Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-w9nzq Total loading time: 0.591 Render date: 2021-07-30T08:12:55.746Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2019

Zhanyang Li
Affiliation:
Institute of Cultural Heritage, Shandong University, 27 Shanda Nanlu, Hongjialou District, Jinan 250100, P.R. China Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, 93rd Street North, LongHai Road, Guancheng District, Zhenzhou 450000, P.R. China
Luc Doyon
Affiliation:
Institute of Cultural Heritage, Shandong University, 27 Shanda Nanlu, Hongjialou District, Jinan 250100, P.R. China Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, UMR 5199—PACEA, Université de Bordeaux, Bâtiment B2, Allée Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, CS 50023, 33615 Pessac CEDEX, France
Hao Li
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 142 Xizhimenwai Street, Xicheng District, Beijing 100044, P.R. China CAS Center for Excellence in Life and Paleoenvironment, 142 Xizhimenwai Street, Xicheng District, Beijing 100044, P.R. China
Qiang Wang
Affiliation:
Institute of Cultural Heritage, Shandong University, 27 Shanda Nanlu, Hongjialou District, Jinan 250100, P.R. China
Zhongqiang Zhang
Affiliation:
Institute of Cultural Heritage, Shandong University, 27 Shanda Nanlu, Hongjialou District, Jinan 250100, P.R. China
Qingpo Zhao
Affiliation:
Institute of Cultural Heritage, Shandong University, 27 Shanda Nanlu, Hongjialou District, Jinan 250100, P.R. China Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, 93rd Street North, LongHai Road, Guancheng District, Zhenzhou 450000, P.R. China
Francesco d'Errico
Affiliation:
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, UMR 5199—PACEA, Université de Bordeaux, Bâtiment B2, Allée Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, CS 50023, 33615 Pessac CEDEX, France SFF Centre for Early Sapiens Behaviour (SapienCE), University of Bergen, Øysteinsgate 3, Postboks 7805, 5020, Bergen, Norway
Corresponding
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The production of abstract engravings is considered an indicator of modern human cognition and a means for the long-term recording and transmission of information. This article reports the discovery of two engraved bones from the Lingjing site in Henan Province, China, dated to 105–125 kya. The carefully engraved nature of the incisions, made on weathered rib fragments, precludes the possibility of unintentional or utilitarian origins. Residue analysis demonstrates the presence of ochre within the incised lines on one specimen. This research provides the first evidence for the deliberate use of ochred engravings for symbolic purposes by East Asian Late Pleistocene hominins.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2019 

Introduction

Opinions differ between those who consider archaic hominin cognition to be comparable to that of anatomically modern humans (e.g. Hovers & Belfer-Cohen Reference Hovers, Belfer-Cohen, Hovers and Kuhn2006; Nowell Reference Nowell2010; d’Errico & Stringer Reference d'Errico and Stringer2011; Zilhão Reference Zilhão, Condemi and Weniger2011; Villa & Roebroeks Reference Villa and Roebroeks2014), and those who consider morphological, physiological, ontogenetic and behavioural differences to suggest different cognitive frameworks (e.g. Spoor et al. Reference Spoor, Hublin, Braun and Zonneveld2003; Lieberman Reference Lieberman2007; Gunz et al. Reference Gunz, Neubauer, Maureille and Hublin2010; Junker Reference Junker2010; Mellars Reference Mellars2010; Benazzi et al. Reference Benazzi, Douka, Fornai, Bauer, Kullmer, Svoboda, Pap, Mallegni, Bayle, Coquerelle, Condemi, Ronchitelli, Harvati and Weber2011; de Boer Reference de Boer2012; Pearce et al. Reference Pearce, Stringer and Dunbar2013; Bruner Reference Bruner, Akazawa, Ogihara, Tanabe and Terashima2014; Neubauer Reference Neubauer and Bruner2015). The first viewpoint is supported by the fact that the emergence of our species in Africa, c. 300 kya (Grün et al. Reference Grün, Brink, Spooner, Taylor, Stringer, Franciscus and Murray1996; Stringer Reference Stringer2016; Hublin et al. Reference Hublin, Ben-Ncer, Bailey, Freidline, Neubauer, Skinner, Bergmann, Cabec, Benazzi, Harvati and Gunz2017), was not accompanied by the immediate development of behaviours characteristic of historically documented populations. For tens of thousands of years after their emergence, anatomically modern human populations in Africa continued to use technologies that differed little from those of the non-modern populations preceding them, or from those contemporaneous populations inhabiting other regions, both inside and outside the African continent. It is also supported by the discovery of cultural innovations generally considered to be hallmarks of modern cognition among archaic populations of Eurasia. Burials, the collection of fossils and other rare objects, the production of personal ornaments and engraved patterns, pigment use, cave painting and the extraction of bird feathers and claws are all interpreted as proof that Neanderthals in Europe and the Near East engaged in symbolically mediated behaviour (e.g. Pettitt Reference Pettitt2002; Zilhão et al. Reference Zilhão2010; Peresani et al. Reference Peresani, Fiore, Gala, Romandini and Tagliacozzo2011; Finlayson et al. Reference Finlayson, Brown, Blasco, Rosell, Negro, Bortolotti, Finlayson, Sánchez Marco, Giles Pacheco, Rodríguez Vidal, Carrión, Fa and Rodríguez Llanes2012; Rodríguez-Vidal et al. Reference Rodríguez-Vidal2014; Romandini et al. Reference Romandini, Peresani, Laroulandie, Metz, Pastoors, Vaquero and Slimak2014; Radovčić et al. Reference Radovčić, Sršen, Radovčić and Frayer2015; Hoffmann et al. Reference Hoffmann, Standish, García-Diez, Pettitt, Milton, Zilhão, Alcolea-González, Cantalejo-Duarte, Collado, de Balbín, Lorblanchet, Ramos-Muñoz, Weniger and Pike2018). Most of these innovative cultural adaptations, however, are virtually unknown in vast regions inhabited by archaic hominins prior to the arrival of modern human populations—particularly in East Asia. A putative engraving on a bone flake from the Shiyu site, Shanxi Province, dated to 32–28 kya (You Reference You1984), has been interpreted as resulting from post-depositional surface modifications (Bednarick Reference Bednarik1994).

