A new paper by Li et al. (2020) details the discovery of a
Palaeolithic figurine in the shape of a bird from Lingjing, Henan, China. The
estimated age is about 13,500 BP, making it the oldest piece of portable art from
China. Here’s the abstract:
“The recent identification of
cave paintings dated to 42–40 ka BP in Borneo and Sulawesi highlights the
antiquity of painted representations in this region. However, no instances of
three-dimensional portable art, well attested in Europe since at least 40 ka
BP, were documented thus far in East Asia prior to the Neolithic. Here, we
report the discovery of an exceptionally well-preserved miniature carving of a
standing bird from the site of Lingjing, Henan, China. Microscopic and
microtomographic analyses of the figurine and the study of bone fragments from
the same context reveal the object was made of bone blackened by heating and
carefully carved with four techniques that left diagnostic traces on the entire
surface of the object. Critical analysis of the site’s research history and
stratigraphy, the cultural remains associated with the figurine and those
recovered from the other archeological layers, as well as twenty-eight
radiometric ages obtained on associated archeological items, including one
provided by a bone fragment worked with the same technique recorded on the
object, suggest a Late Paleolithic origin for the carving, with a probable age
estimated to 13,500 years old. The carving, which predates previously known comparable
instances from this region by 8,500 years, demonstrates that three-dimensional
avian representations were part of East Asian Late Pleistocene cultural
repertoires and identifies technological and stylistic peculiarities
distinguishing this newly discovered art tradition from previous and
contemporary examples found in Western Europe and Siberia.”
Here is the little bird sculpture
from the paper:
Original caption reads:
Fig 4. Lingjing bird carving. (A) Photographs of the six
aspects of the carvings. (B) 3D renderings of the carving obtained by CT scan.
Scales = 2 mm.
Here is another image from
Cascone (2020):
Fig. 1 From Zhan-yang (2007).
Original caption reads: (A) Aerial top view of the Lingjing site, with the
Lingjing site in the red frame; (b) The sight of the Lingjing site before
excavation; (c) Excavation and its number
from 2005 to 2015; (d) T9 shows the exploration of human fossils
The site was first noted in
modern times, by villagers who dug a well near an ancient spring, on the edge
of the village of Lingjing in 1958.
The site was discovered in the
mid-1960s, when microblade tools and mammalian fossils were collected on the
surface [Zhou (1974)]. Excavation work began in 2005 after the spring dried up
and faunal remains began to appear. As of 2018 had reached 9m. The bottom of
the sedimentary sequence has not yet been reached.
The stratigraphy is as follows:
Eleven levels have been excavated, with a total thickness over 9 m deep from
modern surface.The bottom of the stratigraphy has not been reached.
The current stratigraphic
sequence, from top to bottom, is as follows: Layers 1-4 (thickness: ≈2.9 m) are
Holocence in age, yielding cultural materials representing the Neolithic to the
Shang-Zhou Bronze Age. Layer 5 (thickness: 0.62–0.70 m) contains yellowish
silty sediment and has yielded late Upper Paleolithic cultural materials
including carved bone artifacts, microliths, perforated ostrich eggshells,
hematite, and animal remains. Layer 6 is a flowstone layer (thickness: 0.4 m).
Layer 7 is a yellowish silty soil (thickness: ≈0.85 m). Layer 8 is an
archeologically sterile thin stratum of black ferruginous soils (thickness:
≈0.20 m). Layer 9 is an archeologically sterile and thick layer of brownish
ferruginous silt, with a vertical root hole-like structure (≈2 m in thickness).
Layer 10 is a similar brownish ferruginous silt with vertical root hole-like
structures, containing lithic artifacts, animal bones and small pebbles (≈1.6 m
in thickness). The lowest level, Layer 11, consists of sage-green silt with
minimally inclined bedding; it contains the human fossils, abundant lithic
artifacts, animal bones, and hematite inclusions. Its total thickness is not
known.
Li et al (2019) give the ages of
the layers as: 1-4, Holocene in age, with material culture
spanning from the Bronze Age to
the Neolithic; layer 5 (yellowish silt), LGM to the Younger Dryas, layer 6
(flowstone layer), sterile; layer 7 (yellowish silt), sterile; layer 8 (black
ferruginous soil), sterile; layer 9 (brownish ferruginous silt), sterile; layer
10 early Late Pleistocene OSL ages from
layer 11 indicate a deposition taking place at c. 125–105 ka BP.
