Article

Geology
July 2010 Vol.55 No.21: 22822289 doi: 10.1007/s11434-010-3089-4

SPECIAL TOPICS:

Use-wear analysis confirms the use of Palaeolithic bone tools by the Lingjing Xuchang early human
LI ZhanYang1,4 & SHEN Chen2,3,4*
1 2

Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Zhengzhou 450000, China; The Joint Laboratory of Human Evolution and Archaeometry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100044, China; 3 The Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto ON M5S2C6, Canada; 4 Oriental Archaeology Research Center of Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China Received July 6, 2009; accepted October 14, 2009

During 20072008 excavations at the Lingjing site near Xuchang, Henan Province, dated back to around 10080 ka ago, a large quantity of mammalian fossil remains were recovered along with a remarkable cluster of Early Modern Human (EMH) skull fragments in situ. Observably some of those animal bones were probably modified into tools. A use-wear analysis was carried out to examine the functions of modified bone tools. The results suggest that Lingjing bone tools were used for drilling, penetrating, and scraping animal substances, and that some might have been hafted during the use. This study confirms that early existence of intentionally-modified bone tools at human occupations of the early Late Pleistocene in northern China. This discovery suggests making and use of bone tools were inevitably a part of early human behaviors and cultural development, as such of stone tools. Lingjing site, replica experiment, use-wear analysis, bone tools
Citation: Li Z Y, Shen C. Use-wear analysis confirms the use of Palaeolithic bone tools by the Lingjing Xuchang early human. Chinese Sci Bull, 2010, 55: 22822289, doi: 10.1007/s11434-010-3089-4

The Lingjing site near Xuchang, Henan Province, is one of the greatest discoveries in Palaeolithic archaeology in recent years. During the years 20052009, archaeologists from the Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology undertook continuously excavations at the site, recovering more than 30000 stone artifacts and faunal remains (Figure 1). Most importantly, a cluster of Early Modern Human (EMH) skull fragments, which may belong to a single individual, was unearthed in situ during the excavations in 2007 and 2008. Preliminary reports on the Lingjing stone artifacts and faunal remains have been published elsewhere [13]. Based on the faunal analyses, Li and Dong [4] believe that the mammalian assemblage at Lingjing is similar to that at the Xujiayao site, indicating the site age should be of early Late Pleistocene. According to the preliminary Optical
*Corresponding author (email: chens@rom.on.ca) Science China Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Spectrum Luminescence (OSL) dating, Zhou [5] estimates the cultural deposit where the EMH skull fragments were found in situ should be somewhere between 100 and 80 ka ago. The cultural deposit at Lingjing is primarily of lake sediments, thus artifacts and faunal remains were probably buried at a speedy accumulation, preserving fossils from erosion to a great degree. Based on our preliminary observation, there is a total of 103 bone objects that were probably modified into bone tools [6]. According to the conventional morphological typology, these objects were classified into tool function categories such as scrapers, points, knives, and burins. In order to verify the existence of Palaeolithic bone tools at the Lingjing site, we applied the use-wear analysis to a trial examination on the samples of these modified bone objects. It is the first time that a microscopic examination on bone objects is conducted for functional
csb.scichina.com www.springerlink.com

LI ZhanYang, et al.

Chinese Sci Bull

July (2010) Vol.55 No.21

2283

Figure 1

Map showing the location of the Lingjing site.

study of Palaeolithic bone assemblages in China so far.

Research objectives and methods

Animal fossil is one of most common remains at archaeological remains; either complete specimens or fragmentary pieces are somehow important archaeological records. Bone artifacts were the products of human intentional modification, products made into various types of tools to be used in subsistent procurement and meat process in the Palaeolithic age. Thus, not all bone objects were made intentionally as tools; only those objects that were modified intentionally for certain functional purposes by human beings can be identified as bone tools. Therefore, the first and foremost question for this research is: did Xuchang early human purposefully make and use bone tools at 10080 ka BP? Archaeological records from any parts of the world suggest that early human utilized animal bones for survivals as early as in the Early Palaeolithic [7]. Previous identification of bone tools relies primarily on the morphological forms of faunal remains, and functional assessments were inferred based on the modified shapes [8]. However, modification of animal bones occurred whenever taphonomic conditions, natural erosion, and human/animal trampling were applied. Clearly, modification and morphology of bone artifacts are not the best indicator for bone tools manufacturing and utilizations. In order to understand the formation of bone breakage and distinguish human modification from natural process of bone artifacts, we apply the use-wear study to microscopically examining the bone artifacts recovered from archaeological sites. With the aids of lower-power or high-power microscopes, various wear types from bone artifacts can be recognized based on the combinations, directions, and distributions of striation, rounding, polishing, and microfracture scarring [9]. The method of use-wear analysis was initiated by Rus-