Abstract engravings are reported from almost 40 African and Eurasian sites dated prior to 40 kya (see online supplementary material (OSM) 1). The earliest examples are the engraved patterns on a freshwater shell from Trinil, Indonesia, dating to 540 kya; a bone from Bilzingsleben in Germany (370 kya; see, however, Müller & Pasda Reference Müller and Pasda2011), ochre fragments from the South African sites of Klasies River, Pinnacle Point and Blombos Cave (110–73 kya); and an antler from Vaufrey in France, dating to 120 kya (Vincent Reference Vincent, Otte, Binford and Rigaud1988; Henshilwood et al. Reference Henshilwood, d'Errico and Watts2009; Watts Reference Watts2010; d’Errico et al. Reference d'Errico, Moreno and Rifkin2012). In China, engraved objects from Pleistocene contexts are rare. The earliest possible example is a Stegodon ivory tusk found in a layer dated to 150–120 kya at Xinglongdong Cave, south China. The piece displays a few longitudinal incisions close to the tip of the tusk. Both the site's chronology and the anthropogenic nature of the incisions have been questioned, as elephants use their tusks for a variety of activities that could result in their breakage or the development of ground facets and incisions (Haynes Reference Haynes1991; Villa & d’Errico Reference Villa and d'Errico2001; Norton & Jin Reference Norton and Jin2009). Elsewhere, a pebble from a context dated to c. 40 kya from the lower cultural unit of Shuidonggou locality 1 exhibits a set of sub-parallel and intersecting lines (Peng et al. Reference Peng, Gao, Wang, Chen, Liu and Pei2012). Pei (Reference Pei1934) describes an engraved antler from Zhoukoudian Upper Cave, now dated to 34–29 kya (Chen et al. Reference Chen, Hedges and Yuan1992). A putative engraved bone flake recovered from the Shiyu site, Shanxi Province, dated to 32–28 kya (You Reference You1984) has been questioned on the basis of post-depositional surface modifications (Bednarik Reference Bednarik1994). Finally, an antler fragment with an engraved pattern comprising sinuous parallel lines is reported from Longgu Cave, Hebei Province, dated to 13 kya (Bednarik & You Reference Bednarik and You1991).

Here, we report the discovery of weathered bone fragments exhibiting deliberately engraved lines, one of which is filled with ochre, found at the 125–105 kya site of Lingjing in China. The fragments were found in the same stratigraphic layer that yielded hominin remains attributed to an archaic population exhibiting a mosaic of anatomical features suggestive of complex population dynamics between Eastern and Western Eurasia (Li et al. Reference Li, Wu, Zhou, Liu, Gao, Nian and Trinkaus2017). Recently, it has been suggested that the Lingjing hominins were Denisovans (Martinón-Torres et al. Reference Martinón-Torres, Wu, Bermúdez de Castro, Xing and Liu2017: 444), although there is currently insufficient palaeogenetic evidence to corroborate this hypothesis.

Archaeological context

Lingjing (34° 04’ 08.6” north, 113° 40’ 47.5” east; 117m asl) is an open-air site located in Henan Province, northern China, approximately 120km south of the Yellow River (Figure 1). The site was discovered in 1965. Since 2005, excavations under the supervision of the first author have uncovered 551m2 of the site. The 9m-deep, water-lain sedimentary sequence comprises 11 geological layers (for details, see OSM 2). Three main archaeological horizons attest to human occupation of the site during the Holocene (layers 1–4), the Late Glacial Maximum to the Younger Dryas (layer 5), and the early Late Pleistocene (layers 10–11). Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dates from layer 11 indicate that deposition took place c. 125–105 kya (Nian et al. Reference Nian, Zhou and Qin2009), during the early phases of Marine Isotope Stage 5. The faunal assemblage from layer 11 is dominated by horse (Equus caballus), onager (Equus hemionus) and auroch (Bos primigenius). Skeletal elements from late Middle and early Late Pleistocene fauna were also identified in this layer (Li & Dong Reference Li and Dong2007). The high proportion of limb elements (>60 per cent) and high frequency of cut marks observed on midshafts (approximately 34 per cent) suggest that Lingjing layer 11 was a kill-butchery site (Zhang et al. Reference Zhang, Li, Zhang and Gao2012).

