The contribution of use -wear for stone tool identification at the Upper Paleolithic site Shuidonggou Locality 2, North China

Accepted Manuscript The contribution of use -wear for stone tool identification at the Upper Paleolithic site Shuidonggou locality 2, north China Peiqi Zhang, Xiaoling Zhang, Nicolas Zwyns, Fei Peng, Jialong Guo, Huiming Wang, Xing Gao PII:

S1040-6182(18)30499-3

DOI:

10.1016/j.quaint.2018.10.006

Reference:

JQI 7582

To appear in:

Quaternary International

Received Date: 14 April 2018 Revised Date:

30 September 2018

Accepted Date: 11 October 2018

Please cite this article as: Zhang, P., Zhang, X., Zwyns, N., Peng, F., Guo, J., Wang, H., Gao, X., The contribution of use -wear for stone tool identification at the Upper Paleolithic site Shuidonggou locality 2, north China, Quaternary International (2018), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2018.10.006. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The contribution of use -wear for stone tool identification at the Upper Paleolithic site Shuidonggou Locality 2, North China a,b,c

Peiqi Zhang

, Xiaoling Zhanga,b*, Nicolas Zwynsc, Fei Penga,b, Jialong Guod, Huiming Wangd, Xing

a

RI PT

Gao a,b,e

Key Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and

Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100044, China

CAS Center for Excellence in Life and Paleoenvironment, Beijing, 100044, China

c

Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA

d

Institute of Culture Relics and Archaeology of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, 750001, Yinchuan, China

e

University of Chinese Academy of Science, 100089, Beijing, China

SC

b

M AN U

* Corresponding author. Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 142, Xizhimenwai Street, Beijing, 100044, China E-mail address: [email protected] (X. Zhang).

Abstract: In North China, the archeology of the Late Pleistocene is characterized by the persistence of flake-based lithic assemblages. Little is known about the use of stone tools and the reasons behind the success of a relatively simple core and flake technology are unclear. Most lithic studies in the region are traditionally based on a typological categorization of assemblages with the frequencies of cores and tool-types playing a significant role in

TE D

the characterization of the site (e.g. residential vs. more logistical occupation). Hence, to discriminate stone tool from byproduct is essential to better understand variables such as site function, mobility; however, it remains particularly challenging in poorly standardized lithic assemblages. Here we present preliminary results of the study on the newly excavated material from cultural layer 2 (CL2) and 3 (CL3) at Shuidonggou Locality 2 (32.6-29.9 ka cal BP). We analyzed use-wears on a sample of retouched and unretouched blanks by using the low magnification

EP

technique and then we compared our observations with several experimental referential. Our results can be summarized in two main points. First, we observed a similar frequency of use-wear on retouched tools and unretouched blanks. Second, differences in tool types do not match our basic identification of the working motions.

AC C

Our results suggest that in Shuidonggou Locality 2, using retouch as a predictor for tool use is problematic (especially with regards to tool functions). Given that tool frequencies and tool diversity are data used to model site function, tool curation and hunter-gatherer mobility, we suggest that this issue should be further investigated in the context of ‘core and flakes’ assemblage.

Keywords: Upper Paleolithic of North China; Core and flakes; Tool typology and functions; Use-wear analysis; Shuidonggou locality 2

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1. Background and research questions Shuidonggou locality 2 (SDG 2) is a site that documents human occupations in North China during a period that spans from the Marine Isotopic Stage (MIS thereafter) 3 to MIS 2. Based on descriptions of the lithic artifacts, ornaments and combustion features, the assemblages are usually referred to as the

RI PT

Upper Paleolithic (Gao et al., 2008; Guan et al., 2011, 2014; Li et al., 2013a, 2013b; Zhou et al., 2013; Wei et al., 2017). Yet except for the rare elements that imply early blade technology in SDG 2 and for the material from SDG 1 (Brantingham et al., 2001; Madsen et al., 2001; Li et al., 2013b), most of the assemblages in SDG 2 are flake-based. Therefore, they are also referred to as ‘core and flake technology’.

SC

The assemblages are dominated by simple (albeit quite variable) scraper tool-forms that would illustrate a million year of technological stasis (Gao, 2013). This phenomenon unique to East Asia contrasts with the conventional periodization schemes defined in Western Eurasia, hence with the notion of Upper

M AN U

Paleolithic (Gao and Norton, 2002; Haidle and Pawlik, 2009).

The lack of technological changes is difficult to explain and some of the possible causes include phylogenetic continuities between populations (Gao, 2012, 2014; Gao et al., 2017), a transmission of technological information limited by a small population size (Lycett and Norton, 2010), the constraints imposed by the raw material quality/quantity (Shick, 1994; Brantingham et al., 2000), the nature of the resource exploitations or the persistence of a group mobility pattern in the region (Gao, 2013). The latter

TE D

explanation is broadly based on the expected changes in subsistence strategies but with a lack of fauna preservation and standardization in stone tool manufacture, identifying such changes is far to be evident. Typology remains one of the most common ways to describe lithic assemblages in this region and site function is often extrapolated from the lithic analyses through variables such as the length of occupation, the frequency of tools or the kind of activities taking place at the site (Wei, 2014; Li et al., 2015; Liu et al.,

EP

2016). In this context, the study of micro-wear on stone tools (Odell, 1981a; Sackett, 1982) is a valuable contribution to our understanding of the subsistence strategies associated with the core and flake

AC C

technology.