Fig. 1a from Doyon et al
(2018). Original caption reads: “Location
of Lingjing (Henan, China); b) Stratigraphy indicating the geological and
cultural layers.”
The site’s significance was soon
realised due to the richness and variety of finds discovered.
Whilst extremely beautiful and
well fashioned, the bird sculpture is not the most important art discovered at
the site. Early, late Pleistocene art was discovered in layer 11. Two specimens
of weathered bone were reported [Li et al (2019)] to have been intentionally
incised by archaic humans. The parallel striations were produced with a sharp
stone implement, and in one case, then rubbed with red ochre.
Li et al (2019) Fig. 3. Original caption reads: “Photographs
of the engraved specimens: A) 9L0141; B) 9L0148.
Li et al (2019) Fig. 4. Original caption reads: “Photographs
and tracing of the engraving on specimens: A) 9L0141 (red dots indicate the
location of red residues); B) 9L0148”
Li et al (2019) Fig. 4. Original
caption reads: “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)”
Due to their age, these
intentional, symbolic marks were therefore made by archaic humans likely to be
of a species other than Homo sapiens.
They are some of the earliest art ever uncovered and compare well to other
early examples. These include the engraved patterns on a freshwater shell from
Trinil, Indonesia (540 kya); a bone from Bilzingsleben in Germany (370 kya);
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 (120 kya) and an intentionally striated, Stegodon ivory
tusk found in Xinglongdong Cave, south China a layer (150–120 kya).
These were not the only other examples
of early artifacts known from the site. Bone tools used to retouch lithic
implement, either by pressure flaking or soft hammer percussion have been used
for millenia in Eurpoe and the middle east.
Doyen (2018) reports bone
retouchers from the site. Here is part of the abstract:
“Most Chinese lithic industries
dated between 300,000 and 40,000 are characterized by the absence of Levallois
debitage, the persistence of core-and-flake knapping, the rarity of prepared cores,
their reduction with direct hard hammer percussion, and the rarity of retouched
flakes. Here we report the discovery of seven bone soft hammers at the early
hominin Lingjing site (Xuchang County, Henan) dated to 125,000±105,000. These
artefacts represent the first instance of the use of bone as raw material to
modify stone tools found at an East Asian early Late Pleistocene site. Three
types of soft hammers are identified. The first consists of large bone flakes
resulting from butchery of large herbivores that were utilized as such for expedient
stone tools retouching or resharpening. The second involved the fracture of weathered
bone from medium size herbivores to obtain elongated splinters shaped by
percussion into sub-rectangular artefacts. Traces observed on these objects
indicate intensive and possibly recurrent utilization, which implies their
curation over time. The last consists of antler, occasionally used.”
Doyen (2018) Fig. 3. Original
caption reads: “Fig 3. Retoucher 6L1657 from Lingjing. White brackets indicate
the areas where impact scars are present. Scales = 1cm.”
So who were these humans?
Unsurprisingly, considering the wide morphological, variation over time and
space of fossils from north eastern Asia we do not yet know. Five individuals
from the site have so far been recovered. The best preserved are named Xuchang
1 and 2, they were found in layer 11 and exhibit an interesting mixture of morphological
traits. Once again here is an excerpt from the abstract from Li et al. (2017):
“Two early Late Pleistocene
(~105,000- to 125,000-year-old) crania from Lingjing, Xuchang, China, exhibit a
morphological mosaic with differences from and similarities to their western
contemporaries. They share pan–Old World trends in encephalization and in supraorbital,
neurocranial vault, and nuchal gracilization. They reflect eastern Eurasian ancestry
in having low, sagittally flat, and inferiorly broad neurocrania. They share
occipital (suprainiac and nuchal torus) and temporal labyrinthine (semicircular
canal) morphology with the Neandertals. This morphological combination reflects
Pleistocene human evolutionary patterns in general biology, as well as both
regional continuity and interregional population dynamics.”
Here are the crania in question:
Xuchang 1 from Li and Wu (2018).
Original caption reads:
Figure 2 3D virtual restoration
of Xuchang No. 1 skull. (a) Front view; (b) Top view; (c) Right side view; (d)
Left side view; (e) back view; (f) bottom view
Xuchang 2 from Li and Wu (2018).
Original caption reads:
Figure 3 3D virtual restoration
of Xuchang No. 2 skull (a) back view; (b) left side view; (c) right side view;
(d) back side view; (e) inside view; (f) bottom
Incidentally, there were 3 more
partial skulls which, as yet, remain unpublished. It is also worth mentioning
that another specimen from China also exhibited the same temporal labyrinthine
morphology - Xujiayao 15 – which I covered in another post (see here).
Finally I would like to discuss
the perspective from which the authors view and discuss this piece of sculpture.
Here are two sentences which highlight their intent.
First from the abstract: “The carving, which
predates previously known comparable instances from this region by 8,500 years,
demonstrates that three-dimensional avian representations were part of East
Asian Late Pleistocene cultural repertoires and identifies technological and
stylistic peculiarities distinguishing this newly discovered art tradition from
previous and contemporary examples found in Western Europe and Siberia.”
Secondly from their discussion: “The
style of this diminutive representation is original and remarkably different
from all other known Paleolithic avian figurines. Avian representations, and passerines
in particular, constitute a recurring theme in Chinese Neolithic art, the
oldest example being a passerine made of jade dating back to circa 5 ka BP [89,90].
The Lingjing bird carving predates previously known instances from this region
by almost 8,500 years. The sophistication reflected by the object manufacturing
process suggests this three-dimensional representation is several conceptual
stages removed from the origin of a long-standing artistic tradition, extending
well into the Paleolithic, that may be better characterized by future discoveries.”
Here they are subtly saying a
number of things. Firstly that these ‘Chinese’ sculptural techniques are unique
to this region, now within China.
That the later Neolithic art/sculpture
also shows some birds and therefore may be a direct successor of this form of
sculpture, and also that the techniques used to create the bird may date back
into the deep Pleistocene.
The overall aim seems, as usual
to differentiate the art and fossils found within the region now called China
as unique and showing deep continuity within the region.
This sadly echoes the regional
continuity model of evolution (the multiregional evolution theory), which
Chinese scientists seem so keen to push in the last couple of decades. Granted
that their views seem to have softened recently, with the admission that some
gene flow may have entered into the region from without. However, this paper
and the recent suite of papers from the site are all written with this
undercurrent of presumed, ancient linkage/continuity within the region.
Let me propose an alternative:
the art from late Middle Pleistocene recovered from the site was made by the
direct ancestors of the bird sculptor. Yes, despite the 100,000 years of time
that elapsed between the creation of the two examples of ancient art being made
or deposited at the site, there was genetic continuity. Seems likely doesn’t
it? Well no – I don’t think so either.
However, in this paper the authors
are hinting that this form of art (the bird sculpture) may have influenced the
Neolithic art of 8500 years later. I think that, that idea is just as ludicrous
as the one I put forward at the top of this paragraph. I base this on one
simple fact: genetic turnover of populations and migrations, worldwide between
13,500BP and present have been enormous.
Therefore, it seem unlikely that
Li et al. (however subtly) are presenting anything other than a thinly veiled attempt
to support the regional continuity model once again.
References:
Cascone, S. (2020). “Archaeologists
Discovered a Paleolithic Bird Figurine in a Rubbish Heap. Turns Out It’s the
Oldest 3D Chinese Art in the World” artnet news at: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/ancient-bird-oldest-chinese-art-1885044
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 (3): e0194318. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194318
Li, Z.Y., Wu, X.J., Zhou, L.P.,
Liu, W., Gao, X., Nian, X.M. and Trinkaus, E., 2017. Late Pleistocene archaic
human crania from Xuchang, China. Science, 355(6328), pp.969-972.
Li Zhanyang, Wu Xiujie. Xuchang
human fossils found in Lingjing site in Henan Province and related research
progress[J]. Science & Technology Review, 2018, 36(23): 20-25.
Li, Z., Doyon, L., Li, H., Wang,
Q., Zhang, Z., Zhao, Q. and d'Errico, F., 2019. Engraved bones from the archaic
hominin site of Lingjing, Henan Province. Antiquity, 93(370), pp.886-900.
Li Z, Doyon L, Fang H, Ledevin R,
Queffelec A, Raguin E, et al. (2020) A Paleolithic bird figurine from the
Lingjing site, Henan, China. PLoS ONE 15(6): e0233370. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233370
Zhan-yang, L.I., 2007. A Primary
Study on the Stone Artifacts of Lingjing Site Excavated in 2005 [J]. Acta
Anthropologica Sinica, 2 pp20-25.
Zhou, G. X. (1974). Stone age
remains from Lingjing, Xuchang of Henan province.
Archaeol. 2, 91–108
No comments:
Post a Comment