Detecting early tattooing in the Pacific region through experimental usewear and residue analyses of obsidian tools

Kononenko, Nina; Torrence, Robin; Sheppard, Peter

doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.05.041

Cited by 13 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most recent extensive set of experiments, in which pig skin was used as a proxy for human skin, produced a wealth of invaluable data (Kononenko et al. ). Additional confidence is merited due to the successful replication of these experimental results in recent studies on skin puncturing using obsidian blades (Stemp , ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…These pointed retouched flakes have been identified in assemblages spanning the region from Papua New Guinea through the Solomon Islands to Vanuatu and New Caledonia (Kononenko ; Kononenko et al. ; Reepmeyer et al. ; Sand & Sheppard ; Sheppard , ) (Table and Figure ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Using the key indicators derived from the experiments, a group of 15 retouched pointed flakes with alternating retouch from the Nanggu site (SE‐SZ‐8) on Santa Cruz Island in the Solomon Islands were examined and found to bear the same diagnostic use‐wear and residues (blood, ochre and charcoal) as occurred on the experimental tattooing tools (Kononenko et al. : fig. ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although sharp tools were used for other purposes, such as blood‐letting to relieve pain or puncturing earlobes, tattooing and scarification are reasonably distinctive activities that involve the use of relatively specialised tools (Kononenko et al. : 162).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Tattooing tools and the Lapita cultural complex

Torrence

Kononenko

Sheppard

et al. 2017

Archaeology in Oceania

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A use‐wear and residue study of 56 retouched obsidian flakes from seven Lapita sites in Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu confirms that they had been used for tattooing. These specialised tools all bear one or more very small points formed by alternating retouch. A detailed comparison of use traces and pigments on these and 19 additional skin piercing tools analysed previously challenges the notion of homogeneity in cultural practices across the broad geographical range where Lapita pottery was used. The existence of shared innovations together with variation in the selection of pigments and the shape of the obsidian artefacts used for puncturing skin highlight a complex pattern of similarities and differences within this community of culture.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Tattooing tools and the Lapita cultural complex

Torrence

Kononenko

Sheppard

et al. 2017

Archaeology in Oceania

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The accompanying image of an Ethiopian ethnographic hafted flake shows the small flake's sharp unmodified edge inserted into the haft without the aid of mastic (Figure b). Microwear and residue analyses repeatedly show traces of hafting and use for various tasks on unretouched artifacts <50 mm long …”

Section: Lithic Miniaturization: What Are Its Identification Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Going big versus going small: Lithic miniaturization in hominin lithic technology

Pargeter

Shea

2019

Evolutionary Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lithic miniaturization was one of our Pleistocene ancestors' more pervasive stone tool production strategies and it marks a key difference between human and non‐human tool use. Frequently equated with “microlith” production, lithic miniaturization is a more complex, variable, and evolutionarily consequential phenomenon involving small backed tools, bladelets, small retouched tools, flakes, and small cores. In this review, we evaluate lithic miniaturization's various technological and functional elements. We examine archeological assumptions about why prehistoric stoneworkers engaged in processes of lithic miniaturization by making small stone tools, small elongated tools, and small retouched and backed tools. We point to functional differences that motivate different aspects of lithic miniaturization and several instances where archeological systematics have possibly led archeologists to false negative findings about lithic miniaturization. Finally, we suggest productive avenues by which archeologists can move closer to understanding the complex evolutionary forces driving variability in lithic miniaturization.

show abstract

Residue and use‐wear analysis of non‐backed retouched artefacts from Deep Creek Shelter, Sydney Basin: Implications for the role of backed artefacts

Robertson

Attenbrow

Hiscock

2019

Archaeology in Oceania

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A previous use-wear and residue analysis of backed artefacts from Deep Creek Shelter showed that they had a range of functions and had been used with a variety of raw materials. Were non-backed retouched flakes at Deep Creek used for different purposes? To answer this question, 40 non-backed specimens were selected for microscopic use-wear and residue analysis. Not all of these non-backed artefacts had been used, but we identified that many were scrapers, knives, incisors and saws. These tools were used for bone-working and wood-working, and possibly skin-working and non-woody plant-processing. Some of these non-backed retouched artefacts were hafted. For the first time, these results allow comparison of the tool use of backed and non-backed artefacts in Australia. At Deep Creek, the range of functions for the non-backed component was extremely similar to that of the backed artefacts. Although both artefact categories displayed similar tool use, they are distinguished in one interesting way: non-backed specimens were often single purpose, dedicated to one function, whereas backed artefacts were often multifunctional and multipurpose. These results help us understand the structure of tool use in Australia. RÉSUMÉ Une premièreétude de traces d'usure et de dépôts de résidus sur des outilsà bordémoussé de l'abri de Deep Creek avait montré que ceux-ci remplissaient diverses fonctions et avaientété extraits de matières premières variées. Leséclats retouchés sans bordémoussé de Deep Creek ont-ilsété utilisésà des fins différentes? Afin de répondreà cette question, 40 outils sans bordémoussé ontété sélectionnés pour une analyse microscopique de tracéologie et de dépôts de résidus. Seule une partie de ces outils sans bordémoussé avaientété utilisés, mais nous avons constaté que beaucoupétaient des racloirs, des couteaux, des trancheurs et des scies. Ces outilsétaient employés pour du travail sur l'os et sur le bois, et peut-être pour le traitement des peaux et de plantes non ligneuses. Certains de ces outils noń emoussés retouchés avaientété emmanchés.Ces résultats permettent de comparer pour la première fois l'utilisation d'outils avec et sans bordémoussé en Australie.À Deep Creek, l'éventail des fonctions du composantà bordémousséétait très semblableà celui des outils sans bordémoussé. Bien que les deux catégories d'outil aient eu une utilisation similaire, ils se distinguent par un point intéressant: les spécimens sans bordémousséétaient souvent mono-tâche, dédiésà une seule fonction, alors que les artefactsà bordémousséétaient souvent multifonctionnels et polyvalents. Ces résultats aidentà comprendre le processus d'utilisation des outils en Australie.Mots-clés:éclatsà bordémoussé,éclats sans bordémoussé, analyse de dépôts de résidus et de traces d'usure, Mangrove Creek, microlithique, non-microlithique, analyse tracéologique microscopique

show abstract

Detecting early tattooing in the Pacific region through experimental usewear and residue analyses of obsidian tools

Cited by 13 publications

References 37 publications

Tattooing tools and the Lapita cultural complex

Tattooing tools and the Lapita cultural complex

Going big versus going small: Lithic miniaturization in hominin lithic technology

Residue and use‐wear analysis of non‐backed retouched artefacts from Deep Creek Shelter, Sydney Basin: Implications for the role of backed artefacts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About