Traceological Analysis of Bone Artifacts in Archeology
https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2019-21-3-574-584
Abstract
The paper features the problems of traceological analysis of ancient artifacts made from animal bones. The exceptional importance of bone objects as an archaeological source cannot be overestimated. The authors studied Russian and foreign scientific literature and summarized their own experience of trace examination of bone artifacts from Bronze Age monuments of the forest-steppe Altai. The paper describes some methodological problems that arise during trace examination of archaeological bone collections. It studies the material, technological, functional, and taxonomic features of macro- and micro-surfaces of bone artifacts that make the examination different from analysis of stone artifacts and have to be taken into account. The leading factor is the raw material features of the bone. They cause an accelerated process of formation and destruction of traces on the surface of tools and products, the possibility of using bone material in various physical states, as well as the presence of deformations and traces of a natural (biological) nature. The authors challenge the thesis that the method applied to trace examination of stone objects can be transferred to bone tools and products. They declare that bone artifacts require specialized methods and techniques.
About the Author
I. A. Valkov
Altai State University
Russian Federation
61, Lenina Ave., Barnaul, 656049
Russian Federation
61, Lenina Ave., Barnaul, 656049
References
1. Semenov S. A. Primitive technology (the experience of studying working traces on ancient tools). Moscow, Leningrad: Izdvo AN SSSR, 1957, 240. (In Russ.)
2. Alvarez M., Mansur M. E., Pal N. Experiments in bone technology: a methodological approach to functional analysis on bone tools. Traceology today. Methodological issues in the Old World and the Americas: Proc. XVI UISPP World Congress. British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 2014, 2643, 19–26.
3. Borodovskii A. P. Ancient bone carving industry in the south of Western Siberia. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SO RAN, 1997, 224. (In Russ.)
4. Girya E. Yu. Kostenki's Paleolithic site (upper layer) as a supporting monument and source base for the development of an trace examenation methodology in Russian archeology. Ancient cultures of Eastern Europe: reference monuments and supporting complexes in the context of modern archaeological research. Zamyatinsky collection, ed. Khlopachev G. A. Saint-Petersburg: MAE RAN, 2015, iss. 4, 60–102. (In Russ.)
5. Girya E. Yu. Traces as a kind of archaeological source (outline of unpublished lectures). Traces in history. To the 75th anniversary of Vyacheslav E. Schelinsky, eds. Lozovskii V. M., Lozovskaia O. V., Girya E. Yu. Saint-Petersburg: IIMK RAN, 2015, 232–268. (In Russ.)
6. Semenov S. A. Bone digging tools from the Palaeolithic sites Eliseevich and Pushkari I. Sovetskaia arkheologiia, 1952, (XVI): 120–128. (In Russ.)
7. Semenov S. A. On the appointment of "skates" and bones with cuts from Sarkel – Belaya Vezha. Reports of the Volga-Don Archeological Expedition. Moscow-Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1959, vol. II, 353–361. (In Russ.)
8. Korobkova G. F., Sharovskaya T. A. Stone age bone tools (diagnostics of wear traces on the basis of archaeological and experimental evidence). Arkheologicheskie vesti, 2001, (8): 88–98. (In Russ.)
9. Krasil'nikov K. I. Bone products from Saltov culture. Sovetskaia arkheologia, 1979, (2): 77–91. (In Russ.)
10. Kileinikov V. V. Labor tools of the Lukyanovka late Bronze Age settlement. Problems of the archaeological study of the DonVolga forest-steppe, ed. Siniuk A. T. Voronezh: VGPI, 1989, 119–126. (In Russ.)
11. Kileinikov V. V. Processing of hides and skin tanning by the population of the Bronze Age in the forest-steppe Don region. Archeology of the Eastern European forest-steppe. Voronezh: Izd-vo Voronezhskogo gos. un-ta, 2009, 96–113. (In Russ.)
12. Korobkova G. F., Shchelinskii V. E. The method of micro-macroanalysis of ancient labor instruments. Saint-Petersburg: IIMK RAN, 1996, Part 1., 80. (In Russ.)
13. Borodovskii A. P. Ancient carved horn of Southern Siberia (the epoch of paleometal). Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAET SO RAN, 2007, 176. (In Russ.)
14. Zhilin M. G. Bone industry of the Mesolithic forest zone of Eastern Europe. Moscow: URSS, 2001, 326. (In Russ.)
15. Zhilin M. G. Continuity and transformations in the development of the bone industry of the Butovo culture. Moscow: IA RAN, 2014, 299. (In Russ.)
16. Girya E. Yu. Engravings on the walrus tusk from the Rurik settlement: comparative trace analysis. Arms and art of bone in the ancient cultures of Northern Eurasia (technological and functional aspects). Zamyatinsky collection, ed. Khlopachev G. A. SaintPetersburg: Nauka, 2011, iss. 2, 219–249. (In Russ.)
17. Clemente Conte I., Girya E. Yu. L'analyse des outils des cotes d'elan de Zamostje 2 (la septieme couche, la fouilles 1996–1997 annees). Arkheologicheskie vesti, 2003, (10): 47–59. (In Russ.)
18. Girya E. Yu., Maigrot Y., Clemente Conte I., Lozovskii V. M., Lozovskaya O. V. Trace examination of bone fishing hooks from Zamost'e 2 (Mesolithic and Neolithic epochs of the central part of the Russian Plain). Zamost'e 2. Lake settlement of ancient anglers of the Mesolithic-Neolithic era in the Upper Volga basin, eds. Lozovskii V. M., Lozovskaia O. V., Clemente Conte I., Saint-Petersburg: IIMK RAN, 2013, 110–117. (In Russ.)
19. Akhmetgaleeva N. B. Stone Age of Poseymya: Upper Paleolithic site Byki-7. Kursk: Mechta, 2015, 254. (In Russ.)
20. Skochina S. N. Koshkino bone and horn artifacts from Mergen-6. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, 2010, (2): 25–36. (In Russ.)
21. Semenov S. A. Prehistoric Technology. N. Y.: Barnes and Noble, 1964, 211.
22. Campana D. V. Natufian and Protoneolithic bone tools: The Manufacture and Use of Bone Implements in the Zagros and the Levant. British Archaeological Reports, International Series. Oxford, 1989, vol. 494, 156.
23. Choyke A. M. An analysis of bone, antler and tooth tools from Bronze Age Hungary. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1984, (12–13):13–57.
24. Stemp W. J., Watson A. S., Evans A. A. Topical review: Surface analysis of stone and bone tools. Surface Topography: Metrology and Properties, 2016, (4): 1–25.
25. Maigrot Y. Tracéologie des outils tranchants en os des Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-C. en Bassin Parisien. Essai méthodologique et application. Bulletin de la Societe Prehitorique Francaise, 1997, (94): 198–216.
26. LeMoine G. M. Use wear on bone and antler tools from the Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories. American Antiquity, 1994, (59): 316–334.
27. D'Errico F. Criteria for identifying utilised bone: The case of the Cantabrian "tensors". Current Anthropology, 1993, 34(3): 298–311.
28. Evora M. A. Use-wear methodology on the Analysis of Osseous Industries. Use-Wear and Residue Analysis in Archaeology, 2015: 159–170.
29. Bradfield J. Use-trace analysis of bone tools: a brief overview of four methodological approaches. South African Archaeological Bulletin, 2015, (70): 3–14.
30. Usachuk A. N. The results of the analysis of bone products from the logging settlement Kapitanovo-I. Don-Donetsk region in the system of antiquities of the Bronze Age of the Eastern European steppe and forest-steppe: Proc. Conf. Voronezh, 1996, iss. 2, 60–63. (In Russ.)