Figure 1. A) Location of Lingjing (Henan Province, China); B) stratigraphy indicating the geological and cultural layers (after Doyon et al. Reference Doyon, Li, Li and d'Errico2018).

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 Reference Li2007; Li et al. Reference Li, Li, Gao, Kuman and Sumner2019), of bone retouchers, organic soft hammer and pressure flakers (Doyon et al. Reference Doyon, Li, Li and d'Errico2018, Reference Doyon, Li, Li, Wang and Zhao2019), 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. Discovered in 2009, their engravings were later identified during analysis of the faunal assemblage conducted in 2016.

Methods

Excavation methods at Lingjing involved the careful removal of sediments using curved-tipped trowels to avoid damaging finds, the 3D plotting of bone remains and lithic artefacts, and sediment sieving through 2mm mesh. Lithic and faunal remains are cleaned using soft brushes under running water. When present, sediment concretions are not removed from the faunal remains.

The artefacts described in this study are curated at the Henan Provincial Institute for Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Zhengzhou, China. Permission was granted to analyse one object (9L0141) at the Raman and Scanning Electron Microscopy Facilities of the Shandong University's Institute of Measurement and Testing. The specimens were examined visually, and then photographed with Canon PowerShot 100 and Nikon D300 AF Micro Nikkor 60 mm f/2.8D cameras. Microscopic analysis was conducted using a Leica Wild M3C stereomicroscope equipped with a Nikon CoolPix 900 digital camera at magnifications ranging from 4–40×. Data on the morphology and features of the engraved lines were recorded, along with the presence of a red residue. Identification of the cause of the modifications on the bone's surface is based on criteria inferred from the experimental reproduction and subsequent microscopic analysis of sequential marks produced on bone using different tools and motions (d’Errico Reference d'Errico1995; Fritz Reference Fritz1999).

A total of 227 bone fragments from the 2005–2015 excavations exhibiting few or no concretions were examined microscopically. The following variables were recorded for those specimens that exhibit indisputable cut marks (Noe-Nygaard Reference Noe-Nygaard1987; Lyman Reference Lyman1994; Fisher Reference Fisher1995; Fernández-Jalvo & Andrews Reference Fernández-Jalvo and Andrews2016): number, arrangement (divergent, overlapping, parallel or sub-parallel), morphology (curved, sinuous or straight), edge morphology (clean or fringed), and the occurrence of side striations, conspicuous changes in direction, surface micro-breaks and the presence of red residue.

A selected area of the engraved part of specimen 9L0141 was replicated using Coltene President regular body dental elastomer (Coltène, Switzerland). The negative replica was analysed with a Sensofar S-Neox confocal microscope driven by the SensoScan 6 software (Sensofar, Barcelona). The data was processed with SensoMap 7.3 software. Specimen 9L0141 and a sample of sediment from the cancellous bone were analysed with SEM-EDS and Raman spectroscopy. Sediment from layer 11 was analysed with ED-XRF (for details, see OSM 3).

Results

Taphonomic analysis

The surfaces of the analysed faunal remains are, when not affected by taphonomic processes or coated by concretions, exceptionally well preserved. Cut marks are the main anthropogenic modification observed on the faunal assemblage (23.79 per cent; Figure 2; OSM 4). They are present on all skeletal elements, including ribs (12.96 per cent). They show morphological traits typical of cut marks on fresh bone (Fisher Reference Fisher1995) and very rare changes in direction (OSM 4). Root etching affects 22.03 per cent of the analysed sample, while gnawing and etching resulting from consumption by carnivores affect 3.96 and 2.20 per cent of the sample, respectively. Other modifications include percussion marks possibly associated with marrow extraction (3.52 per cent), traces of use as retouchers (3.08 per cent) and staining produced by heat (1.32 per cent). Other than on specimen 9L0141, no red residues were detected on the 227 sampled faunal bone fragments.

Figure 2. Well-preserved sets of cut marks on faunal remains from Lingjing, layer 11 (photographs by F. d'Errico & L. Doyon).

Microscopic analysis

Although specimen 9L0141 is too fragmentary to propose a firm taxonomic attribution based on morphology (Figure 3), the thickness and flatness of the cortical bone and the morphology of the cancellous bone suggest that 9L0141 is the distal portion of an adult, large-sized mammal rib. The periosteal surface is pronounced and fibrous, comprising natural, alternating sub-parallel grooves and ridges (OSM 6). The four broken edges are ancient, as indicated by their colour and the slight smoothing of their surfaces under the microscope. The morphology of the broken edges and orientation indicate that they occurred on weathered bone (Villa & Mahieu Reference Villa and Mahieu1991; Lyman Reference Lyman1994). Seven sub-parallel lines cross the periosteal surface (Figure 4A). The abrupt terminations of L1 and L2, and the lower terminations of L3–5 indicate that they were interrupted by the adjacent fractures (Figure 5A; OSM 6). The upper terminations of L3–5 were engraved after the piece had already fragmented (OSM 6). L6 and L7 are complete and uninterrupted. The grainy appearance of the surface of all of the lines (Figure 6), their micro-fringed outlines, and the step micro-fractures produced when incising through the natural ridges of the bone surface (see OSM 6), all suggest that they were engraved on weathered rather than fresh bone (OSM 5).

