Literature DB >> 26651609

Characterizing the Lower Paleolithic bone industry from Schöningen 12 II: A multi-proxy study.

Marie-Anne Julien1, Bruce Hardy2, Mareike C Stahlschmidt3, Brigitte Urban4, Jordi Serangeli5, Nicholas J Conard6.   

Abstract

Although preservation of Paleolithic faunal assemblages from open-air settings is often poor, the Lower Paleolithic sites of Schöningen provide exceptionally well-preserved mammalian faunal material for investigating hominin/animal relationships. Pleistocene fossil assemblages, however, usually reflect a complex taphonomic history in which natural and anthropogenic processes are often superimposed. A number of examples of osseous finds that resemble tools were recently discovered in the MIS 9 deposits of Schöningen 12 II. Non-anthropogenic agents are known to produce surface modifications mimicking human artifacts and the identification of osseous remains used and/or deliberately modified by ancient hominins is often controversial in such old contexts. Multiple lines of evidence are thus useful for distinguishing between osseous artifacts and "eco-facts". In this paper, the recognition of the use of bone for different technological purposes by late Middle Pleistocene hominins is addressed through a multi-proxy study combining geoarcheology, bone taphonomy, zooarcheology, and use-wear analysis. This allowed the identification of the processes and agents responsible for the formation and modification of the different bone assemblages of Schöningen 12 II. Our analysis points to different types of bones having been likely used as tools. These results expand the diversity of the organic technological repertoire of the Middle Pleistocene hominins, making Schöningen 12 II a remarkable new source of information on osseous technology long before the Upper Paleolithic, the period traditionally viewed as the start of the systematic use of bone tools. Together with other observations of bone tools documented during the Lower and Middle Paleolithic, the results from Schöningen show that archeologists may have underestimated the diversity and importance of osseous technology among archaic hominins.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bone tools; Geoarcheology; Lower Paleolithic; Middle Pleistocene; Taphonomy; Use-wear analysis; Zooarcheology

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26651609     DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.10.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hum Evol        ISSN: 0047-2484            Impact factor:   3.895


  6 in total

1.  A 51,000-year-old engraved bone reveals Neanderthals' capacity for symbolic behaviour.

Authors:  Dirk Leder; Raphael Hermann; Matthias Hüls; Gabriele Russo; Philipp Hoelzmann; Ralf Nielbock; Utz Böhner; Jens Lehmann; Michael Meier; Antje Schwalb; Andrea Tröller-Reimer; Tim Koddenberg; Thomas Terberger
Journal:  Nat Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-07-05       Impact factor: 15.460

2.  A 115,000-year-old expedient bone technology at Lingjing, Henan, China.

Authors:  Luc Doyon; Zhanyang Li; Hua Wang; Lila Geis; Francesco d'Errico
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-05-06       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Early evidence of stone tool use in bone working activities at Qesem Cave, Israel.

Authors:  Andrea Zupancich; Stella Nunziante-Cesaro; Ruth Blasco; Jordi Rosell; Emanuela Cristiani; Flavia Venditti; Cristina Lemorini; Ran Barkai; Avi Gopher
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-11-25       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Discovery of circa 115,000-year-old bone retouchers at Lingjing, Henan, China.

Authors:  Luc Doyon; Zhanyang Li; Hao Li; Francesco d'Errico
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Elephant bones for the Middle Pleistocene toolmaker.

Authors:  Paola Villa; Giovanni Boschian; Luca Pollarolo; Daniela Saccà; Fabrizio Marra; Sebastien Nomade; Alison Pereira
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-08-26       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Technological and functional analysis of 80-60 ka bone wedges from Sibudu (KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa).

Authors:  Francesco d'Errico; Luc Doyon; Lucinda R Backwell; Lyn Wadley; Lila Geis; Alain Queffelec; William E Banks
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 4.996

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.