E. Use-wear on bone tools: A

technique for study under the scanning electron microscope. In: Bon-

nichsen R, Sorg M, eds. Bone Modification. Orono: Center for the

Study of the First Americans, Institute for Quaternary Studies, Uni-versity of Maine, 1989. 259−266

20 Shipman P, Rose J J. Bone tools: An experimental approach. In: Ol-

sen S L, ed. Scanning Electron Microscopy in Archaeology. Oxford:

BAR International Series 452, 1988. 303−335

21 Campana D V. The manufacture of bone tools in the Zagros and the

Levant. MASCA J, 1987, 4: 110−123

22 Legrand A, Sidera I. Methods, means, and results when studying

European bone industries. In: St-Pierre C G, Walker R B, eds. Bones

as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Stud-

ies. Oxford: BAR International Series 1622, 2007. 67−80

23 St-Pierre C G. Bone awls of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians: a mi-

crowear analysis. In: St-Pierre C G, Walker R B, eds. Bones as Tools:

Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. Ox-

ford: BAR International Series 1622, 2007. 107−118

24 Buc N, Loponte D. Bone tool types and microwear patterns: some

examples from the Pampa Region, South America. In: St-Pierre C G,

Walker R B, eds. Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpreta-tions in Worked Bone Studies. Oxford: BAR International Series

1622, 2007. 143−158

25 Zhang Y. A Zooarchaeological study of bone assemblage from the

Ma’anshan Site and the interpretations of hominid behaviours (in

Chinese). Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Beijing: Institute of

Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, the Chinese Acad-

emy of Sciences, 2008

26 Zhang S Q. Taphonomic study of the faunal remains from the Ling-

jing Site, Xuchang, Henan Province (in Chinese). Dissertation for the

Doctoral Degree. Beijing: Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and

Paleoanthropology, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2009

27 Gao X, Shen C. Archaeological Study of Lithic Use-wear Experi-

ments (in Chinese). Beijing: Science Press, 2008

28 Zhao J F, Song Y H, Chen H, et al. An experimental study of hafting

use-wear (in Chinese). In: Gao X, Shen C, eds. Archaeological Studyof Lithic Use-wear Experiments. Beijing: Science Press, 2008.

145−176

29 Lü Z W, Huang Y P. The carnivore tooth marks and the marrow

yielding percussion marks (in Chinese). In: Archaeology Department

of Peking University, ed. Proceedings of the 30 Anniversary of the

Archaeology Department, Peking University. Beijing: Cultural Reli-

cas Press, 1993. 4−39

30 Long F X. Analysis of bone fragments from Ma’anshan site, Guizhou

(in Chinese). Acta Anthropol Sin, 1992, 3: 217−229

Li y Shen - Use-Wear Analysis Confirms the Use of Palaeolithic Bone Tools by The

Documents

Transcript of Li y Shen - Use-Wear Analysis Confirms the Use of Palaeolithic Bone Tools by The