the earliest late paleolithic in north china: site ... · the earliest late paleolithic in north...

lable at ScienceDirect

Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e11

Contents lists avai

Quaternary International

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/quaint

The earliest Late Paleolithic in North China: Site formation processesat Shuidonggou Locality 7

Shuwen Pei a,*, Dongwei Niu a, Ying Guan a, Xiaomei Nian a, Kathleen Kuman b,c,Christopher J. Bae d, Xing Gao a

aKey Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution and Human Origins, Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences,No. 142, Xizhimenwai Street, Beijing 100044, Chinab School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, WITS 2050, South Africac Evolutionary Studies Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, WITS 2050, South AfricadDepartment of Anthropology, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, 2424 Maile Way, 346 Saunders Hall, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online xxx

Keywords:North ChinaLate PleistoceneLate PaleolithicShuidonggou Locality 7Site formation processesStone artifacts concentration

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Pei).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.03.0521040-6182/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights

Please cite this article in press as: Pei, S., et aQuaternary International (2014), http://dx.d

a b s t r a c t

Shuidonggou (SDG) has long been recognized as the type site complex for the Chinese Late Paleolithic, asdefined by the presence of blade technology and by its chronology. Recent field and laboratory researchconducted in the past decade has revealed the presence of Paleolithic ornaments and two differenttechnological components of an industry equivalent to the early Upper Paleolithic e Levallois-like bladesand simple core and flakes which appear at SDG localities. Although clearly important for Paleolithicresearch in China and broader Old World prehistoric studies, relatively little is known about the SDG siteformation processes and the specifics of site context. Here, we explore the various formation processesand sedimentary context associated with the stone artifact assemblage from one key site e ShuidonggouLocality 7 (SDG7).

Contrary to earlier suggestions that the SDG7 lithic accumulations are the result of secondary depo-sition, our study indicates that SDG7 has been preserved in near-primary context. Features that werepreviously argued to reflect fluvial disturbance are in fact localized collapse features caused by saturatedsediment load in loess deposits in a lakeshore context. Multiple lines of evidence support the argumentthat the site preserves the original foraging behavior of the SDG hunteregatherers. This evidence consistsof the sedimentary matrix and the distribution patterns of archaeological materials (particularly theartifact assemblage composition, debitage size distribution, artifact conditions, orientation analysis,inclination, and spatial patterning). The SDG7 archaeological deposits were buried rapidly in shallow lakemargin deposits of fine sands, silts, and clays that were minimally disturbed and subjected only torelatively low energy hydraulic forces. This indicates that the SDG7 occurrences are suitable for earlyhominin behavioral studies in North China at the start of the Late Paleolithic.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Scientists have long recognized that archaeological materials ina deposit can be altered by site formation processes (Visher, 1969;Bar-Yosef and Tchernov, 1972; Gladfelter, 1977; Isaac, 1977; Has-san,1978; Schick,1986,1991; Schiffer,1987; Goldberg and Petraglia,1993; Kuman, 1994; Petraglia and Potts, 1994; Kluskens, 1995;Sahnouni and Heinzelin, 1998; Ward and Larcomb, 2003; Dibbleet al., 2006; Bernatchez, 2010; Marder et al., 2011). This realization

reserved.

l., The earliest Late Paleolithioi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.0

has made interpreting the archaeological record more complicated(Isaac, 1983, 1984; Schick, 1987a,b, 1992; Potts, 1988; Bertran andTexier, 1995; Kuman et al., 1999; Shea, 1999; Kuman, 2003;Lenoble and Bertran, 2004; Brantingham et al., 2007; Benito-Calvo and de la Torre, 2011).

Fortunately, the impact of site formation processes on archae-ological sites found in floodplain and lake margin environments isparticularly well studied (Potts, 1982; Schick, 1986, 1987a;Sahnouni, 1998; Sahnouni and Heinzelin, 1998; Sahnouni et al.,2002; Morton, 2004). This is primarily because these types of lo-calities are usually subjected to low energy fluvial processes, wherethere is relatively little movement of the archaeological materials.In contrast, high energy settings (e.g., coarse alluvial sediments and

c in North China: Site formation processes at Shuidonggou Locality 7,3.052

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.03.052



Fig. 1. Location of Shuidonggou Locality 7 (SDG7) in North China.

S. Pei et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e112

riverbank deposits) are much more complicated for archaeologiststo interpret (Petraglia and Potts, 1987; Schick, 1992, 2001; Shea,1999). Many of the sites found in Shuidonggou are in lake margindepositional contexts and thus were subjected to low energy fluvialactivities.

The Shuidonggou site complex (38�17055.200N, 106�3006.700E;1198 m a.s.l.) is located on the southwestern edge of the OrdosDesert in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region of China. Since 1923, thesite has long been recognized as critical to understanding the NorthChinese initial Upper Palaeolithic, now referred to in China as theinitial Late Paleolithic (Licent and Teilhard de Chardin, 1925; Bouleet al., 1928; Jia et al., 1964; Bordes, 1968; Li, 1993; Yamanaka, 1995;Norton and Jin, 2009; Bae and Bae, 2012), the “Late Paleolithic” asdefined by Gao and Norton (2002) and Norton et al. (2009). Earlyresearchers classified the lithic industry from Shuidonggou Locality1 (SDG1) as evolved Mousterian or emergent Aurignacian (Licentand Teilhard de Chardin, 1925; Boule et al., 1928; Zhou and Hu,1988) because of the presence of a Levallois-reduction strategyfor blades. Since 2002, a series of multidisciplinary investigationshas been conducted at the site by the Institute of Vertebrate Pale-ontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP of the Chinese Academy ofSciences) and the Institute of Archeology of Ningxia Hui Autono-mous Region that focused on newexcavations, the analysis of a newseries of optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dates, anddeveloping a better understanding of the geomorphology of theShuidonggou site complex, a region that covers an area of over

Please cite this article in press as: Pei, S., et al., The earliest Late PaleolithiQuaternary International (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.0

50 km2 (Gao et al., 2004, 2013a,b; Chen et al., 2012; Pei et al., 2012,2014; Li et al., 2013; Yi et al., 2013).