sian archaeologist Semenov in the 1930s, then the technique had been widely applied to functional study of stone tools in Europe and North America since the later 20th century [1014]. Clearly, the success of the use-wear study in the field of lithic analyses led to its application in other areas including bone analyses [1521]. In the past two decades, the use-wear study of bone artifacts has progressed dramatically in western academics; subsequently a number of good case studies have been published [2224]. Although a few exploring investigations on bone artifacts have been carried out in China, some of which focused on the reasons of bone breakage and surface modification [25,26], application of use-wear analysis on bone artifacts to assessing human modification of bone tools has not yet begun. Therefore, in this study, we set forth two objectives. First, we apply the use-wear analysis to examinations of different wears on bone artifacts recovered from the Lingjing site and to assessments of possible use functions of bone tools. Second, we will try to understand the formation of bone breakage and wearing and to further develop the methodology for bone tool study.

Observations of experimental bones

The foundation of the use-wear analysis is replica experiments [27]. The identification and recognition of bone wears must be through the comparisons with wears developed on similar materials and with a similar process. Thus the interpretations of bone functions should be validated with experimental data. Our experiments in this study have two parts. First, we used a stone and a metal knife to work on bones, such as chopping, scraping, and trampling, in order to observe the formation of bone wear caused by different activities. Second, we would utilize the bone tools on other materials, in order to observe use-wear produced on bone objects through

2284

LI ZhanYang, et al.

Chinese Sci Bull

July (2010) Vol.55 No.21

application of tool motions. 2.1 Experimental process

The experimental specimens include six pieces of animal bones (numbered EXP001EXP006). All are parts of fresh sheep scapula, but were stored in the deep freeze for three days. The bones, when used, still have a sheet of meat with fats. The modification process is observed as follows. Step one, we utilized one dull stone pebble to scrape meat off the two scapula (EXP001EXP002). The process continued until the meat was completely cleared off the bones, and scraping wear was observed on the surface of the bone. Step two, we used a middle-sized stone pebble to chop two scapulas (EXP003EXP004) in order to obtain bone fragments that are suitable for bone tool making. Meanwhile the scapula should remain chopping marks. Step three, both remaining scapulas (EXP005EXP006) were placed inside a sandbox to rotate the samples continuously, intervened with trampling, in order to observe such unpurposeful surface modifications. In the second part of the experiment, we selected two objects from the above as bone tools. First, we utilized EXP002 as a drilling tool to penetrate and bored the hide for 12 min. Subsequently, the side edge of the object was utilized to rubber the animal hide for additional 10 min. Second, a similar process was applied on EXP003 tip and edges for 12 min, in order to compare the results. 2.2 Microscopic examination of experimental specimens

scarring can be observed on specimen EXP003 under 14 magnifications (Figure 2(b)). The tip of EXP002, which was used for drilling hide, retained bright polish and heavy rounding. Similar wears also appeared on specimen EXP003 which was utilized in the same drilling way. Interestingly noted, because EXP003 had less use time than that of EXP002, its wears were displayed less obviously than the latter. The use-wear experiment of bone objects enables us to distinguish human modification or use-wear of bone objects from that of non-human, natural process production. This recognition has been verified by a number of experiments carried out by western colleagues [2224]. Apparently, the experimental data provides us with a better understanding of human modification and use-wear of Xuchang Lingjing bone tools.

