Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies 9781407330907, 9781407300344

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
Introduction
Bone Tools and Bone Technology: A Brief History
The Importance of the Palaeontological and Taphonomical Analysesfor the Study of Bone Industries
Technology on Bone and Antler Industries: A Relevant Methodology for Characterizing Early Post-Glacial Societies (9th – 8th Millenium BC)
Prehistoric Bone Tools and the Archaeozoological Perspective: Research in Central Europe
Methods, Means, and Results when Studying European Bone Industries
The Use of Bone and Antler Tools: Two Examples from the Late Mesolithic in the Dutch Coastal Zone
Stability and Change in Bone Tool Use Along the Middle Missouri, North Dakota
Bone Awls of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians: A Microwear Analysis
A Diachronic Study of Pre-and Post-Contact Antler, Bone and Shell Artifacts from New York State
Bone Disc Manufacturing Debris from Newfoundland to Antigua During the Historic Period
Bone Tool Types and Microwear Patterns: Some Examples from the Pampa Region, South America
A Preliminary Typology of Perpendicularly Hafted Bone Tipped Tattooing Instruments: Toward a Technological History of Oceanic Tattooing
Conclusions: Bone Artifacts and their Importance to Archaeology

Citation preview

BAR S1622 2007 GATES ST-PIERRE & WALKER (Eds)

Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies Edited by

Christian Gates St-Pierre Renee B. Walker

BONES AS TOOLS

B A R

BAR International Series 1622 2007

Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies Edited by

Christian Gates St-Pierre Renee B. Walker

BAR International Series 1622 2007

ISBN 9781407300344 paperback ISBN 9781407330907 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407300344 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Contents

Introduction Christian Gates St-Pierre and Renee B. Walker

1

Chapter 1 • Bone Tools and Bone Technology: A Brief History Genevieve M. LeMoine

9

Chapter 2 • The Importance of the Palaeontological and Taphonomical Analyses for the Study of Bone Industries Carole Vercoutère, Marylène Patou-Mathis and Giacomo Giacobini

23

Chapter 3 • Technology on Bone and Antler Industries: A Relevant Methodology for Characterizing Early Post-Glacial Societies (9th - 8th Millennium BC) Eva David

35

Chapter 4 • Prehistoric Bone Tools and the Archaeozoological Perspective: Research in Central Europe Alice M. Choyke and Jörg Schibler

51

Chapter 5 • Methods, Means, and Results when Studying European Bone Industries Alexandra Legrand and Isabelle Sidéra

67

Chapter 6 • The Use of Bone and Antler Tools: Two Examples from the Late Mesolithic in the Dutch Coastal Zone Annelou van Gijn

81

Chapter 7 • Stability and Change in Bone Tool Use Along the Middle Missouri, North Dakota Janet Griffitts

93

Chapter 8 • Bone Awls of the St.Lawrence Iroquoians: A Microwear Analysis Christian Gates St-Pierre

107

Chapter 9 • A Diachronic Study of Pre- and Post-Contact Antler, Bone and Shell Artifacts from New York State Renee B. Walker

119

Chapter 10 • Bone Disc Manufacturing Debris from Newfoundland to Antigua During the Historic Period Walter E. Klippel and Bonnie E. Price

133

Chapter 11 • Bone Tool Types and Microwear Patterns: Some Examples from the Pampa Region, South America Natacha Buc and Daniel Loponte

143

Chapter 12 • A Priliminary Typology of Perpendicularly Hafted Bone Tipped Tattooing Instruments: Toward a Technological History of Oceanic Tattooing Benoît Robitaille

159

Conclusions: Bone Artifacts and their Importance to Archaeology Sandra L. Olsen

175

iii

Introduction Christian Gates St-Pierre Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Chicago, USA

Renee B. Walker Department of Anthropology, SUNY College at Oneonta, USA

2001; Yellen et al. 1995; see also Gibbons 1995; McBrearty and Brooks 2000: 503-506; Yellen 1998). Other Middle Stone Age bone tools were discovered at Blombos Cave, South Africa, including 28 bone awls and points (some engraved) and 41 shell beads, securely dated to 70,000-75,000 years BP (Henshilwood and Sealy 1997; Henshilwood et al. 2001a, 2001b; 2004; d’Errico et al. 2001). During the Late Stone Age, bone tools became a more regular feature at African sites.

Despite the dynamism which has characterized worked bone studies during the last decade or so, it is unfortunate that the informative potential of worked bone artifacts is still largely ignored by many archaeologists today. This assertion is frustrating, especially for those who have spent most (if not all) of their careers working on this subject and trying to make their findings more relevant to other archaeologists. In countries such as France, however, bone tool studies have a longer history and are much more integrated in archaeology, but in a worldwide perspective this is an exception rather than the rule. This remark is perhaps even more surprising when considering the fact that artifacts made from animal hard tissue (such as bone, antler, tooth, ivory and shell, here after collectively referred to as “bone”) are found on archaeological sites from a multitude of geographical areas and time periods.

In Eurasia, the earliest worked bones appear with the onset of the Upper Paleolithic, ca. 40,000 years BP. Evidence of bone tools dating from the Middle and even Lower Paleolithic exist in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and elsewhere in Europe, but they are very controversial (d’Errico et al. 1998, 2003; PatouMathis 1999; Villa and d’Errico 2001; see also the debate between Binford 1981, 1982, 1983; Freeman 1978, 1983; and White 1982, 1983). In Oceania, the oldest bone tools ever found are bone points dated to 33,000 years BP from Devil’s Lair, in southwestern Australia (Dortch 1979, 1984; see also Akerman 1995; Mulvaney and Kamminga 1999: 212). Recently, fish hooks fashioned from shell discovered in East Timor were dated to about 9740 years BP (O’Connor and Veth 2005).

Recent discoveries indicate that the earliest utilized bones consisted of long, straight bone flakes and horn cores that were found at the Lower Paleolithic site of Swartkrans in South Africa (dating from about 1.8 to 1 million years ago), and were probably used by members of the Australopithecus robustus species to dig into termite mounds (Backwell and d’Errico 2001; d’Errico and Backwell 2003; d’Errico, Backwell and Berger 2001; see also Brain and Shipman 1993; Shipman 2001). However, these are not formal bone tools, but rather bone fragments expediently used as tools and thus informally shaped through use. Other recent discoveries suggest that the oldest formal bone tool, intentionally manufactured by humans, could be as much as 300,000 to 140,000 years old (Barham et al. 2002). These early Middle Stone Age bone tools were found at the famous yet problematic Broken Hill cave site in Zambia, and consist of two bone gouges and a bone projectile point. Absolute dating of this particular site is lacking, however, and the currently most accepted dates for the earliest bone tools range from about 80,000 to 90,000 years BP in Africa. These are barbed and unbarbed bone points as well as a flat dagger from the Katanda sites in the upper Semliki Valley, Democratic Republic of Congo (Brooks et al. 1995; Feathers and Migliorini

Early utilized bone from North America include bone flakes from the Old Crow Basin (25,000-40,000 years BP) and Bluefish Caves (10,000-25,000 years BP) in Yukon, Canada. These could be the oldest, preClovis evidence of bone used as tools in the Americas (Cinq-Mars 1990; Cinq-Mars and Morlan; Irving et al. 1989; Morlan 1986; Morlan et al. 1990). However, it should be mentioned that these are expedient, ad hoc tools. Moreover, dating the findings at Old Crow and Bluefish Caves has been highly controversial. Nevertheless, clearly manufactured bone tools such as points and rods are well documented among the Clovis and Folsom assemblages of the Early Paleoindian period, ca. 12,000-10,000 years BP (cf. Bradley 1995; Frison 2004: 214-218; Frison and Zeimans 1980; Pearson 1999; Stanford 1991: 2-5; Wright 1995: 31-35). Also, it was recently reported

1

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

that shell beads from various sites in California were dated to between 10,000 and 7500 years BP (Erlandson et al. 2005; Farrell 2004; Fitzgerald et al. 2005; Vellanoweth et al. 2003).

(consciously or not) by some as less important than other fields of study in a still largely male-dominated profession and, as a consequence, receive less attention?

Thus, bone tools are worldwide in distribution and appear quite early in the archaeological records of most continents. They are almost as old as stone tools in the Americas, and appear everywhere much before the invention/adoption of pottery. In fact, one could hardly find a prehistoric culture or ancient society with no worked bone technology. Moreover, bone was sometimes the most important source of material to make tools, a fact well illustrated by the archaeology of the Inuits, for example, who certainly had one of the most elaborate, varied and complex bone technologies known. Yet, surprisingly, bone tools seldom receive the attention they deserve from archaeologists. Why is this so?

Things are changing, however. We mentioned earlier that worked bone studies have been more lively than ever during the last decade, as judged by the rising number of meetings, symposia, and publications (for example, see Choyke and Bartosiewicz 2001; Hahn et al. 1995; Hannus et al. 1997; Julien et al. 1999; Luik et al. 2006; and Patou-Mathis et al. 2002; see also the review article by LeMoine in this volume). This is partly due to the creation of the Worked Bone Research Group (WBRG), one of the International Council for Archaeozoology’s (ICAZ) working groups, created in 1997. As a network, the WBRG group has been instrumental in breaking the isolation of worked bone specialists, notably by organizing international conferences every two years in a different country (Great-Britain in 1997, Hungary in 1999, Switzerland in 2001, Estonia in 2003, Bulgaria in 2005, and France in 2007).

The answer to this question is certainly multifaceted. Part of the explanation lies in the fact that bone tools are usually not as numerous as lithic or ceramic remains. Stone tools are much more ubiquitous than bone tools (in time and space). In addition, knapping stone tools or breaking a ceramic vessel often results in hundreds or thousands of flakes or sherds. In addition, bone is an organic material that does not preserve as well as stone or fired clay. Another part of the explanation – perhaps the most important one – is that bone tools are less attractive to archaeologists compared to lithics, ceramics, rock art, burials, and many other categories of material remains. For various reasons, stone tools and especially ceramics have always been prioritized by archaeologists in building chronologies and doing culture history, but also in studying such aspects of prehistoric cultures as technology, craft specialization and standardization, ethnicity, trade and exchange patterns, social structures, procurement strategies or food preparation, to name just a few. Similarly, rock art and burials provide archaeologists with some glimpses of the spiritual world and with some data to study other aspects such as art, aesthetics, diseases, demography, etc. By contrast, many archaeologists apparently believe, even today, that bone tools are nice objects but do not tell us much about anything other than bone technology (more will be said about this later). A third part of the explanation may reside in the fact that worked bone studies are being conducted predominantly by female researchers. Thus, among the 19 authors is this volume, 13 (68%) are females, and the ratio of males to females in ICAZ’s Worked Bone Research Group (see below) is about 1:2. We do not want to go too far into political correctness or gender archaeology here, but could it be that worked bone studies are still being seen

If worked bone studies are on the rise, it may also be due to a transformation of worked bone research. In an oft-cited paper, Braun (1983) urged archaeologists to study pottery not only in terms of a source of information about aesthetics, social networks, trade and exchange patterns, but also as tools with technological, morphological and decorative characteristics which are constrained by their intended function and contexts of use. It is our view that worked bone specialists have gone the other way around. The understanding of the manufacturing techniques and function of bone tools were certainly at the core of worked bone studies right from the beginning, along with typology and classification (LeMoine 1991, this volume), and there are many good examples in this book. On the other hand, we have just begun to address larger questions, questions with a scope that goes beyond technology, manufacture and function, but reaching economic, social, political or ideological aspects of past societies as well. For example, the various discoveries of bone tools in Central and South Africa mentioned earlier not only indicate that these are the oldest ones yet discovered, but they also demonstrate that this marker of modern human behavior did not appear with the European Upper Paleolithic, as previous evidence suggested (see Bar-Yosef 2002: 366-367, Mellars 1989, 1991; McBrearty and Brooks 2000: 491; White 1982: 169-170), but rather with the Middle Stone Age in Africa, a radical change in time and space for the appearance of modern behavior. As another example, Vanhaeren and d’Errico (2005) explain how the perforated red deer canines

2

INTRODUCTION – GATES ST-PIERRE AND WALKER

optimistic about the future of bone tool studies.

associated with the 15,500 years old burial of SaintGermain-la-Rivière, France, can be interpreted as items of prestige and as a sign of social inequality in the alleged egalitarian societies of the Upper Paleolithic. For her part, Emery (2001, 2004) studied bone tool specialization and standardization to better understand the collapse of the Classic Maya social and political systems. Finally, Russel’s (2001) examination of raw material selection, standardization of forms and reuse of bone tools reveals interesting similarities and differences in the social organization of production in Neolithic societies of southern Europe, Anatolia, and south Asia.

About this Book The papers in this volume were originally collected for a symposium entitled “Recent Developments in Bone Tool Studies”, organized for the 69th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology held in Montreal (Canada) on April 2nd, 2004. The objective of the symposium was to illustrate how recent developments in approaches, methods and techniques in worked bone studies can contribute to our understanding of basic problems encountered in archaeological research, with case studies from Europe and North America essentially, but also from Latin America and Oceania. Thus, a lot is being said about the approaches, methods and techniques throughout the pages of this book, but most, if not all of the contributors also give a somewhat equal importance to interpretative significance of their data and findings. While European readers are usually (but not always) familiar with the archaeological literature from North America, North American readers are more rarely in contact with the European approaches (and styles of writing). Thus, they may find themselves somewhat surprised when reading some of the chapters included in this book, but at the end this confrontation is beneficial as it should enlarge the methodological and interpretative perspectives of archaeologists from both sides of the Atlantic.

Bone tools can also be useful in identifying past activities with less visible or invisible traces, especially when they involve some organic materials that will decay much faster than bone. Thus, Backwell and d’Errico’s (2001) finding of termite eating at Swartkrans is indicative of the importance of insectivory in the diet of early hominids, something that was almost completely ignored before. Similarly, weaving, basket-making and net-making could be identified on the basis of use wear on specialized bone tools associated with these activities on Upper Paleolithic sites where the original organic materials have not been preserved, and even testify to the ubiquity of these activities during this time period across Europe (Soffer 2004; Soffer et al. 2000). The characteristic use wear on bone tools used on leather and hide, bark, wood, and plant fibers, all organic, perishable materials, is now well documented. In many occasions only use wear analysis of bone tools will show evidence of activities such as basketry, bark working or even agriculture (through evidence of maize processing), as outlined by at least two authors in this volume (Gates St-Pierre, van Gijn).

As Olsen indicated in her paper (she was the discussant at the symposium), there are also some common themes in many of the contributions, such as the reconstitution of manufacturing techniques and chaînes opératoires, the identification of the function of the bone tools (usually with the aid of use wear analysis), and the elaboration of more adequate classifications and typologies. In other words, there is a lot of coherence between each and every contribution in this book, despite the range of time periods and geographical areas that are covered. There is also coherence despite the presence of contributors from North America and Europe, where archaeology is not always being done, nor thought about, the same way.

In our view, it is only with a better integration with the rest of archaeology and by enlarging the scope of our worked bone studies that bone tool studies will soar and develop their full potential. Such studies exist but more are necessary. After all, zooarchaeology has acquired the importance and popularity it has today in part because it took the step from the analysis of bones per se and the production of descriptive faunal lists to more elaborate, interpretative and integrated analyses regarding hunting strategies, catchment analysis, seasonality, mobility and migration, trade, domestication of animals, social status, the symbolic aspects of animals, site formation processes, or taphonomy, among many other topics (see O’Connor 1996; Reitz and Wing 1999: 12-31, 320-334). We predict that worked bone studies will follow a development similar to zooarchaeology and will grow very rapidly. In fact, this is hardly a prediction at all; it is already happening. In sum, we can be very

There are many different ways in which the contributions to this book could have been organized, but the option that made the most sense to us was to present the contributions in geographical order. Thus, the papers centered on the analysis of bone tools from various European contexts are first, and they happen to be those who present more lengthy discussions of approaches and/or methods. They are followed by the papers dealing the North American

3

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Brain, C. K. and P. Shipman 1993 The Swartkrans Bone Tools. In Swartkrans: A Cave’s Chronicle of Early Man, ed. C. K. Brain, 195-215. Monograph No 8. Pretoria: Transvaal Museum.

archaeological record. And last but not least are the two papers presenting data from South America and Oceania. These papers are flanked by two others of a different nature. The first one is an article by Genevieve LeMoine presenting a short history of bone tool studies. We asked LeMoine to contibute such a paper in order to give a historical background to the various studies presented in this book (and elsewhere). The other one is an expanded version of Sandra Olsen’s commentary paper. There the reader will find some critical comments and thoughtful observations about the various articles in this book, from a leading expert in zooarchaeology and bone tool studies. These opening and concluding papers represent, we believe, a valuable complement to the rest of this book. We hope that the various contributions in this book – all well illustrated with numerous figures – will provide the readers with a small but representative glimpse of some current methods and interpretations in bone tool studies, an ever more dynamic field of study.

Braun, D. P. 1983 Pots As Tools. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories, ed. J. A. Moore and A. S. Keene, 107134. New York: Academic Press. Brooks, A. S., D. M. Helgren, J. S. Cramer, A. Franklin, W. Nornyak, J. M. Keating, R. G. Klein, W. J. Rink, H. Schwarcz, J. N. Leith Smith, K. Stewart, N. E. Todd, J. Verniers and J. E. Yellen 1995 Dating and Context of Three Middle Stone Age Sites with Bone Points in the Upper Semliki Valley, Zaire. Science; vol. 268, No 5210: 548553. Choyke, A. M. and L. Bartosiewicz (ed.) 2001 Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space. Proceedings of the 2 meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group, Budapest, 31 August – 5 September 1999. BAR International Series No 937. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. nd

References Cited Akerman, K. 1995 The Use of Bone, Shell, and Teeth by Aboriginal Australians. In Ancient Peoples and Landscapes, ed. E. Johnson, 173-183. Lubbock (Texas): Museum of Texas Tech University.

Cinq-Mars, J. 1990 La place des Grottes du Poisson-Bleu dans la préhistoire béringienne. Revista de Arqueología Americana; No 1: 9-32. Cinq-Mars, J. and R. E. Morlan 1999 Blufish Caves and Old Crow Basin: A New Rapport. In Ice Age People of North America: Environments, Origins, and Adaptations, ed. R. Bonnichsen and K. L. Turnmire, 200-212. Corvallis (Oregon): Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University.

Backwell, L. R. and F. d’Errico 2001 Evidence of Termite Foraging by Swartkrans Early Hominids. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences; vol. 98, No 4: 1358-1363. Bar-Yosef, O. 2002 The Upper Paleolithic Revolution. Annual Review of Anthropology; vol. 32: 363-393.

Dortch, C. E. 1979 33,000 Year Old Stone and Bone Artifacts from Devil’s Lair, Western Australia. Records of the Western Australian Museum; vol. 7: 329-367. 1984 Devil’s Lair: A Study in Prehistory. Perth: Western Australia Museum.

Barham, L. S., A. C. Pinto Llona and C. B. Stringer 2002 Bone Tools from Broken Hill (Kabwe) Cave, Zambia, and their Evolutionary Significance. Before Farming; vol. 2, No 3: 1-16. Binford, L. R. 1981 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. New York: Academic Press. 1982 Comments on White. Current Anthropology; vol. 23, No 2: 177-181. 1983 Reply to Freeman. Current Anthropology; vol. 24, No 3: 372-376.

d’Errico, F. and L. R. Backwell 2003 Possible Evidence of Bone Tool Shaping by Swartkrans Early Hominids. Journal of Archaeological Science; vol. 30, No 12: 15591576. d’Errico, F., L. R. Backwell, and L. R. Berger 2001 Bone Tool Use in Termite Foraging by Early Hominids and Its Impact on Understanding Early Hominid Behavior. South African Journal of Science; vol. 97, Nos 3-4: 71-75.

Bradley, B. A. 1995 Clovis Ivory and Bone Tools. In Le travail et l'usage de l'ivoire au Paléolithique Supérieur: Actes de la Table Ronde, ed. J. Hahn, M. Menu, Y. Taborin, P. Walter and F. Widemann. Rome: Centro Universitario Europeo per i Beni Culturali.

d’Errico, F., C. S. Henshilwood and P. Nilssen 2001 An Engraved Bone Fragment from 70,000-YearOld Middle Stone Age Levels at Blombos Cave, South Africa: Implications for the Origin of

4

INTRODUCTION – GATES ST-PIERRE AND WALKER

Freeman, L. G. 1978 Mousterian Worked Bone from Cueva Morín (Santander, Spain): A Preliminary Description. In Views of the Past, ed. L. G. Freeman, 29-51. The Hague: Mouton. 1983 More on the Mousterian: Flaked Bone from Cueva Morín. Current Anthropology; vol. 24, No 3: 366-372.

Symbolism and Language. Antiquity; vol. 75, No 288: 309-318. d’Errico, F., J. Zilhão, M. Julien, D. Baffier and J. Pélegrin 1998 Neanderthal Acculturation in Western Europe? A Critical Review of the Evidence and its Interpretation. Current Anthropology; vol. 39 (supplement): 1-44.

Frison, G. C. 2004 Survival by Hunting: Prehistoric Human Predators and Animal Prey. Berkeley: University of California Press.

d’Errico, F., C. Henshilwood, G. Lawson, M. Vanhaeren, A.M. Tillier, M. Soressi, F. Bresson, B. Maureille, A. Nowell, J. Lakarra, L. Backwell and M. Julien 2003 Archaeological Evidence for the Emergence of Language, Symbolism, and Music – An Alternative Multidisciplinary Perspective. Journal of World Prehistory; vol. 17, No 1: 1-70.

Frison, G. C. and G. M. Zeimens 1980 Bone Projectile Points: An Addition to the Folsom Cultural Complex. American Antiquity; vol. 45, No 2: 231-237.

Emery, K. F. 2001 The Economics of Bone Artifact Production in the Ancient Maya Lowlands. In Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space. Proceedings of the 2 meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group, Budapest, 31 August – 5 September 1999, ed. A. M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, 73-83. BAR International Series No 937. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 2004 Environments of the Maya Collapse: A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Petexbatún, Guatemala. In M a y a Zooarchaeology: New Directions in Method and Theory, ed. K. F. Emery, 81-96. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California at Los Angeles

Gibbons, A. 1995 Old Dates for Modern Behavior. Science; vol. 268, No 5210:495-496.

nd

Hahn, J., M. Menu, Y. Taborin, P. Walter and F. Widemann (ed.) 1995 Le travail et l'usage de l'Ivoire au Paléolithique Supérieur: Actes de la Table Ronde. Rome: Instituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato. Hannus, L. A., L. Rossum and P. Winham (ed.) 1997 Proceedings of the 1993 Bone Modification Conference, Hot Springs,South Dakota. Occasional Publication No 1. Sioux Falls (South Dakota): Archaeology Laboratory, Augustana College.

Erlandson, J. M., M. E. Macko, H. C. Koerper and J. Southon 2005 The Antiquity of Olivella Shell Beads at CA-ORA64: AMS Radiocarbon Dated Between 9420 and 7780 Cal BP. Journal of Archaeological Science; vol. 32, No 3: 393-398.

Henshilwwod, C. S. and J. C. Sealy 1997 Bone Artefacts from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, Southern Cape, South Africa. Current Anthropology; vol. 38, No 5: 890-895. Henshilwood, C. S., F. d’Errico, C. W. Marean, R. G. Milo and R. Yates 2001a An Early Bone Tool Industry from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa: Implications for the Origins of Modern Behavior, Symbolism and Language. Journal of Human Evolution; vol. 41, No 6: 631-678.

Farrell, N. 2004 Santa Ysabel Ranch, Paso Robles: Gracious Living for over 8,000 Years. In Emerging from the Ice Age: Early Holocene Occupations on the California Coast, ed. E. Bertrando and V. A. Levulett, 45-56. Occasional Paper No 17. San Luis Obispo (California): Central Coast Center for Archaeological Research, San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society.

Henshilwood, C. S., J. C. Sealy, R. Yates, K. Cruz-Uribe, P. Goldberg, F. E. Grine, R. G. Klein, C. Poggenpoel, K. van Niekerk and I. Watts 2001b Blombos Cave, Southern Cape, South Africa: Preliminary Report on the 1992-1999 Excavations of the Middle Stone Age Levels. Journal of Archaeological Science; vol. 28, No 4: 421-448.

Feathers, J. K. and E. Migliorini 2001 Luminescence Dating at Katanda: A Reassessment. Quaternary Science Review; vol. 20, Nos 5-9: 961-966. Fitzgerald, R. T., T. L. Jones and A. Schroth 2005 Ancient Long-Distance Trade in Western North America: New AMS Radiocarbon Dates from Southern California. Journal of Archaeological Science; vol. 32, No 3: 423-434.

Henshilwood, C. S., F. d’Errico, M. Vanhaeren, K. van Niekerk and Z. Jacobs 2004 Middle Stone Age Shell Beads from South Africa. Science; vol. 304, No 5669: 404.

5

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Canadian Journal of Archaeology; vol. 14: 7592.

Irving, W. N., A. V. Jopling and I. Kritsch-Armstrong 1989 Studies of Bone Technology and Taphonomy, Old Crow Basin, Yukon Territory. In Bone Modification, ed. R. Bonnichsen and M. A. Sorg, 347-379. Orono (Maine): Center for the Study of the First Americans, University of Maine.

Mulvaney, J. and J. Kamminga 1999 Prehistory of Australia. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press. O’Connor, S. and P. Veth 2005 Early Holocene Shell Fish Hooks from Lene Hara Cave, East Timor Establish Complex Fishing Technology Was in Use in Island South East Asia Five Thousand Years Before Austronesian Settlement. Antiquity; vol. 79, No 304: 249-256.

Julien, M., A. Averbouh, D. Ramseyer, C. Bellier, D. Buisson, P. Cattelain, M. Patou-Mathis and N. Provenzano (ed.) 1999 Préhistoire d’os: Recueil d’études sur l’industrie osseuse préhistorique offert à Henriette CampsFabrer. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence.

O’Connor, T. P. 1996 A Critical Overview of Archaeological Animal Bone Studies. World Archaeology; vol.28, No 1: 5-19.

LeMoine, G. M. 2001 Skeletal Technologies in Context: An Optimistic Overview. In Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space. Proceedings of the 2 meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group, Budapest, 31 August – 5 September 1999, ed. A. M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, 1-7. BAR International Series No 937. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports

Patout-Mathis, M. 1999 Les outils osseux du Paléolithique inférieur et moyen en Europe: Problèmes, méthodes et résultats préliminaires. In Préhistoire d’os: Recueil d’études sur l’industrie osseuse préhistorique offert à Henriette Camps-Fabrer, ed. M. Julien, A. Averbouh, D. Ramseyer, C. Bellier, D. Buisson, P. Cattelain, M. Patou-Mathis and N. Provenzano, 49-57. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence.

nd

Luik, H., A. M. Choyke, C. E. Batey and L. Lougas (ed.) 2006 From the Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth: Manufacture and Use of Bone Artifacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present. Proceedings of the 4 Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group, Tallinn, 26-31 August 2003. Muinasaja teadus No 15. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Patou-Mathis, M., P. Cattelain and D. Ramseyer (ed.) 2002 L’industrie osseuse pré- et protohistorique en Europe: Approches technologiques et fonctionnelles. Bulletin No 26. Amay (Belgique): Cercle Archéologique Hesbaye-Condroz.

th

McBrearty, S. and A. S. Brooks 2000 The Revolution that Wasn’t: A New Interpretation of the Origin of Modern Behavior. Journal of Human Evolution; vol. 39, No 5: 453-563.

Pearson, G. A. 1999 North American Paleoindian Bi-Beveled Bone and Ivory Rods: A New Interpretation. North American Archaeologist; vol. 20, No 2: 81-103.

Mellars, P. A. 1989 Technological Changes at the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic Transition: Economic, Social and Cognitive Perspectives. In The Human Revolution: Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans, ed. P. Mellars and C. Stinger, 338-365. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 1991 Cognitive Changes and the Emergence of Modern Humans in Europe. C a m b r i d g e Archaeological Journal; vol. 1, No 1: 63-76.

Reitz, E. J. and E. S. Wing 1999 Zooarchaeology. University Press.

Cambridge:

Cambridge

Russell, N. 2001 Neolithic Relations of Production: Insights from the Bone Tool Industry. In Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space. Proceedings of the 2 meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group, Budapest, 31 August – 5 September 1999, ed. A. M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, 271-280. BAR International Series No 937. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports nd

Morlan, R. E. 1986 Pleistocene Archaeology in Old Crow Basin: A Critical Reappraisal. In New Evidence for the Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas, ed. A. L. Bryan, 27-48. Orono (Maine): Center for the Study of the First Americans, University of Maine.

Shipman, P. 2001 What Can You Do with a Bone Fragment?. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences; vol. 98, No 4: 1335-1337.

Morlan, R. E., D. E. Nelson, T. A. Brown, J. S. Vogel and J. R. Southon 1990 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Dates on Bones from Old Crow Basin, Northern Yukon Territory.

Soffer, O. 2004 Recovering Perishable Technologies through Use Wear on Tools: Preliminary Evidence for

6

INTRODUCTION – GATES ST-PIERRE AND WALKER

Villa, P. and F. d’Errico 2001 Bone and Ivory Points in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe. Journal of Human Evolution; vol. 41, No 1: 69-112.

Upper Paleolithic Weaving and Net Making. Current Anthropology; vol. 45, No 3: 407-413. Soffer, O., J. M. Adovasio and D. C. Hyland 2000a Perishable Technologies and Invisible People: Nets, Baskets and Venus Wear ca. 26,000 B.P. In Enduring Records: The Environmental and Cultural Heritage of Wetlands, ed. B. A. Purdy, 233-245. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

White, R. 1982 Rethinking the Middle/Upper Paleolithic Transition. Current Anthropology; vol. 23, No 2: 169- 176. 1983 Reply to Freeman. Current Anthropology; vol. 24, No 3: 376.

Stanford, D. 1991 Clovis Origins and Adaptations: An Introductory Perspective. In Clovis: Origins and Adaptations, ed. R. Bonnichsen and K. L. Turnmire, 1-13. Corvallis (Oregon): Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University.

Wright, J. V. 1995 A History of the Native People of Canada. Volume I (10,000 – 1,000 B.C.). Mercury Series, Paper No 152. Hull (Quebec): Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Vanhaeren, M. and F. d’Errico 2005 Grave Goods from the Saint-Germain-la-Rivière Burial: Evidence for Social Inequality in the Upper Palaeolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology; vol. 24, No 2: 117-134.

Yellen, J. E. 1998 Barbed Bone points: Tradition and Continuity in Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa. A f r i c a n Archaeological Review; vol. 15, No 3: 173-198. Yellen, J. E., A. S. Brooks, E. Cornelissen, M. J. Mehlman and K. Stewart 1995 A Middle Stone Age Worked Bone Industry from Katanda, Upper Semliki Valley, Zaire. Science; vol. 268, No 5210: 553-556.

Vellanoweth, R. L., M. R. Lambright, J. M. Erlandson and T. C. Rick 2003 Early New World Maritime Technologies: Sea Grass Cordage, Shell Beads, and a Bone Tool from Cave of the Chimneys, San Miguel Siland, California. Journal of Archaeological Science; vol. 30, No 9: 1161-1173. .

7

chapter

1

Bone Tools and Bone Technology: A Brief History Genevieve M. LeMoine The Peary-MacMillan Arctic Museum, Bowdoin College, USA

there is wide recognition that bone tools, and an understanding of how they were made and how they fit into the technological, social, economic and ideological realms of the people who made and used them, have much to tell us about past societies.

Introduction Recently, finds of worked bone have been in the news. Incised bones from Blombos Cave, dated to 77,000 B.P., caught the attention of the popular media in late 2001 when the finds were announced in the Journal of Human Evolution (Henshilwood et al. 2001; Wilford 2001, for example). Subsequently, shell beads from the same site made the news (Highfield 2004), as did a mammoth ivory flute found in Germany (Harding 2004). This widespread attention to significant finds of bone tools is welcome, but it is far from the whole story. As we will see below, interest in bone tools is as old as interest in any prehistoric technology, but for a variety of reasons this interest did not develop beyond the strictly descriptive for a very long time. To understand why this is, and how and why things have changed, it is worth examining the history of studies of bone tools and technology. I have limited the scope of this paper to studies of bone tools as such, mentioning related issues such as taphonomy and the identification and interpretation of cutmarks only in passing. These restrictions may seem arbitrary, but they reflect my own history and interests in studies of bone technology. What follows, then, is my own, somewhat idiosyncratic perspective on the history of bone technology. It is a very broad survey, omitting much detail and many interesting and valuable works, but for those seeking to understand the state of things today, it will at least provide a broad outline of what came before. Note that for brevity I use the term “bone” here in an inclusive sense, to stand for tools and technology related to all skeletal materials, including antler, tooth, and ivory.

In preparing to write this paper, my first step was to turn to my accumulated library of books and articles on the subject, and then to the increasingly comprehensive on-line databases, Anthropology Plus (AP)1 and WorldCat, to evaluate just what is available on the topic. While none of these can be said to be truly comprehensive, together they provide remarkably good coverage. Searches on “bone implements” and “bone technology” turned up a total of over 900 references, dating from 1860 through 2003, and including books and papers in English, French, Spanish, Japanese, and Russian. While my language skills preclude reading some of these, the lists themselves provide an interesting dataset for examination. Two things stand out most clearly. First is the dramatic increase in papers over the last few decades. The earliest paper in the database is Latté’s 1860 report on Pleistocene bones with cutmarks (Latté 1860). In the next hundred years, nearly one hundred more papers on the subject are listed, on average only one a year. In contrast, in the last 25 years, since 1980, some 575 papers have been published, over one hundred of them since 2000.2 Second is the time-depth of common themes, descriptive papers are the most common, but one also finds papers focusing on manufacturing techniques and function of bone tools in the nineteenth century, as well as an enduring, and telling, split between studies of expedient technologies and those focusing on formed tools in the early twentieth century. This split is of some interest, for while it mirrors an early debate on natural vs. cultural modifications in the more mature area of lithic technology, it has had a more enduring influence on the study of bone tools. While research on both types of bone tools has considerable time depth, it has until recently been the study of expedient tools that has dominated the literature, particularly outside of Europe and particularly in terms of theoretical sophistication and impact. Given this long divide, I will discuss these two aspects of bone technology

Like all histories, the story of the development of research on bone tools has its share of drama and controversy, and these have had some role in shaping the ways we study bone tools today. More important in the end, though, has been the slow progress made over the years by many researchers. This progress mirrors developments in other areas of archaeology, in particular lithic technology, but studies of bone tools have lagged behind those of other technologies, at least in the number of people interested in them, until relatively recently. Despite this lag, however, we have finally come to a point where

9

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

associated stone tools to work with, Dart’s primary evidence for australopithecine tool use was a large assemblage of broken bones. He argued, based on evidence such as consistent fracture patterns and the disproportionately high frequency of certain elements, that australopithecines had inhabited caves such as Makapansgat, and had deposited there tools and other bones. He used this evidence to show that australopithecines were carnivorous hunters, warriors even, couching his argument in sometime volatile terms:

separately.

Broken Bones as Tools When examining an assemblage of broken bones, it is not terribly difficult to understand the appeal of identifying an expedient technology using skeletal materials. As years of observation and studies of bone mechanics have demonstrated, bone breaks in predictable ways, resulting in patterned distributions of forms with usable edges and points. It is no great leap to think that if a thing looks like a potential tool to us, then it may also have looked like one to people in the past, even the very distant past. Attempts to prove or disprove that this is the case have caused significant controversy over the years, and have spawned a good deal of important research. As might be expected, this research has strong links to paleontology and taphonomy, and to faunal analysis and the study of element frequencies and cut marks. I will not stray too far into these aspects of bone modification, however, limiting my discussion specifically to the study of bones as tools.

“On this thesis man’s predecessors differed from living apes in being confirmed killers: carnivorous creatures that seized living quarries by violence, battered them to death, tore apart their broken bodies, dismembered them limb from limb, slaking their ravenous thirst with the hot blood of victims and greedily devouring livid writhing flesh.” (Dart 1953:209, cited in Brain 1989).

Broken bones have inspired imaginative archaeologists for a very long time, but the credit for the first scholarly description of such an industry probably belongs to Henri Breuil and O.G.S. Crawford (Breuil and Crawford 1938). In a brief article, they acknowledge that such an idea is perhaps radical, but point out that the well-developed bone industries of the Upper Palaeolithic must have had some precursor. They hypothesize that, in his efforts to compete with dangerous carnivores, early man [sic] would have seized upon the materials around him, using bones, teeth, horns and antlers to make up for his lack of natural weapons, particularly where suitable stone was scarce. They enumerate many of the post-depositional factors that can also modify bone, from trampling to gnawing by rodents and carnivores, and describe how these are different from human modification. They end by describing a variety of such minimally modified bone tools from Choukoutien and other Lower and Middle Palaeolithic sites.

Not surprisingly, Dart’s work aroused a great deal of criticism, focused not so much on Dart’s view of australopithecines as on his interpretation of the bones as tools. Washburn, for example, criticized Dart’s denial that hyenas played any role in the bone accumulations in south African caves, citing his own and others’ observations of hyena dens and carnivore kills (Washburn 1957). Most prominent among the critics was C. K. Brain, who embarked on long series of detailed taphonomic studies showing that most of what Dart interpreted as evidence of hominid activity was in fact the result of natural processes ranging from hyena accumulation to leopard kills (Brain 1981). Brain’s careful and thorough work effectively demonstrated that Dart’s interpretation of the South African cave deposits was flawed but, as Brain was careful to point out, not completely wrong (Brain 1989). Indeed some bones have clearly been used as tools. Brain carried out experiments and demonstrated to his satisfaction that one class of worn bone fragments had been used to dig for tubers. As an aside, recently Backwell and d’Errico (2001) have reexamined this question, finding that the pieces were indeed used, but to dig in termite mounds rather than for tubers. We will return to this later.

Raymond Dart and the Osteodontokeratic

Spiral Fractures and Expedient Bone Tools

Breuil continued to publish on this topic, but his work seems to have aroused little interest, in part no doubt because of the war. A decade later, however, Raymond Dart introduced his version of such an industry, later published as The Osteodontokeratic Culture of Australopithecus prometheus (Dart 1957). Unlike Breuil, who also had an assemblage of

Through the 1950s and 1960s, Dart’s work, and responses to it, dominated the literature on bone technology. As recently as 1970, he had some ardent supporters (Wolberg 1970), although contrary evidence was mounting as taphonomic research applied to archaeological assemblages came of age. It is, in fact, this particular aspect of taphonomic

10

BONE TOOLS AND BONE TECHNOLOGY: A BRIEF HISTORY – LEMOINE

clarify the cultural nature of the spirally fractured and flaked mammoth bone (Bonnichsen 1978, 1979, 1982; Bonnichsen and Will 1980; Bonnichsen and Young 1980; Morlan 1983, 1984).

research, led by Brain and carried out in direct reaction to Dart’s enthusiastic, numerous and sometimes strident pronouncements (Dart 1960), that is the most important legacy of the “osteodontokeratic culture.”

Working within a framework derived from experimental studies of lithic technology, Bonnichsen carried out a lengthy series of carefully designed controlled experiments to explore issues of fracture mechanics of fresh and fossil bone. Using criteria developed in these experiments, he identified and classified the fractured bone assemblage from Old Crow into a variety of tool types, cores, and flakes.

Starting in the 1970s, such research took a different turn. Interest in broken bone, particularly in spiral fractures, remained high, but researchers began taking a more experimental approach. Sadek-Kooros might be said to have led off this trend (Sadek-Kooros 1972), setting the stage for future research. She recommended that archaeologists “…pay less attention to the finished product and more to the process of manufacture on the one hand, and, on the other, to substitute quantitative analyses of entire collections for the qualitative descriptions of individual specimens” (Sadek-Kooros 1972) and went on to do just that. Although her work has been superceded by subsequent studies, it remains a model of controlled experimentation.

Morlan took, and continues to take, a taphonomic approach (Morlan 1973, 1980, 1983, 1984, 2003). Taphonomy had come to the attention of archaeologists only recently when Morlan began his work (Behrensmeyer 1978; Behrensmeyer and Hill 1980; Binford 1981; Brain 1981; Noe-Nygaard 1977; Shipman 1981). In rigorously applying taphonomic principles to the Pleistocene bone assemblages in the northern Yukon, Morlan’s goal was to identify taphonomic factors that would account for the observed variability. In this he was only partly successful, finding that natural taphonomic factors could account for much, but not all, of the variability in the Old Crow assemblages. In particular, Morlan identified spiral fractures on proboscidian long bones as cultural in origin, arguing that the force required to fracture and remove flakes from these thick, dense bones, was uncommon in nature. Furthermore, multiple flake removals were very unlikely to occur (Morlan 1980, 1983).

Following Sadek-Kooros, the 1970s and 1980s saw a veritable flood of controlled experiments on taphonomic issues, many focused on the issue of spirally fractured bone. One important inspiration for these studies was the discovery of Pleistocene-age spirally fractured fossil mammoth bones along the Old Crow River. (Harrington, Bonnichsen and Morlan 1975). Like the assemblages studied by Dart, the Old Crow finds were tantalizing but enigmatic. The assemblages are characterized by only bones, primarily those of mammoth. Initial work in the area began when a paleontologist, C.R. Harrington, found an obvious tool, a spatulate flesher with a toothed edge, made on a caribou tibia. The tool appeared similar in color and degree of mineralization to the Pleistocene fossils it was found among, and so Harrington drew it to the attention of the nearest archaeologist, W.N. Irving, sparking a decades-long series of research projects and controversy. Initial dating of the flesher (on the apatite fraction) yielded a date of 27,000 B.P. (Irving and Harrington 1973), a remarkable result. Subsequent re-dating showed that this tool was substantially younger, in fact only about 1300 years old (Morlan et al. 1990; Nelson et al. 1986), but by that time a great deal of research had been completed and a large assemblage of broken bones recovered from the area. To complicate matters, these bones were found in secondary contexts, point-bar deposits along the Old Crow River. Despite many field seasons’ work, the primary deposits were not located (Irving, Kritsch-Armstrong, and Jopling 1989). Few stone tools were found, and few indisputable tools were identified. The potential significance of these finds for understanding the peopling of the New World led to an intensive effort to

At about the same time as the Old Crow fossils were drawing attention to issues of the peopling of the New World, George Frison was beginning to identify bone expediency tools in Paleo-Indian assemblages on the Plains (Frison 1974). Together the spirally fractured mammoth bones of Old Crow and the expedient tools identified by Frison, along with the studies that were carried out to understand these tools, set off a flurry of other studies. This was particularly the case among researchers working with late Pleistocene assemblages, as they recognized fractured bones as potential tools. One of the earliest, and in some ways most enduring of these studies, was the Ginsberg Experiment, in which Denis Stanford, along with Bonnichsen and Morlan, butchered an elephant using a combination of bone and stone tools, and conducted experiments with the otherwise unavailable fresh elephant bones (Stanford, Bonnichsen, and Morlan 1981). Stanford’s interest in flaked mammoth bone stemmed from studies at the Dutton and Selby sites in Colorado (Stanford 1979). There, Pleistocene bone deposits contained bones of

11

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

mammoth and other extinct megafauna, some of which Stanford tentatively identified as expedient tools. Other examples include Miller’s work at Owl Cave in Idaho (Miller 1978, 1983, 1989); Hannus’ study of flaked mammoth bone butchering tools at the Lange/Ferguson Clovis site in South Dakota (Hannus 1989, 1990, 1997); and Johnson’s studies of Paleo-Indian bone assemblages from the southern Plains. (Johnson 1982, 1983).

In Europe, attention was also drawn to these issues. In 1979, the first meeting of the group “Outillage peu élaboré” was held in Madrid (Camps-Fabrer 1985a). Subsequent meetings, and the publications arising from them, show a focus similar to that in North America, ranging from criteria for classifying and describing broken bones (Patou 1985) t o experimental studies (Brugal and Defleur 1989; Vincent 1985) and taphonomy (Auguste 1989).

These works represent, in a sense, the tip of the iceberg for studies of expedient bone technology in the 1970s and 80s. The focus on this subset of bone tools in the English-speaking world at least was such that, in a 1985 review article broadly entitled Current Developments in Bone Technology, Johnson dealt entirely with “the mechanical behavior of bone as a material and on the bone-processing behaviors of hominids and large carnivores” (Johnson 1985). Through the 1980s and into the 1990s a series of conferences and edited volumes addressed issues relating to bone technology (Bonnichsen and Sorg 1989, Hannus, Rossum, and Winham 1997, LeMoine and MacEachern 1983).

This work did not proceed without its share of critics. Binford’s extended critique of many aspects of bone modification and faunal analysis is well known (Binford 1981). Because most of the examples of expedient bone technology in the New World come from late Pleistocene or early Holocene contexts, critiques are often embedded in the debates surrounding the issue of the peopling of the America. Toth, for example, provides an outsider’s view of the controversy surrounding the material culture attributed to the first Americans (Toth 1991). The primary criteria he identifies as requirements for using bone tools as evidence for human activity are cutmarks and “unambiguous bone tools, such as points, awls, or needles, that exhibit clear modification (e.g. stone tool striations, polish, perforation) from their manufacture and/or use” (Toth 1991: 70). He goes on to consider bone fractured for marrow extraction, as long as it has clear evidence of human-induced fracture, such as the removal of additional flakes, and finally evidence of burning consistent with cooking (as opposed to wildfires). These criteria are reasonable, and yet have been surprisingly difficult to meet.

Parallel to this focus on bone fracture, but beyond the scope of this brief history, were the many studies of other aspects of bone modification. Use wear studies of minimally modified bone were one obvious direction to take in those instances when preservation was good. Runnings conducted experiments and analyzed two polished mastodon bone fragments from the Mannis site, in Washington (Runnings 1984; Runnings, Bentley and Gustafson 1989). I also conducted experiments, and analyzed a small sample of expedient bone tools from a late prehistoric site in Alberta (LeMoine 1985, 1989). Shipman identified wear on mammoth bone flakes from the LangeFerguson site (Shipman et al. 1984). Sadly, for the most part the key assemblages in the debate over the peopling of the Americas, in particular the redeposited specimens from Old Crow, are not good candidates for use wear analysis, and this remains a technique better-suited to more recent (or exceptionally preserved) samples.

Current Research After peaking in the 1970s and 1980s, research on expedient bone technologies has tapered off. Few researchers are actively pursuing these once contentious issues. Those who are, however, continue to do work of considerable interest. Not surprisingly, their work is focused on the two key localities that have driven much of the pioneering research on expedient technologies: South African cave deposits and northern Yukon assemblages.

Cutmarks also drew considerable attention from scholars studying both Old and New World assemblages (Behrensmeyer, Gordon and Yanagi 1986; Bunn 1981; Potts and Shipman 1981), but other taphonomic agents, ranging from trampling to caribou, were not neglected (Agenbroad 1984; Brooks and Brooks 1984; Gordon 1976; Sutcliffe 1973). These are clearly, if indirectly, linked to studies of bone technology, but there is not the space to discuss them in detail in this brief history.

Having worked with the northern Yukon assemblages for some thirty years, Morlan has recently, and convincingly, re-stated his conviction that some of the proboscidian bones recovered there must have been worked by humans (Morlan 2003). In the years since the original taphonomic and experimental research was carried out, additional data have been added to the debate. Morlan uses three lines of evidence to argue for human modification of bones in the Old Crow Basin in the late Pleistocene: cutmarks, multiple

12

BONE TOOLS AND BONE TECHNOLOGY: A BRIEF HISTORY – LEMOINE

flake scars on bone, and dating of modified bone. Cutmarks are not within the scope of this paper as I have defined it, but they are clear evidence of human interaction with bone. Their appearance on bison bones dated to 42,000 and 36,000 B.P. certainly adds strength to Morlan’s arguments. His identification of some of the mammoth bones with multiple flake scars would seem to satisfy Toth’s criteria for worked bone as well. Finally, since the initial work was done, improvements in radiocarbon dating have made it possible to date samples from the worked bones themselves. Morlan points out that, although mammoth bones from the Old Crow Basin may date to anywhere from one million to 25,000 years ago when the basin was flooded by glacial melt waters, the dates for bones identified as being worked cluster in the 25-40,000 B.P. range. This clustering of dates on bones with multiple flake scars indicates that a new taphonomic force was at work after 40,000, which he argues was human activity (Morlan 2003).

Over the last 75 years, then, archaeologists have managed to identify at least one clear case of hominids using expedient bone tools. Evidence for modern humans using such tools remains somewhat controversial, although mammoth bone tools from Paleo-Indian sites are convincing. In no case can we claim that there was ever an “osteodontokeratic” culture, in which bone replaced stone as the medium of choice for tool making, but it is difficult to deny that flaked or fractured bone, proboscidian or otherwise, may have had a place in some technological repertoires. The very fact that bone breaks in predictable ways, frequently resulting in useful-looking point and edges, suggests that archaeologists were probably not the only people who saw them as potential tools. Although over-enthusiastic scenarios of an early, pre-lithic or later, predominantly non-lithic technology seem unlikely, it is hard to imagine that australopithecines or modern humans would not take advantage of such readily available tools.

While Morlan’s arguments regarding multiple flake scars on mammoth long bone fragments are convincing, they leave many questions unanswered. Flaked mammoth bone is insufficient for all the technological needs of a hunting society Living in a periglacial environment, the makers of these tools would have needed warm clothing for example, minimally requiring hide-preparation tools and needles. The cutmarks also indicate at least some use of stone tools, although few have been identified, mostly in Bluefish Cave (Morlan 2003). Much work remains to be done, although a quarter of a century after the initial finds at Old Crow, Morlan has made a persuasive case for human activity in the area during the late Pleistocene.

Formal Bone Tools Formal bone tools are, for the purposes of this paper, those that show unequivocal evidence of shaping and use. They range from tools that are very casually made, such as awls made on artiodactyls accessory metapodials, to those that are highly worked, such as the multi-part bone and antler combs from medieval European sites. They differ from expedient tools in that their status as manufactured objects is clear. Usually they have been shaped by whittling, grinding, grooving, or in the early stages at least, even percussion. Traces of some elements of these manufacturing processes are often evident, as are traces of use. Such tools make up a much larger portion of archaeological assemblages than do expedient tools, but from a technological perspective, they were sadly neglected for most of the 20th century.

Another example of renewed interest in expedient technologies is the recent work on expedient bone tools from South African caves undertaken by d’Errico and Backwell. (Backwell and d'Errico 2001; d'Errico and Backwell 2003; d'Errico et al. 2003). Reexamining work by Brain (1989), identifying some of the broken bones from Swartkrans as digging tools, and using more carefully designed experiments, they have revised his conclusions, pointing out that the wear patterns are consistent with digging in uniformly fine-grained sediments. These, they argue are most likely to be encountered in termite mounds. Furthermore, the hominids responsible for these activities (of a yet unknown species), were clearly selecting a narrow range of broken bones to use for this purpose. Given the well-documented ability of chimpanzees to fish for termites, and to choose particular tools to do so, it is not much of a leap to imaging South African hominids doing the same thing.

This began to change in the 1970s, with researchers starting to look at bone tools in a variety of new ways. Since that time, approaches to bone technology have developed, both in sophistication and in the numbers of researchers involved in the study. Through most of this period, however, only a few individuals have made bone tools the focus of their research and published widely on them, most notably H. CampsFabrer, A. Choyke, F. d’Errico, S. L. Olsen and D. Stordeur-Yedid.

Classification and Description (Typology, Morphology) Much of the earliest work on formal bone tools dealt,

13

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

to examine the techniques used to make bone tools I have found is Leguay’s (1877) study of shaping bone with flint tools, but this was an anomaly – for the next 77 years, no papers dealing explicitly with the methods of making and using bone tools appeared. Even then, interest in such issues was low. Clark and Thompson’s (1953) description on the groove and splinter technique of working bone was widely cited, but little was done to expand upon it. Also appearing at about this time, and sadly neglected from the point of view of bone technology even after it was published in English, was Semenov’s Prehistoric Technology (Semenov 1964). While the lithic usewear studies Semenov described set off a flurry of research in the following decades, including two monographs and at least one edited volume (Hayden 1979; Keeley 1980; Vaughan 1981), the bone use wear studies had a much smaller impact (but for later exceptions see: Bouchoud 1977; MacGregor 1975; Newcomer 1974b; Olsen 1979). Through the 1960s, technological studies of bone tools remained the exception rather than the rule.

not surprisingly, with description and classification. In many cases this was relatively straightforward, a fact that may have had something to do with the long history of neglect. In the New World, particularly in regions such as the North American Arctic and the American Southwest, a rich ethnographic record allows archaeologists to classify many bone tools, even fragments, into well-defined functional categories, complete with gendered associations and traditional names. Archaeologists working in these areas, myself included, have relied heavily on the careful descriptions and detailed illustrations in ethnographic reports from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (see for example Murdoch 1988 [1892]; Nelson 1983 [1899]). As a result, for later prehistory at least, there seemed to be little need to develop, or even think critically about the classification and description of bone tools. For older assemblages, where no such ethnographic record exists, analogies to better-known periods are common, although the frequent identification of miscellaneous generally pointed tools as awls, despite the fact that they are clearly incapable of performing any perforating function, demonstrates that this is not always a good idea.

By the 1970s, this situation had begun to change. Although in North America archaeologists with an interest in bone tools were for the most part drawn into the debate on expedient tools, in Europe the influential colloquia initiated by Camps-Fabrer resulted in a surge of new work on bone technology (CampsFabrer 1974, 1977, 1979a, 1982, 1985b). The papers in these volumes cover a wide range of topics, from the necessity of developing a consistent vocabulary to studies on the microscopic characteristics of different manufacture techniques (Newcomer 1974a) and the anatomical origins of bone tools (Bouchud 1974). This diversity of approaches signifies the beginnings of the modern approach to bone technology, with archaeologists considering bone tools in more detail and from different perspectives.

In the Old World, the Upper Palaeolithic drew the most attention, with it’s assemblages of sophisticated tools appearing with no apparent precedents. The lack of a rich ethnographic or historic record of bone tools led to the strong focus on description and systematic classification spearheaded by Henriette Camps-Fabrer beginning in the early 1970s. The importance of this most basic work, as well as the need for consistency, is seen clearly in the work of Camps-Fabrer and the nomenclature committee in a series of colloquia and edited volumes beginning in the early 1970s (Camps-Fabrer 1974, 1979b; Stordeur 1978). While many of the early papers in this series were largely descriptive reports, with the encouragement and expanded focus on bone tools that the colloquia generated scholars rapidly expanded their interests. Many of the sophisticated studies of bone tools we see today can be traced back, I believe, to this important influence.

New Approaches to Bone Technology Following the basic classification and description of bone tools, archaeologists first turned to examining more closely the methods of manufacture and use of bone tools. As noted above, Clarke and Thompson (1953) and Semenov (1964) did ground-breaking work on these questions in the 1950s, and isolated studies appeared afterward (e.g. Steinbring 1966), but for the most part, studies of these issues really began in the 1970s and 1980s (for example: Blaylock 1980; Campana 1980, 1987; Camps-Fabrer 1974, 1977 and references therin; Choyke 1982/83, 1983; d'Errico, Giacobini and Peuch 1984a; Flenniken 1978; LeMoine 1985; MacGregor 1985; Morrison 1986; Newcomer 1974b; Olsen 1979, 1980). Some studies

Manufacture and Use For most of the 20th century, studies that go beyond description or typological classification of bone tools are relatively rare. In general, those authors who consider bone tools at all make some attempt at functional or morphological classification, and may even describe some aspects of manufacture (see Sollas 1880 for an early example of this), but the works remain largely descriptive. The earliest attempt

14

BONE TOOLS AND BONE TECHNOLOGY: A BRIEF HISTORY – LEMOINE

Rather, they provided a solid basis for the continued development of increasingly sophisticated approaches to bone tools.

focused on manufacture and use, with the goal of generating more precise functional typologies (e.g. Olsen 1979, 1980). Others took a broader view, examining the whole process of tool manufacture, from selection of raw materials to discard: for example Stordeur-Yedid’s study of Upper Paleolithic needles, and Julien’s on Magdalenian harpoons, consider both the morphology and typology of these tools, as well as the processes of manufacture, use and discard for instance (Julien 1982; Stordeur-Yedid 1979).

Adding Context Through the 1970s and into the 1980s, as an increasing number of researchers published studies on bone tools, the focus remained on typology, chronology and technology – with few exceptions socio-economic and ideological concerns were lacking. Russell examined the intensification of craft production in Neolithic contexts (Russell 1985), for example, while McGhee considered the symbolic meaning of raw material selections (McGhee 1977), but these were exceptions to the general trend. Nevertheless, studies continued to grow in complexity and sophistication. Choyke (1982/83, 1983) for example, studied bone tools from a variety of Bronze Age sites in Hungary, examining the whole process of bone tool manufacture, from acquisition of raw material to taphonomic considerations, and using a broad approach that ranged from typological analysis to replicative experiments. Meanwhile, MacGregor published a valuable book focusing on post-Roman European technology, but with detailed examinations of skeletal materials that remains a useful resource today (MacGregor 1985). While studies such as these have at their root detailed descriptions, of tools types, of debitage, of zoological details, and of whole manufacturing sequences, they begin to move the focus from such description alone to the broader contexts of the bone tools themselves, emphasizing themes that continue to be explored.

One of the most prevalent themes in the research in this early period of focused research is use wear, or more accurately, microscopic examination of bone. This was a particularly rewarding area of study because such analysis reveals information not only about use, but also about manufacturing techniques. Indeed, Semenov first carried out microscopic studies of striations left by manufacture in the 1950s. In the following decades, microscopy was more frequently used to study manufacture than use (Bouchud 1977; Campana 1987; Newcomer 1974b; Olsen 1988a). This included the establishment of basic distinctions such as between shaping tools by whittling with an edged tool and grinding with an abrasive, and between the use of stone and metal tools for both cutting and shaping (e.g. Olsen 1988a). There was also considerable progress made on distinguishing use wear patterns, although it appears that in some cases only broad categories of use can be identified, and in all cases preservation must be exceptional (LeMoine 1994). Early work in this area also focused on developing methods, such as the use of scanning electron microscopy and the associated need for replicas, since tools are typically too large and fragile for the high vacuum chambers on these instruments (d'Errico, Giacobini and Peuch 1984b; Olsen 1988b; Runnings, Bentley and Gustafson 1989; Shipman and Rose 1988). Microscopic analyses have since been applied to a variety of problems in prehistory, such as the functional identification of tools unknown from the ethnographic record.

Current trends in studies of bone technology parallel those in archaeology as a whole. Studies of manufacturing techniques, for example, have developed from descriptions of manufacturing sequences and technological traditions (MaryRousselière 1984) to comparisons of traditions between and among contemporaneous peoples (Choyke 1982/83, 1983; Morrison 1986), to examinations of the choices made by artisans during manufacture (LeMoine and Darwent 1998) and descriptions of chaînes opératoires (Dobres 1996). I have discussed these trends elsewhere and so will not treat them in any depth here (LeMoine 2001).

A common thread running through this work, as well as the work on expedient tools discussed in the previous section, is the importance of replicative experiments. This is much in line with studies in lithic technology and other aspects of experimental archaeology, all of which flourished under the positivist paradigm of the New Archaeology. Although innovative in their focus on a whole class of tools that had largely been ignored, as well as in their application of new techniques such as Scanning Electron Microscopy, these studies did not arouse the critical attention of the archaeological community in the way that research on expedient technologies did.

In many cases, such work is the result of a combination of interest and good fortune – the discovery of a discrete bone-working area, for example (Smith and Poggenpoel 1988) or an exceptionally well-preserved assemblage (Emery 2001). Increasingly though, formal bone tools are considered a valuable resource for study on their

15

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

points dated as early as 90,000 B.P. from Katanda hint at very early use of formal bone tools (Yellen 1998). More recently, the identification of clearly worked bone artifacts along with incised bones and pieces of ochre in securely dated Middle Stone Age levels, at Blombos Cave in South Africa (d'Errico, Henshilwood and Nilssen 2001; Henshilwood et al. 2001) has presented a more serious challenge to this idea. McBrearty and Brooks (2000) make a strong case for bone tools, among other lines of evidence, in Middle Stone Age contexts in Africa. They argue the bone tools are evidence for modern behavior developing there between 300,000 and 50,000 years ago (McBreaty and Brooks 2000). D’Errico et al. (2001) go further, arguing convincingly that the Middle Stone Age bone tools of Blombos may be evidence of complex language, while the incised bone and ochre are certainly evidence for symbolic behavior. From the perspective of this historical review we should note that to reach this conclusion they rely on multiple lines of evidence, from use wear to manufacture techniques and typology, integrated into a broad theoretical framework – thus building on decades of work by a variety of researchers.

own, with more and more papers being published every year. Some of this is no doubt attributable to formation of the Worked Bone Research Group (a working group of the International Council for Archaeozoology), as well as to the organization of sessions at meeting such as the Society of American Archaeology (such as the one that formed the core of this volume). I like to think, though, that it is also because people are finally recognizing that bone tools can tell us a lot about the people who made them and the circumstances they lived in. So far I have dealt with studies focused on technological perspectives, but bone tools have long been studied in other ways as well. Chief among theses are those related to two areas of enduring interest to archaeologists, style and chronology. Nowhere has this been more important than in studies of the European Palaeolithic. From the use of certain types of bone tools as fossiles directeurs, to analysis of design elements on Magdelenian engraved bones (Conkey 1980), to the recent presentations at a conference on Upper Palaeolithic bone tools (Dujardin 2003), scholars have used formal attributes of bone tools to place Palaeolithic sites in chronological and social contexts. Such issues are, of course, important in other parts of the world as well. In the North American Arctic, for example, harpoons have long been key chronological markers (Maxwell 1985).

Conclusions The work of McBrearty and Brooks, and d’Errico and his colleagues brings us, in a sense, full circle. The questions of interest to Breuil and Dart regarding the very early use of minimally modified bone, the longstanding link between more formalized bone technology and modernity in early humans, first appeared many years ago. What have changed most significantly are the increasingly sophisticated methodological and theoretical approaches that are being brought to bear to study these issues. Equally important is the more recent development of a body of scholarship that uses the study of bone technology to illuminate a wide variety of questions in a broad range of societies. Recent publications such as Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space (Choyke and Bartosiewicz 2001) and this volume are excellent examples of this trend. Progress towards this point has been slow, but there is strong evidence that bone tools have joined other elements of pre-industrial technology as important proxies for past human interactions.

Bone tools, more than other types of artifacts, have also been used as markers for other, missing elements of technology, an idea that Olsen (1999) calls “reciprocal illumination”. Again, in Palaeolithic archaeology for example, eyed needles stand in for a whole complex of tailored skin clothing, which would have been impossible to make without needles, and without which, it is thought, life in periglacial environments would have been very difficult. Semenov and others used such reasoning in a technological sense, identifying the presence of metal tools from the form of complex bone tools (McCartney and Mack 1973; Semenov 1964). More recently, Conkey (1991) and Sofer (2004) have used the presence of bone needles and harpoons to infer the existence of other technological complexes, including nets, baskets, and textiles. One important aspect of bone technology that is becoming the focus of attention is its status as a marker of modernity in early humans. The florescence of bone technologies in the European Upper Palaeolithic has long been seen as evidence of the intellectual development of modern Homo sapiens over the Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthals. Recent research, however, puts this claim into question. Although not universally accepted, barbed bone

Notes 1: Anthropology Plus is a Research Libraries Group (RLG) database combining the databases of the Tozzer Library, Harvard University, and the Royal Anthropological Institute. It indexes over 2500 journals, from the late 19 century to the present. At this writing it included over 800,000 articles. th

16

BONE TOOLS AND BONE TECHNOLOGY: A BRIEF HISTORY – LEMOINE

Worldcat is the Online Computer Learning (OCLC) database of books and other resources in research libraries around the world. 2: Note that while these numbers seem impressive, a similar search on “stone implements” and “lithic technology” turned up over 10,000 references.

1982

Refugium. Mercury Series, Paper No. 89. Ottawa: National Museum of Man. Bone Technology as a Taphonomic Factor: An Introductory Statement. Canadian Journal of Anthropology; vol. 2, No 2: 137-144.

Bonnichsen, R. and M. H. Sorg (ed.) 1989 Bone Modification. Orono: Center for the Study of the First Americans, Institute for Quaternary Studies, University of Maine.

References Cited Agenbroad, L. 1984 Mammoth Trampling and Other Bone Modifying Processes at the Hot Springs Mammoth Site, South Dakota. Abstracts of the 1st International Bone Modification Conference. Carson City (Nevada).

Bonnichsen, R. and R. Will 1980 Cultural Modification of Bone: The Experimental Approach in Faunal Analysis. In M a m m a l i a n Osteology, ed. B. M. Gilbert, 7-30. Laramie (Wyoming): B. Miles Gilbert editor.

Auguste, P. 1989 Les grands mammifères du site pléistocène moyen de Biache-Saint-Vaast (Pas-de-Calais, France): Donées taphonomiques et archéozoologiques. In Outillage peu élaboré en os et en bois de Cervidés, III, ed. M. Patou, 6-13. Artefacts No 7. Treignes (Belgium): Éditions du Centre d'Études et de Documentation Archéologiques.

Bonnichsen, R. and D. Young 1980 Early Technological Repertoires: Bone to Stone. Canadian Journal of Anthropology; vol. 1, No 1: 123-128. Bouchud, J. 1974 L'origine anatomique des matériaux osseux utilisés dans les industries préhistoriques. In Premier colloque international sur l'industrie de l'os dans la préhistoire, ed. H. Camps-Fabrer, 21-26. Aix-enProvence: Éditions de l'Université de Provence. 1977 Les aiguilles en os: étude comparée des traces laissées par la fabrication et l’usage sur le matériel préhistorique et les objets expérimentaux. In Méthodologie appliquée à l’industrie de l’os préhistorique: Colloque International du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, ed. H. Camps-Fabrer, 257-267. Paris: CNRS.

Backwell, L. R. and F. d'Errico 2001 Evidence of Termite Foraging by Swartkrans Early Hominids. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences; vol. 98, No 4: 1358-1363. Behrensmeyer, A. K. 1978 Taphonomic and Ecologic Information from Bone Weathering. Paleobiology; vol. 4, No 2: 150-162. Behrensmeyer, A. K., K. D. Gordon and G. T. Yanagi 1986 Trampling as a Cause of Bone Surface Damage and Pseudo-Cutmarks. Nature; vol. 319, No 6056: 768-771.

Brain, C. K. 1981 The Hunters or the Hunted? An Introduction to African Cave Taphonomy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1989 Evidence for Bone Modification by Early Hominids in Southern Africa. In Bone Modification, ed. R. Bonnichsen and M. Sorg, 291-297. Orono: Center for the Study of the First Americans, Institute for Quaternary Studies, University of Maine.

Behrensmeyer, A. K. and A. P. Hill 1980 Fossils in the Making: Vertebrate Taphonomy and Paleoecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Binford, L. R. 1981 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. New York: Academic Press.

Breuil, H., Abbé and O. G. S. Crawford 1938 The Use of Bone Implements in the Old Palaeolithic Period. Antiquity; vol. 12, No 45: 5667.

Blaylock, S. K. 1980 A Thule Bone and Antler Industry from Somerset Island, Central Canadian Arctic, N.W.T. M.A. Thesis. Fayetteville: Department of Anthropology, University of Arkansas.

Brooks, S. and R. H. Brooks 1984 Effects on Bone of Abrasive Contents in Moving Water. Abstracts of the 1 International Bone Modification Conference. Carson City (Nevada). st

Bonnichsen, R. 1978 Critical Arguments for Pleistocene Artifacts from the Old Crow Basin, Yukon: A Preliminary Statement. In Early Man in America from a CircumPacific Perspective, ed. A. L. Bryan, 102-118. Occasional Papers No 1 of the Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta. Edmonton: Archaeological Researches International. 1979 Pleistocene Bone Technology in the Beringian

Brugal, J. P. and A. Defleur 1989 Approche expérimentale de la fracturation des os des membres de grands mammifères. In Outillage peu élaboré en os et en bois de Cervidés, III, ed. M. Patou, 15-20. Artefacts No 7. Treignes (Belgium): Éditions du Centre d'Études et de Documentation Archéologiques.

17

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

With Special Reference to the Material from Star Carr. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society; vol. 19: 148-160.

Bunn, H. T. 1981 Archaeological Evidence for Meat-Eating by Pliocene Hominids from Koobi Fora and Olduvai Gorge. Nature; vol. 291, No 5618: 574-576.

Conkey, M. W. 1980 The Identification of Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Aggregation Sites: The Case of Altamira. Current Anthropology; vol. 21, No 5: 609-630. 1991 Contexts of Action, Contexts for Power: Material Culture and Gender in the Magdalenian. In Engendering Archaeology: Women in Prehistory, ed. J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey, 57-92. Oxford: Blackwell.

Campana, D. V. 1980 An Analysis of the Use-Wear Patterns on Natufian and Protoneolithic Bone Implements. Ph.D. Dissertation. New York: Department of Anthropology, Columbia University. 1987 The Manufacture of Bone Tools in the Zagros and the Levant. MASCA Journal; vol. 4, No 3: 110123. Camps-Fabrer, H. (ed) 1974 Premier colloque international sur l'industrie de l'os dans la préhistoire. Aix-en-Provence: Éditions de l'Université de Provence. 1977 Méthodologie appliquée à l’industrie de l’os préhistorique. Deuxième colloque international sur l’industrie de l’os dans la Préhistoire. Paris: Éditions du CNRS. 1979a L’industrie en os et bois de cervidé durant le Néolithique et l’Âge des métaux. Deuxième réunion du Groupe de travail No 3 sur l’industrie de l’os préhistorique. Paris: Éditions du CNRS. 1979b Principes d'une classification de l'industrie osseuse du Néolithique et de l'Âge des métaux dans le Midi-Méditerranéen. In L’industrie en os et bois de cervidé durant le Néolithique et l’Âge des métaux. Deuxième réunion du Groupe de travail No 3 sur l’industrie de l’os préhistorique, ed. H. Camps-Fabrer, 17-26. Paris: Éditions du CNRS. 1982 L’industrie en os et bois de cervidé durant le Néolithique et l’Âge des métaux 2. Paris: Éditions du CNRS. 1985a Introduction: Historique du groupe de travail sur l'outillage en os peu élaboré. In Outillage peu élaboré en os et en bois de cervidés, vol. 1, Artefacts, ed. M. Patou, 8-10. Viroinval: Éditions du Centre d'Études et de Documentation Archéologiques. 1985b L’industrie en os et bois de cervidé durant le Néolithique et l’Âge des métaux 3. Paris: Éditions du CNRS.

d'Errico, F., and L. Backwell 2003 Possible Evidence of Bone Tool Shaping by Swartkrans Early Hominids. Journal of Archaeological Science; vol. 30, No 12: 15591576. d'Errico, F., B. Giacobini and P.-F. Peuch 1984a Experimental Study of the Technology of BoneImplement Manufacture. MASCA Journal; vol. 3, No 3: 71-74. 1984b Les répliques en vernis des surfaces osseuses façonées: études expérimentales. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française; Tome 81: 169170. d'Errico, F., C. Henshilwood and P. Nilssen 2001 Engraved Bone Fragment from C. 70,000-YearOld Middle Stone Age Levels at Blombos Cave, South Africa: Implications for the Origin of Symbolism and Language. Antiquity; vol. 75, No 288: 309-318. d'Errico, F., C. S. Henshilwood, G. Lawson, M. Vanhaeren, A.-M. Tillier, M. Soressi, F. Bresson, B. Maureille, A. Nowell, J. Lakarra, L. Backwell and M. Julien 2003 Archaeological Evidence for the Emergence of Language, Symbolism, and Music: An Alternative Multidisciplinary Perspective. Journal of World Prehistory; vol. 17, No 1: 1-70. Dart, R. 1957 The Osteodontokeratic Culture of Australopithecus Prometheus. Transvaal Museum Memoir No 10. Pretoria: Transvaal Museum. 1960 The Bone Tool-Manufacturing Ability of Australopithecus P r o m e t h e u s . American Anthropologist; vol. 62, No 1: 134-143.

Choyke, A. M. 1982/83 An Analysis of Bone, Antler and Tooth Tools from Bronze Age Hungary. Mitteilungen Des Archaeologischen Instituts Der Ungarischen Akademie Der Wissenschaften 12/13: 13-57. 1983 An Analysis of Bone, Antler, and Tooth Tools from Bronze Age Hungary. Ph.D. Dissertation. Binghampton: Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Binghampton.

Dobres, M.-A. 1996 Variabilité des activités magdaléniennes en Ariège et en Haute-Garonne, d'après les chaînes opératoires dans l'outillage osseux. Préhistoire ariégeoise; vol. 51: 149-194.

Choyke, A. M., and L. Bartosiewicz (ed.) 2001 Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space. BAR International Series No 937. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Dujardin, V. 2003 Table ronde sur le Paléolithique supérieur récent: industrie osseuse et parures du Solutréen au Magdalénien. http://pageperso.aol.fr/magdalenien2003/index.ht ml. Accessed January 22, 2005.

Clark, J. G. D. and M. W. Thompson 1953 The Groove and Splinter Technique of Working Antler in Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europe.

18

BONE TOOLS AND BONE TECHNOLOGY: A BRIEF HISTORY – LEMOINE

Press.

Emery, K. G. 2001 The Economics of Bone Artifact Production in the Ancient Maya Lowlands. In Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space, ed. A. M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, 73-83. BAR International Series No 937. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Henshilwood, C. S., F. d'Errico, C. W. Marean, R. G. Milo and R. Yates 2001 An Early Bone Tool Industry from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa: Implications for the Origins of Modern Human Behaviour, Symbolism and Language. Journal of Human Evolution; vol. 41, No 6: 631-678.

Flenniken, J. J. 1978 The Experimental Replication of Paleo-Indian Eyed Needles from Washington. N o r t h w e s t Anthropological Research Notes; vol. 12, No 1: 61-71.

Highfield, R. 2004 Shells Found in Africa Dispel the Theory That Culture Began in Europe – Bead That Symbolise the Birth of Modern Man. The Daily Telegraph. London.

Frison, G. 1974 The Caspar Site: A Hell Gap Bison Kill on the High Plains. New York: Academic Press.

Irving, W. N., and C. R. Harington 1973 Upper Pleistocene Radiocarbon-Dated Artefacts from the Northern Yukon: Man was in Beringia 27,000 Years Ago. Science; vol. 179, No 4071: 335-340.

Gordon, B. C. 1976 Antler Pseudo-Tools Made by Caribou. In Primitive Art and Technology, ed. J. S. Raymond, B. Loveseth, C. Arnold, and G. Reardon, 121-128. Calgary: Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary.

Irving, W. N., I. Kritsch-Armstrong and A. V. Jopling 1989 Studies of Bone Technology and Taphonomy, Old Crow Basin, Yukon Territory. In Bone Modification, ed. R. Bonnichsen and M. Sorg, 347-379. Orono: Center for the Study of the First Americans, Institute for Quaternary Studies, University of Maine.

Hannus, L. A. 1989 Flaked Mammoth Bone from the Lange/Ferguson Site, White River Badlands Area, South Dakota. In Bone Modification, ed. R. Bonnichsen and M. Sorg, 395-412. Orono: Center for the Study of the First Americans, Institute for Quaternary Studies, University of Maine. 1990 The Lange-Ferguson Site: A Case for Mammoth Bone-Butchering Tools. In Megafauna and Man: Discovery of America's Heartland, ed. L. Agenbroad, J. E. Mead and L. W. Nelson, 86-99. Scientific Papers No 1. Hot Springs (South Dakota): Mammoth Site of Hot Springs, Inc. 1997 Mammoth Bone Flake Tools from the Lange/Ferguson Site, South Dakota. In Proceedings of the 1993 Bone Modification Conference, Hot Springs, South Dakota, ed. L. A. Hannus, L. Rossum and R. P. Winham, 220-235. Occasional Publication No 1. Sioux Falls (South Dakota): Archaeology Laboratory, Augustana College.

Johnson, E. 1982 Paleo-Indian Bone Expediency Tools: Lubbock Lake and Bonfire Shelter. Canadian Journal of Anthropology; vol. 2, No 2: 145-157. 1983 A Framework for Interpretation in Bone Technology. In Carnivores, Human Scavengers and Predators: A Question of Bone Technology, ed. G. LeMoine and A. S. MacEachern, 55-94. Calgary: Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. 1985 Current Developments in Bone Technology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory; vol. 8: 157-235. Julien, M. 1982 Les harpons magdaléniens. XVII supplément à Gallia Préhistoire. Paris: Éditions du CNRS. e

Hannus, L. A., L. Rossum and R. P. Winham (ed.) 1997 Proceedings of the 1993 Bone Modification Conference, Hot Springs, South Dakota. Occasional Publication No 1. Sioux Falls (South Dakota): Archaeology Laboratory, Augustana College.

Keeley, L. H. 1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lartet, M. E. 1860 On the Coexistence of Man with Certain Extinct Quadrupeds, Proved by Fossil Bones, from Various Pleistocene Deposits, Bearing Incisions Made by Sharp Instruments. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society; vol. 16: 471-479.

Harding, L. 2004 After the Hunt, Ice Age Man Cilled out - with a Flute. The Guardian. Manchester. Harington, C. R., R. Bonnichsen and R. E. Morlan 1975 Bones Say Man Lived in Yukon 27,000 Years Ago. Canadian Geographical Journal; No 91: 42-48.

Leguay, L. 1877 Les procédés employés pour la gravure et la sculpture des os avec le silex. Bulletin de la Societé d'Anthropologie de Paris (2 série); vol. 12: 280-296.

Hayden, B. (ed) 1979 Lithic Use Wear Analysis. New York: Academic

e

19

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

LeMoine, G. M. 1985 Experimental Use Wear Analysis of Bone Tools. M.A. Thesis. Calgary: Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary. 1989 Use Wear Analysis of Bone Tools. Archaeozoologia; vol. 3, No 1.2: 211-223. 1994 Use Wear on Bone and Antler Tools from the Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories. American Antiquity; vol. 59, No 2: 316-334. 2001 Skeletal Technology in Context: An Optimistic Overview. In Crafting Bones: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space, ed. A. M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, 1-7. BAR International Series No 937. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports

1983

1989

LeMoine, G. M. and C. M. Darwent 1998 The Walrus and the Carpenter: Late Dorset Ivory Working in the High Arctic. Journal of Archaeological Science; vol. 25, No 1: 73-83.

University of Alberta. Edmonton: Archaeological Researches International. Osteo-Archaeology of the Mammoth-Bison Assemblage at Owl Cave, the Wasden Site, Idaho. In Carnivores, Human Scavengers and Predators: A Question of Bone Technology, ed. G. M. LeMoine and A. S. MacEachern, 55-93. Calgary: Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary Characteristics of Mammoth Bone Reduction at Owl Cave, the Wasden Site, Idaho. In Bone Modification, ed. R. Bonnichsen and M. Sorg, 381-393. Orono: Center for the Study of the First Americans, Institute for Quaternary Studies, University of Maine.

Morlan, R. E. 1973 A Technological Approach to Lithic Artifacts from Yukon Territory. Mercury Series, Paper No 7. Ottawa: National Museum of Man. 1980 Taphonomy and Archaeology in the Upper Pleistocene of the Northern Yukon Territory: A Glimpse of the Peopling of the New World. Mercury Series, Paper No 94. Ottawa: National Museum of Man. 1983 Spiral Fractures on Limb Bones: Which Ones Are Artificial? In Carnivores, Human Scavengers and Predators: A Question of Bone Technology, ed. G. LeMoine and A. S. MacEachern, 241-269. Calgary: Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. 1984 Toward the Definition of Criteria for the Recognition of Artificial Bone Alterations. Quaternary Research; vol. 22, No 2: 160-171. 2003 Current Perspectives on the Pleistocene Archaeology of Eastern Beringia. Quaternary Research; vol. 60, No 1: 123-132.

LeMoine, G. M. and A. S. MacEachern (ed.) 1983 Carnivores, Human Scavengers and Predators: A Question of Bone Technology. Calgary: Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. MacGregor, A. 1975 Problems in the Interpretation of Microscopic Wear Patterns: The Evidence from Bone Skates. Journal of Archaeological Science; vol. 2, No 4: 385-390. 1985 Bone, Antler, Ivory, and Horn. London: Croom Helm. Mary-Rousselière, G. 1984 Une remarquable industrie dorsétienne de l'os de caribou dans le nord de Baffin. Études Inuit Studies; vol. 8, No 2: 41-59.

Morlan, R. E., D. E. Nelson, T. A. Brown, J. S. Vogel and J. R. Southon 1990 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Dates on Bones from Old Crow Basin, Northern Yukon Territory. Canadian Journal of Archaeology; vol. 14: 75-92.

Maxwell, M. S. 1985 Prehistory of the Eastern Arctic. New York: Academic Press. McBrearty, S. and A. S. Brooks 2000 The Revolution That Wasn't: A New Interpretation of the Origin of Modern Human Behavior. Journal of Human Evolution; vol. 39, No 5: 453-563.

Morrison, D. 1986 Inuit and Kutchin Bone and Antler Industries in Northwestern Canada. Canadian Journal of Archaeology; vol. 10: 107-125.

McCartney, A., P. and D. J. Mack 1973 Iron Utilization by Thule Eskimos of Central Canada. American Antiquity; vol. 38, No 3: 328338.

Murdoch, J. 1988 Ethnological Results of the Point Barrow Expedition. [1892] Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

McGhee, R. 1977 Ivory for the Sea Woman: The Symbolic Attributes of a Prehistoric Technology. Canadian Journal of Archaeology; vol. 1: 141-149.

Nelson, D. E., R. E. Morlan, J. S. Vogel, J. R. Southon and C. R. Harrington 1986 New Dates on Northern Yukon Artifacts: Holocene Not Upper Pleistocene. Science; vol. 232, No 4751: 749-751.

Miller, S. J. 1978 Early Man at Owl Cave: Current Investigations at the Wasden Site, Eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho. In Early Man in America from a Circum-Pacific Perspective, ed. A. L. Bryan, 129-139. Occasional Papers No. 1 of the Department of Anthropology,

Nelson, E. W. 1983 The Eskimo About Bering Strait. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

20

[1899]

BONE TOOLS AND BONE TECHNOLOGY: A BRIEF HISTORY – LEMOINE

Americans, Institute for Quaternary Studies, University of Maine.

Newcomer, M. 1974a Outils en os du Paléolithique supérieur de Ksar Akil (Liban). In Premier colloque international sur l'industrie de l'os dans la Préhistoire, ed. H. Camps-Fabrer, 59-65. Aix-en-Provence: Éditions de l'Université de Provence. 1974b Study and Replication of Bone Tools from Ksar Akil (Lebanon). World Archaeology; vol. 6, No 2: 138-153.

Russell, N. 1985 Le traitment de l'os comme matière première: aperçus de Yougoslavie et du Pakistan. In L’industrie en os et bois de cervidé durant le Néolithique et l’Âge des métaux 3, ed. H. CampsFabrer, 25-31. Paris: Éditions du CNRS. Sadek-Kooros, H. 1972 Primitive Bone Fracturing: A Method of Research. American Antiquity; vol. 37, No 3: 369-382.

Noe-Nygaard, N. 1977 Butchering and Marrow Fracturing as a Taphonomic Factor in Archaeological Deposits. Paleobiology; vol. 3, No 2: 218-237.

Semenov, S. A. 1964 Prehistoric Technology. London: Cory, Adams and MacKay.

Olsen, S. 1979 A Study of Bone Artifacts from Grasshopper Pueblo, Az P:14:1. The Kiva; vol. 44, No 4: 341373. 1980 Bone Artifacts from Kinishba Ruin: Their Manufacture and Use. The Kiva; vol. 46, Nos 1-2: 39-67. 1999 Bone Artifacts as Important Life-Style Indicators in the Kazakhstan Eneolithic. Paper presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Chicago, Illinois, 1999.

Shipman, P. 1981 Life History of a Fossil: An Introduction to Taphonomy and Paleoecology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Shipman, P. and J. J. Rose 1988 Bone Tools: An Experimental Approach. In Scanning Electron Microscopy in Archaeology, ed. S. L. Olsen, 303-335. BAR International Series No 452. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports

Olsen, S. L. 1988a Identification of Stone and Metal Tool Marks on Bone Artifacts. In Scanning Electron Microscopy in Archaeology, ed. S. L. Olsen, 337-360. BAR International Series No 452. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports 1988b Introduction: Applications of Scanning Electron Microscopy to Archaeology. In Scanning Electron Microscopy in Archaeology, ed. S. L. Olsen, 3-7. BAR International Series No 452. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports

Shipman, P., D. C. Fisher and J. Rose 1984 Mastodon Butchery: Microscopic Evidence of Carcass Processing and Bone Tool Use. Paleobiology; vol. 10, No 3: 358-365. Smith, A. B. and C. Poggenpoel 1988 The Technology of Bone Tool Fabrication in the South-Western Cape, South Africa. W o r l d Archaeology; vol. 20, No 1: 103-115. Sofer, O. 2004 Recovering Perishable Technologies through Use Wear on Tools: Preliminary Evidence for Upper Paleolithic Weaving and Net Making. Current Anthropology; vol. 45, No 3: 407-413.

Patou, M. 1985 La fracturation des os longs de grands mammifères: élaboration d'un lexique et d'une fiche type. In Outillage peu élaboré en os et en bois de Cervidés, I, ed. M. Patou, 11-21. Artefacts No 1. Treignes (Belgium): Éditions du Centre d'Études et de Documentation Archéologiques.

Sollas, W. J. 1880 On Some Eskimos' Bone Implements from the East Coast of Greenland. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland; vol. 9: 329-336.

Potts, R. and P. Shipman 1981 Cutmarks Made by Stone Tools on Bones from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Nature; vol. 291, No 5816: 577-580.

Stanford, D. 1979 The Selby and Dutton Sites: Evidence for a Possible Pre-Clovis Occupation of the High Plains. In Pre-Llano Cultures of the Americas: Paradoxes and Possibilities, ed. R. L. Humphrey and D. Stanford, 101-123. Washington, D.C.: The Anthropological Society of Washington.

Runnings, A. K. 1984 An Experimental Analysis of Two Bone Tools from the Mannis Site, Sequim, Washington. M.A. Thesis. Pullman: Department of Anthropology, Washington State University. Runnings, A. L., D. Bentley and C. E. Gustafson 1989 Use-Wear on Bone Tools: A Technique for Study under the Scanning Electron Microscope. In Bone Modification, ed. R. Bonnichsen and M. Sorg, 259-266. Orono: Center for the Study of the First

Stanford, D., B. R. Bonnichsen and R. E. Morlan 1981 The Ginsberg Experiment: Modern and Prehistoric Evidence of a Bone-Flaking Technology. Science; vol. 212, No 4493: 438-440.

21

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Pennsylvania.

Steinbring, J. 1966 The Manufacture and Use of Bone Defleshing Tools. American Antiquity; vol. 31, No 4: 575-581.

Vincent, A. 1985 Préliminaires expérimentaux du façonnage de l'os par percussion directe: quelques reproductions d'artefacts reconnus dans des niveaux du Paléolithique Moyen. In Outillage peu élaboré en os et en bois de Cervidés, I, ed. M. Patou, 22-32. Artefacts No 1. Treignes (Belgium): Éditions du Centre d'Études et de Documentation Archéologiques.

Stordeur, D. 1978 Proposition de classement des objets en os selon le degré de transformation imposé à la matière première. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française; Tome 75: 20-23. Stordeur-Yedid, D. 1979 Les aiguilles à chas au Paléolithique. XIII supplément Gallia Préhistoire. Paris: Éditions du CNRS.

e

Washburn, S. L. 1957 Australopithecines: The Hunters or the Hunted. American Anthropologist; vol. 59, No 4: 612-614.

Sutcliffe, A. J. 1973 Similarity of Bones and Antlers Gnawed by Deer to Human Artefacts. Nature; vol. 246, No 5433: 428430.

Wilford, J. N. 2001 Artifacts in Africa Suggest an Earlier Modern Human. The New York Times. New York.

Toth, N. 1991 The Material Record. In The First Americans: Search and Research, ed. T. D. Dillehay and D. J. Meltzer, 53-76. Boca Raton (Florida): CRC Press.

Wolberg, D. L. 1970 The Hypothesized Osteodontokeratic Culture of the Australopithecinae: A Look at the Evidence and the Opinions. Current Anthropology; vol. 11, No 1: 23-37.

Vaughan, P. C. 1981 Lithic Microwear Experimentation and the Functional Analysis of a Lower Magdalenian Stone Tool Assemblage. Ph.D. Dissertation. Philadelphia: Department of Anthropology, University of .

Yellen, J. E. 1998 Barbed Bone Points: Tradition and Continuity in Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa. A f r i c a n Archaeological Review; vol. 15, No 3: 173-198.

22

chapter

2

The Importance of the Palaeontological and Taphonomical Analyses for the Study of Bone Industries Carole Vercoutère Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, France

Marylène Patou-Mathis Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), France

Giacomo Giacobini Istituto Italiano di Paleontologia Umana, Università di Torino, Italy

Vézère are two factors that could have influenced the prehistoric people who chose to live there. Professor H. L. Movius Jr. (Harvard University) and his team excavated abri Pataud from 1958 to 1961, then again in 1963 and 1964 and found important archaeological material. The rock shelter filling was divided into 14 archaeological levels (Movius 1977) (fig. 4). The strata between these levels were almost barren and correspond to a period when no people lived there or were there for only a short stay. Each archaeological level is linked to a culture. The first level (level 14; about 34,000 years B.P.) was attributed to the Early Aurignacian and the last one (level 1; about 18,450 years B.P.) to the Solutrean.

Introduction For a long time, researchers were only interested in prestigious objects of the bone industry. Their studies dealt essentially with typology. Today scientists have a larger view of the bone industry, which includes research in the nutritional field (such as for the choice, availability and acquisition of raw materials) as well as in the technological domain (for questions about the conception and manufacturing of bone objects). In other words, from a subsistence point of view, an animal can be considered as both a dietary and raw material source (fig. 1). Therefore, it seems essential to us that any study of a bone industry must follow a zooarchaeological approach to which a typotechnological analysis concerning artifact production is added (fig. 2).

Figure 2: The pattern of our bone industry study. Figure 1: Use of animals for food and artifact manufacturing.

Taphonomy

In this paper, we are going to discuss three aspects of this approach: taphonomy, the determination of the raw materials used, and the comparison between the results of the bone industry study and the data from the faunal study. Our thinking is based on the first results obtained by one of the authors (Vercoutère) in the study of abri Pataud’s bone industry.

Apart from any considerations about artifact preservation, a careful taphonomical examination of our pieces has allowed us to avoid some errors in the recognition of pieces made and/or used by prehistoric people. Actually, it is not always easy to distinguish traces induced by nonhuman processes from those due to human activities. Hence, researchers need to know how to recognize some macroscopic and microscopic criteria useful for this distinction. We do not want to list all the possible confusions, but only to

This prehistoric site is a rock shelter located in the Vézère valley, at Les Eyzies-de-Tayac (Dordogne, France) (fig. 3). Its good orientation (west-southwest) and its location close to some water crosses on the

23

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

smooth and flat bottom. They are parallel to each other, and arranged into regularly spaced groups (Giacobini and Patou-Mathis 2002). Some may mistakenly consider chewed remains as bone tools such as awls or compressors.

examine the most common ones.

Figure 3: Geographical location of abri Pataud (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, Dordogne, France).

Figure 5: Chewing traces: a) long bones chewed by Carnivores, Castellaro Lagusello, Italy, Bronze Age; b) and c) calcaneus chewed by canid, Covoli di Velo, Verona, Italy, Upper Pleistocene (photos: G. Giacobini).

Canids usually chew first the spongy ends of long bones, thus giving them a characteristic fork shape with smooth margins. Note that cervids also chew bones, but they generate forks with zigzag margins (fig. 6). Sometimes a part of the fork breaks and, again, the analyst must not confuse the chewed bone with a manufactured bone awl. Two clues can be helpful regarding compressors (fig. 7): 1) marks are grouped into one or several used zones localised only on the external face of the bone; and 2) marks correspond to cuts with a more or less removed material (this morphology is different from that left by carnivores described above).

Figure 4: Stratigraphy of abri Pataud (after Movius, 1977).

Chewing Traces Carnivores, especially canids, are known for chewing bone remains (fig. 5). Therefore, some remains can show more or less superimposed little pits. The intensity of the chewing can go as far as scooping out, causing some kind of irregular “stair-shaped” undulations. The carnivore’s cheek teeth can also leave scratches on the pieces. These strait and elongated traces have a “U” to “V” shape profile and a

Perforations There are different agents that can cause perforations on remains. As for abri Pataud’s pieces, we observed two types of holes: manufactured perforations and

24

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PALAEONTOLOGICAL AND TAPHONOMICAL ANALYSES FOR THE STUDY OF BONE INDUSTRIES – VERCOUTÈRE ET AL.

punctures (small cupules, more or less circular, with irregular edges, which are the impressions of some carnivore’s canines) (fig. 8a).

Figure 7: Compressor: a) bone compressor; b) detail of a mark (photos: G. Giacobini).

Figure 6: Bone “forks”: a) ox metatarsal chewed by dog (photo: M. Patou-Mathis); b) reindeer metatarsal chewed by wild Norwegian reindeer (after Sutcliffe, 1973) - note the zigzag margins of the “fork”; c) bone awl made one a reindeer metatarsal, abri Pataud, Dordogne, France, Gravettian (photos: C. Vercoutère); d) donkey metapodial chewed by dog (photo: M. Patou-Mathis).

Worn Tines After shedding the velvet, the antlers are exposed to different kinds of damage before their casting. First, deer rub their antlers against trees in order to remove the tatters of dry velvet that are still attached to it. Second, they use their hardened antlers in various ways. During the rutting season stags scrape the ground and remove bark from trees with their antlers before using them for the competitions.

Manufactured holes are more regular than punctures (fig. 8b and c). When prehistoric people made a perforation using a flint tool, to which they gave a rotary movement, there were concentric striations in the hole resulting from the scraping of the flint against the osseous material (fig. 8d). If a perforated object hung for a long time, the string would erase the striations (fig. 8e and f). In this case, the location of the hole is a good clue for recognizing whom or what made it. On pierced teeth, the perforation is more often at the root apex. We cannot imagine that a carnivore could have made this kind of hole, because if it bit into a tooth root it would break it totally, whereas prehistoric men knew how to perforate even fragile tooth roots in order to make pendants.

All these activities, and probably others, cause wear traces (or even breaks) on the distal end of the tines (fig. 9). These “natural” wear traces result in “a polish extending from the tip to several centimetres down toward the main beam” (Olsen 1989) (fig. 10). The tip of the tines can also be rounded and display fine abrasive striations. These “natural” marks can be mistaken for traces induced by the use of certain tines as tools (fig. 11 and 12).

25

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Figure 10: “Natural” wear on reindeer antler tine, abri Pataud, Dordogne, France, Gravettian, (photos: C. Vercoutère).

Figure 8: Perforations: a) carnivore puncture; b) red deer canine with a man-made hole, abri Tagliente, Verona, Italy, Epigravettian; c) detail of the previous tooth; d) experimental hole; e) and f) red deer canine with a man-made hole: striation were erased (Photos: G. Giacobini).

Figure 11: Red deer antler tine with wear probably due to human activities, Mondeval de Sora (burial), Dolomites, Italy, Mesolithic (photos: G. Giacobini).

Root Etchings The roots of little plants can reach the remains that were buried near the surface. These roots excrete humic acid that dissolves organic material and then create shallow U-shaped furrows on the surface of these remains. These furrows are distributed according to a characteristic dendritic pattern (fig. 13). Like chewed remains, people can mistake a bone with root etchings for a compressor. However, neither the distribution of the traces, nor their morphology is the same. The furrows left by plant roots can be located anywhere on a bone, whereas the cuts can

Figure 9: Red deer antlers showing the general location of damage (after Olsen, 1989).

26

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PALAEONTOLOGICAL AND TAPHONOMICAL ANALYSES FOR THE STUDY OF BONE INDUSTRIES – VERCOUTÈRE ET AL.

When bears wallow, they can disturb the distribution of the remains left by prehistoric people. The recurrent rubbing of the thick bear fur against osseous flakes and the carrying of these flakes on the sediments can induce a polishing of these remains (fig. 15). This “natural” polishing must be distinguished from that of certain prehistoric tools (i.e. a polish either done deliberately by prehistoric people in the finishing process of these tools or resulting from use).

only be found in delimited areas on the external surface.

Figure 12: Red deer antler tine used as a piercer, Mondeval de Sora (burial), Dolomites, Italy, Mesolithic (photos: G. Giacobini). Figure 14: Worn teeth: a) bear incisors worn at their neck, Sclayn, Belgium, Mousterian (drawing: C. Meunier, Ulg); b) ibex incisor used as a pendant, abri Pataud, Dordogne, France, Gravetttian (photos: C. Vercoutère).

Figure 13: Bone with root etchings (photo: G. Giacobini).

Tooth Neck Wear Some teeth have a peripheral furrow at their neck. It looks polished and separates the crown from the root (fig. 14a). This furrow was sometimes interpreted as a human conversion, but its cause is purely natural (pathological, according to some authors). Prehistoric people sometimes made a groove at the apex (or the mesial part) of a tooth root in order to use the tooth as a pendant (fig. 14b). However, there is no archaeological proof of the presence of a groove at a tooth neck. Moreover, this kind of suspension consists of several transversal incisions around the root that have nothing to do with the furrow described previously.

Figure 15: Polished bones: a) cave bear (drawing O. Keyser); b) bone flake polished by cave bear fur, Gargas, Hautes-Pyrénées, France (photos: M. Patou-Mathis).

Identification of the Raw Materials After we had discounted everything that was neither made nor used by prehistoric people, we determined from which materials the artifacts were made from – antler, bone, tooth, or ivory – and classified them by raw material. For this study, we examined the surface of the objects with the naked eye and using a low-

Polished Bones Although it is not the case for abri Pataud, it is important to know that prehistoric people could occupy some caves alternatively with cave bears.

27

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

its structure, reindeer antler is a more flexible osseous material than bone and ivory. This is, in part, the

power stereomicroscope. The surfaces were more or less modified and the raw material identification was

Figure 16: Antler, bone and tooth structures: a) red deer (left; after Billamboz, 1979) and reindeer (right) beam cross section (after Bouchud, 1974); b) bone structure (after Brothwell, 1972); c) tooth structure (after Pike-Tay, 2000).

reason why it is an excellent material from which to make projectile points.

not always easy, especially when we dealt with small fragments. Nevertheless, several criteria linking the structure, the morphology, and the size of the osseous materials helped us to make such identifications. Before we look over these criteria, we would like to mention that a comparative collection is also necessary for this phase of the bone industry study.

The Osseous Material Structures: Bone There are three types of osseous tissue: the enchondral tissue, which is only present in young animals, the periosteum, and the haversian tissue. The periosteum corresponds to a fibrous membrane that covers almost the whole bone.

The Osseous Material Structures: Antler

Archaeologists study the haversian tissue, which is often the only layer of tissue left. There are two varieties of this tissue: a compact and hard material (compacta), with a high mechanical value, and a spongy tissue (spongiosa), which is full of little holes (fig. 16b).

The antler structure is similar to that of haversian bone. The burr and the tine ends are completely calcified. However, for the other parts of the branch there are two types of tissue: an outer casing of cortical tissue (compacta) and an inner cancellous core (spongiosa). The proportion of these tissues varies according to the species of deer, the supply of blood in the antlers, and the sex of the animal for the reindeer antlers. For example, red deer antlers have a more important and looser spongiosa than that of reindeer antlers, which is denser (fig. 16a). Because of

As we said before, the antler structure is very similar to that of haversian bone. At this point, the distinction between antler and bone can be difficult, not to say impossible, for small objects that are entirely polished.

28

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PALAEONTOLOGICAL AND TAPHONOMICAL ANALYSES FOR THE STUDY OF BONE INDUSTRIES – VERCOUTÈRE ET AL.

The Osseous Material Structures: Tooth and Mammoth Ivory

ivory can be perfectly polished. Thus, ivory has a pearly aspect to certain artifacts. The good homogeneity of ivory (which is compact to the tusk heart) allows the manufacturing of sculpted objects, whose volume is relatively important, and consequently would be difficult to make from a bone (because of the medullary canal) or from a piece of antler (because of the spongiosa).

A tooth is made up of three tissues: enamel, cementum, and dentine (called ivory for the proboscidean tusks) (fig. 16c and 17a). Prehistoric people manufactured pendants, small statues and even weapons with mammoth ivory. This material has a complex 3-D structure. Hence, a characteristic drawing, the “Schreger pattern”, is visible in cross section (fig. 17b). Furthermore, successive deposits of dentine layers, which form cones that fit together, result in the growth of a tusk. These cones dissociate themselves when the tusk becomes dry. Consequently, we can observe the different concentric dentine layers in a cross section (fig. 17c), and the nested cones are visible in a longitudinal section (fig. 17d). If an object showed this typical structure, it might be possible to find the part of the

Morphology The morphology of bone remains can provide useful information for the determination of raw materials. Sometimes the shape of an object can be due to the form of the material from which it comes. Thus, during its burial, a projectile point could develop the curve of the reindeer antler blank from which it came (fig. 18).

Figure 17: Mammoth ivory: a) mammoth tusk morphology (modified after Christensen, 1999); b) tusk cross section showing the “Schreger pattern” (after Lister and Bahn, 2000); c) tusk cross section with concentric dentine layers (Coll. René Castanet, Castel-Merle museum, Dordogne, France; photo: C. Vercoutère); d) tusk longitudinal section showing the nested dentine cones (Coll. René Castanet, Castel-Merle museum, Dordogne, France; photo: C. Vercoutère); e) two ivory pendants that fit together, Arene Candide (Jeune Prince’s burial), Liguria, Italy, Epigravettian (photos: G. Giacobini).

tusk from which it came (fig. 17e).

If the external surface of an object is not overly modified, it can be helpful in determining species (fig. 19). If the external surface of an artifact made of antler is smooth and shows some blood vessel impressions,

Ivory is a very hard and strong material. Its structure is much thinner than that of bone, which explains why

29

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

morphology is not modified (fig. 21). Thus, morphology is the main criteria that allows for the precise anatomical identification (i.e. incisor, canine, and, less often, premolars and molars) and the recognition of the species from which they come.

this can indicate that the artifact comes from a reindeer antler. By contrast, if the surface is rough and shows some gutters, it may indicate that the artifact comes from a red deer antler.

Size The size criteria may provide some clues about the animal that supplied the raw material. Indeed, even if a bone object (fig. 22) lost the shape of the bone from which it came, the thickness of this object could give at least an idea of the size of this bone. Generally, the thicker the bone, the bigger the animal that supplied it. Consequently, by using the faunal spectrum established by the zooarchaeological study, we may know if the bone came from a horse, for example, rather than from a smaller animal such as a reindeer.

Figure 18: Curved shape of antler: a) reindeer antler; b) antler projectile point, abri Pataud, Dordogne, France, Gravettian (photos: C. Vercoutère).

Origin of the Raw Materials

Bones have various shapes. They can be long, short, flat, or elongated, and there can be some morphological specificity according to animal groups. For example, horses have vestigial metapodials (fig. 20a). These specific bones have a protruding proximal end attached to the canon bone and a shaft that gets thinner towards the distal end. Such morphology can induce confusion between these bones and certain types of bone awls. More so because, sometimes, prehistoric people took advantage of the particular shape of these bones: they made awls by making the distal part of these vestigial metapodials more pointed (fig. 20b). More often, teeth are used as pendants, and their general

For identified raw material, we crossed our results with the data from the zooarchaeological study. It allowed us to put forward a hypothesis about the possible origins of the raw materials and artifacts (Patou-Mathis et al. 2005). For abri Pataud, we dealt with archaeological assemblages that were due to human activity. Antler Two hypotheses are possible for the acquisition of antlers. First, if the antlers used for manufacturing

Figure 19: External surface of red deer (left) and reindeer (right) antlers. Drawing after Billamboz (1979). Photos: C. Vercoutère.

30

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PALAEONTOLOGICAL AND TAPHONOMICAL ANALYSES FOR THE STUDY OF BONE INDUSTRIES – VERCOUTÈRE ET AL.

antlers at some precise time of the year. Here, the purpose of the acquisition of antlers is purely technological. Moreover, this type of acquisition requires a good knowledge of the deer species that provide antlers.

bone tools had the same nature as those among the faunal remains, it would be extremely probable that the worked antlers came from the animals hunted by prehistoric people. Accordingly, the acquisition of these animals was planned for food and the use of antlers came after. This kind of raw material acquisition had been demonstrated for an early Aurignacian level (level 11) of abri Pataud (Chiotti, Patou-Mathis and Vercoutère 2003). The artifacts made of antler corresponded to small pieces of antlers from females or young individuals. However, there were no antler bases among the elements of the bone tool industry, so we could not say if prehistoric people worked on shed and/or non-shed antlers. Furthermore, according to the faunal study, the Aurignacians hunted reindeer herds composed of females and their young during the winter, when these animals have their antlers. Therefore, we could conclude that prehistoric people used the antlers that they had obtained from the hunted animals (non-shed antlers).

In a Noaillian level (level 4) of abri Pataud, we recognized, among the worked pieces, some matrices made on shed antler bases that came from adult male reindeer. This suggests that the Prehistoric people of the time collected mature antlers of male reindeer (a good quality raw material) at the end of November or in early December, with the only intention of manufacturing certain types of objects. In this same level we recognized a second way to obtain antler. Thus, among the elements of the bone industry, there are some bases of non-shed reindeer antlers, and several cutmarks can be observed on reindeer crania from the faunal material (Cho 1998). For this reason, we can say that the Noaillians obtained the antlers from the hunted reindeer. This example proves that a prehistoric group could employ several ways for the acquisition of one type of raw material.

Bone If the species that provided raw materials for the bone industry were the same as those that composed the faunal spectrum, as established by the zooarchaeological study, we could conclude that the raw materials came from animals hunted for food. Therefore, this type of raw material can be considered as a kind of “opportunism”: the first aim of the hunt is to get food.

Figure 20: Elongated bone/bone tool: a) horse metatarsal II, abri Pataud, Dordogne, France, Aurignacian; b) bone awl made on a horse vestigial metapodial, abri Pataud, Dordogne, France, Aurignacian (photos: C. Vercoutère).

The multidisciplinary study of the level 11 materials from abri Pataud allows us to illustrate this case (Chiotti, Patou-Mathis and Vercoutère 2003). The bones used for the manufacturing of part of the tool kit are those of horses, reindeer, and bison. These animals are also present in the fauna identified in the zooarchaeological study. It appears that the species hunted for food were similar to those selected as the raw material for bone tools. Furthermore, the analysis of the reindeer and horse processing indicates that long bones were broken for marrow extraction. The bone flakes induced by the marrow extraction would be perfect for manufacturing tools, and could be used directly as compressors.

Figure 21: Perforated teeth, abri Pataud, Dordogne, France (photos: C. Vercoutère): a) fox canine, Aurignacian; b) wolf canine, Gravettian; c) bovid incisor; Aurignacian; d) red deer canine, Gravettian.

Tooth Second, if the antlers were worked shed antlers in an assemblage, it could mean that they collected these

Two hypotheses can be mentioned for the acquisition

31

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

antler acquisition. If in an archaeological assemblage there were both mammoth remains and ivory artifacts, the acquisition of ivory could be linked to the butchering of the animal. Mammoth hunting or scavenging was foremost for food, and the use of tusks came after. On the other hand, if only fragments of tusks and some finished objects represented the mammoth, the acquisition of the raw material would have taken place by picking up fresh ivory on a carcass or by collecting raw material in a deposit of sub-fossil ivory. In any case, ivory is an imported material and the aim of its acquisition is largely technological.

of teeth that were used as pendants. First, prehistoric people could obtain some teeth by collecting them from abandoned carcasses. Second, teeth could be obtained from the animals hunted by prehistoric people themselves. We tried to figure out if this was the case for the perforated teeth of abri Pataud, and especially for fox canines (Vercoutère 2003). Here the example of perforated red fox canines from the early Gravettian level (level 5) is illustrative. The zooarchaeological study of this level (Vannoorenberghe 2004) indicated that prehistoric people had hunted foxes for their fur. Thus, we calculated the theoretical number of red fox canines that would be present in level 5, using the red fox cMNI (combination Minimum Number of Individuals) given by the zooarchaeological study (ibid.). Next, we compared this number with the number of red fox canines (perforated and non-perforated) that had been discovered in level 5. The number of canines discovered was lower than the theoretical number. For this reason, we concluded that perforated canines could be obtained from red foxes hunted by Gravettians.

In level 11 of abri Pataud, we counted nine fragments of ivory (4 complete rods, 1-rod fragment, 2 roughsout of basket-bead, 1 perforated small plate, and 1 undetermined fragment). No mammoth bones were discovered in this level (Chiotti, Patou-Mathis and Vercoutère 2003). Therefore, we can say that the ivory used at the time came from a carcass or an ivory deposit. However, fresh ivory is very hard and difficult to work on. Therefore, the use of sub-fossil ivory is more often for delicate artifacts. Finished Objects Whatever the raw material we have considered, there is always another possibility for its origin. If, in an archaeological assemblage one or several finished objects were the only proof of the presence of the raw material from which they were made, these objects would not have been manufactured on the spot. They could have come either from a tool kit, which prehistoric people brought with them from one camp to another, or from an exchange network with other groups. In this latter case, the aim of the acquisition of the finished objects would be more complex than the dietary or technological considerations that we examined before. We could even imagine a kind of “gift system” that could have strengthened the relationships between “tribes”.

Conclusion The taphonomical analysis of our pieces and the identification of the raw materials from which artifacts are made allowed us to classify these artifacts by raw material. Next, the examination of the results of the zooarchaeological studies allowed us to put forward some hypotheses about the origins of the raw materials. At the same time, we carried out a typotechnological analysis of our pieces (the results of which were only summarized briefly here). We defined the types of objects that had been made with each

Figure 22: Size criteria: bone awl, abri Pataud, Dordogne, France, Gravettian (photos: C. Vercoutère).

Mammoth Ivory The problems of ivory supply are similar to those of

32

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PALAEONTOLOGICAL AND TAPHONOMICAL ANALYSES FOR THE STUDY OF BONE INDUSTRIES – VERCOUTÈRE ET AL.

d’identification de la ramure et de ses différentes composantes pour l’étude technologique et l’interprétation palethnographique. In L’industrie en os et bois de cervidé durant le Néolithique et l’Âge des Métaux, 1 réunion, ed. H. CampsFabrer, 93-129. Paris: CNRS.

raw material and tried to understand how these objects had been manufactured (using “chaînes opératoires”). This typo-technological approach was especially important to discuss the concept of culture.

ère

The zooarchaeological and the typo-technological approaches complemented each other. They gave us an overall view of the processing of the animals from the acquisition of raw materials to the use of finished objects. These objects could have had different status: utilitarian, social (signs of property; worth of an individual within a group; identity of an individual or a group; maintaining of inter-group relationships), “aesthetic” (enhancement of the appearance), or symbolic (ritual objects; burial offerings). However, it is all the more difficult to determine the status of each object as an artifact could have had multiple statuses.

Bouchud, J. 1974 L’origine anatomique des matériaux osseux utilisés dans les industries préhistoriques. In Premier colloque international sur l’industrie de l’os dans la Préhistoire, Abbaye de Sénanque, avril 1974, ed. H. Camps-Fabrer, 21-26. Aix-enProvence: Éditions de l’Université de Provence. Brothwell, D. R. 1972 Digging up Bones: The Excavation, Treatment and Study of Human Skeletal Remains. 2 Edition. London: British Museum (Natural History).

nd

This relates back to the different status that prehistoric people gave to the species from which they obtained the raw materials for the manufacturing of bone tools. It seems evident that reindeer (game hunted for meat, fat, marrow, skin, bones, antlers, etc…) would not have the same status as carnivores (non-food predators, from which only fur and/or canines were taken). Therefore, it appears that the animals were not only dietary sources, but were seen as ensembles of assets. This emphasizes the high cognitive abilities of prehistoric people. They knew perfectly the game’s habits and the properties of the osseous materials. Moreover, they mastered different techniques for the working of these materials. Lastly, through finished objects they gave each species a specific status.

Chiotti, L., M. Patou-Mathis and C. Vercoutère 2003 Comportements techniques et de subsistance à l’Aurignacien ancien: la couche 11 de l’abri Pataud (Dordogne). Gallia Préhistoire; vol. 45: 157-203. Cho, T.-S. 1998 Étude archéozoologique de la faune du Périgordien supérieur (couches 2, 3 et 4) de l’abri Pataud (Les Eyzies, Dordogne): paléoécologie, taphonomie, paléoéconomie. Ph.D. Dissertation. Paris: Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle. Christensen, M. 1999 Technologie de l’ivoire au Paléolithique supérieur: caractérisation physico-chimique du matériau et analyse fonctionnelle des outils de transformation. BAR International Series No 751. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

All these considerations contributed to the elaboration of acquisition and processing patterns for the osseous materials recognized in each studied assemblage. Consequently, we were able to point out certain variations in the acquisition and processing of the osseous materials, especially reindeer antler between the Aurignacian and Gravettian periods at abri Pataud. In the future, we must test these patterns from a chronological and geographical point of view. For this reason, we are going to compare our data for abri Pataud with those resulting from the studies of contemporaneous sites. At the end, we hope that such an approach will allow us to better understand the regional variability and specificities of the cultures (Aurignacian and Gravettian) to which the bone industries that we study are linked.

Giacobini, G. and M. Patou-Mathis 2002 Fiche Rappels taphonomiques. In F i c h e s typologiques de l’industrie osseuse préhistorique. Cahier X: Retouchoirs, compresseurs, percuteurs. Os à impressions et éraillures, ed. M. Patou-Mathis, 21-28. Paris: Éditions de la Société préhistorique française. Lister, A. and P. Bahn 2000 Mammoths: Giants of the Ice Age. 2 Edition. London: Marshall Publishing. nd

Movius, H. L. 1977 Excavation of the abri Pataud, Les Eyzies (Dordogne): Stratigraphy. Cambridge: Harvard University, Peabody Museum. Olsen, S. L. 1989 On distinguishing Natural from Cultural Damage on Archaeological Antler. Journal of Archaeological Science; vol. 16, No 2: 125-135.

References Cited Billamboz, A. 1979 Les vestiges en bois de cervidés dans les gisements de l’époque Holocène: Essai

33

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

to Human artifacts. Nature; vol. 246, No 5433: 428-430.

Patou-Mathis, M., S. Péan, C. Vercoutère, P. Auguste and M. Laznickova-Gonysevova 2005 Réflexions à propos de l’acquisition et de la gestion de matières premières animales. Exemples: mammouth/ivoire – renne/bois. In Comportements des hommes du Paléolithique moyen et supérieur en Europe: Territoires et milieux. Actes du colloque du G.D.R. 1945 du CNRS, Paris, 8-10 janvier 2003, ed. D. Vialou, J. Renault-Miskovsky and M. Patou-Mathis, 27-38. ERAUL No 111. Liège (Belgium): Études et Recherches archéologiques de l’Université de Liège.

Vannoorenberghe A. 2004 Contribution à la connaissance es comportements de subsistance des Gravettiens du Sud-Ouest de la France: La faune du Gravettien ancien de l’abri Pataud (Les Eyziesde-Tayac, Dordogne). Ph.D. Dissertation. Paris: Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle. Vercoutère C. 2003 Acquisition et traitement de l’animal en tant qu’ensemble de ressources non-alimentaires: les canines aménagées de renard de l’abri Pataud (Les Eyzies-de-Tayac, Dordogne, France). Bulletin du Cercle Archéologique HesbayeCondroz; vol. 26: 29-42.

Pike-Tay, A. 2000 Upper Perigordian Hunting: Organisational and Technological Strategies. Anthropologie et Préhistoire; vol. 111: 216-223. Sutcliffe, A. J. 1973 Similarity of bones and antlers gnawed by Deer

34

chapter

3

Technology on Bone and Antler Industries: A Relevant Methodology for Characterizing Early Post-Glacial Societies (9th – 8th Millenium BC) Eva David Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), France

related to an acquisition of raw material and to its transformation for manufacture and/or use. Once classified, the products and sub-products, as well as the waste, were subject to a proper technical analysis. On these items, the identification of techniques (or how the raw material is detached during action) enabled theoretical reconstruction of manufacturing methods (or how the techniques have been linked together to create a tool, a weapon or any other manufactured object). For each anatomical blank and species, the reconstructed methods have been drawn up, in the form of a chaînes opératoires (Pelegrin et al. 1988; Tixier 1967).

Introduction Numerous finds of bone and antler tools in peat bog sites of the North-European plains were made during the 20th century and dated to the Ancylus Lake period. Recently, it has become clear that the usual typological approaches applied to this material (Childe 1931; Clark 1936; Kozlowski et al. 1977) could no longer provide new elements for characterizing Early Holocene hunter societies (Julien 1992). The bone and antler material represent the most common raw material used for manufacturing tools during the Mesolithic period. The technological approach to analysis, similar to studies on lithic industies by French prehistorians, is a a logical approach to apply to the assemblage, because it includes tools as well as manufacturing debris (Inizan et al. 1999; Pelegrin et al. 1988; Tixier 1967, 1996). By studying bone and antler industries of Northern Europe, dated to the Early Mesolithic (9th to 8th millenium BC), different technical "traditions" can be identified on a large scale in the form of techno-complexes (Clarke 1968: 357). In the sense intended here, these refer to the distribution in time and space of sites that have provided assemblages common patterns of techniques, morphological types, and anatomical blanks, as well as common patterns of change in the relative frequency of tool types, all within a defined environment.

Preliminary Remarks on Bone Technology The technological approach was applied to the bone industry in a broad sense, taking into account all artifacts in every kind of bone material (bone, antler, tooth, animal ivory, shell). It was thus possible to visualize each sample according to its anatomical determination in order to separate artifacts showing modifications (fig. 1). Criteria used for recognition of bone raw material and osteological characters became de facto part of the technical diagnosis applied on archaeological worked bone pieces (Poplin 1977). The taphonomical and archaeozoological aspects were explored in order to separate, among artifacts showing traces, what clearly belongs to anthropic behaviour and, more precisely, what was

Figure 1: Stages of the methodology and archaeological approaches used for the technological analysis of bone industries.

Theoretically, with bone, a complete chaîne opératoire is seldom identified. This depends mainly on the kind

35

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

manufacture and use in an industry can be relatively important (David 2004), the specific nature of bone material obviously reduces the complexity of technical actions involved during operations, in terms of planning (a calibration, for example, see fig. 9 below). Could less complexity in manufacturing operations indicate a standard ability of manufacture of bone? The specific histological structure of the bone material itself involves waves that follow preferential axis whatever the direction of the given percussion but, if the technical possibilities are thus relatively limited, a certain degree of inventiveness can still be observed with regard to the necessary adaptation to these physical constraints. This indicates a broad notion of the range of possibilities for profitably creating simple or composite forms for specific needs. For the Early Holocene industry of Northern Europe, taking into account these constraints, three major concepts opératoires have been identified to produce tools: by taking a flake after splitting, by shaping a part that naturally or accidentally presents an interesting form, or by transforming the bone entirely (David 1996:7). The latter concerns most of the studied tools, which present a high "degree of transformation" (Stordeur 1978) inferring that manufacturing methods cannot be reconstructed at all without the study of the corresponding debitage waste. Lastly, with the exception of the Ulkestrup II case from Denmark (which possibly involves apprenticeship), no evidence of levels of expertise have been demonstrated (David in press). However, the studied assemblages did not provide any evidence of direct refitting. This seems to be related more to an absence of fine sieving methods than to a low degree of preservation and even less to an application of a more destructive technical modality such as wear. In addition, there is no existing methodology for anatomical determination of worked bones, at an individual level, such as pairing in faunal analysis (for example, Enloe et al. 1992). Thus, the criteria used on flint (Ploux 1991) to characterize levels of ability are still not available for bone manufacturing.

of items left by prehistoric communities. Moreover, the conditions of deposition and preservation, together with the modalities of transformation used during manufacture, play a crucial role in reconstructing the theoretical puzzle involved in manufacturing sequences (preparing, débitage, shaping, finishing, using, resharpening). In addition to degradation resulting from natural factors that possibly affects in a high proportion any bone assemblage, other dynamic elements may have changed the quality of the original sample by removing parts of the artifacts. For example, the action of dogs on faunal remains, as well as on manufactured products and waste, is a real biasing factor in Early Mesolithic bone industry (David 2005). Therefore, in addition to what the taphonomical and archaeozoological aspects can provide for understanding modalities of transformation of original remains, one must add to the concept of chaîne opératoire that of schéma opératoire conceptuel (Pelegrin 1995:30). This places the emphasis on the notion of logic in the succession and combination of technical gestures used by toolmakers to carry out a project of an intellectual nature, recognized by prehistorians in the form of chaîne opératoire. Missing parts in manufacturing sequences correspond to expected elements of bone, the absence of which has to be explained by either the effect of selection (biotic or environmental factors) or that of modification (even as far as complete destruction). Modification can result from anthropic actions on the raw material that did not leave any waste (mainly the wear techniques and/or actions). It can also result from biophysical perturbations (pedogenetical phenomena, trophic actions and physical agents) (d'Errico 1993). Absence of sieving during excavation means that small elements detached by fracturing are often not recovered. This dramatically increases the difficulty of reconstructing bone manufacturing sequences by preventing potential refitting. Finally, complete reconstruction of manufacturing methods was related to all the elements of diagnosis, as well as the recurring aspects on every anatomical part, in order to identify the best correspondence with the recorded data. More than reconstructing technical behaviour (from hunting to tool production), this broad approach of archaeological bone industry study can contribute to discussions on the nature of the deposits and site function, in connection with evidence for subsistence patterns (Todd et al. 1999).

Validated by experimental work, the reconstruction of the production sequences, in terms of technical and functional operations from the original natural bone to the discarded piece, has enabled groups of archaeological assemblages to be built up. These show identical behaviour for producing similar implements on equivalent raw material, in the form of techno-complexes. The influence of the morphological and mechanical properties of the raw material on manufacturing techniques, as well as the value of the reconstructed methods of manufacture (chronological or cultural) have to be discussed before determining what really does belong to cultural choices (Tixier et al. 1980).

On bone, as on other archaeological material, recurrent technical patterning reflects specific techniques. Although the number of techniques, as well as of technical procedures, applied for

36

TECHNOLOGY ON BONE AND ANTLER INDUSTRIES: A RELEVANT METHODOLOGY FOR CHARACTERIZING EARLY POST-GLACIAL SOCIETIES – DAVID

been used to manufacture 60 types of items. In addition to the objects (ornaments and others), six categories of tools (i.e. objects with an active part) compose the bone and antler equipment of the Early Mesolithic hunters. These include pointed pieces (needles, awls, projectile points, gorges, hooks); bevelled edge tools (adzes, axes, mattocks, bladeaxes, hammer-axes, all kinds of chisels, gouges, mortises, burins); cutting tools (knives, "scaling" knives, slotted knives); tools with sleeves (sleeves, hammer-sleeves, handles, elbowed handles); flat surface tools (all kinds of lissoirs) and rounded tip tools with a soft or a scratched aspect (hammers, picks, punches). The latter include punches made from antler and used for indirect percussion (according to some experiments conducted by myself and Biard) as well as hammers made from auroch metapodials, which have been identified recently (David 2002). Whatever the frequency of these categories, most horizons produced, among all used pieces, more than 50% of projectile points with a fixed hafting (unlike a harpoon), represented by the straight, notched, barbed or slotted points (see appendix 2).

Corpus and Dating The bone collections studied were the basis of discussions on the characterization of the Maglemose culture (Becker 1953; Breuil 1926; Brinch Petersen 1973; Childe 1931; Clark 1936; Kozlowski et al. 1977; Larsson 1978; Sarauw et al. 1903). They are also suitable for the technological approach, since they include bone tools and waste from secure archaeological contexts. Chronological correspondences between the sites have been made possible through regional environmental analyses (Degerbøl 1964; Iversen 1973; Jessen 1935, 1938; Rosenlund 1976; Strand Petersen 1985), with radiocarbon or relative dating (see appendix 1). The eponymous Mullerup site has been of central interest for this study. Its data have been analyzed together with other sites from Denmark and compared with settlement sites from eight countries, which yielded occupations dating from contemporary or slightly earlier chronological stages. Belonging to assemblages from peat bog sites presenting the same kind of bone implements but differing notably in flint industries, the Zvejnieki (Latvia) site has been added recently to the study (David et al. 2004:13, David 2003b:106). All together, the Early Mesolithic sites correspond to 35 archaeological horizons, dated from the Late Preboreal to the Boreal/Atlantic transition, from 9780 BP to 8000 BP (c. 9000-7000 BC calibrated), with a Preboreal/Boreal transition stage around 9100 BP (c. 8200 BC), represented by the Friesack 4-II and Noyen-sur-Seine 1 sites.

On these products, precise determination of species among the big ungulates is not easy. However, morphometrical analysis shows exploitation of deer for straight and notched points, whereas elk was preferentially used for barbed points (David in press). When osteological characters were still visible, metapodials represented approximately 50% of bone material used for manufacture. In fact, this anatomical blank, which presents naturally a regular and long matrix (200 mm, average metatarsus length for red deer; 270 mm for elk), is of central interest for Early Holocene production. In addition to the proper hunting gear, the "heavy" tools (i.e. tools used for direct percussion weighing roughly 40-400g) were mainly represented by the bevelled edge tools, constituting about 20% of the industry of a given settlement site. If a few adzes were made on bone, and then engraved like many other types of objects, heavy tools were mostly on antler. Finally, other pointed elements, objects (mainly represented by the pendants) and indeterminate pieces represent the other manufactured items. In comparison with other northern regions, where, for example, contemporary assemblages provided evidence of manufacturing fossil ivory, the collections studied - coming from regions between the 47th to 62th degrees north latitude - yielded other interesting blanks. In fact, there is no corresponding direct evidence for consumption of the species from which these blanks were made. On the richest sites indeed, some waste and objects have been manufactured on human teeth, horse metapodials and teeth, limb bones from

Large Set of Implements for Specific Game To enable comparisons between assemblages, it first has to be established if worked bone artifacts were manufactured under the same conditions and in comparable proportions. For the Early Mesolithic, the industry has been mainly manufactured from hunted animals. Generally, around 90% of the items were made from ungulate bones, represented by roe deer, red deer, elk and aurochs. Antlers of red deer and elk provided the largest range of tool types, but bones (limb bones and ribs) and teeth were respectively reserved for weapons and pendants. Thus, bone and teeth represent about 70% of the hard organic materials used for this industry (fig. 2). Examination of worked teeth revealed exploitation of wild boar, beaver and numerous carnivorous animals (brown bear, badger, pine marten, wolf, red fox and dog). Depending on site function and given the close relation between specific tools and their anatomical blanks, a single species can largely predominate the mammals in a single layer (David 2001). These animals, related to big game and fur games, have

37

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Figure 2: Frequency of animals represented in the Early Mesolithic bone and antler industry (Mullerup I), and used anatomical parts of red deer with their corresponding manufactured items; hammer-axe, sleeve and blade on antler (Mullerup I), canine (Bedburg-Königshoven) and incisor pendants (Ulkestrup Lyng Øst II), bone chisel (Ageröd I:AHC VL), and, on limb bone, straight (Friesack 4-III), notched (Hohen Viecheln b), slotted (Ageröd I:AHC UT) and barbed points (Mullerup I); on flat bone, barbed point (Mullerup I).

technical processes, I have identified twenty manufacturing techniques validated, for most of them, by experiments (fig. 3 and 4; see also figure 8, No 11, for an example of the process used to elongate a previous groove). They can be classified into three categories of technical modalities: wear, nick, and fracture. The category placement depends on the mode of detachment of the raw material during manufacture that, respectively, produces powder, chips and flakes.

wild cat or lynx and from some water birds (swan, grebe sp.), as well as shells from European tortoise, fossils and sea shells (Bayania, collumbellas).

Seven Original Techniques for the Early Mesolithic Although a few techniques were known for the sites studied (Clark et al. 1953; Sarauw et al. 1903: 114), prehistorians have not shown great interest in bone manufacturing methods. This is probably due to the specific morphology of the matrix, which could initially suggest utilization of a few basic techniques to create a tool. Thus, one can wonder about the number of methods required to make the whole industry, on a broad geographical scale, focusing especially on their relationship with raw material. Together with eleven

Among them, seven techniques are newly identified (fig. 5). The filing technique deepened notches into barbs, using a flint saw as a file (i.e. sawing the initial notch with a soft and rapid multi-directional and pluritangential movement during action). Although it has been used for engraving, the drilling technique 38

TECHNOLOGY ON BONE AND ANTLER INDUSTRIES: A RELEVANT METHODOLOGY FOR CHARACTERIZING EARLY POST-GLACIAL SOCIETIES – DAVID

lengthwise using an intermediate beveled edge flint element in the split resulting from a previous use of the wedge-splinter technique. Struck transversally with a soft hammer, percussion makes a split that runs into the bone, following natural axial fracture planes. This operation is repeated along the bone and on the other side, replacing the element each time at the end of the split. The splintered edge blanks thus obtained are straightened by using the counterblow retouch technique. The blank is placed first on a hard stone convexity and then one of its sides is struck with a stone hammer, detaching a transverse removal from the opposite side. This is repeated for each side of the blank until it becomes rectilinear.

concerned debitage, for taking off distal ends of metapodials (perforating all around the bone), and shaping, for creating suspension systems on tooth roots (perforating from both sides). A small bow is used to run a central axis, with a retouched flint element on its end, acting as a drill (the average width of the perforations on the observed items is 3.6 mm).

Figure 3: Out of twenty techniques used for manufacturing the bone and antler industry of the Early Mesolithic, nine belong to the wear techniques (powder is detached during action) and two of the nick techniques (chips are detached during action). Arrows show the gesture-type and the direction of pressure given during action ("T").

Figure 4: Out of twenty techniques used for manufacturing the bone and antler industry of the Early Mesolithic, nine techniques belong to the fracture techniques (flake is detached during action). Arrows show the gesture-type and the direction of pressure given during action ("T").

The dotted perforation technique quickly removes the upper articular surface of the metapodials, using a flint pickaxe with direct percussion. During action, the foramen guides the successive percussions that remove chips. The wedge-splinter technique removes axial flakes from all around the upper articular surface of the metapodials, using an intermediate bevelled edge element, in flint or bone, struck with a heavy soft hammer. The wedge-splitter technique splits lengthwise by inserting elements into prepared bone. A pre-split occurs indeed inside cortical parts when inserting small bone elements into grooves. Here, a thicker flint element, struck axially with a soft hammer, removes splinters by sheer strength of arm. The shaft-wedge-splinter technique splits the bone

Standardized Hunting Equipment Made with Three Original Methods Forming the basis of ten manufacturing methods recognized for the whole Early Mesolithic bone industry, techniques are usually constrained by the natural shape and/or the physical properties of the raw material, meaning that there is only one way to get a specific product from a given matrix. It is the case, for example, of the main antler heavy tools, the

39

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Figure 5: Among the twenty manufacturing techniques recently identified for the Early Mesolithic in the bone and antler industry of northern Europe, seven original techniques have been newly characterized: filing, drilling (wear techniques), dotted perforation (nick technique) and, wedge-splinter, wedge-splitter, shaft-wedge-splinter and counterblow retouch (fracture techniques).

groove on a side of a beam and fracturing crosswise from it. By using the elastic properties of the antler cortical part, the split follows an oblique plane (Jensen 1991). The working part of tools can thus be quickly preformed. In addition, the “negatives” of those preforms remain visible on other parts of the antlers. They are often wrongly interpreted as proper tools even though the same principle occurs on flint when making microliths (for example the coup de microburin technique) (Tixier 1963:40). Some techniques are not so constrained by the properties of bone raw material, such as the ones used on the upper extremity of cervid metapodials. This is the case of the wedge-splinter, which composes the Danish (D) Method, as well as the Zamostje (Z) Method (fig. 7). In the Ogens (O) Method, the wedge-splinter is replaced by scraping. In each of these methods, a calibration occurs before starting the operations that really split the bone (fig. 9). Together with dotted perforation, these calibration techniques change the natural "V" shape of the upper part of the matrix into a cylindrical (sequence 1) or

Figure 6: Technical principle of the groove and truncated breakage technique used to preform the bevelled edge of antler heavy tools. It consists of making a groove on a side of a beam (2) and fracturiang crosswise from it (3). By using the elastic properties of the antler cortical part, the split follows an oblique plane (4). The working part of tools can thus be quickly preformed (A). Besides, negatives of those preforms remain visible on other parts of antlers (B).

bevelled edge of which is made by groove and truncated breakage (fig. 6). It consists of making a

40

TECHNOLOGY ON BONE AND ANTLER INDUSTRIES: A RELEVANT METHODOLOGY FOR CHARACTERIZING EARLY POST-GLACIAL SOCIETIES – DAVID

equally time-consuming. It has also been shown that types and length of the debitage and shaping techniques are strongly interdependent, as well as the kind of flint tools to implement them. However, standard flint tools used for experimentally manufactured bone items are, as far as one can tell from publications, available in similar types on the sites studied. Knowing that only systematic sequences of techniques makes a method of manufacture visible, it appears that some techniques may be used in an isolated manner on the sites. Their utilization for various tasks indicates that most techniques were used from time to time by Mesolithic toolmakers whenever suitable. When considered as such, techniques show variability in some manufacturing sequences (David 2003a: 652). When

even tubular morphology (sequence 1 and 2). Rectilinear blanks of maximal length are then removed after grooving and/or fracturing. The three methods give similar products and those representing 1/4 (or less) of the bone in cross-section were used to manufacture the majority of the production (i.e. the projectile points). As a result, metapodials of big ungulates are the bones on which techniques vary most, either applied differently or combined in different ways, forming manufacturing methods which can therefore be compared in time and space.

Figure 7: Three original methods were used from the 9th to the 8th millennium BC (calibrated) for debitage of ungulate metapodials (red deer, elk, aurochs): the D Method identified first on the Mullerup site and on other Danish settlements (top), the Z Method identified first on the Zamostje site, Russia (centre), and the O Method identified first on the Ogens site, Switzerland (bottom). In each of these methods, a calibration occurs on the upper extremity of the bone using either wedge-splinter (Sequ. 1) together with dotted perforation (Sequ. 2, D Method), wedge-splinter only (Sequ. 1, Z Method ), or scraping (Sequ. 1, O Method ). Splitting lengthwise is made by shaftwedge-splinter (Z Method), or parallel or bilateral convergent grooves (see figure 8, No 10) for the other methods. Distal ends are removed using fracture techniques. The three methods give similar products and those representing 1/4 (or less) of the bone in cross-section were used to manufacture the majority of the production (i.e. the projectile points). Broader splinters were used as blanks for most chisels.

Figure 8: Precise denominations of techniques related to their anatomical localisation on the matrix, as identified for the Early Mesolithic worked artifacts (a: cranial face, b and d: lateral faces, c: caudal face). 1: (facial) partial scraping, 2: (facial) scraping, 3: bifacial scraping, 4: lateral scraping, 5: bilateral scraping, 6: (lateral) groove, 7: total (lateral) groove, 8: total bilateral groove, 9: lateral convergent groove, 10: bilateral covergent groove, 11: secondary sawing, 12: transverse sawing (debitage) or partial sawing (teeth), 13: bilateral sawing, 14: total sawing, 15: blank representing 1/4 of the matrix (including width of the grooves).

It is interesting here to consider the reasons for use of these different methods. Experimental work conducted by Johansen and I have demonstrated that no confirmed technical skill is necessary and that, as far as flint tools are available, all the methods are

not observed on all the sites, does it mean that some of the techniques are deliberately not used or completely unknown? A recent study shows that, at

41

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Late Boreal, characterized by a marked increase in large cervid barbed and straight bone points and antler heavy tools, relative to both large cervid notched points and roe deer straight and notched points. This occurs between horizons II and III of the Friesack 4 site, around 8000 BC calibrated, soon after the Preboreal/Boreal transition (fig. 10, top). On large cervids, these points are principally manufactured using the D Method. The sites involved are represented by the Star Carr, BedburgKönigshoven, Hohen Viecheln, Duvensee and all Friesack assemblages, to which can be added the Barmose I and the Skottemarke sites. Comparisons between contemporary horizons show a rapid drop in the frequency of notched points, representing from 80 % (Hohen Viecheln-c) to only 6 % (Frieack 4-III) of the projectile points. They are gradually replaced by barbed points made on limb bones, with an inverse frequency. However, each site, whatever the given horizon, can be identified thanks to specific aspects, notably the style of shaping the points. The evolution of weapons correlates with another one observed on tools. In fact, bone narrow lissoirs and large chisels, both represented together with antler mattocks in Late Preboreal horizons are replaced, in the Late Boreal, by antler heavy tools, best illustrated by hammer-axes. These results on the typological composition of the assemblages and on the frequency of the projectile points, within relevant chaîne opératoire of manufacture, reveal commonalities among weapons and tools between the sites. Although the reasons for this evolution of the industry are not yet clearly understood, these sites have been grouped together, forming a Northern techno-complex.

the same site, the techniques for making ornaments observed in settlement features differ from those seen in grave contexts, although they are contemporary (David 2003b, 2006). With the hypothesis that we are dealing here with a single population, it is suggested that all techniques are known from everyone but their systematic application depends indeed on cultural choices. Thus, the three original methods may reflect different styles in debitage in the Early Mesolithic to make hunting gear.

Sometime after this occurred, a specific composition appears on Zealand. Here, a standard hunting equipment, mainly produced with the D Method, together with numerous types of heavy tools, including new bone adzes and hammers, allows a precise definition of the bone and antler industry of the Maglemose group (David 2003a: 655, 81.8). It is represented by the Mullerup I and Ulkestrup I sites, to which can be added the Vinde Helsinge site, representing the stage 1 of the Maglemosian culture in flint industry (Brinch Petersen 1973), and, for the stage 2, the Lundby-holmen and Verup-a sites. These stages observed in the flint industry do not find any direct echo in the bone industry, apart from the use of a wider range of anatomical blanks in the latest stage (Henriksen 1980). Relaying on the established stratigraphy of the site, the Hohen Viecheln-a horizon yielded a mixed assemblage suggesting that there is no direct evidence of evolution between the two entities. Thus, it is not possible to demonstrate that the Maglemose group does not derive from the

Figure 9: Schematic representation of a calibration of metapodial as used in the Danish (D) Method. In its natural state, the upper extremity of metapodial presents a "V" shape (A). Use of wedgesplinter removes flakes all around it, to get a rectilinear blank (B). The articular surface is removed by using the dotted perforation technique, to keep a maximum length. After removing the distal end (in grey), a tubular blank is rapidly obtained that can be properly split for manufacturing projectile points and/or chisels.

Evolution of Hunting Equipment Related to Geographical Regions of Manufacture Although methods used on metapodials of large ungulates are used to create the same product with a supposedly similar function, composition of the industry changes from one site to another. The question now is to examine spatial and chronological patterning between the assemblages. In Northern Europe, one can observe an evolution in the bone and antler equipment from Late Preboreal to

42

TECHNOLOGY ON BONE AND ANTLER INDUSTRIES: A RELEVANT METHODOLOGY FOR CHARACTERIZING EARLY POST-GLACIAL SOCIETIES – DAVID

Figure 10: In the Early Mesolithic, from the Late Preboreal to the Boreal-Atlantic transition (dates are calibrated BC), three different and distinct manufacturing "traditions" in the most significant bone industry have been identified, in the form of technocomplexes: a Northern technocomplex around the North Sea, a Northeastern technocomplex around the Baltic Sea and a Western technocomplex, West of the Alps. The Northern is characterized by an equipment, mainly manufactured with the Danish (D) Method, that evolves from mattocks, narrow lissoirs, antler barbed points, large bone chisels, bone notched points and worked red deer stag frontlets (top left) to an industry mainly composed by barbed, straight bone points and antler heavy tools, such as blade-axes, hammer-axes, sleeves and hammersleeves (top right). This latter composes the characteristic industry of the Maglemose group in the Late Boreal, only on Zealand (David 2003a). At the same time, contemporary Eastern and Western techno-complexes, respectively using the Zamostje (Z) or the Ogens (O) Methods, are in the course of characterization (David 2000; David and Zagorska 2004).

Northern techno-complex, nor is it possible to term this techno-complex Maglemose lato sensu or “protoMaglemosian” (Clark et al. 1954:184). However, collections from geographically close contemporary sites with these Danish occupations have not yet

been observed, notably the horizon IV of the Friesack 4 site. Geographical distribution of these entities - around the North Sea, from England to the Øresund strait, for the Northern techno-complex and on Zealand for the Maglemose group - agree with

43

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

prehistoric societies, with contribution of use wear analyses on the tools characterizing them. Moreover, a technological study of the hunting and gathering equipment of modern populations using bone, if carried out in exactly the same way as the archaeological study described here, should provide new present-day comparative data for further interpretation of prehistoric productions.

results of Danish (Becker 1953; Brinch Petersen 1993) and German studies (Bokelmann 1971:25) concerning the distribution of Early Mesolithic groups in the North of Europe (fig. 10, bottom). Yet, as far as bone and antler industry is concerned, no particular complex can be identified within the Northern technocomplex, unless one decides that almost each site defines a complex. The Scanian Ageröd I: AHC site does not belong to the Maglemose group, but is related to another tradition for manufacturing the hunting equipment (David in press). In fact, it is more connected with a Northeastern techno-complex, identified around the Baltic Sea (from Scania to the Russian plain of OkaVolga, through Northeast Poland). The tools with inserts manufactured with the Z Method, as well as notched tooth pendants, the suspension system of which is made by partial sawing (see fig. 8, No 12), already play an important role in its characterization (David 2003b). Besides, a Western techno-complex, which possibly developed from the Atlantic to the Swiss plateau, may reveal distinct facies through common use of the O Method in manufacturing straight bone points, to which can be added the use of the bifacial groove-boring technique to make the suspension hole of tooth pendants (David 2000). The geographical distribution of these Northeastern and Western techno-complexes can be respectively extended to Northwestern Poland and Southern Germany, where bone artifacts share the same morphological and manufacturing features (Kind et al. 2003; Siemasko 1999; Svoboda et al. 1998). Retrospectively, use of the boring technique to make the suspension hole of pendants characterizes the Northern techno-complex.

Acknowledgements I am extremely grateful to Hélène Roche for her critical remarks on the text. My English was improved by Michael Ilett and the editors of this volume. References Cited Andersen, K. 1960 Verupbopladsen, en Maglemoseboplads i Aamosen. Aarboger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie: 118-151. Andersen, K., S. Jørgensen and J. Richter 1982 Maglemose Hytterne ved Ulkestrup Lyng. Copenhagen: Nordiske Fortidsminder B-7. Bandi, H.-G., R. Bay, C. Gfeller, C. V. Graffenried, C. Lüdin, E. Müller, H. Müller-Beck, K. P. Oakley and E. Schmid 1963 Birsmatten-Basisgrotte, eine Mittelsteinzeitlische Fundstelle im Unteren Birstal. Berne: Stämpfli. Becker, C. J. 1953 Die Maglemosekultur in Dänemark, Neue Funde und Ergebnisse. In Congrès International des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques, Actes de la III session, ed. E. Vogt, 180-183. Zurich: Union internationale des sciences prehistoriques et protostoriques. ème

Once it is accepted that technical traditions refer to human long-term behaviour, our hypothesis is that this original distribution of Northern Europe into three main styles in manufacturing similar equipment on bone and antler, in the form of techno-complexes, may reflect a human palaeogeography of the Early Mesolithic, from 9th to 8th millennium BC. Further investigations, notably by studying the interaction between lithic and bone systèmes techniques (Perlès 1987) are required. Obviously, the understanding at such a large geographical scale of the distribution of specific flint knapping techniques and methods, as well as the use of specific products or resources, may find a real echo in the bone production. In the presence of tools with inserts mainly recorded in the Northeastern techno-complex together with that of punches, there is a strong interaction between different technological systems. The study of the socio-economic interactions between these large techno-complexes should stimulate new thoughts on

Bokelmann, K. 1971 Duvensee, ein Wohnplatz des Mesolithikums in Schleswig-Holstein, und die Duvenseegruppe. Offa; vol. 28: 5-26. Breuil, H. 1926 Un harpon maglemosien trouvé à Béthune en 1849. L'Anthropologie; vol. 36: 309-312. Brinch Petersen, E. 1973 A Survey of the Late Paleolithic and the Mesolithic of Denmark. In The Mesolithic in Europe, ed. S. K. Kozlowski, 77-127. Warsaw: Warsaw University Press. Brinch Petersen, E. 1993 The Late Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic. In Digging into the Past: 25 Years of Archaeology in Denmark, ed. S. Hvass and B. Storgaard, 46-49. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

44

TECHNOLOGY ON BONE AND ANTLER INDUSTRIES: A RELEVANT METHODOLOGY FOR CHARACTERIZING EARLY POST-GLACIAL SOCIETIES – DAVID

2002

Carpelan, C. 1999 On the Postglacial Colonisation of Eastern Fennoscandia. In Dig it All: Papers Dedicated to Ari Siiriäinen, ed. M. Hvurre, 151-171. Helsinki: The Finnish Antiquarian Society and The Archaeological Society of Finland.

2003a

Childe, G. V. 1931 The Forest Cultures of Northern Europe. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institution; vol. 61: 325-348.

Percuteur de matières tendres sur métapodien d'aurochs. In Fiches typologiques de l'industrie osseuse préhistorique cahier X: Os à impressions et éraillures, ed. M. Patou-Mathis, 133-136. Paris: Société préhistorique française. The contribution of a technological study of bone and antler industry for the Definition of the Early Maglemose Culture. In Mesolithic on the Move: Proceedings of the 6 International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Meso 2000, ed. L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, and A. Akerlund, 649-657. Oxford: Oxbow Books. The Mesolithic Zvejnieki Site (Latvia) in its European Context: Preliminary Results Delivered by a Technological Study of Bone and Antler Industry. Journal of Estonian Archaeology; vol. 7, No 2: 99-122. Transformation des matières dures d'origine animale dans le Mésolithique de l'Europe du Nord. In Fiches de la Commission de nomenclature de l'Industrie osseuse, Cahier XI: Matières et techniques, ed. D. Ramseyer, 113149. Paris: Société préhistorique française. Preliminary results on a recent technological study of the Early Mesolithic bone and antler industry of Estonia, with special emphasis on the Pulli site. In From the Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth: Manufacture and use of bone artefacts from prehistoric times to the present. Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group, Tallinn, 2631 August 2003, ed. H. Luik, A. M. Choyke, C. E. Batey and L. Lougas, 67-74. Muinasaja teadus No 15. Tallinn: Archaeological Department, Institute of History, and Chair of Archaeology, University of Tartu. Technical Behaviour in the Mesolithic (9 -8 Millenium Cal. BC): The Contribution of the Bone and Antler Industry from Domestic and Funerary Contexts. In Back to the Origin: New Research in the Mesolithic-Neolithic Zvejnieki Cemetery and Environment, Northern Latvia, ed. L. Larsson and I. Zagorska, 235-252. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia Series in 8o, No 52. Lund: Almqvist and Wiksell International. Technologie osseuse des derniers chasseurs préhistoriques en Europe du Nord (IX-VIII millénaires av. J.-C.): Le Maglemosien et les technocomplexes du Mésolithique. Montagnac: Éditions Monique Mergoil. th

2003b

Clark, J. G. D. 1936 The Mesolithic Settlement of Northern Europe: A Study of the Food Gathering Peoples of Northern Europe During the Early Post-Glacial Period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2004 Clark, J. G. D. and M. W. Thompson 1953 The Groove and Splinter Technique of Working Antler in Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe, with Special Reference to the Material from Star Carr. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society; vol. 19: 148-160.

2005

Clark, J. G. D., H. Godwin, F. C. Fraser, J. E. King, J. W. Moore and D. Walker 1954 Excavations at Star Carr, an Early Mesolithic Site at Seamer near Scarborough, Yorkshire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clarke, D. L. 1968 Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen & Co. Crotti, P. 1993 L'Épipaléolithique et le Mésolithique en Suisse. In La Suisse du Paléolithique à l'aube du Moyenâge, ed. F. Müller, G. Kaenel and G. Lüscher, 203-241. Basel : Société suisse de préhistoire et d’archéologie.

2006

David, E. 1996 Étude technologique de l’industrie en matière dures animales du site mésolithique de Zamostje 2, fouille 1991 (Russie). Archéo-Situla; No 26: 562. 2000 L'industrie en matières dures animales des sites mésolithiques de la Baume d'Ogens et de Birsmatten-Basisgrotte (Suisse): résultats de l'étude technologique et comparaisons. In Méso '97: Actes de la table ronde Épipaléolithique et Mésolithique, Lausanne, 21-23 Novembre 1997, ed. P. Crotti, 79-101. Cahiers d’archéologie Romande No 81. Lausanne: Société vaudoise d’histoire et d’archéologie. 2001 The Bone and Antler Artefacts from the Late Mesolithic Level of Zamostje II - 1991 (Russia): A Technological Point of View. In Zamostje '97: Conference on The Stone Age of the European Plains: Objects of Organic Material and Settlement Structure as Reflections of Human Culture, Serguiev-Posad, 30 June - 6 July 1997, ed. V. Lozovski, 292-303. Serguiev Posad (Russia).

in press

th

th

ème

David, E. and I. Zagorska 2004 Zvejnieku Mezolita Apmetne un Kapulauks Eiropas Konteksta: Kaula un Raga Industrijas Tehniskas Izpetes Pirmie Rezultati. Journal of Latvian Archaeology; vol. 2: 5-26. Degerbøl, M. 1964 Some Remarks on Late- and Postglacial Vertebrate Fauna and its Ecological Relations in Northern Europe. Journal of Animal Ecology; vol. 52 (supplement): 71-85.

45

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Last Glacial. D a n m a r k s Undersokelse; vol. 7C: 1-126.

d'Errico, F. 1993 Identification des traces de manipulation, suspension, polissage sur l'art mobilier en os, bois de cervidés, ivoire. In Traces et fonction: les gestes retrouvés. Colloque international de Liège, 8-10 Déc. 1990, ed. P. C. Anderson, S. Beyries, M. Otte and H. Plisson, 177-188. ERAUL No 50. Liège (Belgium): Études et Recherches archéologiques de l’Université de Liège.

Jaanits, L. and K. Jaanits 1975 Frühmesolithische Siedlung in Pulli. Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences; vol. 24, No 1: 64-70.

Egloff, M. 1965 La Baume d'Ogens, gisement épipaléolithique du plateau vaudois, note préliminaire. Annuaire de la Société Suisse de Préhistoire et d'Archéologie; vol. 52: 59-66.

Jensen, G. 1991 Ubrugelige økser? Forsøg med Kongemose- og Ertebøllekulturens økser af hjortetak. In Eksperimentel Arkæologi: Studier i teknologi og kultur; No 1: 9-21.

Enloe, J. G. and F. David 1992 Food sharing in the Palaeolithic: Carcass refitting at Pincevent. In Piecing Together the Past: Applications of Refitting Studies in Archaeology, ed. J. L. Hofman and J. G. Enloe, 296-315. Bar International Series No 578. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Jessen, K. 1935 Archaeological Dating in the History of North Jutland's Vegetation. Acta Archaeologica; vol. 5, No 3: 185-214. 1938 Some West Baltic Pollen Diagrams. Quartär; vol. 1: 124-139.

Geologiske

Jaanits, L., S. Laul, V. Lõugas and E. Tõnisson 1982 Eesti Esiajalugu. Tallinn: Eesti raamat.

Johansson, A. D. 1990 Barmosegruppen. Præboreale bopladsfund i S y d s j æ l l a n d . Aarhus (Denmark): Aarhus Universitetsforlag.

Friis-Johansen, J., K. Jessen and H. Winge 1919 Une station du plus ancien Âge de la pierre dans la tourbière de Svaerdborg. Aarboger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie, nouvelle série 191819. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark.

Julien, M. 1992 Du fossile directeur à la chaîne opératoire. In L a Préhistoire dans le monde, ed. J. Garanger, 163193. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

Gramsch, B. and K. Kloss 1990 Excavations near Friesack: an Early Mesolithic Marshland Site in the Northern plain of Central Europe. In The Mesolithic in Europe: Papers Presented at the Third International Symposium, Edinburgh 1985, ed. C. Bonsall, 313-324. Edinburgh.

Kind, C.-J., A. M. Miller and J. Hahn 2003 Das Mesolithikum in der Talaue des Neckars. Die Fundstellen von Rottenburg Siebenlinden 1 and 3. Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 88, 2003. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss Verlag.

Heinsalu, A., S. Veski and T. Moora 1999 Bio- and chronostratigraphy of the Early Holocene Site of Double-storeyed Buried Organic Matter at Paikuse, Southwestern Estonia. Proceedings of Estonian Academy of Sciences in Geology; vol. 48, No 1: 48-66.

Kloss, K. 1987 Pollenanalysen zur Vegetationsgeschichte, Moorentwicklung und mesolithisch-neolithischen Besiedlung im Unteren Rhinluch bei Friesack, Bezirk Potsdam. Verröffentlichungen des Museums für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Potsdam; vol. 21: 101-120.

Henriksen, B. B. 1980 Lundby-Holmen, Pladser of Maglemose Type I Sydjealland. Copenhagen: Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab.

Kozlowski, J. K. and S. K. Kozlowski 1977 Pointes, sagaies et harpons du Paléolithique et du Mésolithique en Europe du Centre-Est. In Colloques internationaux du CNRS 568 Méthodologie appliquée à l’industrie de l’os préhistorique, Abbaye de Sénanque (Vaucluse), 9-12 Juin 1976, ed. H. Camps-Faber, 205-227. Paris: CNRS.

Indreko, R. 1936 Vorläufige Bemerkungen über die Kunda-Funde. In Sitzungsberichte der Gelehrten Estnischen Gesellschaft, Köln 1934, 225-298. Tartu: Gelehrte Estnische Gesellschaft. Inizan, M.-L., M. Reduron-Ballinger, H. Roche and J. Tixier 1999 Technology and Terminology of Knapped Stone. Meudon: CNRS, Centre de recherches et d’études préhistoriques (CREP).

Larsson, L. 1978 Mesolithic Antler and Bone Artifacts from Central Scania. Meddelanden fran Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum; vol. 2: 28-67. 1999 Les vestiges sous-marins des occupations du détroit d'Öresund, sud de la Scandinavie.

Iversen, J. 1973 The Development of Denmark’s Nature since the

46

TECHNOLOGY ON BONE AND ANTLER INDUSTRIES: A RELEVANT METHODOLOGY FOR CHARACTERIZING EARLY POST-GLACIAL SOCIETIES – DAVID

L'Europe des derniers chasseurs. Actes de 5 Colloque international Épipaléolithique et Mésolithique, UISPP Commission XII, Grenoble, 18-23 Septembre 1995, ed. A. Thevenin, 327334. Amiens (France): Éditions du Centre des travaux historiques et scientifiques (CTHS).

Archaeology Research Project (WARP) Occasional Paper No 6. Exeter: The Prehistoric Society.

e

Nilsson, T. 1967 Pollenanalytische Datierung Mesolithischer Siedlungen im Randgebiet des Ageröds Mosse im Mittleren Schonen. Acta Universitatis Lundensis; vol. 2, No 16: 5-80.

Le Tensorer, J.-M. 1986 Paléolithique et Mésolithique de la Suisse. In Chronologie, datations archéologiques en Suisse, 25-33. Antiqua No 15. Société suisse de préhistoire et d’archéologie.

Pälsi, S. 1920

Lozovski, V. M. (ed.) 1996 Zamostje 2: les derniers chasseurs-pêcheurs préhistoriques de la plaine russe. Catalogue de l’exposition. Treignes: Éditions du Centre d’études et de documentation archéologiques (CEDARC). Luho, V. 1967

Ein steinzeitlicher Moorfund bei Korpilahti im Kirchspiel Antrea, Län Viborg. S u o m e n Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja; vol. 28, No 2: 3-19.

Pelegrin, J. 1995 Technologie lithique. Le Châtelperronien de Rocde-Combe (Lot) et de La Côte (Dordogne). Cahiers du Quaternaire No 20. Paris: CNRS.

Die Suomusjärvi-Kultur. Die Mittel- und Spätmesolithische Zeit in Finnland. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja Finska Fornminnesföreningens Tidskrift; vol. 66: 25-39.

Pelegrin, J., C. Karlin and P. Bodu 1988 «Chaînes opératoires»: un outil pour les préhistoriens. In Technologie Préhistorique, ed. J. Tixier, 55-62. Notes et Monographies Techniques du CRA No 25. Paris: CNRS.

Marinval-Vigne, M.-C., D. Mordant, V. Krier, C. Leroyer, P. Rodriguez and J.-D. Vigne 1992 Archéologie et Paléo-environnement: Noyen-surSeine (Seine-et-Marne). M é m o i r e du Groupement Archéologique de Seine-et-Marne; No 1 : 21-31.

Perlès, C. 1987 Les industries lithiques taillées de Franchthi (Argolide, Grèce). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Ploux, S. 1991 Technologie, technicité, techniciens: méthode de détermination d'auteurs et comportements techniques individuels. In La préhistoire et l’ethnologie: 25 ans d'études technologiques en préhistoire, bilan et perspectives. Actes des XI Rencontres Internationales d'Archéologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes, Antibes, 18-20 Octobre 1990, ed. C. Perlès, 201-214. Juan-les-Pins (France): Éditions APDCA.

Mathiassen, T. 1943 Stenalderbopladsen i Aamosen. Nordiske Fortidsminder No 3. Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab.

e

Mellars, P. and P. Dark 1998 Star Carr in context: New archaeological and palaeoecological investigations at the Early Mesolithic site of Star Carr, North Yorkshire. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge.

Poplin, F. 1977 Utilisation des cavités naturelles osseuses et dentaires. In Colloques internationaux du CNRS 568 Méthodologie appliquée à l’industrie de l’os préhistorique, Abbaye de Sénanque (Vaucluse), 9-12 Juin 1976, ed. H. Camps-Faber, 111-118. Paris: CNRS.

Moora, T., L. Reintam and K. Jaanits 1996 Environmental Conditions in the Surroundings of Lammasmägi, Kunda, during the Mesolithic. PACT; (Journal of the European Study Group on Physical, Chemical and Mathematical Techniques applied to Archaeology); vol. 51-IV, No 3: 241-251.

Poska, A. and S. Veski 1999 Man and Environment at 9500 BP: A Palynological Study of an Early Mesolithic Settlement Site in South-West Estonia. In Proceedings of the Polish Academy of Sciences, 5 EPPC, 603-607. Acta Palaeobotanica Supplementum 2.

Mordant, D. 1987-90 Noyen-sur-Seine avant le Néolithique: des vestiges mésolithiques en milieu humide. Bulletin du Groupement Archéologique de Seine-etMarne; Nos 28-31: 17-38.

th

Rosenlund, K. 1976 Catalogue of Subfossil Danish Vertebrates. Copenhaguen: University of Copenhaguen.

Mordant, D. and C. Mordant 1992 Noyen-sur-Seine: a Mesolithic Waterside Settlement. In The Wetland Revolution in Prehistory, ed. B. Coles, 55-64. Wetland

47

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Rust, A. 1958

Nordböhmens. Archäologishes Korrespondenzblatt; vol. 28: 357-372.

Die Jungpaläolithischen Zeltanlagen von Ahrensburg. Neumünster: Karl Wachholtz Verlag. Tixier, J. 1963

Sarauw, G. J. L., K. Jessen and H. Winge 1903 En Stenalders Boplads, Maglemose ved Mullerup. Études sur le premier Âge de la pierre du nord de l’Europe. Aarboger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1904. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark.

1967

Schuldt, E., O. Gehl, H. Schmitz, E. Soergel and H. H. Wundsch 1961 Hohen-Viecheln, ein Mittelsteinzeitlicher Wohnplatz in Mecklenburg. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin Schriften der Sektion für Vor- und Frühgeschichte 10. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

1996

Typologie de l'Épipaléolithique du Maghreb. Mémoires du Centre de recherches anthropologiques, préhistoriques et ethnographiques No 2. Paris: Arts et Métiers graphiques. Procédés d'analyse et questions de terminologie concernant l'étude des ensembles industriels du Paléolithique récent et de l'Épipaléolithique dans l'Afrique du Nord-Ouest. In Background to Evolution in Africa, ed. W. W. Bishop and J. D. Clark, 771-820. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Technologie et typologie: Dérives et sclérose. Quaternaria Nova; vol. 6: 15-21.

Tixier, J., D. Cahen, R. Desbrosse, M.-L. Inizan, L. Meignen, J.-P. Texier, D. Binder, H. Roche, C. Perlès, M. Otte, M. Lenoir and F. Van Noten, 1980 11 Juin 1976... In Préhistoire et technologie lithique, 11-13 Mai 1979, ed. J. Tixier, 7-23. Publications de l'URA No 28, Cahier No 1. Sophia-Antipolis (France): CNRS.

Schwabedissen, H. 1949 Die Bedeutung der Moorarchäologie für die Urgeschichtsforschung. Offa; vol. 8: 46-69. Schwantes, G. 1939 Die Vorgeschichte Schleswig-Holstein, Stein und Bronzezeit. Neumünster: Karl Wachholtz Verlag.

Todd, L. C. and D. J. Rapson 1999 Formational Analysis of Bison Bonebeds and Interpretation of Paleoindian Subsistence. In Le bison: gibier et moyen de subsistance des hommes du Paléolithique aux Paléoindiens des grandes plaines. Actes du Colloque International, Toulouse, 6-10 Juin 1995, ed. J.-P. Brugal, F. David, J. G. Enloe and J. Jaubert, 479-499. Antibes (France): Éditions APDCA.

Siemaszko, J. 1999 Stone Age Settlement in the Lega Valley microregion of North-East Poland. European Journal of Archaeology; vol. 2, No 3: 293-312. Stordeur, D. 1978 Proposition de classement des objets en os selon le degré de transformation imposé à la matière première. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française; Tome 75, No 1: 20-23.

Zagorska, I. 1992 The Mesolithic in Latvia. Acta Archaeologica; vol. 63: 97-117. 1997 The first radiocarbon datings from Zvejnieki Stone Age burial ground, Latvia. In Proceedings of the 7 Nordic Conference on the Application of Scientific Methods in Archaeology, Savonlinna, 7-11 September 1996, ed. H. Jungner and M. Lavento, 42-46. ISKOS No 11. Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistys Finska Fornminnesföreningen.

Strand Petersen, K. 1985 The Late Quaternary History of Denmark. Journal of Danish Archaeology; vol. 4: 7-22.

th

Street, M. 1991 Bedburg-Königshoven: A Pre-Boreal Mesolithic Site in the Lower Rheinland, Germany. In The late Glacial in North-West Europe: Human Adaptation and Environmental Change at the End of the Pleistocene, ed. N. Barton, A. J. Roberts and D. A. Roe, 256-270. Research Report No 77. London: Council for British Archaeology.

Zagorska, I. and F. Zagorskis 1990 The Bone and Antler Inventory from Zvejnieki II, Latvian SSR. In The Mesolithic in Europe. Papers presented at the Third International Symposium, Edinburgh 1985, ed. C. Bonsall, 414-421. Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers.

Svoboda, J., V. Cílek and L. Jarosova 1998 Zum Mesolithikum in den sandsteingebieten

48

Appendix 1

TECHNOLOGY ON BONE AND ANTLER INDUSTRIES: A RELEVANT METHODOLOGY FOR CHARACTERIZING EARLY POST-GLACIAL SOCIETIES – DAVID

49

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Appendix 2

50

chapter

4

Prehistoric Bone Tools and the Archaeozoological Perspective: Research in Central Europe Alice M. Choyke Aquicum Museum, Hungary

Jörg Schibler IPNA, Universität Basel, Switzerland

the exception of a few rare and influential studies and published proceedings (Backalov 1979; Campana 1989; Camps-Fabrer 1974, 1979, 1982, 1985; Clarke 1951; Semenov 1969), bone tools were primarily studied by archaeologists who concentrated on the formal attributes of the tools, with less analytic rigor applied to the feedback relationship between the composition of the pool of raw materials – animal bones, antler and teeth – and technical tradition in terms of which skeletal elements are selected to manufacture tools and ornaments. In practice, this situation meant that it was the more complex, elaborated and unique objects that were published on an arbitrary basis at the back of site reports, a certain path to obscurity, or in focused reports. The tools and ornaments of everyday life remained largely underrepresented and poorly described in these publications. This was the case in Hungary, for example, with the well-known bone spoons of the Early Neolithic (Nandris 1972) or more elaborated objects such as the Bronze Age bridle-cheek pieces (Bökönyi 1960; Foltiny 1965; Hüttel 1984; Mozsolics 1962). A few studies from the Danubian region, mostly from the former Yugoslavia, attempted overviews, which were largely typo-chronological (Backalov 1979; Korosec and Korosec 1969; Periié 1984; Uzelac 1975). In all these cases, improper sampling techniques during excavation and incompatible typologies have made inter-site comparisons difficult other than on a presenceabsence basis. Bone tool studies where the entire material was systematically presented, something common with more culturally diagnostic ceramics or lithic materials, were virtually non-existent.

Introduction Bone tool studies have come a long way since the 1980s, when worked bone assemblage reports were rare and the methodology used depended exclusively on the whim of the individual archaeologist. The work of the researchers presented here represents a branch of bone tool studies derived from a common background in archaeozoology. This is clearly reflected in the way this work emphasizes raw material and technology as opposed to formal typology, only recently enhanced by the study of use wear. By using similarly structured typologies, it should ultimately prove possible to compare coeval prehistoric bone tool assemblages in Switzerland and Hungary, taking mutual advantage of the incredibly detailed information from the Swiss wet-sites and the broad chronological palette available from the dry sites of Hungary (fig. 1).

Figure 1: Map of Europe with the Alpine foreland region of Switzerland and Hungary indicated in the oval areas.

Starting in the late 1970s, a number of archaeozoologists working in Central Europe began to regularly study bone tools, especially from prehistoric assemblages. This research mirrored parallel trends among archaeozoologists in Britain and the Netherlands. Somewhat later, scholarly attention also began to focus on worked osseous materials from proto-historic and historic periods from the point of view of archaeozoology and the technological process (Deschler-Erb 1998, 2001) as opposed to traditional typo-chronological approaches (Biró 1994; Mikler 1997). Previous to that point, with

The situation in Switzerland was somewhat better since the spectacular nature of large bone tool assemblages, often in combination with wellpreserved wooden handles, arrow shafts or binding materials such as twine and pitch, preserved in the water-logged conditions at Neolithic lake-dwelling sites, attracted more attention earlier on (Schibler 1980, 1981; Strahm 1971; Suter 1977, 1981; Voruz 1984). This intensive study of site materials,

51

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

context of CNRS research programs, have the time, money or facilities for extensive experimentation and implementing use wear studies requiring high magnifications. It is fair to say that Central European work on bone tools tends to be formulated around the cultural-biological aspects of these classes of raw materials. Thus, the archaeozoological perspective is especially strong in Central Europe. Both authors of this paper, although trained as archaeozoologists, have been especially interested early on in investigating the relationship between the raw material from which the tools are made and the refuse bone assemblage from which the raw material was selected.

sometimes comprising thousands of worked bone, antler and tusk objects from various Neolithic periods (4300-2500 BC cal) has largely been carried out at the bio-archaeology laboratory at the University of Basel. In addition, because the post structures of the Neolithic houses can be dated within a few years of each other using the technique of dendrochronology, changes in the raw material and form of these worked bones can be traced in chronological detail, impossible on dry-land sites. Furthermore, the environmental and economic contexts for these bone tools are now very well understood, especially for the area around Lake Zürich (Schibler 1987a, 1987b, 1987c, 1997). On the other hand, changes in lake level and variable rates of erosion both at the lake edges and outside this environmental zone have meant that less is known of later prehistoric periods in the region. The relatively great number of artifacts available for study compared to comparable dry-sites elsewhere is related to both careful excavation and the superior conditions of preservation characteristic of wet sites. Based on the few Bronze Age wet sites it is known that the importance of bone and antler raw material decreased with the use of bronze as a raw material in tool production (Schibler 1998).

Not surprisingly, these studies of bone tools shared many characteristics related to our attempts to find a balance between the biological aspects of bone tools and purely culturally determined aspects including manufacturing techniques, function and style. Detailed studies of artifacts from a number of lakedwelling sites on Swiss lakes in the Alpine Foreland will be presented here, including some of the results related to the effects of over-hunting of red deer on the production of antler sleeves in the Swiss Neolithic. Additional work on prehistoric materials from the Carpathian Basin will be reviewed especially within the context of the so-called (Choyke 1998) manufacturing continuum, which has proven useful as a way of comparing attitudes toward use of bone between disparate assemblages over time and space.

In the dry-sites of Hungary, the corpus of bone tool reports in the region has slowly grown. Material has become available from different types of sites in varied environmental zones. The chronological range is also slowly broadening from the Neolithic (Beldiman 1998, 2000a, 2000b, 2002; Beldiman and Popusoi 2001; Choyke in press c; Christidou 2001; Elster 2001; Kokabi 1994; Makkay 1990; Marinescu-Bâlcu and Beldiman 1997) to the end of the Bronze Age (Choyke 1998, 2000, in press a; in press b; Choyke and Bartosiewicz 1999, 2000, 1999; Choyke et al. 2004) and beyond (Becker 2003). Iron Age sites, especially Celtic sites in the region, also contain objects made from osseous materials, mostly decorative in nature, which await analysis. The increased knowledge concerning this class of prehistoric artifacts has occurred in parallel with an enhanced understanding of how choice of raw material reflects availability, tool manufacture traditions, the relative importance of the task particular tools were used in and, ultimately, various kinds of group identities (Choyke et al. 2004).

Comparative Typology Neolithic bone, antler and tooth artifacts from lakedwelling sites number in the tens of thousands due to wonderful preservational conditions. The sample size is reflected in the great variability of formal types. All the basic types generally found in Europe are present on these Swiss sites. Thus, in order to guarantee comparability, some 15 years ago, Schibler’s (1981) typology was adapted to worked bone assemblages from the Carpathian Basin. Suter’s (1981) antler tool typology, developed at the same time and adopted for worked antler from the upper levels of the same site by Furger (1981), is based on the particular circumstances of Swiss Neolithic lake-dwelling sites. The specific nature of this typology makes it somewhat less adaptable to other cultural circumstances.

In both Hungary and Switzerland, manufacturing sequences and experimental production of particular types, evident use wear, and the taphonomic situation of individual artifacts have also become a regular part of bone artifact analyses. Unfortunately, only a very few scholars, outside of France within the

The bone tool typology is built around the following variables; 1) the size of the animal species; 2) the skeletal element or at least type of skeletal element (long versus flat bone, tooth, specific skeletal

52

PREHISTORIC BONE TOOLS AND THE ARCHAEOZOOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE: RESEARCH IN CENTRAL EUROPE – CHOYKE AND SCHIBLER

with various building and highway projects around the country beginning in the 1980s. Lakeshore settlements are less common around the lake of Geneva. The reasons are not understood but differences in topography, preservation, and environment as well as less survey work may be possible explanations.

element); 3) the form of the tool’s working end; 4) the form of the tool’s butt end; and 5) the position of the hafting hole relative to the long axis of burr and beam antler tools. Any object, which does not fit directly into the Swiss typological scheme, can be added with attention paid to these five variables. The types are differentiated and recorded although some types may later be lumped or further sub-divided based on: skeletal element, manufacturing wear, use wear and intratype measurements. By following the same typological structure, it is possibly to assess similarities and differences between Swiss and Hungarian materials. It is problematic in Europe that comparisons between even closely related bone tool assemblages are difficult because the variables of the typological structure differ greatly or are never made explicit. Recently, such problems have been encountered in the analysis of a small Early Neolithic site in Hungary. Although bone tools have been studied from a number of Körös culture sites in the area (Makkay 1990) as well as Cris culture sites in Romania (Beldiman 1998, 2000a, 2000b, 2002; Beldiman and Popusoi 2001; Marinescu-Bâlcu and Beldiman 1997) it was very difficult to compare type proportions between sites because the latter reports used totally different typologies largely based on the formal aspects of the tools with some attention paid to measurements as well. This means that some of the types thus introduced in Hungary were lumped together in these previous formal typologies while other types in Schibler’s typology were split up. A regular problem has also been that some researchers do not recognize that certain formal differences used to define their types are related to curation or animal size rather than real stylistic differences. Furthermore, measurements on bone tools must be treated carefully, especially length and tip measurements because as tools are used, broken and repaired they are continually remodeled. These changes in measurements have no important significance in terms of either style or function, but relate to the length and intensity of their use.

Figure 2: Map of Neolithic and Bronze Age lake dwelling sites and dry sediment sites from Switzerland in which animal bones and bone and antler tools were recovered and analyzed.

The houses of lake dwellings found today in Africa and elsewhere around the world are mostly constructed on high wooden posts because of seasonal variations in river levels. This might also be why prehistoric lake dwellings were sometimes built above the ground, although ground level houses also existed. However, each site is different and unstable ground may explain the use of these long posts sunk deeply into the earth. Villages of various sizes, ranging in size between 500 and 10,000 m2, are characteristic of the 3rd, 4th and the second half of the 5th millennium BC in this region. This means there could be hamlets with only 6 to 10 houses but also villages with as many as 100 houses. If we calculate 6 to 8 persons per house, there may have been villages with populations as small as 50 or as large as 800 people. Larger villages tended to become more numerous over time as the population grew until the end of the Neolithic with even more intense human impact on the environment. Because most lake dwelling layers lie below the water table, aerobic bacteria, which are responsible for decay, cannot damage organic materials. Therefore, fruits, seeds, leaves and wood or even fragments of textiles are frequently preserved. As at sites buried in dry sediment, animal bones, flint or stone tools, and ceramics are also present but are in much better condition. Tools made from animal bones or from red deer antler, for example, are preserved with both their manufacture and use wears clearly visible. This has

Swiss Neolithic Lake Dwelling Sites In Switzerland, many village sites from the Neolithic and, to a lesser extent, the Bronze Age became known around larger lakes such as Bienne, Constance, Neuchâtel, Zug and Zürich (fig. 2). There were also lake dwellings built around smaller lakes and in or near peat bogs (Schibler 2001a: 52). Many of the lacustrian sites were excavated in conjunction

53

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

supplies. The later occupation levels, on the other hand, contained over 50% worked, largely collected, antler. All assemblages from Corded Ware levels (ca. 2750 BC) contained substantially more antler artifacts.

made possible a range of experiments showing that bone chisels were probably used to work wood and antler with the macro-wear exactly comparable to those on experimental and archaeological specimens (Schibler 2001a: 50, 52). In addition, a number of composite artifacts such as linen combs, antler points with their shafts, fish hooks with their lines and axe/adzes with their shafts and stone blades have been found (fig. 3). Understanding where and how these kinds of tools tend to co-occur allow researchers to extrapolate to materials from less wellpreserved contexts on dry land sites. Antler, Hunting and the Economic “Crash” Antler in the Swiss Neolithic was most often used to produce sleeves, an intermediate piece between the valuable wooden handle and the stone blades for axes or adzes (fig. 4). The use of these sleeves marked a technical innovation. Sleeves were intended to absorb shock and protect the handle because the production of this part was time consuming and ash trees used for the handles are more limited in terms of availability. The fact that all parts of the lake dwelling houses were built with wood underlines the importance of axes and adzes in these settlements. Clearing arable land required felling trees, which would then have to be processed. Axes or adzes would have been indispensable for all work of this kind. Research on the increase of antler use in the Neolithic, set against the background of exploitation and raw material management of red deer by Neolithic artisans, comes from 42 uncontaminated, undisturbed occupation layers from Zürich. These layers have all been closely dated to within a few years using dendrochronology. The Neolithic levels date from between 4300 BC and 2571 BC and there is a small Bronze Age complex dating from 19th and 18th centuries BC (Conscience 2001). A total of 3,944 bone artifacts and 4,687 antler artifacts were recovered and analyzed out of 92,983 animal bones of which 52,506 could be identified to species and skeletal element. All objects, whether finished, halffinished or cut-offs were taken into consideration (Schibler 2001b: 82).

Figure 3: Some examples of well preserved bone, tusk and antler tools from Neolithic lake-dwelling sites fromSwitzerland. a; fish hook made of wild boar tusk with fish line from Arbon Bleiche 3, Lake of Constance (Leuzinger 2002, Abb. 163). b; detail of the upper end of a fish hook with notches for attaching the fish line. Arbon Bleiche 3 (Deschler-Erb & al. 2002, Abb. 435,3). c; linen comb made from halved ribs of cattle or red deer, bound with bast fibers and fixed with birch tar. Nidau BKW, layer 5 (lake of Bienne), length: 22cm (Hafner and Suter 2004: 46). d; pendants made of metapodials from dogs and pig (right) from Twann (lake of Bienne), length: ca. 4.5 – 6 cm (Hafner & Suter 2004: 44). e; Arrow heads made from animal bone with remains of birch tar from Twann (Lake Bienne), length: ca. 3 – 5 cm (Hafner & Suter 2004: 32). f; retoucher made of red deer antler from Sutz-Lattrigen-Hauptstation-innen (Lake Bienne), length: 8 cm and 11 cm. g; lighter from a handle made from a red deer antler tine and a piece of flint from Feldmeilen-Vorderfeld (lake of Zürich), length: ca 11 cm (Furger & al. 1998, fig. 123). h; axe made from the basis of a red deer antler beam with a wooden handle from Arbon Bleiche 3 (Deschler-Erb & al. 2002, Abb. 471).

The proportions of raw materials from earlier settlements (4300-3100 BC) were compared to those from later levels (3100-1600 BC). Schibler (1987 a-c, 1995, 1997; Schibler et al. 1997) discovered that, as at most earlier settlements, the proportion of bone tools was very high and stone blades were more often fixed directly to wooden handles. Antler seems to have come as often from hunted stags as gathered

Antler sleeves represent a technological innovation designed to protect the valuable axe or adze ash wood shafts and handles from breaking by absorbing the force of blows. In the 4th millennium BC, antler sleeves became tools of fundamental importance with more parts of the antler rack exploited. The stylistic variability of sleeve types also increased. By the end of the Neolithic throughout the Alpine Foreland the

54

PREHISTORIC BONE TOOLS AND THE ARCHAEOZOOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE: RESEARCH IN CENTRAL EUROPE – CHOYKE AND SCHIBLER

use of antler for sleeves was maximized – all parts of the rack were used. By 3100 BC, antler tines were increasingly turned into sleeves for small stone blades. In the Corded Ware period at 2800 BC, stone blades were exclusively fixed in antler sleeves, shed antler was collected even more systematically and fewer unused bits of antler waste can be found in these later levels. This is also the time when the lowest numbers of red deer bones are found in the refuse bone illustrating that antler was mostly procured by gathering rather than hunting. The stone blades in all periods were continuously re-sharpened. The sleeves holding the blades became shorter as they were ground away along with the blades. Curation of sleeves becomes ever more important in the latest phase indicating that sleeves were used more intensively in this period (Schibler 2001b: 8587). Curiously, antler sleeves were unknown on contemporary sites in Hungary despite what would seem to be their obvious advantages.

from adult stags were available. The over-hunting was caused most probably by an economic crisis in agriculture, related to climatic stress resulting in poor grain harvests (high calorie fruits and seeds from wild plants became more common in the macrobotanical assemblages; Hüster-Plogmann et al. 1999; Schibler et al. 1997: 178-179). Changes in antler use related to innovation and economic deterioration have been confirmed at other sites since the Zürich studies (de Capitani et al. 2002). Such a detailed understanding of the interaction between innovation, style and environmental factors would not be possible on drysites and in this way, the Swiss model will be useful for understanding contemporary sites in places such as Hungary.

Figure 4: Examples of antler sleeves from Vinelz-Hafen. a; Lake Bienne (Hafner & Suter 2004: 41). B; reconstruction of the use of the sleeves (Hafner & Suter 2000, Abb. 102).

Figure 5: Proportion of bone and antler tools, the importance of bone from red deer (Cervus elaphus) and the proportion of bones from juvenile red deer in Neolithic villages from Zürich.

These changes in the Swiss Neolithic are thus related to both innovation and the deteriorating environmental situation resulting in apparently contradictory shifts in hunting patterns. There seems to be a direct connection between deer hunting and the use of antlers during the 4300-3500 period, related to availability through hunting. At the turn of 4000 BC cal. to 3900 BC cal., as well as the second half of 3700 BC cal., the proportion of red deer bone in the refuse bone material of settlements reaches 60%. The period is, however, the time of the lowest percentage of antler artifacts in the worked osseous assemblages in the region. There was a clear increase in juvenile red deer in faunal assemblages, especially in 37th century BC cal., suggesting that regional red deer populations were being over-hunted (fig. 5). This meant that fewer usable antler beams

Hungary: A Gateway to Europe Hungary is located in the center of the Carpathian Basin (see fig. 1). The flat eastern two thirds of Hungary are dominated by two major rivers: the Danube and the Tisza. The north and west of the landscape are hillier, evolving into low mountains along the present political borders of the country. Before the river regulations of the 19th century, much of the country was marshy and wet. This has resulted in the formation of tell settlements since the Late Neolithic, especially in the eastern Plain. Until the recent advent of large highway projects crosscutting long swathes of the landscape of Hungary, archaeological excavation has concentrated on these more obvious prehistoric sites, so that settlement

55

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

researcher in this class of prehistoric raw material in Hungary, progress has been slow in terms of understanding variability between assemblages.

hierarchies are only now starting to be revealed. Over the long run, this should also have implications for our understanding of the compositions of bone tool assemblages.

In addition to the loss of data resulting from poor preservation compared to wet-sites, other difficulties exist related to generally coarser excavation techniques. Nowhere has this been better highlighted than in the comparison of results from two recent excavations with other coeval sites. The site of Százhalombatta-Földvár was excavated in the 1960s and late 1980s and is now being excavated by a joint team from the Matrica Museum in the town of Száhalombatta and from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. When materials are compared from the three excavations at this site, it is immediately apparent that there is a sharp increase in the proportion of worked specimens made from animal bones in the dog/hare size range, particularly small double points and perforated metapodials, especially with regard to the excavations from the 1960s. The site of Százhallombatta-Földvár is part of a larger and unusually well defined cluster of sites termed the Vatya culture in the Hungarian literature (fig. 6). This culture is characterized by numerous small hill-forts and a ring of large hill-forts at the entrance of shallow valleys (Nováki 1952), as well as a relatively homogeneous material culture (Choyke et al. 2004: 177-178). Material from recent excavations at Százhallombatta-Földvár has turned up anomalous types simply unknown at other Vatya sites but it is difficult to say whether this is because of the finer excavation methods or because of the individual nature of this settlement.

From the Early Neolithic onwards small groups and new ideas have flowed from the east and south into this region and on into the rest of Europe. Within the region, this mixture resulted in a highly variable set of indigenous cultural groups with material cultures exhibiting both continuities and discontinuities over time and across the landscape. Many of the technical innovations introduced and developed here such as agriculture and metal-working, would go on to be of decisive importance in the social and economic evolution of local populations throughout the rest of Europe. It is therefore unfortunate that only one researcher has worked consistently on prehistoric bone tool material in the region, albeit for the last 20 years. Choyke (1979, 1983, 1984, 1987, 2000, in press a, in press b, in press c; Choyke and Bartosiewicz 1999, 2000; Choyke et al. 2004) has concentrated most of her efforts on worked bone assemblages from the much neglected Chalcolithic and Bronze Age periods. Thus, a picture of raw material and tool exploitation is slowly beginning to emerge. Fortunately, she has always had access to the pertinent faunal materials as well, either as the primary analyst or in close cooperation with other archaeozoologists. In these situations it is always necessary to check and double check that worked bone combined with other materials or spectacular pieces have not been stored apart from the pieces recognized by the archaeologist in the field as having been worked, thus falling through the analytical cracks.

Another dramatic example of the effect of taphonomic bias comes from the Early Neolithic Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23 located east of the Tisza River in Hungary, near the center of the Great Hungarian Plain. The people of the Körös culture complex were the first farmers in the region, living in small hamlets, apparently occupied throughout the year, in a marshy environment. In a recently submitted article, Choyke (in press c) has shown that compared to the relatively large assemblages of worked bone, antler and tusk from the Körös culture sites of Endrod 35, Szarvas 23, and other neighboring Körös sites (Makkay 1990), the typological variability within and between tool classes is lower at Ecsegfalva 23. From a statistical point of view, this greater variability would be expected because the sample size at Ecsegfalva 23 is relatively small (N=98). Makkay (1990) describes over 600 objects from the neighboring sites of Endrod 35 and 119, as well as Szarvas 23, more than six times greater than what was found at Ecsegfalva 23. However, his excavations on these sites were much more extensive and long-lasting so that, in fact,

Taphonomic Biases The sites in this region virtually all consist of dry sediments, with the rare exception of wells. Nevertheless, the fact that most of the soils are alkaline means that bone, antler and tooth preserves relatively well, although often with surface concretions. Sites may be found near marshes, by rivers, in foothill areas and many other environmental contexts. The increase in highway development projects in the last 10 years has made it clear that people in the past occupied areas previously thought to have been uninhabited. As such, Hungary represents a broad prehistoric stage with important implications for technical and cultural changes elsewhere in Europe. The worked bone, antler and tooth assemblages also mirror aspects of all these developments. Since the principal author of this paper for all intents has been virtually the only

56

PREHISTORIC BONE TOOLS AND THE ARCHAEOZOOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE: RESEARCH IN CENTRAL EUROPE – CHOYKE AND SCHIBLER

the species and skeletal element used in their manufacture; 2) the number of stages used in their manufacture; 3) whether they have been curated (related to the intensity of their use); and 4) their exploitation index (Choyke 2001: 63), which measures the degree of working (the proportion of surface covered by manufacturing marks) relative to the degree of use (the proportion of surface covered by use wear, handling wear and degree of curation).

proportionally far fewer worked bones were brought to light than what might be expected based on the Ecsegfalva 23 recovery rate. A very low rate of recovery may be presumed for worked bone from Cris sites (Beldiman 2000a; 2000b; 2002; MarinescuBâlcu and Beldiman 1997), some of which were excavated for around thirty years (1964-1996) but which produced bone tool assemblages of only about 100 specimens. Such differences reflect the exceptionally careful and fine excavation techniques employed at Ecsegfalva 23, especially the beneficial effect of screening and water sieving. Such sampling problems mean researchers must exercise extreme caution when drawing conclusions about the meaning of tool type compositions based on inter-site comparisons.

Class I tools are carefully planned according to a standardized template, made from selected raw materials and with at least a modicum of work invested in their manufacture. Worked antler, however, is by definition a selected raw material although the objects made from it also tend to be well made and therefore these tools usually fall well within the Class I range of the manufacturing continuum. These are the tools that encompass the notion of “repetition, habituation, familiarity and repetition” (Stark 1999: 28) as a reinforcement of social solidarity. Long-term maintenance of a technical style involves just these kinds of social messaging. It is assumed here that prehistoric bone tools from Hungary generally reflect activities carried out on the household levels and are thus slower to exhibit change related to stylistic fashions. Thus, when changes start to be observed in their form or composition, they should represent a wake-up call to the analyst that some kind of movement has occurred in the social fabric of the settlement or cultural hinterland of the settlement. Class I tools were intended for specific long-term, repeated tasks such as hide preparation and were often repaired (curated) as they broke during use (fig. 7).

Figure 6: Map of the distribution area of Vatya culture sites mentioned in text (after Kovacs 1982).

The Manufacturing Continuum

Figure 7: Curated Class I awl made from small ruminant metatarsal.

One way of looking at worked osseous materials is in terms of the effort put into the manufacture of individual objects. This has been termed elsewhere a continuum of quality (Choyke 1997a; 2001). A continuum of quality reflects cultural attitudes towards the bone objects themselves and, possibly, attitudes toward the tasks they were used in. Objects are assessed in terms of; 1) the regularity in the choice of

At the other end of the manufacturing continuum are the Class II tools representing objects generally made in an ad hoc manner, often from bones which broke in a lucky way. They are used rather than worked. Such Class II objects give the impression of tools, which were made for individual short-term tasks and mostly abandoned thereafter. The proportions of such tools in artifact assemblages from sites also

57

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

reflect a kind of technical style, which can be compared on a general level between sites and time periods (fig. 8). In reality, tools from particular assemblages not only cluster at the extremes of the manufacturing continuum but also tend to cluster towards one end or the other (Choyke 2001: 59). Finally, there is a third category of objects, which have a strong tradition of being made from specific bones and intensively used but were not modified at all. Such tools have only recently been brought to the authors’ attention from ethnographic contexts and might be termed Class I-Class II tools. Examples include objects such as the 20th century unmodified calf mandible and domestic pig tusk, traditionally used to flatten lace-work in Norway (Noss 1976: 1-4). How one differentiates these tools from soil-polished bones is a question for another day.

Figure 9: Typical Class II bevel-ended tools found together in a pit from the Middle Chalcolithic site of Gyor-Szabadrét-domb in the northwest corner of Hungary.

Figure 8: A schematic representation of the manufacturing continuum in the Neolithic and Bronze Age.

An interesting long-term trend in the use of osseous materials for manufacturing tools and ornaments reveals itself in this study of quality of manufacture. In earlier periods of the Neolithic, bone tools clearly form an integral and valued part of the tool inventory. Most tools are planned in terms of raw material choice, some degree of multi-stage manufacturing, and intensive use. Thus, large proportions tend to scatter along the Class I end of the manufacturing continuum with a smaller number clustering at the Class II end (fig. 9). However, by the middle of the Chalcolithic period in Hungary the use of bone, antler and teeth as raw materials seem to have become much reduced in importance so that most objects fall somewhere along the Class II end of the manufacturing continuum, with a few objects that are thoughtfully made clustering at the Class I end. Among these emerged a class of objects, probably made by specialists and most often part of multimedia objects such as harness elements, elaborate projectile points, skates etc. (fig. 10 and 11). This tendency continues, so that by the Celtic-Roman period, most bone objects seem to be produced in workshop environments by specialists, sometimes even using imported materials (fig. 12).

Figure 10: Late Bronze age elaborate projectile points from the upper levels at the fortified Vatya tell settlement of SzázhalombattaFöldvár.

Continuity over Regions Objects manufactured from osseous materials such as bone, antler and teeth were mostly produced and used during household activities. As has been pointed out elsewhere in the literature (for example Hodder 1982; Stark 1999: 27), objects lacking clear iconographical information vary in their degree of closure compared to highly decorative items. As such, the character of such assemblages, and

58

PREHISTORIC BONE TOOLS AND THE ARCHAEOZOOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE: RESEARCH IN CENTRAL EUROPE – CHOYKE AND SCHIBLER

especially everyday tools, tends to be more conservative and long-lived within localized regions. On the other hand, it may be expected that complex ornaments and objects such as projectile points, which may be associated with an individual’s social status within a larger community or cultural setting, need to be recognizable over wider geographical distributions and are therefore more standardized in their form and decoration. Such objects are thus more impacted by style (Weissner 1984; Wobst 1972, 1999; etc.). These variable distributions of the mundane versus decorative objects are precisely what one finds in Middle Bronze Age settlement areas in Hungary. The aforementioned west Hungarian Vatya culture area is generally characterized by the regular use of rib scrapers for leather working (fig. 13) as well as heavy duty antler tools with squared-off bases (fig. 14) (Choyke 1984: 31-32; Choyke et al. 2004). On the other hand, contemporary Middle Bronze Age tell sites in the north and central part of the Great Hungarian Plain are instead characterized by the use of sheep/goat tibia scrapers for scraping hide or leather, large ruminant mandible smoothers, and ruminant astragali and proximal phalanges with faceted surfaces (fig. 15 and 16) (Choyke 1984: 32, Choyke in press a and b; Choyke and Bartosiewicz 1997: 65). The greater the number of worked osseous site materials analyzed, with their distribution areas cross-cutting the pottery type distribution areas used to define archaeological cultures in Hungary, the easier it will be to trace the degree of interaction between settlements or groups of settlements (Choyke in press a).

Figure 12: AD first century ivory comb from the grave of a young Roman girl from the territory of Aquincum.

Figure 13: Cattle rib scrapers from Százhallombatta-Földvár are characteristic hide or leather-working tools in the worked osseous assemblages of Vatya culture sites.

Continuity through Time It was argued above that the technical style marked by the species/skeletal elements chosen to make particular tools tends to be conservative. Thus, it is striking that certain tool types mostly come to light in site materials which are chronologically quite separated in time. Of course, it is possible that tool types were re-invented or re-introduced into places, but it seems even more likely that there was a degree of continuity in populations despite significant social and economic changes which apparently took place in the Carpathian Basin. It seems certain that the region was effected by a stream of new ideas and even, increasingly, small groups of people as time progressed. This tendency was to culminate in the Roman and Migration periods where life was

Figure 11: Late Bronze Age (Urnfield) skate pair found in a pit during rescue highway excavations near Budapest.

On the other hand, it is the ornamented pieces, the famous horse harness elements, fishing equipment, projectile points, boar tusk ornaments, and drilled bear canines that can be found on all contemporary Middle Bronze Age sites in Hungary. Although these objects, especially the harness elements with their Aegean derived meander designs (see above) have been most written about in the literature, they are far less evocative of the details of everyday life and social interaction on a local or regional scale in this period.

59

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

a parallel chronological distribution, although frequencies in various periods may differ dramatically. Biel (1994: Abb.3) describes such objects from the Middle Bronze Age of Southern Germany.

transformed by population movements from both the east and the west after the Roman period. The Hungarians themselves consistuted one of the last of a series of nomadic populations who moved in from Central Asia. For this reason, Hungarian scholarship has tended to see prehistoric cultures as a series of largely discontinuous entities. However, the ‘life-span’ of a number of mundane tool types makes it clear that in prehistoric times at least we are not looking at total changes in the population. Certain technical styles for production on the household level continued to be passed down from parent to child until the onset of the Iron Age (tab. 1).

Figure 14: Heavy duty hafted burr and beam tools made from red deer antler display the characteristic square cut end of such tools from Middle Bronze Age Vatya culture sites. This specimen is from Százhallombatta-Földvár.

Figure 16: These ruminant astragali and first phalanges are characteristic of worked bone assemblages from Middle Bronze sites in the northern half of the Great Hungarian Plain.

Another tool which was used over wide areas of the Carpathian Basin was the spatulae made from split cattle ribs, with one rounded and one pointed end. This tool continues to be used through the Middle Chalcolithic but disappears towards the end of the period. Nevertheless, the use of this type of object continues for a good 300 years after the official end of the Late Neolithic. Another interesting tool type with the same life-span as the pointed rib spatulae are beamers, mostly made from the complete metatarsal bones of adult red deer or cattle. These tools are characterized by continuously renewed, concave and sharp-edged facets, sometimes along the length on all four diaphysial surfaces. Their use is inferred by analogy with similiar objects from ethnographic and historical contexts used to clean the back side of hides pinned to tree trunks. Such tools appear in considerable numbers on Late Neolithic sites in the north of the Great Hungarian Plain (fig. 18). These sites have many connections with contemporary sites in the west of Hungary. Although no worked osseous assemblages have yet been analyzed from the Late Neolithic in this part of the country, a bone beamer has been reported from a coeval Neolithic (Lengyel culture) site in Austria (Günther Karl Kunst, personal communiction 2004). Analogous beamers have been

Figure 15: This cattle mandible smoothing tool is characteristic of worked bone assemblages from Middle Bronze sites in the northern half of the Great Hungarian Plain.

One trend, which is quite interesting, is the intensive use of hafted heavy duty burr and beam tools beginning in the Late Neolithic (fig. 17). T-shaped antler axes are important into the Chalcolithic in western Hungary. Heavy duty antler hammer/axe tools made from the burr and beam of red deer antler on the other hand begin to be intensively used throughout Hungary in the Late Neolithic. These objects continue to be an important part of everyday tool kits of people up until the end of the Bronze Age almost 3000 years later, although some of the technical details may vary from region to region. Small harpoons made from red deer antler tine tips display

60

PREHISTORIC BONE TOOLS AND THE ARCHAEOZOOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE: RESEARCH IN CENTRAL EUROPE – CHOYKE AND SCHIBLER

on the Danube. These tools have been singled out because they are relatively unique, with apparently few parallels outside Hungary. It seems most likely

found on Chalcolithic sites in western Hungary (fig. 19). Thus, bone beamers were used for at least 1000 years.

Table 1: Some important mundane tool types exhibiting continuity between periods End of the Neolithic to the Chalcolithic Bevel-end/pointed spatulae

End of the Neolithic to end of the Bronze Age

Chalcolithic to the end of the Bronze Age Mandible with worndown oral part

T-shaped antler axes

Antler tine-tip harpoon

Long bone beamer

Hafted heavy duty antler hammer/axe haft from rose and beam

Beginning of the Bronze Age to the Middle Bronze Age Skates or runners made from cattle or horse radii

that the technical traditions surrounding their manufacture continued in temporally contiguous societies on a household level, irrespective of other significant changes in broader social structures.

Another unique Hungarian prehistoric bone tool was mostly made from the mandible of sheep or goat and more rarely cattle. The premolars were extracted and a soft material pulled over the surface of the empty alveolars, smoothing and rounding their edges. These may have been some kind of a leather strap processor. These tools were first found in the Middle Chalcolithic (Choyke in press b) (fig. 20) but are also known from an Early Bronze Age Bell-Beaker culture site near Budapest (fig. 21) and are found consistently at Middle Bronze Age Vatya sites in particular (Choyke 1984).

Figure 18: Late Neolithic beamers made from cattle metatarsal (here only the distal half remains) from the site of Öcsöd-Kovahalom on the Great Hungarian Plain.

Figure 17: Early Bronze Age heavy duty hafted burr and beam tool from the Bell-Beaker Csepel –Háros site at Albertfalva in the outskirts of Budapest.

Finally, there seems to be both chronological and geographical continuity in the use of cattle and horse runners/skates. The first known runners made from horse radii, drilled through the distal end in a mediolateral direction and faceted on the dorsal surface, come from the Bell-Beaker culture sites found along the Budapest section of the Danube and date to the Early Bronze Age (2800 BC). Some 1400 years later, very similar objects, also made on complete horse and cattle radii were still being used at a relatively close-by Middle Bronze Age fortified settlement of Százhalombatta–Földvár, also located

Figure 19: Middle Chalcolithic beamer made from a red deer metatarsal with the joint still intact. This specimen comes from the site of Gyor-Szabadrét-domb in the northwest corner of Hungary.

Conclusions The research on worked osseous materials is a study in contrasts and possibilities for the future. On the

61

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

the Neolithic. Failing agriculture lead to the overhunting of red deer. In parallel, there was a technical innovation in the use antler sleeves to protect valuable ash wood hafts from breaking when the axes and adzes were in use. It can be seen that there must have been an increased reliance on organized gathering of shed red deer antler towards the end of the Neolithic and afterwards in the region.

one hand, the detailed study of huge tool assemblages has permitted development of a consistent typology which can easily be adapted to other archaeological contexts. Comparability between far-flung assemblages will be increased by using typologies structured in a similar manner, even if important differences in preservation and sampling remain a stumbling block. The worked bone, antler and tooth assemblages from the Neolithic and Bronze Age lake-dwelling sites in Switzerland exist in a precisely identified temporal and environmental context. Much more can be said about on-site distribution of tools and various daily activities. Drysites, with poorer preservation of organic material, are much more problematic in this regard. Nevertheless, analogy with the detailed Swiss information should prove useful in understanding material cultural patterning at sites of the same techno-cultural level elsewhere in Europe. Worked bone material from Hungary, on the other hand, comes from a wide variety of sites and environmental zones. Comparable information on these assemblages from Hungary may help fill in lacunae (by way of analogy) in the Swiss material resulting from changing lake levels or erosion.

Such integrated studies of tools made from osseous materials in terms of continuity in time, space and manufacturing is made possible only with the multidisciplinary and international cooperation of scholars specialized in this unique class of artifacts. References Cited Backalov, A. 1979 Predmeti od kostii roga u preneolitu I neolitu Srbije. Beograd: Archaeologia Jugoslavica. Becker, C. 2003 Bone Artifacts and Man – An Attempt at a Cultural Synthesis. In Decyphering Ancient Bones: The Research Potential of Bioarchaeological Collections, ed. G. Grupe and J. Peters, 83-124. Documenta Archaeobiologiae. Rahden/Wesf.: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH. Beldiman, C. 1998 L'industrie des matières dures animales dans le site de la civilization Starcevo-Cris Trestiana, dép. de Vaslui. Un exemple d’étude: les spatules. Acta moldaviae Meridionalis; vol. 1520, No 1: 82–115. 2000a L'industrie des matières dures animales dans le site Néolithique Ancien de Dudest II Vechi, dép. de Timis. Anales du Banat; vol. 7-8: 75–92. 2000b Objets de parure en matières dures animales du Néolithique ancien de Roumanie: bracelets en bois de cerf. Bulletin du Musée départemental Teohari Antonescu; vol. 5-7: 31–45. 2002 Sur la typologie des outils en matières dures animales du Néolithique ancien de Roumanie: le poinçon sur demi-métapode perforé. In Ateliers et techniques artisanales. Contributions a r c h é o l o g i q u e s , ed. C. Gaiu, 7-31. Série Historica 6. Cluj-Napoca: Musée départemental Bistrita: Nasaud, Bibliotheca Musei Bistrita.

Figure 20: Middle Chalcolithic mandible with smoothed oral section. This specimen comes from the site of Gyor-Szabadrét-domb in the northwest corner of Hungary.

Beldiman, C. and E. Popusoi 2001 L’industrie des matières dures animals dans le site néothlique ancien (culture de Starcevo-Cris) de Trestiana, dép. de Vaslui, Roumanie: aiguilles à chas. Memoria Antiquitatis, Acta Musei Petrodavensis; vol. 22: 351–402.

Figure 21: Early Bronze Age cattle mandible with smoothed oral section from the Bell-Beaker Csepel –Háros site at Albertfalva in the outskirts of Budapest.

Biel, J. 1994

The fabulous preservation of the Swiss material has permitted work to be carried out integrating environmental data on an economic crisis occuring in

62

Bronze- und Eisenszeit. In Knochenarbeit, ed. M. Kokabi, 57-82. Stuttgart: Landesdenkmalamt Baden-Württemberg.

PREHISTORIC BONE TOOLS AND THE ARCHAEOZOOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE: RESEARCH IN CENTRAL EUROPE – CHOYKE AND SCHIBLER

Biró M. 1994

Expedition Annual Report 1, ed. I. Poroszlai and M. Vicze, 97-102. Százhalombatta: Matrica Museum. 2001 A Quantitative Approach to the Concept of Quality in Prehistoric Bone Manufacturing. In Animals and Man in the Past, ed. H. Buitenhuis and W. Prummel, 50-66. Groningen: ARCPublicatie, 41. in press a Bronze Age Bone and Antler Working at the Jászdózsa-Kápolnahalom Tell. Muinasaja teadus. Tallinn: History Institute of the Estonian Academy of Sciences. in press b Continuity and Discontinuity at Gyor-Szabadrétdomb: Bone Tools from a Chalcolithic Settlement in Northwest Hungary. In Proceedings of the WBRG, Basel 2001. Archaeologie International. in press c Objects for a Lifetime – Tools for a Season: The Worked Osseous Material from Ecsegfalva 23. Excavations at Ecsegfalva 23 University of Cardiff, Department of Archaeology.

The Bone Objects of the Roman Collection. Budapest: Catalogi Musei Nationalis Hungarici.

Bökönyi, S. 1960 Reconstruction des mors en bois de cerf et en os. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae; vol. 12: 113–122. Campana, D. 1989 Natufian and Protoneolithic Bone tools. The Manufacture and Use of Bone Implements in the Zagros and the Levant. Bar International Series No 494. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Camps-Fabrer, H. (ed) 1974 Premier colloque international sur l’industrie de l’os dans la préhistoire. Aix-en-Provence: Éditions de l’Université de Provence. 1979 L’industrie en os et bois de cervidé durant le Néolithique et l’Age des métaux: Première réunion du groupe de travail no. 3 sur l‘industrie de l’os préhistorique. Paris: CNRS. 1982 L’industrie en os et bois de cervidé durant le Néolithique et l’Age des métaux: Deuxième réunion du groupe de travail no. 3 sur l‘industrie de l’os préhistorique. Paris: CNRS. 1985 L’industrie en os et bois de cervidé durant le Néolithique et l’Age des métaux: Troisième réunion du groupe de travail no. 3 sur l‘industrie de l’os préhistorique. Paris: CNRS.

Choyke A. M. and L. Bartosiewicz 1999 Bronze Age Animal Keeping in Western Hungary. In Archaeology of the Bronze Age and Iron Age: Experimental Archaeology, Environmental Archaeology, Archaeological Parks, ed. E. Jerem and I. Poroszlai, 239-249. Budapest: Archaeolingua Series Major. 2000 Bronze Age Animal Exploitation in the Central Great Hungarian Plain. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae; vol. 51: 43–70.

de Capitani, A., S. Deschler-Erb, U. Leuzinger, E. MartiGrädel and J. Schibler 2002 Die Jungsteinzeitliche Seeufersiedlung Arbon Bleiche 3. Funde. Archäeologie im Thurgau, Band 11. Frauenfeld: Veröffentlichung des Amtes für Archäeologie des Kantons Thurgau.

Choyke, A. M., M. Vretemark and S. Sten 2004 Levels of Social Identity Expressed in the Refuse and Worked Bone from the Middle Bronze Age Százhalombatta-Földvár, Vatya Culture, Hungary. In Behaviour Behind Bones: The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status and Identity, ed. S. J. O'Day, W. van Neer and A. Ervynck, 177-189. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Choyke, A. M. 1979 A Classification of the Bone and Antler Tools from the Bronze Age Hill-fortress of Pákozdvár. Alba Regia; vol. 17: 9–21. 1983 Elozetes jelentés a tiszaug-kéménytetoi ásatás csontszerszámairól. Archeológiai Értesíto; vol. 109, No 1: 35–41. 1984 An Analysis of Bone, Antler and Tooth Tools from Bronze Age Hungary. Mitteilungen des archäologischen Instituts der ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften; vol. 12/13: 13–57. 1987 The Exploitation of Red Deer in the Hungarian Bronze Age. Archaeozoologia; Vol. 1, No 1: 109–116. 1997 The Bone Manufacturing Continuum. Anthropozoologica; No 25-26: 65–72. 1998 Bronze Age Red Deer: Case Studies from the Great Hungarian Plain. In Man and the Animal World. Studies in Memoriam Sándor Bökönyi, ed. P. Anreiter, L. Bartosiewicz, E. Jerem and W. Meid, 157-178. Budapest: Archaeolingua Kiadó. 2000 Refuse and Modified Bone from Százhalombatta–Földvár: Some Preliminary Observations. In Százhalombatta Archaeological

Clark, J. G. D. and M. W. Thompson 1953 The Groove and Splinter Technique of Working Antler in Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society; vol. 19, Part 2: 148-160. Conscience, A.-C. 2001 Frühbronzezeitliche Uferdörfer aus ZürichMozartstrasse - eine folgenreiche Neudatierung. In Mit einem Exkurs von Eduard Gross: Ein kritischer Blick zurück, 147-157. Basel: Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Bd. 84. Deschler-Erb, S. 1998 Römische Beinartefakte aus Augusta Raurica. Forschungen in Augst 27/1. 2001 Do-it-Yourself Manuacturing of Bone and Antler in Two Villas in Roman Switzerland. In Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space, ed. A. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, 31-

63

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Baden-Württemberg.

40. BAR International Series No 937. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Korosec, P. and J. Korosec 1969 Fundgut der Pfahlbausiedlungen bei Ig am Laibacher M o o r . Ljubljana: Catalogi Archaeologici Sloveniae, Editi Cvra Musei Nationalis Labacensis III.

Deschler-Erb, S., E. Marti-Grädel and J. Schibler 2002 Die Knochen-, Zahn- und Geweihartefakte. In Die Jungsteinzeitliche Seeufersiedlung Arbon/Bleiche 3: Funde, ed. A. de Capitani, S. Deschler-Erb, U. Leuzinger, E. Marti-Grädel and J. Schibler, 277-366. Archäeologie im Thurgau, Band 11. Frauenfeld: Veröffentlichung des Amtes für Archäeologie des Kantons Thurgau.

Kovacs, T. 1982 Befestinungsanlagen um die Mitte des 2. Jahrtausends v.u. Z. in Mittleungarn. In Beiträge zum bronzlezeitlichen Burgenbau in Mitteleuropa, ed. B. Chropovsky and J. Herrmann, 279-291. Berlin: Nitra.

Elster, E. 2001 Middle Neolithic to Early Bronze Age Bone Tools from Sitagroi, Greece. In Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space, ed. A. M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, 355-370. BAR International Series No 937. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Marinescu-Bâlcu and C. Beldiman 1997 L'industrie des matières dures animales appartenant à la civilisation Néolithique de Starcevo-Cris en Roumanie. Le site de Grumâzesti, dép. de Neamt. M e m o r i a Antiquitatis. Acta Musei Petrodavensis Piatra Neamt; vol. 21: 273–296.

Foltiny, S. 1965 Bronze- und urnenfelderzeitliche Hirshhorn- und Knochentrensen aus Neiderösterreich. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien; vol. 95: 243–249.

Makkay J. 1990 Knochen-, Geweih- und Eberzahngegenstände der frühneolithischen Körös-Kultur. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae; No 38: 23–58.

Furger, A. 1981 Die Kleinfunde aus den Horgener Schichten. Die Neolithischen Uferseidlungen von Twann 13. Bern: Staatlicher Lehrmittelverlag.

Mikler H. 1997 Die römiscen Funde aus Bein im Landesmuseum M a i n z . Monographies instrumentum 1. Montagnac (France): Éditions Monique Mergoil.

Furger, A., C. Fischer and M. Höneisen 1998 Die Ersten Jahrtausende: Die Schweiz von den Anfänen bis zur Eisenzeit. Archäeologie und Kulturgeschichte der Schweiz, Band 1. Zürich: Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

Mozsolics, A. 1962 Die Herkunftfragen der ältesten Hirshgeweihtrensen. Acta Archaeologcia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae; vol. 12: 125–135.

Hafner, A. and J. P. Suter 2004 5000 Jahre Aufgetaucht, 1984-2004. Bern: Archäologischer Dienst des Kantons Bern.

Nandris, J. 1972 Bos primigenius and the Bone Spoon. Bulletin No. 10. London: Institute of Archaeology, University of London.

Hodder, I. 1982 Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Noss, A. 1976

Hüster-Plogmann, H., J. Schibler and K. Steppan 1999 The Relationship Between Wild Mammal Exploitation, Climatic Fluctuations, and Economic Adaptations: A Transdisciplinary Study on Neolithic Sites from Lake Zurich Region, Southwest Germany and Bavaria. In Historia Animalum Ex Ossibus: Festschrift für Angela von den Driesch, ed. C. Becker, H. Manhart, J. Peters and J. Schibler, 189-200. Studia Honoraria 8. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf Gmbh.

Før Strykejernet, Slikjejake og Mangletre. Oslo: Norsk Folkemuseum.

Nováki G. 1952 Féjér megye oskori földvárai. Archaeológiai Értesíto; vol. 79: 3–17. Periié, S. 1984 Predmeti od Kosti, Roga i Kamena. Katalog XIII. Beograd: Muzej Grada Beograda. Poplin, F. 1974 Deux cas particuliers de débitage par usure. In Premier colloque international sur l’industrie de l’os dans la Préhistoire, ed. H. Camps-Fabrer, 85-92. Aix-en-Provence: Éditions de l’Université de Provence.

Hüttel, H.-G. 1981 Bronzezeitliche Tensen in Mittel- und Osteuropa. München: Prähistorische Bronzefunde. Kokabi, M. (ed.) 1994 Knochenarbeit. Stuttgart: Landesdenkmalamt

64

PREHISTORIC BONE TOOLS AND THE ARCHAEOZOOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE: RESEARCH IN CENTRAL EUROPE – CHOYKE AND SCHIBLER

Ramseyer, D. 1987 Delley-Portalban II. Contribution á l’étude du Néolithique en Suisse occidentale. Archéologie fribourgeoise 3. Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires. 2002

Semenov, S. A. 1964 Prehistoric Technology: An Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear. (Translated, and with a Preface by M. W. Thompson). London: Cory, Adams and Mackay.

Antler Tools. In Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies Through Time and Space, ed. A. M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, 49-60. BAR International Series No 937. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Red Deer Antler Exploitation and Raw Material Management in Neolithic Lake Dwelling Sites from Zürich, Switzerland. In Animals and Man in the Past, ed. H. Buitenhuis and W. Prummel, 8294. Groningen: ARC-Publicatie 41.

Schibler, J., S. Jacomet, H. Hüster-Plogmann, C. Brombacher 1997 Economic Crash in the 37th and 36th Century BC cal. in Neolithic Lake Shore Sites in Switzerland. Anthropozoologica; Nos 25-26: 553-570.

Schibler, J. 1980 Osteologische Untersuchung der cortaillodzeitlichen Knochenartefakte. Die neolithischen Uferseidlungen von Twann Band 8. Bern: Schriftenreihe der Erziehungsdirektion des Kantons Bern, herausgegeben vom Archäologischen Dienst des Kantons Bern, Staatlicher Lehrmittelverlag. 1981 Typologische Untersuchungen der cortaillodzeitlichen Knochenartefakte. Die neolithischen Ufersiedlungen von Twann, Band 17. Bern: Schriftenreihe der Erziehungsdirektion des Kantons Bern, herausgegeben vom Archäologischen Dienst des Kantons Bern, Staatlicher Lehrmittelverlag. 1987a Osteoarchäologische Untersuchenen der neolithischen Knochenkomplexe. In Zürich “Kleiner Hafner”: Tauschgrabungen 1981-1984, ed. P. Suter, 167-179. Monographien 3. Zürich: Berichte der Züricher Denkmalpflege. 1987b Die Knochenartefakte. In Zürich “Mozartstrasse”, ed. E. Gross, E. Bleuer and B. Hardmeyer, 167176. Neolithische und bronzezeitliche Ufersiedlungen, Bände 1-3 . Zürich: Orell Füssli Verlag. 1987c Die Hirschgeweihartefakte. In Z ü r i c h “Mozartstrasse”, ed. E. Gross, E. Bleuer and B. Hardmeyer, 156-166. Neolithische und bronzezeitliche Ufersiedlungen, Bände 1-3. Zürich: Orell Füssli Verlag. 1997 Knochen und Geweihartefakte. In Ökonomie und Ökologie neolithischer und bronzezeitlicher Ufersiedlungen am Zürichsee, ed. J. Schibler et a l ., 122-219. Monographien der Kantonsarchäologie Zürich 20, Zürich und Egg. 1998 Knochen- und geweiartefakete. In Die Schweiz vom Palälithikum bis zum frühen Mittelalter, SPM II Neolithikumt, W. E. Stöckli et al., 142-151. Basel: Schweizerische Gesellshaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Verlag. 2001 Experimental Production of Neolithic Bone and

Stark, M. 1999 Social Dimensions of Technical Choice in Kalinga Ceramic Traditions. In Material Meanings: Critical Approaches to the Interpretation of Material Culture, ed. E. Chilton, 24-43. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Suter, P. 1981 Die Hirschgeweihartefakte der CortaillodSchichten. Die neolithischen Ufersiedlungen von Twann: Band 15. Bern: Staatlicher Lehrmittelverlag. Uzelac, J. 1975 Objets en os et en corne de vatin dans la collection du Musée de Vrsac. Revue de l’Institut Archéologique; Nouvelle Série 26. Wiessner, P. 1984 Reconsidering the Behavioral Basis for Style: A Case Study among the Kalahari San. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology; vol. 3, No 3: 190–234. Wobst, M. H. 1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In For the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, ed. C. E. Cleland, 317-342. Anthropological Papers No 61. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan. 1999 Style in Archaeology or Archaeologists in Style. In Material Meanings: Critical Approaches to the Interpretation of Material Culture, ed. E. S. Chilton, 118-132. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

65

chapter

5

Methods, Means, and Results when Studying European Bone Industries Alexandra Legrand Université de Paris I, France

Isabelle Sidéra Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), France

function, it is a major design system criterion, as Chippendale suggested (1986). This explains the special attention given to technological study.

Introduction What are the subjects of study, the methods, criteria and results in technological and use-wear studies? The examination of about ten thousand bone tools, provided by Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites from Bulgaria to France, including those of the Aceramic Neolithic in Cyprus, will be taken into account to answer these questions. This is done in a continuous effort to study new collections with the aim of testing and enlarging our knowledge about these artifacts.

Technology Technological categorization is the first method to be implemented (see Billamboz 1977; Christidou 2001a; Legrand 2005b; Louwe Kooijmans et al. 2001; Murray 1979; Poplin 1974; Sidéra 1993a, 2005; and Stordeur 1974, for example). It proceeds in three principal steps: 1) technical identification (sawing, knapping, grinding etc.), 2) cutting procedures (metapodial divided in two, three or four parts), and 3) characterizing technical methods (fig. 1). Measuring the ratio between the investment in débitage and the degree of shaping may be added to make the technical portrait of a given assemblage (Sidéra 2000, 2001; Stordeur-Yédid 1976). The use of microscopy is always necessary to understand which techniques are employed and how traces overlap. This also enables the reconstruction of the manufacturing processes. Technical methods, which are to say, characterized stable manufacturing processes involving different techniques, are most important. Because of the strong morphological and technical homogeneity of Neolithic bone artifacts, technical methods appear to be efficient criteria for integrating bone assemblages into the cultural range (Sidéra 2004, in press). This provides feedback for archaeological interpretation. Questions such as cultural practices, innovation, relationships between different traditions and transfers from one culture to another can thus be addressed with greater accuracy. Secondly, as technology is the link between raw material, morphology, styles and

Figure 1: Manufacturing methods for metapodials. 1) Southern France Middle Neolithic (Montbolo) method: both sides are sawed from one extremity of the bone to the other, after which each halves are grinded. Archaeological artifacts from Corbères-les-Cabanes “grotte de Montou” (Pyrénées orientales, France: F. Claustre-CNRS excavations). 2) Aceramic Neolithic of Cyprus method: both sides are partially sawed, then knapped, and then each halves are grinded. Photos by I. Sidéra.

The awl manufactured on a half ruminant metapodial, which preserves the distal epiphysis as a handle, gives a good illustration of the interaction between techniques and methods. It is a very common tool, which spread from the Near Eastern Aceramic Neolithic to the Western European Chalcolithic (see awl in fig. 1). The techniques employed to make it and, as a result, the morphology of this type of awl, have a small range of variation within the chronologies and cultures. There is little or no stylistic variation. Methods are much more characteristic than techniques and morphology in this case. In southern France Middle Neolithic, for example, most awls of this type are sawed on both sides from one extremity to the other (Sidéra in press), whereas in Cypriot

67

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

conditions. In addition, we led some of the experiments in collective program and found that cooperation is necessary for success.

Aceramic Neolithic, they are often partially sawed and then knapped with a chisel and a hammer (fig. 1) (Legrand 2005a). At the end of the Linear Pottery Culture, in the Paris basin, the method of sawing one side and knapping the other was just introduced and it developed to produce the same type (Sidéra 1993a). These methods have been reproduced and their results were compared with the original artifacts.

The main problem is to acquire long lasting used artifacts, close to the original, which are often extremely modified by use. Time dimension cannot be measured by wear and this constitutes a major problem. As a solution, ethnographic artifacts can be studied, but as their exact function and duration of use is not often clear, they are not always available.

Experimentation Experiments are currently targeted on either manufacture or functional questions (Barge 1982; Camps-Fabrer H. et al. 1977; Ettos 1985 and 1991; Nandris and Camps-Fabrer 1993; Maigrot 2001; Schibler 2001; Sénépart 1991) or, as Keeley argued, “real time" experimentations (1980). For clarifying initial usage conditions, precise contextual and environmental information such as fauna, vegetation or sources of raw materials need to be taken into account (Campana 1989; Lemoine 1997; Meneses Fernandez 1993; Sidéra 1993a). Bone artifact copies are also needed for use in specified tasks: perforating bark (fig. 2.1), scraping skin to make leather, digging wood (fig. 2.2), weaving a belt (fig. 2.3), etc. Parameters such as the nature of the bone (fresh, dry or heat-treated), hide state (rough or tanned), wood state (fresh or dry) and wood textures and density (tough or soft) can change the results. All of these experiments aim to document; 1) the most frequent archaeological artifacts; 2) the types of tools and materials rarely explored, such as needles, awls and soft vegetal fibers (Legrand 2003, in press); and 3) the greatest variety of material worked, the different kind of tools available to illustrate the largest range of usewear traces (Peltier 1986; Peltier and Plisson 1986). We have tested 120 tools and objects in such

Functional Approach Since the 80's, functional analysis based on experimentation is common, serving different goals. A majority of studies deals with the description and characterization of individual tools or bone surface alterations (Aimar et al. 1998; Christidou 1999; d'Errico 1991, 1993, 1996; d'Errico and Villa 1997; d'Errico et al. 1985, 1995; Ettos 1991; Meneses Fernandez 1993, 1994; Olsen 1989, 2001; Stordeur 1983; Stordeur and Anderson-Gerfaud 1985). Fewer studies tend to undertake whole assemblages with the view of answering historical, anthropological and cultural questions at the same time (Campana 1989; Legrand 2005b; Lemoine 1997; Maigrot 2003; Sidéra 1989). For all these purposes, both low and high power analysis are used. Their efficiency depends either on the development of use-wear or on the functional end shape of the tools and naturally, on the previous questions. The criteria used in the different optical methods for gathering information about the nature of the material worked and about artifacts, their use, and hafting, as well as their respective contribution, complementary and interaction, will be discussed below.

Figure 2: 1) Perforating bark with a bone awl by indirect percussion; 2) digging wood with an antler axe; 3) weaving with a bone awl. 1, 3: Experimentations and photos by A. Legrand. 2: Experimentations and photos by I. Sidéra.

68

METHODS, MEANS, AND RESULTS WHEN STUDYING EUROPEAN BONE INDUSTRIES – LEGRAND AND SIDÉRA

Macro-wear

or sharpening can be deduced, depicted and measured at this scale of magnification. For example, because of their limited and concave active edge, tools like scrapers, which have worked narrow materials such as wood or bone - we know of some ethnographic tools in Papua New Guinea - have been easily identified in the European Neolithic period (fig. 3) (Sidéra 1995). Concavity also marks pottery scrapers (fig. 4), as it modifies the course of some tips (fig. 5).

The low power examination is first executed with the naked eye and with a stereomicroscope at the most common magnification range of 10x to 80x, but sometimes up to 130x. Concepts and analytical criteria have been specifically investigated during the 1980's (Campana 1989; Maigrot 1997 and 2003; Meneses Fernandez 1994; Sidéra 1989, 1993a, 2000; Stordeur 1983, 1989). According to S. A. Semenov (1964), who founded use-wear analysis, the principle consists of marking all deformations occurring on artifacts: “volume alterations" (Sidéra 1993a). The plastic property of bone and its softness, compared to stone, lead to a rapid and characteristic recording of a given work. This involves a proper methodology, which differs significantly from the lithic use-wear analysis process. Different traces such as scratches, new surface aspects (polish or coloration) and flaking appear during the first minutes of the tool’s use. Later, smoothing and deformations of the contours occur according to the material worked, its nature and shape, and kinematics. These deformations, which come from either wear, shaping

Functional diagnostic elements such as smooth contour shapes and cutting edge profile are useful when observed at 20x to 80x magnifications (Sidéra in progress) (fig. 6). Let us cite some examples yielded by a Linear Pottery site; Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes in the North of France. Two types of hide scrapers made of bone were identified (Sidéra 1989 and 1993b). There, we dealt with a similar type of tool, with the exception of their bevelled shape (fig. 7). The first one is flat-sided, bevelled, sharp-edged, with numerous short, broad, straight scratches which correspond to frequent resharpening (fig. 7.1). It was used for fleshing hides, which were perhaps laid

Figure 3: Archaeological pig tusk scraper from Mareuil-les-Meaux (Seine-et-Marne, France: R. Cottiaux–INRAP excavations). Progressive enlargement of the end part of the tool. At naked eye and at 5x magnifications, see the concave and notched appearance of the active edge. From 35x to 63x magnifications, numerous and developed crossed and perpendicular striations and a micro-smoothing appear on the edge. Drawing and photos by I. Sidéra.

69

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

use mode, has to be investigated as well. Different types were distinguished, involving specific traces localized on either the bottom or the entire length of the tool (fig. 10). We noticed that the proportion of the archaeological hafted artifacts is quite stable, about 20% in all European Neolithic cultures. Only the types of artifacts differ. Antler tine picks and hide skin scrapers were mainly hafted in the Early Neolithic of Northern France (Linear Pottery Culture). This was due to functional constraints for pick antlers, used to dig soil, and economical factors for hide working which represented an important investment for this culture. Later, in the Middle Neolithic Chasséen and M i c h e l s b e r g , as woodworking increases and diversifies, a real variety of hafted instruments appears (fig. 11). Hafts are mainly tenons, directly fastened on the tools, and previously perforated (fig. 11.1, 11.2, 11.4, 11.6, 11.7). Riveting also comes into view at the beginning of the Middle Neolithic Cerny (Sidéra 2000, 2001: fig. 3.7 to 3.9) (fig. 11.3).

down on a block of wood (fig. 7.A). The second type is a convex-sided, bevelled tool, which was highly smoothed and lightly polished, with thin, long and curved scratches (fig. 7.4). It was used with a pendulum movement during a later step of the work, probably to soften the hide stretched on a frame (fig. 7.B). In both cases, the bevelled forms result not only from use but also from shaping and resharpening, whilst respecting the original shape (fig. 7.1).

Figure 4: Archaeological bone pottery scraper from Corbères-lesCabanes “grotte de Montou” (Pyrénées orientales, France: F. Claustre-CNRS excavations). At 40x magnifications numerous, broad, long and straight striations appear perpendicularly to the edge. Drawing and photos by I. Sidéra.

All these interactions between manufacture, use and resharpening are complex and need to be understood to achieve a functional interpretation. Thus, the restoration of the wear process, by means of a chaîne d'usure based on the valuation of the degree of use of a number of artifacts of the same type, allows us to understand the use mode of the artifact (Sidéra 1993a, 2002) (fig. 8). The contour deformations are often accompanied by other volume alterations like different types of smoothing, chipping, crushing and surface alterations such as polish and striations (fig. 9). Finally, surface and volume deformations ought not to be separated. Let us return to the examples of the wood and pottery scrapers to illustrate this point. The main difference between them are the notches and chips visible along the edge for the wood or bone scraper, and the long, numerous and parallel striations which cross perpendicularly the edge of the pottery scraper (fig. 3 and 4).

Figure 5: Archaeological perforating tool from Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes (Aisne, France, ERA 12 excavations). Deformation of the awl tip due to use and resharpening and materializing the course of the tip. Photos by I. Sidéra.

The handling mode, important for defining the artifact

70

METHODS, MEANS, AND RESULTS WHEN STUDYING EUROPEAN BONE INDUSTRIES – LEGRAND AND SIDÉRA

Figure 6: Archaeological flesher, up and low sides and profile. See the shape profile characterized by a symmetric smoothed micro-bevel and a sharpened extremity. Drawing and photos by I. Sidéra.

Figure 7: Archaeological and experimental hide scrapers. 1) Archaeological ribbon flesher type 1, flat-sided bevel with sharp-egded and numerous striations due to resharpening from Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes (Aisne, France, ERA 12 excavations; 2) experimental and used replica of the flesher with short, broad and straight striations on the active end; 3) experimental and used replica of the convex-sided bevel with thin, long and curved striations on the active end; 4) Archaeological long bone softener type 2, convex-sided bevel from Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes (Aisne, France, ERA 12 excavations archaeological. A) Flesher use mode. B) softener use mode. Photos and experimentation by I. Sidéra. Drawings by G. Deraprahamian.

Low power examination is not always efficient for functional interpretation. The case of awls is the most significant. The macroscopic features observed on their active end show a slight difference from one awl to another and thus do not reveal the nature of the

material worked and the tool action. It must be remembered that low power examination is most efficient on well-worn artifacts, which display a tangible volume deformation and well-developed traces.

71

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

and continuous chain of analysis. It uses the most common reflexion microscope with magnifications of 100x and 200x as lithic use-wear analysis specialists do, or SEM microscopy sometimes combined with residue analysis (see for example Aimar et al. 1998; Christidou 1999, 2001b; d'Errico et al. 1995; Legrand 2003, 2005b; Lemoine 1997; Olsen 2001; Peltier 1986; Stordeur and Anderson-Gerfaud 1985). Our equipment includes a reflexion microscope (Nikon Eclipses ME600) connected to a computer to acquire images via digital cameras (KS300 software and Axiocam, Zeiss) (fig. 12). Figure 8: Chaîne d’usure realized on a series of archaeological perforated deer canines from Val-de-Reuil (Eure, France). From Sidéra 2002, figure 10 p. 224.

Figure 9: Different macro-wear on cutting edges from Drama (Bulgaria, Pr Lichardus, Sarreebruck University excavations). 1) chipping, smoothing, polishing and striations; 2) crushing with separation of bone fibers. Photos by I. Sidéra.

Figure 11: Reconstructions of different kinds of tool hafting. 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7) Hafts are mainly tenons directly fixed in perforated axes or scrapers; 3) haft is fixed by riveting; 5) the adze is attached to the haft. Drawing by D. Thébault.

Figure 10: Hafting reconstructions and traces. Archaeological mattock from Boury-en-Vexin (Oise, France, R. Martinez-INRAP excavations) with “festons” all along the tool. These traces are due to the hafting apparatus, probably an envelope made of bark or hide, fastened around the tool with thongs, made to protect the mattock from breaking. The friction of the envelope has produced the feston, whose development is perhaps due to the inententional deep initial shaping traces. At the same time these traces reflect the long duration of this tool. Photos by I. Sidéra. Drawing by D. Thébault.

Figure 12: High power equipment with image processing. Photo by I. Sidéra.

We will illustrate the significance of high power analysis through the examination of two experimental awls, both replicas of artifacts coming from the Khirokitia bone assemblage (Aceramic Neolithic, 7th millennium B.C cal., Cyprus) (Legrand 2005b;

Micro-wear High power examination is part of a complementary

72

METHODS, MEANS, AND RESULTS WHEN STUDYING EUROPEAN BONE INDUSTRIES – LEGRAND AND SIDÉRA

and polishing of the tip and the same usedevelopment in three zones (fig. 13-1 and 14-1). The first zone is the tip area. It is characterized by the absence of manufacturing traces down to 2 mm from the tip of tool number 1 and approximately 7 mm from the tip of tool number 2. Numerous usestriations, which cross the polished surface, become clearly visible with a 32x magnification (fig. 13-2 and 14-2). They are longitudinal, quite long and parallel to the long axis of the awl. Some micro-pits are also observed. 2) Further down from the tip, use characteristics are the same as the ones described

Stordeur 1984). One awl was used to perforate fresh sheep hide (tool number 1), the other to perforate wet bark (tool number 2). Use-times were respectively 65 and 10 minutes. In both cases, indirect percussion was used. Microscopic descriptions are largely inspired by the terminology employed by R. Christidou (1999). Other criteria such as use wear were also considered (Legrand 2005b, in press; Sidéra and Legrand 2006). When observed with the naked eye and at 15x magnifications, both awls exhibit the same smoothing

Figure 13: Macroscopical and microscopical features on experimental awl (number 1) created by fresh hide working. 1) whole awl and enlargement of the tip. 2) First zone of use on the tip. 3) Second zone. 4) Third zone of use. Experimentations and photos by A. Legrand.

73

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

examination of the tip of tool number 1 shows an irregular topography due to the variety in dimension and direction of the depressions, striations, micro-pits and craters. At 200x magnification, the high points are smoothed and varnished with a domed profile (fig. 13-2). Numerous fine (1 μm), short or long, superficial and continuous striations are observed. Other striations are broad (3 μm), long, deep and continuous. Their bottom end is rough but more or less unaffected by polish. In both cases, striations show smoothed edges. Some circular roughbottomed craters (from 9μm to 27μm in diameter) are also observed. These can be similar to the broad

above, except for the presence of smoothed manufacturing traces perpendicular to the long axis of the awl (fig. 13-3 and 14-3). On the third zone, the intensity of smoothing and polishing decreases as one gets closer to the limit of the use, which is located at 40 mm from the tip on tool 1 and 19 mm from the tip on tool 2. Wear affects only high points of the surface, and rough-bottomed manufacturing traces are clearly visible (fig. 13-4 and 14-4). This wear development is still clear at high magnifications but differences in use-wear patterns appear between both awls. At 100x magnification, the

Figure 14: Macroscopical and microscopical features on experimental awl (number 2) created by fresh bark working. 1) whole awl and enlargement of the tip. 2) First zone of use on the tip. 3) Second zone. 4) Third zone of use. Experimentations and photos by A. Legrand. 74

METHODS, MEANS, AND RESULTS WHEN STUDYING EUROPEAN BONE INDUSTRIES – LEGRAND AND SIDÉRA

striations, more or less polished with smoothed edges. All these depressions, which cross the high points, give them a certain grainy aspect.

Conclusion Dealing with numerous criteria and a variety of investigations, the functional approach needs cooperation between scholars. Wear analysis is based on a sum of analytical criteria which lead progressively to the identification of the function of the bone tools. We now try to collaborate on a continuous magnification chain of examination, based on experiments. Understanding interactions between macro- and micro wear analysis will bring, we hope, in the future, a use-wear analysis model, which will enable us to identify the majority of bone artifact functions. Macro-wear analysis deals mainly with "volume deformations" and, thus, with well-used artifacts involving use-wear processes. High power analysis is necessary if “volume deformation” is lightly developed. As a result, surfaces must be enlarged for observing polish and striations details. This is particularly true for tools such as awls, needles, hooks, spoons, etc. which are worn by friction. Sometimes chemical analysis can help to identify a tools function. Computer use is valuable for this purpose and has changed our way of working. It permits us to quantify micro-phenomena and create image banks. This will involve more frequent contact between researchers than in the past and will be of great benefit to technological and use-wear research.

Further from the tip, the micro-wear features are quite similar to those observed on the tip area (fig. 13-3). Use-striations, micro-pits and craters can affect the highest smoothed manufacturing striations. Craters are more numerous than in the first zone. In the last zone, rough-bottomed manufacture striations are very evident. They cannot be confused with those resulting from use due to their width and depth. The high points are smoothed and are still crossed by numerous longitudinal use-striations (fig. 13-4). However, craters have disappeared. At 100x magnification, the tip of tool number 2 shows a regular topography due to a flat, bright and grainy surface covered by a dense network of unidirectional striations. At 200x magnifications, these are relatively fine (1 μm), long, superficial and continuous (fig. 142). Only few transverse, superficial and fine striations are present. Frequent micro-pits and craters with various dimensions (from 9μm to 34μm) are observed. The smaller craters are partially affected by the polish, but all have smoothed edges. Further down from the tip, where manufacturing striations appear, the surface is marked by the same micro use-wear (fig. 14-3). However, rough-bottomed craters with smoothed edges seem to be more numerous than in the tip area.

Acknowlegements Thanks to Graham Williams for reviewing the English of our paper.

Then, in the last worn zone, the topography appears irregular because of deep, large and rough-bottomed manufacture striations and depressions, which cover the major part of the surface (fig. 14-4). The same longitudinal use-striations cross the highest points, which are quite smoothed and varnished.

References Cited Aimar, A., C. Cilli, G. Giacobini and G. Malerba 1998 Scanning Electron Microscopy and Bone Surface Modification: A Contribution to the Study of Anthropic Actions on Animal Hard Tissues from Archeological Sites. In Science and Technology for the Safeguard of Cultural Heritage in the Mediterranean Basin, ed. A. Guarino, 1437-1443. Rome and Paris: CNR and CNRS.

Here, clearly, high power analysis enables us to characterize use-wear. Differences between the two awls, despite the difficulty in distinguishing macro use-wear, appear in the aspect of topography and of the high points, the morphology, the dimensions and direction of the striations as well as in the nature and number of the non-linear depressions (micro-pits and craters). It must be remembered that original surface textures have an influence on the formation and the distribution of the wear (see for example Cristiani and Alhaique 2005; Christidou 1999, 2004; Christidou and Legrand 2005). This must be taken into account to have a better understanding of the micro use-wear process and this should lead us to undertake new researches in the field of tribology.

Barge, H. 1982 Les perles-pendeloques à coches en os. Reconstitution expérimentale. In Industrie de l'os néolithique et de l'Age des Métaux, 2, ed. H. Camps-Fabrer, 113-123. Paris: CNRS. Billamboz, A. 1977 L'industrie en bois de cerf en Franche-Comté au Néolithique et au début de l'Age du Bronze. Gallia Préhistoire; vol. 20, No 1: 91-176. Campana, D. V. 1989 Natufian and Protoneolithic Bone Tools. The

75

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Manufacture and Use of Bone Implements in the Zagros and the Levant. BAR International Series No 494. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Teadus No 15. Tallinn: Archaeological Department, Institute of History, and Chair of Archaeology, University of Tartu.

Camps-Fabrer, H., and A. D'anna 1977 Fabrication expérimentale d'outils à partir de métapodes de moutons et de tibias de lapins. In Actes du 2 e colloque international sur l'industrie de l'os dans la Préhistoire: Méthodologie appliquée à l'industrie de l'os préhistorique, ed. H. Camps-Fabrer, 33-57. Paris: CNRS.

d’Errico, F. 1991 Étude technologique à base expérimentale des entailles sur matière dure animale. Implications pour l’identification de systèmes de rotation. In La préhistoire et l’ethnologie: 25 ans d'études technologiques en préhistoire, bilan et perspectives. Actes des XI Rencontres Internationales d'Archéologie et d'Histoire d'Antibes, Antibes, 18-20 Octobre 1990, ed. C. Perlès, 83-97. Juan-les-Pins (France): Éditions APDCA. 1993 Identification des traces de manipulation, suspension, polissage sur l’art mobilier en os, bois de cervidé, ivoire. In Traces et fonctions: les gestes retrouvés, Actes du colloque international de Liège, décembre 1990, vol. 1, ed. P. C. Anderson, S. Beyries, M. Otte and H. Plisson, 177-188. ERAUL No 50. Liège (Belgium): Études et Recherches archéologiques de l’Université de Liège. 1996 Image Analysis and 3-D Optical Surface Profiling of Upper Palaeolithic Mobiliary Art. Microscopy and Analysis: vol. 39: 27-29. e

Chippindale, C. 1986 Archaeology, Design Theory and the Reconstruction of Prehistoric Design System. In Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 13, No 4: 445-485. Christidou, R. 1999 Outils en os néolithiques du Nord de la Grèce: étude technologique. Ph.D. Disserrtation. Nanterre: Université de Paris X. 2001a Study of Bone Tools at Three Late/Final Neolithic Sites from Northern Greece. In Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space: Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the Worked Bone Research Group (ICAZ), 31 August – 5 September 1999, Budapest, ed. A. M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, 41-47. BAR International Series No 937. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 2001b Usure frontale d'un outil tranchant en os: deux mouvements opposés, une séquence technique? In Préhistoire et approche expérimentale, ed. L. Bourguignon, I. Ortega and M. C. Frère-Sautot, 259-266. Préhistoires 5. Montagnac (France): Éditions Monique Mergoil. 2004 Fabrication d’outils en os: Exemple d’opérations de raclage et d’abrasion. Les dossiers de l'archéologie; No 290: 56-57.

d’Errico, F., and G. Giacobini 1985 Approche méthodologique de l'analyse de l'outillage osseux: un exemple d'étude. L'Anthropologie; vol. 89, No 4: 457-472. d’Errico, F., G. Giacobini, J. Hather, A.-H. Power-Jones and A. M. Radmili 1995 Possible bone treshing tools from the Neolithic levels of Grotta dei Pïccioni (Abruzzo, Italy). Journal of Archaeological Science; vol. 22, No 4: 537-549. d´Errico, F. and P. Villa. 1997 Holes and Grooves: The Contribution of Microscopy and Taphonomy to the Problem of Art Origins. Journal of Human Evolution; vol. 33, No 1: 1-31.

Christidou, R. and A. Legrand 2005 Hide Working and Bone Tools: Experimentation Design and Applications. In From the Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth, Manufacture and use of bone artefacts from prehistoric times to the present: Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group, Tallinn, 26-31 August 2003, ed. H. Luik, A. M. Choyke, C. E. Batey and L. Lougas, 385-396. Muinasaja teadus No 15. Tallinn: Archaeological Department, Institute of History, and Chair of Archaeology, University of Tartu.

ETTOS 1985

1991

Cristiani, E., and F. Alhaique 2005 Flint vs Metal: The Manufacture of Bone Tools in the Eneolithic Site of Conelle di Arcevia (Central Italy). In From the Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth, Manufacture and use of bone artefacts from prehistoric times to the present: Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group, Tallinn, 26-31 August 2003, ed. H. Luik, A. M. Choyke, C. E. Batey and L. Lougas, 397-403. Muinasaja

Techniques de percussion appliquées au matériau osseux, premières expériences. In Cahiers de l'Euphrate No 4, ed. J. Cauvin and O. Aurence, 373-381. Paris: Éditions de la Recherche sur les civilisations. Des chasse-lames en os? Une étude expérimentale. In Actes du colloque international Expérimentations en Archéologie: bilan et perspectives. Tome 2, la terre: l'os et la pierre, la maison et les champ, 63-73. Paris: Éditions Errance.

Legrand, A. 2003 Concordance des formes et des fonctions? Etude techno-fonctionnelle des poinçons en os de Khirokitia (Néolithique pré-céramique, Chypre). Préhistoire Anthropologie

76

METHODS, MEANS, AND RESULTS WHEN STUDYING EUROPEAN BONE INDUSTRIES – LEGRAND AND SIDÉRA

2005a

2005b

in press

retrouvés, Actes du colloque international de Liège, décembre 1990, vol. 1, ed. P. C. Anderson, S. Beyries, M. Otte and H. Plisson, 309-316. ERAUL No 50. Liège (Belgium): Études et Recherches archéologiques de l’Université de Liège.

méditerranéennes; vol. 12: 189-196. New Evidence of the Bone Reduction Techniques from Khirokitia – Cyprus (7th Millennium cal. B.C.). In From the Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth, Manufacture and use of bone artefacts from prehistoric times to the present: Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group, Tallinn, 26-31 August 2003, ed. H. Luik, A. M. Choyke, C. E. Batey and L. Lougas, 105-112. Muinasaja teadus No 15. Tallinn: Archaeological Department, Institute of History, and Chair of Archaeology, University of Tartu. Nouvelle approche méthodologique des assemblages osseux du Néolithique de Chypre: Entre technique, fonction et culture. Ph.D. Dissertation. Paris: Université de Paris I. Neolithic Bone Needles and Vegetal Fibres Working: Experimentation and Use-Wear Analysis. In “Prehistoric Technology” 40 Years Later: Functional Studies and the Russian Legacy. Proceedings of the Conference Held in Verona, April 20-23, 2005, ed. L. Longo. BAR International Series. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Meneses Fernandez, M. D. 1994 Utiles de hueso del Neolitico final del sur de la Peninsula Iberica empleados en alfareria: placas curvas, biseles, placas y apuntados. Trabajos de Prehistoria; vol. 51, No 1: 143-156. Murray, C. 1979 Les techniques de débitage de petits ruminants à Auvernier-Port. In Actes du 2e colloque international sur l'industrie de l'os dans la Préhistoire: Méthodologie appliquée à l'industrie de l'os préhistorique, ed. H. Camps-Fabrer, 2735. Paris: CNRS. Nandris, J.-G. and H. Camps-Fabrer H. 1993 Fiche 6.3: cuillers à cuilleron à base en V du FTN. Fiches typologiques de l'industrie osseuse préhistorique: Les éléments récepteurs. Cahier No 6. Aix-en-Provence (France): Éditions de l’Université de Provence.

Lemoine, G. 1997 Use Wear on Bone and Antler Tools from the Mackensie Inuit. BAR International Series No 679. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Olsen, S. A. 1989 On Distinguishing Natural from Cultural Damage on Archaeological Antler. Journal of Archaeological Science; vol. 16, No 2: 125-135. 2001 The Importance of Thong-Smoothers at Botai, Kazakhstan. In Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space. Proceedings of the 2nd meeting of the Worked Bone Research Group (ICAZ), 31 August-5 September 1999, Budapest, ed. A. M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, 197-206. BAR International Series No 937. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Louwe Kooijmans, L. P., A. L. van Gijn, J. F. S. Oversteegen and M. Bruineberg 2001 Artefacten van been, gewei en tand. Hardinxveld-Giessendam De Bruin. Een Kampplaats uit het Laat-Mesolithicum en het begin van de Swifterbant-cultuur (5500-4450 v. Chr.). In R a p p o r t a g e Archeologische Monumentenzorg 88, ed. L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, 327-367. Amersfoort: Archeologie in de Betuweroute. Maigrot ,Y. 1997 Tracéologie des outils tranchants en os des V e et IV e millénaires av. J.-C. en Bassin parisien. Essai méthodologique et application. Bulletin de la société préhistorique française; vol. 94, No 2: 198-216. 2001 Le débitage du bois de cerf au Néolithique final à Chalain et Claivaux (Jura, France). Appoche expérimentale. In Préhistoire et approche expérimentale, ed. L. Bourguignon, I. Ortega and M. C. Frère-Sautot, 165-172. Préhistoires No 5. Montagnac (France): Éditions Monique Mergoil. 2003 Étude technologique et fonctionnelle de l’outillage en matières dures animales. La station 4 de Chalain (Néolithique final, Jura, France). Ph.D. Dissertation. Paris: Université de Paris I.

Peltier, A. 1986 Étude expérimentale des surfaces osseuses façonnées et utilisées. Bulletin de la société préhistorique française; vol. 83, No 1: 5-7. Peltier, A. and H. Plisson 1986 Micro-tracéologie fonctionnelle sur l'os: quelques résultats expérimentaux. In Outillage peu élaboré en os et en bois de cervidés II, ed. M. Patou, 6980. Artefacts No 3. Viroinval (Belgium): Éditions du Centre de recherche et de documentation archéologique de Viroinval. Poplin, F. 1974 Deux cas particulier de débitage par usure. In Actes du premier colloque international sur l'industrie de l'os dans la Préhistoire, ed. H. Camps-Fabrer, 85-92. Aix-en-Provence (France): Éditions de l'Université de Provence.

Meneses Fernandez, M. D. 1993 Reconstruccion technica, experimentacion y estudio comparativo de los 'tensadores textiles' de hueso del neolitico y Calcolitico en Andalucia (Espana). In Traces et fonctions: les gestes

Schibler, J. 2001 Experimental Production of Neolithic Bone and

77

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Antler Tools. In Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space. Proceedings of the 2nd meeting of the Worked Bone Research Group (ICAZ), 31 August-5 September 1999, Budapest, ed. A. M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, 49-60. BAR International Series No 937. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

2004

Semenov, S. A. 1964 Prehistoric Technology. London: Cory, Adam and Machay.

2005

Sénépart, I. 1991 Industrie osseuse et traitement thermique. Compte rendu de quelques expérimentations. In Colloque International Expérimentations en archéologie: bilan et perspectives. 2: la terre. L'os et la pierre, la maison et les champs, 49-55. Paris: Éditions Errance. in press Sidéra, I. 1989 Un complément des données sur les sociétés Rubanées, l'industrie osseuse de Cuiry-lèsChaudardes. BAR International Series No 520. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 1993a Les assemblages osseux en bassins parisien et rhénan du VIe au IVe millénaire B.C. Histoire, techno-économie et culture. Ph.D. Dissertation. Paris: Université de Paris I. 1993b L'outillage lithique et osseux à Darion et à Cuirylès-Chaudardes. Une consécration aux matières animales. In Traces et fonctions: les gestes retrouvés, Actes du colloque international de Liège, décembre 1990, vol. 1, ed. P. C. Anderson, S. Beyries, M. Otte and H. Plisson, 147-157. ERAUL No 50. Liège (Belgium): Études et Recherches archéologiques de l’Université de Liège. 1995 L'habitat du Rubané récent du Bassin parisien: L'industrie en matières osseuses. In Le site néolithique de Berry-au-Bac 'le Chemin de la Pêcherie' (Aisne), ed. M. Ilett and M. Plateaux, 116-125. Monographies du Centre de Recherches Archéologiques No 15. Paris: CNRS. 2000a Les Matières dures animales. In L'outillage en os et en ivoire» Muntelier/Fischergässli. Un habitat néolithique au bord du lac de Morat (3895 à 3820 avant J.-C.), ed. D. Ramseyer, 118-156. Cahiers d'Archéologie fribourgeoise No 15. Fribourg (Switzerland): Éditions Universitaires. 2000b Animaux domestiques, bêtes sauvages et objets en matières animales du Rubané au Michelsberg: De l'économie aux symboles, des techniques à la culture. Gallia Préhistoire; vol. 42: 108-194. 2001 Domestic and Funerary Bone, Antler and Tooth Objects in the Neolithic of Western Europe: A Comparison. In Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space. Proceedings of the 2nd meeting of the Worked Bone Research Group (ICAZ), 31 August-5 September 1999, Budapest, ed. A. M. Choyke

and L. Bartosiewicz, 221-229. BAR International Series No 937. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Exploitation de l'os au Néolithique dans le Bassin parisien et les vallées du Rhin et du Neckar. Fiches de la Commission de nomenclature sur l’industrie de l’os préhistorique, Cahier techniques. Paris: Éditions de la Société préhistorique française. Technical Data, Typological Data: A Confrontation. In From the Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth: Manufacture and use of bone artifacts from prehistoric times to the present. Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group, Tallinn, 2631 August 2003, ed. H. Luik, A. M. Choyke, C. E. Batey and L. Lougas, 81-90. Muinasaja Teadus No 15. Tallinn: Archaeological Department, Institute of History, and Chair of Archaeology, University of Tartu. L'industrie osseuse du Néolithique. In L e s occupations de la grotte de Montou (Pyrénées orientales), ed. F. Claustre. Paris: Documents d'archéologie française.

Sidéra, I. and G. Giacobini 2002 Outils, armes et parure en os funéraires à la fin du Néolithique, d'après Val-de-Reuil et PorteJoie (Eure): Représentations individuelles et pratiques collectives. Gallia Préhistoire; vol. 44: 215-230. Sidéra, I. and A. Legrand 2006 Tracéologie fonctionnelle des matières osseuses: une méthode. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française; vol. 103, No 2: 291-304. Stordeur, D. 1974 Note sur la proportion des objets taillés sur blocs et des objets taillés sur fragments à Tell Mureybet (Syrie). In Actes du 1er colloque international sur l'industrie de l'os dans la Préhistoire, ed. H. Camps-Fabrer, 101-104. Aixen-Provence (France): Éditions de l'Université de Provence. 1983 Quelques remarques pour attirer l'attention sur l'intérêt d'une recherche commune entre tracéologues du silex et technologues de l'os. In Table ronde internationale Traces d'utilisation sur les outils néolithiques du Proche Orient, ed. M.C. Cauvin, 231-240. Travaux de la Maison de l'Orient No 5. Paris: CNRS. 1984 L'industrie osseuse de Khirokitia. In Fouilles récentes à Khirokitia (Chypre) 1977-1981, ed. A. Le Brun, 129-162. Paris: Éditions Recherches sur les Civilisations. 1986 Recherches technologiques appliquées au matériau osseux. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française; vol. 83, No 3: 70. 1989 Des technologies nouvelles au service de la technologie? L'exemple des outils d'os préhistoriques. Notes et monographies techniques; No 25: 127-150.

78

METHODS, MEANS, AND RESULTS WHEN STUDYING EUROPEAN BONE INDUSTRIES – LEGRAND AND SIDÉRA

fonctionnelle. Cahiers de l'Euphrate; No 4: 289313.

Stordeur, D., and P. Anderson-Gerfaud 1985 Les omoplates encochés néolithiques de GanjDareh (Iran): étude morphologique et

79

chapter

6

The Use of Bone and Antler Tools: Two Examples from the Late Mesolithic in the Dutch Coastal Zone1 Annelou van Gijn Faculteit der Archeologie, Universiteit Leiden, The Netherlands

agricultural activity were found. Dogs were kept, as evidenced by several dog burials, a typical late Mesolithic phenomenon.

Introduction Until recently Mesolithic bone and antler implements were incidentally dredged up from the North Sea or from stream deposits (Clason 1985; Louwe Kooijmans 1970), but no finds were recovered in the context of a controlled excavation. During the construction of the Betuwelijn, a railway track crosscutting the riverine landscape in the middle of the Netherlands in an east-west direction, two Mesolithic sites were found near HardinxveldGiessendam named Polderweg and De Bruin (fig. 1). The National Railroad Company financed a largescale excavation of the sites2.

The site of De Bruin is contemporaneous with Polderweg. Its location in the landscape is also very similar to that of the Polderweg site, although preservation of organic materials was poorer. Three occupation phases were differentiated: Phase 1, dated 5500–5100 cal BC, is contemporaneous with the earliest, aceramic phase of Polderweg; Phase 2, dated 5100–4800 cal BC, is the main occupation phase on De Bruin. It is contemporary with Polderweg phase 2, and can be characterized as ceramic but not agrarian. Seasonal indicators suggest it is a base camp. Phase 3 concerns a small assemblage, dated to 4700–4450 cal BC, yielding ceramics and possible evidence for domestic animals (Louwe Kooijmans 2001b). As already mentioned, both sites were incredibly rich in materials (Louwe Kooijmans 2001b; 2001c). In accordance with the specifications of the State Archaeological Service, a pilot study had to be carried out examining the use wear traces on a sample of the flint and hard stone assemblages, as well as on the bone and antler tool assemblage. It was hoped that data from a use wear analysis would provide information on the subsistence and craft activities carried out at these sites. Use wear traces provide indications for activities and objects for which no direct evidence remains.

Figure 1: Map of the location of the sites of Hardinxveld-Giessendam Polderweg and De Bruin in the Rhine/Meuse delta in the western Netherlands.

The site of Polderweg was situated on a Pleistocene river dune in the Rhine/Meuse delta. The excavation took place at ca. eight meters below the present day surface. Dump areas were located on the slope deposits of the dune, separated by sterile deposits. Three occupation phases could be differentiated, ranging between 5400–5000 cal. BC. Phase 1 provided the largest assemblage. From the other two phases come smaller assemblages that may be less representative. The first phase is typically late Mesolithic, while the last two date to a ceramic Mesolithic phase. The inhabitants lived on the edge of the dune in small dugout huts, facing south towards the water. Based on the seasonal indicators we can infer an occupation from September through March (Louwe Kooijmans 2001a). Considering the activities that took place, this habitation can be interpreted as a base camp. Beaver and otter were the most important game animals as well as pike. No traces of

Methodology and Sample Selection of the tools to be studied was mainly determined by their state of preservation. Much of the material was so fragile, especially that from De Bruin, that a use wear analysis was not possible. Additionally, an attempt was made to select different types of tools, without attempting to get a representative sample from each type. Polderweg yielded a total of 327 bone, antler and teeth artifacts, out of which 31 implements were examined for traces of use. The major part of the Polderweg artifacts was attributed to the first occupation phase (N=239). The

81

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

archaeological implements. This allowed us to differentiate more easily between manufacturing and use wear traces. Experiments with Mesolithic tool types included the use of adzes made from the metapodia of cattle (fig. 2), of antler axes to chop trees (fig. 3) and of various denticulated bone and antler tools, used especially for scraping hides (fig. 4). Bone awls used on plant material were obtained from a professional basket maker who also used Molinia, a silicious grass, for making beehives. Lately, we have cooperated with Archeon, the archeological theme park in Alphen aan de Rijn. All wear traces encountered on these experimental tools were photographed and described. Figures 5 and 6 show some of the variability in wear traces resulting from contact with various materials. Debarking wood (fig. 5: a, b) results in a bright polish with quite a bit of rounding and striations. Coiling reeds using an antler tine as an “awl” resulted in a smooth, very bright and almost metallic polish (fig. 5: c). Performing the same experiment on hemp produced a duller, invasive polish (fig. 5: d). Hide working caused extensive rounding and a rough invasive polish with perpendicularly oriented striations (fig. 6: a–c). As a result of using a metapodium as digging stick, a very bright but highly abrasive polish with many striations developed (fig. 6: e, f). The use of a bone wedge on Taxus wood produced a rather rough polish (fig. 6: d). Interestingly enough, the tool displayed very little chipping even though Taxus wood is extremely hard.

artifacts selected for wear trace analysis included 15 bone tools, 12 antler tools and four wild boar canines. Out of a total of 270 modified bone, antler and ivory implements from De Bruin, 15 implements were selected for a functional analysis, ten of bone and five of antler. At De Bruin the majority of the bone and antler assemblage dated to Phase 2 (192 of the 270). The modified canines of wild boar from De Bruin were not examined because most of them had become too friable for use wear trace analysis. Semenov (1964) has already shown that use wear analysis of bone and antler tools was possible but it was not until the late 1980s and early 1990s that wear trace studies of bone and antler tools were done (Campana 1980; d’Errico 1993; LeMoine 1994). High power use wear studies of bone tools appeared even later (i.e. Christidiou 1999; Maigrot 2003). Experiments showed that interpretable traces of wear, comprising polish, rounding and striations, abrasive features and chipping, developed quite quickly on bone and antler tools. However, the wear trace analysis of implements made of bone, antler and teeth is complicated by the effects of taphonomic processes and the fact that manufacturing traces must be taken into account. Teeth and antlers are used as “tools” by the animals before they get into the hands of people. Antler tines for example display a bright polish from the fact that deer rub their antlers against trees. It is therefore essential to include a series of natural samples as a reference. The tools reported here were first examined with a stereomicroscope, using reflected light, with magnifications ranging between 10–160x. Examination with a stereomicroscope allows the identification of residue and macroscopic traces of manufacture and use. Subsequently, a metallographic microscope was used, with magnifications between 100–1000x. High-power microscopy permits detailed examination of polish and microscopic striations. Cleaning was confined to rinsing in water. No alcohol, acetone or chemicals were used.

Figure 2: Experiments on the use of a metapodium adze: a) debarking; b) digging up roots; c) chopping charred wood.

The Experiments In cooperation with students and with Ans Nieuwenburg, who made a number of bone tools, a large number of experiments using bone and antler were executed. In addition, several experiments were performed at the Lejre Forsogcenter in Denmark, replicating and using late Mesolithic tool types such as found at Polderweg and De Bruin. The first series of experiments carried out at Lejre was aimed at reproducing the manufacturing traces seen on the

Technology The two most important technological systems are that of the metapodium technique for bone tool production and that of the use of red deer antlers for making tools. Although the function of tools is of primary concern in this paper, a few comments on technology are made here.

82

THE USE OF BONE AND ANTLER TOOLS: TWO EXAMPLES FROM THE LATE MESOLITHIC IN THE DUTCH COASTAL ZONE – VAN GIJN

important food source for various animals and is therefore only available for gathering for a brief period of time.

Figure 3: Felling a tree with a T-shaped antler axe.

Figure 5: Experimental wear traces: a) bone chisel used for debarking birch for 10 minutes; b) bone chisel used on wood for 105 minutes; c) antler tine used in a rotating movement on Phragmites for 95 minutes; d) antler tine used in a rotating movement on hemp for 100 minutes. All photos were taken at 100x original magnification.

Figure 4: Experiments with hide scraping using bone and antler tools: a) Softening a dry hide with a chipped bone tool; b) scraping fresh hide with a denticulated antler tine.

The Use of Red Deer Antler for Tool Production at Polderweg and De Bruin Red deer antlers formed an important raw material for tool production (fig. 7). No evidence has been found for the use of moose antler, whereas roe deer antler was only rarely used. The material from red deer comprises mainly shed antlers and, incidentally, antlers from hunted animals. This means that both sites were certainly occupied during February-March when the antlers were shed and could be collected. Antler not only decays very quickly, but also forms an

Figure 6: Experimental wear traces: a) bone used to scrape dry hide for 120 minutes; b) bone used to scrape fresh sheep skin for 30 minutes; c) antler tine used to scrape fresh deer skin for 55 minutes; d) bone wedge used to split Taxus wood for 20 minutes; e, f) metapodium adze used for digging roots for 90 minutes. Photos 6: a, b, d and e were taken at 100x original magnification, photo 6: f at 200x. Photo 6: c was taken through a stereomicroscope at 6.5x.

At both sites, various tools were made from red deer

83

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

antler, such as perforated axes from the beam, hammer axes from the burr and beam, T- and J-axes from the middle bit of the beam, sleeves and hafts from the beam, and awls and chisels from the tines. All debitage displays clear traces of sawing marks using flint tools (fig. 8). The antler was therefore cut up, not by chopping (for example with a flint tranchet axe), but by sawing and cutting until the spongeous inner part was reached, upon which it was broken off. This technique produced an oblique facet that could be used to make the working edge of an axe or scraper (by scraping with a burin or by sanding the surface down on sandstone). Our experiments have demonstrated that this technique was effective but time consuming and it was not always that easy to break the antler at an oblique angle.

van den Broeke 1983; van Gijn 1990) (fig. 9). The first step involved the deepening of the natural furrows on the anterior and posterior aspect of the bone with a pointed flint tool. The second step consisted of sawing a groove around the circumference of the bone, again with a flint tool, to allow the removal of either the distal or the proximal end by breaking it off. Flint tools with traces associated with these activities have been found at Polderweg. Lastly, the metapodium was split in half lengthwise, after which the two halves could be ground to a final shape such as awls, chisels or spatulas. Most of these smaller tools were produced on the metapodia of red deer or sometimes, as in the case of De Bruin, from sheep metapodia. The metapodia of aurochs were made into big adzes, with the proximal part being drilled to permit hafting.

Figure 7: Production scheme of the various artifacts made from red deer antler (from Louwe Kooijmans et al. 2001b, figure 10: 6).

Figure 9: Production scheme of the of tools from metapodia (from van Gijn 1990, figure 59).

Ad Hoc Tools Quite a number of unmodified pieces of bone or debitage from more formal production sequences displayed traces of use. A fine example is the antler burr with the beam and eye tine cut-off that was used on hide (fig. 8). There are also several cases where tools were recycled and modified into different tool types. This occurred for example when T-axes broke at their perforation (a common place for these axes to break); the half with the cutting edge was then modified into a scraper. The inhabitants did not have a shortage of bone or antler for producing tools. It seems more likely that broken tools or debitage displayed a suitable edge for a specific task at hand. Why spend time producing a new formal tool, when an ad hoc tool was at hand?

Figure 8: Red deer antler base (Polderweg No 21.519) with cut marks and traces of its uses as a hide scraper (Hi) as well as traces of handling (Ha). Scale 1:2.

Metapodium Technique for the Production of Bone Tools Most of the formal bone tools were made using the so-called metapodium technique (Maarleveld 1985;

84

THE USE OF BONE AND ANTLER TOOLS: TWO EXAMPLES FROM THE LATE MESOLITHIC IN THE DUTCH COASTAL ZONE – VAN GIJN

one such edge was rounded and displayed perpendicularly oriented striations and polish indicative of hide working. The burr was heavily worn down by handling (fig. 8). Apart from production waste, unmodified antler may also have been used. One such an informal tool (or pièce de fortune) constituted a small roe deer antler with striations in the notch, accompanied by rounding: this piece was interpreted as possibly having been used to soften strips of raw hide.

The inferred Activities Hide Working A number of tools display a band of continuous rough polish, craters in the polish and fine, perpendicularly oriented striations, as well as considerable rounding (fig. 10: a–c). These tools were interpreted as hide working tools (fig. 11 and 12). Some of the tools were denticulated and were interpreted as being used for defleshing fresh hides (fig. 12). Other objects were very rounded and were probably involved in thinning an already preserved hide and in making it more pliable.

Figure 11: Tools made of red deer antler from the Polderweg, displaying traces from scraping hide (Hi): a) recycled perforated axe (No 24.232); b) scraper on antler shaft (No 26.610); c) tine with oblique cut (No 22.068). Scale 1:2.

Polderweg also produced bone tools with traces from working hide (fig. 12). These include two denticulated implements, one tiny scraper with heavily rounded teeth (fig. 10: a, 12: b) and a larger piece of a metapodium with heavy chipping (fig. 10: b and 12: a). This latter tool may have been used on a harder material prior to its use as a hide scraper. It displayed heavy rounding and polish overlying the large chips. Additionally, a few pièces de fortune were found, one tongue bone and a rib. Both displayed heavy rounding, perpendicularly oriented striations and a rough, cratered polish.

Figure 10: Hide working traces on tools from the Polderweg: a) traces on denticulated bone implement No 12.437 figure 12: b); b) on No 14.298 (figure 12: a); c) on No 22.068 (figure 11: c). Photos 10: a and b were taken at 100x original magnification, 10: c was taken using a stereomicroscope at 6.5x.

Various hide working tools of antler were found at Polderweg. They include an axe, broken at the perforation and subsequently denticulated to be used as a defleshing tool (fig. 11: a) and two denticulated scrapers, one made on a tine, the other on the main shaft of red deer antler (fig. 11: c). The first displayed all the features of hide working wear (fig. 10: c), the other had a rounded edge, but inference as hide working tool was uncertain due to poor preservation of the edge. Hide working traces were also seen on another scraper made from antler beam although this tool was not denticulated. One of the most interesting hide working implements was an antler burr with the beam, the eye and the tines sawn and broken off, actually a piece of production waste. The way these antlers are worked, sawing one half of the circumference of the tine or shaft and breaking the other half, produces an oblique cut that can easily be scraped or ground into a scraper edge. In this case

Also at De Bruin, various bone and antler tools were used on hide (fig. 13 and 14). One antler T-axe, broken at its perforation was modified into a scraper by adding teeth (fig. 13a). Another axe broken at its original perforation, with a straight working edge, also was heavily rounded, with a band of polish along the edge penetrating the depressions. One scraper made on a red deer antler tine showed rounding indicative of hide working, but seemed to have been resharpened as well. One antler tine was shaved and worked into an awl and probably used to pierce hide (fig. 13: c and 15: b). Bone tools with hide working traces included a denticulated scraper on an auroch metapodium and a piece of production waste from a red deer metapodium which had been modified into an awl (fig. 14: a and 15: a).

85

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

striations indicating a rotating and pushing movement; these tools may have been used on plants as well. Such tools could have played a role in rope making, basketry, or the production of fish traps.

Figure 12: Implements made of bone from Polderweg, which were probably used on hide (Hi): a) No 14.298; b) No 12.437. Scale 1:2. Figure 14: Hide working tools (Hi) made of bone from De Bruin: a) awl made of red deer metapodium (No 3785); b) teethed scraper (No 2787). Scale 1:2.

Figure 13: Hide working tools (Hi) made of red deer antler from De Bruin: a) recycled perforated axe (No 2537); b) obliquely cut antler tine (No 19.749); c) awl (No 18.344). Scale 1:2.

Plant Working

Figure 15: Wear traces on tools from De Bruin: a) traces from piercing hide seen on bone awl (No 3785, figure 14: a); b) traces from piercing hide seen on antler awl (No 18.344, figure 13: c); c) abrasive traces from soil (on No 16.651, figure 17: a); d) traces from chiselling wood (on No 5631, figure 17: b); e) decoration on the ulna tool No 6990 (figure 16); f) traces from plant-working (on No 6990, figure 16). All photos were taken at 100x original magnification.

Plant fibre working traces were hardly encountered on the bone and antler tools. Although quite a few awls (in theory a likely plant working tool) were included in the sample, a number of them could not be studied due to bad preservation. One awl from the Polderweg was interpreted as having been used in a rotating motion on plant material. At least three more awls (one made on a sheep metapodium from De Bruin) displayed traces of contact with a soft material, with

One of the show-pieces from the excavation of De Bruin included a kind of spatula type of object made from the split ulna of a swan. It was decorated with

86

THE USE OF BONE AND ANTLER TOOLS: TWO EXAMPLES FROM THE LATE MESOLITHIC IN THE DUTCH COASTAL ZONE – VAN GIJN

one might expect, no chipping took place. This confirms earlier experiments by Gitte Jensen (pers. comm. 2001) who also concluded that antler axes did not break that easily, except when left to dry completely. Remarkably enough however, many of the antler axes from the Polderweg and De Bruin have broken edges. Cutting trees could only have resulted in such heavily fragmented edges if one had allowed the axes to become completely dried out. Considering the time needed to produce an axe (in our experience 5–6 hours, depending on the quality of the antler), it is highly unlikely that this was done unintentionally. Another explanation should be considered, perhaps one related more to ceremonial reasons, i.e. the intentional breaking and depositing of axes in wet locations.

geometric patterns and perforated on one end (fig. 15: c and 16). This tool displayed a highly polished surface, the polish being very bright, smooth and intrusive, with numerous filled-in striations. The wear has been interpreted as resulting from contact with plant material (fig. 15: f). It may have functioned in plaiting or textile activities or for net-weaving. An experiment with knotless netting3 has produced wear very similar to that on the archaeological tool. Evidence for making nets without knots has been found at various Mesolithic sites such as Friesack and Tybrind Vig. For our experiment nettles (Urtica) were collected and left to dry. The stems were then lightly pounded after which they could be split open. The outer bark can be removed and split in thin strips. These strips can be twined into a rope. Knotless netting begins with a loop around which you make 510 smaller loops. In the next round you continue to add extra loops in the previous ones until you have reached the required size of the bottom of the net (fig. 17). The tool was used for 6-7 hours to make a small carrying bag. The tool proved to be very suitable for the task.

Figure 17: Experiment with using a replica of the needle depicted in figure 16 for “knotless netting”.

One small bone adze from Polderweg was intentionally grooved with flint. This tool displayed a polish possibly related to working wood; it also had residue from charcoal on it. Additionally, one wild boar tusk, shaped into a chisel-form, displayed light “pounding” marks on one end, probably from impact with a haft. The other used end showed chipping and striations attributable to a transverse motion on a hard contact material. This tool may have been used in wood working. Figure 16: Split swan ulna from De Bruin (No 6990), with traces from plant working (PL). Scale 1:2.

One bone adze from De Bruin, made on a metapodium of red deer, showed pounding marks on its proximal end and chipping, polish and rounding on its distal end (fig. 18: b and15: d). This implement was interpreted as having been used to split wood. Another, smaller bone adze from the same site also displayed pounding marks on its butt end, but the polish was less well developed (fig. 18: c). The chipping however, may indicate this tool also was used to split wood.

Wood Working Few wood working tools were found. A number of antler axes were retrieved, a tool type frequently associated with working wood. Such axes are indeed perfectly suitable for this task (fig. 3). Experiments with T-shaped antler axes showed that a tree with a diameter of 17 cm could be cut down in 20 minutes. After use the edge was rounded, but contrary to what

87

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

marks, suggesting it was used as a hammer, maybe for flint working. Another antler hammer was actually used for light pounding, but also used in a rotating fashion: this tool was interpreted as a pestle. Last, several tools, among which two tools made of wild boar canines, displayed traces that were insufficiently diagnostic to allow interpretation. One of the wild boar canines showed traces indicating it had been used on an unknown hard material and has slight impact traces on its other end.

Figure 19: Adze with shaft hole probably used in soil to dig up roots (Polderweg No 1335). Scale 1:2. Figure 18: Tools of metapodia from De Bruin: a) adze with traces from digging soil (So) (No 16.651); b) bone chisel with traces from working wood (Wo) (No 5631); c) chisel used on unknown material with pounding marks on top end (No 7517). Scale 1:2.

Hafts Several hafts were encountered in the assemblages from both sites, some of which were decorated with geometric incised designs (Louwe Kooijmans et al. 2001a, fig. 11: 8, 11: 13 and 11: 14). Three, all from the Polderweg, were microscopically examined. One haft made of red deer antler, with a shaft hole and displayed a long impact chip (fig. 20). It must have formed a haft for quite a small tool, maybe one of the little chisels made of wild boar canine. One of the latter showed traces of impact on its butt end, opposite traces from chiselling a hard material. These impact traces could have resulted from slight movement inside the haft with each blow, eventually causing also splitting of the antler haft. Another tool made of antler had a wide perforation, with a small handle on each side (Louwe Kooijmans et al. 2001a,

Other Activities Two bone adzes made on a auroch metapodium, one from Polderweg and one from De Bruin, were interpreted as having been used in soil (fig. 18: a and fig. 19). They may have been used as some sort of digging stick to uproot tubers. Experiments with such an implement actually showed that these bone adzes were quite effective for this purpose since they were fitted on a long shaft (fig. 2: b). Another activity that is represented is flint working. One of the antler tines may have served as a punch for flint working. The burr of a red deer antler was covered with pounding

88

THE USE OF BONE AND ANTLER TOOLS: TWO EXAMPLES FROM THE LATE MESOLITHIC IN THE DUTCH COASTAL ZONE – VAN GIJN

this activity was not simply confined to the cleaning of fresh skins. Various awls showed hide-working traces, indicating that the hides were further processed on the site and maybe even transformed into clothing or bedding. This concurs with the archaeozoological findings indicating that fur animals were important at the Polderweg site.

fig. 11: 8e). It displayed a lot of abrasive wear inside the perforation suggesting it may have been a haft for a flint tool. The handle showed a lot of abrasive wear from handling, which had partially removed the geometric decoration.

Other activities include the use of awls on plants, various wood working tools, a pestle used on unknown material and an adze interpreted as a digging tool. One of the most interesting artifacts is a “needle” like tool made of a split ulna of a swan, probably used for making nets of plant fibres. Based on various seasonal indicators an occupation from September to March is the most likely, making Polderweg a winter base camp (Louwe Kooijmans 2001a). De Bruin phase 2, the main occupation phase and dated a little later than Polderweg, is very similar in nature, indicating that the dunes were in continuous use during this period. The wide array of activities represented by the wear trace analysis of the bone and antler tools, but also from the stone tool assemblages (van Gijn et al. 2001a; 2001b) supports the interpretation of the Polderweg and De Bruin phase 2 as a base camp. The high frequency of socalled maintenance activities, such as processing plants and hides, may indicate the presence of women. The number of implements from each phase is too limited to detect changes in tool function through time. The technological analysis shows continuity between the Polderweg material and De Bruin phase 1 and 2. The picture does however change in the later Neolithic phase of De Bruin (phase 3, dated to 4700–4450 cal BC), when the site seems to be used not as a base camp anymore, but as an extraction point (Louwe Kooijmans 2001b).

Figure 20: Decorated haft from red deer antler (Polderweg No 24.300). Scale 1:2.

Conclusion Activities Carried out with Bone and Antler Tools

The Technological System

The wear trace analysis of a small number of bone, antler and ivory implements from the late Mesolithic sites of Hardinxveld-Giessendam Polderweg and De Bruin showed that they were used in a variety of activities at these sites. Some of these activities are not visible in actual artifacts, but are only represented in an indirect way by the wear traces present on the implements found. Examples are hide-working and plant processing.

Until recently, most of the use wear studies were directed at the flint assemblage from sites. Clearly, this is attributable to the fact that most of the methodological advances in the west, involving high power microscopy, have been done on flint. The finegrained surface of flint allows the development of clearly distinguishable use wear polishes, making detailed inferences of tool use possible. However, studying only one component of the past technological system results in a very distorted image of the activities that took place on the site. The study of the bone and antler assemblages of Polderweg and De Bruin brought this point forward in a very clear

Most notable is the apparent importance of hide working. Different types of bone and antler tools displayed traces from contact with hide indicating that

89

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

cannot be explained by a shortage of antlers or bones. Rather, it must be attributed to the attitude of the prehistoric users towards their implements: they looked for suitable working edges for the task at hand. This is why a broken antler T-axe was not thrown away; instead, the oblique edge still present was deemed perfectly suitable for scraping hides. This “disrespect” for our academic typological classifications also became evident in other choices of tool use. For example, a base axe of antler was not used as a hammer, as one would expect, but as a pestle in a rotating movement. Findings such as these throw a different light on this past technological system, providing evidence for a very flexible bone and antler technology aimed more at the functionality of individual edges than at the formal shape of the artifacts.

manner. At the site of Polderweg, a remarkably small number of flint scrapers were encountered. This is unusual because scrapers are a very common tool type in late Mesolithic assemblages. At Polderweg, the scrapers comprise only 5.4% of the retouched pieces, although elsewhere these proportions can range between 8–16%. Of this small number of scrapers only a few showed traces of hide working (van Gijn et al. 2001a). If only the flint assemblage had been studied for traces of wear, the conclusion may have been that hardly any hide working had taken place at the site of Polderweg, suggesting a more temporary occupation of the site. This inference would have been made along the assumption that a time consuming task as hide processing would not have been performed at a temporary encampment. Because of the fact that the bone and antler assemblage of Polderweg was also studied for traces of wear, we found that hide working was done with bone and antler tools instead. At De Bruin, flint scrapers did account for a (normal) 11.7% of the retouched implements, a number of which were used on hide (van Gijn et al. 2001b). However, here hide working was also done with bone and antler tools. This example demonstrates that it is very important to study as many categories of tools as possible in terms of production and use, in order to obtain a more complete picture of the activities carried out at a site. Only studying the flint tools can produce a very skewed picture of the way people lived at a site.

Another remarkable feature of the bone and antler tool assemblages from the coastal zones of the Netherlands is the continuity in terms of technology and use through the later Mesolithic until late Neolithic times. This is most apparent in the use of the metapodium technique for the production of bone awls and chisels. The waste materials from this technique, in the shape of the cut off distal ends of metapodials, were found at the late Mesolithic sites of Polderweg and De Bruin, the early Neolithic site of Brandwijk (van Gijn, pers. observ.), the middle Neolithic sites of Schipluiden (van Gijn, pers. observ.), and Hazendonk 3 (van den Broeke 1983). In addition, they were found at the late Neolithic sites of the Vlaardingen group such as the Vlaardingen levels at Hazendonk, the type site Vlaardingen and Hekelingen III (van den Broeke 1983; van Gijn 1990). At the latter site a great deal of flint tools with traces of sawing and carving bone were encountered (van Gijn 1990, figure 56). Even though the basic production technique remains the same, we see that metapodia of sheep were sometimes used in the later periods, instead of red deer or roe deer metapodia (like in De Bruin’s early Neolithic phase 3). However, the awls and chisels made with this technique remain very much the same throughout this long period. It also seems that their use is constant as evidenced by the Neolithic awls from Brandwijk that seem to have been used for plant working. Red deer antlers also continued to be regarded as a valuable raw material for the production of tools such as axes. It is clear that some Mesolithic traditions such as the bone and antler technology continue far into the Neolithic.

Even though we cannot totally exclude that at Polderweg scrapers with hide working traces may have been present in those areas of the site not excavated (only a very small portion of the top of the levee was excavated), it is tempting to interpret the results as a technological choice on the part of the inhabitants of Polderweg. This choice cannot be attributed to a lack of flint for the production of tools, as both local flint, in the form of pebbles, was available as well as import material. A large block of Rijckholt material was found from which innumerable scrapers could have been made. This cultural choice could have been inspired by laziness. Considering the amount of waste from bone and antler tool production that must have been present, it is possible that picking up a suitable piece of bone or antler for a task at hand was easier than making a flint implement. This is suggested by the apparent importance of recycling and the use of informal tools. Several perforated axes were transformed into scrapers for hide working after breaking during their first use as an axe. Production waste was also used, as exemplified by a red deer antler burr used to scrape hide (fig. 8). Some bone and antler artifacts were even used without any modification. This economical way of dealing with the raw material

Notes 1: . This is a different version of a previous paper (see van Gijn 2005).

90

THE USE OF BONE AND ANTLER TOOLS: TWO EXAMPLES FROM THE LATE MESOLITHIC IN THE DUTCH COASTAL ZONE – VAN GIJN

2: Railinfra Beheer of the National Railroads, with Boudewijn Goudzwaard and Cees Koot as managing directors, financed and supervised the entire project of the Betuwelijn. 3: The experiment was done by Dorothee Olthof at Archeon, the archaeological theme park at Alphen aan de Rijn, The Netherlands.

2005

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the Lejre Forsogcenter in Denmark and its director Marianne Rasmussen, for providing me with a four-year grant to perform experiments in a very positive atmosphere. Recently, Dorothee Olthof of Archeon, the archaeological theme park in the Netherlands has performed some experiments. I am grateful to Ans Nieuwenburg for teaching me how to work bone and making tools for our experiments. My colleague Yvonne Lammers, always keen on experimental archaeology, was an invaluable companion during these trips to the Lejre Research Center. Nigel Langdon was responsible for the layout of the figures for this article. The present article forms part of the general research project “The use wear analysis of prehistoric artifacts: an integral approach towards the study of material culture”, supported by the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Aspasia No 015.000.095).

Assemblages. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 22. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden. A functional analysis of some late Mesolithic bone and antler implements from the Dutch coastal zoneIn From the Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth, Manufacture and use of bone artefacts from prehistoric times to the present: Proceedings of the 4th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group, Tallinn, 2631 August 2003, ed. H. Luik, A. M. Choyke, C. E. Batey and L. Lougas, 47-66. Muinasaja teadus No 15. Tallinn: Archaeological Department, Institute of History, and Chair of Archaeology, University of Tartu.

Gijn, A. L. van, Beugnier, V. and Y. Lammers-Keijsers 2001a Vuursteen. In Hardinxveld-Giessendam Polderweg. Een mesolithisch jachtkamp in het rivierengebied (5500–5000 v. Chr.), ed. L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, 119-162. Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 83. Amersfoort: Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek. Gijn, A. L. van, Y. Lammers-Keijsers and R. Houkes 2001b Vuursteen. In Hardinxveld-Giessendam De Bruin, een woonplaats uit het laat-mesolithicum en de vroege Swifterbantcultuur in de Rijn/Maasdelta, 5500–4450 v. Chr., L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, 163192. Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 88. Amersfoort: Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek.

References Cited Broeke, P. W. van den 1983 Neolithic Bone and Antler Objects from the Hazendonk near Molenaarsgraaf (Province South Holland). Oudheidkundige Mededelingen Rijksmuseum van Oudheden; No 64: 163–195.

Keeley, L. H. 1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: A Microwear Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Campana, D. V. 1980 An Analysis of the Use-wear Patterns on Natufian and Proto-Neolithic Bone Implements, Ph.D. Dissertation. New York: Columbia University.

LeMoine, G. M. 1994 Use Wear on Bone and Antler Tools from the Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories. American Antiquity; vol. 59, No 2: 316–334.

Clason, A. T. 1985 Worked and Unworked Antlers and Bone Tools from Spoolde, De Gaste, the IJsselmeerpolders and Adjacent Areas. Palaeohistoria; vol. 25: 77–130.

Louwe Kooijmans, L. P. 1970 Mesolithic Bone and Antler Implements from the North Sea and from the Netherlands. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek; vol. 20–21: 27–73.

Christidiou, R. 1999 Outils en os néolithiques du Nord de la Grèce: étude technologique, Ph.D. Dissertation. Paris: Université de Paris X.

Louwe Kooijmans, L. P. 2001a Synthese. In Hardinxveld-Giessendam Polderweg. Een mesolithisch jachtkamp in het rivierengebied (5500–5000 v. Chr.), ed. L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, 441-470. Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 83. Amersfoort: Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek.

d’Errico, F. 1993 Identification des traces de manipulation, suspension, polissage sur l’art mobilier en os, bois de cervidés, ivoire. In Traces et fonction: les gestes retrouvés, ed. P. Anderson, S. Beyries, M. Otte and H. Plisson, 117-188. ERAUL 50.

Louwe Kooijmans, L. P. (ed.) 2001b Hardinxveld-Giessendam De Bruin, een woonplaats uit het laat-mesolithicum en de vroege Swifterbantcultuur in de Rijn/Maasdelta, 5500–4450 v. Chr. Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 88. Amersfoort: Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek.

Gijn, A. L. van 1990 The Wear and Tear of Flint: Principles of Functional Analysis Applied to Dutch Neolithic

91

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

cultuur, M.A. Thesis. Leiden: University of Leiden.

Louwe Kooijmans, L. P. (ed.) 2001c Hardinxveld-Giessendam Polderweg. Een mesolithisch jachtkamp in het rivierengebied (5500–5000 v. Chr.). Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg, 83. Amersfoort: Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek.

Maigrot, Y. 2003 Étude technologique et fonctionnelle de l’outillage en matière dures animales. La station 4 de Chalain (Néolithique final, Jura, France). Ph.D. Dissertation. Paris: Université de Paris I.

Louwe Kooijmans, L. P., Oversteegen, J. and van Gijn, A. L. 2001a Artefacten van been, gewei en tand. In Hardinxveld-Giessendam Polderweg. Een mesolithisch jachtkamp in het rivierengebied (5500–5000 v. Chr.), ed. L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, 285-323. Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 83. Amersfoort: Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek.

Moss, E. H. 1983 The Functional Analysis of Flint Implements. BAR International Series No 177. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Odell, G. H. 1977 The Application of Micro-wear Analysis to the Lithic Component of an Entire Prehistoric Settlement: Methods, Problems and Functional Reconstructions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Louwe Kooijmans, L. P., A. L. van Gijn, J. F. S. Oversteegen and M. Bruineberg 2001b Artefacten van been, gewei en tand. In Hardinxveld-Giessendam De Bruin, een woonplaats uit het laat-mesolithicum en de vroege Swifterbantcultuur in de Rijn/Maasdelta, 5500–4450 v. Chr., ed. L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, 327-367. Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 88. Amersfoort: Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek.

Sidéra, I. 1989 Un complément des données sur les sociétés rubanées: l’industrie en os de Cuiry-lèsChaudardes. BAR International Series No 520. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Maarleveld, T. J. 1985 Been en tand als grondstof in de Vlaardingen.

92

chapter

7

Stability and Change in Bone Tool Use Along the Middle Missouri, North Dakota Janet Griffitts Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, USA

networks. The villagers therefore had opportunities early access to European trade goods first through indirect trade, and then by direct trade (Wood 1980).

Introduction The village-dwelling horticulturalists and hunters of the Northern Plains of North America underwent tremendous changes with the coming of Europeans and Euroamericans. The dramatic technological change of the time has been intensively studied (Rogers 1990; Toom 1992; Weston 1993), but many native technologies persisted for centuries after the initial contact, and the order in which particular native technologies were abandoned is not well documented. Bone tools were an important resource for the people of the Middle Missouri, but they have been largely neglected by archaeologists. This study focuses on technological change and stability in two bone tool types from five sites in the Middle Missouri subarea of the Northern Plains (fig. 1), and examines some common assumptions and explanations that archaeologists have used in studying changes in production and use of bone tools. I utilize several methods to track technological change and stability, including comparing morphological categories, identifying changes in manufacturing methods, and employing use-wear analysis to examine tool use through time.

Figure 1: Locations of sites discussed in this chapter.

At the time of contact, the Mandan were seasonally mobile. Winter villages were built in the cottonwood forests of the river floodplain where they were protected from the wind and extreme cold of North Dakota winters. The summer villages were constructed on terraces above the floodplains to have access to the water and to the riverine floral and faunal resources, as well as to the resources of the Missouri Plateau above (Lehmer 1971). Maize, beans, squash, sunflowers, tobacco, and other crops were grown in fields in the rich floodplain soils. Those cultigens were supplemented by many gathered wild species. The terraces also provided natural defensive locations for some villages, which in some cases were supplemented by fortification walls and ditches.

The Middle Missouri Early Euroamerican explorers documented large villages along the Missouri River in the area of present-day North and South Dakota, inhabited by people who farmed the rich riverine soils, hunted, and gathered in nearby areas. At the time of historical contact, the village occupants included the Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara, Cheyenne, and Pawnee; the people living in the prehistoric earthlodge villages of the Middle Missouri are likely the ancestors of the Mandan and Hidatsa. Nomadic tribes who lived in or visited the area included several divisions of the Sioux and the Assiniboine. The Middle Missouri villagers played a central role in the extensive trade networks that linked widespread peoples across much of North America. When European and Euroamerican traders entered the Plains, they noted the central role the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara played in the native trade systems and sought to ally themselves with the villagers and insert themselves into existing trade

Bison (Bison bison) were hunted on the Missouri Plateau. Many other animals, both large and small, were hunted including deer (Odocoileus sp.), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), and elk or wapiti (Cervus elephas), bear (Ursus sp.), jackrabbit (Lepus sp.), and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). In addition to food, the bison supplied raw materials, such as bone, horn, rawhide, leather, sinew, hair, and glue, which could

93

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

early eighteenth century the Mandan lived in from six to nine fortified villages along both banks of the Missouri River, from the mouth of the Cannonball River to the area between the Heart and Knife Rivers (Wood and Irwin 2001: 349), but a widespread smallpox outbreak in 1781 severely reduced many Native American populations and by the early nineteenth century only two Mandan, or predominantly Mandan, settlements remained. One of the villages was Ruptare or Black Cat’s Village. This village has never been located by archaeologists and may have been lost to the Missouri River (Wood and Irwin 2001: 350). The other village, Mitutahank, known to archaeologists as Deapolis, is described below.

be used to make artifacts used for shelter, clothing, ornaments, transportation, ritual paraphernalia, and many tools. The emphasis on bison hunting resulted, among other things, in an abundance of bone raw material, and Middle Missouri sites frequently yield large modified bone assemblages. There has been considerable debate regarding the classification of phases, complexes, and other cultural divisions in the Middle Missouri region and several chronological schemes have been created. Many Middle Missouri sites are being redated, and the general time ranges of the three variants differ slightly between published sources. This discussion relies on the standard terminology used by Winham and Calabrese (1998). For more detail, the reader is directed to Ahler (1993), Toom (2004), and Wood (2001).

In 1804 Lewis and Clark recorded in their journals that the Mandan appeared to be increasing in number again (Moulton 2004) but in 1806, 130 Mandan and Hidatsa died of whooping cough (Wood and Irwin 2001: 350), a disease that visited again in 1833-34, killing an unspecified number (Trimble 1993: 82). Measles, cholera, and other Old World diseases took their toll on the populations of the Northern Plains as well. Smallpox once again swept through the region in 1837, and the population of the three Hidatsa villages dropped from approximately 2500 to 800 people (Hanson 1987: xv). The Mandan were hit even harder. The 1781 smallpox epidemic had reduced their population to 1000 to1500 people, and the population dropped further to less than 150 individuals after the 1837 outbreak (Wood and Irwin 2001: 352). The nomadic groups fared better, but still lost significant numbers. Hidatsa survivors moved about 45 miles upriver and built the last of the earthlodge villages: Like-A-Fishhook Village. It was built in a defensive location, and as aggression from the Sioux continued, the Mandan joined the Hidatsa at Like-a-Fishhook by 1860, as did the Arikara by 1862. Like-A-Fishhook was occupied until 1886, when the three tribes relocated to the Fort Berthold reservation (Johnson 1998: 333; Smith 1972).

The first villages in the Northern Plains appeared around A.D. 1000. The earliest sites are assigned to the Initial Middle Missouri variant (IMMv) (Winham and Calabrese 1998: 280), and date to between A.D.1000 to 1300 (Wood 2001: 192). IMMv sites are generally restricted to South Dakota, but researchers have recently identified similar early sites to the east and southeast in Iowa and Minnesota (Winham and Calabrese 1998: 274). The Extended Middle Missouri variant (EMMv) was a time of expansion, and villages dating to A.D. 1075 to1443 spread along the Missouri through South and North Dakota, reaching the mouth of the Knife River (Winham and Calabrese 1998: 285; Wood 2001: 192). The Extended Middle Missouri variant follows the IMMv, but the exact relationship between the two variants is unclear; it is not known whether the IMMv and EMMv represent separate populations or unilineal development (Winham and Calabrese 1998: 297). The Terminal Middle Missouri variant (TMMv) was probably a direct outgrowth of the EMMv, dating from approximately A.D. 1300 to 1500 (Winham and Calabrese 1998: 282). During this time, nucleation characterized the Middle Missouri area. The sites from this period represent much larger and more densely populated communities, with far fewer villages overall than during the EMMv. The area occupied was contracted considerably, and TMMv sites are found only in the northern portion of the EMMv territories (Winham and Calabrese 1998: 197). The individual TMMv settlements average about four times the area of EMMv communities. EMMv sites were sometimes fortified, but all TMMv villages were elaborately fortified with ditches, walls, and bastions.

Archaeological sites examined in this study The five sites examined for this study were all built on terraces above the Missouri River floodplain. They span a period extending from the late-thirteenth century to the mid-nineteenth century, providing an opportunity to examine details of technological change and stability during a time of tremendous cultural change. All are thought to have been occupied by the Mandan, Hidatsa, and their ancestors (Ahler 1993; Calabrese 1972; Thiessen 1995).

According to historic and ethnohistoric records, in the

94

STABILITY AND CHANGE IN BONE TOOL USE ALONG THE MIDDLE MISSOURI, NORTH DAKOTA – GRIFFITTS

25 years earlier when they were abandoned because of smallpox and increasing aggression by nomadic tribes. One of the villages was destroyed by the Sioux, and another was “severely reduced” (Ahler 1997: 17). Ahler (ibid.) suggests that the northernmost site, which was destroyed by the Sioux, was probably Larson.

Three of the sites I examine in this study date to the prehistoric period and belong to the EMMv. One site is protohistoric or early historic, and one is historic. Two of the prehistoric sites, Bendish and Tony Glas, belong to the Fort Yates phase, dating to between A.D.1000 and 1300 (Winham and Calabrese 1998: 282). The third is Cross Ranch, which is assigned to the Nailati phase, dating to A.D. 1300 to1400 (Winham and Calabrese 1998: 282).

Larson may also be the Mandan village visited by Pierre Gaultier de Varennes, the Sieur de la Verendrye in 1738 (Thompson 1984). Verendrye described a community of up to 130 houses, but researchers suggest that Verendrye's count may be overstated (Smith 1980). Glass trade beads, copper beads, and copper fragments recovered from Larson indicate at least indirect contact with Euro-Americans (Thompson 1984). The Larson collections include 124 bone and antler artifacts.

The Bendish site (32MO2) is the earliest site examined, and was occupied for a short time during the Fort Yates phase. Six radiocarbon dates for Bendish provide an age of 730+80 RCYBP, calibrated to A.D.1284 (Johnson 1999: 65). Bendish was an unfortified village of several rows of up to 45 rectangular houses built on a Missouri River terrace in the Cannonball Region. When excavated in 1969 it covered about 44.5 hectares (18 acres) (Thiessen 1976: 19). The excavations recovered 109 bone and antler artifacts or fragments.

The most recent site in this study is Deapolis (32ME5), the archaeological remains of the Mandan village of Mitutahank (East Village) (Wood and Irwin 2001: 351). Deapolis was one of the two predominantly Mandan villages remaining in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. This village was occupied from 1787 to 1856 (Winham et al. 1994: tab. B.1, Part 2).

The Tony Glas site (32EM3) dates to about A.D. 1200 to1400 (Johnson 1999: 73) based on pottery and other artifacts, but it has not been radiometrically dated. Aerial photographs taken in 1938 (Wood 1999: Plate 1; Mead 1995: 5) show 46 house depressions enclosed on the north, south, and east sides by a rectangular fortification ditch with a double ditch on the north covering about 49.4 hectares (20 acres) (Mead 1999: 5). This site was originally thought to belong to the TMMv, but has since been reassigned to the EMMv (Mead 1999: 5; Wood 1999: 1), and shares some features with both variants. A total of 176 bone and antler artifacts and fragments were recovered from Tony Glas.

David Thompson visited Deapolis in 1797, and he recorded that there were 113 houses, and that about two thirds of the population were Mandan and one third were Hidatsa, with an average of approximately eight people per Mandan house, and 10 per Hidatsa house (Wood 1977). Notations on an 1804 map by Clark place "about 150 warriors” at Mar too Tonka village" (Gonagle 1973: 218). The village was abandoned and its inhabitants moved downstream by 1822, where they constructed another village of the same name. Fort Clark was built by the American Fur Company near the new village between 1829 and 1831 (Chomko 1986: 88 ), and it is this new village described by Maximillian (Wood and Irwin 2001), Catlin (1973), and Chardon (1997). The population of the second Mandan village, Ruptare or Black Cat's Village, moved to the abandoned site of Deapolis by 1822 (Wood and Irwin 2001: 350). Deapolis was largely abandoned by the Mandan after the smallpox epidemic of 1837, but a few Mandan were reported there in the mid 1850s (Chomko 1986: 92). After the smallpox epidemic, the Arikara moved to Deapolis in 1838. Deapolis was destroyed by the Sioux, but was rebuilt in 1839 by the Arikara, who remained until 1861, when they moved to a location opposite Like-A-Fishhook Village, and then joined the Mandan and Hidatsa at Like-A-Fishhook in 1862 (Chomko 1986: 95). Archaeological materials from

The Cross Ranch site (32OL14) was a fortified village and dates to approximately A.D. 1318-1406 (Thiessen 1995: 174). Eleven house depressions are visible on a 1938 aerial photograph, and nine on one taken in 1968 (Calabrese 1972: 6). It is estimated to have covered 34.6 hectares (14 acres) before being impacted by railroad and road construction and farming, and a portion of the site may have slumped into the Missouri River (Calabrese 1972). Cross Ranch yielded 110 bone and antler artifacts and fragments. The Larson site (32BL9) is assigned to the Heart River phase, which dates to A.D. 1450-1780 (Wood 1986). A 2001 National Park Service web page dates Larson to about 1600-1780 (Robbins 2001). The site covered about 19.8 hectares (eight acres) in 1943, but a portion had already caved into the river (Will and Hecker 1944: 82). When Lewis and Clark journeyed to the Mandan Villages in 1804, they were told that the six upper villages had been occupied until about

95

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Deapolis were salvaged in 1958-1960 while the site was being destroyed for a gravel pit (Lehmer, Dill and Wood 1978; Thompson 1961). The site covered approximately 19.8 hectares (8 acres) (Thomson 1961: 143). The Heritage Society collections from Deapolis include 164 bone and antler artifacts.

amount of grit present. The location of wear shows the area of the tool that received the most direct use or, in some cases, was grasped as a handle. More extensive discussion and photographs of experimentally-produced wear patterns can be found in Griffitts (1993, 1997, 2001) and in Griffitts and Bonsall (2001) and will not be repeated here.

Methods and Materials

This study groups tool uses into general categories based on contact materials and inferred activities. Tools used for leather working and hide working, and tools that have contacted other or unidentified soft materials are grouped together, as are tools that appear to have contacted silica-rich non-woody plants. These larger categories can be subdivided further. For example, the silica-rich plant grouping can be divided into tools that were probably used for fiber processing, those that were most likely used for basket making, and those that were probably contacted silica-rich plants with specific activity unknown.

Bone and antler artifacts and fragments were examined for manufacturing and use wear traces at several scales of magnification. The manufacturing techniques were inferred using a 10X hand lens and the unaided eye, and the tools were then examined using high power optical use wear analysis, with an Olympus OHM-J metallurgical microscope with incident light. An Olympus VMZ stereomicroscope with 10-40X capabilities was used to examine tools at lower magnifications. A comparative collection of 190 bone and antler tools with experimentally produced microwear and four modern ethnographic specimens was used (for details of experimental methods see Griffitts 1993, 1997, 2001). This study is part of ongoing research looking at bone tools from several regions including the Southern Plains, southern Southwest and northern New Mexico, Mesolithic Scotland, and Guatemala. Experiments were designed to investigate variation in possible wear patterns. The existing experimental framework was modified to be appropriate for the Northern Plains by adding experiments such as porcupine quill work and squash cutting based on ethnographic descriptions. All bone artifacts examined in this study are currently housed at the North Dakota Historical Society Heritage Center and were loaned to the author at the University of Arizona Laboratory of Traditional Technology for study.

Middle Missouri Bone Tools Middle Missouri sites often have extensive and diverse bone tool assemblages including such functional tool types as awls, scapula hoes, fishhooks, gaming pieces, whistles, and ornaments, but the present study focuses on two tool types, awls and metapodial fleshers. The majority of the tools discussed below were made from very large mammal bone – either bison (Bison bison) or American elk/wapiti (Cervus elephas), or more rarely, from smaller artiodactyls such as deer (Odocoileus sp.) or pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana). A few tools were made from the bones of smaller animals, but smaller animal bone was more likely to be used for whistles, beads, and other non-utilitarian objects.

Use Wear Patterns Tool Frequencies Use wear patterns are generally visible at high powers of magnification (from 50 to 400X), and include polish, striations, surface rounding or flattening, pitting, cracking, and microbreakage. The distribution of the wear is also important. For example, wear produced by working with dry, tanned leather shares many characteristics with that produced by working with fresh, wet hides, but the distribution of the wear on the dry leather tends to be more restricted to the edge of the tool than the wear formed through contact with wetter materials which is generally spread further across the face of the tool. The direction of striations indicates the direction of movement, and the size and depth of the striations reflects the texture of the material contacted or the

The first step in this analysis was to compare frequencies of a few of the more common bone tool types including awls, scapula hoes, scapula blade tools, spatulate tools (also called quill flatteners, pottery modeling tools, pressure flakers, and digging sticks), and shaft straighteners. (fig. 2). Some changes in numbers were obvious. Awls became less common over time, while metapodial fleshers increased dramatically. These two tools were chosen for further investigation (fig. 3) because they are both common in Middle Missouri sites, and because they seem to follow opposite patterns of use in historic times—the numbers of one decrease sharply while the occurrence of the other tool increases.

96

STABILITY AND CHANGE IN BONE TOOL USE ALONG THE MIDDLE MISSOURI, NORTH DAKOTA – GRIFFITTS

Figure 2: Frequencies of selected bone tools.

and is generally attributed to metal tools that made work faster and easier (Axtell 1992; Weston 1992).

In this study, the category of "awls" includes all tools that are long and thin with pointed ends, including the pointed tools that are sometimes called punches (fig. 4). Awls were made using several techniques that have been extensively studied by other researchers (Olsen 1980), including splitting and grinding deer metapodials, cutting sections from long bones using the groove and snap technique, and minimally modifying long bone splinters.

Awl Use Awl uses, as determined by use wear analysis, were compared across the five sites to investigate stability and change through time. Images in figure 5 compare the awl uses. The first category – leather, hide and soft materials combined, includes tools that appear to have contacted soft materials. At most sites, this is one of the most frequent uses of awls. At least 40% of the awls from the four earlier sites have wear consistent with contact with leather, hide, or an unknown soft material. Between 37% to 52% of the awls from the earlier sites have wear suggesting contact with silica-rich, non-woody plants. The plant processing category combines tools that were probably used for basketmaking, those used for fiber processing and plant splitting (includes possible corn husking pins), those used for general plant processing (unidentifiable beyond contact material) and those with multiple uses, with at least one of those uses including contact with plants.

Awls are among the most common bone artifacts in most sites included in this study as in many Middle Missouri sites. Awls make up at least 30 % of the tools represented by figure 2, and from 26 to 37 % percent of the total modified bone assemblages at the four earlier sites. However, the frequency of awls is much lower at the most recent site, Deapolis (fig. 2e). At the same time, the frequency the metapodial fleshers increased. Metapodial manufacture and use is discussed below. Only 14 bone awls were in the Deapolis collections, including two tools that were broken and reused as awls. Many trade goods were found at Deapolis, including 17 double-pointed steel awls (Lehmer, Wood and Dill 1978). The abandonment of bone awls and their replacement with metal tools has been interpreted as a relatively straightforward process,

Traces of woodworking and pressure flaking occurred on a few awls in the four earlier sites but fewer bone

97

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

were not clear from use wear analysis. Only two awls from Deapolis have wear suggesting contact with soft materials such as leather or hide, and one is a multiple-use tool that also looks as if it contacted silica-rich plants. The "plant" category from Deapolis includes eight tools, two of which have wear similar to experimental basket making tools, and one with wear similar to that produced by corn husking (fig. 5e). These numbers are small, but suggest that people stopped using bone awls for leather and hide working first, but retained them for other activities.

awls have wear suggesting those uses relative to tools with wear indicating contact with soft materials or silica-rich plants. Seven to 12% of awls have wear suggesting their use as pressure flakers, and pressure flaking was one of the last uses of two multiple-use awls from Bendish, three from Tony Glas, and one from Larson.

Figure 4: Awls from Bendish.

Figure 3: Frequencies of Awls, metapodial fleshers, and other tools.

Metapodial Fleshers

All four earlier sites have some tools that contacted unknown hard materials. Their surfaces have wears that differed from any produced experimentally, but are more like that of tools that contacted hard materials than of any others. Multiple use tools have wear suggesting more than one contact material or activity. Tools placed in the "Unknown" category have wear that does not resemble that found on any experimental tools, wear that is too light for identification, or have surfaces that are too deteriorated for identification of contact material.

The pattern of tool frequency of metapodial fleshers is opposite that observed for bone awls. While awls decrease in the most recent site, metapodial tools increase. A few tools were recovered from each of the four earlier sites, and fifteen from Deapolis. An earlier report (Lehmer, Wood and Dill 1978: 265) identified 27 metapodial fleshers from Deapolis but only 15 were in the collection borrowed from North Dakota Heritage Center in 2003. The larger number of tools reported earlier only amplifies the pattern observed here.

The awl count for Deapolis includes two recycled tools. One is a drilled bone or shaft straightener that was broken to a point and reused as an awl, and the other is a scapula blade fragment that was also broken to a point. The secondary uses of both tools

Contact material Leather, hide or soft L/H/S + grit Wood Multiple w/soft Unknown Site total

Bendish 1 1 0 0 0 2

Use Metapodial fleshers are made from bison and elk bone. They are generally inferred to have been used

Table 1: Metapodial flesher use Site Tony Glas Cross Ranch 3 1 1 0 0 5

1 0 0 0 0 1

98

Larson

Deapolis

0 0 0 0 1 (pos. handle) 1 (pos.)

10 2 0 1 2 15

Contact material totals 15 4 1 1 3 23

STABILITY AND CHANGE IN BONE TOOL USE ALONG THE MIDDLE MISSOURI, NORTH DAKOTA – GRIFFITTS

striations in addition to the more characteristic rounded, polished, and pitted surfaces (Griffitts 2006). The wear on one tool from Deapolis indicates that it probably contacted a soft material along with another, unknown material. The uses of three tools are unknown. Two probable tools from Larson and Deapolis had the working ends broken away so that only the handles remain. Their uses are unknown. One metapodial tool from Deapolis was only analyzed through examination of a photograph, because the tool itself was on display in North Dakota at the time of the analysis. Finally, one tool from Cross Ranch has wear that is more like that formed through woodworking than from contact with leather, hide, or soft materials. In sum, use wear analysis confirms that most metapodial tools examined here were used as fleshers, indicating a very strong form-function correlation. It is therefore appropriate to continue to refer to these tools by their traditional, use-specific name.

for hide processing based on ethnographic descriptions (Lowie 1954: 58; Steinbring 1966). Use wear analysis indicates that the majority of the metapodial tools were used with leather or hide (tab. 1). Fifteen of the 23 tools have wear indicating contact with leather, hide, or similar soft materials. Four tools have wear suggesting contact with soft materials with the addition of some gritty material. The grit could result from dirt introduced accidentally, or it could be ashes or other materials introduced in hide processing. Ethnographic accounts describe that skins were treated in various ways before they were scraped, including soaking in clean water (Belitz 1991: 4), soaking in ashes and water (Catlin 1973: 45) sprinkling with coarse salt (Gidmark 1980: 28), and stretching, scraping, drying, and then scraping to soften and thin the hide (Hungry Wolf 1980: 233). When I used sharp-edged bone tools to deflesh and dehair deer and pronghorn hides soaked in ashes and water the tools’ working edges developed coarse

Figure 5: Awl uses as determined by microwear analysis.

99

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Changing Manufacturing Techniques

Although the type of use of metapodial tools remains constant through time, the number of metapodial tools not only increases at Deapolis relative to the earlier sites, but their manufacturing changed substantially with the adoption of metal. While tools from the earlier sites were shaped by breaking, the tools from Deapolis were cut to shape, and the shafts were much more heavily worked. The thickness of the shafts has been dramatically reduced by cutting with metal tools (fig. 7 and 8). Chopping followed by polish, either intentional or through hand wear, produced horizontal ridges or undulating surfaces perpendicular to the long axis of the tools.

Metapodial fleshers were manufactured by removing the proximal epiphysis of the metapodial, and then working the end of the shaft to a blade that was usually, though not always notched. Metapodial fleshers at the prehistoric sites were made by breaking the metapodial shaft, or perhaps by selecting a bone fortuitously broken during butchering, and then modifying the broken bone by grinding the end into a broad, curved blade, and then notched by cutting. Impact marks are visible on many of the metapodials showing the early stages of manufacture (fig. 6).

Figure 7: Metapodial flesher from Deapolis. Note chopping, horizontal ridges on shaft. Tool is 16.2 cm. long.

Figure 8: Broken metapodial tool from Deapolis illustrating extreme reduction of shaft. Tool is 45.8 cm. long.

It is often assumed that metal tools were adopted because they made work faster and easier (Axtell 1992: 135); however, any decrease in time and labor resulting from adopting metal cutting tools would have been lost in the extra effort involved in either shaving or cutting ridges on the metapodial tool shafts. The craftspeople at Deapolis obviously adopted metal tools to use for bone tool manufacture, but, in this case, they also added extra manufacturing steps. The metal tools were clearly not being used in the same way as the older stone tools. Figure 6: Metapodial flesher from Bendish. Note cracks extending out from both sides of impact. Tool is 14.6 cm long.

Steinbring (1966) documented metapodial flesher manufacture and use among the Black River Ojibwa

100

STABILITY AND CHANGE IN BONE TOOL USE ALONG THE MIDDLE MISSOURI, NORTH DAKOTA – GRIFFITTS

different performance characteristics for different activities (see Schiffer and Skibo 1992). Fresh deer hides tend to stretch before becoming perforated when pierced by a bone awl. Awls used for fresh hide work are subjected to considerable force, sometimes including twisting, and are subject to more stress than those used for basket-making or corn husking. Thick tanned leather is also tough and resistant to puncture (more so than my hands!) and punching holes in tanned cowhide with a bone awl involves considerable force. During experiments, one of the five bone awls I used to pierce tanned leather snapped while pressing and twisting and several archaeological tools are broken in the same place, with transverse striations circling the broken area.

Band in Manitoba. The edges were formed by chopping moose metapodials with short ax strokes. In 1964, one man told Steinbring "he no longer makes these tools because they are too hard on the ax." (1966: 579). Juvenile moose bones were preferred over older ones because they are smaller and lighter and not as tiring to use for extended periods (Steinbring 1966). The same considerations may well have been factors in thinning the elk and bison metapodials from Deapolis. It would have been extremely time consuming and labor intensive to thin the shafts using stone tools, and it may not have been worth the time and energy if a woman was only processing small numbers of hides. Increased participation in the international fur trade without doubt increased the amount of work for at least some Mandan and Hidatsa women who prepared the skins (Sundstrom 2002), and reducing the thickness and weight of the tools to increase the comfort level of the person working the hide would have been much more important.

The tips of bone tools can be sharpened to fine needle-like points, but those tips are less durable than those of iron tools and are likely to snap. They also require more frequent resharpening than metal tools. On the other hand, if both a bone and a steel awl break, the bone tool may be faster and easier for the user to resharpen or to change the shape of the tip if desired.

Discussion Strength in pressure or torsion is an important factor in hide work but it is less relevant for basketmaking because most kinds of basketmaking do not require the same force. Basketmaking and mat making generally involve weaving bundles of fibers, strips of wood, grass, bark, or fibrous plants together. There are many kinds of basketry, and awls are used differently in the different kinds.

Does the drop in frequency of leather and hide working awls mean that the people at the Deapolis site were no longer working leather and hide? Probably not. At the same time as the number of bone awls decreased and the use of awls for leather and hide working dropped, other hide processing tools become more common, as illustrated by the growing numbers of metapodial fleshers.

Fine, sharp-pointed tools are used for making coiled baskets (Newman 1974), but other types of basketmaking emphasize other performance characteristics. In twined basketry, the awl is used to push stitches together, and a fine tip is unnecessary. Wicker basketry uses the side of the awl to push down wefts and the tip to open spaces to insert new warps, but a fine point is not necessary. A strong, sharp tip, such as is found on a steel awl, would be useful for piercing wood strips, but is less important for basket- or mat-making using bundles of grass, and a strong needle-sharp point may not be as valuable as one that will slip between fibers, bundles, or warps without breaking them. All of these processes are quite different from those involved in hide processing and leather working.

From the mid-eighteenth century onwards, the Missouri River villagers were active participants in the international fur trade, supplying leather, furs, and agricultural products to the traders in exchange for a variety of goods including metal awls, axes, and kettles (Wood and Thiessen 1985). Interestingly, the Europeans also brought commercially made European and Euroamerican bone, ivory, and horn objects such as combs and powder horns (Wood and Thiessen 1985). Nine commercially made bone buttons were found at Deapolis (Lehmer, Wood and Dill 1978: 330). Metal awls were very important trade items for the Mandan and Hidatsa from early times (Wood and Thiessen 1985) and the popularity of these metal tools has led to an assumption that the process of abandonment of bone tools was relatively straight-forward.

Historical documents from the nineteenth and twentieth century indicate that Euroamerican needleworkers preferred, and still prefer, bone, celluloid, or plastic over metal for crochet hooks, knitting needles, and other needlework tools for certain activities because the bone was less likely to

Bone tools are usually made and used as a means to a particular end product – a tanned hide, a basket, a mat, or a quill-decorated leather dress. People were clearly being selective about their tool use and valued

101

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

sites in the Northern Plains, bone tools and other artifacts were used well into the twentieth century in Euroamerican culture, and in fact, some specialized bone tools are still common today. The continued use of bone in Euroamerican culture forces us to reexamine some long-held assumptions about tool raw materials in Native American cultures. Although the numbers of bone tools did diminish, and many kinds of bone tools were eventually abandoned, this cannot be explained simply because of a simple universal superiority of one raw material over another. If this were the case, then bone tools would no longer be used in cultures with easy access to metal tools. Today it is still possible to buy bone folders from archival supply sources, and bone basketry awls, weaving needles, and crochet hooks from craft supply stores and sources on the internet (an interesting combination of old and new technologies!).

split fibers than metal, and feels warmer on the user’s hands. The strength of metal tools is preferred for other projects, as are the fine tips of some metal tools (Griffitts 2006). The same concerns are likely to be relevant for basket or mat making. Other factors that may be relevant are the tendency of iron to rust and leave stains on the materials worked, the ability for the user to reshape and sharpen the bone tool quickly and easily, and the relative costs of bone and metal. The social and ideological characteristics were important as well (Schiffer and Skibo 1992). Although this paper focuses largely on the technical functions of tools, the tools undoubtedly had social and ideological functions. There were two kinds of knowledge concerning craft making among the Hidatsa (Bowers 1965; Gilman and Schneider 1987), and probably the Mandan as well (Bowers 1950). Everyone had access to general knowledge, but only certain individuals owned the rights to certain sacred knowledge, which, for women in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century included basket and pottery making, house building, and tipi making (Gilman and Schneider 1987: 116). In 1912, Buffalo Bird Woman, a Hidatsa woman born at Like-A-Fishhook Village, explained that basket and pottery makers tried to work in secret to prevent others from learning the techniques without paying, and that the reason why there were few basket makers was that no one wanted to pay for the knowledge (Gilman and Schneider 1987: 117). Some researchers have postulated that the knowledge of how to make bone tools may have died out with victims of epidemics (Weston 1993), but it is also important to consider that the basket makers and other specialists may have died out as well. In addition, with fewer consumers, the demand is likely to have decreased for many products. Many bone tool types are fairly simple, though time consuming, to make, but if there is no need for baskets, then there is no need for basket making tools. The increasing reliance on finished trade goods, rather than simply imported tools, would have the same effects.

It should not be surprising that people choose to use similarly shaped tools made from different raw materials for various tasks. Not all awls are alike – different performance characteristics are important for different activities and users. The work baskets of many of our grandmothers or great-grandmothers included needlework tools such as crochet hooks, knitting needles and bodkins made from bone, wood, steel, aluminum, plastic, and celluloid – the latter two frequently are a better bone substitute than steel. The tools are shaped more or less the same, but the different materials are better for slightly different tasks. Bone, agate, teflon, and plastic folders are used by archivists and curators in museums across the U.S., and tools of similar shape but different raw materials are preferred for slightly different tasks, and each raw material has both advantages and drawbacks (Griffitts 2006). Just as people today evaluate the advantages and drawbacks of specific tool materials, the processes of weighting valued performance characteristics was certainly known in the past. Future research should examine the manufacture and use traces on similar collections of bone tools from historic sites to determine if the patterns observed here are present elsewhere. Artifact counts can give us a general idea of adoption and disuse of different materials, but use wear analysis provides fine-grained detail concerning specific activities. If all bone awl uses dropped in the historic period, then that would support the commonly held idea that metal is universally a superior raw material. If some uses are retained longer than others, then other factors were been involved.

Bone awls continued to drop in frequency over time, and frequencies of other traditional bone tools diminished, until at Like-A-Fishhook, the last of the Plains Villages, more bone tools and objects of modified bone were found in Fort Berthold, the associated trading fort, than were found in the Native American village (Smith 1972). Some of the bone artifacts in the fort were of Native American manufacture, but others, such as toothbrushes, knife handles, buttons, and dominos, were of European or Euroamerican origin (Smith 1972).

This study shows that the adoption of new technologies is a complex process that varied between tool types and even within tool types and

Although bone tools decreased in Native American

102

STABILITY AND CHANGE IN BONE TOOL USE ALONG THE MIDDLE MISSOURI, NORTH DAKOTA – GRIFFITTS

Springs (SD): Larry Belitz Publisher.

hints at the complexity of technological change and stability. The replacement processes were not random, and were more complex than is often assumed when research focuses only on large scale concepts of acculturation. Unfortunately, the observation that some bone tools dropped out fairly rapidly has led to a popular perception that all bone tools did but bone tools are not all the same. Analysis of bone from Middle Missouri sites shows that one of the effects of the Mandan participation in international trade networks was an increase in some bone tool types associated with hide processing, decreased use of others, and experimentation in manufacturing methods.

Bowers, A. W. 1950 Mandan Social and Ceremonial Organization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1965 Hidatsa Social and Ceremonial Organization. Bulletin No 194. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution. Catlin, G. 1973 Letters and Notes on the Manners, Customs, and Conditions of North American Indians. Volumes 1 and 2. New York: Dover. [Originally published 1844, D. Bogue, London] Calabrese, F. A. 1972 Cross Ranch: A Study of Variability in a Stable Cultural Tradition. Memoir No 9. P l a i n s Anthropologist; vol. 17, No 58 (Part 2): 1-85.

The combination of use wear analysis, the study of manufacturing techniques, and the analysis of the frequency of morphological categories shows that a variety of factors influenced the choice of raw materials in the Middle Missouri region. As this study demonstrates, analysts should examine a variety of data from a range of perspectives to understand changes in technology over time.

Chardon, F. A. 1997 Chardon's Journal at Fort Clark, 1834-1839. Lincoln (NE): Bison Books (University of Nebraska Press). Chomko, S. A. 1986 The Ethnohistorical Setting of the Upper KnifeHeart Region. In Ice Glider 32OL110, ed. W. R. Wood, 59-97. Papers in Northern Plains Prehistory and Ethnohistory, Special publication No 10. Sioux Falls (SD): South Dakota Archaeological Society.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Fern Swenson and Timothy Reed of the North Dakota Historical Society for making the collections available for analysis and Christian Gates StPierre and Renee Walker for organizing the symposium and volume. Michael Schiffer, Jennifer Croissant, and Brian McKee provided extremely valuable feedback and editing.

Gidmark, D. 1980 The Indian Crafts of William and Mary Commanda. New York: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. Gilman, C. and M. J. Schneider 1987 The Way to Independence: Memories of a Hidatsa Indian Family 1840-1920. St.Paul: Minnesota Historical Society.

References Cited Ahler, S. A. 1993 Plains Village Cultural Taxonomy for the Upper Knife-Heart Region. In The Phase I. Archeological Research Program for the Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site. Part IV: Interpretation of the Archaeological Record, ed. T. D. Thiessen, 57-108. Midwest Archeological Center Occasional Studies in Anthropology No 27. Lincoln (Nebraska): National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center. 1997 Background. In Archaeology of the Mandan Indians at On-A-Slant Village (32MO26), Fort Abraham Lincoln State Park, Morton County, North Dakota, ed. S. A. Ahler, 13-32. Bismarck (ND): North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department. Axtell, J. 1992 Belitz, L. 1973

Griffitts, J. L. 1993 Experimental Replication and Analysis of UseWear on Bone Tools. M.A. Thesis. Boulder: Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado. 1997 Replication and Analysis of Bone Tools. In Proceedings of the 1993 Bone Modification Conference, Hot Springs, South Dakota, ed. L. A. Hannus, L. Rossum and R. P. Winham, 236246. Occasional Publication No. 1. Sioux Falls (SD): Archeology Laboratory, Augustana College. 2001 Bone tools from Los Pozos. In Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space, ed. A. M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, 185-196. BAR International Series No 937. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 2005 Bone Tools and Technological Choice: Change and Stability on the Northern Plains. P h . D . Dissertation. Tucson: Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona.

Beyond 1492: Encounters in Colonial North America. New York: Oxford University Press. Step-by-Step Brain Tanning the Sioux Way. Hot

103

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Northland.

Griffitts, J. L. and C. Bonsall 2001 Experimental Determination of the Function of Antler and Bone "Bevel-Ended tools" from Prehistoric Shell Middens in Western Scotland. In Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space, ed. A. M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, 207-220. BAR International Series No 937. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Olsen, S. 1980 Bone artifacts from Kinishba Ruin: Their Manufacture and Use. The Kiva; vol. 46, Nos 12: 39-67. Robbins, J. 2001 Notice of Inventory Completion for Native American Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects in the Control of the Sioux City Public Museum, Sioux City, IA. National Park Service, Interior [Federal Register: June 5, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 108, Page 30229] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]http://www.cast.uark.edu/ other/nps/nagpra/DOCS/nic0534.html. Accessed October 2004.

Hanson, J. R. 1987a Introduction. In Buffalo Bird Woman's Garden: Agriculture of the Hidatsa Indians, ed. G. L. Wilson, xi-xxiii. St.Paul: Minnesota Historical Society. Hungry Wolf, B. 1982 The Ways of my Grandmothers. New York: Quill. Johnson, C. M. 1998 The Coalescent Tradition. In Archaeology on the Great Plains, ed. W. R. Wood, 308-344. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press. 1999 Cultural Context of Tony Glas. North Dakota Archaeology; Vol. 7: 58-74.

Rogers, J. D. 1990 Objects of Change. The Archaeology and History of Arikara Contact with Europeans. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Lehmer, D. J. 1971 Middle Missouri Archeology. Anthropological Papers No 1. Washington: National Park service, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Schiffer, M. B. and J. M. Skibo 1992 Theory and Experiment in the Study of Technological Change. In T e c h n o l o g i c a l Perspectives on Behavioral Change, ed. M. B. Schiffer, 44-76. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Lehmer, D. J., W. R. Wood and C. L. Dill 1978 The Knife River Phase. Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Dana College, and American Archaeology Division, University of Missouri-Columbia, Interagency Archeological Services-Denver.

Smith, G. H. 1972 Like-A-Fishhook Village and Fort Berthold Garrison Reservoir, North Dakota. Anthropological Papers No 1. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1980 The Explorations of the La Vérendryes in the Northern Plains 1738-43. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Lowie, R. H. 1982 Indians of the Plains. Lincoln (NE): Bison Books (University of Nebraska Press). [Originally published 1954, McGraw-Hill, New York]

Steinbring, J. 1966 The Manufacture and Use of Bone Defleshing Tools. American Antiquity; vol. 31, No 4: 575581.

McGonagle, R. L. 1973 Metal Projectile Points from the Deapolis Site, North Dakota. Plains Anthropologist; vol. 18, No 61: 218-227.

Sundstrom, L. 2002 Steel Awls for Stone Age Plainswomen: Rock Art, Religion, and the Hide Trade on the Northern Plains. Plains Anthropologist; vol. 47, No 181: 99-119.

Mead, A. H. 1999 The Site and its Setting. North Dakota Archaeology; Vol. 7: 5-12.

Thiessen, T. D. 1976 Middle Missouri Tradition Occupational Sequences for the Cannonball and Knife-Heart Regions. M.A. Thesis. Lincoln: Department of Anthropology, University of Nebraska. 1995 The Bendish Site (32MO2). North Dakota Archaeology; vol. 6: 95-294.

Moulton, Gary E. 2004 The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition: online http://libtextcenter.unl.edu/examples/servlet/tran sform/tamino/Library/lewisandclarkjournals?&_x mlsrc=http://libtextcenter.unl.edu/lewisandclark/f iles/xml/18041805.winter.part2.xml&_xslsrc=http ://libtextcenter.unl.edu/lewisandclark/LCstyles.xs l. Accessed December 2004.

Thompson, R. S. 1961 The Final Story of the Deapolis Mandan Indian Village Site. North Dakota History; vol. 28, No 4: 143-153. 1984 The Site of the Mandan Indian Village Visited by

Newman, S. C. 1974 Indian Basket Weaving: How to Weave Pomo, Yurok, Pima and Navajo Baskets. Flagstaff (AZ):

104

STABILITY AND CHANGE IN BONE TOOL USE ALONG THE MIDDLE MISSOURI, NORTH DAKOTA – GRIFFITTS

Verendrye in 1738: A New Look. North Dakota History; vol. 51, No 4: 22-28.

the Great Plains, ed. W. R. Wood, 269-307. Lawrence: University of Kansas.

Toom, D. 1979 The Middle Missouri Villagers and the Early Fur Trade Implications for Archaeological Interpretation. A Case Study of Post-Contact Technological Change. M.A. Thesis. Lincoln: Department of Anthropology, University of Nebraska.

Winham, R. P. and E. J. Lueck 1994 Cultures of the Middle Missouri. In Plains Indians A.D. 500-1500: The Archaeological Past of Historic Groups, ed. K. H. Schlesier, 149-175. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Winham, R. P., W. R. Wood and L. A. Hannus 1994 National Historic Landmark Theme Study: Village Sites of the Middle Missouri Subarea A.D. 1000A.D. 1887. Sioux Falls (SD): Archaeology Laboratory, Augustana College.

Trimble, M. K. 1993 Infectious Disease and the Northern Plains Horticulturalists: A Human-Behavior Model. In The Phase I. Archeological Research Program for the Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site. Part II: Ethnohistorical Studies, ed. T. D. Thiessen, 75-130. Midwest Archeological Center Occasional Studies in Anthropology No 27. Lincoln: National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center.

Wood, W. R. 1980 Prehistoric Trade in Prehistoric and Protohistoric Intertribal Relations. In Anthropology on the Great Plains, ed. W. R. Wood and M. Liberty, 98-109. Lincoln: University of Nebraska. 1986 Introduction. In Ice Glider 32OL110, ed. W. R. Wood, 1-23. Papers in Northern Plains Prehistory and Ethnohistory, Special publication No 10. Sioux Falls (SD): South Dakota Archaeological Society. 1999 Introduction. North Dakota Archaeology; Vol. 7: 1-2.

Weston, T. 1993 Acculturation in the Middle Missouri Valley as reflected in Modified Bone Assemblages. Plains Anthropologist; vol. 38, No 142: 79-100. Weitzner, B. 1979 Notes on the Hidatsa Indians Based on Data Recorded by the Late Gilbert L. Wilson. Volume 56, Part 2. New York: Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History.

Wood, W. R. and T. D. Thiessen 1985 Early Fur Trade on the Northern Plains: Canadian Traders Among the Mandan and Hidatsa Indians, 1738-1818. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Will, G. F. and T. C. Hecker 1944 The Upper Missouri River Valley Aboriginal Culture in North Dakota. North Dakota Historical Quarterly; vol. 11, Nos 1-2: 5-126.

Wood, W. R. and L. Irwin 2001 Mandan. In Plains: Handbook of North American Indians (Volume 13), ed. R. J. DeMallie, 349-364. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Winham, R. P. and F. A. Calabrese 1998 The Middle Missouri Tradition. In Archaeology on

105

chapter

8

Bone Awls of the St.Lawrence Iroquoians: A Microwear Analysis Christian Gates St-Pierre Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Chicago, USA

less than 1,210 objects were identified as bone awls on the Roebuck site in Ontario, representing 61% of the assemblage from that site. The Beckstead site, still in Ontario, provides another clear example, with 81.3% of the bone objects identified as awls.

Introduction This article presents some results of a post-doctoral research project aimed at a better understanding of the function and classification of the bone tools made by the St. Lawrence Iroquoians, in Northeastern North America. More precisely, this study uses microwear analysis to identify the precise function of one very specific and problematic category of bone tools conventionally referred to as “awls”. This contributes to filling in a lacuna which Odell (1998: 39) succinctly but very clearly presents as follows; “The awl presumably was used for piercing holes in leather or other malleable substances, though little microscopic support for this contention through use-wear is available”.

Table 1: Number (N) and proportion (%) of bone awls in various bone tool assemblages from St.Lawrence Iroquoian village sites Site Beckstead (Ontario) Salem (Ontario) Mailhot-Curran (Quebec) McDonald (Quebec) Roebuck (Ontario) Summerstown Station (Ontario) Lanoraie (Quebec) Bourassa (Quebec) McIvor (Ontario) Glenbrook (Ontario) Droulers (Quebec) Grays Creek (Ontario) Dawson (Quebec) Mandeville (Quebec)

The Problem Awls are by far the most frequent type of bone tools found on St. Lawrence Iroquoian sites (see Gates StPierre 2001). They are always there, ubiquitous. Yet, their precise function remains somewhat problematic. When we name these tools “awls” we make a functional identification which is usually and primarily based on morphology. However, it is well known that equating form and function can be misleading. Using morphological criteria alone, awls are simply defined as tools having a narrow and pointed distal end. However, tools having this morphological trait could have many different functions. It is true that they could have been used to drill holes in skin or hide, which is the most common definition of an awl, but some could also have been used to drill holes in bark, as hair pins or cloth pins, as sticks to pick up food, as pieces of the cup-and-pin game, as tools used to engrave clay vessels, as tattooing instruments, or as corn husking pins, among many other possibilities.

N 61 161 4 15 1210 57 9 29 88 120 34 5 14 4

% 81.3 68.2 66.7 62.5 61.0 53.3 47.4 43.3 41.7 39.0 38.6 38.5 31.1 30.8

The second reason is the morphological variability of these tools, which is noticeable despite the same basic shape; some of these awls are very long and norrow, while others are much shorter or larger; some have a worked base, others do not; some were probably hafted, others were probably not; some are very well made, others look more like expedient tools; in some cases the distal end is pointed, while in other cases it is more rounded; and so on. In sum, the classification of all these numerous and morphologically variable tools in the bone awls functional category is questionable, at least in some cases. It is a problem which was recognized early (cf. Beauchamp 1902: 254-256; Wintemberg 1936: 55) and which is still frequently addressed today among Iroquoianists (for example, see Berg and Bursey 2000: 8, 16; Chapdelaine 1989: 206; Gates St-Pierre 2001, 2004, 2006: 9; Jamieson 1993; Lennox 2000: 112; Neusius 1996: 84; Timmins 1997: 143-145). However, it has never been solved completely.

These bone awls are intruiging for two other reasons. First, they are so numerous on St. Lawrence Iroquoian sites that one could wonder why these Iroquoians would need so many of these specific tools and so few of the bone tools of other functional categories. In fact, awls always represent the most abundant category of bone tools discovered on St. Lawrence Iroquoian villages (tab. 1). For example, no

The most serious attempt was presented by Andersen (1981) who tried to differentiate true awls from other pointed implements often included in the

107

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

often confuse one with the other although, as we have just seen, there may be significant differences regarding maximum length and point angle.

same functional category: “[…] I intend to make a step toward ameliorating this deplorable situation by proposing a morphologically-defined typology and taxonomic system for the class of bone artifacts, the awls and awl-like implements, which appears to be the most commonly misunderstood and abused, and which tends, in the litterature, to be a catch-all category for any and all modified bone artifacts which possess some form of point at either one or both ends.” (ibid.: 4).

He used a sample of over 700 artifacts from 12 archaeological sites located in Southern Ontario covering a large time-span and geographical area. What appears to be the most interesting finding of his study – but not necessarily the most convincing one – is the possibility to distinguish true awls (and splinter-awls) from corn hunsking pins on the basis of length and point angle measurements, awls having longer maximum lengths and lesser point angles than husking pins. However, and as Anderson admitted; “[…] the vital statistics of bone husking pins tend to be quite different from those of long bone awls, although there is a substantial degree of overlap. […] Because of the substantial degree of overlap in the range of lengths of long bone awls and presumed corn husking pins this measurement can not be used as a reliable indicator for differentiating between the two types.” (Anderson 1981: 24).

Figure 1: Corn husking pins; upper and middle specimens from Waugh (1916), lower specimen from Parker (1910).

One could wonder why such an implement would have been needed; to peel down the husks from the corn ear is a task which can easily be done barehanded. It may be that the variety of corn that was cultivated by Iroquoian populations in prehistoric times was harder to husk, especially when harvesting unripe (“green”) corn. Another possibility is that corn was harder to husk because it was allowed to dry before it was husked. This is what one of the only two ethnographic references to this tool suggests, a description from Waugh among the New York Iroquois;

However, he notes that the distribution of these tools according to their point angles do not overlap as much as it does according to length, concluding that point angle is a much more discriminating attribute, thus a more reliable one for distinguishing between the two types of tools. More recently, Jamieson also suggested, from his comparative study of St. Lawrence Iroquoian and Huron bone tools that the main difference between bone awls and husking pins is the shape of the tip, apparently because “the wider tips of husking pins would be unsuitable for the perforation of hides or other similar materials.” (Jamieson 1993: 53). In contrast to Anderson, however, Jamieson did not measure the tip angles of awls and husking pins in his sample of bone tools, and his conclusion seems to be entirely derived from intuitive observations and common sense.

“A very common method [of harvesting] at present is to tie the stalks, with the ears attached, into large bundles, sometimes with strings of hickory bark. These are allowed to stand in the field until the corn dries slightly, after which the ears are plucked and husked. The old style of husking was to sit upon the ground with the legs straight, or with one knee slightly elevated. […] The husks are torn apart by means of a husking pin of hickory or other hardwood, although bone is sometimes used. […] It is possible that many of the stout awl-like implements, which are found on ancient village sites, were used for this purpose. The bones of the bear seem to have been a popular material, and the young people sometimes practiced a species of divination by bending these articles slightly, an easily broken pin indicating a short life. Chief Gibson had frequently seen husking-pins made from the ribs of animals, such as the deer. The husking-pins employed at present have a groove around the

A few words must be said about husking pins for the reader unfamiliar with these specific bone tools. As it is evidently suggested by their name, husking pins are implements used to separate the husks from ears of corn (fig. 1). They are morphologically very similar to awls and this is why archaeologists in the Northeast

108

BONE AWLS OF THE ST.LAWRENCE IROQUOIANS: A MICROWEAR ANALYSIS – GATES ST-PIERRE

middle, affording attachment to a leather loop, which is slipped over the middle finger. The pin is grasped in the palm, then stuck, with a vigorous sweep, into the leafy covering, the thumb closed down tightly and the husks torn back in preparation for braiding.” (Waugh 1916: 39-40).

while Jamieson does not offer any specific method nor does he provide any quantitative results at all. In sum, although both Anderson and Jamieson are certainly right about the importance of differentiating awls from husking pins, neither one nor the other provide a reliable and satisfactory method of establishing such a valid distinction. However, such a method exists: microwear analysis. The basic principles and methods of microwear analysis have been presented elsewhere many times in great detail (see Cook and Dumont 1987; Grace 1996; Keeley 1974, 1980; LeMoine 1997; Semenov 1964; among others), and for the sake of brevity only the methodological aspects that are specific to this study will be presented here.

Here is the other ethnographic description of the form and usage of a husking pin, from Parker, also among the Iroquois of New York State; “Husking pins are shaped much like the ancient bone and antler awls but generally have a groove cut about a third of their length about which is fastened a loop, through which it is designed that the middle finger be thrust. The point of the husking pin is held against the thumb. In husking the hand is held slightly open, the ear grasped in the left hand, ear butt downward, the point of the husker thrust into the nose of the ear and under the husk, by a sidewise shuttle motion, the thumb closes quickly over the pin and tightly against the husk, and a pull of the arm downward and toward the body tears away the husk. Many of the ancient bone awls found in refuse pits may be husking pins as well as leather awls.” (Parker 1910: 32-33).

The first part of the research project was the production of a series of experiments where bone tool replicas were used on a variety of materials to accomplish some simple but specific tasks. Preforms of the replicas were all obtained from breaking the lower leg bones of a buck deer with a basalt hammerstone and then cutting the larger fragments lengthwise with chert and flint flakes. Shaping of the tip was made either by grinding with sand and water on a sandstone slab or, more often, by shaving or whittling with a flint tool. Most of these tools had a narrow pointed end, but some others had a wider distal end more similar to the tips of corn husking pins (fig. 2).

Jamieson (1993: 53) notes that archaeological specimens of husking pins may show some polishing and/or flaking along the lateral edges, but they do not have a groove for the attachment of a thong as described by Parker and Waugh. Interestingly, he also maintains that corn husking pins had a higher incidence among the St. Lawrence Iroquoian bone tool assemblages than among those of the Hurons where deer mandibles used as corn scrapers were more frequent.

Objectives and Methodology The objectives of this study were the following; 1) to verify the possibility that awls, as a general morphofunctional category regrouping a large number of bone tools presenting a large variety of forms, may in fact represent a vague category containing tools having different functions, and; 2) to verify the possibility that a single bone awl may have been used for different purposes, to accomplish different tasks. In other words, the objective was to test the hypothesis of the multifunctionality of these bone awls, both as a category and individually.

Figure 2: Bone tool replicas used in the experiments.

Anderson (1981) and Jamieson (1993) undertook the first steps toward this objective with their proposition that it is possible to distinguish awls from husking pins on the basis of maximum length and point angle measurements and distributions, as we have seen earlier. However, we have also seen in Anderson’s case that these two attributes are not entirely reliable,

A total of 16 experiments were conducted (tab. 2). Given the possibility that corn husking pins may often be confused with bone awls, it was imperative to include piercing holes into pieces of hide and husking corn cobs among the tasks and materials involved in the experiments. Thus, six experimental tools were 109

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

length of the striations. At 400X and even 200X magnification most of the topography of the bone surface is out of focus since bone awls rarely present flat surfaces. Mircowear characteristics that were noted include primarily striations and polishing, but also rounding, flattening, and flaking or chipping. Examination before use allowed the distinction of microwear produced during manufacture from microwear resulting from use. Cleaning of the experimental bone tools and artifacts was done buy immersion in an ultrasonic cleaning tank containing

used to pierce holes in pieces of smoked cowhide for periods of time ranging from 15 to 130 minutes, during which a range of 230 to 1,400 holes were made (fig. 3). Three tools were used to husk 25 to 60 corn cobs during a range of 25 to 45 minutes (fig. 4). Five other experiments were conducted where pieces of dry or wet birch bark were pierced between 300 to 1,800 times, during a range of 15 to 75 minutes (fig. 5). The last two experimental tools were used to smooth leather-hard clay coils during periods of 30 and 45 minutes (fig. 6).

Table 2: Experiments with bone awl replicas Tool No E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 E11 E12 E13 E14 E15 E16 E17 E18 E19

Material Dry hide Bark Dry hide Bark Corn Corn Clay Clay Bark Dry hide Dry hide Bark Dry hide Dry hide Bark Corn

Thickness 1.5 mm 1.5 mm 0.7 mm 0.7 to 1.5 mm 0.7 to 1.5 mm 0.7 mm 1.5 mm 0.4 mm 3.5 mm 2.2 to 3.5 mm 0.7 to 1.5 mm -

Duration 55 min. 55 min. 40 min. 15 min. 45 min. 30 min. 45 min. 30 min. 75 min. 65 min. 25 min. 60 min. 130 min. 15 min. 115 min. 25 min.

Task Piercing 1000 holes Piercing 500 holes Piercing 700 holes Piercing 300 holes Husking 60 corn cobs Husking 40 corn cobs Smoothing clay coils Smoothing clay coils Piercing 1200 holes Piercing 1400 holes Piercing 375 holes Piercing 700 holes Piercing 235 holes Piercing 350 holes Piercing 1800 holes Husking 25 corn cobs

Remarks Distal end broken during use Birch bark Birch bark During harvest season During harvest season With sand temper No temper Not used: manufacturing traces only Birch bark With rotation movement Distal end broken during use Birch bark, slightly humid Distal end broken during use Not used: manufacturing traces only Distal end broken during use Not used: manufacturing traces only During harvest season

warm water and a few drops of an ammonia-based dishwashing liquid during about 30 seconds. Photographs were taken with a digital camera installed on the microscope.

Figure 3: Perforating dry hide experimentally.

All the experimental bone tools were examined before and after use with an Olympus BHM microscope with incident light at 50X, 100X, 200X and 400X magnifications. However, it was found that 100X magnification was very often the most useful, especially when it came to differentiating the various kinds of polishing. Magnification of 50X can be useful to see such things as the extent of the polish and the

Figure 4: Husking corn cobs experimentally.

The second part of the project was a comparison of the microwear patterns identified on the experimental tools with those from the archaeological sample in order to determine the function of the latter. Through analogical reasoning, similar mircowear patterns on experimental and archaeological tools were 110

BONE AWLS OF THE ST.LAWRENCE IROQUOIANS: A MICROWEAR ANALYSIS – GATES ST-PIERRE

Southeastern Ontario (fig. 7 and 8); 37 are from the Glenbrook site (Pendergast 1981); 26 from the Salem site (Pendergast 1966); 22 from the Roebuck site (Wintemberg 1936), 12 from the McIvor site (Chapdelaine 1989); and 3 from the Summerstown Station site (Pendergast 1968). These five sites are St. Lawrence Iroquoian village settlements dating from the 15th or 16th centuries AD. The tools were selected according to two criteria; 1) the active part (i.e. distal end) must not be broken; and 2) they should be representative of the morphological variability mentioned earlier. All of the tools are housed at the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Gatineau (Quebec).

interpreted as being the result of the application of the tools to similar materials with similar movements. The same characteristics as those observed for the experimental tools were recorded using the same equipment with the specimens from the archaeological sample. The results of very similar experiments conducted previously by other researchers (i.e. Griffitts 1997, 2001; Griffitts and Bonsall 2001; Mobley-Tanaka and Griffitts 1997; LeMoine 1989, 1994, 1997), but sometimes involving different tasks and materials (piercing fresh hide, basketmaking, or shell collecting, for example), were also used to identify microwear patterns on the archaeological tools. Only the microwear visible on the active part of the tool is considered here. Wear visible on the shaft or proximal end of the tools, generally resulting from hafting or handling – the latter being known to produce microwear similar to that produced by hide working (Griffitts 2001: 186) – was noted but was not included in the results presented here.

Figure 7: Location of the five archaeological sites from which awl-like bone tools were selected. 1: Roebuck; 2: McIvor; 3: Glenbrook; 4: Summerstown Station; 5: Salem.

Results of the Experiments Figure 5: Perforating bark experimentally.

The tips of awls used on smoked hide appeared to be somewhat rounded, even if they were also prone to micro-flaking and breaking off. The polish is bright and follows the topography of the surface (fig. 9 and 10). At the beginning the polish appeared to be matte and had a linear or directional appearance, but later it would lose that directional appearance and become brighter. Groups of long, fine and parallel striations appeared on every awl used on smoked hide. These striations tended to have an orientation that was parallel to the main axis of the awls, except when a twisting motion was applied, in which case they would tend to be perpendicular to the main axis. The polish on awls used on bark is very slow to develop, and some experiments did not produce any wear at all. When it does develop it is very bright (brighter than the polish resulting from hide working), very smooth, and is generally limited to the high points of the topography (fig. 11). Like the wear produced by hide it can also have a directional

Figure 6: Smoothing clay experimentally.

The archaeological sample contains a total of 100 awl or awl-like bone tools selected among five assemblages from prehistoric sites located in

111

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

flattened (except in the deeper furrows created during the manufacturing process). Striations were numerous on every tool, but there were some differences between clay and corn. First, striations

apparence in the beginning. Striations are rare but when present they would tend to occur near the tip. There was no significant chipping or flaking and the tip had a rounded appearance.

Figure 8: The sample of 100 bone tools analysed from the Salem, Summerstown Station, Roebuck, McIvor and Glenbrook sites.

were more frequent and larger on tools used on clay, especially when sand temper was added. And second, the striations resulting from processing silicarich plants were more randomly oriented compared to those visible on “clay smoothers” where they were perpendicular to the working edge.

Figure 9: “Light” microwear produced experimentally by punching holes in dry hide (100X magnification).

Awls used on corn and clay had a very similar microwear pattern, probably because they are both silica-rich materials (fig. 12 and 13). In both cases, the edges became rapidly rounded or beveled, and that could be seen with the naked eye. A bright polish appeared very quickly and the whole surface became

Figure 10: “Heavy” microwear produced experimentally by punching holes in dry hide (100X magnification).

112

BONE AWLS OF THE ST.LAWRENCE IROQUOIANS: A MICROWEAR ANALYSIS – GATES ST-PIERRE

possible to distinguish true awls from husking pins in archaeological assemblages from their mircowear patterns.

Results of the Analyses It was not always possible to identify the contact material on the bone artifacts in the sample, either because the microwear was poorly developed, because it was altered by post-depositional processes, or because the contact material involved was not included in this study. In many occasions it was only possible to identify to a very general category such as undetermined hard material (wood, bark, bone, antler, shell) or undetermined soft material (dry hide, fresh hide, plant, clay). However, a relatively high number of awls had a more precise microwear pattern.

Figure 11: Microwear produced experimentally by drilling holes in birch bark (100X magnification).

Dry hide was the most easily recognizable contact material (fig. 14 and 15). It was clearly identified on one third of the tools in the total sample and is present in each of the five bone tools assemblages (tab. 3). Bark was also identified in many cases, although the microwear was not as easily recognizable as it was in the case of dry hide (fig. 16). This is certainly because microwear is very slow to develop with bark, and because of that one might wonder if bark could be under-represented in the contact materials identified in the sample. Figure 12: Microwear produced experimentally by husking corn cobs (100X magnification).

Figure 14: Microwear on artifact resulting from hide working (X50 magnification). Figure 13: Microwear produced experimentally by smoothing coils of clay (100X magnification).

Some tools from the Glenbrook, Salem and Roebuck assemblages were put into contact with an unidentified silica-rich plant, possibly for basketmaking or for splitting plant fibers (fig. 17). Basketry and fiber splitting were not included in the replication experiments, but some comparisons with published results from other researchers (Griffitts 1997, 2001; Griffitts and Bonsall 2001; Mobley-

In sum, initial results indicate that it might be difficult to distinguish microwear produced by corn and clay, although some differences do exist. However, there are significant differences in microwear patterns between this group of materials and those resulting from use on hide and bark. Thus, it should be 113

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

definitely not used as corn husking pins (fig. 8 and 21). Thus, morphological criteria alone are insufficient to distinguish husking pins from true awls; it is only with the aid of microwear analysis that such a distinction can be valid. Another tool from the Glenbrook site is very similar to the two husking pins identified, in terms of morphology and manufacture, except for the distal end which is narrower (fig. 22) and shows microwear diagnostic of use on dry hide. However, the distal end looks like it has been heavily resharpened, if not reshaped, and it seems highly possible that this tool was a corn husking pin transformed into an awl.

Tanaka and Griffitts 1997) revealed many similarities, especially the flattened surfaces characteristic of contact with silica-rich plants, or the large number of fine and parallel striations resulting from fiber splitting. There is also one tool with a polish limited to the high points of the surface and with some fine striations within the polished areas (fig. 18), which is characteristic of shell polish (Griffitts and Bonsall 2001). However, this tool does not have a beveled end like the bone tools described by the latter to collect and process shellfish; it has an awl-like morphology and it thus becomes very difficult to imagine the exact function of this tool.

Table 3: Contact materials identified from microwear on artifacts Site (with Borden code) GLENBROOK (BgFp-5) Dry hide Bark Unknown material Unknown hard material Corn Silica-rich plant Silica-rich plant + dry hide Two unknown materials Sub-total SALEM (BgFp-4) Bark Unknown material Dry hide Unknown hard material Silica-rich plant Silica-rich plant + unknown hard material Unknown material Two unknown materials Sub-total ROEBUCK (BeFv-4) Bark Dry hide Silica-rich plant Unknown hard material Unknown soft material Unknown material Sub-total MCIVOR (BfFv-1) Dry hide Unknown hard material Bark Unknown material Sub-total SUMMERSTOWN STATION (BgFp-1) Dry hide Bark Sub-total

Figure 15: Microwear on artifact resulting from working dry hide (X100 magnification).

Figure 16: Microwear on artifact resulting from working bark (X100 magnification).

Only two bone tools in the sample had a microwear pattern diagnostic of corn husking, and both are from the Glenbrook site (fig. 19). What is particularly interesting here is that those two husking pins have high values in terms of length and width, and they also have a broad point angle (fig. 20), just as Andersen and Jamieson predicted. However, it is very important to note that other tools in the sample that are long, large, and have a broad point angle were

N

%

15 7 5 3 2 2 2 1 37

40.5 18.9 13.5 8.1 5.4 5.4 5.4 2.7 99.9

7 6 5 4 1 1

26.9 23.1 19.2 15.4 3.8 3.8

1 1 26

3.8 3.8 99.8

7 5 4 4 1 1 22

31.8 22.7 18.2 18.2 4.5 4.5 99.9

4 4 2 2 12

33.3 33.3 16.7 16.7 100.0

2 1 3

66.7 33.3 100.0

Another point of importance is that some bone awls were clearly multifunctional as indicated by the presence of more than one microwear pattern. However, there are only five such multifunctional tools in the sample, suggesting that awls and awl-like bone tools generally had a single, specific function, and apparently may have had to be transformed if they

114

BONE AWLS OF THE ST.LAWRENCE IROQUOIANS: A MICROWEAR ANALYSIS – GATES ST-PIERRE

were to perform other tasks. Other studies have obtained different results, however. For example, about 30% of the bone awls from prehistoric and historic sites along the Missouri river in North Dakota were apparently multifunctional (Griffitts, this volume).

Figure 20: Corn husking tools from the Glenbrook site.

Figure 17: Microwear on artifact resulting from processing silica-rich plant, possibly fiber splitting (X100 magnification).

Figure 21: Graphical distribution of the complete bone tools according to their maximum length and point angle.

Conclusions

Figure 18: Microwear on artifact possibly resulting from contact with shell (X100 magnification).

The analyses conducted in this study have demonstrated that the use of bone awls by the St. Lawrence Iroquoians involved many different tasks and materials. Some are truly awls, i.e. pointed tools for boring small holes, especially in leather or hide, but also in bark. Others are not awls at all, but rather corn husking pins, and possibly basketry pins and fiber splitting tools. In addition, and as suggested earlier, it can be reasonably suggested that some other of these so-called bone “awls” might in fact be tattooing instruments, food picks, pins of the cupand-pin game, hair pins or any other of these bone tools often described in the ethnographic or ethnohistoric documents regarding the St.Lawrence Iroquoians and other Iroquoian groups in Northeastern North America, but tools which have, strangely enough, seldom – if ever – been found on Iroquoian sites. It is also clear that more studies

Figure 19: Microwear on artifact resulting from husking corn cobs (X100 magnification).

115

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

manufacture of containers or canoes from birch bark is an example of this. Likewise, the identification of corn husking pins through microwear analysis could allow one to recognize maize consumption on sites where maize remains are not necessarily preserved and found, especially in very early farming settlements.

involving experiments with contact materials such as meat, hair or bone should be conducted to demonstrate this more conclusively.

The St. Lawrence Iroquoians did not have a well developed lithic industry; apparently, and for an unknown reason, bone (and, to a lesser extent, antler and ivory) was their preferred raw material for tool manufacture. The quantity of bone objects found on St. Lawrence Iroquoian sites can be very impressive, especially on village settlements, and the range of functional classes is quite wide; awls, husking pins, fish hooks, barbs, projectile points, harpoons, knives, chisels, needles, scrapers, spatulas, flakers, pins, game pieces, pottery engravers, combs, beads, pendants, gorgets, rattles, whistles, pipes, handles for other tools, etc. Yet, it seems that their informative potential has remained largely ignored by archaeologists. However, this could change as the unique and diverse contributions that microwear analysis can contribute to the functional identification of these bone objects is gradually realized.

Acknowledgements Figure 22: Bone awl from the Glenbrook site, with distal end possibly reshaped.

I would like to thank first Kevin Geier who generously made the bone tool replicas used in this experimental study. Thanks also to Jean-Luc Pilon and Stacey Girling-Christie of the Canadian Museum of Civilization for their permission to borrow and analyze all the archaeological specimens included in the sample collection. I am very grateful to Marie-Eve Brodeur, André Costopoulos and Thomas J. Loebel for their constructive comments on various versions of this article, and to Janet Griffitts for sharing some useful informations with me. This study was supported by a postdoctoral research grant provided by the Fonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Société et la Culture (FQRSC) from the Quebec Government. Finally, I would like to express all my gratitude toward Lawrence H. Keeley for having taught me the basics of microwear analysis during my postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Illinois at Chicago; being in the company of this brilliant and very jovial archaeologist and his colleagues and students has been a real pleasure.

The results presented here confirm the hypothesis that bone awl is a vague morpho-functional category regrouping a very large number of bone tools which have, in fact, different functions. In other words, the “awl” category as actually defined – either implicitly or explicitly – by many archaeologists is simply inadequate; any bone tool with a narrow pointed end is not necessarily an awl. The results also demonstrate that a bone “awl” – as an individual tool, not as a category – is usually not a multifunctional tool, but rather a task-specific one. The distinction between awls and husking pins presented here illustrates how morphological criteria alone can be misleading when trying to establish functional categories and, as a consequence, these should always be established in conjunction with other lines of evidence such as the results of microwear analysis. By doing so, not only will archaeologists be able to establish more valid and accurate classifications of bone tools (and possibly typologies), but it could also allow them to identify a wider and more precise range of activities conducted at the sites they are investigating, activities which would otherwise leave no other traces. The

References Cited Andersen, C. J. 1981 A Preliminary Typology of Bone Awls and AwlLike Implements from Ontario Archaeological Sites. Unpublished manuscript. Toronto: Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto.

116

BONE AWLS OF THE ST.LAWRENCE IROQUOIANS: A MICROWEAR ANALYSIS – GATES ST-PIERRE

Beauchamp, W. M. 1902 Horn and Bone Implements of the New York Indians. Bulletin No 50. Albany: New York State Museum.

Budapest, 31 August – 5 September 1999, ed. A. M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, 207-220. BAR International Series No 937. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Berg, D. J. and J. A. Bursey 2000 The Worked Faunal Material from the Anderson Site: A Uren Village on the Lower Grand River, Ontario. Ontario Archaeology; No 69: 7-18.

Jamieson, B. J. 1993 Preliminary Observations on the St.Lawrence and Huron Bone, Antler and Ivory Artifacts. In Essays in St. Lawrence Iroquoian Archaeology: Selected Papers in Honour of J. V. Wright, ed. J. F. Pendergast and C. Chapdelaine, 49-58. Occasional Papers in Northeastern Archaeology, No 8. Dundas (Ontario): Copetown Press.

Chapdelaine, C. 1989 Le site Mandeville à Tracy: Variabilité culturelle des Iroquoiens du Saint-Laurent. Signes des Amériques No 7. Montréal: Recherches amérindiennes au Québec.

Keeley, L. H. 1974 Technique and Methodology in Microwear Studies. World Archaeology; vol. 5, No 3: 323336. 1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cook, J. and J. Dumont 1987 The Development and Application of Microwear Analysis Since 1964. In The Human Uses of Flint and Chert, ed. G. de G. Sieveking and M. H. Newcomer, 53-61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

LeMoine, G. M. 1997 Use Wear Analysis on Bone and Antler Tools of the Mackenzie Inuit. BAR International Series No 679. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 1994 Use Wear on Bone and Antler Tools from the Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories. American Antiquity; vol. 59, No 2: 316-334. 1989 Use Wear Analysis of Bone Tools. Archaeozoologia; vol. 3, No 1.2: 211-224.

Gates St-Pierre, C. 2001 Variations sur un même thème: les objets en os des Iroquoiens du Haut-Saint-Laurent. Archéologiques; No15: 35-54. 2004 Use Wear Analysis of Bone Awls from Iroquoian Sites. Paper presented at the 69 Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology (SAA), Montreal, April 2004. 2006 Potières du Buisson: La céramique de tradition Melocheville sur le site Hector-Trudel. Collection Mercure, Archéologie No 168. Gatineau (Quebec): Musée canadien des civilisations. th

Lennox, P. A. 2000 The Molson Site: An Early Seventeenth Century, First Nations Settlement, Simcoe County, Ontario. Bulletin No 18. London (Ontario): London Museum of Archaeology.

Grace, R. 1996 Use-Wear Analysis: The State of the Art. Archaeometry; vol. 38, Part 2: 209-229.

Mobley-Tanaka, J. L. and J. L. Griffitts 1997 Spatulate and Notched Tools from the American Southwest: A Lesson in Function-Based Typologies. In Proceedings of the 1993 Bone Modification Conference, Hot Springs, South Dakota, ed. L. A. Hannus, L. Rossum and R. P. Winham, 247-255. Occasional Publication No 1. Sioux Falls (South Dakota): Archaeology Laboratory, Augustana College.

Griffitts, J. L. 1997 Replication and Analysis of Bone Tools. In Proceedings of the 1993 Bone Modification Conference, Hot Springs, South Dakota, ed. L. A. Hannus, L. Rossum and R. P. Winham, 236246. Occasional Publication No 1. Sioux Falls (South Dakota): Archaeology Laboratory, Augustana College. 2001 Bone Tools from Los Pozos. In Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space. Proceedings of the 2 Meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group, Budapest, 31 August – 5 September 1999, ed. A. M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, 185-195. BAR International Series No 937. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Neusius, S. W. 1997 Faunal Analysis and the Parker Collection. In Reanalyzing the Ripley Site: Earthworks and Late Prehistory on the Lake Erie Plain, ed. L. P. Sullivan, 78-89. Bulletin No 489. Albany: New York State Museum.

nd

Odell, G. H. 1998 Awl. In Archaeology of Prehistoric Native America: An Encyclopedia, ed. G. Gibbon, 39. New York and London: Garland Publishing.

Griffitts, J. L. and C. Bonsall 2001 Experimental Determination of the Function of Antler and Bone ‘Bevel-Ended Tools’ from Prehistoric Shell Middens in Western Scotland. In Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space. Proceedings of the 2 Meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group,

Parker, A. C. 1910 Iroquois Uses of Maize and Other Food Plants. Bulletin No 144. Albany: New York State Museum.

nd

117

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

of the Oldest Tools and Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear. (Translated, and with a Preface by M. W. Thompson). London: Cory, Adams and Mackay.

Pendergast, J. F. 1966 Three Prehistoric Iroquois Components in Eastern Ontario: The Salem, Grays Creek, and Beckstead Sites. Bulletin No 208. Ottawa: National Museum of Man, National Museums of Canada. 1968 The Summerstown Station Site. Anthropological Papers, No 18. Ottawa: National Museum of Man, National Museums of Canada. 1973 The Roebuck Prehistoric Village Site Rim Sherds – An Attribute Analysis. Mercury Series, Paper No 8. Ottawa: National Museum of Man, National Museums of Canada. 1981 The Glenbrook Village Site: A Late St.Lawrence Iroquoian Component in Glengarry County, Ontario. Mercury Series, Paper No 100. Ottawa: National Museum of Man, National Museums of Canada.

Timmins, P. A. 1997 The Calvert Site: An Interpretive Framework for the Early Iroquoian Village. Mercury Series, Paper No 156. Hull: Canadian Museum of Civilization. Waugh, F. W. 1916 Iroquois Foods and Food Preparation. Memoir No 86, Anthropological Series No 12. Ottawa: Geological Survey of Canada. Wintemberg, W. J. 1936 Roebuck Prehistoric Village Site, Grenville County, Ontario. Bulletin No 83. Ottawa: National Museum of Man, National Museums of Canada.

Semenov, S. A. 1964 Prehistoric Technology: An Experimental Study .

118

chapter

9

A Diachronic Study of Pre- and Post-Contact Antler, Bone and Shell Artifacts from New York State Renee B. Walker Department of Anthropology, SUNY College at Oneonta, USA

as being ornaments to be what are called;

Introduction

““rassades;” these are a sort of shell-work, or sometimes of stone, fashioned in the form of small beads, some white, some black, – which are strung in such a way that they represent different and very exact figures, which have their own charm. It is with these strings of beads that our Savages tie and braid their hair, above the ears and behind; they make of them earrings, necklaces, garters, and belts, five or six inches broad; and with this sort of finery they value themselves much more than does a European with all his gold and precious stones” (Thwaites 1900: 137).

Objects manufactured from organic materials such as antler, bone and shell are rare in the archaeological record compared to stone or metal objects. Yet, organic remains can tell us much about the people who made them. Not only can objects manufactured from organic materials provide information on technology, they can also provide information on trade and ceremonies such as burial rituals. In addition, the use and manufacture of these artifacts varies through time and can be useful in understanding diachronic phenomenon, such as changes in the types of artifacts and design motifs. To this end, this research focuses on a collection of over 3,000 antler, bone, and shell burial objects from 31 sites (fig. 1) from the New York State Museum’s archaeological collections. The museum requested this analysis as part of their compliance to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA). The sites range in age from the Late Archaic (4000-1500 B.C) to Historic (A.D. 1550-1779) periods (tab. 1).

Antler, Bone and Shell Artifact Analysis This analysis first defined the object types for the collection following other studies with similar artifacts (Ceci 1989; Cowin 2000; Hammett and Sizemore 1989; Hayes 1965) (tab. 2). Within these categories, object material (shell, bone or antler), and taxon (when possible) were determined. The most common object type identified were beads (fig. 2). A total of 2,495 beads were identified, the majority of which were from shell. These beads included disc, barrel, round, and tubular shaped (Ceci 1989; Foreman 1978; Francis 1989). Most of the beads were made from the columella of whelk (Busycon spp.), but species was difficult to determine due to the extensive modification due to the manufacturing process. Most of the beads were plain, but, of those with designs, they were generally abstract in nature, consisting of a series of punctuations or incised lines. Native Americans, either as a means of exchange (wampum) or ornamentation, utilized beads in a variety of ways. The use of shell beads are mentioned in the Jesuit area relations files

Figure 1: Sites in New York State included in this analysis.

Fauna was the second largest object type identified and was either unmodified or modified (fig. 3a). Unmodified fauna totaled 382 items and included 16 antler pieces, 339 bones or bone fragments, and 23 pieces of shell. Unmodified fauna ranged from fish remains to other small mammal bones placed in the graves as food offerings. Others may have been ceremonial offerings, such as the complete lower leg of a bald eagle (Haliaetus leucocephalus) covered with red ochre from the Ripley site. Modified fauna totaled 133 objects, and exhibited cutmarks, striations, or any other form of seemingly purposeful modification. Some of the more remarkable modified fauna objects were wolf (Canis lupus) and mountain lion (Felis concolor) mandibles and maxilla cut to

119

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Site Le Furgy Otter Creek 2 Isle La Motte Hunter Jamesport Morrow Dunham’s Bay Barton Howland Island Van Orden Saunders Farm Tufano Black Rock Kipp Island Nahrwold Ripley Menands Bridge O’Neil Tram Factory Hollow Rice Woods Silverheels Marsh Dann Farm Boughton Hill Kanaadasaga Mound Kirkpatrick Farm Genesee County Lansingburg Troy Livingston County Total

Table 1: Sites containing bone, shell or antler objects. Period Late Archaic (4000-1500 B.C.) Late Archaic (3120 B.C.) Transitional (1600-1000 B.C.) Early Woodland (841 B.C.) Early Woodland (763 B.C.) Early Woodland (630-563 B.C.) Early Woodland (300 B.C.) Early Woodland (150 B.C.) Early Middle Woodland (A.D. 1-300) Early Middle Woodland (500 B.C.-A.D. 800) Early Middle Woodland Middle Woodland (A.D. 700) Middle Woodland (A.D. 850) Middle Woodland (A.D. 895) Late Woodland (A.D. 1310-1450) Late Woodland (1300-1500) Late Archaic-Late Woodland Late Archaic-Late Woodland (2101 B.C.-A.D. 1160) Historic (A.D. 1580-1600) Historic (A.D. 1590-1615) Historic (A.D. 1600-1620) Historic (A.D. 1640-1660) Historic (A.D. 1650-1670) Historic (A.D. 1660-1677) Historic (A.D. 1670-1687) Historic (A.D. 1754-1779) Historic (17th century) Historic (A.D. 1550-1750) Historic Historic Unknown

Count 10 4 10 4 5 7 7 66 74 1 17 48 2 1 14 206 13 29 1133 20 22 73 34 665 666 13 7 92 6 7 1 3257

and round, and had a perforation along one margin (fig. 4b). They also dated to the historic period, which suggests they may have been a trade item.

section off the front part of the element (fig. 3b). Table 2 : Total number of objects identified in the New York State Museum’s bone, shell and antler object collections Object Count Percent Bead 2495 76.6% Fauna, unmodified 382 11.7% Fauna, modified 133 4.0% Pendant 79 2.4% Tubes 37 1.2% Rattle, rattle fragment 34 1.0% Worked object 33 1.0% Comb 21 0.6% Awl 14 0.4% Pin 10 0.3% Tool 7 0.2% Knife hilt 5 0.2% Needle 3 0.2% Gorget 2 0.1% Maskette 2 0.1% Total 3257 100.0%

The assemblages also include 79 pendants, which had a small perforation at the top of the item (fig. 4a). It should be noted, that some of these pendants might in fact have been seen onto clothing for decoration, rather than worn about the neck (Thwaites 1900). Pendants made from bones and shells were most common, but some were also made from ivory. The ivory pendants were highly polished

Figure 2: Examples of Busycon spp. (whelk) columella beads from the Barton site.

A total of 37 objects were classified as tubes (fig. 5). This term referred to an item with a hole bored through the center of the object, which roughly defines a bead, but was fairly long or tubular. All of

120

A DIACHRONIC STUDY OF PRE- AND POST-CONTACT ANTLER, BONE AND SHELL ARTIFACTS FROM NEW YORK STATE – WALKER

shell and skin so arranged as to make a sort of drum; having thrown certain pebbles into this, they make from it an instrument like that which children in France use to play with” (Thwaites 1898: 155).

the tubes were from animal bone, including bird and mammal long bones and all were plain in design.

Figure 3: Example of unmodified and modified fauna. (a) is a Anas platyrhynchus (mallard duck) humerus from the Boughton Hill site and (b) is a Felis concolor (mountain lion) maxilla from the Ripley site.

Figure 5: Example of bone tubes made from medium mammal (probably Procyon lotor [raccoon]) longbones from the Silverheels site.

Figure 6: Turtle shell rattle made from Terrapene carolina (eastern box turtle) carapace and plastron from the Silverheels site.

The worked object category included items that could not be typed under any classic typology. A total of 33 items were placed in the worked object category. An example of an item placed in the worked object category is a spoon carved from antler from the Boughton Hill site (fig. 7).

Figure 4: Example of pendants. (a) is a pendant made from a large mammal (probably Odocoileus virginianus (white-tailed deer) femoral epiphysis from the Tram site. (b) represents seven ivory pendants from the Kirkpatrick Farm site.

A total of 34 items were identified as rattles or rattle fragments (fig. 6). These probably represent a minimum of four different rattles from four sites. Three of which were manufactured from Terrapene carolina and one from Sternotherus odoratus. Rattles are documented in the Jesuit area relations files as instruments made from “a real Tortoise, but only the

Items identified as combs had at least two prongs extending from a flat surface (fig. 8a). The flat surface varied in shape and size from small and squared to large, and shaped in the form of a plant, animal or human. A total of 21 combs were identified from the sites, six manufactured from antler (Cervidae) and 15

121

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

present in some of the assemblages (fig. 9a).

from bone. Manufacture of these combs included carving to form the desired shape, some had plain handles, but others had abstract, animal, plant, or anthropomorphic motifs incorporated into the handles (fig. 8b).

Figure 7: Example of a worked object-a spoon carved from Cervidae antler from the Boughton Hill site.

Figure 9: Objects identified from the assemblages, including an awl (a), a pin (b), and an antler flaker (c) from the Tram site.

Fourteen awls were present in some of the assemblages, including three made from antler and 11 from bone. The assemblages also contained ten antler pins, with each pin having blunted ends (fig. 9b). Items identified as tools included seven objects that were probably antler flakers (fig. 9c). Five knife hilts, manufactured from Cervidae antler, had some wood and metal portions of the knife still preserved. In addition, several of the knife hilts had abstract designs carved into them (fig. 10). This research classified three items as either needles or awls, but their small size would indicate that they were needles. A total of two gorgets were identified, both manufactured from marine shell (Busycon spp.) (fig. 11a). The two items were large and rounded with two holes near the center of the object, which defines a gorget (Hammett and Sizemore 1989). Ethnohistorically, the decorations of a military man among the Huron were described as wearing;

Figure 8: Combs from the Dann Farm site (a) and the Boughton Hill site (b).

Awls, a category that refers to a pointed object used to puncture holes in hides for clothing or in the construction of basketry (Coughlin 1996), were also

“…a gorget, tied with a flame-colored ribbon, hung carelessly over his breast; the gun resting on his arm, and the war-club in his girdle; the calumet in the

122

A DIACHRONIC STUDY OF PRE- AND POST-CONTACT ANTLER, BONE AND SHELL ARTIFACTS FROM NEW YORK STATE – WALKER

mouth, the lance in filled. In this lifelike seated him on an which served as a 149).

the hand; at his side the kettle, and war- like attitude they had eminence covered with grass, bed of state.” (Thwaites 1899:

(domestic dog) remains. This jaw consisted of one complete maxilla (both sides) and one complete mandible (both sides), probably from the same individual and all unmodified.

Finally, two shell maskettes, manufactured from marine gastropod (Busycon spp.), were identified (fig. 11b). The items were small oval shapes with facial or partial human facial patterns (i.e. eyes, nose, and mouth).

Transitional The Isle La Motte site is a transitional period site (1600-1000 B.C.) containing modified fauna (Haviland and Power 1994; Power 1989; Ritchie 1994). The modified fauna consists of 10 indeterminate mammal bone fragments. Six of these were cylindrical and four were amorphous in shape. All of the objects were charred and had a red tint possibly from iron or red ochre. Early Woodland The Jamesport site (700 B.C.) contained five faunal remains. Three of which were calcined, indeterminate mammal fragments and the other two remains were Odocoileus virginianus (white-tailed deer) metatarsal fragments.

Figure 10: A knife hilt from the Dann Farm site.

The Barton site dates to ca. 150 B.C. +/- 95 and contained a total of 66 objects. One of these objects was an awl, two were modified fauna, 15 were fauna, and 48 were beads. The awl was manufactured from a large mammal long bone. The two modified Cervidae (elk, deer) antler were cut and the 15 objects categorized as fauna were also Cervidae antler, but appeared to be unmodified. A total of 48 shell beads were also recovered from this site (see fig. 2). These beads were from Busycon spp. columella and ranged in size from 61.8 mm to 19.2 mm in length. Many of the beads were tainted red, probably due to close contact with red ochre in situ.

Figure 11: A gorget (a) and a maskette (b) both manufactured from Busycon spp. (whelk) shell from the Dann Farm site.

Inter-site Diachronic Analysis: Pre-Contact Sites

Dunham’s Bay is a Middle Woodland site (300 B.C.) that contained seven shell objects. Five of these were indeterminate Gastropoda shell beads. This site also contained one Busycon spp. columella bead, which was in poor condition and one piece of Busycon spp. shell, which had no discernable marks of modification.

Late Archaic The LeFurgy site is a Late Archaic period (4000-1500 B.C.) site with ten objects. Four of the objects are modified Canis lupus (grey wolf) mandibles and maxillae. These represent one individual and consist of the anterior portions of the mandible and maxilla with the tooth roots cut along the horizontal axis of the ramus. Two other modified fauna were a large mammal rib fragment and a long bone fragment. Four bones classified as fauna included a C e r v u s canadensis (elk) astragalus, an Odocoileus virginianus (white-tailed deer) terminal phalange, and two medium/large mammal phalanges.

The Early Woodland period (841 B.C.) site of Hunter contained a total of four bone objects. One object consisted of a Castor canadensis (beaver) incisor that had charred material adhering to one end. Three of the remaining objects from Hunter were unmodified Cervidae (deer/elk/moose) antler. The final Early Woodland period site, Morrow (630-563 B.C.), contained seven unmodified, small bird long bones.

The Otter Creek 2 site is a Late Archaic period (3120 B.C.) site that contained four Canis familiaris

123

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Early-Middle Woodland

plastron fragment from Terrapene carolina (eastern box turtle). Again, no holes are present in the turtle shell, suggesting use as a bowl.

The Howland Island site (A.D. 1-300) contained a total of 74 objects. These included three awls, two from a large mammal and one from Odocoileus virginianus (white-tailed deer). Objects categorized as fauna included two Castor canadensis (beaver) incisors, one Icatalurus spp. (catfish) pectoral spine, seven Marmota monax (woodchuck) incisors, 16 unidentifiable medium mammal elements, one Odocoileus virginianus (white-tailed deer) metatarsal, and 25 Sciurius carolinensis (gray squirrel) bones. Items of modified fauna included five Cervidae (deer/elk/moose) antler, two Odocoileus virginianus (white-tailed deer) phalanges, and one Odocoileus virginianus (white-tailed deer) ulna. A total of ten pendants were identified from the Howland Island site. Three of the pendants were unidentifiable large mammal bone and seven were Ursus americanus (black bear) canines. Finally, one indeterminate tool was manufactured from Cervidae (deer/elk/moose) antler.

Late Woodland The fauna from the Narwohld site (A.D. 1310-1450) included 14 remains classified as fauna (Ritchie and Funk 1973). These included one Ursus americanus (black bear) terminal phalange, one Odocoileus virginianus (white-tailed deer) second phalange, one large mammal epiphysis, and 11 large mammal unidentifiable bone fragments. The Ripley site (Neusius et al. 1998), dating to the late Woodland period (ca. 1300 A.D.), contained a total of 206 objects. One Cervidae antler comb was recovered, which had two long prongs and an oval shaped “head”. Two awls, manufactured from Meleagris gallopavo (turkey) tarsometarsi were also recovered. Remains identified as fauna included one each of a Buteo jamaicensis (red-tailed hawk) premaxilla and mandible, one Cervus canadensis (elk) upper canine, 74 Centrarchidae (sunfish) bones, one Canis lupus (gray wolf) upper canine, 13 Haliaetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) lower leg bones, two large bird elements, one mammal bone, three mollusk shell fragments, 35 Sciurius carolinensis (gray squirrel) elements, and two Ursus americanus (black bear) canines. The 13 bald eagle lower leg bones all came from one individual, represented the left leg, and were coated with red ochre. The 35 gray squirrel bones also represented one individual.

The site of Saunders Farm (Funk 1976:277) dates to the Early/Middle Woodland period and contained 17 objects. These consisted of 13 Busycon spp. (whelk) columella beads and four Busycon s p p . (whelk) pendants. The Van Orden site, occupied during the Early and Middle Woodland period (500 B.C. – A. D. 800), had only one object recovered, which was a weathered and fragmented unidentifiable mammal bone. Middle Woodland

Modified fauna included Canis lupus (gray wolf) maxilla and mandible segments (see fig. 3b), which totaled five mandibles (MNI=3), ten maxilla and 11 maxilla fragments (MNI=4). In addition, researchers found three Castor canadensis (beaver) incisors modified as chisels, a modified Erethrizon dorsatum (porcupine) mandible, one mandible and one maxilla of Felis concolor (mountain lion) were each cut along the tooth row, one medium mammal longbone with cutmarks and one modified Meleagris gallopavo (turkey) tarsometatarsus.

Black Rock (Funk 1976) is a Middle Woodland site (ca. A.D. 850), located in Greene County that consisted of two objects. The first object is a large mammal bone awl. The second object from the Black Rock consisted of an almost complete skeleton of Canis familiaris (domestic dog). This dog skeleton was from a young adult (around 1-2 years old), as the epiphyses were fused, but the epiphyseal line was still discernable. The Middle Woodland site of Kipp Island (A.D. 895) contained one Haeliatus leucocephalus (Bald Eagle) terminal phalanx.

The Ripley assemblage also contained three needles, which were made from two medium mammal longbones and one Meleagris gallopavo (turkey) tibiotarsus. In addition, objects recovered included one Terrapene carolina (eastern box turtle) rattle, one antler tool (tine) made from Cervidae (deer/elk/moose) antler, 19 worked Busycon spp. (whelk) shells, and 11 spherical “balls” which were classified as worked objects. These were spherical objects, less than 2 centimeter in diameter, manufactured from

The Middle Woodland (ca. A.D. 700) site of Tufano (Funk 1976) contained a total of 48 objects. Six pieces of Terrapene carolina (eastern box turtle) carapace fragments were from the same individual. No holes are evident in the carapace (which would suggest it is not a turtle shell rattle), but the interior appears to have been scraped and smoothed, suggesting possible use as a bowl. The remaining 42 fragments include 41 carapace fragments and one

124

A DIACHRONIC STUDY OF PRE- AND POST-CONTACT ANTLER, BONE AND SHELL ARTIFACTS FROM NEW YORK STATE – WALKER

Busycon disc and tubular beads interspersed with copper tubular beads, a copper disc, a copper spiral, or a copper ring (fig. 12).

medium/large mammal bone.

Prehistoric Multi-Component The Menand’s Bridge site is a Late Archaic through Late Woodland period site (Funk 1976:43-45) that contained one shell bead necklace consisting of 13 beads. The beads were Buscycon spp. (whelk) columella beads. The O’Neil site (Ritchie and Funk 1973; Ritchie 1965) dates to the Late Archaic through Late Woodland periods (2100 B.C. to A.D. 1160) and contained 29 objects. Six modified faunal remains included one left and one right Ursus americanus (black bear) maxillae, one left and one right Didelphis marsupialis (opossum) mandibles, and one left and one right Canis familiaris (domestic dog) lower canines. Two items classified as tools included Cervidae (elk, deer) antler tines that may have been flaking instruments. Twenty-one objects were classified as fauna, and included six Didelphis marsupialis (opossum) metapodials, three Castor canadensis (beaver) incisors that represented one individual, one Odocoileus virginianus (whitetailed deer) third lower molar, one large mammal long bone fragment, and ten Pelecypoda shell fragments. Figure 12: An example of a necklace made from Busycon spp. shell and copper from the Tram site.

Inter-site Diachronic Analysis: Post-Contact

One comb from the New York State Museum collections was identified from the Tram site. This comb was manufactured from Cervidae (deer/elk/moose) antler and had an abstract shape, elongated head and several short tine, possibly representing a bird/heron effigy (Wray et al 1991: 44).

Sixteenth Century The New York State Museum collections from the Tram site (A.D. 1580-1600) contained the largest number of burial objects from any of the other sites in the collection (Wray et al 1991). These objects included four awls, 1,114 beads, one comb, six unmodified faunal remains, two pendants, four pins, one tine and one worked object. A total of four awls were recovered from the Tram site, including one awl manufactured from a Felis concolor (mountain lion) right ulna, two made from large bird longbones, and one made from a left Odocoileus virginianus (whitetailed deer) metapodial.

Also recovered from the Tram site were three Elliptio complanata (flattened filter clam) shell and three unidentifiable freshwater pelecypod shells. Two pendants were identified, including one large mammal femur ephyphisis with a hole drilled at the narrow end (see fig. 4a) and one freshwater pelecypoda shell had a hole drilled along one margin. Four Cervidae (deer/elk/moose) antlers were modified as pins (see fig. 9b), with relatively blunt ends (Wray et al 1991:46). One Odocoileus virginianus (white-tailed deer) antler tine was modified as a tool (see fig. 9c), most probably a stone flaking tool (see also Wray et al 1991:48). Finally, one Testudines (turtle) carapace piece was identified as a worked object. This object had been carved into a square shape (see also Wray et al 1991: 54).

Beads were the most ubiquitous at the Tram site. The majority of these, totaling 1,014 were made from Busycon s p p . (whelk) columella. In addition, 45 Mollusca beads, 31 Pelecypoda beads, and 24 beads of unidentified material were recovered. The majority of these beads were rearranged as “necklaces” according to excavation records, including five necklaces made of Busycon columella, one of Mollusca disc beads, one made with Pelecypoda and Busycon disc beads, and four were combinations of

The Factory Hollow site is in West Bloomfield, Ontario County occupied ca. A.D. 1590-1615 (Houghton

125

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

beads, one unmodified Ursus americanus (black bear) canine, one unmodified Sciurius carolinensis (gray squirrel) skull, five unmodified indeterminate bone fragments, and one large mammal longbone comb. The handle of the comb has an animal effigy that may be of either two bears or wolves.

1912). A total of 20 objects were analyzed from the Factory Hollow site. One example of modified fauna consisted of a large mammal (cf. Ursus americanus) distal metatarsal that was cut and polished. Six pins were manufactured from Cervidae (deer/elk/moose) antler. In addition, nine unmodified Ursus americanus (bear) canines were recovered, representing a minimum of five individuals. Another canine was identified as the lower left canine from Canis familiaris (dog). Finally, three artifacts were classified as Cervidae (elk, deer) antler awls.

The Marsh site is in Ontario County and dates to the Historic period, ca. A.D. 1650-1670 (Hamell 1987; Houghton 1912: 421). This site contained a total of 34 objects. One worked object was a left frontal from a human crania, which had been cut into an oblong shape. Two tubes were classified as bird. Ten unidentified turtle plastron fragments, one fish vertebra, and two Ursus americanus (black bear) canines were also recovered. The two black bear canines were both upper left canines, indicating two individuals. Finally, eight plastron and ten carapace fragments represented the remains of a turtle shell rattle from Terrapene carolina (eastern box turtle).

Seventeenth Century The Silverheels site (Ceci 1989) was occupied during the Historic period (A.D. 1640-1660) and contained a total of 73 objects. The majority of these, a total of 35, were classified as tubes, with 25 from birds and 10 from mammals (see fig. 5). Of the bird bone tubes, five were identified as Meleagris gallopavo (turkey) humerii (representing two individuals). The remaining bird bone tubes included three large bird bones, six medium bird medial ulnas, one medium bird medial radius, seven large bird medial femurs, two large bird tibiotarsi, and one medium bird femur. Of the mammal remains, one right Sylvilagus floridanus (cottontail rabbit) tibia, five Procyon lotor (raccoon) femurs (representing three individuals), one Procyon lotor (raccoon) tibia, two Odocoileus virginianus (white-tailed deer) radii, and one medium/large mammal radius were identified. Additional objects recovered from the Silverheels site included four Castor canadensis (beaver) tibiae (representing two individuals) classified as modified

The Dann Farm site (A.D. 1660-1677) is located in Monroe County (Houghton 1912), near Honeoye Falls and contained 665 bone or shell objects. A total of 561 beads were recovered from the Dann Farm site, with many of the beads reconstructed as necklaces. One necklace consisted of 415 tubular Busycon shell beads, which were interspersed with 26 pierced domestic dog canine teeth (fig. 13a). Another necklace (n=81) consisted of oblong beads and short tubular beads (fig. 13b). Of the remaining beads, one was from a Busycon spp. columella, four were Busycon spp. shell, two were Pelecypoda shell, and 58 were mollusca shell. In addition to the 26 pierced domestic dog canine pendants, fourteen other pendants were recovered from the Dann Farm site.

Figure 13:one Necklaces from the Dann Farm site. fauna, Terrapene carolina (eastern box turtle) rattle (see fig. 6), 25 Busycon spp. (whelk) columella

A total of nine combs were recovered from the Dann

126

A DIACHRONIC STUDY OF PRE- AND POST-CONTACT ANTLER, BONE AND SHELL ARTIFACTS FROM NEW YORK STATE – WALKER

Busycon spp. (whelk) are columella beads (n=596) and the remainder (n=12) were flat beads with narrow, horizontal holes. A total of seven combs were recovered from this site. Four of the combs have animal effigies carved for the handles, some of which resemble wolves, otters or bears.

Farm site. Two were plain in design, while the others had designs on the handles, including two with an abstract design (see fig. 8a), three with animal motifs, one representing a corn plant, or one anthropomorphic image. A total of 36 bone remains were classified as fauna. These included 22 Osteichthyes (fish) vertebra, three Centrarchidae (sunfish, bass) cranial bones, one Centrarchidae cleithrum, and six Sciurius carolinensis (gray squirrel) lumbar vertebra. Modified fauna included two Odocoileus virginianus (white-tailed deer) thoracic vertebra and two modified Odocoileus virginianus (white-tailed deer).

One comb had an abstract design comprised of a series of carved triangles. Two combs had human effigies. The handle of one combo is comprised of a human figure with extended arms and an arch overlaying the figure. The figure appears to be dressed in “European-style” clothing. The head of the figure has three short lines that give the appearance of a face. The last comb was a very interesting human effigy comb, manufactured from Cervidae (deer, elk, and moose) antler. One figure resembles a “Native American” in features and the other is “European” or “Dutch” in features (fig. 14).

Two gorgets were identified from the Dann Farm site, one was a small (53.1 mm) Pelecypoda shell gorget with two perforations in the center and the other was a large Busycon shell gorget that was 156.8 mm in diameter. This gorget had two off-center perforations and triangular engravings along part of the edge (see fig. 11a). Two knife handles, comprised of four fragments, were recovered from the site, both carved from Cervidae (deer, elk, moose) antler. One had an extensive abstract design pattern of wide diagonal lines (see fig. 10). The other knife handle was a complete handle with a detailed design of triangles with hatchmarks inside the triangles. The metal pin and wood inserts were still preserved with this handle. Two maskettes were identified from Dann Farm. The first was manufactured from Busycon shell and represented an anthropomorphic face with two perforations for eyes, a slight protrusion below this for the nose and a carved down-turning mouth (see fig. 11b). The second is a broken anthropomorphic maskette with one eye, a large nose, and five dots to represent the mouth. Finally, one Terrapene carolina (eastern box turtle) rattle (n=9) and two indeterminate tools were also recovered from the Dann Farm site. The Boughton Hill site, a Historic period site (A.D. 1670-1687) from Ontario County, contained one of the largest numbers of funerary objects (Hayes 1965; Parker 1919; Wood 1964: 6). A total of 666 funerary objects were in the New York State Museum collections. These objects included 610 beads, seven combs, twenty-six items classified as fauna, seven modified faunal remains, one knife hilt, nine pendants, five rattle fragments, and one worked object. Beads were the most numerous objects identified from the Boughton Hill site. A total of 610 beads, manufactured from both bone and shell, were recovered. Most of the beads (608) were from Busycon spp. (whelk) shells. The majority of the

Figure 14: A comb from the Boughton Hill site showing a “Native American” figure on the left and a “European” or “Dutch” figure on the right.

Twenty-six artifacts designated as fauna were recovered from the Boughton Hill site. Eighteen of these were elements from Ectopistes migratorius (passenger pigeon), which may represent the remains of one individual. Researchers recovered three Ursus americanus (black bear) canines, which represent two

127

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

individuals of this species. In addition, the assemblage contained one Odocoileus virginianus (white-tailed deer) upper molar and one right Sciurius carolinensis (gray squirrel) maxilla. Finally, the assemblage included three invertebrates, including one Gastropoda (snail) shell, one Pelecypod (mussell/clam) shell, and one shell from Elliptio spp.

Buscycon recovered.

spp. (whelk) columella beads were

Multicomponent Historic A site in Genessee County dated to the Historic period (A.D. 1550-1750) and contained 92 Buscyon spp. (whelk) columella beads.

The Boughton Hill assemblage also contained one Cervidae antler knife hilt, which was in extremely good condition with a zig-zag pattern repeated around the handle. Metal and wood fragments were in the interior, with some orange oxidation stains (presumably from the iron).

The faunal items from the historic site of Lansingburg consisted of six beads. One bead was carved from indeterminate mollusc shell. Three beads were Busycon spp. (whelk) columella. A tubular bead from a small mammal longbone was also present. Finally, one bead from Pelecypoda (probably Mercenaria mercenaria) was recovered.

A total of nine shell pendants were recovered, including one Busycon spp. shell pendant and seven pendants manufactured from mollusca shell. Five Sternotherus odoratus (stinkpot) shell fragments were identified from Boughton Hill and probably represented one turtle shell rattle.

The Troy site is a Historic period site with a total of seven objects. Six of the objects were bone pendants, including two incisors and four canines of Cervus canadensis (elk). These pendants had small perforations at the tip of the tooth root. They were probably all from the same individual animal. In addition, one Cervidae (elk, deer, and moose) antler comb was identified from the Troy site. The top of the comb was shaped into an inverted “v”, with a hatchmarked pattern across this portion.

Researchers recovered seven modified faunal remains from Boughton Hill, including five Odocoileus virginianus (white-tailed deer) phalanges that had been carved or had cutmarks. These phalanges represent a minimum of three white-tailed deer individuals. Two other modified faunal remains included one Anas platyrhynchos (mallard) humerus (see fig. 3a) and one Testudines (turtle) pleural shell. The worked object was a Cervidae (elk, deer, and moose) antler spoon (see fig. 7). The edge of the bowl was very worn, possibly from use, while the back and handle of the spoon had multiple striations, possible from manufacture.

Unknown One bird bone bead was from an unknown period site in Livingston County. The tubular bead was highly polished, with many parallel and diagonal striations.

The Kirkpatrick Farm site was a 17th century historic site that contained seven pendants. These pendants are circular-shaped discs, with a hole at the top and appear to have been carved from ivory. This ivory may be from elephant tusks brought over from Africa and traded for by the Native Americans, but were so modified as to make identification difficult (see fig. 4b).

Object Type and Design Motifs Some comparisons were made of object type and motif between the pre-contact and post-contact sites. One major difference is, of course, the overall greater number of post-contact objects observed in the assemblages. Generally, the more common precontact materials were tools, unmodified and modified fauna, and needles, with other objects such as combs and pendants fairly limited in number (tab. 3). Additionally, many more objects were placed in the worked object category for pre-contact items because they were either not preserved as well or not identifiable as to type. As for the post-contact items, beads, pendants, pins, rattles, knife handles, combs, gorgets and maskettes were all much more common than in the pre-contact era sites. Cowin (2000) notes that shell beads and pendants increase in popularity during the early to mid-17th century. This is certainly the case in the materials from these assemblages. In

Eighteenth Century The Kanaadasaga Mound is a Historic period site (ca. A.D. 1754-1779) located in Ontario County. Seven remains from the mound were all classified as unmodified, general fauna. These included one Phasianidae (pheasant, grouse) distal tibiotarsus, one Odocoileus virginianus (white-tailed deer) metacarpal, two small/medium mammal longbone fragments, one Rattus rattus (black rat) unfused femur, one Gallus gallus (domestic chicken) coracoid, and one Gallus gallus (domestic chicken) humerus. In addition, six

128

A DIACHRONIC STUDY OF PRE- AND POST-CONTACT ANTLER, BONE AND SHELL ARTIFACTS FROM NEW YORK STATE – WALKER

documented for other sites in New York State (Baart 1995). In addition, combs from other burial sites in New York State are noted as being associated with female burials (Beauchamp 1902; Davis 1972).

addition, Wray and Schoff (1953: 58) mention that bird effigies, engraved shell runtees and wampum increase after A.D. 1650, also a common occurrence with this analysis. Table 3: Pre-Contact and Post-Contact differences in object type. Object type Pre-Contact Post-Contact Bead 80 2415 Fauna, unmodified 262 120 Fauna, modified 114 19 Pendant 14 65 Tubes 0 37 Rattle, rattle fragment 1 33 Worked object 30 3 Comb 1 20 Awl 7 7 Pin 0 10 Needle 3 0 Tool 4 3 Knife handle 0 5 Gorget 0 2 Maskette 0 2 Total 516 2741

Summary and Conclusions This research documents a collection of 3,257 bone and shell objects from the New York State Museum’s archaeological collections in compliance with NAGPRA. The assemblage was difficult to analyze due to the number of objects and because many of the sites were excavated prior to 1950 and the techniques of excavation varied between the sites. It is possible to conclude several things about the objects, however. First, there were both modified and non-modified objects associated with burials from the sites. Second, there is an increase in the diversity of objects from the Late Archaic to the Historic period. A marked change in design motif was noticed, from plain to abstract, animal, human and plant images. In particular, the appearance of anthropomorphic images after contact with European figures depicted and, in one case, a “Native American” figure with a “European” figure certainly reflected the changing times.

Table 4: Object design motif (percent of specimens with design) Design motif Abstract Animal - bird Animal - bear Anthropomorphic Animal - mountain lion Animal - canid, mountain lion Animal - mountain lion, bear Animal - other Plant - corn Plant - flower Total

Percent 70.5% 13.6% 6.8% 4.3% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 100.0%

I hope that this preliminary analysis will lead to further observations on these antler, bone and shell objects. Many aspects of this study have a variety of potential impacts on bone and shell object analysis. Standard typology and stylistic characteristics of the objects is significant in that there are few assemblages of a similar nature and many will be removed from museum collections as NAGPRA repatriations continue.

The other striking diachronic difference between the pre-contact and post-contact sites was the lack of design on the pre-contact objects (tab. 4). Only a small percentage of the post-contact objects were modified with a design. The designs on the postcontact items included abstract, plant, animal and anthropomorphic. The abstract designs were the most common type of design (70.5%) and generally consisted of diagonal lines or punctuations. Animal designs were the next most common and included animals (mostly on combs) such as birds (13.5%), bears (6.8%), mountain lion 0.8%), canid/mountain lion (0.8%), bear/mountain lion (0.8%), and other (0.8%). The plant designs included one corn motif on a comb (0.8%) and one flower motif on a round piece of shell from a pendant (0.8%). Finally, the anthromorphic designs (4.3%) included plain faces (as in the maskettes) or images on the combs. One interesting comb, from a Historic period site, had two anthropomorphic figures on the handle-one possibly Native American and one European (see figure 12). Similar combs showing “Dutchmen” have also been

Acknowledgements I would like to gratefully acknowledge the many people who aided me during the analysis of this assemblage. First, to Lisa Anderson (NYSM), for bringing the materials to my attention and recommending that I do the analysis. Second, to Susana Columna (’02), who helped me with the initial stages of this analysis through a Skidmore College Student/Faculty Collaborative Research grant. Finally, to the Seneca, Mohawk and Stockbridge-Munsee Indian Nations for cooperating with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 for the analysis of these bone and shell burial objects.

References Cited Baart, J. M. 1995 Combs. One Mans Trash is Another Man’s

129

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

University Press of New England.

Treasure. Rotterdam and New York: Museum Boymans-van Beuningen.

Hayes, C. F. 1965 The Boughton Hill Site as a Historic Landmark. Bulletin of the Rochester Musuem of Arts and Sciences; Vol. 38, Nos 1-2: 6-12.

Beauchamp, W. M. 1902 Horn and Bone Implements of the New York Indians. Bulletin No 50. Albany: New York State Museum. Ceci, L. 1989

Houghton, F. 1912 The Seneca Nation from 1655-1687. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences; Vol. 10, No 2: 413-425.

Tracing Wampum’s Origins: Shell Bead Evidence from Archaeological sites in Western and Coastal New York. In Proceedings of the 1986 Shell Bead Conference: Selected Papers, ed. C. F. Hayes and L. Ceci, 63-80. Research Records No 20. Rochester: Rochester Museum and Science Center.

Neusius, S. W., L. P. Sullivan, P. D. Neusius and C. M. Milner 1998 Fortified Village or Mortuary Site? Exploring the Use of the Ripley Site. In Ancient Earthen Enclosures of the Eastern Woodlands, ed. R. C. Mainfort, Jr. and L. P. Sullivan, 202-230. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Coughlin, S. P. 1996 A Technological Analysis of Modified Bone from the Widows Creek site (1JA305), Alabama. Master’s Thesis. Knoxville: University of Tennessee.

Newcomer, M. H. 1974 Study and Replication of Bone Tools from Ksar Akil (Lebanon). World Archaeology; vol. 6, No 2: 138-153.

Cowin, V. L. 2000 Shell Ornaments from Cayuga County, New York. Archaeology of Eastern North America; vol. 28: 1-14.

Parker, A. C. 1919 Excavations on Boughton Hill. Albany: Report of the Director, New York State Musuem.

Davis, O. H. 1972 Aboriginal Human Effigy Portrayal: Northeast. n.p., Salem (NY).

Power, M. W. 1989 The Isle La Motte Site, VT: A Revisionists Look at Glacial Kame. Paper presented at the 54 SAA meeting, Atlanta, GA. th

Foreman, R. 1978 Disc Beads: Production by Primitive Techniques. The Bead Journal; vol. 3, Nos 3-4 : 17-22.

Ritchie, W. A. 1965 The Archaeology of New York State. Garden City (NJ): The Natural History Press. 1994 The Archaeology of New York State. Fleischmanns (NY): Purple Mountain Press.

Francis, P. 1989 The Manufacture of Shell from Beads. In Proceedings of the 1986 Shell Bead Conference: Selected Papers, ed. C. F. Hayes and L. Ceci, 25-35. Research Records No 20. Rochester: Rochester Museum and Science Center.

Ritchie, W. A. and R. E. Funk 1973 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast. Memoir No 20. Albany: New York State Museum and Science Service.

Funk, R. E. 1976 Recent Contributions to Hudson Valley Prehistory, Memoir No 22. Albany: New York State Museum.

Rummell, D. A. 1991 The Mohawk Glass Beads Trade Bead Chronology: 1560-1785. Beads; Vol. 3: 5-46.

Hammell, G. H. 1987 Ethnology, Archeology, History and Seneca O r i g i n s . Paper presented at the Annual Conference on Iroquois Research, Rennselaerville, NY.

Semenov, S. A. 1964 Prehistoric Technology: An Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Use. London: Barnes and Noble.

Hammett, J. E. and B. A. Sizemore 1986 Shell Beads and Ornaments: Socioeconomic Indicators of the Past. In Proceedings of the 1986 Shell Bead Conference: Selected Papers, C. F. Hayes and L. Ceci, 125-135. Research Records No 20. Rochester: Rochester Museum and Science Center.

Thwaites, R. G. 1896-1901The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents. 73 vols. Cleveland: Burrows Brothers. Weston, T. 1993 Acculturation in the Middle Missouri Valley as Reflected in Modified Bone Assemblages. Plains Anthropologist; vol. 38, No 142: 79-100.

Haviland, W. A. and M. W. Power 1994 The Original Vermonters. Hanover and London:

130

A DIACHRONIC STUDY OF PRE- AND POST-CONTACT ANTLER, BONE AND SHELL ARTIFACTS FROM NEW YORK STATE – WALKER

Archaeologist; vol. 23, No 2: 53-63.

Wood, A. 1964 Historic Burials at the Boughton Hill Site. The Bulletin, Journal of the New York State Archaeological Association; No 32: 6-16.

Wray, C. F., M. L. Sempowski, and L. P. Saunders 1991 Tram and Cameron: Two Early Contact Era Seneca Sites. Research Records No. 21. Rochester: Rochester Museum and Science Center.

Wray, Charles F. and Harry L. Schoff 1953 A Preliminary Report on the Seneca Sequence in Western New York, 1550-1686. Pennsylvania .

131

chapter

10

Bone Disc Manufacturing Debris from Newfoundland to Antigua During the Historic Period Walter E. Klippel and Bonnie E. Price Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee at Knoxville, USA

Introduction Bone was used in the manufacture of a variety of objects in eastern North America and the Caribbean during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Fork handles, knife handles, combs, hair brushes, tooth brushes, buttons, backs for metal buttons, and cores for cloth and thread covered buttons include some of the more common objects recovered from archaeological contexts (Barka 1978; Carlson 1979; Hanson and Hsu 1975; Nickolson 1995; Polhemus 1979). The manufacture of the latter was particularly common at the British, Brimstone Hill Fortress, St. Kitts. Single-hole bone disc manufacturing debris has also been recovered from many other late eighteenth and early nineteenth century military sites in eastern North America and the Caribbean.

Figure 1: Bone disc manufacturing debris from Brimstone Hill: a, sea turtle carapace fragment (dorsal view); b, right caprine mandible fragment with ascending ramus, coronoid process, sigmoid notch, and broken condyle (medial view); c, equid parietal fragment (dorsal view); d, bovine thoracic vertebra dorsal spine fragment (lateral view); e, left bovine scapula fragment with cranial boarder and subscapular fossa (medial view).

Archaeological excavations during the summers of 1996 through 1999 were conducted at the British Brimstone Hill Fortress by the University of Tennessee to assess enslaved African activities at the site. Field work was focused in an area immediately outside of a defensive wall on the west side of the Fortress, which, according to a 1791 British military engineers map, was the location of four buildings utilized by slaves: one craftsman’s building, a kitchen, and two hospitals. Excavations there during the late 1990s produced an abundance of waste debris from the manufacture of single-hole bone discs along with temporally more sensitive artifacts suggesting an occupation between 1780 and 1820 (Schroedl and Ahlman 2002).

Bone Preparation Ribs of cattle and costal bones of sea turtles were by far the most dominantly utilized for disc manufacture. However, cattle scapulae (2), a mandible (1), and a thoracic vertebra dorsal spine (1) were also used (fig. 1d, e). Both costal bones of sea turtles and ribs of cattle were extensively modified prior to disc removal as has been reported elsewhere by Klippel and Schroedl (1999). Only an abbreviated description of cattle rib modification is reiterated here because of a recent alternative interpretation for the appearance of specimens recovered from Brimstone Hill. Cattle ribs were trimmed along the thick cranial border with a heavy-bladed implement such as a machete or cleaver. The rib heads were chopped off and, judging from the numerous transverse chop marks at the ends of many of the rib segments, they were sectioned into at least two, and probably more, rectangular segments (fig. 2a). These rectangular segments were then split lengthwise through the cancellous bone (fig. 2b) resulting in two flat rectangular segments, each of which had one surface with exposed cancellous bone and the other with

Faunal remains from the 1996 and 1997 excavations included over 6,200 animal bones of which 1037 (16%) were cattle and sea turtle bones that had been modified in the process of bone disc manufacture. Over 80% of the unmodified, identifiable, bones (1230) were those of domestic pigs (37%), cattle (30%), sheep and goats (14%). The 1998 and 1999 excavations produced over 4,700 additional modified bones that were overwhelmingly from cattle and sea turtle, but also included at least two caprine mandible fragments and a parietal fragment from a small horse or donkey (fig. 1).

133

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

unmodified cortical bone (fig. 2c, d).

indicates that they came from cattle that had been raised in a temperate, not tropical, climate and represent rib segments (e.g. “spare ribs”) that were shipped to Brimstone Hill as barreled beef.

Figure 2: Cattle rib segments from Brimstone Hill: a, complete segment chopped at both ends; b, split segment showing interior trabecular bone; c, split segment with much of the trabecular bone trimmed away and at least five discs removed; d, cortical surfaces of typical rib segment manufacturing debris.

Figure 3: Delta 13C values for modern plants (after O’Leary 1988) and cattle bones from Brimstone Hill (Bt 1, recent cow skeleton found at base of Brimstone Hill; Bt 2-7, human food refuse recovered from enslaved African contexts; dd 4-8, disc manufacturing debris recovered from enslaved African contexts). Cattle remains are plotted to reflect the 5‰ fractionation between plants and bone collagen. Eighteenth century cattle bones are further corrected for a 1.5‰ recent enrichment in 13C. Uncorrected 13C values are presented in Table 1.

Bone working experiments conducted by Klippel and Schroedl (1999) indicated that cattle ribs could not be easily split into two usable halves without first thinning their thick cranial boarders and then chopping them into at least two sections.Attempts to split ribs without trimming the cranial margin usually resulted in the blade of a machete exiting the lateral or medial surface of the rib rather than dividing the specimen into two, flat, rectangular pieces. It was also difficult to split complete ribs longitudinally because of their curvature and flexibility; a machete usually exited through the lateral face of the rib before it could be split its entire length. Ribs that were chopped into ca 15cm-long segments were only slightly curved and were easily split longitudinally by forcing a machete blade down through the cancellous bone.

Credible information on what kinds of cattle bones were included in barrels of beef during the late 18th and early 19th centuries is scarce. Records that are available suggest that beef was cut into pieces no larger than eight pounds (English 1990; Grant 1853) and that marrow bones (i.e. long bones) were excluded because they did not preserve well (Balkwell and Cumbaa 1987; Deslauriers and Rioux 1982; Grant 1853; Walsh 1982). Archaeological evidence from the North Atlantic (van Wyngaarden-Bakker 1984), St. Kitts (Klippel 2001), and Australia (English 1990) indicate that marrow bones were often included. English (1990: fig. 2) further describes and illustrates cattle ribs from barreled beef recovered from the 1841 wreck of the William Salthouse that had been sectioned into two or three pieces. Rib segments are, in fact, approximately the same length as many of those recovered from Brimstone Hill (fig. 2 a-c). As human food refuse from barreled beef at Brimstone Hill, cattle ribs would have already been precut into 15-20mm length. With minimal cranial border thinning, they could have then simply been split in two in preparation for disc extraction. Interestingly, ca. 15mm-long rib segments from the entire sides of mature cattle weigh roughly eight pounds.

Bovid skeletal part frequencies from the 1996/7 excavations indicated that some of the recovered beef bones from Brimstone Hill might have been imported as preserved, barreled, beef. Stable carbon isotopes (i.e. 12 C and 13C) in bones are influenced by the kinds of grasses (C3 – temperate; C4 – tropical) that are available to cattle and stable isotopes in discarded cattle bones from Brimstone Hill show that some of the beef was shipped to the Fortress from England or eastern North America as barreled beef (Klippel 2001). Specimens Bt2 and Bt6 in fig. 3, for example, are cattle bones that were from animals raised on temperate C3 grasses. Bt1 is a modern control from a cow raised on St. Kitts (C4 grasses) while Bt3 and Bt7 represent human food refuse recovered from Brimstone Hill that were also raised on tropical C4 grasses. Five cattle rib fragments from which bone discs had been extracted were recently analyzed for 13C. All five (fig. 3, dd4-dd8; tab. 1) have 13C values more negative than –19.2 which clearly

Bone Disc Extraction Nearly all the disc manufacturing debris from Brimstone Hill is bone that had been split or thinned

134

BONE DISC MANUFACTURING DEBRIS FROM NEWFOUNDLAND TO ANTIGUA DURING THE HISTORIC PERIOD – KLIPPEL AND PRICE

were routinely removed by first drilling part way through from the cancellous surface (until the central pivot protruded the opposite side (e.g. Klippel and Schroedl 1999: fig. 5), then turned over and the central pivot placed in the existing pivot hole. Drilling then continued from the cortical surface until the disc was freed from the surrounding bone that routinely left a small ledge of bone near the middle of both the disc circumference and the hole perimeter.

with a heavy-bladed implement such as a machete, clever, or hatchet. This produced bone fragments from cattle ribs, sea turtle coastal bones, dorsal spines from cow thoracic vertebra, the bovine mandible, sheep or goat mandibles and portions of cattle scapulae that had underlying trabecular bone, with one unmodified surface (figures 1a, b, d; 2 d) and the other with exposed trabecular bone (fig. 2b, c). The few exceptions include one cow scapula (fig. 1e), a single equid parietal fragment (fig. 1c) and a few fragments from unidentified elements. In all instances where bone was not split or thinned, fragments were solid cortical bone that did not contain underlying trabecular bone such as at the infraspinous fossae of cattle scapulae (fig. 2e).

Most discs were successfully extracted, sometimes leaving complete circular holes in the bone (fig. 1a, 2d). The majority of the debris fragments, however, only contained portions of the original disc circumferences, i.e. semicircles on the margins (fig. 1b, c, d, e). Some

Table 1: Carbon 13C/12C ratios (‰) of cattle bone collagen from Brimstone Hill: Bt 1, modern cow; Bt 2-7, archaeologically recovered food refuse; dd 4-8, archaeologically recovered cattle rib disc manufacturing debris. Sample Bt #1 Bt #2 Bt #3 Bt #6 Bt #7 dd #4 dd #5 dd #6 dd #7 dd #8

Species Bos taurus Bos taurus Bos taurus Bos taurus Bos taurus Bos taurus Bos taurus Bos taurus Bos taurus Bos taurus

Element Humerus Humerus Vertebra Humerus Humerus Rib Rib Rib Rib Rib

Context Modern 18th Century 18th Century 18th Century 18th Century 18th Century 18th Century 18th Century 18th Century 18th Century

Lab Beta Beta Beta Wisconsin Wisconsin Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington

13C

-11.7 -22.3 -10.1 -21.12 -10.97 -19.21 -21.76 -20.04 -21.92 -21.86

discs were broken in the process of manufacture, which resulted in portions of the discs being left in place. These unsuccessful attempts to extract bone discs all contained single holes in the center and incised channels near their perimeters.

At Brimstone Hill, hand-held braces and center bits (i.e. “button bits” – Hummel 1968:57; Mercer 1960: 195-198) were used to extract discs as attested to by failed attempts to extract discs. Unsuccessful attempts sometimes left portions of discs still attached to the surrounding matrix and in many such instances surfaces of fragmented disc bore concentric circles on their flat sides that were produced by the alternately chamfered portions of the bit. Button bits are a form of, flat, center bit with a long central guiding pivot and two shorter lateral spurs; one on either edge of the flat blade (Hanson and Hsu 1975: fig. 76l). The areas between the central pivot and lateral spurs are alternately beveled which forms cutting edges between the pivot and spurs. When spurs are shorter than the thickness of the material being drilled, the surfaces between the spurs and the pivot are cut away, removing the original surface and quite frequently producing concentric circles on the surface of the disc (fig. 4a). When the spurs are longer than the thickness of the material being drilled, however, the chamfered edges do not contact the bone and the original surface is not altered before a disc is removed.

Figure 4: Single-hole bone discs: a, disc from Brimstone Hill extracted with hand-held brace and bit that produced concentric lines as a result of the circular motion of a chamfered bit; b, disc from the Second James White Home (Faulkner 1984) that was first sawn into a thin slab that produced saw kerf marks then extracted with brace and bit producing concentric lines (left side) as a result of the circular motion of a chamfered bit.

Disc fragments from Brimstone Hill also contained single holes in their centers and incised channels near their perimeters. There is good evidence that discs

135

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Excavations during the 1998/9 seasons produced 4,741 modified bones on which an additional 7,467 disc peripheries have been recorded. The 1996/7 and 1998/9 excavations both produced nearly identical proportions of measurable sea turtle and mammal disc peripheries (tab. 2); one-third were recorded on sea turtle costal bones (33.1%-1996/7; 32.9%-1998/9) and two-thirds were on mammal bones (66.9%-1996/7; 67.1%-1998/9).

Disc Size from Manufacturing Debris A series of circular templates drawn with a compass in 0.5 mm increments were used to estimate the diameters of the bone discs manufactured at Brimstone Hill. Discs and disc fragments still attached to manufacturing debris indicate that there is less than 1 mm difference between maximum disc diameter and minimum hole diameter. Perimeters of holes that were minimally 10% intact fairly accurately estimate the diameters of the removed discs (i.e. + 1mm). Accurate measurements on smaller fragments proved problematic and were not recorded. Klippel and Schroedl (1999: tab. 2) reported diameters (0.5mm increments) of the circular and semicircular holes for the 1996/7 samples by biological family (i.e. cf. Chelonidae, sea turtles; and Bovidae, cattle). A third category (i.e. mammals) contained specimens that were definitely mammal and probably cattle bone that lack diagnostic features. In light of the equid (e.g. donkey) and caprine (sheep or goat) bones recovered during the 1998/9

Bone discs recovered during 1996/7 varied considerably in size, ranging from 8mm to 32mm in diameter. Discs recovered during these initial excavations (Klippel and Schroedl 1999: tab. 2) clearly showed three dominant size clusters (i.e. 9-10mm; 1214mm; and 16-18mm) and a fourth less prominent cluster between 19 and 22mm. Two-thirds of the discs from turtle costal bone were in the 12-14mm cluster while a smaller sea turtle cluster occurred between 1922mm (12%). Over 90% of the discs made from mammal bones, on the other hand, occurred in three

Table 2: Single-hole bone disc diameters (mm) by biological classes measured on manufacturing debris from Brimstone Hill. Specimens recovered during the 1996 and 1997 excavation seasons reported elsewhere (Klippel & Schroedl 2003) are presented here along with the much larger sample recovered during the 1998 and 1999 excavation season. Disc diameter 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 32 Total

1996-1997 Reptile 12 4 6 11 85 202 142 18 23 1 5 11 22 30 12 5 5 6 13 6 16 1 7 0 643

Mammal

1998-1999 Reptile

6 159 97 26 81 149 241 38 202 143 107 18 11 7 3 1 0 0 0 2 8 0 2 1 1302

0 6 12 35 236 998 360 85 60 14 44 37 82 190 67 53 27 15 16 11 73 13 0 0 2434

Mammal

1996-1999 Unknown

1996-1999 Total

0 41 146 174 564 2468 653 167 80 48 67 43 80 219 59 27 29 6 7 25 72 0 0 0 4975

0 2 0 3 2 26 25 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 68

18 212 261 249 968 3843 1421 312 367 206 223 109 195 446 142 86 61 27 36 44 169 17 9 1 9422

clusters: 9-10mm (20%), 12-14mm (36%), and 1618mm (35%).

season, we have chosen to collapse the “Bovidae” and “mammal” categories into a single “mammal” category for the sake of taxonomic accuracy. We have also chosen to collapse 0.5mm diameter increments (i.e. Klippel & Schroedl 1999) into full 1.0mm increments in presenting disc diameters (tab. 2).

Over 70 percent (71.3%) of all of the measurable disc perimeters recovered during the 1998/9 seasons fell in the 12-14mm cluster. Nearly two-thirds (65.5%) of the sea turtle discs were within the 12-14mm cluster but a

136

BONE DISC MANUFACTURING DEBRIS FROM NEWFOUNDLAND TO ANTIGUA DURING THE HISTORIC PERIOD – KLIPPEL AND PRICE

American or British military sites that extend from Signal Hill, Newfoundland (Jelks 1973) to Shirley Heights on the Caribbean island of Antigua (Cripps 2003).

far smaller proportion of the mammal bone discs were in the 12-14mm cluster (36%). The difference between button cores manufactured from sea turtle and mammal bones in the 12-14mm cluster, compared to all other sizes, for the 1996/7 sample is statistically significant (Chi Square, 137; p = < .001). When the two samples are combined and the 12-14mm fraction of sea turtle and mammals are compared to all other sizes, the difference between sea turtle and mammal is not significant (Chi Square, 1.13; p = > 0.25).

The manufacturing debris from other sites such as the Metropolitan Detention Center, Philadelphia (Dent et ai. 1997) and Battery Concordia, St. Eustatius (Howard 2004) may also be from British military contexts. City Hall Park (Baugher and Lenik 1997) and 290 Broadway (Cheek and Roberts 2004), New York, are proximal to military sites but button manufacturing debris has been attributed to almshouse activities at these locations. Fort Mose, Florida, was occupied by African American military personnel and their families (MacMahon and Deagan 1996) while Cabildo in New Orleans (Yakubik and Herschell 1992) and the Walnut Street Prison in Philadelphia (Cotter 1988) are prison contexts from which manufacturing debris has been recovered. Button manufacturing debris from Monticello, Virginia (Crader 1984), and St. Augustine, Florida (Deagan 2002), appear to be from domestic habitations.

The other two clusters (9-10mm – 20% and 16-18mm – 35%) that were so apparent among the cattle/mammal bone in the 1996/7 sample (Klippel and Schroedl 1999: tab. 2) are not at all apparent in the 1998/9 sample. Mammal bone disc fall to only four percent in each cluster (tab. 2), and when combined with the 1996/7 sample, neither cluster contains more than eight percent of the discs made from mammal bone. A pattern that did not change with the addition of the 1998/9 (66%) sample, that was twice as large as the 1996/7 (33%) sample, is the trend for the larger (>20mm) button cores to be made from sea turtle costal bones. Sea turtle discs out numbered mammal bone discs in both samples, in spite of the fact that in both samples two-thirds of the discs were manufactured from mammal bones. This consistency is likely because the proximal ends of cattle ribs are too narrow to permit the extraction of such large discs. Turtle costal bones are much wider than cattle ribs (Klippel and Schroedl 1999: fig. 2) and nearly the entire sea turtle costal bone would have been wide enough to produce button cores between 20mm and 30mm in diameter.

The two estates listed in table 3 (i.e. Bellefield, NY and Andalusia, PA) both date to the second quarter of the nineteenth century, and well into the third quarter in the case of Bellefield. Manufacturing debris from both sites is from estate greenhouses. Based on context within the greenhouse at Andalusia, Kratzer (1995) has interpreted the manufacturing debris there as coming from the bone meal that was purposefully introduced into the borders (i.e. planting beds) at the site. There is also historic documentation for the transport of bone meal to the greenhouse at Andalusia (Cooperman 1993). Keck (2003) has interpreted the manufacturing debris at Bellefield as evidence for a button manufacturing cottage industry in the Bellefield Estate greenhouse. Bone disc manufacturing debris from both sites differs markedly from that described for Brimstone Hill and at other earlier military sites where manufacturing debris has been illustrated. At both estate sites, mammal long bones were sawn longitudinally into thin “slabs” of cortical bone leaving saw kerf marks on the sides of the manufacturing debris. This preparation of bone for disc extraction suggests more organization and permanence than might be expected at many of the military sites where button core manufacture was probably undertaken on an “as-needed”, replacement, basis.

In summary, then, while disc sizes vary widely between 8mm and 32mm in diameter, there does not appear to have been a size related selection for sea turtle vs. mammal bone for any size cluster.However, there is an exception for the larger discs that would have been difficult to extract from the proximal ends of most cattle ribs. The differences observed in the initial sample (Klippel and Schroedl 1999) now appear to have been spurious; the result of nonrandom sampling and sample size.

Single-hole bone discs, without manufacturing debris, have been recovered from throughout eastern North America and the Caribbean in a wide variety of contexts at late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century sites. In some instances bit spurs were sufficient in length to prevent the saw kerf marks from being completely obscured by the chamfered edges of button bits (e.g. fig. 4b). In addition, discs from early nineteenth

Discussion and Summary Bone button manufacturing debris has been recovered from numerous late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century archaeological sites in North American and the Caribbean. Of the three dozen sites we know of from which bone disc manufacturing debris has been recovered (tab. 3), two thirds are clearly

137

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Table 3: Archaeological sites in North American and Caribbean from which bone disc manufacturing debris has been recovered. Sites are listed from north to south. Site name Fort Seven Signal Hill Bastion St-Louis Fort Edwards Fort Lennox Fort Michilimackinac Fort Ticonderoga Fort Stanwix

Site type Trading post British military British military British military American/British military American/British military American/British military American/British military

Period 1760-1827 1800-1860 1780-1820 Late 18th century 1770-1870 1761-1781 1755-1777 1758-1781

Reported by Pollock (1980) Jelks (1973) Cumbaa (1986) Christianson (1999) Barka (1978) Stone (1971) Fox (2004) Hanson and Hsu (1975)

Greenhouse American military American military

1840-1885 ca. 1776 1776-1777

Keck (2003) Cantor (1973) Fisher (2004)

Washington’s Headquarters West Point

Location Northern Ontario St.John’s, Newfoundland Québec, Québec Windsor, Nova Scotia Île-aux-Noix, Québec Emmet Co., Michigan Essex Co., New York Rome, Oneida Co., New York Dutchess Co., New York Dutchess Co., New York Fort Montgomery, Orange Co., New York Newburgh, Orange Co., New York

American military

1782-1783

Cotter (1976)

West Point, Orange Co., New York

American military

Late 18th century

Stony Point 290 Broadway

Stony Point, Orange Co., New York Manhattan, New York

British military Almshouse/military ?

Late 18th century Late 18th century

City Hall Park

Manhattan, New York

Almshouse/military ?

1736-1790

Old Fort Andalusia Estate Metropolitan Detention Center Walnut Street Prison Monticello

Staten Island, New York Bucks Co., Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

British military Greenhouse British military ?

Late 18th century 1835-1836 Late 18th century

Calver and Bolton (1950) Huey (2004) Cheek and Roberts (2004) Baugher and Lenik (1977) Bolton (1950) Kratzer (1995) Dent et al. (1997)

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Charlottesville, Albermarle Co., Virginia Roane Co., Tennessee

Prison workshop Enslaved african habitation American military

Late 18th century ca. 1796

Cotter (1988) Crader (1984)

1797-1811

American military American military

1794-1807 1851-1900

American/British military British military American/British military British military British military Military/civilian prison

1776-1812 Late 18th century 1776-1812 1763-1781 1763-1781 1723-1850

Fort Mose

Monroe Co., Tennessee Charleston, Charleston Co., South Carolina Charleston Co., South Carolina Paget Island, Bermuda Liberty Co., Georgia Pensacola, Escombia Co., Florida Pensacola, Escombia Co., Florida New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana St.John’s Co., Florida

African-american fort

1738-1763

St.Augustine Battery Concordia Brimstone Hill

St.John’s Co., Florida St.Eustatius, West Indies St.Kitts, West Indies

Habitation British military ? British military

18th century Late 18th century 1780-1820

English Harbour Shirley Heights

Antigua, West Indies Antigua, West Indies

British military British military

1770-1823 1830-1854

Trubitt and Smith (1993) Polhemus (1979) Weinand and Reitz (1994) South (1974) Nasca (2004) Elliot (2003) Williams (2004) Bense (1999) Yakubik and Herschel (1992) MacMahon and Deagan (1996) Deagan (2002) Howard (2004) Klippel and Schroedl (1999) Nickelson (1995) Cripps (2003)

Bellefield Estate Fishkill Supply Depot Fort Montgomery

Fort Southwest Point Tellico Blockhouse Charleston Powder Magazine Fort Moultrie Paget Fort Fort Morris Old Christ Chruch Fort of Pensacola Cabildo

has persuasively argued that they were “molds” for cloth or thread covered buttons. Cloth covered buttons were popular in both North America and England during the eighteenth century (Gehret 1976; White 1977) and many are still extant in museum collections (Hinks 1995; Hudgins 1977). Single-hole bone discs have also been recovered with burials in positions that strongly suggest they were buttons on leggings (Courtaud et al. 1999: 286) as well as on under garments and outer clothing (Hudgins 1977: 79). Period military personnel are often depicted (May and Embleton 1974, Troiani 2001: 10) with buttons

century contexts are often illustrated with sufficient clarity to tell that they were extracted from sawn bone. Single-hole bone discs that were extracted from sawn bone appear to be most common at early nineteenth century sites (Carlson 1979; Faulkner 1984; Keck 2003; Matchen 2004). Sites that date to the last decade of the eighteenth century, however, have produced single hole bone discs with saw kerf marks (Smith and Nance 2002a, 2002b). Although the exact function of single-hole bone discs has been, and continues to be, debated, Hinks (1995)

138

BONE DISC MANUFACTURING DEBRIS FROM NEWFOUNDLAND TO ANTIGUA DURING THE HISTORIC PERIOD – KLIPPEL AND PRICE

manufacturing debris in the Northeastern United States.

that appear to be of the same material as the clothing to which they are attached. Further, Troiani (2001: 7) has noted of the late eighteenth century, that “Most common seamen did not have standardized uniforms and probably used plain metal, cloth covered, or leather buttons.”

References Cited Balkwill, D. and S. L. Cumbaa 1987 Salt Pork and Beef Again? The Diet of French and British Soldiers at the Casemate, Bastion St. Louis, Quebec. Research Report No 252. Quebec: Parcs Canada.

Hinks (1995:91) has also noted that button diameter varied with the garment to which they were attached. Large buttons (e.g. > 17.5 mm) were attached to “great coats” while smaller sizes were attached to breeches, trousers, shirts, jackets, and waistcoats. Button size variability on British military uniforms of the late eighteenth century generally follows Hink’s (1995) descriptions.

Barka, N. F. 1978 The Archaeology of Fort Lennox, Ile-Aux-Noix, Q u e b e c . History and Archaeology No 20. Ottawa: Parks Canada. Baugher, S. and E. J. Lenik 1997 Anatomy of an Almshouse Complex. Northeast Historical Archaeology; vol. 26: 1-22.

Buttons for waistcoats, breeches, and trousers appear to have been in considerable demand by the British military at Brimstone Hill. The context from which manufacturing debris was recovered at Brimstone Hill clearly suggests that “artificers” (i.e. enslaved African craftsmen) were producing the bone discs with handheld braces and center bites. Similar activities, whether by slaves or British and American military personnel, were common during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries at military sites throughout eastern North America and the Caribbean.

Bense, J. A. 1999 Archaeology of Late Colonial Pensacola. In Archaeology of Colonial Pensacola, ed. J. A. Bense, 121-205. Gainesville (FL): University Press of Florida. Bolton, R. P. 1950 The “Old Fort” and campsite at Richmond, Staten Island. In History Written with Pick and Shovel, ed. W. L. Calver and R. P. Bolton, 3036. New York (NY): New York Historical Society. Cantor, E. 1973 Buckles and Buttons. In The Archaeological Salvage and Survey of a Portion of the Revolutionary War Supply Depot at Fishkill, New York, ed. J. C. Gifford and D. G. Crozier, 63-99. Manuscript. Waterford (NY): Archeology Unit, Bureau of Historic Sites, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Peebles Island.

Acknowledgements The Brimstone Hill Fortress National Park Society, The Center for Field Research (Earthwatch) and the University of Tennessee supported archaeological excavations at Brimstone Hill. Faunal remains were transported to the University of Tennessee where they were identified with the aid of the modern comparative osteological collections maintained by the Department of Anthropology. The loan of these materials to the University of Tennessee was made possible by the Honorable G.A. Dwyer Astaphan, Minister of Tourism, Culture, and the Environment, St. Kitts.; Mr. Larry Armony, Site Manager, Brimstone Hill Fortress National Park; and Mr. Cecil Jacobs, President, Brimstone Hill Fortress National Park Society. The authors are also grateful for support from the University of Tennessee Professional Development Fund (W. Klippel) and the University of Tennessee Undergraduate Summer Internship Program (B. Price).Gerald Schroedl, Director of the Brimstone Hill excavations, granted us permission to work with the bone disc manufacturing debris from the site. Diana Greenlee of the University of Washington provided the C values on disc manufacturing debris. Jennifer Synstelien produced the illustrations. Daphne Battle, Elizabeth Benchley, Charles Cheek, Beau Cripps, Laura Cushman, Kathleen Deagan, Christopher Fox, Shannon Glazer, Ryan Gray, Mike Gregg, Paul Huey, Charlene Keck, Judson Kratzer, Paul Nasca, Cregg Madrigal, Paul Matchen, and Tamara Varney provided invaluable information on the occurrences of bone disc manufacturing debris in North America and the Caribbean. Paul Huey provided an especially helpful dialogue on bone disc

Calver, W. L. and R. P. Bolton 1950 History Written with Pick and Shovel. New York: New York Historical Society. Carlson, G. 1979 Archaeological Investigations at Fort Atkinson (25WN9), Washington County, Nebraska 19561971. Publications in Anthropology No 8. Lincoln (NB): Nebraska State Historical Society. Cheek, C. D. and D. G. Roberts 2004 290 Broadway: Changing Land Use at Lower Manhattan’s African Burial Ground. Volumes I-IV. Report to Edwards and Kelly Engineers Inc., and General Services Administration, Region 2, New York, from John Milner Associates, Inc., West Chester (PA).

13

Christianson, D. 1999 Current Research: Nova Scotia – Fort Edwards National Historic Site. Council for Northeast Historical Archaeology Newsletter; No 42: 15-16.

139

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Elliott, D. 2003 Archaeological Investigations at Fort Morris State Historic Site, Liberty County, Georgia. Report submitted to State of Georgia, Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division, Atlanta, by Southern Research-Historic Preservation Consultants, Ellerslie (GA).

Cooperman, E. T. 1993 The Graperies and Grapes of Nicholas Biddle’s Andalusia: A Study in Greek Revival Landscape P u r s u i t s . M.A. Thesis. Philadelphia (PA): Graduate Program in Historic Preservation, University of Pennsylvania. Cotter, J. L. 1976 Current Research: Northeast. The Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter; vol. 9, No 4: 8-19.

English, A. J. 1990 Salted Meat from the Wreck of the William Salthouse: Archaeological Analysis of Nineteenth Century Butchering Patterns. Australian Journal of Historical Archaeology; vol. 8: 63-69.

Cotter, J. L. 1988 Archaeological Investigations, 1973. In T h e Walnut Street Prison Workshop, ed. J. L. Cotter, R. W. Moss, B. C. Gill and J. Kim, 25-50. Philadelphia (PA): The Athenaeum of Philadelphia.

Faulkner, C. H. 1984 An Archaeological and Historical Study of the James White Second Home Site. Report of Investigations No 28. Knoxville (TN): Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee.

Courtaud, P., A. Delpuech, and T. Romon 1999 Archaeological Investigations at Colonial Cemeteries on Guadeloupe: African Slave Sites of not? In African Sites Archaeology in the Caribbean, ed. J. B. Haviser, 277-290. Princeton (NJ): Marcus Wiener Publishers.

Fisher, C. L. 2004 Archaeological Study. In “ T h e Most Advantageous Situated in the Highlands”: An Archaeological Study of Fort Montgomery State Historic Site, ed. C. Fisher, 5-18. New York State Museum Cultural Resources Survey Program Series No. 2. Albany (NY): New York State Museum.

Crader, D. C. 1984 The Zooarchaeology of the Storehouse and Dry Well at Monticello. American Antiquity; vol. 49, No 3: 542-558.

Fox, C. D. 2004 Written Correspondence and Images Regarding Single-hole Bone Disc and Disc Manufacturing Debris Recovered During the Restoration of FortTiconderoga Between 1909 and 1950. Materials housed in the collections at Fort Ticonderoga Museum, Ticonderoga (NY).

Cripps, B. F. 2003 The Garbage of Gentlemen: Investigations of a Military Refuse Midden from the Shirley Heights Officers’ Quarters (PAH 127) Antigua, West Indies. M.A. Thesis. Peterborough (Ontario): Department of Anthropology, Trent University.

Gehret, E. J. 1976 Rural Pennsylvania Clothing. York (PA): George Shumway Publisher.

Cumbaa, S. 1986 Bone Button Making – A “Cottage” Industry? The Ottawa Archaeologist; vol. 13, No 7: 2-4.

Grant, T. 1853 Mode of Curing Oxen and Hogs, Slaughtered in the Establishment at Deptford. Transactions of the New York State Agricultural Society; vol. 12: 287-290.

Deagan, K. 2002 Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the Caribbean, 1500-1800, Volume 2: Portable Personal Possessions. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Hanson, L. and D. P. Hsu 1975 Casemates and Cannonballs: Archaeological Investigations at Fort Stanwix National Monument. Publications in Archaeology No 14. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service.

Dent, R. J., C.H. LeeDecker, M. Janowitz, M.-L.Pipes, I. Wuebber, M.A Gordon, H.M.R. Holt, C. Roper, G. Scharfenberger, and S. Azizi 1997) Archaeology and Historical Investigations, Metropolitan Detention Center Site (36PH91), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to The U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, D.C. by Louis Berger and Associates, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Hinks, S. 1995

Deslauriers, H. and C. Rioux 1982 Les conditions de vie dans la Dauphine de 1760 à 1800. Parks Canada Microfiche Report Series MF 49. Ottawa: Parks Canada.

A Structural and Functional Analysis of Eighteenth Century Buttons. Volumes in Historical Archaeology No 32. Columbia (SC): The South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.

Howard, B. P. 2004 The Fortifications of St Eustatius, Dutch West Indies [Battery Concordia]. http://statia.materialculture.org/statia.html.

140

BONE DISC MANUFACTURING DEBRIS FROM NEWFOUNDLAND TO ANTIGUA DURING THE HISTORIC PERIOD – KLIPPEL AND PRICE

Hummel, C. F. 1968 With Hammer in Hand. Charlottesville (VA): University Press of Virginia.

Department of Transportation, Nashville, from the Archaeological Research Laboratory, University of Tennessee, Knoxville (TN).

Hudgins, C. L. 1977 Historic Archaeology and Salvage Archaeological Excavations at College Landing. Report submitted to the Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond (VA) by William and Mary Research Center for Archaeology, Williamsburg (VA).

May, R. and G. A. Embleton 1974 The British Army in North America 1775-1783. Men-at-Arms Series No 39. London: Osprey. Mercer, H. C. 1960 Ancient Carpenters' Tools. Third Edition. Boylestown (PA): The Bucks County Historical Society.

Huey, P. R. 2004 Correspondence Regarding Bone Disc Manufacturing Debris Excavated by Richard Koke in 1939 from “Work I” at Stony Point Battlefield State Historic Site, New York. Materials housed (e.g. catalogue Number A.SP.1939.328) by the Archeology Unit, Bureau of Historic Sites, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, Peebles Island, Waterford (NY).

Nasca, P. M. 2004 British Military Uniform Buttons, 1778-1819: An Artifact Study from Paget Fort, Bermuda. M.A. Thesis. Williamsburg, (VA): Department of Anthropology, College of William and Mary. Nicholson, D. V. 1995 Blood and Mud: The Naval Hospital and Underwater Artifacts, English Harbour, Antigua. In Proceedings of the XV International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, ed. A. Ricardo and M. Rodriguez, 45-60. San Juan (Puerto Rico): Centro de Estudios Avanzados de Puerto Rico y el Caribe.

Jelks, E. B. 1973 Archaeological Explorations at Signal Hill, Newfoundland, 1965-1966. Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History No 7. Ottawa: Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Canadian Historic Sites.

th

O’Leary, M. H. 1988 Carbon Isotopes in Photosynthesis: Fractionation Techniques May Reveal New Aspects of Carbon Dynamics in Plants. BioScience; vol. 38, No 5: 328-336.

Keck, C. A. 2003 A Nineteenth Century Bone Button Industry in Upstate New York. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Council for Northeastern Historic Archaeology, October 2003, Lowell (MA).

Polhemus, R. R. 1979 Archaeological Investigations of the Tellico Blockhouse Site (40MR50): A Federal Military and Trade Complex. Report of Investigations No 26. Knoxville (TN): University of Tennessee, Department of Anthropology.

Klippel, W. E. 2001 Sugar Monoculture, Bovid Skeletal Part Frequencies, and Stable Carbon Isotopes: Interpreting Enslaved African Diet at Brimstone Hill, St.Kitts, West Indies. Journal of Archaeological Science; vol. 28, No 11: 11911198.

Pollock, J. W. 1980 An Archaeological Inspection and Assessment of Two Historical Archaeological Sites on the Seven River, Ontario. In Collected Archaeological P a p e r s , ed. D. S. Melvin, 65-96. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

Klippel, W. E. and G. F. Schroedl 1999 African Slave Craftsmen and Single-hole Bone Discs from Brimstone Hill, St. Kitts, West Indies. Post-Medieval Archaeology; vol. 33: 222-232.

Schroedl, G. F. and T. M. Ahlman 2002 The Maintence of Cultural and Personal Identities of Enslaved Africans and British Soldiers at Brimstone Hill Fortress, St. Kitts, West Indies. Historical Archaeology; vol. 36, No 4: 8-49.

Kratzer, J. M. 1995 The Graperies of Andalusia: An Archaeological Study of a Bygone Agricultural Phenomenon. M.A. Thesis. Savannah (GA): Department of History, Armstrong State College MacMahon, D. and K. Deagan 1996 Legacy of Fort Mose: A Florida Marsh Yields the Remnants of Colonial America’s First Free Black Settlement. Archaeology; vol. 49, No 5: 54-58.

South, S. 1974 Exploratory Archeology at Fort Moultrie, South Carolina, 38CH50. Anthropological Studies No 1. Columbia (SC): University of South Carolina, Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.

Matchen, P. M. 2004 The Evans Ferry Site: A 19 Century Appalachian Settlement on the Clinch River, Granger County, T e n n e s s e e . Report to the Tennessee

Smith, S. D. and B. C. Nance 2000a An Archaeological Interpretation of the Site of Fort Blount, A 1790s Territorial Militia and Federal Military Post, Jackson County, Tennessee.

th

141

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Preservation and the Faunal Remains at Smeerenburg, Spitsbergen. In Animals and Archaeology, 4: Husbandry in Europe, ed. C. Grigson and J. Clutton-Brock, 195-204. BAR International Series No 227. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Research Series No. 12. Nashville (TN): Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology,. Smith, S. D. and B. C. Nance 2000b Artifacts from the Buffalo Creek Site. Research Series No 12. Nashville (TN): Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology (Appendix G, pp. 376406). Stone, L. 1971

Walsh, M. 1982 The Rise of the Midwestern Meat Packing Industry. Lexington (KY): University Press of Kentucky. Weinand, D. C. and E. J. Reitz 1994 Vertebrate Fauna from the Powder Magazine, Charleston, South Carolina. Report prepared by University of Georgia, Museum of Natural History for the Charleston Museum, Charleston (NC).

Archaeological Research at Fort Michilimackinac, An Eighteenth Century Historic Site in Emmet County, Michigan: 1959-1966 Excavations. Ph.D. Dissertation. Ann Arbor (MI): Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University (University Microfilms).

White, D. P. 1977 The Birmingham Button Industry. Post-Medieval Archaeology; vol. 11: 67-79.

Troiana, D. 2001 Military Buttons of the American Revolution. Gettysburg (PA): Thomas Publications.

Williams, C. A. 2004 Land Use at the Site of Old Christ Church, Pensacola, Florida. M.A. Thesis. Pensacola (FL): Department of History, University of West Florida.

Trubitt, M. B. and S. D. Smith 1993 Fort Southwest Point Historic Artifact Analysis. In Fort Southwest Point Archaeological Site, Kingston, Tennessee: A Multidisciplinary Interpretation, ed. S. D. Smith, 179-380. Research Series No 9. Nashville (TN): Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Archaeology.

Yakubik, J.-K. and A. Herschell 1992 Archaeological Investigations at the Site of the Cabildo, Louisiana, New Orleans. Report submitted by Earth Search Inc., New Orleans, to Louisiana Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge (LA).

van Wyngaarden-Bakker, L. H. 1984 Faunal Analysis and Historical Record: Meat

142

chapter

11

Bone Tool Types and Microwear Patterns: Some Examples from the Pampa Region, South America Natacha Buc Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano - CONICET, Argentina

Daniel Loponte Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano, Argentina

“A” soil horizon with an average thickness of 50 cm. Underneath was an archaeologically sterile “C” horizon that represents a fluvial deposition period (cf. Parker and Marcolini 1992).

Introduction Archaeological sites located in the lower Paraná’s wetlands (South America, Argentina, Pampa region) and occupied by Late Holocene hunter-gatherers contain large quantities of specialized bone tools made with antler, mammal and fish bones. The aim of this paper is to categorize the morphological types and their microwear traces. Bone tools were observed with binocular, metallurgical and environmental scanning electron microscopes (ESEM) in order to explore different morphological modifications on bone and antler surfaces due to manufacture and use. Properties of micro traces such as polishes and striations were recorded by taking into account their orientation, aggregation and distribution. Archaeological bone tools were compared with an experimental sample of tools previously made out of lamb bones, deer antler and fish bones (Buc 2003).

The Environment The Pampa region is a great grass plain located in the East-Central portion of Argentina, between the 31° and 39° south. It is bounded by the Atlantic Ocean to the east and the Sierras Centrales to the west. The Pampa includes most of Uruguay and the southern territory of the Río Grande do Sul State in Brazil (Cabrera and Willink 1973). The Lower Paraná River is located in the middle of this large plain, sectioning the Pampa in two parts (fig. 1). The environment of this area (cf. Burkart et al. 2000) is characterized by a flood plain along the Paraná River and several islands, which constitute a delta. Fluvial banks are the highest elevation of the area, regularly left by the periodic flooding. These levees are found along streams, as well as in lagoon and marsh margins, and typically are colonized by grasses and many species of shrubs and trees. Fluvial banks are the primary locations where archaeological sites are found.

Figure 1: Map of the Pampa Region and the Lower Parana wetlands.

Archaeological Background Archaeological sites located in the Lower Paranà’s wetlands were characterized as multi-purpose sites. Most of them were occupied by complex huntergatherers during the Late Holocene (tab. 1). Economy was mainly based on fluvial resources (mostly fishes from the Siluriforme and Characiforme orders), on rodents (coypu and cavy) and ungulates (marsh and Pampa deer). Zooarchaeological studies suggest the existence of size selection and delay consumption of fishes. On the other hand, analyses of ungulate skeletal representation show elements of high and low utility. Isotopic analyses carried out on human bones recovered from burials suggest that wild plant food (C3 photosynthetic pathway) constitutes around 30% of the diet. Moreover, ethnographic records

Every archaeological deposit was contained within an

143

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

coefficient (Neiff 1999). Hence, environment shows high sedimentation rates, low aeolian and fluvial erosion as well as high and localized soil formation. Artifacts on the surface are rapidly captured by

point out to the existence of storage, delay consumption and active territorial defense of the primary catchments areas during the XVIth century (Loponte et al. 2002).

Table 1: Archaeological pampean sites with bone tool examples discussed in the text Site Las Vizcacheras Las Vizcacheras Garín Anahí Ao. Guazunambí La Bellaca sitio 1 La Bellaca sitio 2

Latitude 34° 16' 81" 34° 16' 81" 34° 22' 38" 34° 16' 95" 34° 23' 33'' 34° 23' 07" 34° 22' 79"

Longitude 58° 48' 11" 58° 48' 11" 58° 42' 30" 58° 48' 47" 58° 09' 34'' 58° 40' 14" 58° 39' 53"

14C

BP (conventional) 1090±40 1070±60 1060±60 1020±70 940±60 1110±70 680±80

Lab No Beta 148-237 LP-1401 LP240 Beta 147-108 Beta 147-109 LP-1288 LP-1263

Sample dated Guanaco Seed palm Marsh deer Coypu Mammal bone Coypu Mammal bone

grasses, thus initiating the burial process. Therefore, bone assemblages have low weathering profiles presenting predominantly 1-2 stages (Acosta 1997, Loponte and Acosta 2002). Even though bones are mineralized to some extent by contact with salts and manganese oxides, the action of diagenetic processes was low. Not only does the C/N ratio obtained from human bones falls between 2.9 and 3.6, but bones also tend to preserve high collagen content (Acosta and Loponte 2002). Correlations between bone mineral density and %MAU for ungulate and fish bones were null (Acosta et al. 2002, Loponte and Acosta 2002). The low frequency of carnivore and rodent marks in faunal collections suggest that destruction and/or modification by these agents was not significant (Acosta 1997, 2004). Sherds and bones have no evidence of rolling. Likewise, lithic flakes have low rates of postdepositional alteration (Sacur Silvestre 2004). Root marks cover less than 5% of the surface of a great number of mammal bone specimens, and even less for fish bones. In a few cases, these root marks represent a problem to microscopic analysis because they modified or destroyed use features. Micro traces are also seldom obscured by small and circular “pittings” which could be consequence of soil acid action. However, given these general results and proxy data related with archaeological deposits, we presume that bone assemblages are not significantly modified by natural causes. Therefore, the integrity of bone tools is acceptable for microwear analysis.

Regarding technological aspects, deposits have abundant domestic plain pottery with charcoal residues on the exterior surface (Perez and Cañardo 2004) and decorated sherds. Furthermore, deposits contain specialized equipment for prey capture: lithic projectile points, bola stones, bone hooks of spearthrower and different types of projectile points made in antler and bone. The diversity and abundance of bone tool assemblages characterise archaeological sites located in the Paraná’s wetlands (Caggiano 1984; Lothrop 1932; Zeballos and Pico 1878). Bone industry is not well developed in the rest of the Pampa where bone artifacts are few and have little modification (Gonzalez de Bonaveri 2003; Johnson et al. 2000; Mazanti and Valverde 2001). Lack of local lithic quarries makes the analysis of bone tools crucial; not only in the lower Paraná’s wetlands, but also in similar zones as well (Perez Jimeno 2004a, 2004b). However, the explanation proposed for the development of bone technology as determined by the absence of rocks is nowadays partially questioned. On the basis of morphological features and economic organization of local huntergatherers during the Late Holocene, the hypothesis of partial complementary function between lithic and bone materials in the area has recently been proposed (Loponte and Sacur Silvestre 2002). Current microscopic analysis on lithic natural flakes shows patterns of work on hard materials such as bone and antler (Sacur Silvestre 2004). Conversely, bone tools would have achieved activities according to their mechanical properties. Moreover, the importance of fishing in the economy and the utilization of large quantities of hide (obtained from small rodents, mainly coypu), could be an explanation for the development of specific bone tools (harpoons and awls) as related to specific resources (Loponte and Sacur Silvestre 2002).

A first microscopic approach to the faunal assemblage showed that several bones without modification have intense bright similar to those recorded on archaeological tools (which may be due to postdepositional processes). However, as Lyman noted, these features are different in location and aggregation to those recorded in bone tool assemblages (Lyman 1994). This statement is useful to the analysis if formal tools like the ones examined here. However, it should be taken into account for the analysis of less formal tools that could be remaining in

Taphonomy The Paraná wetlands have a very low elasticity

144

BONE TOOL TYPES AND MICROWEAR PATTERNS: SOME EXAMPLES FROM THE PAMPA REGION, SOUTH AMERICA – BUC AND LOPONTE

techniques used in the experimental program (Buc 2005). A binocular microscope working at magnifications between 5X and 50X was used for initial examination of tools to provide general information about the extent and distribution of wear. For higher magnifications, incident-light metallurgical microscope with magnifications ranges of 50X, 100X and 200X was used for most of the work. To explore the patterns defined by optical techniques, we used an environmental scanning electron microscope (ESEM) at 100X-150X, rarely at higher magnifications. To describe the microscopic patterns we mostly follow the terminology defined by LeMoine (1991). In the following sections, we summarize the results of this analysis presenting the archaeological tool types and the associated patterns of use-wear.

the faunal assemblage.

Materials and Methods The program designed for microscopic examination of archaeological tools follows the pattern of use-wear analyses initially developed by Semenov (1964) and continued by other authors. Following methodological approaches from lithic technology (Keeley 1980; Vaughan 1985), several microwear studies were conducted to identify or test the function of archaeological bone tools. Essentially, authors with different theoretical models and particular problems base their research programs on actualistic information (taphonomical, ethnographical and/or experimental) and archaeological examination of tools at different magnifications (Bouchud 1977; Campana 1989; d´Errico and Blackwell 2003; d´Errico and Villa 1997; Greenfield 1999; Griffitts 1997; LeMoine 1991; Nami and Scheinsohn 1997; Newcomer 1974, Olsen 1979, Runnings et al. 1989; Scheinsohn 1997; Shipman 1989; Stordeur and Anderson-Gerfaud 1985). Their main conclusion is that different materials leave identifiable traces on bone and antler. Considering patterns of features (instead of individual traces) and distinguishing natural from cultural marks, function of archaeological bone tools can be assigned. Therefore, based on the patterns of marks that resulted from a previous experimental program (Buc 2005), we expect to identify the materials worked with the archaeological tools and the general activities implied.

Results of Archaeological Analysis: Use-Wear of Bone and Antler Tools Awls Awls are defined by a pointed tip made on any bone splinter (Camps Fabrer 1967: 280). Nevertheless, this analysis is exclusively focused on those awls that retain either the proximal or the distal epiphysis. This kind of tool is well known in different parts of the world, including the Pampa region (Ameghino 1880; Caggiano 1984; Lothrop 1932; Mazzanti and Valverde 2001). Different authors have suggested two main uses for these artifacts: as manipulators in the making of basketry (Campana 1989; Olsen 1979) or as perforators in the working of hide (Campana 1989; LeMoine 1991). Awls under study are all made out of metapodials of adult Ozotoceros bezoarticus (Pampa deer) and juvenile Blastocerus dichotomus (marsh deer) (fig. 2).

In this essay we examine a small sample of archaeological bone artifacts from sites located in Paraná’s wetlands, dated between 680 and 1100 radiocarbon years BP. Accordingly, the aim is to explore the function of bone and antler tools in this particular context. The overall assemblage is composed of 150 bone and antler formal tools, which are distributed mainly in six morphological groups analyzed here. Details of the manufacturing procedures of the bone tools can be found in Acosta (2000) and Buc (2005). Categories such as beads of canine teeth, perforated antlers, fractured artifacts and other undetermined tools are not included in the present study. Instead, this first analysis is concentrated only in those well defined morphological types. Some tool groups analyzed, such as hooks, spearthrowers or harpoons usually do not have disputed functions. Conversely, other categories have less clear functions, for example bipoints, pin-like objects, awls and smoothers.

Figure 2: Archaeological awls.

The manufacture of these awls implies a careful design. Striations found microscopically along their shafts suggest that they were made by grinding bone with a coarse grained stone (fig. 3 and 4).

Microscopic examination of archaeological pieces went through three levels of analysis, following the

145

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

visible here.

Figure 3: Archaeological awl: the tip shows manufacture features left by grinding bone with a coarse-grained stone on its lateral. Metallographic Microscope, 50x.

Figure 5: Archaeological awl: the tip shows short smooth transversal striations and invasive polish. Metallographic microscope, 50x.

Figure 4: Archaeological awl: the tip shows manufacture features left by grinding bone with a coarse-grained stone on its blade. SEM, 65x. Figure 6: Archaeological awl: the tip shows short and smooth transversal striations. SEM, 65x.

Manufacturing features are regularly obscured by later use-wear marks, which are defined by rounded blades and tips, and short smooth striations across the shaft (fig. 5 and 6). Several authors have defined these traces as characteristic of piercing hide (Griffits 1997; LeMoine 1991). Moreover, striations are similar in orientation and aggregation to the ones recorded in experimental awls made on metatarsal lamb bones and used to pierce dry coypu hide for a duration of 45 minutes (fig. 7). Striations observed in experimental awls used 45 minutes to pierce fresh coypu hide (Buc 2003) are scarce and more widespread (fig. 8). Since both types could be indicative of different stages on a continuum (LeMoine 1991), we can only conclude that archaeological tools were used on a soft material similar to hide and that an action involving piercing movements was carried out. The exposure of osteons was recorded by LeMoine (1991) as a characteristic feature of working wet materials, but they were not

Figure 7: Traces left by piercing dry coypu hide: the tip of an experimental awl shows short and smooth transversal striations, and invasive polish. Metallographic microscope, 50x.

146

BONE TOOL TYPES AND MICROWEAR PATTERNS: SOME EXAMPLES FROM THE PAMPA REGION, SOUTH AMERICA – BUC AND LOPONTE

Use-wear traces appear very different from manufacture grooves. There are two main patterns of use-wear. Some tools show light, smooth, and transversally oriented striations confined to the tip, similar to the use-wear pattern of awls but less developed (fig. 10). Other pin-like tools show a different use-wear pattern also confined to the tip. In these cases, deep parallel and short striations are mainly seen on the highest points of the bone surface and rarely follow the microtopography of the bone (fig. 11 and 12). The latter pattern could be associated with a soft material but slightly more abrasive and rigid than hide, probably vegetal. In fact, experimental tools used with local gramineous plants during 45 minutes show a similar pattern. Striations, though similar to the ones recorded in hide processing, are deeper and seldom follow the microtopography of the bone (compare fig. 13 with fig. 12).

Figure 8: Traces left by piercing fresh coypu hide: the tip of an experimental awl shows short and smooth transversal striations. These features are scarcer and more widespread than on figure 7. Metallographic microscope, 50x.

Pin-like Tools Pin-like tools are tipped objects, as defined by Campana (1989: 51), generally made from rays of Siluriforme fishes (fig. 9). They are too fine to be defined as awls and have no eye, so cannot be included in the “needle” category (as defined by Camps-Fabrer 1967). Most of the tools under study have their articular ends broken and only their tips have been often abraded while the rest of the tool remains unmodified. Under microscopic examination, coarse striations oblique and confined to the tip can be seen. Thus, we can state that little energy and time were involved in the manufacture of these artifacts.

Figure 10: Archaeological pin-like tool: the tip shows light smooth transversal striations confined to the tip. Metallographic microscope, 50x.

Smoothers This category defines a peculiar tool type made from rays of siluriforme fishes (fig. 14). The original bone elements are slightly modified but show a bright and localized polish visible with the naked eye. There are no references of similar tools in other areas of Argentina, while identical tools are recorded in Brazilian sites without artifactual descriptions (Schmitz et al. 1993: fig. 41). Under optical microscopic examination, these objects show deep transversally oriented striations (fig. 15 and 16). These features are confined to an area between 2 and 3cm below the tip and decrease in number and intensity away from it. Use-wear marks erase the natural fish bone grooves that remain intact in the rest of the tool. In this last area, isolated striations sometimes appear on the high points of the bone micro-topography (fig. 17).

Figure 9: Archeological pin-like tools.

147

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

As Griffitts suggested (Griffitts 1997: 243), we verified experimentally that different tempers produce different wear patterns (compare fig. 18 and 19 with fig. 10).

Figure 11: Archaeological pin-like tool: the tip shows short transversally oriented striations on highest points of the bone surface. Invasive striations can be seen on the left corner of the picture. Metallographic microscope, 50x.

Figure 14: Archaeological pottery smoothers.

Figure 12: Archaeological pin-like tool: the tip shows short, deep, and transversally oriented striations on the blade. Metallographic microscope, 50x.

Figure 15: Archeological pottery smoothers: the polished area shows deep, transversally oriented striations obscuring the natural grooves of the bone. Metallographic microscope, 50x.

Bipoints

Figure 13: Traces left by rubbing local gramineous plant: short, deep, and transversally oriented striations. Metallographic microscope, 50x.

Bipoints or double-pointed implements (Campana 1989: 47) are narrow tools pointed on both ends with sizes ranging from 11 cm long, a thickness of approximately 0.7 cm and a maximum width of 1cm (fig. 20). These objects are completely modified, so it is usually not possible to identify the original bone from which they were made. This tool type is not common in other Argentinean contexts. However, a very similar object was described as a piercing tool by

Most patterns are similar to the one recorded in experimental tools used to smooth pottery for a period of one hour (Buc 2003) and are comparable to those described by Griffitts (1997). Although archaeological tools show general patterns very similar to the experimental assemblage, striations are not identical because the first ones are narrower. This difference may be related with temper type and size.

148

BONE TOOL TYPES AND MICROWEAR PATTERNS: SOME EXAMPLES FROM THE PAMPA REGION, SOUTH AMERICA – BUC AND LOPONTE

(fig. 21). In some cases, extremities show different use-wear patterns. For instance, one tool (LB2 52) has slightly smooth manufacturing features and transverse marks on its proximal end (fig. 22 and 23), while the distal end shows a non-invasive polish and intact manufacturing traces (fig. 24). This suggests that different actions or materials would have affected each distal end and that the midsection was not the active area of the tool. Hence, the working hypothesis is that only one of the tips was active and that the midsection and the other tip were hafted. This is supported by the fact that random striations and noninvasive polish correspond to patterns described by other authors as wood use (Griffitts 1997; LeMoine 1991) and are features similar to the ones observed at the base of the hooks of spearthrowers (see below and compare fig. 21 with fig. 33). Otherwise, it is also possible that the use of bipoints could have been more generalized and that both tips could have been used alternatively in different materials and tasks.

Mazzanti and Valverde (2001: 171-172), and identical artifacts were documented in Brazilian huntergatherer sites without functional determinations (Schmitz et al 1993: fig. 41). It is the most controversial tool type regarding its precise use. While some authors defined similar artifacts as hafted points used as spears or arrow points (Campana 1989; Newcomer 1974), others believe that they represent fishhooks, fish gorges or elements of composite toggling harpoons (Campana 1989; Lyman 1991).

Figure 16: Archeological pottery smoothers: the polished area shows deep, transversally oriented striations obscuring the natural grooves of the bone. SEM, 90x.

Figure 18: Traces left by polishing pottery: deep, transversally oriented striations obscure the natural grooves of the bone. Metallographic microscope, 50x.

Figure 17: Archeological pottery smoothers: away from the polished area the tool shows deep, transversally oriented striations on the highest points of the bone’s topography. Metallographic microscope, 50x.

In this particular case, we conducted the microscopic analysis to test each of these functional hypotheses. Therefore, ends and midsections were carefully analyzed. The resulting use-wear pattern is also controversial. In their midsection, most tools show random striations or only glossy non-invasive polish

Figure 19: Traces left by polishing pottery: deep, transversally oriented striations obscure the natural grooves of the bone. These features are different to figure 19 due to differences in temper size. Metallographic microscope, 50x.

149

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

(Stordeur 1980). The general form is parabolic, pointed on one end and drilled on the other end to accept a shaft (fig. 25). A thin rope would have connected both shaft and point through an opening drilled on the dorsal face. Results presented by Lindström (1994) suggest that these tools have relatively high costs of manufacture. Coarse longitudinal striations seen in some pieces across the shaft suggest that harpoons were made by grinding deer antler, a suitable material for projectile points due to its mechanical properties (Guthrie 1983). Figure 20: Archeological bipoints.

Figure 23: Archeological bipoint (LB2 52), proximal end: its tip shows short transversal marks. Metallographic microscope, 100x. Figure 21: Archeological bipoint: its midsection shows glossy noninvasive polish. Metallographic microscope, 100x.

Figure 24: Archeological bipoint (LB2 52), distal end: its tip shows intact manufacture features on its blade. Metallographic microscope, 100x.

Figure 22: Archeological bipoint (LB2 52), proximal end: its tip shows slightly smooth manufacture features on its blade. Metallographic microscope, 100x.

Harpoons Harpoons are well defined ethnographically and archaeologically, so their use is not often discussed. Archaeological harpoons recovered in the lower Paranà wetlands are quite similar to the modern ones still in use among aboriginal populations in the Chaco area (Caggiano 1984). These tools resemble morphologically those defined by Stordeur as type IA for Paleoinuit inhabitants of the Igloulik region

Figure 25: Archaeological harpoons.

150

BONE TOOL TYPES AND MICROWEAR PATTERNS: SOME EXAMPLES FROM THE PAMPA REGION, SOUTH AMERICA – BUC AND LOPONTE

1997; LeMoine 1991), but they are not exactly the same. Microwear features are also quite analogous to the microwear observed on the supposed hafted areas of the bipoints (see fig. 22).

Such tools were examined microscopically in order to support the traditional hypothesis of use as harpoons. Although we supposed that soft tissue lubricated by water can hardly leave readily identifiable traces (LeMoine 1991), we presumed that the impact against the bony structure of fishes might modify the antler in some way. Although tool manufacture features are obscured on almost every archaeological harpoon, the micro traces found on the tips are different from one tool to the other. For example, while some tips have short transversal marks, probably due to mechanical stress (fig. 26, compare these marks with the ones recorded on the ends of bipoints on fig. 23), others have a different pattern (fig. 27). Tools do not show invasive polish under metallurgical microscope, while tips and blades appear completely rounded under ESEM (fig. 28). The results of the observations show highly variable patterns, so the analyzed samples (archaeological and experimental) must be increased. Transversal light striations were recognized in the outer opening of the pieces analyzed (fig. 29). These features are similar to the ones associated with rubbing wet hide (fig. 30) and plants (fig. 31). However, the interpretation is provisory because we did not perform an experimentation to identify these features in particular. Whichever the material that has rubbed the surface, it would have been in contact with water and, as lubrication altered the formation of features (cf. Le Moine 1991), it is not accurate to make analogies without more comparative samples. Nevertheless, these features may be the product of the thin cord made with hide or plant fibers which was used to link both parts of the harpoons. Therefore, these results support the traditional hypothesis of use.

Figure 26: Archaeological harpoon: its tip shows short, transversal marks. Metallographic microscope, 100x.

Figure 27: Archaeological harpoon: this tool show a different pattern to the one recorded in figure 27. Metallographic microscope, 100x.

Hook of Spearthrowers Spear Points Spearthrowers (atlatl) made from wood are well defined in the ethnographic literature. Archaeologically, they are usually represented by their hooks made from bone, antler or ivory (Catellain 1997). The hooks founded in our study area are made from deer astragalae (fig. 32) and their manufacture requires a significant amount of time and energy.

These artifacts are made with the compact osseous tissue of big mammal bones (probably marsh deer) (fig. 34). We have recovered only two specimens, one of them being quite similar to the one illustrated by Lothrop (1932: 179, fig. 70) and recovered from the Sarandí site. Their thickness (2.5 mm) makes them too fragile to be projectile points according to the values presented by Guthrie (1983). Microwear analysis on both points showed only coarse striations resulting from manufacture. The absence of use micro-wear traces and the intact preservation of the manufacture features suggest a low rate of surface bone modification, that pieces were not used, or both. However, more artifacts like these are needed to support any hypothesis about their precise function.

As in the previous case, the use-wear analysis was designed to support traditional hypotheses about their use. Thus, the main areas explored were the base, and the concave face of the hook, presumably in contact with the projectile shaft. Both parts of the composite tools would have been made of wood. The microscopic analysis shows non-invasive, glossy polish covering the highest points in both areas (fig. 33). These features are similar to those described by other authors as resulting from work on wood (Griffitts

151

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

manufacture, respectively). Likewise, the large quantities of awls in the archaeological record could be related with the high importance of coypu (a source of small skins) in the economy as well (Loponte and Acosta 2002). Moreover, current information suggests a high correlation between tool type and osseous element used as raw material, pointing out a selection of bone materials due to regional prey availability and mechanical properties of the elements. Thus, tool design must be understood as constrained by these technological choices and technological costs (manufacture and procurement costs, cf. Bamforh and Bleed 1997) should be considered in the light of its efficiency.

Figure 28: Archaeological harpoon: its blades and tip appear smoothed under SEM, 65x.

Figure 30: Traces left by rubbing wet coypu hide. Metallographic microscope, 100x.

Figure 29: Archaeological harpoon: the outer opening of the piece shows transversal, light striations. Metallographic microscope, 100x.

Discussion The results of the microwear analysis partially support previous hypotheses about the function of bone tools based on morphological traits (Loponte and Sacur Silvestre 2002). Microwear analysis performed on lithic tools shows microwear resulting from cutting activities, principally on hard materials such as bone and antler (Sacur Silvestre 2004). Conversely, results of microwear analysis on bone tools suggest that they are linked to activities involving soft materials in contact with the pointed parts of the tools instead of their edges. Bone points and awls would have replaced lithic projectile points and drills, but harpoons, pin-like tools, pottery smoothers and spearthrowers were not made out of bone material as a response to the regional scarcity of lithic resources. Harpoons and pottery smoothers are closely related with the economic structure (fishing and pottery

Figure 31: Traces left by rubbing local gramineus. Metallographic microscope, 100x.

Guthrie has stated that deer antler projectile points are optimal because of their resistance (Guthrie 1983) and this is consistent with the physical structure since harpoons are made of antler. Similarly, astragalae used to make the hooks of spearthrowers are tarsal bones structurally similar to carpals, which are suggested by Currey (1984) as bones mechanically designed to resist static loads. Regarding awls, deer metapodials are equivalent to guanaco metapodials, which are good materials for actions involving high impact strength (Scheinsohn y Ferreti 1995), similar to

152

BONE TOOL TYPES AND MICROWEAR PATTERNS: SOME EXAMPLES FROM THE PAMPA REGION, SOUTH AMERICA – BUC AND LOPONTE

show different use-wear patterns. Some could be associated with work on plant material, while others show a use-wear pattern resulting from hide working. The latter case is similar to the one presented by LeMoine (1991) in her analysis of awls and needles from Eskimo assemblages. Taking into account their fragile tip, it is more likely that their work on hide consists in widening holes or passing a cord through holes previously made with awls (Bouchud 1977). In addition, due to their slight modification and the abundance of fish rays as raw materials, these tools would have been used in different tasks, the previous features being obscured by the last ones. In sum, morphological groups and microwear patterns suggest tool specialization. Even though the use-wear patterns could not all be identified with a specific worked material, it is clear that they are internally homogeneous within a particular tool type.

those involved in hide piercing activities. Bipoints are made from compact osseous tissue of large mammal bones. Their thickness and biconvex profile make them adequate to produce compact and resistant spears. Consequently, despite their different manufacture costs, all these tools can be defined in terms of “curated technology” (Binford 1979). Conversely, artifacts made out of fish rays, an abundant resource in the area, show features indicative of an “expeditive technology”. Not only are pottery smoothers and pin-like objects slightly manufactured, but it also may be that the latter do not show recognizable use-wear patterns because they were multipurpose expedient tools.

Figure 32: Archaeological hooks of spearthrower.

Figure 33: Archaeological hook of spearthrower: its concave face shows non-invasive, glossy polish covering the highest points. Metallographic microscope, 100x.

Figure 34: Archaeological projectile points.

Conclusion

Finally, awls, pottery smoothers, harpoons and hooks of spearthrowers show distinct use-wear features that can be related, with more or less accuracy, to their specific inferred function. Although the precise function of bipoints could not be assessed, the hypothesis suggesting they may be spear points is noteworthy considering the scarcity of lithic raw materials in the area. Results presented by Guthrie regarding bone point thickness support this idea (Guthrie 1983). The thickness of the bipoints under study is always less than 7 mm, while Guthrie stated that optimal thickness to ensure penetration and durability is approximately 1 cm. The results regarding pin-like objects are also controversial because they

The archaeological record in the lower Paraná wetlands occupied by late Holocene hunter-gatherers has a significant bone tool specialization. Moreover, this specialization is closely related to economic organization. Microscopic analysis shows a correlation between bone micro-wear and inferred function in several tool types, specifically in curated or formal artifacts. It is remarkable that most of them belong to a tool-kit used to obtain prey (fish and ungulates). Actualistic and taphonomic research programs are

153

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

References Cited

necessary for various reasons. First of all, different authors use terms based on visual appearance to describe features (González-Urquijo and IbáñesEstévez 2003) so clear terminology and good documentation are crucial to unify descriptions. Secondly, actualistic information is necessary to deal with the particular archaeological record under study. Taphonomic aspects should be analyzed carefully to recognize and separate natural from cultural marks and post-depositional bone modifications.

Acosta, A. 1997 Estados de conservación y problemas de contaminación de las estructuras arqueofaunísticas en el extremo nororiental de la Pcia. de Buenos Aires. In A r q u e o l o g í a Pampeana en la década de los ´90, ed. M. Berón and G. Politis, 187-199. San Rafael: Museo de Historia Natural de San Rafael – INCUAPA. 2000 Huellas de corte relacionadas con la manufactura de artifactos óseos en el nordeste de la provincia de Buenos Aires. Relaciones de la Sociedad Argentina de Antropología; No 25: 159-178. 2005 Zooarqueología de cazadores-recolectores del extremo nororiental de la provincia de Buenos Aires (humedal del río Paraná inferior) (Región Pampeana, Argentina). Ph.D. Dissertation. Buenos Aires: Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata.

Careful examination required for both experimental and archaeological tools imply the use of different microscopes and magnifications. General features and their extent are visible at low magnifications using a binocular microscope. Manufacturing techniques could be seen using a binocular microscope, but it is more difficult to observe details of use-wear. A metallographic microscope is more useful since it exposes polished fields as bright areas and polarization makes clear the contact between microsurfaces. However, a disadvantage is the very limited depth of field, especially when taking microphotographs. This problem can be overcome by the use of the ESEM, which greatly improves the quality of the image and the depth of field, making it easier to interpret micro-wear (see LeMoine 1991, and Runnings et al. 1989, among others). Nonetheless, many differences exist between metallographic and scanning electron microscopes. Under the incidental light of a metallographic microscope, the striations are clearly visible, but they are not as clear under an SEM where the position of the tool is less controlled in relation to the electron haze. Moreover, under a metallographic microscope the polished areas appear bright while under a SEM they look dull. Certainly, even though these differences must be carefully explored to refine the microscopic techniques, complementary use of different microscopes and magnifications allow a better understanding of micro-wear patterns.

Acosta, A., D. Loponte and J. Musali. In press A Taphonomic Approach to the Icthyoarchaeological Assemblage of La Bellaca site 2, Wetland of the Lower Paraná River, Pampean Region (Argentina). In Taphonomy and Archaeozoology in Argentina, ed. M. Gutierrez et al. Bar International Series. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Ameghino, F. 1947 (La antigüedad del Hombre en el Plata (2 vol.). Buenos Aires: Intermundo. [Originally published 1880] Bamforth, D. and P. Bleed. 1997 Technology, Flaked Stone Technology and Risk. In Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory and Archaeological Explanation, ed. M. Barton and A. Clark, 109-139. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No 7. Arlington (MA): American Anthropological Association. Binford, L. R. 1979 Organization and Formation Process: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research; vol. 35, No 3: 255273.

Acknowledgments The interactions with several colleagues are greatly appreciated. In particular, thanks are due to Alejandro Acosta, Romina Sacur Silvestre and Vivian Scheinsohn. We are grateful to Genevieve LeMoine and Janet Griffits for advice and bibliography. The experimental tools were made with the collaboration of Lorena Cañardo, Maricel Perez, and David Pau. Microwear analysis was carried out at the CITEFA (Instituto de Investigaciones científicas y técnicas de las Fuerzas Armadas Argentinas) with the assistance of Alejandro Reynoso. Interpretations and errors, however, are the authors’ sole responsibility.

Bleed, P. 1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Reliability. American Antiquity; vol. 51, No 4: 737-748. Bouchud, J. 1977 Les aiguilles en os. Étude comparée des traces laisées par la fabrication et l´usage sur le matériel préhistorique et les objets expérimentaux. In Deuxieme Colloque International sur l´industrie de l´os dans la Préhistoire, Méthodologie appliquée a l´industrie de l´os préhistorique, ed.

154

BONE TOOL TYPES AND MICROWEAR PATTERNS: SOME EXAMPLES FROM THE PAMPA REGION, SOUTH AMERICA – BUC AND LOPONTE

Pampeana). Ph.D. Dissertation. Buenos Aires: Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires.

H. Camps-Fabrer, 257-267. Paris: CNRS. Buc, N. 2003

Análisis de microdesgaste en instrumentos óseos del humedal del Paraná inferior. Paper presented at the VI Jornadas de Jóvenes Investigadores en Ciencias Antropológicas, Buenos Aires.

González-Urquijo, J. E. and J. J. Ibáñez-Estévez. 2003 The Quantification of Use-Wear Polish Using Image Analysis: First results. Journal of Archaeological Science; vol. 30, No 4: 481-489. Greenfield, H. 1999 The Origins of Metallurgy: Distinguishing Stone from Metal Cut-Marks on Bones from Archaeological Sites. Journal of Archaeological Science; vol. 26, No 7: 797-808.

Burkart, R., N. Bárbaro, R. Sánchez and D. Gómez. 2000 Eco-regiones de la Argentina. Buenos Aires: Administración de Parques Nacionales, Presidencia de la Nación. Cabrera, A and A. Willink. 1973 Biogeografía de América Latina. Serie Biología, Monografía 13. Washington: Organización de Estados Americanos (AEO).

Griffits, J. L. 1997 Replication and Analysis of Bone Tools. In Proceedings of the 1993 Bone Modification Conference, Hot Springs, South Dakota, ed. L. A. Hannus, L. Rossum and R. P. Winhan, 236246. Occasional Publication No 1. Sioux Falls (SD): Archaeology Laboratory, Agustana College.

Caggiano, M. A. 1984 Prehistoria del NE. Argentino. Sus vinculaciones con la República oriental del Uruguay y Sur de Brasil. Pesquisas (Série Antropología); No 38: 1109.

Guthrie, D. 1983 Osseous Projectile Point: Biological Considerations Affecting Raw Material Selection and Design Among Paleolithic and Paleoindian Peoples. In Animals and Archaeology: 1. Hunters and their Prey, ed. J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson, 274-29. BAR International Series No 163. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Campana, D. 1989 Natufian and Protoneolithic Bone Tools. The Manufacture and Use of Bone Implements in the Zagros and the Levant. BAR International Series No 494. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Camps-Fabrer, H. 1967 Typologie de l’industrie osseuse en Afrique du Nord et au Sahara. In Congrès panafricain de préhistorie, Dakar 1967, actes de la 6e session, ed. H.-J. Hugot, 279-283. Chambéry: Imprimeries réunies.

Johnson, E., G. Politis and M. Gutierrez. 2000 Early Holocene Bone Technology at the La Olla 1 Site, Atlantic Coast of the Argentine Pampas. Journal of Archaeological Science; vol. 27, No 6: 463-477.

Cattellain, P. 1997 Hunting during the Upper Paleolithic: Bow, Spearthrower or Both? In Projectile Technology, ed. H. Knetcht, 213-240. New York: Plenum Press.

Keeley, L. 1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. LeMoine, G. 1991 Experimental Analysis of the Manufacture and Use of Bone and Antler Tools among the Mackenzie Inuit. Ph.D. Dissertation. Calgary: Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary.

Currey, J. 1984 What Should Bones be Designed to Do? Calcified Tissue International; vol. 36, supplement 2: 7-10. D´Errico, F. and L. Blackwell. 2003 Possible Evidence of Bone Tools Sharping by Swarktrans Early Hominids. Journal of Archaeological Science; vol. 30, No 12: 15591576.

Lindström, S. 1994 Great Basin Fisherfolk: Optimal Diet Breath Modeling the Truckee River Aboriginal Subsistence Fishery. In Prehistoric HunterGatherer Fishing Strategies, ed. M Plew, 114174. Boise (ID): Boise State University.

D´Errico, F. and P. Villa. 1997 Holes and Grooves: The Contribution of Microscopy and Taphonomy to the Problem of Art Origins. Journal of Human Evolution; vol. 33, No 1: 1-31.

Loponte, D, A. Acosta and J. Musali. 2006 Complexity among Hunter-Gatherers from the Pampean Region, Argentina. In Beyond Affluent Foragers, ed. C. Grier, J. Kim, and J. Uchiyama, 106-125. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Gonzalez de Bonaveri, M. I. 2003 Los cazadores recolectores pescadores de la cuenca inferior del Río Salado (Región

Loponte, D. and A. Acosta. 2004 Late Holocene Hunter-Gatherers from the

155

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Perez Jimeno, L. 2004 Análisis comparativos de dos conjuntos de artifactos óseos procedentes de la llanura aluvial del Paraná y la pampa bonaerense. In Aproximaciones contemporáneas a la arqueología pampeana: Perspectivas teóricas, methodológicas, analíticas y casos de estudio, ed. G. Martínez, M. Gutierrez, R. Curtoni, M. Berón and P. Madrid, 319-333. Tandil: Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. in press Explotación de materia prima ósea y la optimización en la utilización de los recursos. In Actas XIV Congreso Nacional de Arqueología Argentina. Rosario.

Pampean Wetlands, Argentina. In Zooarchaeology of South America, ed. G. L. Mengoni Goñalons, 39-57. BAR International Series. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Loponte, D. and R. Sacur Silvestre. In press Lejos de las canteras: La explotación de recursos líticos en el Sector Centro-Oriental de la Región Pampeana. Relaciones. Lothrop, S. 1932 Indians of the Paraná Delta River. Annals of the New York Academy of Science; vol. 33: 77-232. Lyman, L. 1991 Archaeology of Umpqua/Eden. Prehistory of the Oregon Coast (The Effects of Inquiry). New York: Academic Press.

Perez, M. and L. Cañardo. 2004 Producción y uso de cerámica en el norte de la provincia de Buenos Aires. In Aproximaciones contemporáneas a la arqueología pampeana: Perspectivas teóricas, methodológicas, analíticas y casos de estudio, ed. G. Martínez, M. Gutierrez, R. Curtoni, M. Berón and P. Madrid, 335-349. Tandil: Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires.

Lyman, L. 1994 Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mazzanti, D. and F. Valverde. 2001 Artefactos sobre hueso, asta y valva. In Cazadores recolectores de las Sierras de Tandilia Oriental 1: Geología, Paleontología y Zooarqueología. Laboratorio de Arqueología, ed. D. L. Mazzanti and C. A. Quintana, 167-181. Publicación Especial 1. Mar del Plata: Laboratorio de Arqueología, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata.

Runnings, A., C. Gustafson and D. Bentley. 1989 Use-Wear on Bone Tools: A Technique for Study Under the Scanning Electron Microscope. In Bone Modification, ed. R. Bonnischen and M. Sorg, 259-266. Orono (ME): Centre for the Study of the First Americans, Institute for the Quaternary Studies, University of Maine.

Nami, H. and V. G. Scheinsohn. 1997 Use-Wear Patterns on Bone Experimental Flakers: A Preliminary Report. In Proceedings of the 1993 Bone Modification Conference, Hot Springs, South Dakota, ed. L. A. Hannus, L. Rossum and R. P. Winhan, 256-264. Occasional Publication No 1. Sioux Falls (SD): Archaeology Laboratory, Agustana College.

Sacur Silvestre, R. 2004 Análisis de rastros de uso en lascas de filo natural del sitio arqueológico Anahí. In Aproximaciones contemporáneas a la arqueología pampeana: Perspectivas teóricas, methodológicas, analíticas y casos de estudio, ed. G. Martínez, M. Gutierrez, R. Curtoni, M. Berón and P. Madrid, 183-203. Tandil: Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires.

Neiff J. J. 1999 El régimen de pulsos en ríos y grandes humedales de Sudamérica. In Tópicos sobre humedales subtropicales y templados de Sudamérica, ed. A. Malvárez, 97-146. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires.

Scheinsohn, V. G and J. L. Ferreti 1995 Mechanical Properties of Bone Materials as Related to Design and Function of Prehistoric Tools from Tierra del Fuego (Argentina). Journal of Archaeological Science; vol. 22, No 6: 711717.

Newcomer, M. 1974 Study and Replication of Bone Tools from Ksar Akil (Lebanon). World Archaeology; vol. 6, No 2: 138-153. Olsen, S. 1979 A study of Bone Artifacts fom Grasshopper Pueblo, AZ. The Kiva; vol. 44, No 4: 341-371.

Scheinsohn, V. G. 1997 Use-Wear Patterns on Bark Removers. In Proceedings of the 1993 Bone Modification Conference, Hot Springs, South Dakota, ed. L. A. Hannus, L. Rossum and R. P. Winhan, 265276. Occasional Publication No 1. Sioux Falls (SD): Archaeology Laboratory, Agustana College.

Parker, G. and S. Marcolini. 1992 Geomorfología del delta del Paraná y su extensión al Río de la Plata. Revista de la Asociación Geológica Argentina; vol. 47, No 2: 243-249.

Schmitz, P. I., I. Verardi, A. L. Jacobus and M. Barberi Ribeiro. 1993 Escavacoes arqueológicas do Pe. Jao Alfredo Rohr, S. J. Pesquisas. Antropología No 44. Rio

156

BONE TOOL TYPES AND MICROWEAR PATTERNS: SOME EXAMPLES FROM THE PAMPA REGION, SOUTH AMERICA – BUC AND LOPONTE

Recherche sur les grandes civilisations. Cahier N°2, Préhitoire: enquetes et méthodes. Paris: Editions ADPF.

Grande do Sul (Brasil): Instituto Anchietano de Pesquisas. Semenov, S. 1964 Tecnología prehistórica. Madrid: Universidad. [Originally published 1964]

Stordeur, D. and P. Anderson-Gerfaud. 1985 Les omoplates enconchées néolithiques de Ganj Dareh (Iran): Étude morphologique et fonctionelle. Cahiers de l´Euphrate; No 4: 199313.

Akal

Shipman, P. 1989 Altered Bones from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania: Techniques, Problems, and Implications of Their Recognition. Bone Modification, ed. R . Bonnischen and M. Sorg, 317-334. Orono: Centre for the Study of the First Americans, Institute for the Quaternary Studies, University of Maine.

Vaughan, P. C. 1985 Use Wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Zeballos, E. and P. Pico. 1878 Informe sobre el túmulo prehistórico del Túmulo de Campana. Anales de la Sociedad Científica Argentina; No 6: 244-260.

Stordeur, D. 1980 Harpons Paléo-Esquimaux de la région d´Igloulik. .

157

chapter

12

A Preliminary Typology of Perpendicularly Hafted Bone Tipped Tattooing Instruments: Toward a Technological History of Oceanic Tattooing Benoît Robitaille Département d’anthropologie, Université de Montréal, Canada

PHTIs stand apart from the rest of known tattooing instruments through the perpendicular hafting of the tattooing points and the use of a mallet, which is used by the operator to tap the handle of the instrument in order to drive the points into the flesh of the client (fig. 1, bottom). All other known needle-based tattooing is carried out with un-hafted or longitudinally4 hafted points (single or grouped) and without the assistance of a secondary percussion instrument (the tattooing mallet)5. These peculiar tools present a coherent, nonrandom distribution (fig. 2) which, along with the noncompulsory nature of perpendicular hafting6, points to a unique origin and subsequent spread through the mechanisms of migration and/or diffusion. The strong correlation between the distribution of Austronesian languages and that of PHTIs suggests that both share a long history. As it stands, many strands of evidence point to Neolithic Southern China as the unique birthplace of the PHTI7. This technology would then have been carried throughout its known range by people speaking Austronesian languages.

Introduction In this paper, I will present and discuss the case of the Perpendicularly Hafted Tattooing Instrument (PHTI), with a particular emphasis on the bone-tipped variant of these tools. I will begin with a general description of the instrument followed by a brief comment on its place in the context of world tattooing technologies. I will then introduce the bone tipped instruments as a possible major sub-group of PHTIs. The subsequent discussion of the variation found within this bone-tipped sub-group will lead to the presentation of a preliminary outline for a typology of bone-tipped PHTIs. I will conclude with a brief discussion of a possible developmental sequence for this apparently typical oceanic technology. The following is based on a long-term study of world tattooing technologies with a strong emphasis on PHTIs1. This study was originally initiated to evaluate the possible causes underlying the resemblances between PHTIs of Borneo and Polynesia (fig. 1). Early on, it became quite clear that perpendicular hafting was in all likelihood an ancestral trait exclusively2 and widely shared among Austronesian speaking populations. The answer to the original question thus appeared to be that PHTIs most likely reflected an important and oft-overlooked aspect of the shared history of Austronesian peoples. These early results have lent a decidedly culture-historical perspective to the subsequent refinements of the analysis from which this paper is derived. The data on which this study is based have been collected from the usual armchair sources: firsthand written descriptions, museum collections, descriptions of such collections, discussions with collectors, avocational scholars and traditional practitioners, as well as archaeological reports and regional syntheses. Perpendicularly hafted tattooing instruments represent a major division of world tattooing technologies. They are one of the three major variants which together form the needle-based tattooing technologies, the other two being in-line (hafted or un-hafted) needle tattooing and the needle and thread “sewing method”3.

Figure 1: Top; Samoan tattooing instrument and mallet (Buschan 1923 figure 140, nos 7 and 8). Middle; Tattooing instrument and mallet from Sarawak on the island of Borneo (Hambly 1925, p. 270, figures a and b). Bottom (from left to right); Instrument use among the Iban of Sarawak (Guillon 2001); Detailed view of the tattooing point in operation, Tuvalu (Kennedy 1932, figure148); Schematic representation of the PHTI operation (drawing by the author).

159

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

perpendicular hafting and the Austronesian language family. Despite this less than perfect fit, the fact that the only users of bone pointed PHTIs are to be found among speakers of oceanic languages and a few of their immediate neighbours, still suggests that “Oceanic bone” may actually constitute a monophyletic group, though this group’s origin may be more recent than that of the oceanic language groups. In other words, the switch to bone and other osseous materials may have occurred only once, either among proto-oceanic speakers or among only some early oceanic-speaking peoples. The choice of bone as a material would then have been transmitted to their descendants who went on to colonize the rest of Oceania. In this case the use of bone would be an exclusively shared innovation11 and could eventually contribute to the definition of a monophyletic Oceanic bone group.

Figure 2: Known distribution of PHTIs and distribution of Austronesian languages, excluding Madagascar.

Variation within the PHTI “Family” Beyond hafting and mallet use, the variation of tattooing point form and assembly found within the PHTI “family” is almost identical to that found within the more widespread in-line needle-based technologies. Indeed, single-needle, grouped-needle and assembled-needle-comb points are common features of world-wide needle-based tattooing technologies. In the present case, point form and assembly cannot contribute to the definition of a monophyletic PHTI family, because known PHTI point forms are not exclusively shared traits of PHTI-using traditions. However, because point form is the most variable trait within the PHTI family, where various point forms often present a coherent and non-random distribution, it would appear justifiable to use the trait “tattooing point morphology” to define the major types of PHTIs and to form historically valid subgroups within the PHTI family.

However, we should always be weary of using “choice-of-materials” traits when attempting to form monophyletic groups. This is because of the relatively high likelihood that similarity of materials used by different groups in a given environment would be due to repeated independent instances of convergence resulting from access to a similar and limited range of suitable raw materials. Such a situation cannot be discounted for the Oceanic bone group where, as people moved further out into the Pacific Ocean, the possible rarity and eventual disappearance of plants providing thorns suitable for the manufacture of tattooing instruments could have led to the repeated adoption of bone and other osseous materials for such a purpose. This hypothetical scarcity of suitable thorn-bearing plants may also have affected early or proto-oceanic speakers only once, at a time when they occupied a relatively small area bereft of thorn bearing plants. The switch from thorns to bone would have been dictated by availability of raw materials but would remain an exclusive innovation of early oceanic peoples, eventually shared by the majority of their descendants, even when some of these descendant populations entered environments where thorns were again available. If such were the case the thorn using groups of New Guinea may represent an early (prebone adoption) offshoot of oceanic speakers or, as may be the case with some thorn using groups of Island Melanesia, a possible case of reversion from bone back to old fashioned thorn points. It thus remains unclear whether the oceanic bone group constitutes a historically valid monophyletic sub-group of PHTIs or if it should simply be seen as a useful descriptive category with no strong historical significance.

Defining the Oceanic Bone Group The only tattooing points within the PHTI family, which clearly stand apart from the known world-wide sample of needle-based tattooing point forms, are to be found within the tentatively named Oceanic bone group. This designation is inspired by the fact that, within the PHTI family8, the use of bone is a widely and almost exclusively shared feature of the PHTIusing traditions found among peoples speaking languages belonging to the Oceanic sub-group of the Austronesian linguistic family9 (fig. 2). However, a clearly delimited tradition of non-bone PHTIs is also present among oceanic speakers settled along the coast of South-Eastern Papua-New Guinea10, and non-bone instruments appear throughout Melanesia and parts of Micronesia where they sometimes co-exist with bone-pointed PHTIs. This underlines the fact that oceanic bone tattooing points and oceanic languages do not present quite the snug fit that seems to exist between

160

A PRELIMINARY TYPOLOGY OF PERPENDICULARLY HAFTED BONE TIPPED TATTOOING INSTRUMENTS – ROBITAILLE

lancets from northern Tuvalu (Kennedy 1931) and a mention by K. P. Emory (1931) of similar tools being used as surgical lancets in the Tuamotu archipelago leaves no doubt as to the function of at least some perpendicularly hafted fish tooth instruments. Emory also expressed doubts about a shark-toothed instrument illustrated along with a more typical bone comb fitted instrument by Te Rangi Hiroa (Peter Buck) in his “Ethnology of Mangareva” (Hiroa 1938: 178179, figures 5 and 6). According to Emory at least one of these tools was most likely a medical device and not a tattooing instrument (Emory 1975: 97). Similar instruments collected in the Admiralty Islands by Swiss ethnographer Alfred Bühler are labelled “operation instrument” while others, bearing more than one point, are labelled “tattooing hammer” (Ohnemus 1988: 114-115). I believe these “operation” instruments are also lancets rather than tattooing instruments.

Variation within the Oceanic Bone Group The Oceanic bone group can itself be sub-divided into two major categories. The first of these is a well justified monophyletic sub-group based on the use of “bone matrix combs” which include all of the better known Polynesian tattooing instruments. The other category could be termed “other bone pointed instruments” because it brings together all bone pointed instruments, which are not defined as “bone matrix combs” (i.e. a row of three or more points fashioned from a single bone matrix). This group of other bone-pointed instruments almost assuredly constitutes a simple descriptive category, although some of its major variants may be quite closely related to each other.

The One-Point Tools

Although single points may represent the earliest form of point-based tattooing instrument, in the oceanic context they may be a simplified form derived from a more complex multi-point antecedent. The important presence of complex multi-point combs in many branches of the PHTI family suggests that these may well have been known to early oceanic peoples. I would thus hesitate to lend anything but a descriptive character to this grouping of single-pointed instruments. This is because the evidence does not reveal whether single point tools were inherited as part of a complex multi-instrument ancestral tool-kit, or if their relative rarity and random distribution identify these instruments as independent instances of convergence in form due to simplification or borne from independent instances of tool-kit specialization.

While relatively widespread throughout the world, one-pointed tools are very rare within the Oceanic bone-pointed PHTI group (fig. 3). Certain descriptions and some archaeological artifacts suggest that ancient Hawaiians may have used peculiar singlepointed instruments made of bird-beak (Kwiatkowski 1996: 13). Sources most often speak of single fish teeth, most often from sharks, being used as PH tattooing points. Although a few credible descriptions attest to the use of such single pointed instruments for tattooing in New-Zealand (Beattie 1994: 480481; Robley 1896: 49, 53) and the Marquesas (Handy 1938), quite a few examples of single pointed instruments fitted with a fish tooth are most likely not tattooing instruments at all.

The single point fish-tooth lancets obviously constitute a type of their own and lie outside of the PHTI classificatory scheme. The obvious similarities in form and manner of use between these surgical instruments and that of PHTIs do suggest that the two are somehow related12.

The “Two-Prong” Group Figure 3: One-point instruments (left to right); surgical lancets from Tuvalu (Kennedy 1931, figure 78 and text-figure 1); a possible lancet, labelled as a tattooing instrument from Mangareva by Hiroa (1938, p. 179 figure 6); one of the instruments labelled as an “operation instrument” by Swiss ethnologist Alfred Buhler (Ohnemus 1988: 115, figure 133).

The use of two-point needle assembly in the manufacture of tattooing instruments is extremely rare all over the world, while one-point and three- to tenpoint assemblies are quite common. The fact that tools fitted with such a rare number of points would occur among peoples occupying a few well defined and relatively contiguous pockets of distribution suggests a close relationship between these group’s traditions of tattooing technology. Hafting method and size of points varies from place to place. In general

Many instruments fitted with a smooth fish tooth and, I believe, most “tattooing instruments” fitted with a serrated tooth are actually lancets used in traditional medicine and surgery (A detailed description of such

161

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

the points are larger than the world average (both in length and in girth) and are well separated so that one stroke of the tool may have produced two distinct tattooed dots. We can distinguish two major types of two pronged instruments: A. Two-pronged instruments featuring two individual needles whose alignment runs parallel to that of the handle and, B. Two-Pronged instruments whose points are made from a single bone matrix and run perpendicular to the axis of the handle. AI. The “brace-handled two-prong” is found among the Waropen people of Cendrawasih Bay near the Bird’s-Head Peninsula of Western Papua13. It is characterised by a particular form of hafting the tattooing points that may be designated as a “bracehandle”. In these cases the handle is composed of two flat and thin pieces of wood which, when lashed together, act as a brace that holds the two points both firmly in place and aligned with the axis of the handle. Interestingly, such two pronged bracehandled instruments are also found further east along the coast of New Guinea in the Humboldt Bay-Lake Sentani area14. In this region, the points are made of thorns instead of bone. The “brace-handled”, threepronged “axe” forms found around Manus and in parts of the Kiribati archipelago (fig. 4, top) may be three pronged variants of the “brace-handled twoprong” or vice-versa.

Figure 5: Two-pronged Instruments. Top; long-pointed variant of the Fijian two-prong instrument (Oldman 1939). Middle; short-pointed variant of the Fijian two-prong (Buschan 1923, figure 140, no 10). Bottom; one-piece two-pronged instrument from Fiji (Edge-Partington 1890, p. 122, no1).

B. The other major type of two-pronged instruments is the “one-piece bone matrix two-prong”. It is defined, as the name suggests, by the use of a small, often flat, piece of bone at the end of which two points have been fashioned (fig. 5, bottom). This type is most notably found in areas bordering the “ocean gap” which marks the boundary between Near and Far Oceania. Examples are known from Fiji (EdgePartington 1890: 122, no 1 [top]), from the small islands off the coast of San Cristobal in the Eastern Solomons16 and from the Reef-Santa Cruz Islands17. One-piece bone matrix two-Prongs are also described from Chuuk in central Micronesia where they co-occur with more common three-toothed bone matrix combs18, and for Hawai’i19 were they occurred alongside a variety of other point-forms.

The Multi-Point Instruments Figure 4: “Brace-handled axe” forms. Top; Kiribati, Eastern Micronesia (Koch 1965, p. 141, figure 84). Bottom: Admiralty Islands (Ohnemus 1988, p. 115, figure 133).

The “Brace-Handled Axes” Examples of “brace-handled axes” are known from Kiribati and from the north western Admiralty Islands (fig. 4, bottom). This type of PHTI is constructed in the same way as the “brace-handled two prong”, the only difference between the two being the number of needles: 2 in the case of the “two-prongs” and 3 or more in the case of the “axe” forms. These instruments feature a row of bone tattooing points running along the same axis as the handle. It is this axe-like alignment that suggests their name and sets them apart from “assembled individual needle combs” and “bone matrix combs”, both of which consistently present an adze-like alignment of points20.

AII. The “Fijian two-prong”, so named because the only clear descriptions of this form of PHTI are from Fiji (Buschan 1923: 213, fig. 140, no 10; Oldman 1930)15, shares number and orientation of point alignment with the “brace-handled two-prong”. The “Fijian two-prong” distinguishes itself with a one-piece handle, as opposed to a composite “brace-handle”. Some Fijian two-pronged instruments exhibit very long points (see fig. 5, top), possibly made of the sharp wing bone tips of flying foxes.

162

A PRELIMINARY TYPOLOGY OF PERPENDICULARLY HAFTED BONE TIPPED TATTOOING INSTRUMENTS – ROBITAILLE

Bone Tattooing Combs Made from Assembled Individual Needles

Hawai’ians used a unique form of pegged bone brace to assemble their composite tattooing combs (see fig. 16, top right).

Comb-shaped tattooing points made from assembled individual needles are relatively common throughout the world and occur frequently within PHTI-using traditions. The use of bone materials in the manufacture of “assembled-individual-needle combs” appears limited to Oceania. An example of this from the Admiralties is based on the interpretation of a vague written description (Ohnemus 1988: 115). In addition, the instruments described for Kiribati and Pohnape (fig. 6, right) resemble typical non-bone assembled-individual-needle-comb equipped PHTIs, such as those found among the Naga and in the Philippines (fig. 6, left). It is not clear whether the points on the instruments from Kiribati and Pohnape are made of bone or thorn21. Among some groups of the southern Maori, tattooing combs featuring up to six points were assembled from individual bone needles (Beattie 1994: 64, 249, 480-481).

Figure 7: Distribution of languages belonging to the Oceanic subgroup of the Austronesian language family and distribution of bonepointed PHTIs.

The brace-handled axe forms, with their axe-like alignment of three points, are particularly interesting in this regard because it may have occurred alongside the more common adze-like alignment of points (Ohnemus 1988: 115)22. The occasionally documented use of needle bracing in the manufacture of tattooing points and the possibility that the brace-handled axe forms are a simplified form of the adze-like assembled-needle combs suggests that the brace-handles may represent a case of simplification. In such a case, the operations of bracing for needle alignment and hafting were fused into a single operation, resulting in a 45 degree shift in the alignment of the points23. The position of “one-piece bone matrix two-prongs” within this group is even more perplexing. Because they are found in such close proximity to the Fijian two-prong with which they sometimes co-occur24, it would seem legitimate to look into the possibility that “one piece bone matrix two-prongs” might represent a modified form of the “Fijian two-prong”.

Figure 6: Assembled-individual-needle combs. Top left: Ao Naga, Nagaland, India (Mills 1973, figures 1 and 2 opposite p. 32). Top right; Kiribati (Buschan 1923, figure 140, no 2). Bottom left; Tinguian, Central Luzon island, Philippines (Leyden National Museum of Ethnology, catalog number 1183: 622). Bottom right; Pohnape, Eastern Micronesia (Spennemann 2002, taken from Kubary, Johann (1875) “Weitere Nachrichten von der Insel Ponape (CarolinenArchipel)” Journal des Museum Godeffroy Heft VII. Hamburg, L. Friedrichsen & Co., p. 129-135).

Nevertheless, we must keep in mind that these OPBMTPs also co-exist with, or are close neighbours of, “one-piece bone matrix combs” on Fiji (EdgePartington 1890: 113, 122)25, Hawai’i (Kwiatkowski 1992: 9-13) and Chuuk (Kramer 1932: 185; Lebar 1963: 360). Such multi-needle tattooing points cut from a single piece of bone are such an uncommon form in the world context that it becomes difficult to accept that bone matrix combs and bone matrix twopronged tools would have wholly distinct and independent origins.

“Brace-Handled Axe” Forms, the “Two-Pronged Group” and “Assembled Individual Needle Combs” It is possible that the particular form of the bracehandled instruments may provide a clue to the relationship between two-pronged tools, “axe” forms and the much more common comb form of tattooing points (both bone and thorn) (fig. 7). The bracing of needles to produce tattooing combs is known from a variety of non-bone PH traditions, while ancient

The non-matrix instruments discussed so far: 1) could be closely related among themselves (especially the “two-Prongs”); 2) may reflect aspects of the

163

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

hand.

developmental history of oceanic tattooing technologies and; 3) may provide clues to the sequence of transformation, which led to the apparition of the “bone matrix comb”. But the evidence taken as a whole appears too tenuous to justify the formation of a monophyletic Oceanic bone sub-group of non-matrix PHTIs.

4aI. The “narrow bone matrix comb” sub-group is composed of one-piece combs whose width is roughly equivalent or less than the diameter of the handle (less than two centimetres.) These combs generally feature between three and fifteen teeth (fig. 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13). This “narrow” type is apparently the only form of bone matrix comb known outside of Polynesia. It is found throughout a major part of Micronesia27 and has a spotty distribution in parts of Island Melanesia, most particularly on small islands facing the open ocean28 and in Fiji (fig. 14). It is also common throughout Polynesia, with the notable exception of the Samoan Islands where it rarely occurs29, often being displaced by more elaborate forms.

“Bone Matrix Combs” In contrast to the “non-matrix” Oceanic bone group previously described, the “bone matrix comb” group of tools that we will now review almost certainly constitutes a monophyletic group (fig. 8). It is actually the only clearly and solidly justifiable sub-group of the whole PHTI family.

Figure 9: Archaeological specimens of narrow one-piece bone matrix combs. Arku (Thiel 1986, p. 243, figure 6i and 6k); Tongatapu (Bellwood 1979, p. 254, figure 9.18); Marquesas (Bellwood 1979, figure 11.17); Tubuai (Miller n.d., volume 17, figure 8); Harataonga, New Zealand (Law 1972, p. 88 figure 22); Wairau, New Zealand (Duff 1956, figure 58, nos 1469 and 1222); Matatoki, New Zealand (Fisher 1934, plate 66).

Figure 8: Known distribution of the different types of bone matrix combs.

This group is composed of instruments fitted with combs made from a single piece of bone (the “bone matrix”) at one end of which a series of “teeth” (roughly numbering between 3 and 20) has been fashioned. The more complex composite variants of the “bone matrix comb” are made by laterally joining multiple individual one-piece combs to produce alignments of points, some instruments presenting a row of up to 60 teeth (Roth 1906: 7)26.

Although “narrow bone matrix combs” are well reported and quite widely distributed in Oceania outside of Polynesia, bone-matrix combs in general (all types) have apparently never been found in archaeological contexts outside of Polynesia. The only possible exception could be a small, toothed horn plate excavated by Janet Thiel at Arku Cave on the Philippine island of Luzon30 (fig. 9, top left). An alternative function would be possibly as a pottery marking instrument31. The existence on Luzon of PHTI traditions employing assembled thorn combs also provides some (tenuous) basis for identifying the Arku artifact as a tattooing point. But the relative isolation of the Arku find, the minimal size of the sample, the absence of reports of bone matrix combs outside of Oceania at the time of European contact and from any other archaeological context outside of Polynesia32, all combine to cast a certain measure of doubt on this identification.

Bone matrix combs can be sub-divided into two major groups, each of which can be further subdivided into two infra-ordinal sub-groups. 4a. The first major subgroup of “bone matrix combs” is that of the “one-piece bone matrix comb”. This group is defined based on the use of a single bone piece to produce a tattooing comb, which is directly hafted to the handle without the benefit of a connecting shank. Two principal forms of “one-piece bone matrix combs “can be distinguished: “narrows” (4aI) and “wides” (4aII). These two types are roughly defined by the width of the combs’ blade and the number of teeth, as both traits tends to go hand in 164

A PRELIMINARY TYPOLOGY OF PERPENDICULARLY HAFTED BONE TIPPED TATTOOING INSTRUMENTS – ROBITAILLE

Bone matrix combs are generally well represented in Polynesian archaeological assemblages. Their presence at early archaeological sites throughout Polynesia33 suggests that they were part of the standard technological inventory shared by most, if not all, Polynesian colonists as they moved out into the open Pacific.

Figure 12: Moko chisels (left: Best 1904; right: Roth 1901, p. 36, figure 1).

Figure 10: Semi-tubular one-piece bone matrix combs from Polynesian outliers. Top; Various point forms from Ontong Java (drawings by the author after specimens held in the Amsterdam Tattoo Museum). Bottom; Tikopian instruments (Pendergrast 2000, p. 19-21, figures. 25, 26 and 31).

Figure 13: Polynesian narrow one-piece bone matrix combs. Society Islands (Roth 1905, plate XXV, nos 5 and 6); Marquesas (left: Buschan 1923, figure 140, no 9; right: redrawn by the author after Von den Steinen 1925, p. 83); Mangareva (Hiroa 1938, p. 178, figure 5c); Easter Island (Métraux 1940, figure 32a).

Figure 14: Non-polynesian one-piece bone matrix combs. From left to right; Yap, Western Micronesia (drawing by the author after a modern reproduction sold by the Ethnic Art Institute of Micronesia); Yap (Feest and Janata 1989 p. 212, figure 178); Marshall Islands (Buschan 1923, p. 140, no 6); Tokelau (Edge-Partington 1890); Fiji (Edge-Partington 1890, p. 113 no 16); Northern Vanuatu (Speiser 1928, plate 42, no 30).

Figure 11: Tubular one-piece bone matrix combs. Left; Hawai’ian tubular comb held in a private collection (Kwiatkowski 1992, p. 10). Right; Polynesian tubular comb of uncertain origin, possibly from the Society Islands (Suggs 1962).

Apart from the possible Arku tattooing comb, the earliest known “bone-matrix” combs are believed to

165

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Zealand. Although not a tattooing instrument in the strictest sense, moko chisels may have a place within the “narrow one-piece bone comb” grouping because they may represent a relatively recent innovation derived from a bone comb prototype.

be the “narrow one-piece bone-matrix” combs excavated from a site with Lapita associations on Tongatapu in Western Polynesia (Poulsen 1968: 88, fig. 2.8 and 2.9) (fig. 9, top right). These specific artifacts have long been presented as evidence that Polynesian tattooing traditions observed at contact could be traced back to the times of an Ancestral Polynesian Society and as an argument in favour of continuity between the tattooing traditions of the “Lapita Peoples” and those of “Ancestral Polynesians” (Davidson 1979: 92; Kirch 1996, 2000; Kirch and Green 2001: 189). To my knowledge, no other archaeological specimens apart from those excavated by Poulsen have ever been reported from Western Polynesia34. The archaeological trace of the “narrow bone matrix comb” then reappears in early Central and Eastern Polynesian archaeological assemblages (see note 44) were they are often found alongside an apparently more recent innovation: the “wide bone matrix comb” which we will discuss shortly.

4aII. The “wide one-piece bone matrix comb” (fig. 15). This second major sub-group of the “one-piece bone matrix” combs encompasses all one-piece combs whose width exceeds that of the handles diameter or whose point count exceeds fifteen. This is a rough cut-off point and the distinction between the largest “narrows” and the smallest “wides” is obviously not always clear37.

The variation of forms within the narrow one-piece bone matrix combs could provide the basis for further sub-grouping. The following possible sub-groups of the “narrows” readily come to mind: I - Quadrangulars: common in Polynesia (though much less so in Eastern Polynesia) they are also known from Fiji and parts of Micronesia.

Figure 15: Wide one-piece bone matrix combs. This type is mostly known from archaeological contexts and had apparently become rare by the time of European Contact. Hane, Marquesas (Bellwood 1979, figure 11.17 and Sinoto 1979, p. 114, figure 5.2m); NewZealand (Davidson 1994, p. 213, figure 10.2; Duff 1956, figure 58, no 42; and Roth 1901, p. 36, figure 8); Tahiti (Kaeppler 1978, figure 48); Huaine, Society Islands (Sinoto 1984, p. 588, figure 4); Tubuai (Miller, n.d., artifact index of volumes 17,18 and 25).

II - Triangulars: are a mostly Eastern Polynesian form, but they may also occur in a few Melanesian and Micronesian traditions. III - Semi-tubulars (fig. 10): this particular form of point is especially known from the so-called Polynesian Outliers35. Its defining characteristic is the crescentic cross-section, which reflects the shape of the narrow bird-bones from which semi-tubulars are cut. In some cases the alignment of points is also crescentic, while in other cases the lower edges of the instrument are ground away to produce a straighter alignment.

The “wide one-piece bone matrix combs” are exclusively known from Polynesia, where they first appear in Early Central Polynesian archaeological assemblages. Most examples of “wide” combs oscillate between bell-shaped and rounded-triangular. Some of these early “wides” are cut from a matrix of pearl-shell, a very rare choice of materials that is apparently unique to prehistoric Polynesia38.

IV - Tubulars (fig. 11): These rare and peculiar tattooing combs are made from a section of birdbone all around one end of which a series of teeth have been cut. When used, such an instrument would have produced the regular outline of a circle in a single stroke36.

This appearance of wide one-piece combs alongside the presumably antecedent narrow combs reflects the beginning of a trend towards the complexification of the Polynesian tattooists’ tool kit. This early trend would have been marked by; 1) the addition of an increasing number of specialized instruments with ever widening blades and by; 2) experimentation with materials such as pearl-shell and turtle-shell, better suited to the manufacture of wide one-piece combs than the narrow bird bones and boar tusks typically employed in narrow comb manufacture. At the time

V - Moko chisels (fig. 12): These instruments are almost identical, in method of use and appearance, to narrow one-piece combs with the crucial exception that the row of teeth has been replaced by a cutting edge. Some chisels, as well as a few examples of tattooing combs, are made of hard green stone, which is a feature presumably exclusive to New

166

A PRELIMINARY TYPOLOGY OF PERPENDICULARLY HAFTED BONE TIPPED TATTOOING INSTRUMENTS – ROBITAILLE

Kwiatkowski 1992: 10) and had seemingly fallen into disuse by the time of European Contact. The apparent absence41 of “lateral composites” from Early Central Polynesian assemblages suggests that they had yet to be invented at this time.

the first detailed ethnographic descriptions where made “wide one-piece bone matrix combs” are only clearly described for the Marquesas39 where wide, triangular one-piece combs were carved from single pieces of turtle-shell40. It appears that in other parts of their former range, “wide one-piece bone matrix combs” had mostly been replaced by the “composite bone matrix combs”.

4bII. Last, but by no means least, we find the “lateralsuperposed composites” (fig. 17) of Samoa and Tonga. This type has been described abundantly and in detail by a number of authors, chief among which is Te Rangi Hiroa (Sir Peter Buck) (Hiroa 1938: 636640). “Lateral-superposed composites” are only known to have been used in Samoa and Tonga and have apparently not yet been identified archaeologically.

4b. “Composite bone matrix combs”. This group is made up of all “bone matrix combs” whose manufacture requires more than one piece of bone. Composites can be divided into two further subgroups: 4bI. “Lateral composites” are defined by the lateral assembly of individual one-piece bone combs to produce a single wider tattooing comb (fig. 16). In the Society Islands and in New Zealand this was done by joining two symmetrical sections of bone matrix comb side by side with thin lengths of cord threaded through strategically placed holes bored along the connecting edges. Ancient Hawaiians seem to have had their own unique “brace and peg” form of lateral assembly, which often included more than two sections (fig. 16, top). Apart from the quadrangular Hawaiian composites, all other known composites are quite homogenously bell-shaped (rounded or triangular).

Figure 17: Lateral-superposed composite combs. Their known distribution is strictly limited to Samoa and Tonga in Western Polynesia. Top; Linton 1926, p. 58, figure 19. Middle; Hiroa 1930, figure 328 a,b,c. Bottom; scanned image by the author of a modern Samoan composite comb section made of boars tusk (both sides) along with the small slate file used in their maintenance and manufacture.

Figure 16: Lateral-composite bone matrix combs. Society Islands (Roth 1905, plate XXV, nos 3, 4 and 4a); New Zealand (Roth 1901, figures 9 and 12); Hawai’i (Emory and Sinoto 1961, p. 73, figure 70).

The defining trait of the “lateral-superposed composite” type is the use of a turtle-shell or (in rare instances) bone shank to which one to four individually crafted one-piece combs of boar tusk are affixed. This is done with sennit cord threaded through holes much in the same way that “lateral composite” combs were joined in New Zealand and the Society Islands.

Lateral-composite combs are well represented in ethnographic collections from the Society Islands (Roth 1905, plate XXV) and are described for parts of New-Zealand (Roth 1901, fig. 9 and 12), while the Hawai’ian variant is only known from archaeological contexts (Emory and Sinoto 1961, fig. 70 and 70b;

167

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

European contact and the disappearance of pearl shell combs would both seem to underline the partial failure of these initial strategies.

A Possible Developmental Sequence for Polynesian Tattooing Technology I am presently in the course of examining three plausible developmental sequences, but here I will only present that which most closely matches the evidence presently at my disposition. In my opinion this evidence lends credence to a parcimonious and linear sequence of development.

The Marquesan use of turtle-shell in addition to more common materials such as bone seems to either have precluded or solved the problems related to comb width. The apparently superior resilience of turtle-shell seems to have permitted the continued manufacture of wide one-piece combs while elsewhere, among traditions which did not use turtleshell, wide one piece combs gave way to wide composite combs or fell out of use all together. Lateral composite assembly also appears to be a successful attempt to deal with the challenges posed by the widening of tattooing combs. By pre-empting the longitudinal cracking of wide one-piece combs, some Polynesian craftsmen may indeed have succeeded in endowing their instruments with improved flexibility at their point of greatest vulnerability to splitting. Lateral composites may also have come about because of a marked preference by some Polynesians for bone combs as opposed to shell, even if this meant going through the trouble of joining multiple pieces of bone to attain the desired width. Finally, the “lateral superposed composites” of Samoa could be seen as being derived from lateral composites and would represent the last and most sophisticated expression of a trend in tattooing instrument complexification observed in Polynesia since the time of Early Central Polynesian cultures.

All plausible scenarios include the “narrow one-piece bone-matrix comb” as the initial prototype ancestral to all Polynesian bone-matrix combs. The bone matrix comb would itself have somehow been derived from the thorn needle combs of insular Southeast Asia during a phase of technological diversification which occurred as Austronesian speakers bearing PHTIs entered Oceania. The exact point of origin remains unclear in this case, although Island Melanesia and the region immediately to the west (North Coast and Bird’s-Head Peninsula of Irian Jaya, Northern Moluccas) are likely candidates. However, if we accept the Arku artifacts as early “bone matrix” tattooing combs the preceding scenario becomes void. Accepting the Arku combs means accepting the possibility of an Insular South East Asian origin for the bone matrix comb. If this were the case, the bone matrix comb could have been introduced more or less directly into Melanesia by a quickly moving offshoot of a Filipino group whose innovative tradition of tattooing technology became extinct in their homeland in ancient times. Regardless of its ultimate origin, we can claim with relative confidence that the “one-piece bone matrix comb” was known to the immediate ancestors of the groups which went on to colonize both Polynesia and Micronesia.

Conclusion Far from being intended as a definitive typology and technological history of oceanic tattooing, the classification and rough hypothetical reconstruction proposed here are meant to bring attention to the interesting potential of tattooing instrument study, especially in the oceanic context where the use of osseous materials may leave an archaeological trace. By pointing out the non-random patterning of tattooing instrument forms found among speakers of Austronesian languages the author hopes to encourage more thorough reporting of tattooing instruments and the use of more precise terminology to designate the instruments that are reported.

Let us now return to the Polynesian developmental sequence. After its invention or initial introduction into the Polynesian area, the “narrow one-piece bone matrix comb” would have been progressively joined by a growing variety of ever wider tools previously unknown anywhere else in Oceania and the rest of the world. The widening of tattooing combs would have presented prehistoric Polynesian craftsmen with new challenges. Chief among these would have been the presumed lengthwise cracking of these wider combs, which were apparently vulnerable to the stress produced when the force of repeated mallet blows was transferred through the handle to the apex of the combs. The thick bone combs from the rich Tubuai find seem to represent an early response to this challenge, while the use of pearl shell evident in Early Central Polynesian assemblages suggests experimentation with materials more suitable to the task of producing wide one-piece combs. The scarcity of one-piece wide bone combs at the time of

Notes 1: Masters thesis in preparation under the supervision of Professor Paul Tolstoy, Département d’anthropologie, Université de Montréal. 2: The only exceptions to the strong Austronesian/PHTI correlation are to be found among the Tibeto-Burmese speaking Naga peoples of NE India and NW Myanmar, as

168

A PRELIMINARY TYPOLOGY OF PERPENDICULARLY HAFTED BONE TIPPED TATTOOING INSTRUMENTS – ROBITAILLE

more closely related to Austronesian languages spoken in the Philippines (Western Malayo-Polynesian). 10: According to early XXth century ethnographer F.R. Barton (1918: 23): “Though the custom of tattooing in Southeastern New-Guinea is widespread, it is not consistently practiced except by the following tribes …Motu group …Waima …Roro …Mekeo …Keakaro tribe (Aroma) …Mailu …one branch of the southern Massim …and a small group of tribes around Collingwood bay”. All of these groups, except the Mailu, are speakers of languages belonging to the Oceanic branch of the Austronesian linguistic family and are known to have favored PHTI fitted with thorn points (single or grouped). See also Haddon 1901: 222; Young and Clark 2001: 118 (quoting F. E. Williams 1925); Barker and Tietjens 1990; Finsch 1885; Miklucho-Maklaï 1990, vol. 5: 233, fig. 257-260. 11: In this case bone use in the manufacture of perpendicularly hafted tattooing points is presumed to be an oceanic innovation because of the almost total absence of likely archaeological specimens outside of Oceania, along with the rich corpus of ethnographic data which describes metal and thorns as the only materials used to manufacture perpendicularly hafted tattooing points throughout mainland and insular Southeast Asia. 12: It would seem that some cultures using both perpendicularly hafted lancets and tattooing instruments also recognized some kind of relation between the two kinds of instruments, as evidenced in some cases by the use of identical or similar names to designate the two types of tool. Sylvia Ohnemus states that in the NW Admiralty Islands both instruments had “…the same native name…” (1988: 114), while K. P. Emory (1975: 97) gives pao and pao kiko as the respective names of these tools in the Tuamotus. On Rennell and Bellonna the same term (kapi) is employed to designate both medical lancing and the tattooing operation (Elbert 1975: 121). 13: Held 1957: 27: “…two fish bones, tied close together to a couple of pieces of wood which are softly tapped with another piece of wood”. 14: Wirz describes an instrument made by bracing a pair of wild lemon thorns between two small bamboo slats (1928: 290). 15: An instrument very similar to the Lindenmuseum instrument illustrated in Buschan (Op.cit.) is housed at the Fiji Museum in Suva. 16: Kuper (1928: 2) “A small two-pointed bone of any seagull is inserted in a length of reed and lightly tapped with a small stick…” Sydney M. Mead (1973: 33) reports that, 45 years later: “The ink is punctured into the skin with a twoprong chisel made of frigate bird bone”. 17: Jennings describes “…a very small piece of tortoiseshell having a bifurcated point inserted into a thin section of bamboo…” (1899: 165). 18: Krämer (1932: 185) mentions a “… two pronged bone from the àsaf bird…” while Lebar (1963: 360) describes a tattooing point “…fashioned from the bone of a frigate bird, one end of the bone being filed to form three or four sharp points”. 19: Kwiatkowski (1996: 12) cites Hawai’ian herbal healer Henry Auwae who describes the use of the tailbones of certain fishes which are slit to form two-pronged tattooing points. Kwiatkowski goes on to quote an early description from Arago, according to whom: “They fix the bone of some bird to a stick, slit the bone in the middle, so as to give it

well as among a very few Papuan speaking groups of mainland New-Guinea (Lake Sentani, Managalas Valley, Mailu). The Tibeto-Burmese speaking Nu and Drung or Dulong peoples of western Yunnan may also have used PHTIs until recently(Jacobs 1990: 12; Stirn and Van Ham 2000: 23-29). 3: This method, an exclusively Native American and Eastern Siberian tradition, involves the use of a pigment imbibed thread which is threaded through a needle and drawn through the skin leaving a pigmented “tunnel” which eventually becomes a tattooed mark. 4: In this most common of cases the tattooing points are aligned with the axis of the handle, the needles being affixed without a change of angle, much like a point at the end of a spear. 5: The use of a mallet to drive in tattooing points is unknown among non-PHTI traditions, while it is strongly associated with perpendicularly hafted instruments throughout their range. The only known cases of apparent mallet loss are found among the Managalasi peoples of southeastern Papua New Guinea (Noble 1978: 908) and in parts of the Santa-Cruz Islands (Jennings 1899: 164), were the mallet was apparently abandoned in favor of a simple tap of the index finger. 6: Considering that all non-Austronesian tattooing traditions have gotten along fine without PHTIs, this forms’ defining characteristics (perpendicular hafting of points and mallet use) appear to be superfluous (they are certainly not necessary pre-requisites to the production of high quality tattooing), although one could wonder about the extraordinary fitness of these traits once they appear. This fitness suggests that this form of tattooing instrument may indeed be endowed with subtle advantages over the other known tattooing technologies. 7: Based on the strong PHTI/Austronesian correlation I believe it is reasonable to suppose that Austronesian languages and perpendicularly hafted tattooing instruments may share the same general area of origin. Linguists such as Robert Blust (1985, 1995) have argued in favor of Taïwan or the southeastern coast of China as the possible “Homeland” of the Austronesian language family. The archaeological record suggests the expansion of potteryusing agriculturalists from southern mainland China into Insular Southeast Asia and the islands of the Pacific Ocean. This has often been interpreted as evidence of the expansion of peoples speaking Austronesian languages (see Bellwood 1997 for a comprehensive synthesis, as well as Terrell, Kelly and Rainbird 2001 for an opposing view in the Oceanic context). 8: Points made of osseous materials are also sporadically used outside of PHTI traditions, most notably in the Americas. But nowhere is the use of bone as widespread, consistent and sophisticated as it is in Oceania. 9: There are two possible exceptions to the bone/oceanic correlation, both of which are found among immediate neighbors of speakers of oceanic languages. The Waropen of Cendrawasih bay speak a language belonging to the South-Halmahera-West New Guinea (SHWNG) phylum, which consists of the closest relatives of oceanic languages (SHWNG and Oceanic being the two major sub-groups of Eastern Malayo-Polynesian branch of the Austronesian language family). The other possible exception is Palau, where one-piece bone tattooing combs may have been used by peoples speaking languages which appear to be

169

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Miller (n.d.) for Tubuai. 34: Personal communication with archaeologist David Addison, at the time under contract with the Samoa Telephone Company, has confirmed the great rarity of bone tattooing combs from West Polynesian archaeological contexts. 35: Pendergrast (2000) provides an excellent description of such points for Tikopia. Tattooing instruments collected on Ontong Java by avocational tattoo scholar Dan Thome and formerly held in the collection of the Amsterdam Tattoo Museum also exhibit semi-tubular comb points, some of them with a pronounced crescentic cross-section. According to C. M. Woodford (1906: 134), the bone of a frigate bird was used to manufacture tattooing points on Ontong Java. 36: Ethnographic descriptions of this point form are very rare, but Kwiatkowski (1992: 10, 13) shows an unprovenanced and presumably archaeological specimen from Hawai’i, while an illustration attributed to Captain Wallis shows a very similar tubular point alongside what appear to be XVIII century tattooing instruments from the Society Islands (Suggs 1962). 37: Ideally the definition of “wides” and “narrows” should eventually take into account the combs height-width ratio; those with a ratio closer to 1:1 could be included within the wides even when the width of the blade is less than 2 centimetres. The introduction of a “medium” category to account for these “small wides” may prove appropriate. 38: The author is not aware of any ethnographic description from anywhere in the world which describe pearl-shell tattooing points in historic times. 39: A set of Marquesan tattooing instruments collected by M. Coral in 1884 and held in the Musée de Larochelle (inventory number H.1655) includes an instrument fitted with a wide turtle-shell OPBMC whose tattooing edge bore over 25 teeth. Edge-Partington (1890: 46, nos 10 and 12) illustrates two Marquesan OPBMCs bearing close to twenty teeth which could be considered as the narrowest of wide combs. 40: Many sources (i.e. Von den Steinen, Marquardt, Buschan) suggest that long narrow triangular combs, examples of which are known from early Marquesan archaeological contexts (Sinoto 1979, plate 14), were the predominant form employed in the Marquesas. 41: Artifacts from Eastern Polynesian contexts that appear to be halves of “lateral composites” show none of the assembly-facilitating features (such as holes for binding) expected from a lateral-composite. These are most likely broken halves of “one-piece wides”. See Sinoto (1979, plate 14) for an example from the Hane site in the Marquesas.

two or three points…”. 20: Kennedy (1932: and fig. 148) describes a “one piece bone matrix comb” from Tuvalu which is hafted in an axelike manner (with the row of teeth parallel to the alignment of the handle.) This is a highly uncommon occurrence, all other known bone matrix combs being hafted with an adzelike alignment. 21: The well attested use of individual bone points in the construction of the Kiribati “axe” leads me to believe that the points on the Lindenmuseum example shown in Buschans’ Illustrierte Völkenkunde (1928, plate 140, no 2) may also be made of bone, while Kubary’s 1875 illustration of an “assembled individual needle comb” from Pohnape (Spennemann 2002) suggests that the individual needles in question may in fact be thorns and not bone. 22: According to Ohnemus (1988: 115), some tattooing instruments of the Admiralties are hafted “like the blade of an adze”, while the illustrated example is clearly hafted axewise. In the case of Kiribati the co-existence of both “bracehandled axes” and “assembled individual needle combs” is quite well attested (compare Koch 1965, fig. 84 and Buschan 1928, plate 140 no 2). 23: It is highly plausible that the unique case of the “axehafted” “one piece bone matrix comb” described by Kennedy (op. cit.) for Tuvalu represents such an instance of hafting simplification. 24: It is interesting to note that Fiji presents the highest variety of tattooing point forms found in any one part of Oceania (Oldman 1939, Buschan 1928 [plate 140 no 10], von Hügel 1990), with the possible exception of the Hawai’ian islands. 25: Edge Partington (1890: 113, no 16 and 122, no 1) provides illustrations of both types for Fiji. 26: Quoting mariners’ description of some very wide instruments seen in Tonga. 27: This type is absent from the Mariannas and parts of Eastern Micronesia. It is interesting to note that the Mariannas, populated by non-oceanic Austronesian speakers, are one of the very rare parts of Oceania were tattooing seems to be absent (Joseph and Murray 1951: 31-32). 28: Feni Islands, Ontong Java, Tikopia, Northern Vanuatu. 29: Until recently the author had never heard of Samoan “one piece bone matrix combs”, but a recent exhibition of oceanic artifacts from the Luigi Pigorini Museum of Ethnography in Rome featured just such an instrument collected at the turn of the XX century from the island of Tau in Eastern Samoa. 30: Thiel (1988), presumably proceeding through ethnological analogy, first suggested that these artifacts may be tattooing points. These “tattooing instruments” have subsequently been pointed out by Bellwood (1995) and Kirch (1997), amongst others, as potential clues to links between early Neolithic groups of insular Southeast Asia and the Eastern Lapita archaeological culture. 31: See R. C. Green (1978) for a discussion of the possible continuity between pottery decoration and tattooing. 32: In their respective regional archaeological syntheses neither Spriggs (1997), Kirch (1996) or Bellwood (1997) provide any other evidence for tattooing combs from archaeological contexts outside of Polynesia. 33: See Duff (1956) and Davidson (1979, 1994) for New Zealand, Poulsen (1968) for Tonga, Sinoto (1979, 1983,1984) for the Marquesas and the Society Islands and

th

th

References Cited Alkire, W. H. 1977 An Introduction to the Peoples and Cultures of Micronesia. Menlo Park (California): Cummings Publishing Company. Barker, J. and A.-M. Tietjens 1990 Women’s Facial Tattooing among the Maisin of Oro Province, Papua New Guinea: The Changing Significance of an Ancient Custom. Oceania; vol.60, No 3: 217-234.

170

A PRELIMINARY TYPOLOGY OF PERPENDICULARLY HAFTED BONE TIPPED TATTOOING INSTRUMENTS – ROBITAILLE

Barton, R. F. 1918 Tattooing in South Eastern New Guinea. Journal of the Anthropological Society of Great Britain and Ireland; vol. 48: 22-79.

1979b 1994

Beattie, H. 1994 Traditional Lifeways of the Southern Maori. Otago (New Zealand): University of Otago Press. Duff, R. 1956

Bell, F. L. S. 1949 Tattooing and Scarification in Tanga. Man; vol. 49: 29-31. Bellwood, P. 1979 Man’s Conquest of the Pacific. New York: Oxford University Press. 1987 The Polynesians: Prehistory of an Island People. London: Thames and Hudson. 1997 Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago (2 Edition). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Australian National University Press New Zealand. In The Prehistory of Polynesia, ed. J. Jennings, 82-109. Canberra: Australian National University Press The Eastern Polynesian Origins of the New Zealand Archaic. In The Origins of the First NewZ e a l a n d e r s , ed. D. G. Sutton, 208-219. Auckland: Auckland University Press.

The Moa-Hunter Period of Maori Culture. Wellington (New Zealand): R. E. Owen, Government Printer.

Edge-Partington, J. 1890 Album of Weapons Tools Ornaments and Articles of Dress of Natives of The Pacific Islands. (3 vol.). Manchester: Private publication.

nd

Best, E. 1904

Blust, R. 1975

1985 1995

Elbert, S. H. 1975 Dictionary of the Language of Rennell and Bellona. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark.

The Uhi-Maori, or Native Tattooing Instruments. Journal of the Polynesian Society; vol. 13, No 2: 164-172.

Emory, K. P. 1975 Material Culture of the Tuamotu Archipelago. Pacific Anthropological Records No 22. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum.

Austronesian Culture History: Some Linguistic Inferences and their Relations to the Archaeological Record. World Archaeology; vol 8, No 1: 19-43. The Austronesian Homeland: A Linguistic Perspective. Asian Perspectives; vol. 16, No 1: 45-67. The Prehistory of Austronesian-Speaking Peoples: A View From Language. Journal of World Prehistory; vol. 9, No 4: 453-510.

Emory, K. P. and Y. H. Sinoto 1961 Oahu Excavations. Special Publication No 49. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Feest, C. F. and A. Janata 1989 Technologie und Ergologie in der Völkerkunde, vol. 2. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Finsch, O. 1885 Ueber Bekleindung, Schmuck und Tätowirung der Papuas der Südostküste von Neu-Guinea. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft; vol. 15: 12-33.

Burrows, E. G. 1963 Flower in My Ear: Arts and Ethos in Ifaluk Atoll. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Buschan, G. 1923 Illustrierte Völkerkunde. (2 vol.) Stuttgart: Verlegt von Strecker und Schröder.

Firth, R. 1936

Chowning, A. 1991 Proto Oceanic Culture: The Evidence from Melanesia. In Currents in Pacific Linguistics: Papers on Austronesian Languages and Ethnolinguistics in Honour of George W. Grace, ed. R. Blust, 43-75. Canberra: Australian National University Press.

Tattooing in Tikopia. Man; vol. 36: 173-177.

Fisher, V. F. 1934 The Material Culture of Oruarangi, Matatoki, Thames. 1: Bone Ornaments and Implements. Records of the Auckland Institute and Museum; vol. 1, No 5: 275-286. Furness, W. H. 1910 The Island of Stone Money: Uap of the Carolines. Philadelphia and London: J. B. Lippincott Company.

Cribb, R. 2000 Historical Atlas of Indonesia. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Green, R. C. 1968 West Polynesian Prehistory. In Prehistoric Cultures in Oceania, ed. I. Yawata and Y. H. Sinoto, 99-110. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum. 1978 Early Lapita Art from Polynesia and Island Melanesia: Continuities in Ceramic, Barkcloth,

Davidson, J. M. 1970 Excavation of an “Undefended” Site, N38/37, on Motutapu Island, New-Zealand. Records of the Auckland Institute and Museum; vol. 7: 31-60. 1979a Samoa and Tonga. In The Prehistory of Polynesia, ed. J. Jennings, 222-248. Canberra:

171

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Personality Studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

and Tattoo Decorations. In Exploring the Visual Arts of Oceania, ed. S. M. Mead, 13-31. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i.

Juynboll, H. H. 1928 Katalog des Ethnographischen Reichsmuseums, Vol. 20: Philippinen. Leyden: E. J. Brill.

Green, R. C. and M. Kelly (eds) 1969 Studies in Oceanic Culture History, Volume 1. Pacific Anthropological Records No 11. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum.

Kaeppler, A. L. (ed.) 1978 Cook Voyage Artifacts in Leningrad, Berne and Florence Museums. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum.

Guillon, E. 2001 Techniques autour du Monde. T a t o u a g e Magazine; No 18: 30-37.

Kaeppler, A. 1988 Hawaiian Tattoo: A Conjunction of Genealogy and Aesthetics. In Marks of Civilization: Artistic Transformations of the Human Body, ed. A. Rubin, 157-170. Los Angeles: Museum of Cultural History, University of California.

Haddon, A. C. 1901 Head-hunters Black White and Brown. London: Methuen and Co. Hambly, W. D. 1925 A History of Tattooing and its Significance with Some Account of Other Forms of Corporal Marking. London: Witherby.

Kennedy, D. G. 1931 Field Notes on the Culture of Vaitupu, Ellice Islands: Surgery and Surgical Instruments. The Journal of the Polynesian Society; vol. 40, No 1: 236-246. 1932 Field Notes on the Culture of Vaitupu Ellice Islands. Memoir No 9. Journal of the Polynesian Society (supplement): 285-319.

Handy, W. 1938 L’Art des Iles Marquises. Paris: Éditions d’Art et d’Histoire. Held, G. J. 1957 The Papuas of Waropen. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Kirch, P. V. 1996 The Lapita Peoples. Oxford: Blackwell. 2000 On the Road of the Winds. An Archaeological History of the Pacific Islands Before European Contact. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Heyerdahl,T. and E. N. Ferdon Jr. 1961 Archaeology of Easter Island. London: George Allen and Unwin. Hiroa, T. R. (Sir Peter Buck) 1930 Samoan Material Culture. Bishop Museum Bulletin No 75. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum. 1938 Ethnology of Mangareva. Bishop Museum Bulletin No 157. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum.

Kirch, P. V. and R. C. Green 1987 History, Phylogeny and Evolution in Polynesia. Current Anthropology; vol. 28, No 4: 431-443. 2001 Hawaiki, Ancestral Polynesia. An Essay in Historical Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hügel, A., Baron von 1990 The Fiji Journals of Baron Anatole Von Hügel 1875-1877. Suva (Fiji): Fiji Museum.

Kirch, P. V. and M. Sahlins 1994 Anahulu, the Anthropology of History in the Kingdom of Hawaii. Vol. 2: The Archaeology of History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jacobs, J. 1990 The Naga: Society, Culture and the Colonial Encounter. New York and London: Thames and Hudson.

Koch, G. 1984 The Material Culture of Tuvalu. Suva (Fiji): Institute of Pacific Studies. 1965 Materielle Kultur Der Gilbert-Inseln: Nonouti Tabiteuea – Onota. Berlin: Colloquium Verlag.

Jennings, J. (ed) 1979 The Prehistory of Polynesia. Canberra: Australian National University Press.

Krämer, A. 1932 Truk. In Ergebnisse der Südsee-Expedition 1908-1910, II. Ethnographie: B. Mikronesien, Vol 5, ed. G. Thilenius. Hamburg: Friederichsen, de Gruyter and Co.

Jennings, J. 1899 Notes on the Exhibition of an Ethnological Collection from Santa Cruz and the NewHebrides. The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland; vol. 28, Nos 1-2: 164-165.

Kuper, H. 1926 Tapitapi or the Tattooing of Females on Santa Anna and Santa Catalina (Solomon Group). The Journal of the Polynesian Society; vol. 35, No 1: 1-5.

Joseph, A. and V. F. Murray 1951 The Chamorros and Carolinians of Saipan:

172

A PRELIMINARY TYPOLOGY OF PERPENDICULARLY HAFTED BONE TIPPED TATTOOING INSTRUMENTS – ROBITAILLE

Basel. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Kwiatkowski, K. F. 1996 The Hawaiian Tattoo. Kohala (Hawai’I): Halona.

Oldman, W. O. 1939 The Oldman Collection of Polynesian Artifacts: Tonga, Samoa and Fiji Groups (Continued). Journal of the Polynesian Society; vol. 48 (supplement): 41-46.

Law, R. G. 1972 Archaeology at Harataonga Bay, Great Barrier Island. Records of the Auckland Institute and Museum; vol. 9: 81-123.

Osmond, M. and M. Ross 1998 Household Artifacts. In The Lexicon of Proto Oceanic. The Culture and Environment of Ancestral Oceanic Society. I: Material Culture, ed. M. Ross, A. Pawley and M. Osmond, 67115. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Leahy, A. 1974 Excavations at Hot Water Beach (N44/69), Coromandel Peninsula. Records of the Auckland Institute and Museum; vol. 11: 23-76. LeBar, F. M. 1964 The Material Culture of Truk. Yale University Publications in Anthropology No 68. New Haven (Connecticut): Yale University.

Parkinson, R. 1887 Im Bismarck-Archipel. Erlebnisse und Beobachtungen auf der Insel Neu-Pommern (Neu-Britannien). Leipzig: F. U. Brodhaus.

Linton, R. 1926 Ethnology of Polynesia and Micronesia. Field Museum of Natural History Department of Anthropology Guide, Part 6. Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History.

Pawley, A. and M. Ross 1993 Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History. Annual Review of Anthropology; vol. 22: 425-459.

Macgregor, G. 1937 Ethnology of Tokelau Islands. Bulletin No 146. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum.

Pendergrast, M. 2000 The Tikopian Tattoo. Bulletin of the Auckland Museum No 18. Auckland: Auckland Museum.

Mead, S. M. 1973 Material Culture and Art in the Star Harbour Region, Eastern Solomon Islands. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum.

Poulsen, J. 1968 Archaeological Excavations on Tongatapu. In Prehistoric Culture in Oceania, ed. I. Yawata and Y. H. Sinoto, 85-92. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum.

Métraux, A. 1940 Ethnology of Easter Island. Bishop Museum Publications No 160. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum.

Radiguet, M. 1967 Les derniers sauvages: Souvenirs de l’occupation coloniale française aux îles Marquises 1 8 4 2 - 1 8 5 9 . Paris: Éditions Anthropos.

Meyer, A. J. P. 1995 Art Océanien/Oceanische Kunst/Oceanic Art. Koln: Könemann.

Robley, H. 1896 Moko: or, Maori Tattooing. London: Chapman and Hall.

Miklukho-Maklaï, N. N. 1990 Sobranie sochineniy v shesti tomakh / N.N. Miklukho-Maklay; redaktysyionnaiyay kollegiiyay, D.D. Tumarkin (predsedatel), Vol. 6, Part 1. Moscow: Nauka.

Roth, H. L. 1901 Maori Tattoo and Moko. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute; vol. 31, No 1: 29-64. 1905 Tatu in the Society Islands. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Society; vol. 35, No 2: 283-294. 1906 Tonga Islanders Skin-Marking. Man; vol. 6: 6-9.

Miller, L. A. n.d. Comparative Implementology; vol. 17, 18, 25; Tubaï, Austral Islands, French Polynesia. http://www.implementology.org.pf

Sande, G. A. J. van der 1907 Nova Guinea: Résultats de l’expédition Scientifique Néerlandaise à la Nouvelle-Guinée en 1903 sous les auspices de Arthur Wichmann, chef de l’expédition. Vol. 3: Ethnography and Anthropology. Leyden: E. J. Brill.

Mills, J. P. 1973 The Ao Nagas. Bombay: Oxford University Press. Noble, P. D. 1978 Tattoos of the Managalasi People of Northern Papua. Anthropos; vol. 73, No 2: 904-908.

Sinoto, Y. H. 1970 An Archaeologically Based Assessment of the Marquesas Islands as a Dispersal Center in East Polynesia. In Studies in Oceanic Culture History:

Ohnemus, S. 1998 An Ethnology of the Admiralty Islanders: The Alfred Bühler Collection, Museum der Kulturen,

173

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Suggs, R. C. 1962 Les civilisations polynésiennes. Paris: La Table Ronde.

Volume I, ed. R. C. Green and M. Kelly, 105-132. Pacific Anthropological Records No 11. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum. 1979 The Marquesas. In T h e Prehistory of P o l y n e s i a , ed. J. Jennings, 110-134. Canberra: Australian National University Press. 1983 An Analysis of Polynesian Migrations Based on the Archaeological Assessments. Journal de la Société des Océanistes; No 76: 57-67. 1984 Archaeological Excavations of the Vaito’otia and Fa’ahia Sites on Huaine Island, French Polynesia. National Geographic Research Reports; vol. 15: 583-589.

Thiel, J. 1986

Excavations at Arku Cave. Asian Perspectives; vol. 27, No 2: 229-264.

Terrell. J. E., K. M. Kelly and P. Rainbird 2001 Foregone Conclusions? In Search of “Papuans” and “Austronesians”. Current Anthropology; vol. 42, No 1: 97-124. Thomson, B. 1968 The Fijians: A Study of the Decay of Customs. London: Dawsons of Pall Mall.

Smith, P. S. 1902 Niue island, and its People (Part 2). Journal of the Polynesian Society; vol. 11, No 1: 13-200.

Thompson, L. 1940 Southern Lau, Fiji: An Ethnography. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum. 1972 Fijian Frontier. New York: Octagon Books.

Speiser, F. 1996 Ethnology of Vanuatu: An Early 20 Century Ethnography. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. th

Wirz, P. 1928

Spennemann, D. H. 2002 The Marshalls: An Electronic Library and Archive. http://marshall.csu.edu.au/index.html

Beitrag Zur Ethnologie Der Sentanier (Holländisch Neuguinea). Nova Guinea; vol. 16: 251-370.

Woodford, C. M. 1901 Note on Tatu Patterns Employed in Lord Howe’s Island. Man; vol. 1: 40. 1906a Notes on Leueneuwa, or Lord Howe’s Group. Man; vol. 6: 133-135. 1906b Some Accounts of Sikaiana or Stewart’s Island in the British Solomon Islands Protectorate. Man; vol. 6: 164-169. 1909 Note on the Atoll of Ongtong Java or Lord Howe’s Group in the Western Pacific. Geographical Journal; vol. 34, No 5: 544-549.

Spriggs, Matthew 1997 The Island Melanesians. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. St. Carmail, K. 1997 The Art of Tonga. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Steinen, K. von den 1925 Die Marquesaner und ihre Kunst Primitiv Sudseeor d a n m e n t i k /T a t a u i e r u n g . Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.

Young, M. W. and J. Clark 2001 An Anthropologist in Papua: The Photography of F. E. Williams, 1922-1939. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Stirn, A. and P. van Ham 2000 The Seven Sisters of India: Tribal Worlds between Tibet and Burma. Munich: Prestel.

174

Conclusions: Bone Artifacts and their Importance to Archaeology Sandra L. Olsen Section of Anthropology, Carnegie Museum of Natural History, USA

archaeozoology is paramount. As David and Sidéra and LeGrand illustrate, conscious choices of raw material were made on a number of levels. First, as Choyke and Schibler discuss, there was the issue of availability, based on the environment and the range of species at hand. Second, there was the choice of osseous material based on its physical properties. For example, Vercoutère et al. note that antler was better for projectile points than ivory or bone because of its elasticity. This has also been documented by others through experimentation (Albrecht 1977; Arndt and Newcomer 1986, MacGregor and Currey 1983), but the concept that prehistoric hunters comprehended the different physical properties of natural materials cannot be stressed enough. Walker’s paper perhaps best contrasts the different types of materials available to prehistoric people, from bone, to antler, to teeth, to invertebrate shells. Each has its own useful suite of characteristics that were readily adapted to the needs of preindustrial societies.

Introduction The study of bone artifacts is a steadily growing field of often-understated importance, as Gates St-Pierre and Walker stress in the Introduction. While lithic and pottery analysis have a long history of recognition for their contributions to archaeology, when I first began studying bone artifacts in 1976, such studies were relegated to a secondary role addressed primarily in appendices or subsections of chapters in site reports. This lack of credit may be due in part to the fact that bone artifacts are neither extremely abundant, nor incredibly rare. Hominids were relatively slow to develop sophisticated manufacturing techniques compared to their abilities with stone, and their earliest attempts are often ambiguous as to function or even their attribution as tools. LeMoine in her thorough synopsis of the history of bone artifact analysis as a subdiscipline points out the difficulties of working with expedient tools and distinguishing them from splinters derived simply from cracking open a bone for marrow, by carnivores or by humans. But, even once bone artifacts became well designed and obvious as to their function, they still remained in the shadows compared to other aspects of the archaeological record until the last three decades.

The natural shape and size of osseous elements also determined the types of objects that could be made from them. The straightness and cylindrical shape of ruminant metapodials made them ideal for a number of tools, especially for weaving and piercing. The round cross-section and large marrow cavity predetermined that femora of large ungulates like deer would serve as excellent resources for making rings.

In contrast to the situation thirty years ago, this volume demonstrates the tremendous value of studying bone artifacts and the expanding vitality of the field. Due to the increasing attention to bone artifact analysis in recent decades, the database for some regions is now becoming quite substantial, as exemplified by Choyke and Schibler’s, David’s, and Sidéra and LeGrand’s papers on European assemblages.

It is important to understand the morphology of unmodified bones in order to avoid confusing certain natural shapes with tools, as Vercoutère et al. illustrate for the vestigial metapodial splints of horses. These bones require very little modification to convert them into awls and only close inspection can actually demonstrate whether they were indeed utilized in each case. Some unmodified elements are frequently misinterpreted by novices as artifacts because of their natural shape or sculpting on their surfaces. The bones found in turtle carapaces and plastrons often come in semi-rectangular pieces with delicate grooves on their surfaces indicating where the scutes attached. The uninformed may mistake these for pendants worked by people. Even the papillae on avian ulnae have been wrongly identified as intentionally abraded spots (Bar Yosef and Tchernov

Archaeozoology and Bone Artifact Analysis Choyke and Schibler, Vercoutère et al., and Walker point out the close connection between the larger subdiscipline of archaeozoology and bone artifact analysis. The two fields are obviously bound by their common materials. In order to understand the acquisition of raw material by prehistoric craftspersons and the selection of particular elements and taxa, a thorough understanding of

175

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

collections. In the analysis of the Mesolithic and Neolithic bone artifacts from the site of Abu Hureyra, Syria (Olsen 2000a), the number of pieces of worked bone increased by a factor of 10 when the archaeozoologists, Legge and Rowley-Conwy (2000) pulled out specimens from the bulk bone bags. In this case, the fact we were working side by side in the same laboratory greatly facilitated cooperation, although this is clearly not always possible. To put it succinctly, the value of collaboration between the archaeozoologist and the bone artifact analyst cannot be over-emphasized.

1970: fig. 4, number 5). Natural foramina are sometimes misidentified as drilled perforations. Fish spines are often mistaken for needles or awls. There are many other examples that might be given to demonstrate the value of having an adequate knowledge of archaeozoology, and particularly an understanding of the osteology of the local fauna, prior to analyzing a bone artifact collection. There are other reasons why bone artifact analysis should be done in conjunction with the faunal analysis of a site, either by the same person or by colleagues who communicate with each other. The removal of worked bone from the faunal assemblage may skew the element counts for the archaeozoologist or even remove certain rare taxa from the faunal list altogether if they are only represented by the artifacts made on their bones or teeth. In addition, one goal of the faunal analysis is to determine all of the ways in which the carcasses of different animal taxa were utilized, and that includes the use of their bones and teeth to manufacture artifacts. The complete isolation of bone artifact collections puts the archaeozoologist at a distinct disadvantage and may produce an inaccurate report as a result of the absence of significant parts of the collection.

Taphonomy Osseous materials are impacted by the ravages of time in ways unique to their chemical and structural nature. The field of taphonomy was first developed by Efremov (1940) to advance our understanding of the processes that impact the paleontological record, but it is also recognized as critically applicable to archaeological faunal material (Lyman 1994). Bone artifacts can be just as susceptible as food refuse or naturally buried carcasses to these destructive processes, so, as Vercoutère et al. demonstrate, taphonomy has an important role in any study of bone artifacts. A knowledge of taphonomy is crucial not only for understanding the differential destruction of osseous materials in given conditions, but also nature’s more subtle impact on the surfaces of bone tools that alter or obscure manufacturing and wear traces. Root etching, weathering, animal gnawing, and other taphonomic processes can have a deleterious effect on bone surfaces, rendering them less useful for technological analysis.

The same is true for the bone artifact analysis that is produced without benefit of knowledge of the whole faunal assemblage from the site. The analyst needs to have insight on the resources available to the ancient craftsperson in order to understand the prehistoric selection process. For example, a faunal assemblage from an insular Southeast Asian site could point out that the range of usable osseous raw material was limited to the bones of fish and very small mammals until water buffalo and other large ungulates were introduced (Olsen and Glover 2004). There, bamboo often filled the need for raw material in making artifacts that elsewhere would have been made from antler or bone.

At times, natural abrasion caused by such activities as trampling (Andrews and Cook 1985; Behrensmeyer et al. 1986; and Olsen and Shipman 1988) or deer rubbing the velvet off their antlers (Olsen 1989) can create striations that, as van Gijn, Vercoutère et al., and Walker mention, may be confused with cutmarks, manufacturing abrasion, or use wear striations. Van Gijn shows how natural dental wear on boars’ tusks, paralleling that seen on deer antlers, must also be distinguished from cultural modification. Therefore, it is clear that developing an expertise in “reading” the bones must include a thorough knowledge of natural modifications to osseous surfaces.

There is another important reason why the bone artifact analyst needs to be familiar with the faunal assemblage of a site whenever possible. The sorting of worked and unworked bones from excavations often occurs in the field under less than ideal circumstances, in poor lighting, prior to washing in some cases, and by students or workers. This means that debitage, unfinished tools, and sometimes even actual artifacts may be overlooked and not set aside for the specialist. Expedient tools, often made on splinters produced by percussion during marrow extraction, are among the most difficult to recognize and yet may be quite common in some faunal assemblages. The archaeozoologist may assist in identifying these pieces as he or she goes through the

Bone Artifact Analysis There are three major topics on which archaeologists frequently focus in bone artifact analysis: manufacturing, use, and typology. The analytical

176

CONCLUSIONS: BONE ARTIFACTS AND THEIR IMPORTANCE TO ARCHAEOLOGY – OLSEN

comparative collection can rapidly inform about where reduction has taken place.

methodology used to approach bone artifacts relies heavily on the trident of microscopic traces, experimental replication, and ethnographic analogy (Thompson 1985) to attack osseous artifact collections.

If excavation methods have been adequate and the analyst is permitted to look at the faunal assemblage, then debitage from bone artifact manufacture may be retrieved. As with lithic analysis, debitage is extremely useful in reconstructing the step-by-step process of manufacturing. Such is the case for the assemblages studied by Klippel and Price, and van Gijn. The final product can reveal much about the finishing process of smoothing and polishing, but as Walker mentions, the finished artifact often no longer retains important traces of the earlier stages of manufacture. If preservation and recovery methods are optimal, an entire manufacturing sequence may be recorded in the combination of debitage, unfinished blanks, and finished artifacts (Olsen 1979; 1980).

Manufacturing A number of the papers in this volume discuss manufacturing processes, as does nearly every publication on bone artifacts. By the Upper Paleolithic, most of the manufacturing techniques had been developed. Although many techniques seem to be almost universal, there is still considerable variation from one geographic region to another. For example, while European Paleolithic people preferred to use a burin to shape bone tools, North American people often chose instead to use a granular stone to abrade the bone. There are several different ways to manufacture bone needles (Olsen 2000b; Stordeur 1977; and Stordeur-Yedid 1978) and these have different geographic distributions. To some extent, the robusticity of the major raw material resources affects the type of manufacturing process used, so where large animals such as Proboscidea, bison, or horse, which have thick cortical bone, provided most of the raw material, the bone was more likely to have been knapped, but where thinner-walled bones, such as those of deer and other gracile ungulates, were used, the groove-and-snap method was more efficient. Robitaille documents the uncommon method of perpendicular hafting for bone-tipped tattoo instruments as an example of the shared background of Austronesian peoples. He was able to find the probable source and show a likely correlation with the spread of Austronesian languages.

Perhaps the trickiest types are expedient tools made from a bone that already possesses most of the necessary features for the final tool, whether the bone is complete or is merely a splinter. The debitage, if there is any, may consist of nothing more than grinding dust or the other parts of a bone shattered for marrow extraction. The wear will be the primary indicator that the bone in question was actually utilized. Buc and Loponte, in their work on microwear on bone tools from the Argentinean Pampas faced a variety of expedient tools. Experimental replication is crucial to understanding how bone artifacts were made, especially since most archaeologists have had few opportunities to relate to osseous materials throughout their normal daily lives. Without actualistic experiments to prove the feasibility of certain interpretations, archaeologists are more prone to making false conclusions. Several of the papers, including those of Gates St-Pierre, David, van Gijn, and Sidéra and LeGrand, utilize experimental replication in order to better understand the objects in their assemblages.

The reconstruction of bone artifact manufacturing processes is achieved by a variety of methods. David’s chapter on the early Mesolithic technocomplexes of Northern Europe provides an excellent example of how a combination of methods can provide an enormous amount of detail on the bone manufacturing industry of a particular time or region. Initially, because bone artifact manufacture is a reduction process, like stone knapping, rather than an additive one, as pottery making and weaving are, archaeologists must determine what has been removed from the original morphology of the element as it occurs in its natural state. In this regard, the analyst is at a considerable advantage over the lithic specialist, who cannot know with any precision the size or shape of the original unmodified pebble once the cortex has been removed. If the exact bone and animal taxon are still recognizable, then comparison with an unaltered example of the bone in a

Surface analysis, whether with a simple hand lens, an optical stereomicroscope, or a scanning electron microscope (d’Errico 1991; Olsen 1988a), is one of the key methods for interpreting manufacturing techniques. Some traces are better examined at a low power of magnification, while others can only be seen under high power, as noted by Legrand and Sidéra. As Buc and Loponte mention, the various methods for examining microwear are actually complementary, not competitive. Optical microscopy is better for studying the distribution of a polish, which will look dull through the SEM, but the SEM has a deeper depth of field, so high topography can all remain in focus at the same time. In addition, SEM

177

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

long before excavation can occur. The nearly ideal preservation in Swiss wet-sites provides important associations that can then be extrapolated to collections elsewhere in the region where conditions do not permit such reconstructions of composite tools to be made easily.

allows easy use of high magnification, if it should be needed. The macro- or microscopic manufacturing traces must first be distinguished from taphonomic traces and use wear whenever possible. One great advantage that bone, antler, and ivory have over other materials is that if they are well preserved, most types of manufacturing marks can be extremely informative and even quite easy to interpret accurately.

Some of the most interesting aspects of the manufacturing process are the identifications of mistakes, or blunders (Olsen 2000b), in which the artisan failed to understand the characteristics of the material, was using an inferior technique, or was working osseous material that was in a degraded condition.

Bone artifacts reveal much about other prehistoric industries, as well as their own, in many significant ways. They often retain surficial traces caused by stone or metal tools used on the bone during the manufacturing process (Olsen 1988b). More rarely, the specific type of tool employed to make the bone artifact can be identified by examination of the bone debitage, as in Klippel and Price’s brace and button bit manufacturing sequence. As a result, bone artifacts and debitage can shed light on one function of other tool industries—that is, their use in working bone.

Also useful to the archaeologist are examples of objects abandoned before the manufacturing process was completed, because the collected raw material was found to be inferior, it was forgotten or neglected until the material was no longer suitable, or it had to be left behind as the people moved on. Klippel and Price were better able to interpret how drilled discs were made because in some cases the makers had failed to remove discs from the surrounding matrix.

Conversely, as Sidéra and LeGrand discuss, because osseous tools are used to sew and weave, to make thongs, to straighten shafts, to retouch stone, and so forth, they can also elucidate how other objects were manufactured. The very existence of certain bone tools can imply that weaving or sewing was a part of a culture’s repertoire of skills. Thus, it is important for the bone artifact analyst to work with other specialists on a site so that this reciprocal illumination may thrive. Pottery impressions of textiles, the actual preserved fibers, the bone tools used to make them, stone loom weights, figurines showing how clothes were designed and worn, and so forth can all be important pieces of the puzzle that have to be brought together through collaboration of the specialists on the team.

Recycling, as mentioned by Griffitts and van Gijn, refers to the condition in which the function of a tool changes from what it was originally intended through slight modification. Recycling demonstrates ingenuity and efficiency, since it is often easier to adapt a preexisting tool than to collect the raw material and start from scratch to make a new one. Use Use is one of the most interesting topics relating to bone tools and is at the same time one of the most elusive and speculative. Microwear analysis of bone and stone really began to develop in St. Petersburg, Russia, where Semenov (1985) and his students pursued it with great enthusiasm from the 1950’s on. Its application and popularity spread to Western Europe and the United States in the 1980’s, particularly in the field of lithic analysis. However, it was soon discovered that some claims for interpreting polishes were greatly exaggerated, as blind tests creating polishes on experimental stone flakes demonstrated (Newcomer et al.1 9 8 6 ) . Fortunately, few bone artifact analyses have attempted to link polished surfaces to specific materials in a way that implies that polish alone is diagnostic. Caution is required when interpreting use wear, and reliability increases significantly when the combination of tool morphology, edge morphology, damage, striations, and polish distribution are considered together in determining the agent causing

From at least the Upper Paleolithic, when hafting became common, bone, antler, and teeth were combined with wood and other materials to make composite instruments. Antler handles and sleeves, like those illustrated in Choyke and Schibler’s chapter, could hold stone or later metal adzes, axes, and hide scrapers, making the osseous part the conveyance rather than the functional part of the tool. Cord or sinew could be used with bone, wood, stone, and other materials to attach the different parts of tools together, as in Choyke and Schibler’s well-preserved examples of linen combs, antler arrows with wooden shafts, and fishhooks with lines still attached. In dry sites, the various parts may become separated, making it difficult for archaeologists to determine that certain pieces of stone or metal should have been united with bone or antler to complete a tool. Further, cord, sinew, rawhide thongs and textiles needed to bind pieces of different materials are normally lost

178

CONCLUSIONS: BONE ARTIFACTS AND THEIR IMPORTANCE TO ARCHAEOLOGY – OLSEN

the level of simply lumping all tools with similar overall shape together under a common name, should be honed as much as possible. This can be done in levels, by first noting gross morphology, then tip or edge morphology, and then use wear to attempt to determine the function of certain tool types. Among each group, sub-groups may then be identified, based on the use of a specific element or aspects of the base (e.g. condyle preserved or removed), or some other distinguishing characteristic. According to Choyke and Schibler, the Swiss typological scheme utilizes the following variables for classifying a bone artifact: the size of the animal species, the skeletal element or at least type of skeletal element (long versus flat bone, tooth, specific skeletal element), the form of the tool’s working end, the form of the tool’s butt end, and the position of the hafting hole relative to the long axis of the burr and beam antler tools. Obviously, typological criteria will out of necessity have to be adapted to the collections under study, so they will vary to some extent for different regions, time periods, and cultures.

wear. In most cases, it is easier to state that a tool was used with a particular motion, for example, or on a hard or soft material, than to state unequivocally that it was used on a particular type of material. The chapters by Gates St-Pierre, Buc and Loponte, and van Gijn emphasize the interpretation of wear traces. Gates St-Pierre, Griffitts, and others point to examples in which a single tool appears, on the basis of mixed wear patterns, to have been used for several different purposes on a regular basis. Another interesting situation is what van Gijn refers to as “ad hoc” tools, which are somewhat different from expedient tools in that they are pieces of debitage or parts of bone or antler tools abandoned during manufacture because of a mistake or problem. Instead of throwing the bits away, an otherwise useless discard may be spotted by the craftsperson, collected, and recycled into a tool with little additional work necessary. In older publications, gross morphology often determined the name assigned to bone artifacts. Pointed tools generally were referred to as awls, regardless of their tip diameter, degree of sharpness, or distribution of wear. Gates St-Pierre’s study of microwear on so-called “awls” illustrates just how ambiguous pointed bone tools are. From his work, it is clear that their uses are so varied as to make it unwise to readily attach a label implying function to a pointed bone tool at first glance based solely on its overall shape.

Typological classification is not only a very important aspect of the analysis of any bone artifact collection, it is also the oldest topic in this field. Typologies are based on both form and function. As the “plastic” of prehistory, osseous substances provided suitable material for a wide variety of tools. Certainly, the potentially problematic category of “awl” is ubiquitous around the world. For example, approximately 80% of the assemblage Gates St-Pierre studied could have been labeled as awls. Other objects, such as retouchers, needles, bone tubes, and pendants, also have broad temporal and spatial distributions. However, other tools and ornaments are more culture-specific or can be used more effectively as time markers. It is intriguing to consider the almost limitless forms and functions that are possible for osseous artifacts. Robitaille’s fascinating paper on Oceanic tattooing technology illustrates just how versatile these materials are.

Ideally, archaeological context and association with other artifacts, architectural features, or human remains can provide insight into the proper assigning of a type name to a particular kind of bone artifact. In the American Southwest, large pointed objects, which might otherwise fall under the heading of “awls,” are found around the heads of adult male burials (Olsen 1979; 1980). They are not found in female burials and are only occasionally interred with adolescents. The more prestigious the burial, i.e. the more pots and arrowheads placed with the body, and the older the individual, the more of these artifacts tend to be included in the burial. These are apparently hairpins that might have been used for grooming or holding their long hairstyle together, but clearly they also carried a certain amount of status for the men who wore them. Some were imbedded with turquoise or were ornately incised or painted. Some were made on the femora of the fierce grizzly bear, which was quite rare in Arizona, where they are found. At close inspection, they tend to be larger, more blunted at the tip, and polished over their whole shaft than is the case for tools that experiments show would have been more useful as basketry awls or for piercing hides. In this case, context initially pointed out an alternative function beyond sewing and this led to a closer inspection of the morphology and manufacturing processes that helped to distinguish the type “hairpin.” Based on the clustering of attributes, it then became possible to identify other hairpins that were not necessarily associated with human remains.

Typological classification, if it is to proceed beyond

Bone tubes are simple to make and have proven to

Typology

179

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

replacement of stone tools used for manufacturing bone artifacts with metal bone-working tools and the replacement of bone awls with metal ones, to a lesser extent. She points out, however, that even today sewing tools made of bone can be purchased and have not entirely dropped out of use. She also considers how a changing economy and active trade can impact the demand for certain types of tools. So, for example, as fur trading becomes extremely active, tools for hide processing increase in relative frequency. In Walker’s chapter on the pre- and postcontact osseous and shell artifacts from New York state she observed an increase in ornamentation on artifact surfaces after contact. Anthropomorphic symbols particularly were more frequent. And, perhaps surprisingly, there was an upsurge in the diversity of osseous artifact types between the Late Archaic and the Historic periods. It is clear that major shifts in the economy or contact with outside cultures are reflected in bone artifact assemblages.

be useful for a wide range of functions. The vast majority was made on the thin-walled, lightweight limb bones of birds. Most commonly, they were used as beads through which a thread was strung, pendants or tinklers (if they were hung vertically), containers, and musical instruments. Their uses are quite varied from place to place, even if their morphology may change little. In the American Southwest ones that retained a condyle at one end were sometimes filled with pigment or other substances and then corked at the open end, thus distinguishing them from other types of tubular artifacts. However, if no context or contents shed light on isolated bone tubes, it can be extremely difficult to identify their original function. The Kazakhs today (personal observation) use a tube made from the limb bone of a domestic fowl for a very specific purpose that would not be identifiable in a typical archaeological context where wood preserves poorly. At night, the mother places one end of the bone tube on the tip of the penis of her infant son so that when she places him face down in his crib, the other end of the tube goes through a hole in the mattress and crib and into a jar below. This allows the child to urinate in the middle of the night without wetting the bedding. When the tube is separated from the crib, the jar, and the child, it looks identical to a bead or a whistle. Unfortunately, there will always be some types of artifact that will remain ambiguous as to their function, forcing the analyst to define them solely on the basis of their overall shape, e.g. “bone tube.”

Animals often symbolize certain traits to those who hunt them. The animal’s attributes and its role in a culture’s belief system often influence the selection of that species’ elements for artifacts. So, for example, eagle claws or bear canines might be worn as pendants or carried as amulets because they imply the courage or hunting prowess of the owner, offer protection from evil, or act as clan symbols. Their relative rarity made them valuable trade items and status symbols, even among transient hunters. Artifacts made on rare materials are often carefully curated in secure places (Olsen 2000b, 2003), causing them to be preferentially preserved in the archaeological record compared to faunal material discarded on open-air middens accessible to all the forces of nature.

Cultural Implications The cultural implications of osseous assemblages have often proven to be quite significant. Vanhaeren and d’Errico1 use ornaments from Upper Paleolithic burials to assess social inequality, just as it is possible to see different levels of social status among male burials in the American Southwest using the quantity and ornateness of bone hairpins. As with any other type of artifact, whether stone, pottery, metal, or textile, bone artifacts can signal cultural change and be important indicators of other aspects of society. Robitaille’s observations on the connections between probable tattooing instruments and the distribution of Austronesian languages exemplifies the relevance of bone tools in interpreting cultural connections and diffusion or migration. Emery and Aoyama’s Mayan assemblages show remarkable evidence for cottage industries and division of labor utilizing specialized craftspersons.

Conclusions In conclusion, this volume, with its diverse range of topics, demonstrates the great utility of studying osseous artifacts. It has provided a rich glimpse into this complex subject that should stimulate further research far into the future. The wide range of artifact types, the technology used to manufacture them, and the multitude of their applications discussed here should dispel any doubt as to the value of this discipline for archaeology as a whole. Bone artifacts should no longer be relegated to tables in appendices or superficial descriptions under sub-headings in site reports. Rather, findings based on these collections should be integrated with those of other equally important archaeological evidence to produce the most conclusive, holistic reconstruction of prehistoric societies possible.

Griffitt’s chapter describes quite well the transitions in the American Plains that occur with European contact. These temporal shifts include the

180

CONCLUSIONS: BONE ARTIFACTS AND THEIR IMPORTANCE TO ARCHAEOLOGY – OLSEN

Lyman, R. L. 1994 Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Note 1: As mentioned in the introduction chapter, Vanhaeren and d’Errico’s and Emery and Aoyama’s papers could not be included in this volume.

MacGregor, A. and J. Currey 1983 Mechancial Properties as Conditioning Factors in the Bone and Antler Industry of the 3rd to the 19th Century. Journal Archaeological Science; vol. 10, No 1: 71-77.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the organizers of the symposium from which this volume has been generated for inviting me to participate as a discussant. It is a rare privilege to have the opportunity to review so many fine papers from such a wide range of cultures and time periods. All of these scholars have demonstrated the value of this discipline through their applications far better than my summary can. I look forward to many more advances in our field in the future.

Newcomer, M. H., R. Grace, and R. Unger-Hamilton 1986 Investigating Microwear Polishes with Blind Tests. Journal of Archaeological Science; vol. 13, No 3: 203-217. Olsen, S. L. 1979 A Study of Bone Artifacts from Grasshopper Pueblo, AZ P:14:1. Kiva; vol. 44, No 4: 341-373. 1980 Bone Artifacts from Kinishba Ruin: Their Manufacture and Use. Kiva; vol. 45, No 4: 3967. 1988a Applications of Scanning Electron Microscopy in Archaeology. Advances in Electronics and Electron Physics; vol. 71: 357-380. 1988b The Identification of Stone and Metal Tool Marks on Bone Artifacts. In Scanning Electron Microscopy in Archaeology, ed. S. L. Olsen, 337-360. BAR International Series No 452. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 1989 On Distinguishing Natural from Cultural Damage on Archaeological Antler. Journal of Archaeological Science; vol. 16, No 2: 125-135. 2000a The Bone Artifacts. In Village on the Euphrates: From Foraging to Farming at Abu Hureyra, ed. A. Moore, G. Hillman, and A. Legge, 154-163. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2000b The Upper Paleolithic Bone Industry of Klithi Rock Shelter, Northwest Greece. Annals of Carnegie Museum; vol. 69, No 4: 209-226. 2003 The Exploitation of Horses at Botai, Kazakhstan. In Prehistoric Steppe Adaptation and the Horse, ed. M. Levine, C. Renfrew and K. Boyle, 83-104. McDonald Institute Monographs. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

References Cited Albrecht, G. 1977 Testing of Materials as Used for Bone Points of the Upper Palaeolithic. Méthodologie appliquée à l’industrie de l’os préhistorique, ed. H. CampsFabrer, 119-123. Paris: CNRS. Andrews, P. and J. Cook 1985 Natural Modification to Bones in a Temperate Setting. Man; vol. 20, No 4: 675-691. Arndt, S. L. and M. H. Newcomer 1986 Breakage Patterns on Prehistoric Bone Points: An Experimental Study. In Studies in the Upper Palaeolithic of Britain and Northwest Europe, ed. D. Roe, 165-173. BAR International Series No 296. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Bar-Yosef, O. and E. Tchernov 1970 The Natufian Bone Industry of ha-Yonim Cave. Israel Exploration Journal vol. 20: 141-150. Behrensmeyer, A. K., K. D. Gordon, and G. T. Yanagi 1986 Trampling as a Cause of Bone Surface Damage and Pseudo-Cutmarks. Nature; vol. 319, No 6056: 768-771.

Olsen, S. L. and I. Glover 2004 The Bone Industries of Ulu Leang 1 and Leang Burung 1 Rockshelters, Sulawesi, Indonesia. In Quaternary Research in Southeast Asia, ed. S . Keates and J. Pasveer, 273-300. Rotterdam: Balkema.

d’Errico, F. 1991 Microscopic and Statistical Criteria for the Identification of Prehistoric Systems of Notation. Rock Art Research; vol. 8, No 2: 83-93. Efremov, I. A. 1940 Taphonomy: A New Branch of Paleontology. Pan-American Geologist; vol. 74, No 2: 81-93.

Olsen, S. L. and P. Shipman 1988 Surface Modification on Bone: Trampling vs. Butchery. Journal of Archaeological Science; vol. 15, No 5: 535-553.

Legge, A. J. and P. A. Rowley-Conwy 2000 The Exploitation of Animals. In Village on the Euphrates: From Foraging to Farming at Abu Hureyra, ed. A. Moore, G. Hillman, and A. Legge, 423-471. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Semenov, S. A. 1985 Prehistoric Technology. Totowa (New Jersey): Barnes and Noble Books. Stordeur, D. 1977 La fabrication des aiguilles à chas: observation et expérimentation. In Méthodologie appliquée à

181

BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Thompson, M. W. 1985 Translator’s Preface. In Prehistoric Technology, by S.A. Semenov, ix-xii. Totowa (New Jersey): Barnes and Noble Books.

l’industrie de l’os préhistorique, ed. H. CampsFabrer, 251-256. Paris: CNRS. Stordeur-Yedid, D. 1978 Les aiguilles à chas au Paléolithique. Gallia Préhistorie, Supplément 13. Paris: CNRS.

182