Six new Paleolithic sites (designated SDG7e12) were discoveredand large scale excavations were conducted at five [SDG2 (previ-ously discovered), SDG7, SDG8, SDG9, and SDG12]. As a result ofthese excavations, newarchaeological horizons have been identifiedandmore than 50,000 Paleolithic stone artifactswere recovered (Peiet al., 2012; Gao et al., 2013a,b). The SDG assemblages includeLevallois-like blade and traditional core and flake industries,microblades, large numbers of vertebrate fossils, some ostricheggshell beads, hearths, pigments and bone tools. This diversity ofartifactual evidence ranging from 38,000e20,000 years has madeSDG one of the most important site complexes for study of earlymodern humans in northeast Asia (Norton and Jin, 2009; Pei et al.,2012; Boëda et al., 2013; Gao et al., 2013b; Li et al., 2013). The SDGlithic collectionswereprimarilyexcavated in situandareoften foundin high densities, ranging in size from several hundred tomore thanten thousand artifacts from different localities.

Nevertheless, relatively little is known of the site formationprocesses that may have influenced the SDG archaeological as-semblages. In other words, were the SDG artifacts found in theiroriginally deposited context or are the accumulations the result ofsecondary deposition, perhaps the outcome of fluvial activities?Weattempt to answer this question by evaluating the site formationprocesses that may have impacted the archaeological materialsfrom SDG7, one of the primary Shuidonggou localities.


S. Pei et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2014) 1e11 3

2. Site background

2.1. Geology and stratigraphy

Shuidonggou is located in the southwestern margin of the OrdosDesert, 28kmsoutheastof Yinchuan and approximately 10 kmeast ofthe modern channel of the Yellow River in Ningxia Hui AutonomousRegion (Fig. 1). The Border River, a tributary of the Yellow River,originates in Qingshuiying about 40 km to the southeast and runsnorthwest along the southern edge of the Great Wall of China. Aftercrossing under the Great Wall, it becomes the Shuidonggou River,which eventually feeds into the Yellow River (Bureau of Geology andMineralResourcesofNingxia,1983; Institute ofArcheologyofNingxiaHui Autonomous Region, 2003). There is one low lying hill calledDongshan (1500e1400 m a.s.l.) which runs north to south in theeastern part of Lingwu county. The hill stretches to the north and theelevation is reduced to 1305m a.s.l. The hill has also been referencedas “Heishan”, which lies 3 kmwest of Shuidonggou (Gao et al., 2008).

Five terraces, labeled T5 to T1 from oldest to youngest, arepresent between the east slope of Dongshan and SDG. The eleva-tions of T5eT3 are 130 me150 m, 130 m, and 110 m above theYellow River water level. These terraces are mainly distributed inthe piedmont belt south andwest of SDG (Gao et al., 2008; Liu et al.,2009). Two grade terraces named T1 and T2 are present along thebanks of the Border River; most of the SDG archaeological sites arelocated on these terraces.

The SDG site complex is located on a tributary drainage systemdominated by the Border River. The site complex is situated in an

Fig. 2. Deposits in the excavated profile at SDG7: a basal fluvial unit of coarse-grained sedigreyegreen bedded medium sands and silts, and an overlying unit of loess-like fined sand


ecotone, forming a semi-arid desert steppe separating the morearid Ordos Desert to the East and the Loess Plateau to the South,which is characterized by an open-steppe grassland environment.The region is dominated by a thick (10e40 m) sandy loess-likeplatform that is increasingly intercalated with alluvial sedimentsas one approaches the floodplain of the Yellow River. The loess-likedeposits in the direct vicinity of SDG appear to correspond to theLate Pleistocene early Malan Loess (Barton et al., 2007). The Qua-ternary sequence is set in thick Neogene red clay that is foundextensively throughout the region. At SDG, the Border River has cutthrough the sandy loess-like platform and underlying Neogene redclay producing steep exposure faces 10e20 m deep (Brantinghamet al., 2004).

SDG7 is located about 300 m southeast of SDG1, the locality firstdescribed by researchers. The site is buried within the left bank ofthe second terrace of the Border River at N 38�17051.400, E106�30020.700, 1205 m a.s.l. (Fig. 1). The Border River and its smalltributary have isolated stacks of alluvial and aeolian sediments 10e15 m high in a long peninsula bounded by sheer to steeply slopingbluffs (Brantingham et al., 2004). Late Pleistocene sediments at SDG7 occur within a fluvial cut-and-fill sequence. There are three pri-mary sedimentological units visible in the sections exposed inexcavated profiles at SDG 7 (Fig. 2): a basal unit of coarse-grainedfluvial sediments (or a fluvial cobble layer), a middle fluvio-lacustrine unit consisting of grey and greyegreen bedded finesands, silts, and clays, and an overlying unit of loess-like fine sandsand silts with localized horizontal and bedding. Excavations from2003 to 2005 revealed 11 stratigraphic layers with a total thickness

ments (the fluvial cobble layer), a middle fluvio-lacustrine unit consisting of grey ands and silts (view from north).



more than 12 m. Although Neogene red clay is absent at SDG7, thisclay is found in contact with SDG7 below the fluvial cobble layer300e500m upstream from the primary archaeological locality. Thearchaeological remains are restricted to the four lowest layers(Fig. 3), comprising the lower part of the middle fluvio-lacustrineunit above the basal gravel layer and with a total thickness ofmore than 3.5 m.

During the Quaternary several terraces were formed by theintermittent uplift of crust and the erosion of the Yellow River andits branches in the SDG area. During the early Late Pleistocene, thealluvial floodplain was broadly developed, probably due toincreased precipitation (Gao et al., 2008). Just before the advent ofMarine Isotope Stage (MIS) 3 the crust uplifted, resulting in theundercutting of the river and transforming the alluvial flood-plainto the basal fluvial cobble layer of terrace T2 (Herzschuh and Liu,2007). During MIS3, due to a moister and milder climate withincreased precipitation, several small basins developed in differentparts of the old Border River system in the SDG area, resulting in theformation of the fluvio-lacustrine grayegreen loam stratigraphythat contains the archaeological deposits. After MIS 3, the precipi-tation decreased and the climate became relatively dry (Bartonet al., 2007); this resulted in the disappearance of the small lakesand the formation of the upper unit of loess-like fine sand and siltlayers.

