DOCSLIB.ORG

RGZM Tagungen Bd. 35: the Origins of Bone Tool Technologies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
RGZM Tagungen Bd. 35: the Origins of Bone Tool Technologies MILLÁN MOZOTA EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMMES WITH RETOUCHERS: WHERE DO WE STAND AND WHERE DO WE GO NOW? Abstract This paper presents a critical review of the experimental works with bone retouchers that have been pub- lished since the beginning of research about this type of tool. The aim of this review is not the recollection of references per se, but a critical evaluation of different studies. This critical synthesis will show where we are today from a theoretical and methodological point of view. A number of ideas on how to improve and expand the scientifi c research about retouchers will be proposed together with a range of open archaeolo- gical and experimental issues, which can be addressed by the research community in the years ahead. Keywords Experimental archaeology; Retouchers; Bone tools; Middle Palaeolithic; Methodology Introduction This work focuses on the contributions of experi- mental archaeology as a mechanism to propose and mental archaeology to the study of bone retouch- test explanatory hypotheses about archaeological ers; thus, it is necessary to begin with a brief ex- evidence. This inferential framework can be used as planation and discussion about this theoretical and a tool to validate or falsify hypotheses. methodological approach. For experimental archaeology to have true scien tifi c Experimental archaeology is a methodological rigour, it must meet certain requirements of objectiv- framework based on actualism and empiricism, ity and control. These criteria have been specifi ed in the core concepts behind a systematic, quantitative several studies (Baena, 1997; Callahan, 1999). It is and inferential study of archaeological evidence. also necessary that such experiments are integrated The works of Coles (1973, 1979), Reynolds (1994), into a broader framework of analysis and interpre- Baena (1997) and Callahan (1999) laid the founda- tation of archaeological evidence. And, most impor- tions for the formal development of this theoretical tant, the ultimate goal of this general framework and methodological approach, and these works also cannot be the anecdotal analysis of the materiality contain the main proposals for its practical applica- of archaeological objects. Rather, the goal must be to tion. The aforementioned authors present experi- propose explanatory models of past human societies. The Origins of Bone Tool Technologies 15 Bone retouchers in context physeal splinters with impressions that came from Mousterian sites. Bone retouchers are a common type of tool in the Confusion stemming from variability in bone re- Middle Palaeolithic, but are not confi ned solely to touchers nomenclature was a constant even beyond that period. These tools are percussion implements the 1960s. But, during that decade, development made of bone; most typically they are unmodifi ed of the archaeological, anthropological and historical or barely modifi ed splinters from long bones (in- disciplines, and the new visions of archaeological sci- cluding metapodials) of ungulates. These tools are ence, gave a clearer idea of the nature of such tools. used to retouch stone tools, both in the sense of In a synthesis of the European continent, Taute shaping an implement (e.g., a side-scraper) and (1965) enumerated a large collection of retouchers for rejuvenating a dull edge. In most cases, when in hard animal tissues (mostly bones, but also teeth archaeological retouchers have been studied in and antler) with a wide chronological perspective, depth, it was determined that they were used in ranging from the Palaeolithic to the Neolithic. This percussion tasks. Only in a few cases were they work included retouchers from several Middle Pa- used in pressure-style retouching tasks, the use laeolithic sites in Central Europe. The bulk of Taute‘s traces from which are very different from those sample was made of epiphyseal and diaphyseal produced by percussion. splinters with impressions, which led to the conclu- In the early 20th century, Henri-Martin (1906) sion that the tools are bone retouchers – used for fi rst determined the existence of this specifi c type retouching lithic implements with a percussion (not of bone tool among the faunal remains of La Quina, pressure) technique. France. These implements were diaphyseal splin- Since the early 1970s, researchers have found ters from ungulate bones, and they were possibly