Advertisement

Science China Earth Sciences

, Volume 62, Issue 2, pp 403–411 | Cite as

The first ground tooth artifact in Upper Palaeolithic China

  • Yue ZhangEmail author
  • Shuangquan Zhang
  • Xing Gao
  • Fuyou Chen
Research Paper
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

Scholars have long recognized the importance of organic artifacts to an improved understanding of the economic and social behavior of Palaeolithic hominins. However, in contrast to archaeological studies in other parts of the world, osseous industries from China have received only limited attention. As one of the first steps aiming at tipping this balance, the current paper examines, therefore, a shaped boar tusk—one particular element of hunter-gatherers’ tool kit at Shuidonggou Locality 12 (SDG12). Morphological and metrical comparisons of the tusk with both paleontological specimens and bone artifacts from the same site demonstrate that wear pattern on one of the dentin surfaces of the tooth is not significant different from occlusal attritions in living animals, while linear striations on the other dentin facet are most probably artificial grinding marks formed by prehistoric toolmakers in attempts to manufacture a scraper. The tusk specimen from SDG12 represents the first evidence of a ground tooth in Upper Palaeolithic China. The current study indicates that hominins in Shuidonggou area had achieved a deepened understanding of physical properties of osseous material available in environs and ultimately broadened their range of raw material selection by adding a particular element to the inventory of subsistence tools.

Keywords

Upper Palaeolithic Osseous artifacts Boar tusk Grinding Splitting Shuidonggou 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 41772025), the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. XDB26000000) and the Sino-French Cai Yuanpei Program (Grant No. 36707NF).