Figure 3. Photographs of the engraved specimens: A) 9L0141; B) 9L0148 (photographs by F. d'Errico & L. Doyon).

Figure 4. Photographs and tracing of the engraving on specimens: A) 9L0141 (red dots indicate the location of red residues); B) 9L0148 (photographs by F. d'Errico & L. Doyon).

Figure 5. Microscopic photographs of engraved lines on specimen 9L0141. Changes in direction of lines crossing the fibrous structure of the bone indicate the use of a sharp point (A–B). Red residues are present inside the engraved lines (C) (photographs by F. d'Errico & L. Doyon).

Figure 6. SEM photograph of specimen 9L0141 showing the grainy, slightly eroded appearance of L4 (photographs by H. Li, Q. Wang & Z. Zhang).

The depths of L1–5 remain constant when crossing the micro-grooves and ridges of the fibrous periosteal surface (Figure 5A–B), analysis of which shows that the grooves vary between 50 and 100μm in depth and between 100 and 600μm in width (OSM 6). Evidently, the tool tip was extremely sharp and no more than 50–100μm in width. The frequent, sudden changes in direction of L1–6 (Figure 5B–C) suggest instances of the momentary loss of control in the engraver's motion, due to tool speed changes when crossing the natural undulations of the bone's surface (d'Errico Reference d'Errico1994, Reference d'Errico1995). L1–5 were each engraved by a single passage of the tool. L6–7 comprise, respectively, three and five close, parallel and discontinuous striations each produced by a single passage of the point (OSM 6).

Similarities in section and width indicate that L1–2 were engraved by the same point, which created a narrow groove with a flat bottom (Figure 5A). L3–5 were also produced by the same point, which generated a wider and shallower groove with internal striations similar to each other, and side-striations on both sides of the main line. The multiple striations that comprise L6–7 were probably made by the same tool that was used to engrave L3–5, although the former is more superficial (OSM 6). The morphological differences between L1–2 and L3–7 can either be attributed to a tool change, or to the wear or breakage of the point used to engrave L1–2. The location of the micro-fractures on the periosteal ridges indicates that the lines were engraved from the longer to the shorter edge of the bone (Figure 5A; OSM 7). The sections of well-defined lines are asymmetrical to the right (see OSM 5), which, considering the motion of direction, indicates a right-handed engraver (Bosinski et al. Reference Bosinski, d'Errico and Schiller2002; d’Errico et al. Reference d'Errico, Doyon, Colagé, Queffelec, Vraux, Giacobini, Vandermeersch and Maureille2018). Right-handed engravers generally create sequences of parallel lines by juxtaposing them from left to right (d’Errico Reference d'Errico1992). This would favour the interpretation that the morphological differences between L1–2 and L3–7 are the result of wear or breakage of the engraving tool.

Specimen 9L0148 is a rib fragment from an adult, large-sized mammal (Figure 3B). The flat periosteal surface displays areas of chemical etching (whitening) (Figure 7A), removal of primary bone lamellae and parallel sets of thin striations, which are attributable to trampling. The top, bottom and left broken edges are eroded and fringed; those on the right side are fresher, suggesting that the fragment experienced at least two distinct breakage events. Ten sub-parallel lines (L1–10), produced before breakage of the rib (see OSM 5), cross the periosteal surface (Figure 4B). Their narrowness, similar internal morphology and the absence of side striations demonstrate that they were engraved using the same sharp lithic point, in a single session (Figure 7B). Slight changes in direction when crossing natural micro-fractures and taphonomically damaged areas, along with their irregular outline, suggest that the lines were engraved on weathered bone. They were cut using a quick motion towards the wider edge of the object, as indicated by the narrow terminations of L6–10.

Figure 7. Close-up views of L6, L7 and L8 on specimen 9L0148: A) chemical etching affecting the bone's surface subsequent to the engraving; B) similar internal morphology indicating the use of the same tool (photographs by F. d'Errico & L. Doyon).

Residue analysis

Abundant red residues were observed microscopically on specimen 9L0141 within lines L2 and L4–6, and adjacent to lines L3–6 (Figure 4A; OSM 7). The whitish sediment from layer 11, which was trapped in the specimen's cancellous bone, showed no such evidence of residue (see OSM 7). Raman analysis of the red residues from within the lines produced a composite spectrum with seven peaks at 225, 293, 411, 497, 612, 1242 and 1271cm−1 (see OSM 7). The five peak values in the low frequencies identify the residue as haematite (de Faria et al. Reference de Faria, Venâncio Silva and de Oliveira1997). Raman analysis of the sediment from the cancellous bone identified only quartz and a single instance of a particle containing haematite (see OSM 7). SEM-EDS analysis reveals that the sediment comprises particles ranging from 20–200μm in size, and is mainly composed of mica—either muscovite or biotite—embedded in a clay matrix, which also contains small quantities of iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg) and calcium (Ca). Single instances of quartz grain, zircon, bone fragment and an iron-rich particle are also detected (see OSM 7). ED-XRF analysis of sediment from layer 11 confirms that silicon (Si) is the predominant chemical element, followed by aluminium (Al) and potassium (K); iron (Fe) accounts only for 2.4–2.6 per cent (see OSM 7).

Discussion and conclusion

The lines on bone specimens 9L0141 and 9L0148 cannot result from excavation, cleaning or curation of the faunal assemblage. They differ in a number of respects from the lines exhibited on cut-marked bones from within layer 11. Cut marks on the latter generally display microscopic features consistent with cuts made on fresh bone. Generally, sets of close cut marks made in rapid succession on fresh bone by the same cutting edge rarely exceed four cuts, and they usually slightly diverge from a focal point, keeping a similar outline. In contrast, the lines on the two specimens—particularly on 9L0141—were made on partially weathered fragments; several lines on this specimen were engraved when the bone was already fragmented. The lines on 9L0141 were produced by an extremely sharp point, and the prehistoric individual was particularly careful when engraving the first five lines, given the rugged topography of the periosteal surface. To increase the visibility of the subsequent lines (L6–7), the engraver marked them using multiple strokes. Combined, this evidence does not support an interpretation of the lines as evidence of butchery activity on 9L0141, but rather, deliberate engraving of the bone. Although less striking, the lines on 9L0148 still differ from fresh cut marks on faunal remains from the same layer in their number, morphology and in the tool used to produce them. Furthermore, damage to some of the lines by chemical alteration of the periosteal surface indicates that they are of ancient origin, attributable to neither excavation nor curation.

The numerous haematite-rich residues identified within four lines on 9L0141 and the virtual absence of iron-rich particles in the clay sediment of layer 11 is puzzling. Considering the chemical composition of layer 11, one would have expected to find white residue composed of clay and micas at the bottom of the engraved lines. The absence of white sediment and the presence instead of haematite-rich deposits in the lines and nearby recessed areas could be explained by the smearing of ochre powder on the bone surface to highlight the engraved pattern and increase its visibility—a common practice in Upper Palaeolithic mobiliary art (Buisson et al. Reference Buisson, Menu, Pinçon and Walter1989; García et al. Reference García, Bonilla, Marín and Mascarós2016). The use of ochre to modify the appearance of personal ornaments is attested at 80 ka BP from Middle Stone Age Moroccan sites, such as Taforalt, Rhafas and Ifri n'Ammar (d’Errico et al. Reference d'Errico, Vanhaeren, Barton, Bouzouggar, Mienis, Richter, Hublin, McPherron and Lozouet2009). The earliest evidence for the use of ochre in China comes from Zhoukoudian Upper Cave and Shuidonggou localities 2 and 8, in the form of modified ochre lumps and ornaments coloured with ochre (Pitarch Martí et al. Reference Pitarch Martí, Wei, Gao, Chen and d'Errico2017).

A growing body of evidence from Europe and Southeast Asia (Table 1; OSM 1) supports the hypothesis that the cultural adaptations of archaic hominins involved symbolically mediated behaviour, thereby challenging the notion that modern cognitive abilities are restricted to Homo sapiens. While many scholars now agree on this hypothesis with regard to Neanderthals, the present article offers the first evidence to suggest that the same may also apply to Denisovans—the probable creators of the engravings described here. The Lingjing engravings represent the first possible example of such behaviour in Eastern Asia to pre-date 40 kya. Results were obtained by combining contextual and taphonomic data, with detailed analyses of the objects. The deliberate nature of the markings on 9L0141—and probably on 9L0148—as well as the application of ochre on the former appear to confirm the intentional character of these practices, and is fully consistent with the hypothesis that meaning may have been attributed to the patterns, to the moment in which the action took place, or to the action itself.

We are still far from understanding the meaning of these engravings for the archaic human groups living in China during the early Late Pleistocene. Doyon et al.’s (Reference Doyon, Li, Li and d'Errico2018, Reference Doyon, Li, Li, Wang and Zhao2019) recent identification of bone and antler fragments from layer 11 at Lingjing that were used to retouch lithics demonstrates that the Lingjing hominins were familiar with the mechanical properties of weathered bone and considered it to be a suitable raw material for producing artefacts. The Lingjing engravings suggest that these populations also saw bone as a medium on which they could permanently record sequential markings and use ochre as a substance to help highlight them. Future research may identify spatiotemporal consistencies that could offer clues to help in fully evaluating the significance of these behaviours.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2019.81

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Alain Queffelec (CNRS—UMR5199 PACEA) and François-Xavier Le Bourdonnec (CNRS—UMR5060 IRAMAT-CRP2A) for their help with the sediment analyses. The scientific research at Lingjing is funded by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41630102, 41672020) and Shandong University 111 Project (111-2-09). The present study was funded by the Sino-French Cai Yuanpei programme (36707NF). This work was partially supported by the Research Council of Norway through its Centre's of Excellence funding scheme, SFF Centre for Early Sapiens Behaviour (SapienCE), project number 262618. L.H. acknowledges the support from the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences Pioneer Hundred Talents Program. L.D. was granted financial support from the China/Shandong University International Postdoctoral Exchange Program, and the Institut écologie et environnement of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS-InEE). PACEA (UMR5199 CNRS) is a partner team of the Labex LaScArBx-ANR n° ANR-10-LABX-52.

