PCI Archaeology

Title *

A 115,000-year-old expedient bone technology at Lingjing, Henan, Chinause asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Luc Doyon, Zhanyang Li, Hua Wang, Lila Geis, Francesco d’ErricoPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2021

Picture *

Abstract *

<p>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.</p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@archaeo.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw data are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint. *

https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/68xpzYou should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@archaeo.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw scripts are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint. *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@archaeo.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw codes are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint. *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

Taphonomy, early Late Pleistocene, Bone Tools, Experimental Archaeology, Cultural evolution

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Asia, Middle Palaeolithic, Osseous industry, Taphonomy, Zooarchaeology

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCIArchaeology. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

Submission date

2020-11-01 11:09:13

Recommender

Camille Daujeard

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a preprint