2.2. Dating

Due to the importance of the initial Late Paleolithic and tech-nological comparisons between the eastern and western parts ofthe Old World, the dating of T1 and T2 has received considerableattention (Madsen et al., 2001; Gao et al., 2002). Re-examination of

Fig. 3. Profile of the archaeological layers at SDG7 site, showing the dating results, the sedlayers.


the 14C and Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dates in T2yielded an age of 38e20 ka for the occupation layers (Li et al., 2013).Because the archaeological remains from SDG 7 are from the samehorizon as those from SDG2 which was successfully dated by 14C, atotal of 9 sediment samples were collected from the archaeologicallayers of SDG7 for OSL dating. Medium-grained (45e63 mm) frac-tions of quartz were extracted from the samples using the pro-cedures described by Nian et al. (2009). Equivalent dosemeasurements (De) were determined using the single-aliquotregeneration dose method (Murray and Wintle, 2000). All lumi-nescence measurements, beta irradiation and preheat treatmentswere carried out in an automated Risø-TL/OSL DA-20 readersequipped with a 90Sr/90Y beta source (Bøtter-Jensen et al., 2003)and an EMI 9235 QA photomultiplier tube. Blue light LED stimu-lation (470 � 30 nm) set at 90% of 50 mW cm�2 full power and a7.5 mm Hoya U-340 filters (290e370 nm) were used for the quartzOSL measurements.

The sample quartz was dominated by the fast component for thesamples from SDG7. The quartz OSL signals for repeated measure-ments of the same dose showed good recycling within the �10%range (Murray and Wintle, 2000), and the recuperation ratioremained low at <5% for the samples. Three natural aliquots ofsample L2373 were bleached with a solar simulator (SOL2) of 6 h,and the dose recovery ratio (recovered/given dose) (Murray andWintle, 2003) was 1 � 0.06 for a given laboratory dose of 90 Gywith a 6.75 Gy test dose. A SAR protocol was used to measure theequivalent dose of the samples, the aliquots were stimulated at125 �C, and the preheat and cut-heat temperatures were at 260 �Cfor 10 s and 220 �C for 0 s respectively. The dates for the SDG 7samples ranged from 22 � 2 ka to 30 � 3 ka with the medium-grained quartz SAR protocol, with ages increasing with depth

imentary bedding structures, and localized collapse features within the archaeological



within experimental error, except for samples L2440 and L2441(22 � 2 ka and 23� 2 ka) (Table 1). The strata of these two samplesmay have been disturbed by human activity or other factors.

Table 1U, Th, K concentration, and depth of the samples collected from SDG7 site, and SAR dating results of medium-grained quartz. Samples collected blew 7.5 m are form thearchaeological layers.

Lab no. Depth (m) U (ppm) Th (ppm) K (%) Disc no. Dose rate (Gy ka�1) De (Gy) Age (ka)

L2375 5.9 4.27 � 0.14 10.7 � 0.3 1.76 � 0.06 6 3.26 � 0.21 71 � 2 22 � 2L2374 6.3 4.43 � 0.14 9.41 � 0.27 1.72 � 0.06 4 3.17 � 0.2 69 � 4 22 � 2L2373 6.7 4.13 � 0.13 8.88 � 0.27 1.66 � 0.06 7 3.01 � 0.19 68 � 2 23 � 2L2372 7.1 4.2 � 0.13 9.86 � 0.29 1.7 � 0.06 6 3.12 � 0.2 73 � 3 23 � 2L2438 7.6 2.89 � 0.11 7.79 � 0.25 1.92 � 0.06 6 2.85 � 0.17 67 � 4 24 � 2L2439 8.7 3.6 � 0.13 11 � 0.32 1.57 � 0.05 8 2.94 � 0.19 71 � 4 24 � 2L2440 9.2 4.93 � 0.16 10.5 � 0.32 1.65 � 0.06 6 3.23 � 0.22 70 � 5 22 � 2L2441 9.7 4.3 � 0.14 10.3 � 0.31 1.7 � 0.06 6 3.16 � 0.2 73 � 3 23 � 2L2442 10.2 2.98 � 0.11 9.62 � 0.29 1.52 � 0.05 6 2.65 � 0.17 78 � 5 30 � 3

Estimated water content: 20 � 5%.

Table 2Results of the grain size analysis of archaeological layers from SDG7 site.

Size classes Size range Percent

Granules and small pebbles >0.25 mm 0.71Fine sand 0.25e0.125 mm 2.46Very fine sand and coarse silt 0.125e0.0156 mm 79.38Fine silt to clay <0.0156 mm 17.45

2.3. Excavation and materials

After undertaking systematic mapping of the research area andstudying the geomorphology and stratigraphy of the Border Riverterraces and the SDG7 deposits yielding in situ archaeological ma-terials, we identified an area of 25 m2 for excavation. The archae-ological layers were excavated in 2e5 cm increments for a total of35 spits, with larger spits used for sterile layers. Sediments weredry sieved with 4 mm mesh. Materials were three dimensionallypoint-plotted using a total station EDM. Specimens were enteredinto an electronic database after each spit was excavated, andsystematic sampling for sedimentary analysis (particle size, mag-netic susceptibility, etc.) was done. Orientation and inclination(dip) of the stone artifacts were measured by a compass used torecord such data for site formation studies. A total of 9901 stoneartifacts were recovered. In addition, two ostrich eggshell beadsand 486 vertebrate faunal specimens were recovered during ex-cavations. The identified species include Lepus sp., Vulpes sp., Canissp., Felis microtus, Cervidae, Bubalus sp., Gazella przewalskyi, Equussp., Equus hemionus, and Struthio sp. (Pei et al., 2012, 2014; Gaoet al., 2013a).

