7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Identification and quantification of projectile impact marks on bone: new experimental insights using osseous points

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Shifts in projectile technology potentially document human evolutionary milestones, such as adaptations for different environments and settlement dynamics. A relatively direct proxy for projectile technology is projectile impact marks (PIM) on archaeological bones. Increasing awareness and publication of experimental data sets have recently led to more identifications of PIM in various contexts, but diagnosing PIM from other types of bone-surface modifications, quantifying them, and inferring point size and material from the bone lesions need more substantiation. Here, we focus on PIM created by osseous projectiles, asking whether these could be effectively identified and separated from lithic-tipped weapons. We further discuss the basic question raised by recent PIM research in zooarchaeology: why PIM evidence is so rare in archaeofaunal assemblages (compared to other human-induced marks), even when they are explicitly sought. We present the experimental results of shooting two ungulate carcasses with bone and antler points, replicating those used in the early Upper Paleolithic of western Eurasia. Half of our hits resulted in PIM, confirming that this modification may have been originally abundant. However, we found that the probability of a skeletal element to be modified with PIM negatively correlates with its preservation potential, and that much of the produced bone damage would not be identifiable in a typical Paleolithic faunal assemblage. This quantification problem still leaves room for an insightful qualitative study of PIM. We complement previous research in presenting several diagnostic marks that retain preservation potential and may be used to suggest osseous, rather than lithic, projectile technology.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12520-024-01944-3.

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The revolution that wasn't: a new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior.

          Proponents of the model known as the "human revolution" claim that modern human behaviors arose suddenly, and nearly simultaneously, throughout the Old World ca. 40-50 ka. This fundamental behavioral shift is purported to signal a cognitive advance, a possible reorganization of the brain, and the origin of language. Because the earliest modern human fossils, Homo sapiens sensu stricto, are found in Africa and the adjacent region of the Levant at >100 ka, the "human revolution" model creates a time lag between the appearance of anatomical modernity and perceived behavioral modernity, and creates the impression that the earliest modern Africans were behaviorally primitive. This view of events stems from a profound Eurocentric bias and a failure to appreciate the depth and breadth of the African archaeological record. In fact, many of the components of the "human revolution" claimed to appear at 40-50 ka are found in the African Middle Stone Age tens of thousands of years earlier. These features include blade and microlithic technology, bone tools, increased geographic range, specialized hunting, the use of aquatic resources, long distance trade, systematic processing and use of pigment, and art and decoration. These items do not occur suddenly together as predicted by the "human revolution" model, but at sites that are widely separated in space and time. This suggests a gradual assembling of the package of modern human behaviors in Africa, and its later export to other regions of the Old World. The African Middle and early Late Pleistocene hominid fossil record is fairly continuous and in it can be recognized a number of probably distinct species that provide plausible ancestors for H. sapiens. The appearance of Middle Stone Age technology and the first signs of modern behavior coincide with the appearance of fossils that have been attributed to H. helmei, suggesting the behavior of H. helmei is distinct from that of earlier hominid species and quite similar to that of modern people. If on anatomical and behavioral grounds H. helmei is sunk into H. sapiens, the origin of our species is linked with the appearance of Middle Stone Age technology at 250-300 ka. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Blind Tests of Inter-analyst Correspondence and Accuracy in the Identification of Cut Marks, Percussion Marks, and Carnivore Tooth Marks on Bone Surfaces

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Evidence for early hafted hunting technology.

              Hafting stone points to spears was an important advance in weaponry for early humans. Multiple lines of evidence indicate that ~500,000-year-old stone points from the archaeological site of Kathu Pan 1 (KP1), South Africa, functioned as spear tips. KP1 points exhibit fracture types diagnostic of impact. Modification near the base of some points is consistent with hafting. Experimental and metric data indicate that the points could function well as spear tips. Shape analysis demonstrates that the smaller retouched points are as symmetrical as larger retouched points, which fits expectations for spear tips. The distribution of edge damage is similar to that in an experimental sample of spear tips and is inconsistent with expectations for cutting or scraping tools. Thus, early humans were manufacturing hafted multicomponent tools ~200,000 years earlier than previously thought.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                ryeshuru@research.haifa.ac.il
                Journal
                Archaeol Anthropol Sci
                Archaeol Anthropol Sci
                Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                1866-9557
                1866-9565
                23 February 2024
                23 February 2024
                2024
                : 16
                : 3
                : 43
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Zinman Institute of Archaeology and School of Archaeology and Maritime Cultures, University of Haifa, ( https://ror.org/02f009v59) Mt. Carmel, 3103301 Haifa, Israel
                [2 ]UMR5199 PACEA, Université de Bordeaux, MCC, CNRS, ( https://ror.org/057qpr032) 33615 Pessac CEDEX, France
                [3 ]Seminari d’Estudis I Recerques Prehistòriques (SERP), University of Barcelona, ( https://ror.org/021018s57) Barcelona, Spain
                [4 ]Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Vienna, ( https://ror.org/03prydq77) Vienna, Austria
                [5 ]Human Evolution and Archeological Sciences (HEAS), University of Vienna, ( https://ror.org/03prydq77) Vienna, Austria
                [6 ]Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology, Department of Geosciences, University of Tübingen, ( https://ror.org/03a1kwz48) Tübingen, Germany
                [7 ]Ice Age Studio Hohle Fels, Schelklingen, Germany
                [8 ]Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology, Department of Geosciences, University of Tübingen, ( https://ror.org/03a1kwz48) Tübingen, Germany
                [9 ]Senckenberg Centre for Human Evolution and Palaeoenvironment (SHEP), ( https://ror.org/005pfhc08) Tübingen, Germany
                Article
                1944
                10.1007/s12520-024-01944-3
                10884158
                9d65278e-6c7e-4286-8f0e-209e54c23ef1
                © The Author(s) 2024

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 5 December 2023
                : 6 February 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: the University of Bordeaux's IdEx "Investments for the Future" program / GPR "Human Past"
                Award ID: AAP n˚4 - SaFlèch
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002428, Austrian Science Fund;
                Award ID: M3112
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100005966, Leakey Foundation;
                Award ID: S202210320
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: University of Haifa
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2024

                osseous points,taphonomy,zooarchaeology,paleolithic hunting,projectile impact marks (pim),experimental archaeology

                Comments

                Comment on this article