References

Bednarik, R.G. 1994. The Pleistocene art of Asia. Journal of World Prehistory 8: 351–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02221090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bednarik, R.G. & You, Y.. 1991. Palaeolithic art from China. Rock Art Research 8: 119–23.Google Scholar
Benazzi, S., Douka, K., Fornai, C., Bauer, C.C., Kullmer, O., Svoboda, J., Pap, I., Mallegni, F., Bayle, P., Coquerelle, M., Condemi, S., Ronchitelli, A., Harvati, K. & Weber, G.W.. 2011. Early dispersal of modern humans in Europe and implications for Neanderthal behaviour. Nature 479: 525–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10617CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosinski, G., d'Errico, F. & Schiller, P.. 2002. Die gravierten Frauendarstellungen von Gönnersdorf. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Bruner, E. 2014. Functional craniology, human evolution, and anatomical constraints in the Neanderthal braincase, in Akazawa, T., Ogihara, N., Tanabe, H.C. & Terashima, H. (ed.) Dynamics of learning in Neanderthals and modern humans, volume 2: 121–29. Tokyo: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-54553-8_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buisson, D., Menu, M., Pinçon, G. & Walter, P.. 1989. Les objets colorés du Paléolithique supérieur: cas de la grotte de La Vache (Ariège). Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 86: 183–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, T., Hedges, R.E.M. & Yuan, Z.. 1992. New AMS 14C dating on Upper Cave and relative issues. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 11: 112–15.Google Scholar
d'Errico, F. 1992. Technology, motion, and the meaning of Epipaleolithic art. Current Anthropology 33: 94109. https://doi.org/10.1086/204039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
d'Errico, F. 1994. L'art gravé azilien: de la technique à la signification. Paris: CNRS Éditions.Google Scholar
d'Errico, F. 1995. Image analysis and 3-D optical surface profiling of Upper Palaeolithic mobiliary art. Microscopy and analysis 51: 2729.Google Scholar
d'Errico, F. & Stringer, C.B.. 2011. Evolution, revolution or saltation scenario for the emergence of modern cultures? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 366: 1060–69. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0340CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
d'Errico, F., Vanhaeren, M., Barton, N., Bouzouggar, A., Mienis, H., Richter, D., Hublin, J.-J., McPherron, S.P. & Lozouet, P.. 2009. Additional evidence on the use of personal ornaments in the Middle Paleolithic of North Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 106: 16051–56. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903532106CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
d'Errico, F., Moreno, R.G. & Rifkin, R.F.. 2012. Technological, elemental and colorimetric analysis of an engraved ochre fragment from the Middle Stone Age levels of Klasies River Cave 1, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 942–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.10.032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
d'Errico, F., Doyon, L., Colagé, I., Queffelec, A., Vraux, E. Le, Giacobini, G., Vandermeersch, B. & Maureille, B.. 2018. From number sense to number symbols: an archaeological perspective. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 373: 20160518. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Boer, B. 2012. Loss of air sacs improved hominin speech abilities. Journal of Human Evolution 62: 16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.07.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Faria, D.L.A., Venâncio Silva, S. & de Oliveira, M.T.. 1997. Raman microspectroscopy of some iron oxides and oxyhydroxides. Journal of Raman Spectroscopy 28: 873–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4555(199711)28:11<873::AID-JRS177>3.0.CO;2-B3.0.CO;2-B>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyon, L., Li, Z., Li, H. & d'Errico, F.. 2018. Discovery of circa 115 000-year-old bone retouchers at Lingjing, Henan, China. PLoS ONE 13: e0194318. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194318CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doyon, L., Li, H., Li, Z., Wang, H. & Zhao, Q.. 2019. Further evidence of organic soft hammer percussion and pressure retouch from Lingjing (Xuchang, Henan, China). Lithic Technology 44: 100–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2019.1589926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Jalvo, Y. & Andrews, P.. 2016. Atlas of taphonomic identifications. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7432-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finlayson, C., Brown, K., Blasco, R., Rosell, J., Negro, J.J., Bortolotti, G.R., Finlayson, G., Sánchez Marco, A., Giles Pacheco, F., Rodríguez Vidal, J., Carrión, J.S., Fa, D.A. & Rodríguez Llanes, J.M.. 2012. Birds of a feather: Neanderthal exploitation of raptors and corvids. PLoS ONE 7: e45927. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045927CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, J.W. 1995. Bone surface modifications in zooarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2: 768. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02228434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritz, C. 1999. Towards the reconstruction of Magdalenian artistic techniques: the contribution of microscopic analysis of mobiliary art. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9: 189208. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774300015377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García, C.R., Bonilla, V.V., Marín, I.R. & Mascarós, S.M.. 2016. A unique collection of Palaeolithic painted portable art: characterization of red and yellow pigments from the Parpalló Cave (Spain). PLoS ONE 11: e0163565. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grün, R., Brink, J.S., Spooner, N.A., Taylor, L., Stringer, C.B., Franciscus, R.G. & Murray, A.S.. 1996. Direct dating of Florisbad hominid. Nature 382: 500501. https://doi.org/10.1038/382500a0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gunz, P., Neubauer, S., Maureille, B. & Hublin, J.