Exploitation of Lithic Raw Material in The Northwestern Caucasus Upper Paleolithic

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 40-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
E.V. Doronicheva ◽  
M.A. Kulkova ◽  
M.S. Shackley
2022 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 100347
Author(s):  
Eiki Suga ◽  
Natsuki Ichinose ◽  
Kazuhiro Tsukada ◽  
Seiji Kadowaki ◽  
Sate Massadeh ◽  
...  

1994 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 498-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth B. Tankersley

Previous morphometric studies have identified variation in fluted-point thickness data but have seldom considered its cultural or technological sources. New data from western and eastern North America suggest that variation in fluted-point thickness results from variability in lithic raw-material selectivity and bifacial-flaking techniques.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. e0256090
Author(s):  
Paola Villa ◽  
Giovanni Boschian ◽  
Luca Pollarolo ◽  
Daniela Saccà ◽  
Fabrizio Marra ◽  
...  

The use of bone as raw material for implements is documented since the Early Pleistocene. Throughout the Early and Middle Pleistocene bone tool shaping was done by percussion flaking, the same technique used for knapping stone artifacts, although bone shaping was rare compared to stone tool flaking. Until recently the generally accepted idea was that early bone technology was essentially immediate and expedient, based on single-stage operations, using available bone fragments of large to medium size animals. Only Upper Paleolithic bone tools would involve several stages of manufacture with clear evidence of primary flaking or breaking of bone to produce the kind of fragments required for different kinds of tools. Our technological and taphonomic analysis of the bone assemblage of Castel di Guido, a Middle Pleistocene site in Italy, now dated by 40Ar/39Ar to about 400 ka, shows that this general idea is inexact. In spite of the fact that the number of bone bifaces at the site had been largely overestimated in previous publications, the number of verified, human-made bone tools is 98. This is the highest number of flaked bone tools made by pre-modern hominids published so far. Moreover the Castel di Guido bone assemblage is characterized by systematic production of standardized blanks (elephant diaphysis fragments) and clear diversity of tool types. Bone smoothers and intermediate pieces prove that some features of Aurignacian technology have roots that go beyond the late Mousterian, back to the Middle Pleistocene. Clearly the Castel di Guido hominids had done the first step in the process of increasing complexity of bone technology. We discuss the reasons why this innovation was not developed. The analysis of the lithic industry is done for comparison with the bone industry.


Author(s):  
Erik Trinkaus ◽  
Alexandra P. Buzhilova ◽  
Maria B. Mednikova ◽  
Maria V. Dobrovolskaya

In addition to the functional, anatomical, and paleopathological reflections of the biology and behavior of the Sunghir humans, it has been possible to make indirect inferences regarding their average dietary profiles. These considerations derive from the mineral compositions of bone samples from Sunghir 1 to 4 (Kozlovskaya 2000d), carbon and nitrogen stable isotope data from the bone collagen of Sunghir 1 to 3 (Richards et al. 2001; Dobrovolskaya et al. 2012), and postcanine buccal microwear for Sunghir 1 to 3 (Pinilla 2012; Pinilla and Trinkaus in press). As noted in chapter 2, the site contained an abundance of large mammal remains, of which the bison, horse, saiga, and especially reindeer remains were undoubtedly brought to the site for human consumption. There was also an abundance of mammoth remains. There has been an ongoing debate as to the extent to which the mammoth remains, found at a number of central and eastern European and Siberian Mid Upper Paleolithic (MUP) sites, reflect human consumption, are largely incidental to the human presence having accumulating along the banks of gullies and streams, and/or were gathered from the landscape for use as raw material and even fuel (e.g., Soffer 1985; Derevianko et al. 2000; Svoboda et al. 2005; Wojtal and Wilczyński 2013). Systematic taphonomic analysis of the Sunghir faunal assemblage has not been undertaken, but Bader (1978) did notice the differential presence of mammoth skeletal elements at Sunghir, suggesting differential transport of body portions presumably for human consumption. Moreover, the mammoth bones were distributed through the cultural layer and apparently did not exist as a bone accumulation on the periphery of the site. At the same time, the faunal profile of the cultural layer contained a diversity of carnivores, of which the cave lions, wolves, and possibly brown bears could have been partially responsible for some of the herbivore remains at the site. It is possible that humans were hunting and eating the bears, given occasional cutmarks on bear bones at other MUP sites (Wojtal 2000; Münzel and Conard 2004).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document