3. Site formation processes

SDG 7 site has been argued to be in secondary contextbecause of disruptions in the horizontal bedding (Fig. 3). How-ever, these are in fact collapse features that typically occur inloess deposits in lakeshore contexts. As water flows into the lake,deposits become saturated and heavier than the surroundinglayers, resulting in a localized collapse in the strata. Contrary toindicating a secondary context, such features at SDG7 actuallyreflect a gentler, lake-shore sedimentation process. Thesecollapse features, along with the elongate-shaped artifact con-centrations in the uppermost of archaeological layers (Fig. 4),suggest that only low-velocity water currents have influencedthe final deposition of the archaeological materials at SDG7.Studies in other regions of the world have found support for suchan interpretation (e.g., Langbein and Leopold, 1968; Isaac, 1977;Schick, 1986, 1991, 1992, 2001; Petraglia and Potts, 1987, 1994;Sahnouni, 1998; Sahnouni and Heinzelin, 1998; Shea, 1999;Morton, 2004). Therefore, the question we need to address is:“Which agent(s), geological or behavioral, were primarilyresponsible for the accumulation of the SDG7 archaeologicalmaterials?” We attempt to answer this question by analyzing the


sedimentary context of the archaeological collections, along withthe vertical dispersion and composition of the stone toolaccumulations.

3.1. Sedimentary context of the archaeological strata

The sedimentary matrix of the archaeological layers is formedby fine grained particles, primarily silt loaded with a heterometricand heterogeneous phase. Table 2 displays the results of thedifferent size classes in the sediments. It is generally accepted thatsilty sediments are most common in flood plain or lake margins,which are known to be deposited at lower flow speeds (Hassan,1978). Our analysis indicates that the sedimentary matrix is pri-marily formed by fine grained sediments, mainly silt in shallow lakemargins. Therefore, the uppermost spits of SDG7 archaeologicallayers appear to have been subjected to minimal hydraulicreworking.

3.2. Vertical and lateral dispersion of archaeological remains

The excavations at SDG7 reveal that the archaeological occur-rences are vertically distributed through 3.50 m thickness of siltand find sands, with <0.125 mm size classes dominate (96.83%) thegrain size. The vertical distribution indicates a high density of ar-tifacts, and sterile levels are absent (Fig. 5). The total stone artifactassemblage weighs 112.38 kg. Overall density of stone artifacts atSDG7 is approximately 396 artifacts/m2, and a massive 4.50 kg ofartifactual materials per square meter. It is remarkable that thestone artifacts show elongated patterns in the uppermost ofarchaeological layers which suggests they were disturbed by hy-draulic agencies. Various other aspects of the artifact assemblage,however, indicate that hunteregatherer behavior is mainlyresponsible for these prodigious concentrations of artifacts, withpost-depositional factors such as gentle lamellar water flowaffecting the original deposition of the material.

3.3. Stone artifacts concentration

We analyzed the variation in the SDG7 stone artifact concen-trations to evaluate the degree of post-depositional disturbance of


Fig. 4. Plan views showing the elongated shape of an artifact concentration (left) and water disturbance (right) within the archaeological layers at SDG7 site.


artifact assemblages using criteria primarily developed by Schick(1986; see also Petraglia and Potts, 1987, 1994; Schick, 1991, 1992;Shea, 1999; Sahnouni, 1998; Sahnouni and Heinzelin, 1998). Thespecific analyses we conducted here for site formation are tech-nological composition; debitage size distribution; condition of theartifacts; patterning in the artifacts orientations, inclinations, andspatial patterning.

3.3.1. Technological compositionThe initial step to appraise formative processes is to inspect the

technological coherency of the unearthed stone artifact assem-blage. If artifact manufacture occurred at the site, the expected

Fig. 5. Three dimensional distributions of the SDG7 excavated archaeological remains. Thefigure showing relatively high density of the artifacts (light blue color represents stone art


assemblage composition would incorporate artifactual elementsthat match technologically, especially in the core/debitage ratio.When the artifact assemblage is not coherent, alternative expla-nations should be considered including the possibility of hydraulictransport (Schick, 1986).

Fig. 6 presents the technological breakdown of the SDG 7 stoneartifacts. As can be seen in the histograms, the debitage category[SFD (small flaking debris<20 mm)þ debitage] depicts the highestfrequency (n ¼ 9669, 97.66%), while cores and percussors (ham-merstones) show the lowest frequency, respectively 1.07% (n¼ 106)and 0.05% (n ¼ 5) (Table 3). Although the percentage of SFD(55.47%) is marginally lower thanwhat is expected for a completely

bottom figure showing the artifacts distributed in the excavated area. The main partifacts, while green color represents fossil fragments) of the excavated area.


Fig. 6. SDG7 stone artifact assemblage composition (N ¼ 9901).

Fig. 7. SDG7 debitage size distribution (dCd, N ¼ 9669) with reference to theexperimental curve (——-——). Experimental curve according to Schick (1986).


preserved collection of artifacts knapped on-site, compared to theexperimentally generated assemblage (Schick, 1986), the core/debitage ratio (0.01) and core frequency (1.07%) at SDG 7 indicatethat the cores and debitage components match technologically.Five battered stones appear to have been used as hammerstones,which indicates that stone artifact knapping occurred at the site.Therefore, the SDG7 assemblage exhibits a coherent artifactcomposition. It is very unlikely that the artifact assemblage sufferedfrom significant fluvial disturbance.

Table 3Stone artifact categories excavated from SDG7 site. Apart from the Small FlakingDebris (SFD), all other material is �20 mm in maximum length.

Artifact categories Number %

SFD (Small Flaking Debris <20 mm) 5492 55.47Core/core tools 106 1.07Retouched pieces 121 1.22Debitage 4177 42.19Hammerstones 5 0.05

Total 9901 100

Table 4Artifact conditions for each raw material at SDG7 site.