Residue analyses (Guan et al., 2014) have suggested that plant processing was taking place at the site whereas the previous tests on stone tool use-wear (Zhang et al., 2013) has yielded little evidence for use on lithic artifacts. Other evidence, such as combustion features, animal bones, and ornaments, show potentially treatment of animal resources. To address behaviors performed and the evolutionary meaning of the ‘core and flake’ phenomenon would require a better understanding of the range of behaviors taking place at a given site. At the most basic level, such interpretation depends on the possibility to differentiate informal stone tools from byproducts and on the identification of the tool functions. Hence, a first step toward such understanding would be to determine whether typology is a reliable proxy for tool

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

identification. Based on these observations, we formulate two basic hypotheses that we will test using a sample of material from SDG 2: •

Tool use is restricted to retouched tool types: to invalidate such hypothesis, we should find usewears on unretouched blanks (and perhaps non-used retouched tools) Tool types are representative of specific behaviors: to invalidate this hypothesis, we should show

RI PT

•

that there is no association between tool types and specific tool use motions 2. Material 2.1 Site location, stratigraphy and chronology

SC

Shuidonggou is a Paleolithic site located in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, Northwest China ca. 18 km east of the Yellow River (Fig.1). It features 12 localities that illustrate a rich Upper Paleolithic sequence in which blade technology, core and flake technology and microblade technology have been described

M AN U

(Gao et al., 2013a, 2013b). The Shuidonggou locality 2 was systematically excavated from 2003 to 2007 (Chen et al., 2014) and between 2014 and 2016. It yielded a rich lithic assemblage dominated by core and flake technology and rare artifacts associated with a blade technology (Li et al., 2013a, 2013b). Animal bone fragments, ostrich eggshell fragments and beads, charcoals, and hearths are associated with some lithic assemblages from SDG 2, especially CL2 and CL3. Fig.1

TE D

The systematic excavation of 2003-2007 led to the description of a stratigraphic sequence from which series of Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) and AMS radiocarbon dates are derived. The deposit is described with 18 lithological strata containing seven cultural layers (CL7-CL1) (Gao et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2009). The cultural layer 7 (CL7) is dated between 41.5 and 34.4 ka cal BP; CL3 is dated between

EP

32.6 and 31.4 ka cal BP; CL2 is dated between 31.3 and 29.9 ka cal BP; CL1 is around 20.3 ka by OSL. There are no direct dates for the section from CL6-CL4 but dated samples from the CL above and below bracket the human occupation between 34.4 and 32.6 ka cal BP (Liu et al., 2009; Li et al., 2013b). Here,

AC C

we focus on a sample collected in CL2 and CL3 which corresponds to human occupations taking place between 32.6-29.9 ka cal BP. Madsen et al (2001) have published radiocarbon dates indicating an earlier age of 29,000-24000 BP from this part of the section. The samples were collected straight from the exposed section in a potential combustion features, but the connection with a specific CL is to be confirmed. According to the sedimentology and the pollen analysis from SDG 2, CL2 and CL3 belong to a warm and humid environment, before a shift to colder and drier condition around 29-18 ka cal BP (Liu et al., 2012). 2.2. The lithic samples

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

For our analysis, we sampled within the lithic assemblages obtained during the second phase of excavation (2014-2016), and more specifically among stone artifacts collected during the 2014-2015 seasons (Table.1). Around 65 m2 of CL2 and 32 m2 of CL3 were excavated at Trench 3 with a total depth of 1.2 m. In this area, 369 and 1201 lithics (≥ 2 cm) were piece-plotted in CL2 and CL3 respectively. The

RI PT

sample includes all retouched stone tools (N=76), flakes with retouched scars and possible used traces (N=25), and blanks with natural sharp edges (N=99) (Table.2). The lithics from CL2 account for 21% of stone artifacts (N=79), and 10% of CL3 (N=121).

Table.1 Stone artifacts unearthed from CL2 and CL3 2016 %

N

%

N

%

Core

147

9.36

142

8.48

304

6.49

Flake

477

30.38

655

39.13

1292

27.60

Tool

89

5.67

141

8.42

325

6.94

Shatter

802

50.08

554

32.5

1996

42.63

Hammer

2

0.13

9

0.54

13

0.28

Manuport

59

3.76

173

10.33

384

8.2

Total

1570

100

1674

100

4682

100

M AN U

N

Total

SC

2014-2015

TE D

Table.2 Observed lithic samples from CL2 and CL3 (2014-2015) CL2

Sample

CL3

Total

%

N

%

N

%

Scraper

23

29,11

39

32.23

62

31

Notch

3

3.8

7

5.79

10

5

-

-

1

0.83

1

0.5

-

-

1

0.83

1

0.5

Denticulate

AC C

Point

EP

N

Splintered piece

1

1.27

1

0.83

2

0.5

Blank

52

65.82

72

59.50

124

6.2

Total

79

100

121

100

200

100

In the material studied, the most commonly used raw material is the siliceous limestone followed by chert, quartzite, sandstone and with very few quartzes. Our surveys indicate that raw materials are local and were collected from the bed of the Biangou River while rare fine-grain chert is described as exogenous (Zhou, 2010; Li et al., 2016). The majority of retouched tools are made of chert and siliceous limestone

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

and so is our experimental referential (Table.3). The quartzite and sandstone tools are said to be less frequent and these materials were not used experimentally (Table.4). Table.3 Lithic raw material of SDG 2 (2014-2015) shatter 391

manuport 25

260

70

514

94

224 55 14

56 22 2

172 282 24

13 25 1

tool 61

hammer -

Total 752

40

2

980

35 2 4

1 -

501 380 45

RI PT

core 89

SC

Chert Siliceous limestone quartzite Sandstone Quartz

flake 186

Table.4 Raw material of observed samples from CL2 and CL3 (2014-2015)

