1998
DOI: 10.1006/jasc.1998.0300
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Clues to Stone Tool Function Re-examined: Comparing Starch Grain Frequencies on Used and Unused Obsidian Artefacts

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
107
0
6

Year Published

1999
1999
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 130 publications
(116 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
3
107
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, microfossil studies on lithic instruments (Piperno and Holst, 1998;Piperno et al, 2000;Barton et al, 1998) reported much lower concentrations of starch than we found in the human teeth. Besides that, the number of phytoliths found in both our teeth samples was lower than that observed in samples from individuals of the late Roman period (Fox et al, 1996), in teeth of an extinct ape (Ciochon et al, 1990) and in herbivore teeth (Middleton and Rovner, 1994).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 43%
“…In addition, microfossil studies on lithic instruments (Piperno and Holst, 1998;Piperno et al, 2000;Barton et al, 1998) reported much lower concentrations of starch than we found in the human teeth. Besides that, the number of phytoliths found in both our teeth samples was lower than that observed in samples from individuals of the late Roman period (Fox et al, 1996), in teeth of an extinct ape (Ciochon et al, 1990) and in herbivore teeth (Middleton and Rovner, 1994).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 43%
“…Second, we used multiple lines of control samples (30)(31)(32) to test whether the tools were the primary source of starch grains, rather than random contamination. Although we cannot rule out the possibility that some of the starch discovered on the stones comes from redeposition unrelated to use (e.g., background starch derived from roots coming in contact with the stone over hundreds of years), the differential preservation of starch granules on the stone specimens compared with that in their surrounding free-standing matrix indicates that a large part of the assemblage is genuine prehistoric residue (30)(31)(32). Third, for all examiners to propose potential identification for the grains, we worked with a reference collection that included not just the five nut species known to be cracked by chimpanzees, but also two other types of starch-producing plants typically used by human foragers in the African rainforest.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If so, this may represent direct evidence for both ancient plant usage and stone function. To test this proposition, our research design followed field and laboratory protocols used by numerous researchers in the study of ancient starch grains throughout the world (see Materials and Methods) (27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33). Once all examiners achieved a reasonable familiarity with the reference collection, we asked two examiners (H.B.…”
Section: Starch Residues As Direct Evidence For Nut-crackingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite the taphonomic challenges for starch preservation, preliminary starch analyses of archaeological stone artefacts have shown that starch can survive for long time periods without obvious protection from enzymatic attack (Atchison and Fullagar 1998;Fullagar 2006;Haslam 2005;Piperno and Holst 1998). There is often a greater abundance of starch on artefacts than in surrounding sediments and soils (Barton et al 1998). Little is known about the taphonomic processes that may occur within the cavities and pores on stone tool surfaces.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%