3 Use-wear analysis of Lingjing bone tools and results

3.1 Description of individual tools

Modification wears of these experimental specimens can be microscopically observed under 3040 magnifications. Clusters of paralleling lines were formed on EXP001 objects, on which scraping pressure was applied. Under 1425 magnifications, polishing and fracture scars, which resulted from chopping and scraping surface, appeared obviously (Figure 2(a)). A series of middle-to-small-sized

The study collection in this research is bone artifacts that are recovered from 2005 excavation at Lingjing (Figure 3), and our use-wear analysis was carried out in April 2006, at the Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology. The microscope we used at the time for the on-site examination is Beijing Fukai stereoscopic microscope with maximal magnification up to 40. Due to the limited time and the equipment, we randomly selected only 11 specimens based on their morphological shapes which are assigned to the bone tool category in the original report. The result confirms use-wear and human modification of these bone tools at the site, along with identification of other natural or non-human modification. We will first describe the nature of the use-wear and modification from the use-wear analysis. In our descriptions, the orientation of the object will be as follows: the out-surface is up towards the observer, while the upper or lower parts of the objects will be judged by the illustration shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2 Photomicrograph of experimental bone wears. (a) Specimen EXP002 displaying polish wear after scraping activities; (b) specimen EXP003 showing a series of middle-to-small sized fracture scarring after chopping.

LI ZhanYang, et al.

Chinese Sci Bull

July (2010) Vol.55 No.21

2285

Figure 3 Illustration of bone objects with indication of use-wears. The solid line indicates the use-wear segment of the edge, while the dotted line indicates human-intentional retouch/modification.

Specimen 5L442. The tip displays continuous scarring characterized by middle-size, feathered- and hinged-termin-

ations, along with heavy rounding and bright polish. Striations appear in parallel vertically and horizontally, indicative strongly of used wear. The middle section of the surface also exhibits polish, which, however, might result from weathering. On the left edge shows medium used rounding, while right working edge retains natural appearance of no human action. The large scars appearing at the upper part of the bone could result from chopping activities. In summary, we believe that the bone tool has two functions, one relating to a downward cutting motion and another relating to surface scraping. Two segments of the objects were utilized; the left working edge and the tip, respectively. Specimen 5L219. The surface of the object exhibits weathering polish. The middle section of right edge has a row of large scars with feathered-termination, within which a cluster of small-sized scars were distributed closely. The inner surfaces corresponding to the same location display used polish and light rounding. If these wear can be confirmed at the higher magnification, this bone tool should be used for scraping soft substances. Specimen 5L217. The typical use-wear identified in this object is a series of striations in parallel as well as across on the surface. Two tips at both the upper and bottom ends display ambiguous use-wear. The use-wear of the upper tips is characterized by a few of fracture scars and directional striation. Such nature of use-wear points to a possible function of engraving (Figure 4). The tip at the bottom shows snapped middle-sized scars, along with a few small scars with directional features that resulted from rotation motions. Polish also occurred on the same location. The combination of these wear characteristics suggests that the lower tip might have been used as a drilling tool. Specimen 5L212. This specimen displays a complicate use-wear combination. For the purpose of comparison, each wear is described as follows: (1) The snapped scars on the

Figure 4 Use-wear of Specimen 5L217 bone tool. On the tip, heavy rounding, middle-sized snapped scars, with directional scars towards internal surface, and polish.

2286

LI ZhanYang, et al.

Chinese Sci Bull

July (2010) Vol.55 No.21

tip resulted from active human use, with polish extending towards internal surface. (2) The upper working edge displays a set of matt and bright used polish. (3) The right bottom working edge has a series of middle-to-small scars with feathered-termination, resulting from a purposefully retouch by early human. (4) On the right side of the surface shows a group of paralleling striation, resulting probably from the initial bone-working process by scraping the bone. The use-wear shown on Figure 5 is similar to the experimental wear produced on EXP001. (5) The breakage of the bottom is probably a result of human chopping action, but confirmation is needed from future high-power examination. (6) Interestingly noted, on the middle of the surface there is a bit of carnivores gnawing mark. In summary, this specimen has been modified extensively with human and non-human agencies. The primary function of this bone tool is of engraving action at the tip. The tool might have been working on hard animal substances, leaving a trace of heavy rounding and polish. Specimen 5L224. The right edge shows medium rounding along with a series of small-sized scars on the edge. The combined features are very similar to prehensile wear (hafting) identified on stone tools [28]. In addition, the polish on the inner surface of the bone probably is also related to hafting elements. A series of small-sized scars are also distributed on the left edge, corresponding to those on the right, indicative of hafting. All four ridges of the tip were heavily rounded, while scars appeared there to be rotational, suggesting that the bone tool was employed for drilling (Figure 6). However, whether this bone drilling tool could have been hafted for the utilization or not needs to be confirmed in future study.