55

29

54

20

10 5 124

11 2 62

3.1. Typology

Denticulate

Splintered piece 1

point

Total

1

91

4

1

1

-

1

-

76

4 1 10

1

2

1

25 5 2 1 200

EP

3. Methods

Notch

TE D

Chert Siliceous limestone quartzite Sandstone Quartz N/A Total

Scraper

M AN U

Blank

AC C

Artifacts have been observed including blanks with natural sharp edges (N=99), all the retouched tools (N=76), and artifacts with macro-traces (N=25) (Table.2). Based on the location of modified edges, retouched stone tools were conventionally typed as scrapers (with at least 3mm length of retouch on one or more than one edges; including subtypes side scrapers and end scrapers), notches, points, denticulate and splintered pieces (pièce esquillées) (for more on conventional types, see also Debenath and Dibble, 1994; Shott,1999; Andrefsky, 2005; Wang, 2006). 3.2. Use-wear analysis We used low magnification stereoscopic microscopy (Nikon SMZ1500 with the magnification form 7.5X-180X) to observe the distribution of damages and for identifying working motions and the hardness

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

of worked materials (Odell, 1980). Although questions were raised regarding the impact of fractures and post-deposition processes on the formation of wear patterns (Sala, 1986; Shea and Klenck, 1993; Grace, 1996), the low-power method is generally considered reliable to discriminate used tools from objects that haven’t be used and to identify specific motions through surface’s wear patterns (Odell and Odell-

RI PT

Vereecken, 1980; Shea, 1987, 1988; Gao and Shen, 2008; Zhang, 2009; Marreiros et al., 2015;). High magnification technique and studies on the polish to classify specific worked materials (Keeley, 1980) have not been used here. Low-power microscopy was obtained to identify and quantify micro-factures and wear-traces on stone artifacts from SDG2 and the experimental referential. The experimental referential (Table.5) includes 32 experimental tools made of the two most used raw material types

SC

encountered in the CL2 and CL3 assemblages: siliceous limestone (N=15) and chert (N=18). Tools were used with five different working motions: scraping (N=6), shaving (N=6), sawing (N=9), slicing (N=2),

M AN U

and wedging (N=9); on three contact materials: wood (N=22), meat (N=2), and bone (N=8); sex of participants on using: female (N=16) and male (N=16). All used segments of each individual piece including grasping, hafting and other working movements were counted in Functional Units (FU) (Odell, 1996; Zhang et al., 2009).

Table.5 Experimental samples Chert bone

TE D

wood

Siliceous limestone

Total

wood

bone

N

Scraping

2

-

2

-

4

Shaving

2

-

3

-

5

Slicing

-

1

-

1

2

Sawing

3

1

4

2

10

wedging

EP

Sample

4

2

2

3

11

11

4

11

6

32

AC C

Total

In addition, we compared the archaeological material with 145 samples of the use-wear patterns from published experiments with different tool motions, raw materials, and contact materials (Gao and Shen, 2008; Zhang, 2009). This supplementary database was built in 2004, during the Beijing Use-wear Workshop held at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) with a lowpower use-wear experiment conducted by George Odell. It includes pictures of artifacts, micrographs of microfractures, and actual lithic samples. These aimed at identifying and characterizing wear traces such as fracture scars and rounding, polish or striation. 4. Results

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

28 (14%) of the studied artifacts (N=200) yielded use-wear while several other specimens displaying micro-fractures could not be recognized as used (N=7). In terms of FUs, 28 used tools exhibited a total amount of 46 FUs (Table.5) thereby showing that some stone artifacts were used with more than one segment. From CL2, we examined 79 artifacts and found a similar proportion of retouched tools (N=8,

RI PT

10.12%) and blanks (N=10, 12.66%) with use wear. With a total of 33 FUs in this layer, it suggested that some of the tools (N=10) were used more than once. In contrast to CL2, CL3 (N=121) featured fewer artifacts with micro-wears (N=10, 8.26%) including retouched tools (N=5, 4.14%) and blanks (N=5, 4.14%) also fewer FUs than CL2 (N=13).

samples

Use-wear

27

2

Blanks

52

3

Total

79

5

49

2

tools

Functional

Use-wear

Unit

%

N

%

N

%

28.57

8

28.57

19

41.3

42.85

10

35.71

14

30.43

71.42

18

64.29

33

71.74

28.57

5

17.86

5

10.87

TE D

tools

Identified

M AN U

N

Retouched

Blanks

72

0

0

5

17.86

8

17.39

Total

121

2

28.57

10

35.71

13

28.26

200

7

100

28

100

46

100

Sum

4.1. Tool motions

EP

CL3

Possible

N Retouched CL2

Observed

SC

Table.5 The results of use-wear observation

AC C

For use-wear pattern, all the categories of motions are represented in our sample: scraping (shaving, 21%, N=6), sawing (cutting and slicing (29%, N=8), wedging (4%, N=1) and multi-function tools (21%, N=6). Some atypical wears could not be associated with specific movements (25%, N=7) (Fig.2). The tool motions of sawing, scraping and multi-function occur at similar frequencies (x2 (4, N=20) = 1.2, p = 0.88).

Fig.2 4.1.1. Scraping (including shaving) Scraping and shaving are defined as the result of unidirectional transverse movements on the contact materials. Scraping means that the active part of the tool is almost perpendicular to the working material whereas shaving refers to a force applied at an acute angle (Odell, 1981b). The wear patterns produced by

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

such motions are usually located at the surface of the tool edge. Although scraping remains a common tool-uses identified within our sample (N=6, 21%), only a few of the retouched tools typed as scrapers were used as actual scrapers. Specimen T3-2668 (Fig.3-a, b) is typed as a scraper and shows clear microfractures of scraping. On the dorsal face, the edge bears fractures with medium feather and stepped

RI PT

terminations in addition to the heavy rounding and bright polish observed on the dorsal surface and edge. On the ventral face, we identify scattered feather terminations. The T3-5258 (Fig.3-c, d, e) shows a typical use-wear pattern resulting from scraping hard materials. We observed larger, medium scars on the dorsal surface, also heavy rounding and clear striations on the used edge consistent with a perpendicular

SC

scraping on worked materials.