References

  1. Aplin K, O’Connor S, Bulbeck D, Piper P J, Marwick B, St Pierre E, Aziz F. 2016. The Walandawe tradition from Southeast Sulawesi and osseous artifact traditions in Island Southeast Asia. In: Delson E, Sargis J E, eds. Osseous Projectile Weaponry—Towards an Understanding of Pleistocene Cultural Variability. Dordrecht: Springer. 189–208Google Scholar
  2. Backwell L, d'Errico F. 2014. Bone tools, Paleolithic. In: Smith C, ed. Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. New York: Springer. 950–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Backwell L, d'Errico F, Wadley L. 2008. Middle stone age bone tools from the Howiesons poort layers, Sibudu Cave, South Africa. J Archaeol Sci, 35: 1566–1580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behrensmeyer A K, Gordon K D, Yanagi G T. 1986. Trampling as a cause of bone surface damage and pseudo-cutmarks. Nature, 319: 768–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackwood B. 1950. The Technology of a Modern Stone Age People in New Guinea. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 60Google Scholar
  6. Boule M, Breuil H, Licent E, Teilhardd C. 1928. Le Paléolithique de la Chine. Paris: Masson & Cie. 139Google Scholar
  7. Bradfield J. 2010. The evolution of bone points as hunting weapons in South Africa. Masters Dissertation. Johannesburg: University of the WitwatersrandGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradfield J. 2012. Macrofractures on bone-tipped arrows: Analysis of hunter-gatherer arrows in the Fourie collection from Namibia. Antiquity, 86: 1179–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bradfield J, Brand T. 2013. Results of utilitarian and accidental breakage experiments on bone points. Archaeol Anthropol Sci, 7: 27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bradfield J, Lombard M. 2011. A macrofracture study of bone points used in experimental hunting with reference to the South African Middle Stone Age. South Afr Archaeol Bull, 66: 67–76Google Scholar
  11. Brain C K. 1981. The Hunters or the Hunted? An Introduction to African Cave Taphonomy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 384Google Scholar
  12. Buc N. 2011. Experimental series and use-wear in bone tools. J Archaeol Sci, 38: 546–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Byrd J C. 2011. Archaic bone tools in the St. Johns River Basin, Florida: Microwear and manufacture Traces. Masters Dissertation. Florida: Florida State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  14. Cain C. 2006. Human activity suggested by the taphonomy of 60 ka and 50 ka faunal remains from Sibudu Cave. South Afr Humanit, 18: 241–260Google Scholar
  15. Choyke M A. 2006. Shadows of Daily Life and Death. Savaria, 30: 93–105Google Scholar
  16. Christidou R, Legrand A. 2005. Hide working and bone tools: Experimentation design and applications. In: Heidi L, Choyke M A, Collen E B, Lembi L, eds. From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth, Manufacture and Use of Bone Artifacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present: Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group. Tallin: Muinasaja Teadus. 385–396Google Scholar
  17. d'Errico F, Backwell L, Villa P, Degano I, Lucejko J J, Bamford M K, Higham T F G, Perla Colombini M, Beaumont P B. 2012. Early evidence of San material culture represented by organic artifacts from Border Cave, South Africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 109: 13214–13219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. d'Errico F, Henshilwood C S. 2007. Additional evidence for bone technology in the southern African middle stone age. J Human Evol, 52: 142–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. d'Errico F, Julien M, Liolios D, Vanhaeren M, Baffier D. 2003. Many awls in our argument. Bone tool manufacture and use in the Châtelperronian and Aurignacian levels of the Grotte du Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure. In: Zilhao J, d'Errico F, eds. The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Technocomplexes: Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications: Proceedings of Symposium 6.1 of the XIVth Congress of the UISPP. Lisbon: Instituto Portugués de Arqueología. 247–270Google Scholar
  20. Dart R A. 1949. The predatory implemental technique of Australopithecus. Am J Phys Anthropol, 7: 1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dart R A. 1957. The Osteodontokeratic Culture of Australopithecus prometheus. Transvaal Museum Memoir (Vol. 10). Pretoria: Transvaal Museum. 105Google Scholar
  22. Fisher Jr. J W. 1995. Bone surface modifications in zooarchaeology. J Archaeol Method Theor, 2: 7–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gál E. 2011. Prehistoric antler-and bone tools from Kaposújlak-Várdomb (South-Western Hungary) with special regard to the Early Bronze Age implements. In: Justyna B, Bernadeta K D, eds. Written in Bones. Studies on Technological and Social Contexts of Past Faunal Skeletal Remains. Wroclaw: University of Wroclaw. 137–164Google Scholar
  24. Gao X, Wang H, Pei S, Chen F. 2013. Shuidonggou-Excavation and Research (2003–2007) Report. Beijing: Science Press. 377Google Scholar
  25. Gao X, Wang H M, Liu D C, Pei S W, Chen F Y, Zhang X L, Zhang Y. 2009. A study of fire use activities at Shuidonggou Locality 12. Acta Anthropol Sin, 28: 329–336Google Scholar
  26. Gates Saint-Pierre C, Walker R B. 2007. Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. British Archaeological Reports International Series (Vol. 1622). Oxford: Archaeopress. 182Google Scholar
  27. Gaudzinski S. 1996. On bovid assemblages and their consequences for the knowledge of subsistence patterns in the Middle Palaeolithic. Proc Prehist Soc, 62: 19–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Griffitts J L. 2006. Bone tools and technological choice: Change and stability on the Northern Plains. Doctoral Dissertation. Arizona: University of ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  29. Harrisson T, Lord M. 1962. A first classification of prehistoric bone and tooth artifacts based on material from Niah Great Cave. Asian Persp, 6: 219–229Google Scholar
  30. Heider K G. 1970. The Dugum Dani: A Papuan Culture in the Highlands of West New Guinea. New York: Transaction Publishers. 335Google Scholar
  31. Henshilwood C S, d'Errico F, Marean C W, Milo R G, Yates R. 2001. An early bone tool industry from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa: Implications for the origins of modern human behaviour, symbolism and language. J Human Evol, 41: 631–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Higham T F G, Barton H, Turney C S M, Barker G, Ramsey C B, Brock F. 2009. Radiocarbon dating of charcoal from tropical sequences: Results from the Niah Great Cave, Sarawak, and their broader implications. J Quat Sci, 24: 189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hillson S. 2005. Teeth. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jamieson J B. 2016. Bone, Antler, Tooth and Shell: A Study in Iroquoian Technology. Doctoral Dissertation. Quebec: McGill UniversityGoogle Scholar
  35. Klein R G. 2009. The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Konjevic D, Kierdorf U, Manojlovic L, Severin K, Janicki Z, Slavica A, Reindl B, Pivac I. 2006. The spectrum of tusk pathology in wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) from Croatia. Veterinarski Arhiv, 76: 91–101Google Scholar
  37. Legrand A, Radi G. 2008. Manufacture and use of bone points from Early Neolithic Colle Santo Stefano, Abruzzo, Italy. J Field Archaeol, 33: 305–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Legrand A, Sidéra I. 2007. Methods, means and results when studying European bone industries. In: Gates St-Pierre C, Walker R, eds. Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1622. Oxford: Archaeopress. 291–304Google Scholar
  39. LeMoine G M. 1994. Use wear on bone and antler tools from the Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories. Am Antiquity, 59: 316–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Licent E, Teilhard de Chardin P. 1925. Le Paleolithique de la Chine. L' Anthropologie. 201–234Google Scholar
  41. Liu D C, Chen F Y, Zhang X L, Pei S W, Gao X, Xia Z K. 2008. Preliminary comments on the paleoenvironment of the Shuidonggou Locality 12. Acta Anthropol Sin, 27: 295–303Google Scholar
  42. Luik H, Ots M, Maldre L. 2011. From the neolithic to the Bronze Age: Continuity and changes of bone artefacts in Saaremaa, Estonia. In: Justyna B, Bernadeta K D, eds. Written in Bones. Studies on Technological and Social Contexts of Past Faunal Skeletal Remains. Wroclaw: University of Wroclaw. 243–261Google Scholar
  43. Lyman R L. 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Maigrot Y. 2001. Technical and functional study of ethnographic (Irian Jaya, Indonesia) and archaeological (Chalain and Clairvaux, Jura, France, 30th century b.c.) tools made from boar's tusks. In: Beyries S, Pétrequin P, eds. Ethnoarchaeology and Its Transfers: Papers from a Session Held at the European Association of Archaeologists Fifth Annual Meeting. Oxford: Archaeopress. 67–79Google Scholar
  45. Maigrot Y. 2005. Ivory, bone and antler tools production system sar Chalain 4 (Jura, France): Late Neolithic site, 3rd millenium. In: Luik H, Choyke A M, Batey C E, Lougas L, eds. From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth. Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present. Tallinn: Üniversity of Tartu. 113–126Google Scholar
  46. Marquebielle B. 2011. Mesolithic bone tools in Southwestern Europe: The example of the French site of “Le Cuzoul de Gramat. In: Justyna B, Bernadeta K D, eds. Written in Bones. Studies on Technological and Social Contexts of Past Faunal Skeletal Remains. Wroclaw: University of Wroclaw. 63–78Google Scholar
  47. Mayer J J, Brisbin I L. 1988. Sex Identification of Sus scrofa Based on Canine Morphology. J Mammal, 69: 408–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Milisauskas S. 2011. European Prehistory. A Survey. 2nd ed. New York: Springer. 492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Miller-Antonio S, Schepartz L A, Bakken D. 1999. Raw material selection and evidence for rhinoceros tooth tools at Dadong Cave, southern China. Antiquity, 74: 372–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nikolskiy P, Pitulko V. 2013. Evidence from the Yana Palaeolithic site, Arctic Siberia, yields clues to the riddle of mammoth hunting. J Archaeol Sci, 40: 4189–4197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Oleniuc F, Luminita B. 2011. Preliminary data concerning the manufacturing of animal raw materials in the Chalcolithic Cucuteni B settlement of Poduri-Dealul Ghindaru, Romania. In: Justyna B, Bernadeta K D, eds. Written in Bones. Studies on Technological and Social Contexts of Past Faunal Skeletal Remains. Wroclaw: University of Wroclaw. 263–272Google Scholar