Figure 5 Use-wear of Specimen 5L212 bone tool. The surface was cleaned at the initial stage of the bone process by stone tools, resulting in groups of paralleling striation, similar to those produced by experiments EXP001 (upper right).

Specimen 5L168. Microscopic examination does not detect wears of human modification and used traces; however, heavy erosion weathering is displayed on the bone surface, while the edge was broken off as a natural cause.

Figure 6 Use-wear of Specimen 5L224 bone tool. On the right showing the tip with use-wear of drilling, while the left bottom image suggests hafting wear similar to those in stone tool experiments.

LI ZhanYang, et al.

Chinese Sci Bull

July (2010) Vol.55 No.21

2287

Specimen 5L213. The use-wear concentrates on the upper section of left edge, displaying bright polish, heavy rounding, and a series of small-sized and featered-termination scars. The inner portion of the edge was also rounded with a few striations paralleling with the edge, suggesting the segment of the edge was probably used for slicing or scraping. Presence of snapped scars at the edge also indicates strong force used on tool motion, probably in dealing with hard substances of worked materials. Possible hafting wear is identified on the low part of right edge. In addition, the marks of early stage surface cleaning, in order to prepare for making the bone tool, are shown on the surface, which is indicated by groups of paralleling scratches (probably by stone tools). This used mark is verified by the experimental data from EXP001. Specimen 5L004. The retouch marks of human modification in shaping the edge of the bone tool are clearly identified on the right side working edge. On the surface, there are marks of cutting wear as well as carnivores gnawing. Importantly, the tip was used as a drilling device, leaving traces of heavy rounding with striations (Figure 7). Specimen 5L004. The tip is the primary functional segment, evidenced by its heavy use rounding and small-sized snap scars. The forces of tool motions used were so strong as to form a crash edge on the right ridge of the tip. Specimen 5L858. The tip was modified intentionally to form a workable device. The use-wear exhibits heavy rounding and polish. The back edge of the tip is formed

with clamped scarring consisting of large-sized and steppedtermination scars, probably caused by penetration forces. On the right are continuous small-sized feathered termination scars, along with short striation paralleling with the working edge, which indicates a possible hafting use-wear combination. In sum, this tool was intended to be made for penetrating function. Whether the tool was hafted during the use is also a subject for future research. 3.2 Functional interpretations

The microscopic analysis suggests that there are three causes for the formation of surface modifications of bone objects: physical cause (erosion and watering), biological cause (gnawing and rooting), and human cause (manufacturing and use). The result of our use-wear analysis confirms that early human at the Lingjing site had intentions to make and use bone tools on purpose. Among the 11 samples selected for the microscopic examination, eight objects exhibit positive use-wear evidence, accounting for 73%. One object has clear manufacturing marks, but no use-wear. Two samples show no human modification at all. Within the used bone tools, two were employed for cutting, one for scraping, two for engraving, and one for penetrating. Three tools exhibit wears of the initial stage of bone surface cleaning for preparing tool manufacturing. According to the combination of use-wear data, the worked materials of these used tools ranged from soft, medium, to hard

Figure 7

Use-wear of Specimen 5L004 bone tool. The tip showing heavy rounding and directional scaring, with matt polish, and used as drilling tool.

2288

LI ZhanYang, et al.

Chinese Sci Bull

July (2010) Vol.55 No.21

substance; identification of exact materials (whether hide or animal bone, etc.) awaits further investigations. Three tools show ambiguous hafting wears, based on the comparison with use-war experiments of stone tools. It would be interesting to know whether the Lingjing bone tools were used with a hafting device. In addition, each of the two tools (5L217 and 5L213) was utilized in two functional units. Therefore, we can arrive at a conclusion that, among animal bones recovered from the Lingjing site, some can be positively identified as human modified bone tools that have been extensively used on purpose.

4 Discussion
Scholars started to have interests in identifying the modification of bone objects from archaeological sites as early as in the 1930s. Pei Wenzhong cautioned at the time to distinguish the difference between humanly modification and natural alternation. But for a long period of time, practices of bone analysis in this aspect were not carried out in China until the late 1970s. L et al. [29] in Peking University started a series of experiments for identification of human modification on bone objects. Subsequently, Long [30] carried out detailed analysis of 1131 bone objects recovered from the Maanshan site in Guizhou for modification. Recently, Zhang [25], based on Longs study, further identified various marks and alternations of Maanshan bone objects, suggesting the bones were extensively utilized as a subject of working materials, but not as tools. Their study is significant in the way to enable us to further consider the possibility of bone as tools, although their results do not provide use-wear evidence from bone objects [9]. Recently, French scholars like Legrand and Sidera [22] have applied use-wear experiments of bone awls, providing comparative references for drilling tools that we have recognized from the Lingjing samples. It is unfortunate that the bone samples from the Lingjing site for such microscopic examination are limited in number, and our preliminary observation needs to be verified by a study with a high-power microscope. Especially, to make a full scale of investigation of the Lingjing bone tool functions, we need to design a comprehensive experimental replica with a variety of use-tasks in order to master the complication in the process of use-wear formation from bone uses. It would be also important that functional study of bone tools should be combined with stone tools functions, along with their typo-technological attributes to understand possible complicate tool kits of early human in northern China.

use-wear that were not possibly detected by the naked eyes. The evidence of use-wear, for the first time, confirms the purposefully making and use of bone tools by early human in northern China dated by 10080 ka at the Lingjing site. Results of our use-wear analysis arrive at the following conclusions. Firstly, we should understand that the formation of Lingjing bone wear patterns was much more complicated than we anticipated. Secondly, among a large number of faunal remains recovered from the site, some of those suitable bone materials were intentionally modified by early human for making into tools to be utilized on purpose. Thirdly, most of these utilized bones was not extensively shaped into morphologically-recognized types, but were expediently utilized directly. Last, thus the correlations between morphological types and functional categories are not consistent from the Lingjing bone assemblage. These findings suggest making and use of bone tools were inevitably a part of early human behaviors and cultural development, as such of stone tools in the Palaeolithic age.
The Use-wear experiments and analysis were carried out with the assistantce of Dr. Qu Tongli. The paper has benefited from discussions with the following colleagues: Dr. Zhang Xiaoling of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleonanthropology Chinese Academy of Sciences, Dr. Qin Xiaoli of the Royal Ontario Museum, and Chen Hong of Fudan University. We thank Yang Yuhua of the Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology for illustrating Figure 3. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (40872115), CAS/SAFEA International Partnership Program for Creative Research Teams, the Programme of Introducing Talents of Discipline to Universities (111-2-09). 1 2 3 Li Z Y. A Primary Study on the stone artefacts of Lingjing site excavated in 2005 (in Chinese). Acta Anthropol Sin, 2007, 2: 138154 Li Z Y, Chen W L. Taphonomic study of Lingjing site (in Chinese). Huaxia Archaeol, 2007, 130136 Li Z Y, Zhang S Q. The new materials unearthed during 2006s excavation at Lingjing site, Henan Province. In: Dong W, ed. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annaul Meeting of the Chinese Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (in Chinese). Beijing: Ocean Press, 2008. 7383 Li Z Y, Dong W. Mammalian fauna from the Lingjing Paleolithic site in Xuchang, Henan Province (in Chinese). Acta Anthropol Sin, 2007, 4: 345360 Li Z Y, Zhang S Q. The important discovery in Lingjing Site (in Chinese). Chian Cultural Relics News, February 8, 2008 Li Z Y. The excavation report of Lingjing site on 2006 (in Chinese). Acta Archaeol Sin, in press LeMoine G M. Bong tools and bone technology: A brief history. In: St-Pierre C G, Walker R B, ed. Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. Oxford: BAR International Series 1622, 2007. 922 Li C R, Feng X W, Yu J C. Bone artefacts from Dongfang Plaza site of Wangfujing, Beijing (in Chinese). Acta Anthropol Sin, 2004, 1: 1324 Shen C, Qu T L. Use-wear Analysis: A new perspective on bone tools (in Chinese). China Cultural Relics News, July 7, 2006 Semenov S A. Prehistoric Technology. London: Cory, Adams and Mackay, 1964 Keeley L H. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980 Odell G H. Stone Tools and Mobility in the Illinois Valley: From hunter-gatherer camps to agricultural villages. Michigan: Interna-