Raw materials/ Silicified limestone Chert Quartzite Quartz Sandstone Total

Stages of artifact conditionsY N % N % N % N % N % N %

Fresh/unabraded 4327 43.70 2505 25.30 690 6.97 423 4.27 158 1.60 8127 81.84Slightly abraded 897 9.06 285 2.88 217 2.19 22 0.22 132 1.33 1553 15.68Heavily abraded 111 1.12 18 0.18 59 0.60 2 0.02 55 0.56 245 2.48

Sub-total 5335 33.22 2808 28.36 966 9.76 447 4.51 345 3.49 9901 100

3.3.2. Debitage size distributionIf stone tool knapping occurred on-site and material was not

subject to fluvial winnowing, the debitage size distribution wouldresemble the expected experimental data generated by Schick(1986), with a distinctive peak of small debitage (<2 cm) anddecreasing numbers of larger artifacts �2 cm. Fig. 7 compares theSDG7 debitage data against Schick’s (1986) experimental data.

The SDG7 size distribution pattern shows a strong negativeskew toward smaller sizes and resembles the one produced byexperimental knapping made by Schick (1986), who also used a4 mm sieve to sort her flaking debris. Thus, SDG7 site seem torepresent an area where early hominins did manufacture theirstone artifacts. The debitage was probably rapidly buried


subsequently by low velocity floods, resulting in the elongatedpatterns of some materials.

3.3.3. Artifact conditionArtifact conditions were recorded for each lithic raw material

(Table 4) as they are widely used indicators for the integrity of sitecontext (Petraglia and Potts, 1987, 1994; Shea, 1999). Most of theraw materials were derived from local sources: silicified limestone(n ¼ 5335, 33.22%) and chert (n ¼ 2808, 28.36%) dominate, whilequartzite (n ¼ 966, 9.76%), quartz (n ¼ 447, 4.51%), and sandstone(n¼ 345, 3.49%) are less common. Conditionwas recorded as fresh/unabraded, slightly abraded, or abraded (with edge damage alsoconsidered in the degree of abrasion).

Table 4 indicates that only a small minority of the artifacts showsappreciable abrasion thatwould indicate significantfluvial transport.The fresh/unabraded specimens are the most abundant (81.84%),followed by slightly abraded specimens (15.68%), and only 2.48%heavily abraded pieces. Although the heavily abraded artifacts aresmall in number, they demonstrate that fluvial reworking has hadsome role in deposition at the site. However, the large majority ofartifacts in fresh/unabraded condition indicate that fluvial distur-bance was not a very significant factor for the overall assemblage.

3.3.4. Orientation patternsAnalysis of stone artifact orientations provides a valuable indi-

cator of any disturbance by water at a site. Experimental studies


Fig. 8. Rose diagrams showing SDG7 stone artifact orientation patterns (N ¼ 988). (a) for all materials (N ¼ 988), (b) for materials 40 mm and up (N ¼ 162).

Fig. 9. Diagram showing SDG7 stone artifact inclination (N ¼ 886).


have shown that when artifacts are subjected to fluvial processes, apreferred orientation occurs (particularly for elongated artifacts) inresponse to current strength and direction (Schick, 1986; Morton,2004). In general, elongate materials tend to be oriented eitherparallel (debitage size <4 cm) or perpendicular (debitage size�4 cm) to flow trajectory. Fig. 8 is a rose diagram that presents thepattern of the long axes of the stone artifacts from SDG7. Theartifact orientations show a random pattern with no preferredorientation. It can be inferred from this orientation diagram thatthe stone artifact assemblage was not subjected to intense fluvialdisturbance.

3.3.5. Artifact inclinationThe combination of artifact inclination or dip is a sensitive in-

dicator of water flow direction (Schick, 1986). Schick found thatminor inclinations (5e10�) of stationary artifacts are produced byweaker flow velocities, while higher velocities tend to producesteeper inclinations, ranging between 10 and 30� or more (Schick,1984, 1991).

Fig. 9 provides insight into the strength of the flow velocity. Itshows that the majority of the SDG7 stone artifacts is characterizedby only a slight inclination. Nearly 50% of the specimens have aninclination ranging between 0 and 10�, and slightly more than 25%shows a dip from 20 to 30�; less than 20% of the total assemblagehas a dip greater than 30�. Overall, these inclination patterns sug-gest a lower velocity current.

3.3.6. Spatial patternsAs with distribution in vertical space, spatial variation on the

horizontal plane is important for determining the degree of post-depositional movement of artifacts (Schick, 1986). The stone arti-fact assemblage at SDG7 is fairly concentrated horizontally, asindicated by the average number of artifacts (396) and weight(4.50 kg) per square meter. Fig. 10 shows the spatial distribution forthe density of artifacts within the meter square units. Overall,artifact spatial configurations do not exhibit any major spatialtrends produced by fluvial modification as observed in simulationsof hydraulic site disturbance, such as linear patterns for artifactswith a long axis (Schick, 1986). Rather, the minor spatial trends areindicative of only minimal disturbance. Fig. 10 shows that most of


the artifacts are concentrated in the southeast area regardless oftype, composition, and size. As proposed by Schick (1986), if a sitehas undergone hydraulic disturbance, the small debitage compo-nent of the artifact assemblage most likely concentrates in adownstream position. Asmore than 90% of the assemblage is<4 cmin size but a full range of sizes is also present, it can be inferred thatthe total assemblage was disturbed by gentle water movementfrom northwest to southeast, and the SDG 7 artifact spatial trendsoverall indicate minimal disturbance.

In summary, multiple lines of evidence suggest the SDG7archaeological materials were minimally disturbed. The archaeo-logical remains were concentrated in 350 cm of the 1 m verticaldistribution and in high density, suggestive of long term and/orsuccessive occupations. Furthermore, the SDG 7 materials weredeposited in a fine sedimentary matrix buried in a shallow lakemargin, with little-to-no evidence of high energy fluvial activityimpacting the lithic accumulation.


Fig. 10. Density of the archaeological remains within the square metre grid of the excavated area of SDG7 site.