more Palaeolithic bone retouchers throughout used to retouch Mousterian lithic tools. At this early Europe, mostly in Middle Palaeolithic (particularly stage, some functional uncertainty can be perceived Mousterian) sites. Some important examples include in the texts, and researchers alternatively pro- Kůlna Cave in the Czech Republic (Valoch, 1988), posed that the bone splinters were active elements Abrigo Tagliente in Italy (Leonardi, 1979) and Peña (mallets/ percussion tools, Fr. maillets/ percuteurs) or Miel in Spain (Barandiarán, 1987), but there are do- other wise passive (anvils, Fr. enclumes) when writ- zens of sites where the presence of these tools was ing about how they were used. At about the same detected and published. Throughout the 1970s to time, de Mortillet and de Mortillet (1910) defi ned 2000s, dozens of new and old sites with retouchers the compressor (Fr. compresseur) as a bone tool that were documented and published (Mozota, 2012). was characteristic of the Solutrean period, used for Bone retouchers were also documented in se v - pressure retouch activities. In most cases, the label er al deposits from the European Upper Palaeolithic of Middle Palaeolithic bone tools as anvils was soon in France, such as the Protoaurignacian and Early- discarded (Siret, 1925), and throughout the fi rst to-Evolved Aurignacian layers from Gatzarria (Saenz half of the 20th century, these tools originally de- de Buruaga, 1987; Tartar, 2012), or the Aurigna- scribed by Henri-Martin were typically identifi ed by cian from Grotte des Hyènes (Tartar, 2003) and Abri the term “compressor-retoucher“ (Fr. compresseurs- Casta net (Tartar, 2012) . retouchoirs). But, as was typically of most works For the Solutrean, there are examples too, such from period, there was no consideration about as Le Petit Cloup Barrat in France (Castel et al., how individual objects, or even whole assemblages, 2006). And for the Magdalenian, bone retouchers could have been used. were found in La Garenne (Rigaud, 1977), Isturitz In the early 1960s, Bordes (1961) includes Solu- and La Vache (Schwab, 2005), all from France, and trean bone compressors in his typological lists, and in the German sites of Gönnersdorf and Andernach stated that they were used differently than the dia- (Tinnes, 2001). 16 Millán Mozota · Experimental programmes with retouchers: where do we stand and where do we go now? Outside Europe, retouchers have been docu- use traces are studied to make functional inferen- mented in other Pleistocene contexts, such as in the ces, but this is not systematic. Middle Stone Age layers at Blombos Cave, South Africa (Henshilwood et al., 2001) and in the Middle Palaeolithic of Umm-el-Tlel (Syria) (Boëda et al., Experimental archaeology and bone 1998) and El Harhoura (Morocco) (Michel et al., retouchers: a historiographical perspective 2009). In the Americas, the presence of bone re- touchers has been documented in various contexts A century of experimental work: from the early of prehistoric hunter-gatherers. There is a type of 20th century to the beginning of 21st century tool defi ned by Jackson (1990) as an end-side re- toucher (Sp. retocador extremo lateral). This type of Siret (1925) performed one of the fi rst detailed ex- tool is virtually identical to the concept of retoucher periments of lithic retouch with bone fragments. on diaphyseal splinters from European Palaeolithic He conducted these activities within the framework sites. Retocadores extremo laterales have been of discussion about the role of bone splinters with found in Paleoindian contexts (Pleistocene) at Fell impressions that had been recognized at La Quina 1 in Magallanes, Chile (Massone and Prieto, 2004). (Henri-Martin, 1906) and other Mousterian sites. There are also some examples from the recent pe- Choosing between the different hypotheses of the riod (Holocene) in Magallanes at the site of Orejas time, Siret concluded that the diaphyseal fragments de Burro 1 (Lorena-L‘Heureux, 2008). with impressions were retouchers, not compressors As for theoretical and methodological develop- or anvils, used as active elements for working fl int ments, during the early 1990s Chase (1990) resumed tools. He further stated that these tools were used in the study of the bone tools from La Quina. He ana- pressure fl aking tasks instead of percussion. He con- lyzed a selected sample of materials and concluded sidered that the lithic tool was held in one hand and that many bone splinters were used as retouchers pressed against the bone tool, which was held in for percussion tasks. Chase (1990) integrated this the other hand, until the detachment of a retouch- analysis into an explanatory model of Middle Pa- ing fl ake. laeo lithic tools, whereby retouchers were proposed During this period, experiments were always as one of the key elements refl ecting Neanderthal repli cative and based on subjective and qualitative cognitive (dis)abilities (see also Dibble, 1989). While observations. In most cases, little data on the speci- this proposal has been disproven by many studies fi c experimental procedures were offered. about Neanderthals (e.g., d‘Errico, 2003; Zilhão, Semenov (1956) defi ned some features
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Using the Bone Tool
    Chapter 18 Using the Bone Tool The BONE TOOL allows you to set hinges either within an object or between a group of objects. It can be applied to create human movements in arms and legs, robotic arm movements, crane operations, etc. The Bone Tool Basics To illustrate the basics of the BONE TOOL, a simple shape will be converted into an arm. A Drawing the Shape 1 Load Adobe Animate or close the current files and start a FULL HD preset file. © Guided Computer Tutorials 2021 18-1 Learning Adobe Animate CC B Applying the Bone Tool 1 Press CTRL+ or COMMAND+ to zoom the view to 200%. 3 When you release the mouse button the first bone is created. NOTE: This first section will represent a bone from the shoulder to the elbow. 5 Release the mouse button to create the second bone. NOTE: This second section will represent a bone from the elbow to the wrist. 18-2 © Guided Computer Tutorials 2021 Using the Bone Tool 18 NOTE: All the bone sections are moved into the ARMATURE layer. C Using the Bone Links The bone sections have set a rotation joint at the left of the shape (red diamond shape) and hinges (or joints) at the centre and near the right of the shape. 1 Press CTRL- or COMMAND- to return the view to 100%. NOTE: When the mouse pointer is over a joint or bone that can be moved, a bone symbol is added to the pointer. © Guided Computer Tutorials 2021 18-3 Learning Adobe Animate CC D The Pin Option The PIN option allows you to fix the position of a bone and prevent it from moving.
    [Show full text]
  • Adobe Animate Cc Classroom in a Book (2018 Release) 301
    NATURAL AND CHARACTER 9 ANIMATION Lesson Overview In this lesson, you’ll learn how to do the following: • Use the Bone tool to build armatures (skeletons) of movie clips • Use the Bone tool to build armatures of shapes • Animate natural motion of armatures using inverse kinematics • Constrain and pin the armature joints • Edit the position of armature bones and joints • Refine shape deformations with the Bind tool • Simulate physics with the Spring feature • Adjust the speed setting to add a sense of weight to armatures This lesson will take about one and a half hours to complete. Please log in to your account on peachpit.com to download the lesson files for this chap- ter, or go to the Getting Started section at the beginning of this book and follow the instructions under “Accessing the Lesson Files and Web Edition.” 298 From the Library of Alvaro Alvarez You can easily create complex and natural motion with articulations—joints between linked objects and within shapes—by using the Bone tool for animation in a process called inverse kinematics . 299 From the Library of Alvaro Alvarez Getting Started You’ll start the lesson by viewing the animated walking monkey that you’ll create as you learn about natural motion in Adobe Animate CC. 1 Double-click the 09End.html file in the Lesson09/09End folder to play the animation. The animation depicts a cartoon monkey walking in an endless cycle with a scrolling motion in the background. His arms and legs swing naturally, and his tail curls and unfurls naturally and smoothly.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Evidence of Stone Tool Use in Bone Working Activities at Qesem Cave, Israel
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Early evidence of stone tool use in bone working activities at Qesem Cave, Israel Received: 15 July 2016 Andrea Zupancich1, Stella Nunziante-Cesaro2, Ruth Blasco1,3, Jordi Rosell4,5, Accepted: 03 October 2016 Emanuela Cristiani6, Flavia Venditti7, Cristina Lemorini7, Ran Barkai1 & Avi Gopher1 Published: 25 November 2016 For a long while, the controversy surrounding several bone tools coming from pre-Upper Palaeolithic contexts favoured the view of Homo sapiens as the only species of the genus Homo capable of modifying animal bones into specialised tools. However, evidence such as South African Early Stone Age modified bones, European Lower Palaeolithic flaked bone tools, along with Middle and Late Pleistocene bone retouchers, led to a re-evaluation of the conception of Homo sapiens as the exclusive manufacturer of specialised bone tools. The evidence presented herein include use wear and bone residues identified on two flint scrapers as well as a sawing mark on a fallow deer tibia, not associated with butchering activities. Dated to more than 300 kya, the evidence here presented is among the earliest related to tool-assisted bone working intended for non-dietary purposes, and contributes to the debate over the recognition of bone working as a much older behaviour than previously thought. The results of this study come from the application of a combined methodological approach, comprising use wear analysis, residue analysis, and taphonomy. This approach allowed for the retrieval of both direct and indirect evidence of tool-assisted bone working, at the Lower Palaeolithic site of Qesem Cave (Israel). Homo sapiens’ supposedly exclusive manufacture of specialised tools made from modified animal bones, along with other aspects such as art and specialised hunting weapons, has led to the definition of a clear behavioural and cognitive boundary between H.
    [Show full text]
  • Mesolithic Bone Tools of South-West Europe : the Example of the French Site of Le Cuzoul De Gramat Benjamin Marquebielle
    Mesolithic bone tools of South-West Europe : the example of the French site of le Cuzoul de Gramat Benjamin Marquebielle To cite this version: Benjamin Marquebielle. Mesolithic bone tools of South-West Europe : the example of the French site of le Cuzoul de Gramat. 7th Meeting of the Worked Bone Research Group, Sep 2009, Wroclaw, Poland. hal-01990262 HAL Id: hal-01990262 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01990262 Submitted on 11 Feb 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Written in Bones Studies on technological and social contexts of past faunal skeletal remains edited by Justyna Baron Bernadeta Kufel-Diakowska Uniwersytet Wrocławski Instytut Archeologii Wrocław 2011 InstItute of ArchAeology, unIversIty of Wrocław, 2011 Editors Justyna Baron and Bernadeta Kufel-Diakowska Reviewers Arkadiusz Marciniak, Jarosław Wilczyński Layout Janusz M. szafran, Jarosław Michalak Cover Justyna Baron © Institute of Archaeology, university of Wrocław and individual authors 2011 IsBn 978-83-61416-64-7 Wrocławska Drukarnia naukowa PAN im. stanisława Kulczyńskiego sp. z o.o. 53-505 Wrocław, ul. lelewela 4 Contents Preface . 5 Methods and methodology steven P. Ashby The Language of the Combmaker: interpreting complexity in Viking-Age Industry .
    [Show full text]
  • Bone Tool Texture Analysis and the Role of Termites in the Diet of South African Hominids
    Bone Tool Texture Analysis and the Role of Termites in the Diet of South African Hominids JULIE J. LESNIK Department of Anthropology, Northeastern Illinois University, 5500 N. St. Louis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60625, USA; [email protected] ABSTRACT The Swartkrans cave, part of the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site in South Africa, has yielded bone tool artifacts together with an abundance of hominid fossils attributed to Australopithecus (Paranthropus) robustus and some fossils attributed to the genusHomo . These bone tools were originally identified as digging implements by Brain and colleagues (1988). More recent studies by Backwell and d’Errico (2001; d’Errico and Backwell 2009) reach the conclusion that they were primarily used to dig into termite mounds. Here, the methods pioneered for dental microwear texture analysis are applied in an attempt to address a narrower question of what genus of ter- mites the hominids were foraging. Texture analysis did not prove to be more informative than previous 3D studies of the Swartkrans bone tools, but the ecology of differing termite genera suggest the conclusion that the genus Macrotermes should be further investigated as a hominid food resource. INTRODUCTION In this paper, texture analysis, a combination of confo- he heavy masticatory morphology of robust australo- cal microscopy and scale sensitive fractal analysis (SSFA), Tpithecines was central to Robinson’s ‘Dietary Hypoth- will be used to assess the wear patterns on the ends of the esis’ that suggested Paranthropus was a dietary specialist, Swartkrans bone tools. Texture analysis was developed for crushing and grinding hard-object food items (Robinson dental microwear studies as a solution to the errors created 1954).