  52. Pei S W, Gao X, Wang H M, Kuman K, Bae C J, Chen F Y, Guan Y, Zhang Y, Zhang X L, Peng F, Li X L. 2012. The Shuidonggou site complex: New excavations and implications for the earliest Late Paleolithic in North China. J Archaeol Sci, 39: 3610–3626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rabett R J. 2005. The early exploitation of southeast asian mangroves: Bone technology from caves and open sites. Asian Perspectives, 44: 154–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rabett R J. 2004. The ones that come ready made: The identification and use of Sus tusks as tools at prehistoric cave sites in Malaysia. Archaeofauna, 13: 131–143Google Scholar
  55. Rabett R J, Piper P J. 2012. The emergence of bone technologies at the end of the Pleistocene in Southeast Asia: Regional and evolutionary implications. CAJ, 22: 37–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rozoy J G. 1978. Les derniers chasseurs-L'Epipaléolithique en France et en Belgique: Essai de synthèse. Bulletin de la société archéologique champenoise (Vol. 1). Charleville: Chez l'auteur. 1256Google Scholar
  57. Schepartz L A, Miller-Antonio S. 2010. Taphonomy, life history, and human exploitation of Rhinoceros sinensis at the Middle Pleistocene site of Panxian Dadong, Guizhou, China. Int J Osteoarchaeol, 20: 253–268Google Scholar
  58. Schepartz L A, Stoutamire S, Bekken D A. 2005. Stegodon orientalis from Panxian Dadong, a Middle Pleistocene archaeological site in Guizhou, South China: Taphonomy, population structure and evidence for human interactions. Quat Int, 126-128: 271–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shipman P, Rose J. 1983. Early hominid hunting, butchering, and carcassprocessing behaviors: Approaches to the fossil record. J Anthropol Archaeol, 2: 57–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Villa P, d'Errico F. 2001. Bone and ivory points in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe. J Human Evol, 41: 69–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Washburn S S. 1957. Australopithecus: Hunters of the hunted? Amer Anthrop, 59: 612–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. White R. 1993. The dawn of adornment. Nat Hist, 102: 60–67Google Scholar
  63. White R. 1997. Substantial acts: From materials to meaning in Upper Paleolithic representation. In: Conkey M, Soffer O, Stratmann D, Jablonski N G, eds. Beyond Art: Pleistocene Image and Symbol. San Francisco: University of California Press. 93–121Google Scholar
  64. White T D, White T. 1992. Prehistoric Cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 461Google Scholar
  65. Williams F E. 1930. Orokaiva Society. London: Oxford University Press. 355Google Scholar
  66. Wolberg D L. 1970. The hypothesized Osteodontokeratic culture of the Australopithecinae: A look at the evidence and the opinions. Curr Anthropol, 11: 23–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yi M, Gao X, Li F, Chen F. 2016. Rethinking the origin of microblade technology: A chronological and ecological perspective. Quat Int, 400: 130–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yi M J, Barton L, Morgan C, Liu D C, Chen F Y, Zhang Y, Pei S W, Guan Y, Wang H M, Gao X. 2013. Microblade technology and the rise of serial specialists in north-central China. J Anthropol Archaeol, 32: 212–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zhang S, Doyon L, Zhang Y, Gao X, Chen F, Guan Y, Francesco d'Errico Y. 2018. Innovation in bone technology and artefact types in the late Upper Palaeolithic of China: Insights from Shuidonggou Locality 12. J Archaeol Sci, 93: 82–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zhang Y, Gao X, Pei S, Chen F, Niu D, Xu X, Zhang S, Wang H. 2016. The bone needles from Shuidonggou locality 12 and implications for human subsistence behaviors in North China. Quat Int, 400: 149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zhang Y, Stiner M C, Dennell R, Wang C, Zhang S, Gao X. 2010. Zooarchaeological perspectives on the Chinese Early and Late Paleolithic from the Ma’anshan site (Guizhou, South China). J Archaeol Sci, 37: 2066–2077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zhang Y, Zhang S Q, Xu X, Liu D C, Wang C X, Pei S W, Wang H M, Gao X. 2013. Zooarchaeological perspective on the Broad Spectrum Revolution in the Pleistocene-Holocene transitional period, with evidence from Shuidonggou Locality 12, China. Sci China Earth Sci, 56: 1487–1492CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yue Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Shuangquan Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Xing Gao
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Fuyou Chen
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and PaleoanthropologyChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.CAS Center for Excellence in Life and PaleoenvironmentBeijingChina
  3. 3.University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations