Cycles d’utilisation et réutilisations : le cas des outils en matières dures animales de Chalain 4

Maigrot, Yolaine

doi:10.4000/pm.191

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Manufacturing traces were observed with the naked eye and using a low magnification (up to 20x), and only selected items were studied with a magnification up to 45x. 1 Analytical criteria for interpretation were established based on the published data from different authors (Christidou, , 2001Legrand, 2007;Legrand and Radi, 2008;Maigrot, 2003;Mǎrgǎrit et al eds. 2014;Mǎrgǎrit et al, 2018;Newcomer, 1974;Ramseyer, ed., 2004;Semenov 1976;Sidéra, 1993Sidéra, , 2005.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone technology in the Late Neolithic Vinča culture: Manufacturing pointed tools

Vitezović

2023

Quaternary International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone technology in the Late Neolithic Vinča culture: Manufacturing pointed tools

Vitezović

2023

Quaternary International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…They are now at the heart of any lithic study, which is not yet the case for bone tools, whose remains are less numerous and more altered. Transfer from lithic to bone has been the most common methodological approach, both for the technological studies, with regard to sequencing of manufacturing operations [76][77][78][79][80][81][82], and for the use-wear analyses, with regard to the microscopic scale of examination [83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91]. However, it only concerned assemblages where the recognition of the artefacts, typologically established, did not constitute the issue of the study, and from particularly favorable preserving context, mostly of the Holocene period.…”

Section: Traceologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the beveled tools, the nature and localization of the traces refer only to a mode of use involving percussion, but the worked material and the task performed may vary (S2 Text) [35,[108][109][110]. Bone fragments with intentional removals on one edge (S3 Text) [40,59,96,111] or with a technical blunt on one end (S4 Text) [7,30,55,88], are characterized only by a type of damage and its location relative to the main axis. For these categories, many hypotheses about their function can be put forward.…”

Section: Archaeological Frame Of Referencementioning

confidence: 99%

On the Quina side: A Neanderthal bone industry at Chez-Pinaud site, France

Baumann

Plisson

Maury³

et al. 2023

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Did Neanderthal produce a bone industry? The recent discovery of a large bone tool assemblage at the Neanderthal site of Chagyrskaya (Altai, Siberia, Russia) and the increasing discoveries of isolated finds of bone tools in various Mousterian sites across Eurasia stimulate the debate. Assuming that the isolate finds may be the tip of the iceberg and that the Siberian occurrence did not result from a local adaptation of easternmost Neanderthals, we looked for evidence of a similar industry in the Western side of their spread area. We assessed the bone tool potential of the Quina bone-bed level currently under excavation at chez Pinaud site (Jonzac, Charente-Maritime, France) and found as many bone tools as flint ones: not only the well-known retouchers but also beveled tools, retouched artifacts and a smooth-ended rib. Their diversity opens a window on a range of activities not expected in a butchering site and not documented by the flint tools, all involved in the carcass processing. The re-use of 20% of the bone blanks, which are mainly from large ungulates among faunal remains largely dominated by reindeer, raises the question of blank procurement and management. From the Altai to the Atlantic shore, through a multitude of sites where only a few objects have been reported so far, evidence of a Neanderthal bone industry is emerging which provides new insights on Middle Paleolithic subsistence strategies.

show abstract

“…The link between these two traits is clear: It is safe to assume that those pieces that were not worn or used in some way may, therefore, also not have been handled, in which case the relationship between these two different traits is perfectly reasonable. (It should be noted here that although there have been many studies investigating the creation of handling traces on bone objects [e.g., D'Errico 1993, Maigrot 2003, van Gijn 2006, our understanding of the extent to which handling traces are created on ivory objects remains relatively unknown. Further experimental research on this topic is therefore necessary in order to gain a greater understanding of the way that these pieces were handled in the past.…”

Section: Setmentioning

confidence: 99%

In the Eye of the Beholder

Siebrecht,

Desjardins

2023

Arctic Anthro.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How archaeologists classify and categorize artifacts has the potential to direct and bias interpretations before analysis has taken place. A clear example of this phenomenon in arctic archaeology is the analysis of material culture classified as "art" attributed to premodern Tuniit peoples (Late Dorset Paleo-Inuit, ca. AD 500-1300). Often, analyses of Tuniit art pieces are restricted by the use of customary typologies that can impose modern assumptions of how Tuniit groups would have perceived their material culture. In this study, we address this problem by focusing not on the meaning embodied in the finished objects but on the identification of decision-making patterns of the object carvers and users as reflected through microscopic traces of manufacture and use. We argue that through such trace-focused observation, certain newly observed patterns may suggest greater diversity in decision-making processes (with regard to manufacture and use) than would be suggested by traditional typological grouping alone. This work has wide-ranging implications for how arctic archaeologists approach artifact classification and typological organization.

show abstract

Cycles d’utilisation et réutilisations : le cas des outils en matières dures animales de Chalain 4

Abstract: Référence électroniqueYolaine Maigrot, « Cycles d'utilisation et réutilisations : le cas des outils en matières dures animales de Chalain 4 »,

Cited by 8 publications

References 4 publications

Bone technology in the Late Neolithic Vinča culture: Manufacturing pointed tools

Bone technology in the Late Neolithic Vinča culture: Manufacturing pointed tools

On the Quina side: A Neanderthal bone industry at Chez-Pinaud site, France

In the Eye of the Beholder

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About