Fig.3

M AN U

4.1.2. Sawing (cutting and slicing)

Sawing movements are parallel to the tool longitudinal axis and perpendicular to the worked materials; hence micro-wears are distributed on both sides of edge with a directional scar pattern. Slicing shows similar wear patterns (Odell, 1981b). This category of use-wear is the most represented across tool-types (N=8, 29%). The T3-2384 (Fig.4-a, b) shows clumped medium feather terminations on both sides of the edge with light rounding which is consistent with sawing on medium/soft materials in our experimental

TE D

sample. The T3-2999 (Fig.4-c, d) has continuously large and medium feather, step terminated scars, and roll-over snapped scars (Odell, 1981b), with light/medium rounding along both sides of the contacting edge that resulted from sawing. Fig.4

EP

4.1.3. Wedging

This activity is often associated with splintered pieces (pièces esquillées) or stone blanks used as chisel.

AC C

One edge is in contact with the worked material while the opposite side is struck by a hammer (Hayden, 1980; Shott, 1999). Percussion FUs are identified through the occurrence of overlapping large step, break, and feather terminated scars are visible macroscopically. In the CL2 and CL3 samples, four artifacts were typed as splintered pieces. From use-wear analysis, only one could be regarded as a wedge. On the chert flake T3-3196 (Fig.5), we observed four FUs - two of which were the result of wedging opposed to two direct percussion impacts. It suggests that the tool was used as a wedge at least twice. The macrofractures on impact points are consistent with the use of a hard (mineral) hammer. The wedging units only show scattered medium and small roll-over scars, feather terminations on both ventral and dorsal surfaces and they might be worked on materials such as wood. Fig.5

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4.1.4. Multi-function Multi-function stone tools bear several used segments per individual artifact that correspond to different motions. The multi-function tools may reflect a higher intensity of utilization of than regular stone artifacts. Six scrapers with scraping and sawing wear patterns are identified in CL2. These FUs on a

RI PT

single artifact show distinct patterns. T3-2122 (Fig.6) has two different types of wear patterns on three FUs. One of the edges shows large feather, step terminated fractures are run-together on the dorsal face overlapping with medium feather and roll-over scars near the edge. Only a few scars were observed on ventral surface. Another FU is characterized by overlapping large/medium feather and step terminations,

with scraping, the latter is interpreted as a sawing motion. Fig.6

M AN U

5. Testing hypotheses

SC

along with uneven break-terminated fractures on both sides of the edge. Although the former is consistent

5.1. Hypothesis 1: Tool use is restricted to retouched tool types

The studied sample (N=200) accounts for 12.74% of the stone artifacts from the two layers (N=1570). We observe that only a few artifacts (17.5%, N=35) show traces of fracture and the used tools with identifiable use-wear represent 14%(N=28) of the sample. Only 1.78% of the assemblages from CL2 and CL3. CL2 and CL3 yield 18 (4.88%, N=18) and 10 used tools (0.83%, N=10) respectively. Compared

TE D

with retouched tools (N=76), used retouched tools (N=13) are merely 17.11% and are far less frequent (x2 (1, N=76) =102.083, p ≤ 0.01). Moreover, we count that 12.10% (N=15) of the analyzed blanks (N=124) were used. In the studied sample, the frequency of used retouch tools (N=13) and used blanks (N=15) is similar (x2 (1, N=28) =0.286, p=0.59). Hence, the function analysis suggests that both retouched tools and

EP

blanks are used at a comparable rate. Therefore, such results invalidate the hypothesis 1 and indicate that tool use is not restricted to retouched tools in CL2 and CL3. With a low frequency of use in retouched

AC C

tools and a similar frequency of use between retouched and unretouched blanks, retouch (as identified) per se is not a reliable predictor for tool using. 5. 2. Hypothesis 2: Tool types are representative of a specific function We find no apparent correspondence between tool-types and specific motions from use-wear analysis. The 13 retouched tools with use-wear are typed as scrapers (N=12) and notch (N=1). The scrapers show scraping (N=4), sawing (N=3), and multipurpose (N=5) wear patterns; while the notch shows a scraping pattern. Working motions in scrapers do not differ significantly (x2 (4, N=12) =1.5, p=0.82). Consequently, tool functions reject the hypothesis 2 due to a mismatch between tool types and working motions. We also note slight differences in tool-use behaviors between layers. Keeping in mind that the

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

overall number of artifacts in CL2 (N=369) is much smaller than CL3 (N=1201), the frequency of used tools in CL2 (N=18) is larger than in CL3 (N=10) (x2 (1, N=28) =4.571, p < 0.05). Among the artifacts that have more than one FU on different edges (N=10), most are from CL2 (N=9) including all the multifunction tools (N=6). The frequency of FUs shows a clear distinction between CL2 (N=33) and CL3

RI PT

(N=13) (x2 (1, N=46) =17.391, p ≤ 0.01). 5.2. Interpretation of the results

The test of the hypotheses is mostly influenced by two main observations: the low frequency of used retouched tools (along with the use of unretouched blanks) and the inconsistencies between tool types and

SC

uses. Below, we discuss three possible factors that would have influenced such results: the impact of raw material on use-wear, the limits of the method used, and the typological identification.