5 6 7

9 10 11

Summary

Applying the use-wear technique to analyses of archaeological bone objects allows us to identify modification and

12

LI ZhanYang, et al.

Chinese Sci Bull

July (2010) Vol.55 No.21

2289

13

14

15

16 17

18

19

20

21 22

tional Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, 1996 Shen C, Chen C. Use-wear analysis (Low Power Method): Research and practice, and a use-wear examination of the Xiaochangliang Lithic artefacts (in Chinese). Archaeology, 2001, 7: 6273 Shen C The Lithic Production System of the Princess Point Complex during theTransition to Agriculture in Southwestern Ontario, Canada. BAR International Series 991, 2001. 4553 St-Pierre C G, Walker R B. Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. Oxford: BAR International Series 1622. 2007 Newcomer M. Study and replication of bone tools from Ksar Akil (Liban). World Archaeol, 1974, 6: 138153 Olsen S L. Identification of stone and metal tool marks on bone artifacts. In: Olsen S L, ed. Scanning Electron Microscopy in Archaeology. Oxford: BAR International Series 452, 1988. 337360 Olsen S L. Introduction: Applications of scanning electron microscopy to archaeology. In: Olsen S L, ed. Scanning Electron Microscopy in Archaeology. Oxford: BAR International Series 452, 1988. 3 7 Runnings A L, Bentley D, Gustafson C E. Use-wear on bone tools: A technique for study under the scanning electron microscope. In: Bonnichsen R, Sorg M, eds. Bone Modification. Orono: Center for the Study of the First Americans, Institute for Quaternary Studies, University of Maine, 1989. 259266 Shipman P, Rose J J. Bone tools: An experimental approach. In: Olsen S L, ed. Scanning Electron Microscopy in Archaeology. Oxford: BAR International Series 452, 1988. 303335 Campana D V. The manufacture of bone tools in the Zagros and the Levant. MASCA J, 1987, 4: 110123 Legrand A, Sidera I. Methods, means, and results when studying European bone industries. In: St-Pierre C G, Walker R B, eds. Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Stud-

23

24

25

26

27 28

29

30

ies. Oxford: BAR International Series 1622, 2007. 6780 St-Pierre C G. Bone awls of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians: a microwear analysis. In: St-Pierre C G, Walker R B, eds. Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. Oxford: BAR International Series 1622, 2007. 107118 Buc N, Loponte D. Bone tool types and microwear patterns: some examples from the Pampa Region, South America. In: St-Pierre C G, Walker R B, eds. Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. Oxford: BAR International Series 1622, 2007. 143158 Zhang Y. A Zooarchaeological study of bone assemblage from the Maanshan Site and the interpretations of hominid behaviours (in Chinese). Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Beijing: Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2008 Zhang S Q. Taphonomic study of the faunal remains from the Lingjing Site, Xuchang, Henan Province (in Chinese). Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Beijing: Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2009 Gao X, Shen C. Archaeological Study of Lithic Use-wear Experiments (in Chinese). Beijing: Science Press, 2008 Zhao J F, Song Y H, Chen H, et al. An experimental study of hafting use-wear (in Chinese). In: Gao X, Shen C, eds. Archaeological Study of Lithic Use-wear Experiments. Beijing: Science Press, 2008. 145176 L Z W, Huang Y P. The carnivore tooth marks and the marrow yielding percussion marks (in Chinese). In: Archaeology Department of Peking University, ed. Proceedings of the 30 Anniversary of the Archaeology Department, Peking University. Beijing: Cultural Relicas Press, 1993. 439 Long F X. Analysis of bone fragments from Maanshan site, Guizhou (in Chinese). Acta Anthropol Sin, 1992, 3: 217229