4. Conclusions

The following conclusions may be drawn from our detailedstudy of site formation processes at the SDG7 site:

1) SDG7 is one of the newly discovered and excavated sites in theSDG site complex. The OSL dates indicate that human foragersoccupied the site sometime at intervals between 30,000 and22,000 years. The archaeological materials are densely concen-trated within the full sequence of artifact-bearing deposits.Sedimentary matrix analysis shows that the site was buried inshallow lakemargin deposits of fine sands, silts, and clays, whichwas influenced by relatively low energy hydraulic forces. Sedi-mentary bedding structures and localized collapse featurestypical for lakeshore loess deposits, as well as the distribution ofthe archaeological remains, suggestminimal re-working, thoughsome re-arrangement of the smaller artifactsmayhave occurred.

2) The SDG7 stone artifacts are generally fresh and unabraded,displaying a coherent assemblage composition, including cores,retouched pieces, debitage, and percussors. Debitage dominatesthe assemblage. In addition, small flaking debris (SFD <20 mm)exhibits a similar size profile to that produced by Schick (1986)in her experimental tool making studies, suggestive that knap-ping occurred on the site. The lithic artifacts do not show highinclinations or preferred orientation patterns. Analysis of bothvertical and spatial positioning of the artifacts also suggestsdense concentrations. Multiple lines of evidence presented heresuggest it is unlikely the SDG7 archaeological remains weresubjected to high energy fluvial disturbance.

3) The study presented in this paper emphasizes the relevance ofinspection of Paleolithic occurrences for hydraulic winnowingprior to any behavioral interpretation of the excavated stoneassemblage at the SDG site complex, even though these sites arein low energy lake margin and floodplain contexts. We conclude


that the SDG7 stone artifacts are suitable for early humanbehavioral studies within the SDG site complex and the earliestLate Paleolithic of northern China. We hope that future studiesin China analyze the potential effects of various site formationprocesses in order to better understand the formation of thesearchaeological collections.

Acknowledgements

The first author would like to thank Professors Nicholas Tothand Kathy Schick from the Stone Age Institute & Indiana University,USA for discussions and instructive comments. Thanks to Pro-fessors Mohamed Sahnouni and Sileshi Semaw from the SpanishNational Research Centre for Human Evolution, Spain for theirvaluable conversations. Further thanks are due to the colleaguesfrom IVPP and antiquities personnel of the Ningxia Hui AutoAutonomous Region who facilitated the fieldwork. We are alsograteful to Haili Xiao and Dong Tian (Computer Network Informa-tion Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences) for help with Fig. 5 andFig. 10. This work was financially supported by the National BasicResearch Program of China (973 Program) (2010CB950203), theNational Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.41372032), the Strategic Priority Research Program of the ChineseAcademy of Sciences (XDA05130203), and the National ResearchFoundation (Grant No. 88480) of South Africa (in the InternationalScience and Technology Grant Program) and theMinistry of Scienceand Technology in China. Our thanks go to Profs Liu Wu and R.J.Clarke for the latter funding as co-directors of the bilateral pro-gram.We take full responsibility for any errors that may be present.

References

Bae, C.J., Bae, K.D., 2012. The nature of the Early to Late Paleolithic transition inKorea: current perspectives. Quaternary International 281, 26e35.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1040-6182(14)00196-7/sref1




Barton, L., Brantingham, P.J., Ji, D.X., 2007. Late Pleistocene climate change andPlaeolithic cultural evolution in northern China: implications from the LastGlacial Maximum. In: Madsen, D., Chen, F.H., Gao, X. (Eds.), Late QuaternaryClimate Change and Human Adaptation in Arid China, Developments in Qua-ternary Sciences, vol. 9. Elsevier, pp. 105e128.

Bar-Yosef, O., Tchernov, E., 1972. On the Paleo-ecological History of the Site of’Ubeidiya. Publications of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

Bernatchez, J.A., 2010. Taphonomic implications of orientation of plotted finds fromPinnacle Point 13B (Mossel Bay, Western Cape Province, South Africa). Journalof Human Evolution 59, 274e288.

Benito-Calvo, A., de la Torre, I., 2011. Analysis of orientation patterns in Olduvai BedI assemblage using GIS techniques: implications for site formation processes.Journal of Human Evolution 61, 50e60.

Bertran, P., Texier, J.P., 1995. Fabric analysis: application to Paleolithic sites. Journalof Archaeological Science 22, 521e535.

Boëda, E., Hou, Y.M., Forestier, H., Sarel, J., Wang, H.M., 2013. Levallois and non-Levallois blade production at Shuidonggou in Ningxia, North China. Quater-nary International 295, 191e203.

Bordes, F., 1968. The Old Stone Age. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.Bøtter-Jensen, L., Andersen, C.E., Duller, G.A.T., Murray, A.S., 2003. Developments in

radiation, stimulation and observation facilities in luminescence measure-ments. Radiation Measurements 37, 535e541.

Boule, M., Breuil, H., Licent, E., Teilhard de Chardin, P., 1928. Le Paléolithique de laChine. Paris: Archives de l’ Institut de Paléontologie Humaine 4, pp. 1e138.

Brantingham, P.J., Gao, X., Madsen, D.B., Bettinger, R.L., Elston, R.G., 2004. The initialupper Paleolithic at Shuidonggou, northern China. In: Brantingham, P.J.,Kuhn, S.L., Kerry, K.W. (Eds.), The Early Upper Paleolithic Beyond WesternEurope. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 223e241.

Brantingham, P.J., Surovell, T.A., Waguespack, N.M., 2007. Modeling post-depositional mixing of archaeological deposits. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology 26, 517e540.

Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources of Ningxia, 1983. Report of Geological andRegional Survey of 1:200000 (Yinchuan). Printing Factory of China GeologicalMap, Lanzhou.

Chen, F.Y., Li, F., Wang, H.M., Pei, S.W., Feng, X.W., Zhang, S.Q., Zhang, Y., Liu, D.C.,Zhang, X.L., Guan, Y., Gao, X., 2012. A preliminary report on excavations atShuidongou locality 2 in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, North China. ActaAnthropologica Sinica 32, 317e333.

Dibble, H.L., McPherron, S.J.P., Chase, P., Farrand, W.R., Debenath, A., 2006.Taphonomy and the concept of Paleolithic cultures: the case of the Tayacianfrom Fontechevade. PaleoAnthropology, 1e21.

Gao, X., Li, J.Z., Madsen, D.B., Brantingham, P.J., Elston, R.G., Bettinger, R.L., 2002.New 14C dates for Shuidonggou and related discussions. Acta AnthropologicaSinica 21, 211e218.

Gao, X., Norton, C.J., 2002. Critique of the Chinese “Middle Paleolithic”. Antiquity 76,397e412.

Gao, X., Pei, S.W., Wang, H.M., Zhong, K., 2004. A report on Paleolithic reconnais-sance in Ningxia, North China. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 23, 307e325.

Gao, X., Yuan, B.Y., Pei, S.W., Wang, H.M., Chen, F.Y., Feng, X.W., 2008. Analysis ofsedimentary-geomorphologic variation and the living environment of hominidsat the Shuidonggou Paleolithic site. Chinese Science Bulletin 53, 2025e2032.

Gao, X., Wang, H.M., Pei, S.W., Chen, F.Y., 2013a. ShuidonggoudExcavation andResearch (2003e2007) Report. Science Press, Beijing.

Gao, X., Wang, H.M., Guan, Y., 2013b. Research at Shuidonggou: new advance andnew perceptions. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 32, 121e132.

Gladfelter, B.G., 1977. Geoarchaeology: the geomorphologist and archaeology.American Antiquity 52, 519e538.

Goldberg, P.D.T., Petraglia, M.D., 1993. Formation Processes in ArchaeologicalContext. Prehistory Press, Madsion.

Hassan, F.A., 1978. Sediments in Archaeology: methods and implications forpaleoenvironmental and cultural analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology 5,197e213.

Herzschuh, U., Liu, X.Q., 2007. Vegetation evolution in arid China during MarineIsotope Stage 3 and 2 (w65e11 ka). In: Madsen, D.B., Chen, F.H., Gao, X. (Eds.),Late Quaternary Climate Change and Human Adaptation in Arid China, De-velopments in Quaternary Sciences, vol. 9. Elsevier, pp. 41e49.

Institute of Archeology of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, 2003. ShuidonggoubarReport on the Excavation in 1980. Science Press, Beijing.

Isaac, G.Ll, 1977. Olorgesailie: Archaeological Studies of a Middle Pleistocene LakeBasin in Kenya. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 272 pp.

Isaac, G. Ll., 1983. Bones in contention: competing explanations for the juxtaposi-tion of Early Pleistocene artifacts and faunal remains. In: Clutton-Brock, J.,Grigson, C. (Eds.), Animals and Archaeologye1: Hunters and Their Prey, BritishArchaeological Reports International Series, 163, pp. 3e19. Oxford.

Isaac, G.Ll, 1984. The archaeology of human origins: studies of the Lower Pleisto-cene in East Africa 1971e1981. In: Wendorf, F., Close, A. (Eds.), Advances inworld archaeology, vol. 3. Academic Press, New York, pp. 1e87.

Jia, L.P., Gai, P., Li, Y.X., 1964. New materials from Shuidonggou Paleolithic site.Vertebrata PalAsiatica 8, 75e83.

Kluskens, S.L., 1995. Archaeological taphonomy of Combe-Capelle Bas from artifactorientation and density analysis. In: Dibble, H.L., Lenoir, M. (Eds.), The MiddlePaleolithic Site of Combe-Capelle Bas (France). The University Museum Press,Philadelphia, pp. 199e243.

Kuman, K., 1994. The archaeological of Sterkfoutein: preliminary findings on siteformation and cultural change. South African Journal of Science 90, 215e219.


Kuman, K., 2003. Site formation in the early South African Stone Age sites and itsinfluence on the archaeological record. South African Journal of Science 99,251e254.

Kuman, K., Inbar, M., Clarke, R.J., 1999. Palaeoenvironments and cultural sequence ofthe Florisbad Middle Stone Age hominid site, South Africa. Journal of Archae-ological Science 26, 1409e1425.

Langbein, W.B., Leopold, L.B., 1968. River channel bars and dunes e theory of ki-nematic waves. Geological Survey Professional Paper 422 - L.

Lenoble, A., Bertran, P., 2004. Fabric of Paleolithic levels: methods and implica-tions for site formation process. Journal of Archaeological Science 31, 457e469.

Li, F., Gao, X., Chen, F.Y., Pei, S.W., Zhang, Y., Zhang, X.L., Liu, D.C., Zhang, S.Q.,Guan, Y., Wang, H.M., Kuhn, S.L., 2013. The development of Upper PaleolithicChina: new results from the Shuidonggou site. Antiquity 87, 368e383.

Li, Y.X., 1993. On the division of the Upper Palaeolithic industries of China. ActaAnthropologica Sinica 12, 214e223.

Licent, E., Teilhard de Chardin, P., 1925. Le Paleolithique de la Chine. L’ Anthro-pologie 35, 201e234.

Liu, D.C., Wang, X.L., Gao, X., Xia, Z.K., Pei, S.W., Chen, F.Y., Wang, H.M., 2009.Progress in the stratigraphy and geochronology of the Shuidonggou site,Ningxia, North China. Chinese Science Bulletin 54, 3880e3886.

Madsen, D.B., Li, J.Z., Brantingham, P.J., Gao, X., Elston, R.G., Bettinger, R.L., 2001.Dating Shuidonggou and the Upper Palaeolithic blade industry in North China.Antiquity 75, 706e716.

Marder, O., Malinsky-Buller, A., Shahack-Gross, R., Ackermann, O., Ayalon, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Goldsmith, Y., Inbar, M., Rabinovich, R., Hovers, E., 2011.Archaeological horizons and fluvial processes at the Lower Paleolithic open-airsite of Revadim (Israel). Journal of Human Evolution 60, 508e522.