M AN U

5.2.1 Raw material and tool use

Almost all of the raw materials used at SDG2 (chert, siliceous limestone, quantize, sandstone, and quartz) can be traced from the local riverbed with the notable exception of the rare non-local cherts (Li et al., 2016). Most of the retouched tools (N=76) are produced on chert and siliceous limestone and so are the artifacts with use-wear (chert, N=16; siliceous limestone, N=11), only single exemplar in quartz (N=1). Physical properties of the raw-material used as tool – such as hardness or surface roughness – has an

TE D

impact on the formation and the rate of accumulation of use-wear (Lerner et al., 2007). Based on our experimental samples, we observed that the use-wear accumulate poorly on siliceous limestones when they are used for a short time, especially less than 5-7 minutes on soft materials from our experiments. Our analysis results show only a few used tools are produced by siliceous limestone (N=11) and this low frequency could reflect the difficulties to identify micro-fractures on surfaces due to the properties of the

EP

material or the limited time of use. Another factor is about the contact material. Our experiments suggest that it is difficult to generate traces and distinguishable wears on tools even with the continuous working

AC C

on some soft materials like meat without touching bone. Although several quartzite artifacts (N=3) were observed with possible use-wear traces, working with this material (and quartz) falls outside the scope of our preliminary study.

5.2.2 The low-power technique Although it is clear that high-power method is more effective at detecting micro-factures than low-power, numerous published studies also stressed the advantages of low-power technique when isolating wear patterns (Rots, 2003; Rots and Van Peer, 2006; Zhang et al., 2009; Lemorini et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2014). Granted that the technique has some limitations, we consider it reliable enough to differentiate between use and un-used edges, to identify basic tool-use motions (Odell, 2001; Marreiors et al, 2015)

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

and therefore to address the basic hypotheses formulated here. To address the types of contact material is not necessary for a first test, but it could complement (and perhaps confirmed) our preliminary results in an extended study. Even assuming that low-power technique under-estimated the frequency of used tools does not explain the frequencies of used blanks and the differences in motions between types.

RI PT

5.2.3 Typology and function

The results of the use-wear analysis differ from the conventional typological classifications in two ways. First, the majority of retouched-tools do not show signs of use. As mentioned above, it is possible that low-power technique led to underestimate the frequency of used tools in the sample. Alternatively, to

SC

differentiate macroscopically irregular retouch from edge damage that looks like retouch may prove difficult when dealing with informal tools and an over-estimation of their number per layers is not excluded. We note that stone artifacts have relatively fresh edges (consistent with a low intensity of

M AN U

weathering and erosion) but also that post-depositional processes such as trampling may have produced pseudo-retouch (McPherron et al., 2014). A closer look at artifacts taphonomy should be devoted to address this issue. The typological analysis of artifacts from 2014-2015 was performed by the first author of this study but we note that although the assemblage collected in 2016 (not included in our study) was studied by an international team of 4 researchers (using the same criterion to define the tool types) the tool frequencies and the main structure of the assemblage remain comparable (Table.1). Hence observer

TE D

bias may have played a role, but it is unlikely to explain the pattern observed. Another possibility is that part of the blanks/tools have been exported leaving behind only the most expedient tools, and such hypothesis is currently tested using cortex ratio analyses (Lin et al., 2015). Second, different functions are identified on tools that falls in the same typological category. Since use-

EP

wear analyses are mostly informative on the last uses of a tool, the mismatch between tool types and tool use could potentially be explained by tool curation. Although, curation is expected to be severe when raw material sources are distant and/or in the context of an intense activity (Binford, 1979; Bamforth, 1986;

AC C

Andrefsky, 1994, 2008), it could potentially occur in other contexts. In SDG2, we note that the core

reduction is dominated by free-hand reduction, most flakes produced are irregular in morphology (even after retouch) and that heavy curation by retouch (Dibble, 1987; high frequencies of abrupt retouch on transverse scraper, small size convergent scrapers) is uncommon – if present at all in the assemblage. According to our results, a single use does not compensate for the lack of formal standardization. On the contrary, some informal tools (N=6) seem to be used in various ways pointing out that use and production of stone tools are rather expedient. Such expectation is not inconsistent with the proximity of the main raw material sources. Finally, a broader comparison with other assemblages from Western Eurasia suggests that there is relatively little investment in tool production methods and in end-products

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

standardization. The geographic and chronological distribution of the ‘core and flake’ phenomenon may well extend beyond the limits of the site-based approach we adopted here, it also indicates a general interest for flexibility in stone tool design as opposed to a highly specialized single purpose. This evidence adds up to the list of issues related to interpretations of typological classification in the context

RI PT

of core and flake assemblages (Gao and Norton, 2002; Gao, 2013). 5.3. Implications

Theoretically, behaviors performed at the site should provide direct insights into site function and huntergatherer mobility (Binford, 1980). Based on the spatial distribution of artifacts, intra-site activities and the

SC

raw material procurement strategies, the CL1-3 of SDG 2 have been considered as a residential camp with “long foraging trips” in CL2 (Guan et al., 2011; Li et al., 2016). We note that there are little data available from the fauna to address issues of subsistence strategies. In terms of lithic data, models dealing with site

M AN U

function or mobility usually integrate parameters such as tool frequency (or tool/core ratios) and tool-type diversity (e.g. Shott, 1986; Barton; Kuhn, 1991; Andrefsky, 2008; Riel-Salvatore and Barton, 2004; RielSalvatore, 2010). At the light of the preliminary results obtained at SDG2, we consider that the frequency of retouch tools may poorly reflects the frequency of tool. In other words, we underline the need for a cross-look at use-wear, technology and typology on an extended sample (and maybe with the use of both high and low-power microscopy). Such study should help to improve the accuracy of estimates for tool

TE D

use frequency and it will also help understanding the diversity of technical behaviors associated with informal tool productions of the ‘core and flake’ type. All in all, it remains difficult to find clear differences between CL2 and CL3. Notable is the lower density of lithic artifacts in CL2 than in CL3 while the frequency of used tools is similar. Other differences

EP

between the two layers are in the frequencies of FUs. More multi-function tools and a higher FUs are observed in CL2 which (combined with the observations made above) is consistent with a (relatively) more pronounced tools curation; and perhaps a higher logistical mobility (Binford, 1979; 1980).

