Effective cold protection was a prerequisite for prehistoric colonisation of the Tibetan Plateau. However, organic materials such as hides, sinew, and plant fibres are rarely preserved archaeologically, limiting our understanding of clothing technologies and cold-adaptation strategies in this extreme environment. This study examines bone awls, bone needles, and spindle whorls from the late Neolithic occupation phase (4400–4000 cal BP) of the Mabu Co site, located at a very high altitude of 4400 m above sea level on the southern Tibetan Plateau. We combine taxonomic identification, typological classification, and metric analysis to evaluate the role of clothing-related tools at MBC. The results show that these tools were dominated by bone awls and eyed needles, whereas spindle whorls are extremely rare. Bone awls were mainly produced from the metapodials of terrestrial wild ungulates, including musk deer ( Moschus sp.), Tibetan gazelle ( Procapra picticaudata ), blue sheep ( Pseudois nayaur ), argali ( Ovis ammon), and red deer ( Cervus elaphus ). By metapodial bisection, the inhabitants could produce two awls from a single bone blank, maximizing the use of terrestrial bone materials. The bone needles display considerable variation in length, width, and thickness, suggesting that they may have been used to sew hides of different thicknesses. They may therefore provide indirect evidence for the production of fitted clothing. The rarity and secondary modification of spindle whorls suggest that spindle-based fibre production was marginal at MBC, while hide working and sewing formed the more prominent clothing-related technology. The tool assemblage yields indirect yet important archaeological evidence for clothing-related technologies among Neolithic indigenous inhabitants living at ultra-high elevations, indicating that selective exploitation of terrestrial fauna and flexible sewing technologies of fitted clothing were likely important components of cold adaptation on the Tibetan Plateau.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: