How many different ways do you have to change a bone

How many different ways do you have to change a bone into an utensil
Marina Almeida Évora NAP University of Algarve · UNIARQ · FCT Portugal / [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
The archaeological site of Vale Boi was discovered in 1998
during a survey project A Ocupação Humana Paleolítica do
Algarve between 1996-2000, directed by Nuno F. Bicho from
the University of Algarve, Portugal. The site is located near
Cape São Vicente, Southwestern Algarve (Fig.1) and present
a rich diachronic sequence from the Early Gravettian (c.28ka)
to the Late Neolithic (c.6ka). In terms of osseous industry,
Vale Boi is the richest site in Portugal so far. It presents
organic artefacts from Gravettian and Solutrean levels, made
from mammal bone and red deer antler. During the last
decade, the archaeological site of Vale Boi has provided
important new data for the chrono-stratigraphic
reconstruction of the Upper Paleolithic sequence in
Southwestern Iberia (Bicho et al. 2010).
Antler was used to produce projectile points and is also found
in small knapped fragments, but until now no pedicle was
recovered and this would indicate us if the antler used here
was collected in the wild or caught by hunting of male red
deer. Mammal bone was frequently used in the production of
bone tools, including also projectile points. In addition, some
red deer metacarpals were found with percussion marks made
with a wedge. Nevertheless, the bone tools are quite
fragmented. The preserved fragments found so far are mostly
mesial parts of the artefacts, and this makes it difficult to take
conclusions on the mophology of some utensils, but there are
some bone points and fragments of bone tools that broke up
during its use. This was observed through the kind of
fractures that are mostly oblique, and tongue and saw shaped
(Bertrand 1999, Pétillon 2006)
The debitage methods registered until now in Vale Boi bone
industry are direct percussion, segmentation followed by
flexion and bipartition with a wedge.
In Upper Paleolithic archaeological sites from Portugal, bone
industry is scarce when compared with other archaeological
sites located in Cantabria (Northeast Spain) or Southern
France. One reason for this situation may be due to the older
methods of archaeological excavation, housing and sorting of
materials. It is known that sometimes artifacts were selected
during field work and then again in the museums where they
were deposited, where smaller fragments and splinters (of
bone or stone) were discarded (Marks et al 1994). This
situations lead to bias in the faunal assemblages, already
identified by others authors (Manne 2010). Another reason is
likely that techno-cultural patterns could lead to a conscious
choice of the hunter-gatherer groups for another raw material
such as wood or stone. This means less time and energy
consuming to acquire and shorter production time than bone
or antler (Évora 2008, Évora in press). In the case of Vale
Boi site, the bone preservation issue is unlikely, since faunal
remains are very well preserved (Manne 2010), where hard
animal technology is commonly present from the Early
Gravettian to Solutrean times. In the future these data may
help to better understand the bone tool technology in southern
Iberia.
Fig. 3. Bipartition of bone using a wedge
Fig. 1. Vale Boi site location
LITERATURE CITED
MATERIALS & METHODS
Fig. 5. Segmentation of antler tines
The technological analysis is ongoing, it’s methodology is
based on the work of Averbouh (2000), Pétillon (2006),
Goutas (2005), Knecht (1991), Bertrand (1999) and D'Errico
(1984, 1985, 1986a, 1986b). Observations were made with
the naked eye and also using a binocular microscope at
magnifications ranging from 10x and 40x (Blumenshine et al
1996, Dominguéz-Rodrigo et al 2009, Évora 2008). Surface
analysis was also carried out to exclude taphonomical
modifications resulted by roots, carnivores teeth, weathering
and trampling and also fragmentation due to the sediments.
Until now, the sample is composed of
61 artifacts
(fragments, completed tools and debitage debris) from the
Gravettian and Solutrean layers.
