Diachronic Change in the Utilization of Ostrich Eggshell at the Late Paleolithic Shizitan Site, North China

Yanhua Song,Jinming Shi,David J Cohen

doi:10.3389/feart.2021.818554

Yanhua Song, Jinming Shi + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2021.818554

Copy DOI

Abstract

Forty-one ostrich eggshell (OES) artifacts excavated at five localities of the late Paleolithic Shizitan site, on the North China Loess Plateau, allow the observation of diachronic changes in the utilization of ostrich eggs in the production and use of ornaments considered to be technologies of social signaling, beginning during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and continuing through the Younger Dryas. Based on changes in dimensions, production techniques such as drilling, coloration through heat treatment or the application of ochre, and stringing techniques, the OES pendant and bead use at Shizitan is divided into four phases. Phases 1–3 feature only completed ornaments, usually with heavy usewear. Only in Phase 4, during the Younger Dryas, blanks and drilled preforms are found that indicate local production. While Phase 1 features the use of larger pendants colored grey/black by burning, subsequent phases see beads replacing pendants, no heat coloration, and the use of the ochre pigment. The switch to beads corresponds with the change to microblade technology at Shizitan 29. Phase 3 shows a trend toward a larger relative surface display area and maturation of techniques to produce visual effects of roundedness and weightiness. Phase 4 local production shows technological developments that allowed drilling smaller apertures while also decreasing the bead diameter and increased standardization, implying changing display objectives (stringing beads together with a uniform appearance). The changes observed in the Shizitan diachronic dataset may relate to changing requirements in social signaling—part of the adaptations the hunter–gatherer groups made to survive the challenges of climatic change from the LGM through the Terminal Pleistocene in North China.

Highlights

The use of ostrich eggshell as a raw material for Paleolithic mobile hunter–gatherer artifact production is well-documented in regions inhabited by ostriches, in Late Stone Age contexts in Africa and Upper Paleolithic contexts in northern Asia (Wingfield, 2003; Hitchcock, 2012)
Where appropriate data are available, the archaeological distributions beginning from ca. 50 ka BP of such non-edible animal resources as Ostrich eggshell (OES) can be taken as indicators of mobility patterns or the social geography of modern humans or used in models of diffusion and exchange through social networks (e.g., Mcbrearty and Brooks, 2000; Stiner, 2014; Abadía and Nowell, 2015; Stewart et al, 2020 and references therein)
Microscopic examination of the thickness and structure of the OES unearthed at Shizitan indicates that the eggs belong to the most recent but extinct species of North Asian giant ostriches, Struthio anderssoni (Lowe, 1931; Yang and Sun, 1960; Zhao et al, 1981; Janz et al, 2009; Song and Shi, 2013a; Song and Shi, 2013b; Yang et al, 2016), which in the Late Pleistocene had a small population distributed across a wide geographical range over the Malan Loess along the Taihang and Zhongtiao Mountain chains in Shanxi, Hebei, and Henan provinces in North China (Young, 1933; An, 1964; Chen, 1985)

Summary

Introduction

The use of ostrich eggshell as a raw material for Paleolithic mobile hunter–gatherer artifact production is well-documented in regions inhabited by ostriches, in Late Stone Age contexts in Africa and Upper (or Late) Paleolithic contexts in northern Asia (Wingfield, 2003; Hitchcock, 2012). Ostrich eggshell (OES) ornaments have been reported from sub-Saharan African Late Stone Age and possibly Middle Stone Age contexts (e.g., Deacon, 1995; Robbins et al, 2000; Vogelsang et al, 2010; d’Errico et al, 2012), and East African sites (perhaps first appearing 50–39 ka BP) (e.g., Mehlman, 1991; Miller and Willoughby, 2014), and sites in North Asia by 37 ka cal BP (or perhaps earlier), including Siberia (Denisova Cave in the Russian Altai), Mongolia (Tobor 4, Tolbor 16, and Dörölj 1), and the Transbaikal region (at Podzvonkaya localities) (Tashak, 2002a; Tashak, 2002b; Jaubert et al, 2004; Derevianko et al, 2006; Kuzmin et al, 2011; Mellars et al, 2013; Rybin, 2014; Zwyns et al, 2014; Wei et al, 2017). Where appropriate data are available, the archaeological distributions beginning from ca. 50 ka BP of such non-edible animal resources as OES can be taken as indicators of mobility patterns or the social geography of modern humans or used in models of diffusion and exchange through social networks (e.g., Mcbrearty and Brooks, 2000; Stiner, 2014; Abadía and Nowell, 2015; Stewart et al, 2020 and references therein)

Methods

Discussion

Conclusion