AC C

Considering the role of raw material on the assemblage composition (Bamforth, 1990; Andrefsky, 1994), the two cultural layers are mostly composed of tool stones from local origins, but we note that a few of artifacts from CL2 are manufactured on non-local chert varieties (N=9). It could indicate a shift toward a more logistical foraging behavior in CL2. It is notable that in the context of a degradation toward a colder and drier climate starting around 29 ka BP and leading to the LGM (Liu et al., 2012), an increase in mobility could be seen as rapid adaptive response to an environmental change (Barton et al., 2007; Morgan et al., 2011). 6.

Conclusion and Perspectives

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Our analysis of use-wear on a sample of core and flake assemblages from SDG2 suggest that fewer tools were used than suggested by means of typology. Also, some of the retouched flakes lack evidence of use whereas some unretouched flakes have been used unmodified. Based on our data set, tools show no evidence for functional specialization and nor differences between types. The results of this pilot study

RI PT

underline the limitation of typology for inferring tool functions in the context of a poorly standardize blank production. It further suggests that a large scale cross-look at use-wear and typological classification is required to obtain accurate estimates of tool frequencies. The latter are relevant to models addressing issues of tool curation, site functions and mobility patterns.

SC

Acknowledgements

The work presented here is a part of the result of a Master Thesis of the first author (P.Zhang) “The Lithic Analysis of 2014-2015 Excavation of Shuidonggou Locality 2 (in Chinese)” (advisor X.Zhang) in the

M AN U

frame of a research program at Shuidonggou Locality 2, a joint effort between the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology and the Institute of Archaeology in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region. We would like to appreciate Feng Luo for his support to the project; and Sam Lin for commenting drafts of the paper; and two anonymous reviewers’ constrictive comments. We also thank those who help with the use-wear experiments: He Chen, Bei Zhang, Yingshui Jin, Zengrui Xing, and Yueshu Zhang. This research is supported by the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese

TE D

Academy of Sciences, Pan-Third Pole Environment Study for a Green Silk Road (Pan-TPE), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No: 41572022), National Basic Research Program of China (Grant No: 2015CB953803). References

21-34.

EP

Andrefsky, W., 1994. Raw-Material Availability and the Organization of Technology, American Antiquity 59,

AC C

Andrefsky, W., 2005. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Andrefsky, W., 2008. Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use, and Curation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bamforth, D.B., 1986. Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation, American Antiquity 51, 38-50. Bamforth, D. B., 1990, Settlement, Raw Material, and Lithic Procurement in the Central Mojave Desert. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 70-104. Barton, L., Brantingham, P.J., Ji, D., 2007. Late Pleistocene Climate Change and Paleolithic Cultural Evolution in Northern China: Implications from the Last Glacial Maximum. In Late Quaternary Climate Change and Human Adaptation in Arid China, edited by D. B. Madsen, F. H. Chen and X. Gao,

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Developments in Quaternary Sciences, J. J. M. v. d. Meer, general editor. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 105128. Binford, L.R., 1979. Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies, Journal of Anthropological Research 35, 255-273.

RI PT

Binford, L.R., 1980. Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation, American Antiquity 45, 4-20.

Brantingham, P.J., Olsen, J.W., Rech, J.A., Krivoshapkin, A.I., 2000. Raw Material Quality and Prepared Core Technologies in Northeast Asia, Journal of Archaeological Science 27, 255-271.

Brantingham, P.J., Krivoshapkin, A.I., Li, J.Z., Tserendagva, Y., 2001. The initial Upper Paleolithic in

SC

Northeast Asia. Current. Anthropology 42, 735-747.

Chen, F., Li, F., Wang, H., Pei, S., Feng, X., Zhang, S., Zhang, Y., Liu, D., Zhang, X., Guan, Y., Gao, X., 2012. A preliminary report on excavations at Shuidongou locality 2 in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region,

M AN U

North China (in Chinese), Acta Anthropologica Sinica 32, 317-333.

Chen, H., Wang, J., Lian, H., Fang, M., Hou, Y.-M., Hu, Y., 2017. An experimental case of bone-working usewear on quartzite artifacts, Quaternary International 434, 129-137.

Dibble, H.L., 1987. The Interpretation of Middle Paleolithic Scraper Morphology, American Antiquity 52, 109-117.

Debenath, A., Dibble, H.L., 1994, Handbook of Palaeolithic Typology Lower and Middle Palaeolithic of Europe, vol.1, University of Pennsylvania Press.

TE D

Gao, X., 2012. Characteristics and significance of Paleolithic handaxes from China (in Chinese), Acta Anthropologica Sinica 31, 97-112.

Gao, X., 2013. Paleolithic Cultures in China, Current Anthropology 54, S358-S370. Gao, X., 2014. Archaeological evidence for evolutionary continuity of Pleistocene humans in China and East

EP

Asia and related discussions (in Chinese), Acta Anthropologica Sinica 33, 237-253. Gao, X., Norton, C.J., 2002. A critique of the Chinese ‘Middle Palaeolithic’, Antiquity 76, 397-412. Gao, X., Peng, F., Fu, Q., Li, F., 2017. New progress in understanding the origins of modern humans in China,

AC C

Science China Earth Sciences 60, 2160-2170. Gao, X., Shen, C., 2008. Archaeological Study of Lithic Use-wear Experiments (in Chinese). Science Press, Beijing.