    [Show full text]
  • Unshaped Bone Tools from Denisova Cave, Altai
    PALEOENVIRONMENT. THE STONE AGE DOI: 10.17746/1563-0110.2020.48.1.016-028 M.B. Kozlikin1, W. Rendu2, H. Plisson2, M. Baumann2 and M.V. Shunkov1 1Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Pr. Akademika Lavrentieva 17, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] 2Bordeaux University, UMR 5199, PACEA laboratory, Bat. B2, Allée Geoffroy St-Hilaire CS 50023, 33615 Pessac cedex, France E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Unshaped Bone Tools from Denisova Cave, Altai This study describes a part of the Paleolithic bone industry of Denisova Cave—the site that is key for understanding a complex interaction between various groups of early humans and the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition. The Initial Upper Paleolithic layers of the cave yielded fossil remains of Denisovans, and the earliest ornaments and bone tools in North and Central Asia. The principal objective of this study is to analyze unshaped bone tools from the Late Middle and Initial Upper Paleolithic from the East Chamber of the cave. Among more than 10 thousand bone fragments, subdivided into three groups in terms of taphonomic, technical, and utilization traces, 51 specimens were selected for study. On the basis of location of use-wear traces that varied according to function, unshaped bone tools such as retouchers, awls, intermediate tools, and knives were revealed for the fi rst time in Denisova Cave. The results of the morphological and use-wear analysis suggest that those tools were used for processing organic materials such as leather, plant fi bers, and wood.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case of Human Bone Chalcolithic Technology from the Perdigões Site (Alentejo, Portugal)
    A case of human bone Chalcolithic technology from the Perdigões site (Alentejo, Portugal) Suggested running title: Human bone Chalcolithic technology from Perdigões (Alentejo, Portugal) Claudia Cunha12, Nelson J. Almeida34*, Boris Santander567, Tiago Tomé824, Palmira Saladié764, António Valera9 10, Nelson Cabaço9, Ana Silva2 11 1 Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, Coordenação de Ciências Humanas, Pará, Brazil. 2 CIAS, Department of Life Sciences, Universidade de Coimbra, Portugal. 3 UTAD, Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Portugal. 4GQP-CG, Quaternary and Prehistory Group, Geosciences Centre (uID 73 – FCT), Universidade de Coimbra, Portugal. 5 Alberto Hurtado University, Department of Anthropology, Chile. 6 Area de Prehistoria, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain. 7 IPHES, Institut Català de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social, Spain. 8 Programa de Pós-Graduação em Antropologia, Universidade Federal do Pará, Brazil. 9 NIA (Núcleo de Investigação Arqueológica), Era Arqueologia S.A. 10ICARhED, Interdisciplinary Center of Archaeology and Evolution of Human Behaviour, Universidade do Algarve, Portugal. 11UNIARQ, Centro de Arqueologia, Universidade de Lisboa. CENCIFOR, Centro de Ciências Forenses, Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal. * Corresponding author: Museu de Arte Pré-Histórica e do Sagrado no Vale do Tejo, Largo Infante D. Henrique, 6120-750, Mação, Portugal. E-mail: [email protected] This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1002/oa.2518 This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. Abstract A human femur diaphysis in the form of a burin was excavated from a secondary burial context containing osteological remains and industry in the Archaeological Complex of Perdigões (Portugal).
    [Show full text]
  • Implications of an Unusually Complex Bone Tool from the Late Pl
    *Manuscript Click here to view linked References 1 Are osseous artefacts a window on perishable material culture? Implications of an unusually 1 2 complex bone tool from the late Pleistocene of East Timor. 3 4 5 2¶&RQQRU6a, Roberston, G.b and Aplin, K. P.a* 6 7 8 a 9 Department of Archaeology and Natural History, College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National 10 11 University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 0200, Australia, [email protected] and 12 b 13 [email protected]; School of Social Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 14 15 4072, Australia, [email protected]. * corresponding author (tel: +61 2 61252245; fax: +61 2 6257 16 1893). 17 18 19 20 21 22 Abstract 23 24 25 We report the discovery of a unusually complex and regionally unique bone artefact in a late 26 27 Pleistocene archaeological assemblage (c. 35 ka) from the site of Matja Kuru 2 on the island of Timor, 28 29 in Wallacea. The artefact is interpreted as the broken butt of a formerly hafted projectile point, and it 30 31 preserves evidence of a complex hafting mechanism including insertion into a shaped or split shaft, a 32 33 complex pattern of binding including lateral stabilization of the cordage within bilateral series of 34 35 notches, and the application of mastic at several stages in the hafting process. It provides the earliest 36 direct evidence for the use of this combination of hafting technologies in the wider region of Southeast 37 38 Asia, Wallacea, Melanesia and Australasia, and is morphologically unparalleled in deposits of any age.
    [Show full text]
  • Caught in the Act! a Bearded Capuchin Monkey Smashes a Quartz Cobble on an Anvilstone in the Serra Da Capivara National Park in Brazil
    Volume 33, Number 3 ■ July, 2018 Center for the Study of the First Americans Department of Anthropology Texas A&M University 4352 TAMU College Station, TX 77843-4352 www.centerfirstamericans.com Caught in the act! A bearded capuchin monkey smashes a quartz cobble on an anvilstone in the Serra da Capivara National Park in Brazil. Witnessed and filmed by archaeologist Tiago Falótico of University of São Paulo, the monkey shattered the cobble, then threw it aside and licked up the dust, apparently to ingest the mineral and vegal content. Of interest to archaeologists is a sharp-edged fragment created by the monkey as a by-product, which exactly mimics a conchoidal fragment made by a human flintknapper. Lithics analysts consequently caution of the need to refine the “criteria commonly used to distinguish intentional hominin lithic assemblages.” This instance of monkey handiwork also challenges definitions in archaeology: Is the rock fragment an artifact? By definition that’s an object created by humans. Since the monkey wasn’t observed using the rock fragment in any manner, is it a tool? For our story, see page 9. Photo by Michael Haslam he Center for the Study of the First Americans fosters research and public T interest in the Peopling of the Americas. The Center, an integral part of the Department of Anthropology at Texas A&M University, pro motes inter disciplinary scholarly dialogue among physical, geological, biological and social scientists. The Mammoth Trumpet, news magazine of the Center, seeks to involve you in the peopling of the Americas by report- ing on developments in all pertinent areas of knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • January/February, 2021
    Sacramento Archeological Society, Inc. Newsletter ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- www.sacarcheology.org. Jan/Feb - 2021 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- Happy New Year UPCOMING EVENTS January 16, 2021 Saturday, 2:00 p.m. - SAS Webinar “Evaluating the Dog as A Hunting Tool in Prehistoric Alta and Baja California: Preliminary Results” by Jessica Morales January 30, 2021 Saturday, 2:00 p.m. - SAS Webinar “Projectile point enlargement in the High Andean Archaic: an experimental atlatl study” by Caleb Chen February 13, 2021, Saturday, 2:00 p.m. - SAS Webinar “Peopling of the Tibetan Plateau: the occupation history and high-altitude adaptation” by Peiqi Zhang March 1, 2021, Monday, 10:00 p.m. - CSUS Renaissance Society Big History Webinar “Religion the experience of being alive” by Marty Lewis March 13, 2021, Saturday, 2:00 p.m. - SAS Webinar “Seven Outstanding Petroglyph Sites in Central and Northwest California: Tales of Discovery and Collaboration” by Dan Foster We are looking forward to continue monthly webinars via Zoom and hopefully we will be able to add other events such as tours. See announcements: https://sacarcheology.org/announcements/ for webinar access information and calendar: https://sacarcheology.org/archaeology- activities/calendar-of-events/ for the complete set of events in our website: www.sacarcheology.org. UPCOMING EVENTS Sacramento Archeological Society, Inc.’s (SAS) Webinar Saturday, January 16, 2021 2:00 p.m. PST Evaluating the Dog as a Hunting Tool in Prehistoric Alta and Baja California: Preliminary Results by Jessica Morales Page 1 of 11 California hunter-gatherer (-fishers) archaeology has long focused in understanding forager decision making related to mobility, residency, subsistence practices, and technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Bone Tool Technology on Easter Island Felicia Rounds Beardsley
    Rapa Nui Journal: Journal of the Easter Island Foundation Volume 10 Article 2 Issue 4 December 1996 1996 Bone Tool Technology on Easter Island Felicia Rounds Beardsley Follow this and additional works at: https://kahualike.manoa.hawaii.edu/rnj Part of the History of the Pacific slI ands Commons, and the Pacific slI ands Languages and Societies Commons Recommended Citation Beardsley, Felicia Rounds (1996) "Bone Tool Technology on Easter Island," Rapa Nui Journal: Journal of the Easter Island Foundation: Vol. 10 : Iss. 4 , Article 2. Available at: https://kahualike.manoa.hawaii.edu/rnj/vol10/iss4/2 This Research Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Hawai`i Press at Kahualike. It has been accepted for inclusion in Rapa Nui Journal: Journal of the Easter Island Foundation by an authorized editor of Kahualike. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Beardsley: Bone Tool Technology on Easter Island Bone Tool Technology on Easter Island Felicia Rounds Beardsley One of the attractions of Easter Island is the grand ture of a variety of bone implements can be easily traced and display of a complex technology embodied in the archaeo­ clarified, and the methods and devices used in tbat process at logIcal record-the aIJu and associated statuary. Yet it is the least inferred. As Semenov (1964) points out, It IS only smaller, less spectacular elements 111 other technological through the repated observations of similar patterns of modi­ industries which provide the greatest insights into that prehis­ fication on several items of like nature tbat the fundamental toric culture-into the industrial repertoire of one of the most features of a reduction process, implement ,function, or use isolated and environmentally impoverished islands in the are ultimately derived.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaic Bone Tools in the St. Johns River Basin, Florida: Microwear and Manufacture Traces Julia C
    Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2011 Archaic Bone Tools in the St. Johns River Basin, Florida: Microwear and Manufacture Traces Julia C. Byrd Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES ARCHAIC BONE TOOLS IN THE ST. JOHNS RIVER BASIN, FLORIDA: MICROWEAR AND MANUFACTURE TRACES By JULIA C. BYRD A Thesis submitted to the Department of Anthropology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2011 The members of the committee approve the thesis of Julia C. Byrd defended on March 17, 2011. _______________________________________ Glen H. Doran Professor Directing Thesis _______________________________________ Rochelle A. Marrinan Committee Member _______________________________________ Lynne A. Schepartz Committee Member Approved: _______________________________________ Glen H. Doran, Chair, Department of Anthropology The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee. members. ii This thesis is dedicated to my grandmother, Julia Gooch, who told me, “If I could do it again, I would go to school to study archaeology and art.” iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the many people who contributed to this thesis. First, I thank my Major Professor, Dr. Glen Doran, who showed endurance answering my endless questions. Thank you to Drs. Rochelle Marrinan and Lynne Schepartz for serving on my committee. Several people and businesses generously contributed deer parts for my replication experiments. I thank Star’s Meat Market and Mack’s Country Meats for leftover deer bones and unwanted deer legs.
    [Show full text]