Gravettian n= 13
Gravettian n= 11
Solutrean n= 11
Solutrean n= 19
Fig. 4. Direct percussion, scraping and
abrasion of mammal bone
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Fig. 2.
number of artefacts
per
raw
material
(indeterminate n= 7)
AVERBOUH (2000). Technologie de la matière osseuse travaillée et implications palethnologiques. L’exemple des
chaines d’exploitation du bois de Cervidé chez les Magdaléniens des Pyrénées, Thèse de doctorat, Université de
Paris I, 2 volumes
BERTRAND, A. (1999) Les Armatures de sagaies magdaléniennes en matière dure animale dans les Pyrénées, BAR
International Series 773
BICHO, N., GIBAJA, J. F., STINER, M., Manne, T. (2010) Le paléolithique supérieur au sud du Portugal : le site de
Vale Boi, L’anthropologie 114, pp. 48–67
BLUMENSCHINE, R. J., MAREAN, C. W., CAPALDO, S. D. (1996) Blind Tests of Inter-analyst Correspondence and
Accuracy in the Identification of Cut Marks, Percussion Marks, and Carnivore Tooth Marks on Bone Surfaces, Journal
of Archaeological Science 23, pp. 493–507
DOMÍNGOS-RODRIGO, M. JUANA,S., GALÁN, A.B., RODRÍGUES, M.(2009) A new protocol to differentiate
trampling marks from butchery cut marks, Journal of Archaeological Science 36, pp. 2643–2654
D’ERRICO, F., GIACOBINI, G., PUECH, P.-F. (1984) – Varnish Replicas: A New Method for the Study of Worked
Bone Surfaces, OSSA, vol 9-11, pp. 29-51
D’ERRICO, F., GIACOBINI, G. (1985) – Approche méthodologique de l’analyse de l’outillage osseux, un exemple
d’étude, L’Anthropologie, Tome 89, nº 4, pp. 457-472, Paris
D’ERRICO, F, GIACOBINI, G. (1986a) – L’emploi des répliques en vernis pour l’étude de surface des pseudoinstruments en os, Artefacts 2, pp. 57-68
D’ERRICO, F., ESPINET-MOUCADEL, J. (1986b) – L’emploi du microscope électronique à balayage pour l’étude
expérimentale de traces d’usure: raclage sur bois de cervidé, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, Tome 83,
nº 3, pp. 91-96
ÉVORA, M. A. (2008) Artefactos em haste e em osso do Paleolítico Superior Português, Promontória, vol 6, pp. 9-50
ÉVORA, M. A. (in press) Raw material used in the manufacture of osseous artefacts during the Upper Paleolithic in
Portugal, From These Bare Bones: Raw materials and the study of worked osseous materials, edited by Dr Alice M.
Choyke and Dr Sonia O’Connor, Oxbow Books, Oxford, UK
GOUTAS, N. (2005) – Caractérisation et Evolution du Gravettien en France par l’approche techno-économique des
industries en matières dures animales (étude de six gisements du Sud-Ouest), Thèse de doctorat, Université de Paris
I – Pantheon – Sorbonne, 2 volumes
KNECHT, H. D. (1991) – Technological innovation and design during the Early Upper Paleolithic: A study of organic
projectile technologies, Doctoral Dissertation, New York University, Doctoral Dissertation, UMI Dissertation Services,
Michigan, USA
MANNE, T (2010) Upper Paleolithic foraging decisions and early economic intensification at Vale Boi, Southwestern
Portugal. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, School of Anthropology, University of Arizona, USA
MARKS, A. E., BICHO, N., ZILHÃO, J., FERRING, C. R. (1994) – Upper Pleistocene prehistory in Portuguese
Estremadura: results of preliminary research, Journal of Field Archaeology, vol. 21, nº 1, pp. 53-68
PÉTILLON, J.-M. (2006) Des magdaléniens en armes. Technologie des armatures de projectile en bois de cervidé du
Magdalénien Superieur de la Grotte d’Isturitz Pyrénées-Atlantiques), Artefacts 10, Editions du CEDARC
Fig. 6. Scraping with retouched lithic tool
To Prof. Doutor Nuno F. Bicho.
Funded by a PhD grant and a research
grant from Fundação para a Ciência e a
Tecnologia, Portugal and National
Geographic Society.