Gao, X., Yuan, B., Pei, S., Wang, H., Chen, F., Feng, X., 2008. Analysis of sedimentary-geomorphologic variation and the living environment of hominids at the Shuidonggou Paleolithic site, Chinese Science Bulletin 53, 2025-2032. Gao, X., Wang, H.M., Guan, Y., 2013a. Research at Shuidonggou: new advance and new perceptions (in Chinese). Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 32, 121-132. Gao, X., Wang, H., Pei, S., Chen, F., 2013b. Shuidonggou-Excavation and Research (2003–2007) Report (in Chinese), Science Press, Beijing.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Grace, R., 1996. Use-wear analysis: the state of the art, Archaeometry, 38 (2), 209-229. Guan, Y., Gao, X., Wang, H., Chen, F., Pei, S., Zhang, X., Zhou, Z., 2011. Spatial analysis of intra-site use at a Late Paleolithic site at Shuidonggou, Northwest China, Chinese Science Bulletin 56, 3457-3463. Guan, Y., Pearsall, D.M., Gao, X., Chen, F., Pei, S., Zhou, Z., 2014. Plant use activities during the Upper

International 347, 74-83.

RI PT

Paleolithic in East Eurasia: Evidence from the Shuidonggou Site, Northwest China, Quaternary

Haidle, M., Pawlik, A., 2009. Missing Types: Overcoming the Typology Dilemma of Lithic Archaeology in Southeast Asia, Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 29, 2-5.

Hayden B., 1980. Confusion in the bipolar world: Bashed pebbles and splintered pieces. Lithic Technology

SC

9(1), 2-7.

Keeley L., 1980. Experimental determination of stone tool uses: A microwear analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

M AN U

Kelly, R.L., 1983. Hunter-Gatherer Mobility Strategies, Journal of Anthropological Research 39, 277-306. Lemorini, C., Plummer, T.W., Braun, D.R., Crittenden, A.N., Ditchfield, P.W., Bishop, L.C., Hertel, F., Oliver, J.S., Marlowe, F.W., Schoeninger, M.J., Potts, R., 2014. Old stones' song: Use-wear experiments and analysis of the Oldowan quartz and quartzite assemblage from Kanjera South (Kenya), Journal of Human Evolution 72, 10-25.

Lerner, H., Du, X., Costopoulos, A., Ostoja-Starzewski, M., 2007. Lithic raw material physical properties and use-wear accrual, Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 711-722.

TE D

Li, F., Gao, X., Chen, F., Pei, S., Zhang, Y., Zhang, X., Liu, D., Zhang, S., Guan, Y., Wang, H., Kuhn, S.L., 2013a. The development of Upper Palaeolithic China: new results from the Shuidonggou site, Antiquity 87, 368-383.

Li, F., Kuhn, S.L., Gao, X., Chen, F.Y., 2013b. Re-examination of the dates of large blade technology in China:

EP

a comparison of Shuidonggou Locality 1 and Locality 2, Journal of Human Evolution 64, 161-168. Li, F., Kuhn, S.L., Chen, F., Gao, X., 2016. Raw material economies and mobility patterns in the Late Paleolithic at Shuidonggou locality 2, north China, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 43, 83-93.

AC C

Li, Y., Gao, C., Xiang, K., 2015. A Preliminary Report on the Excavation of the Shujialing Paleolithic Site in the Danjiangkou Reservoir Region (in Chinese), Acta Anthropologica Sinica 34, 149-165. Lin, S.C., McPherron, S.P., Dibble, H.L., 2015. Establishing statistical confidence in Cortex Ratios within and among lithic assemblages: a case study of the Middle Paleolithic of southwestern France, Journal of Archaeological Science 59, 89-109. Liu, Y., Hou, Y., Yang, Z., 2016. A Preliminary Research on Retouched Tools and Retouch Technology at Wulanmulun Site in Ordos, Inner Mongolia (in Chinese), Acta Anthropologica Sinica 35, 76-88. Liu, D., Wang, X., Gao, X., Xia, Z., Pei, S., Chen, F., Wang, H., 2009. Progress in the stratigraphy and geochronology of the Shuidonggou site, Ningxia, North China, Chinese Science Bulletin 54, 3880-3886.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Liu, D., Gao, X., Liu, E., Pei, S., Chen, F., Zhang, S., 2012. The depositional Environment at Shuidonggou Locality 2 in Northwest China at ∼72–18 ka BP, Acta Geologica Sinica 86 (06), 1539-1546. Madsen, D.B., Jingzen, L., Brantingham, P.J., Xing, G., Elston, R.G., Bettinger, R.L., 2001. Dating Shuidonggou and the Upper Palaeolithic blade industry in North China, Antiquity 75, 706-716.

RI PT

Marreiros, J., Mazzucco, N., Gibaja, J.F., Bicho, N., 2015. Macro and Micro Evidences from the Past: The State of the Art of Archeological Use-Wear Studies, In: Marreiros. J.M., Gibaja Bao. J.F., Bicho.N.F. (Eds), Use-Wear and Residue Analysis in Archaeology. Springer Cham, Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London, pp. 5-26.

McPherron, S.P., Braun, D.R., Dogandžić, T., Archer, W., Desta, D., Lin, S.C., 2014. An experimental

SC

assessment of the influences on edge damage to lithic artifacts: a consideration of edge angle, substrate grain size, raw material properties, and exposed face, Journal of Archaeological Science 49, 70-82. Morgan, C., Barton, L., Bettinger, B.R., Chen, F.H., Zhang D.G., 2011. Glacial Cycles and Palaeolithic

M AN U

Adaptive Variability on China’s Western Loess Plateau. Antiquity 85(328), 365-379. Odell, G.H., 1980. Towards a more behavioral approach to archaeological lithic concentrations. American Antiquity 45 (2), 404-431.

Odell, G.H., 1981a. The Morphological Express at Function Junction: Searching for Meaning in Lithic Tool Types, Journal of Anthropological Research 37, 319-342.