-J.. 2010. Brain development after birth differs between Neanderthals and modern humans. Current Biology 20: 921–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2010.10.018CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haynes, G. 1991. Mammoths, mastodonts, and elephants: biology, behavior and the fossil record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Henshilwood, C.S., d'Errico, F. & Watts, I.. 2009. Engraved ochres from the Middle Stone Age levels at Blombos Cave, South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution 57: 2747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.01.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffmann, D.L., Standish, C.D., García-Diez, M., Pettitt, P.B., Milton, J.A., Zilhão, J., Alcolea-González, J.J., Cantalejo-Duarte, P., Collado, H., de Balbín, R., Lorblanchet, M., Ramos-Muñoz, J., Weniger, G.-C. & Pike, A.W.G.. 2018. U-Th dating of carbonate crusts reveals Neandertal origin of Iberian cave art. Science 359: 912–15. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap7778CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hovers, E. & Belfer-Cohen, A.. 2006. ‘Now you see it, now you don't’: modern human behavior in the Middle Paleolithic, in Hovers, E. & Kuhn, S.L. (ed.) Transitions before the transition: 295304. Boston (MA): Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hublin, J.-J., Ben-Ncer, A., Bailey, S.E., Freidline, S.E., Neubauer, S., Skinner, M.M., Bergmann, I., Cabec, A. Le, Benazzi, S., Harvati, K. & Gunz, P.. 2017. New fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco and the pan-African origin of Homo sapiens. Nature 546: 289–92. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22336CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Junker, T. 2010. Art as a biological adaptation, or: why modern humans replaced the Neanderthals. Quartär 57: 171–78.Google Scholar
Li, H., Li, Z., Gao, X., Kuman, K. & Sumner, A.. 2019. Technological behavior of the early Late Pleistocene archaic humans at Lingjing (Xuchang, China). Archaeological and Anthropological Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-018-0759-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Z. 2007. A primary study on the stone artifacts of Lingjing site excavated in 2005. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 26: 138–54.Google Scholar
Li, Z. & Dong, W.. 2007. Mammalian fauna from the Lingjing Paleolithic site in Xuchang, Henan Province. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 26: 345–60.Google Scholar
Li, Z., Wu, X., Zhou, L., Liu, W., Gao, X., Nian, X. & Trinkaus, E.. 2017. Late Pleistocene archaic human crania from Xuchang, China. Science 355: 969–72. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal2482CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lieberman, P. 2007. The evolution of human speech: its anatomical and neural bases. Current Anthropology 48: 3966. https://doi.org/10.1086/509092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyman, R.L. 1994. Vertebrate taphonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139878302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinón-Torres, M., Wu, X., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Xing, S. & Liu, W.. 2017. Homo sapiens in the Eastern Asian Late Pleistocene. Current Anthropology 58(S17): 434–48. https://doi.org/10.1086/694449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellars, P. 2010. Neanderthal symbolism and ornament manufacture: the bursting of a bubble? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 107: 20147–48. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014588107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, W. & Pasda, C.. 2011. Site formation and faunal remains of the Middle Pleistocene site Bilzingsleben. Quartär 58: 2549.Google Scholar
Neubauer, S. 2015. Human brain evolution: ontogeny and phylogeny, in Bruner, E. (ed.) Human paleoneurology: 95120. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Nian, X.M., Zhou, L.P. & Qin, J.T.. 2009. Comparisons of equivalent dose values obtained with different protocols using a lacustrine sediment sample from Xuchang, China. Radiation Measurements 44: 512–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmeas.2009.06.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noe-Nygaard, N. 1987. Taphonomy in archaeology with special emphasis on man as a biasing factor. Journal of Danish Archaeology 6: 762. https://doi.org/10.1080/0108464X.1987.10589975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, C.J. & Jin, J.J.H.. 2009. The evolution of modern human behavior in East Asia: current perspectives. Evolutionary Anthropology 18: 247–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.20235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowell, A. 2010. Defining behavioral modernity in the context of Neandertal and anatomically modern human populations. Annual Review of Anthropology 39: 437–52. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.105113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, E., Stringer, C. & Dunbar, R.I.M.. 2013. New insights into differences in brain organization between Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 280: 20130168. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.0168CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pei, W.C. 1934. A preliminary report on the Late Palaeolithic cave of Choukoutien. Acta Geologica Sinica 13: 327–58.Google Scholar