Morton, A.G.T., 2004. Archaeological Site Formation: Understanding Lake MarginContexts. Oxford: British Archaeological Research International Series 1211.

Murray, A.S., Wintle, A.G., 2000. Luminescence dating of quartz using an improvedsingle-aliquot regenerative-dose protocol. Radiation Measurements 32, 57e73.

Murray, A.S., Wintle, A.G., 2003. The single aliquot regenerative dose protocol:potential for improvements in reliability. Radiation Measurements 37, 377e381.

Nian, X.M., Zhou, L.P., Qin, J.T., 2009. Comparisons of equivalent dose values ob-tained with different protocols using a lacustrine sediment sample fromXuchang, China. Radiation Measurements 44, 512e516.

Norton, C.J., Jin, J., 2009. The evolution of modern humans in East Asia: behavioralperspectives. Evolutionary Anthropology 18, 247e260.

Norton, C.J., Gao, X., Feng, X.W., 2009. The criteria defining the East Asian MiddlePaleolithic reexamined. In: Camps, M., Chauhan, P.R. (Eds.), Sourcebook ofPaleolithic Transitions: Methods, Theories, and Interpretations. Springer Press,Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 245e254.

Pei, S.W., Gao, X., Wang, H.M., Kuman, K., Bae, C.J., Chen, F.Y., Guan, Y., Zhang, X.L.,Peng, F., Li, X.L., 2012. The Shuidonggou site complex: new excavations andimplications for the earliest Late Paleolithic in North China. Journal ofArchaeological Science 39, 3610e3626.

Pei, S.W., Niu, D.W., Gao, X., Chen, F.Y., Feng, X.W., Zhang, S.Q., Zhang, Y., Zhang, X.L.,Ma, N., Peng, F., Zhou, Z.Y., Guan, Y., Wang, H.M., 2014. A preliminary report onthe excavations at Shuidonggou locality 7 in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region,North China. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 33, 1e16.

Petraglia, M.D., Potts, R., 1987. The impact of fluvial processes on experimental sites.In: Nash, D.T., Petraglia, M.D. (Eds.), Natural Formation Process and theArchaeological Record, pp. 108e130. Oxford: BAR International Series 352.

Petraglia, M.D., Potts, R., 1994. Water flow and the formation of Early Pleistoceneartifacts sites in Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Journal of Anthropological Archae-ology 13, 228e254.

Potts, R., 1982. Lower Pleistocene Site Formation and Hominid Activities at OlduvaiGeorge (Ph. D. dissertation). Harvard University.

Potts, R., 1988. Early Hominid Activities at Olduvai. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Sahnouni, M., 1998. The Lower Paleolithic of the Maghreb: Excavations and Analysis

at Ain Hanech, Algeria. Oxford: BAR International Series 689.Sahnouni, M., Heinzelin, J., 1998. The site of Ain Hanech revisited: new in-

vestigations at this Lower Pleistocene site in North Algeria. Journal of Archae-ological Science 25, 1083e1101.

Sahnouni,M., Hadjouis, D.,Made, J., Derradji, A.K., Canals, A.,Medig,M., Belahrech, H.,Harichane, Z., Rabhi,M., 2002. Further research at theOldowan site ofAin hanech,North-eastern Algeria. Journal of Human Evolution 43, 925e937.

Schick, K.D., 1984. Processes of Paleolithic site formation: An experimental study(Ph. D. Dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.

Schick, K.D., 1986. Stone Age Sites in the Making: Experiments in the Formation andTransformation of Archaeological Occurrences. Oxford: British ArchaeologicalResearch International Series 319.

Schick, K.D., 1987a. Experimentally derived criteria for assessing hydrologicdisturbance of archaeological sites. In: Nash, D.T., Petraglia, M.D. (Eds.), NaturalFormation Process and the Archaeological Record, pp. 86e107. Oxford: BritishArchaeological Research International Series 352.

Schick, K.D., 1987b. Modeling the formation of early stone artifact concentration.Journal of Human Evolution 16, 789e807.

Schick, K.D., 1991. On making behavioral inferences from early archaeological sites.In: Cultural Beginnings: Approaches to Understanding Early Hominid Life-waysin the African Savanna. Monograph, Band 19. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH, Bonn,pp. 79e107.

Schick, K.D., 1992. Geoarchaeological analysis of an Acheulean site at Kalambo Falls,Zambia. Geoarchaeology 7, 1e16.




































































































































































































































Schick, K.D., 2001. An examination of Kalambo Falls Acheulean site (B5) fromGeoarchaeological perspective. In: Clard, J.D. (Ed.), Kalambo Falls PrehistoricSite, vol. 3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 463e480.

Schiffer, M.B., 1987. Formation Process of the Archaeological Record. University ofNew Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Shea, J.J., 1999. Artifacts abrasion, fluvial processes, and “Living Floors” from the earlyPaleolithic site of ’Ubeidiya (Jordan Valley, Israel). Geoarchaeology 14, 191e207.

Visher, G.S., 1969. Grain size distributions and depositional processes. Journal ofSedimentary Petrology 39, 1077e1106.

Ward, I., Larcomb, P., 2003. A process-orientated approach to archaeological siteformation: application to semi-arid Northern Australia. Journal of Archaeolog-ical Science 30, 1223e1236.


Yamanaka, I., 1995. L’Industrie lithique du site de Shuidonggou (Choei-Tong-Keou)dans L’Ordos en Chine. In: Kyoto University College of Literature ResearchSummary 32, pp. 105e154.

Yi, M.J., Barton, L., Morgan, C., Liu, D.C., Chen, F.Y., Zhang, Y., Pei, S.W., Guan, Y.,Wang, H.M., Gao, X., Bettinger, R.L., 2013. Microblade technology and the rise ofserial specialists in north-central China. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology32, 212e223.

Zhou, K.S., Hu, J.L., 1988. Environment and stratigraphy at the Shuidonggou site.Acta Anthropologica Sinica 7, 263e269.






























the earliest late paleolithic in north china: site ... · the earliest late paleolithic in north...

Documents