31. Usachuk A. N. Bone products of the Mouth I settlement. Ancient Ustye: a fortified settlement of the Bronze Age in the Southern Trans-Urals, ed. Vinogradov N. B. Chelyabinsk: Abris, 2013, 331–362. (In Russ.)
32. Pankovskii V. B. Kіstiana і rogova іndustrіia z poselennia sabatinіvskoi kulturi novogrigorіvka. Materіali ta doslіdzhennia z arkheologіi Skhіdnoi Ukraini. Vіd neolіtu do kіmmerіitsіv. Lugansk, 2007, iss. 7, 234–243. (In Jukr.)
33. Pankovskii V. B. Structural and raw materials and investigative examination of bone and horn objects from the Glinoe burial ground. Telnov N. P., Chetverikov I. A., Sinika V. S. Scythian burial ground III–II centuries. BC. at s. Glinoe. Tiraspol': Stratum plus, 2016, 1003–1038. (In Russ.)
34. Semenov S. A. Bone processing technique in the Paleolithic. Proceedings of the Commission for the study of the Quaternary. Moscow: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1957, vol. 13, 366–373. (In Russ.)
35. Sorokin A. N. The Question of the Specificity of Bone and Horn Tools as Archaeological Sources. Izvestiia Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia: Geoarkheologiia. Etnologiia. Antropologiia, 2014, (7): 37–53. (In Russ.)
36. Legrand A., Sidéra I. Methods, Means, and Results when Studying European Bone Industries. Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 2007, (1622): 67–79.
37. Pankovskiy V. B., Girya E. Yu., Sablin M. V. Discrimination between prehistoric artworks and naturally modified faunal remains in the light of traceological studies. Stratum plus. Arkheologiia i kulturnaia antropologiia, 2015, (1): 169–184. (In Russ.)
38. Grushin S. P., Valkov I. A. Peculiarities of manufacturing and using bone tools for tanning purposes by Eluninsky culture population. Izvestiya Altaiskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2014, (4-2): 68–73. (In Russ.)
39. Filippov A. K. Problems of technical shaping of labor tools in the Paleolithic. Production technology in the Paleolithic era, ed. Rogachev A. N. Leningrad: Nauka, 1983, 9–71. (In Russ.)
40. Khlopachev G. A., Girya E. Yu. Secrets of ancient bone carvers of Eastern Europe and Siberia: methods of processing the mammoth's tusk and reindeer antlers (according to archaeological and experimental data). Saint-Petersburg: Nauka, 2010, 144. (In Russ.)
41. Fedoruk A. S., Valkov I. A. Tools of tanning production of Zharkovo-3 Settlement. Izvestiia Altaiskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2015, (4-2): 229–234. (In Russ.)
42. Valkov I. A., Fedoruk A. S. On the functional purpose of bone skates. Preservation and study of the cultural heritage of the Altai Territory, eds. Tishkin A. A., Semibratov V. P. Barnaul: Izd-vo Alt. un-ta, 2017, iss. XXIII, 60–64. (In Russ.)
43. Cristiani E., Alhaique F. Flint vs. metal: the manufacture of bone tools at the Eneolithic site of Conelle di Arcevia (Central Italy). From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth – Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present. Tallinn, 2005, 397–403.
44. Valkov I. A. Features of the topography of traces of processing and disposal of bone punctures (according to the materials of the settlement Berezovaya Luka). Interdisciplinary study of archeology of Western Siberia and Altai. Barnaul: Izd-vo Alt. un-ta, 2014, 10–11. (In Russ.)
45. Buc N., Loponte D. Bone Tool Types and Microwear Patterns: Some Examples from the Pampa Region, South America. Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies, eds. St-Pierre C. Gates, Walker R. B. British Archaeological Reports, 2007, vol. 1622, 143–157.
Review
For citations:
Valkov I.A. Traceological Analysis of Bone Artifacts in Archeology. The Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. 2019;21(3):574-584. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2019-21-3-574-584
Views:
614
Email this article 