Odell, G.H., 1981b. The mechanics of use-breakage of stone tools: some testable hypotheses. Journal of Field Archaeology 8 (2), 197-209.

TE D

Odell, G.H., 1996. Stone Tools and Mobility in the Illinois Valley: From Hunter-gatherer Camps to Agricultural Villages. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor. Odell, G.H., 2001. Stone Tool Research at the End of the Millennium: Classification, Function, and Behavior, Journal of Archaeological Research 9, 45-100.

EP

Odell, G.H., Odell-Vereecken, F., 1980. Verifying the reliability of lithic use-wear analysis by ‘‘Blind Tests’’: The low magnification approach. Journal of Field Archaeology 7 (1), 87-120. Riel-Salvatore, J., 2010. A Niche Construction Perspective on the Middle–Upper Paleolithic Transition in Italy,

AC C

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 17, 323-355. Riel-Salvatore, J., Barton, C.M., 2004. Late Pleistocene Technology, Economic Behavior, and Land-Use Dynamics in Southern Italy, American Antiquity 69, 257-274. Rots, V., 2003. Towards an understanding of hafting: the macro- and microscopic evidence, Antiquity 77, 805815.

Rots, V., Van Peer, P., 2006. Early evidence of complexity in lithic economy: core-axe production, hafting and use at Late Middle Pleistocene site 8-B-11, Sai Island (Sudan), Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 360-371. Sackett, J.R., 1982. Approaches to style in lithic archaeology, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1, 59112.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Semenov, S. A., 1964. Prehistoric technology: An experimental study of the oldest tools and artefacts from traces of manufacture and wear. London: Cory, Adams e Mackay. Sala, L., 1986. Use wear and post-depositional surface modification: A word of caution, Journal of Archaeological Science 13, 229-244.

RI PT

Shea, J.J., 1987. On accuracy and relevance in lithic use-wear analysis. Lithic Technology 16 (2-3), 44-50. Shea, J.J., Klenck, J.D., 1993. An Experimental Investigation of the Effects of Trampling on the Results of Lithic Microwear Analysis, Journal of Archaeological Science 20, 175-194.

Schick, K.D., 1994. The Movius line reconsidered. In: Corruccini, R.S., Ciochon, R.L. (Eds.), Integrative Paths to the Past: Paleoanthropological Advance in Honor of F. Clark Howell. Prentice Hall, Englewood

SC

Cliffs, NJ, pp. 569–596.

Shott, M., 1986. Technological Organization and Settlement Mobility: An Ethnographic Examination, Journal of Anthropological Research 42, 15-51.

M AN U

Shott, M.J., 1999. On bipolar reduction and splintered pieces. North American Archaeologist 20(3), 217-238. Wang, Y., 2006. Lithic Analysis: A Preliminary Exploration of Methodology of Paleolithic Study. Beijing: Peking University press.

Wei, Q., 2014. New Observations on Stone Artifacts from the Donggutuo Site (in Chinese), Acta Anthropologica Sinica 33, 254-269.

Wei, Y., d’Errico, F., Vanhaeren, M., Li, F., Gao, X., 2016. An Early Instance of Upper Palaeolithic Personal Ornamentation from China: The Freshwater Shell Bead from Shuidonggou 2. Plos One 11, 1-25.

TE D

Zhang, X., Shen, C., Gao, X., Chen, F., Wang, C., 2009. Use-wear evidence confirms the earliest hafted chipped-stone adzes of Upper Palaeolithic in northern China, Chinese Science Bulletin 55, 268-275. Zhang, X., 2009. Stone Tool Function and Human Adaptive Behavior: Use-wear Analysis of Lithic Artifacts from the Hutouliang Site in Northern China (in Chinese) (Unpublished PhD dissertation). School of

EP

Graduate Studies, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing. Zhang, X., Chen, S., Zhou, Z., 2013. Use-wear analysis of stone artifacts Shuidongou Locality 2. In: Gao, X., Wang, H., Pei, S., Chen, F. (Eds), Shuidonggou-Excavation and Research (2003–2007) Report (in

AC C

Chinese). Science Press, Beijing, pp. 253-260. Zhou, Z., 2011. On Heat-altered Technology in Paleolithic: Experimental Insights into Human Behavior of Lithic Heat Treatment in Shuidonggou Late Paleolithic Site (Ph.D. dissertation). Graduated University of Chinese Academy of Sciences. Zhou, Z., Guan, Y., Gao, X., Wang, C., 2013. Heat treatment and associated early modern human behaviors in the Late Paleolithic at the Shuidonggou site, Chinese Science Bulletin 58, 1801-1810.

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig.1 Locations of Shuidonggou site (after Guan et al., 2014; Map of Asia is adapted after https://mapsfor-free.com)

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

Fig.2 The frequency of used tools and Functional Units

Fig.3 a) T3-2668; b) Heavy rounding and polish on dorsal surface (24X); c) T3-5258; d) Larger-medium scars on the dorsal surface with heavy rounding (16X); e) Heavy rounding and striations on edge (32X).

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

Fig.4 a-b) Medium feather terminated scars with light rounding on the dorsal and ventral surface of T32384 (16X); c-d) Continuously large and medium feather, step terminated scars, roll-over scars on the dorsal and ventral face of T3-2999 (16X)

Fig.5 a) T3-3196; b) Discontinuous medium and small run-over scars on ventral surface by wedging (16X); c) Overlapping large step, break, and feather terminated scars by percussion (16X)

M AN U

SC

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

Fig. 6 a) T3-2122; b) Continuously large feather, step terminated fractures on the dorsal face (24X); c) Overlapping large, medium feather and step termination fractures (24X); d) Large feather, step terminated fractures on the dorsal face (24X)