Peng, F., Gao, X., Wang, H., Chen, F., Liu, D. & Pei, S.. 2012. An engraved artifact from Shuidonggou, an early Late Paleolithic site in northwest China. Chinese Science Bulletin 57: 4594–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-012-5317-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peresani, M., Fiore, I., Gala, M., Romandini, M. & Tagliacozzo, A.. 2011. Late Neandertals and the intentional removal of feathers as evidenced from bird bone taphonomy at Fumane Cave 44 ky B.P., Italy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 108: 3888–93. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1016212108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettitt, P. 2002. The Neanderthal dead: exploring mortuary variability in Middle Palaeolithic Eurasia. Before Farming 2002(4): 126. https://doi.org/10.3828/bfarm.2002.1.4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitarch Martí, A., Wei, Y., Gao, X., Chen, F. & d'Errico, F.. 2017. The earliest evidence of coloured ornaments in China: the ochred ostrich eggshell beads from Shuidonggou Locality 2. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48: 102–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2017.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radovčić, D., Sršen, A.O., Radovčić, J. & Frayer, D.W.. 2015. Evidence for Neandertal jewellery: modified white-tailed eagle claws at Krapina. PLoS ONE 10: e0119802. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119802CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodríguez-Vidal, J. et al. 2014. A rock engraving made by Neanderthals in Gibraltar. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 111: 13301–306. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1411529111CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Romandini, M., Peresani, M., Laroulandie, V., Metz, L., Pastoors, A., Vaquero, M. & Slimak, L.. 2014. Convergent evidence of eagle talons used by late Neanderthals in Europe: a further assessment on symbolism. PLoS ONE 9: e101278. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101278CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spoor, F., Hublin, J.-J., Braun, M. & Zonneveld, F.. 2003. The bony labyrinth of Neanderthals. Journal of Human Evolution 44: 141–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2484(02)00166-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stringer, C. 2016. The origin and evolution of Homo sapiens. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371: 20150237. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0237CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Villa, P. & d'Errico, F.. 2001. Bone and ivory points in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe. Journal of Human Evolution 41: 69112. https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.2001.0479CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Villa, P. & Mahieu, E.. 1991. Breakage patterns of human long bones. Journal of Human Evolution 21: 2748. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2484(91)90034-SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villa, P. & Roebroeks, W.. 2014. Neandertal demise: an archaeological analysis of the modern human superiority complex. PLoS ONE 9: e96424. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096424CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vincent, A. 1988. L'os comme artefact au Paléolithique moyen: principes d’étude et premiers résultats, in Otte, M., Binford, L. & Rigaud, J.P. (ed.) L'homme de Néandertal 4, la technique: 185–96. Liège: ERAUL.Google Scholar
Watts, I. 2010. The pigments from Pinnacle Point Cave 13B, Western Cape, South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution 59: 392411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.07.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
You, Y.Z. 1984. Preliminary study of a Palaeolithic bone engraving. Kexue Tongbao 29: 8082.Google Scholar
Zhang, S., Li, Z., Zhang, Y. & Gao, X.. 2012. Skeletal element distributions of the large herbivores from the Lingjing site, Henan Province, China. Science China: Earth Sciences 55: 246–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-011-4279-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zilhão, J. 2011. Aliens from outer time? Why the ‘human revolution’ is wrong, and where do we go from here?, in Condemi, S. & Weniger, G.-C. (ed.) Continuity and discontinuity in the peopling of Europe: 331–66. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zilhão, J. et al. 2010. Symbolic use of marine shells and mineral pigments by Iberian Neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 107: 1023–28. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0914088107CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1. A) Location of Lingjing (Henan Province, China); B) stratigraphy indicating the geological and cultural layers (after Doyon et al.2018).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Well-preserved sets of cut marks on faunal remains from Lingjing, layer 11 (photographs by F. d'Errico & L. Doyon).

Figure 2

Figure 3. Photographs of the engraved specimens: A) 9L0141; B) 9L0148 (photographs by F. d'Errico & L. Doyon).

Figure 3

Figure 4. Photographs and tracing of the engraving on specimens: A) 9L0141 (red dots indicate the location of red residues); B) 9L0148 (photographs by F. d'Errico & L. Doyon).

Figure 4

Figure 5. Microscopic photographs of engraved lines on specimen 9L0141. Changes in direction of lines crossing the fibrous structure of the bone indicate the use of a sharp point (A–B). Red residues are present inside the engraved lines (C) (photographs by F. d'Errico & L. Doyon).

Figure 5

Figure 6. SEM photograph of specimen 9L0141 showing the grainy, slightly eroded appearance of L4 (photographs by H. Li, Q. Wang & Z. Zhang).

Figure 6

Figure 7. Close-up views of L6, L7 and L8 on specimen 9L0148: A) chemical etching affecting the bone's surface subsequent to the engraving; B) similar internal morphology indicating the use of the same tool (photographs by F. d'Errico & L. Doyon).

Supplementary material: PDF

Li et al. supplementary material

Li et al. supplementary material 1

Download Li et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 2 MB
You have Access
9
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

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

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

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

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

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

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *