The use of bone retouchers in a Mousterian context of Discoid lithic technology

Martellotta, Eva Francesca; Delpiano, Davide; Govoni, Maurizio; Nannini, Nicola; Duches, Rossella; Peresani, Marco

doi:10.1007/s12520-020-01155-6

Cited by 17 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although direct percussion remains the predominant shaping technique, its application aims to produce long cutting edges rather then pointed objects. Second, the behavioural standardization illustrated at Lingjing is comparable to a similar trend documented in Europe for the manufacture and use of bone retouchers (Daujeard et al, 2014;Costamagno et al, 2018;Martellotta et al, 2020). The same is true for the tool types found at Lingjing, which bears numerous resemblances with those found at Schöningen for instance (Julien et al, 2015;Bonhof and van Kolfschoten, 2021).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Animals for Tools: The Origin and Development of Bone Technologies in China

Doyon

2021

Front. Earth Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The origin and development of bone technologies in China are reviewed in the light of recent discoveries and compared to trends emerging from the European and African archaeological records. Three categories of osseous tools are targeted: 1) unmodified bone fragments bearing traces of use in technological activities; 2) bone fragments modified to a variable extent with techniques generally used in stone technologies; 3) osseous fragments entirely shaped with techniques fit for the manufacture of formal bone tools. Early evidence of bone technologies in China are sporadically found in contexts dated between 1.8 and 1.0 Ma. By the late MIS6–early MIS5, bone tools are well-integrated in the technological systems of Pleistocene populations and the rules guiding their use appear increasingly standardized. In addition, the first evidence for the use of osseous material in symbolic activities emerges in the archaeological record during this period. Finally, between 40 and 35 ka, new manufacturing techniques and products are introduced in Late Palaeolithic technological systems. It is first apparent in the manufacture of personal ornaments, and followed by the production and diversification of formal bone tools. By that time, population dynamics seem to become materialized in these items of material culture. Despite regional specificities, the cultural trajectories identified for the evolution of bone technologies in China seem entirely comparable to those observed in other regions of the world.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Animals for Tools: The Origin and Development of Bone Technologies in China

Doyon

2021

Front. Earth Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the main reasons behind the creation of linear rather than punctiform impressions still need to be investigated [see discussions in 31 , 32 ]. On this topic, our microscopic analysis of use areas on boomerangs revealed a new element regarding the formation of impact traces, which appears to be related to the morphology of microscopic flint chips penetrating the working surface of the retouchers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This topic is often overlooked, and case studies comparing bone retouchers and lithic tools from the same context are rare. However, a pattern emerges when these aspects are compared, suggesting that lightly used bone retouchers are associated with assemblages containing a low number of retouched lithic tools [ 30 , 31 , 52 ]. In contrast, sites with numerous intensively utilised bone retouchers usually contain more retouched lithic flakes [ 31 , 53 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, a pattern emerges when these aspects are compared, suggesting that lightly used bone retouchers are associated with assemblages containing a low number of retouched lithic tools [ 30 , 31 , 52 ]. In contrast, sites with numerous intensively utilised bone retouchers usually contain more retouched lithic flakes [ 31 , 53 ]. Investigating new ways to reveal the relationship between retouched flakes and retouchers’ traceology, therefore, deserves more thorough attention in archaeological studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beyond the main function: An experimental study of the use of hardwood boomerangs in retouching activities

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retouched lithic tools result from the functional modification of their edges following knapping operations. The study of the later stages of the reduction sequence is fundamental to understanding the techno-functional features of any toolkit. In Australia, a gap exists in the study of the chaîne opératoire of lithic tools shaped or re-shaped through percussion retouching. In our previous works (Martellotta EF., 2021, Martellotta EF., 2022), we have presented evidence for the use of hardwood boomerangs for retouching purposes in Australian Aboriginal communities. Through a detailed experimental protocol, the present study demonstrates how boomerangs can function as retouchers. We found that the use-wear generated on the boomerang’s surface during retouch activity is comparable to retouch-induced impact traces observed on Palaeolithic bone retouchers, as well as to experimental bone retouchers generated in our replication experiments. Finally, we explore the role that microscopic lithic chips embedded in the retouchers’ surface play in the formation process of retouching marks. Our results address the need for a deeper investigation of percussion retouching techniques in Australian contexts, opening the possibility that uncommon objects—such as boomerangs—could be used for this task. This concept also highlights the broader topic of the highly diverse multipurpose application of many Indigenous tools throughout Australia. At the same time, the study reveals a deep functional connection between osseous and wooden objects—a topic rarely investigated in archaeological contexts.

show abstract

“…The earliest known instances of these tool types date back to 2.1–1.5 Myr at Olduvai Gorge, Africa [ 7 ], to MIS18 (Marine Isotopic Stage) at Gesher Benot Ya’aqov in the Levant [ 29 ], MIS13 at Boxgrove in Europe [ 30 ] and MIS5 at Lingjing in East Asia [ 31 , 32 ]. From MIS9, bone retouchers become an integral part of the cultural repertoire of Neanderthals [ 33 – 38 ] and reach during MIS5 a high degree of standardization [ 36 , 39 , 40 ]. Possible expedient tool types also include long bone shaft fragments with one or more edges modified by blows that generated flake scars present on the cortical and/or the medullar surface of the bone.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A 115,000-year-old expedient bone technology at Lingjing, Henan, China

Doyon

Wang

et al. 2021

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Activities attested since at least 2.6 Myr, such as stone knapping, marrow extraction, and woodworking may have allowed early hominins to recognize the technological potential of discarded skeletal remains and equipped them with a transferable skillset fit for the marginal modification and utilization of bone flakes. Identifying precisely when and where expedient bone tools were used in prehistory nonetheless remains a challenging task owing to the multiple natural and anthropogenic processes that can mimic deliberately knapped bones. Here, we compare a large sample of the faunal remains from Lingjing, a 115 ka-old site from China which has yielded important hominin remains and rich faunal and lithic assemblages, with bone fragments produced by experimentally fracturing Equus caballus long bones. Our results provide a set of qualitative and quantitative criteria that can help zooarchaeologists and bone technologists distinguish faunal remains with intentional flake removal scars from those resulting from carcass processing activities. Experimental data shows marrow extraction seldom generates diaphyseal fragments bearing more than six flake scars arranged contiguously or in interspersed series. Long bone fragments presenting such characteristics can, therefore, be interpreted as being purposefully knapped to be used as expediency tools. The identification, based on the above experimental criteria, of 56 bone tools in the Lingjing faunal assemblage is consistent with the smaller size of the lithics found in the same layer. The continuity gradient observed in the size of lithics and knapped bones suggests the latter were used for tasks in which the former were less or not effective.

show abstract

The use of bone retouchers in a Mousterian context of Discoid lithic technology

Cited by 17 publications

References 40 publications

Animals for Tools: The Origin and Development of Bone Technologies in China

Animals for Tools: The Origin and Development of Bone Technologies in China

Beyond the main function: An experimental study of the use of hardwood boomerangs in retouching activities

A 115,000-year-old expedient bone technology at Lingjing, Henan, China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About