Explaining the monopoly in shell-bead production on the Channel Islands: drilling experiments with four lithic raw materials

Test, Model, and Method Validation: The Role of Experimental Stone Artifact Replication in Hypothesis-driven Archaeology

“…That said, some questions are more specific and limited in applicability and thus require replication tests incorporating particular experimental variables. For example, Nigra and Arnold (2013) were interested in the production of beads from the shells of Olivella biplicata during the second millennium CE by Chumash hunter-gatherers on the California Channel Islands. They hypothesized that Chumash bead-production specialists chose Santa Cruz Island chert because "it demonstrated superior material properties for shell drilling" (Nigra and Arnold 2013, 3648).…”

Molluscs emergent, Part II: themes and trends in the scientific investigation of molluscs and their shells as past human resources

“…Subsequently, Eerkens et al (2010) reinforced this southern Californian focus using d 18 O, d 13 C and 87 Sr/ 86 Sr, although differences between various forms of shell beads showed that some were made in a range of locations and others in more restricted localities, suggesting some form of intra-regional specialization. Later dramatic social and economic developments in the region, focussed on the Santa Barbara Channel Islands, were associated with this specialist shell-bead industry which, during the second millennium CE, was producing millions of beads using lithic microdrills of standard form and material derived from the outcrops of chert on the Islands (Nigra and Arnold, 2013). Experiments to assess the physical properties and performance of the Island cherts versus cherts from three different mainland outcrops showed the superiority of the Island cherts, leading Nigra and Arnold (2013) to suggest that the Islanders of southern California maintained their virtual monopoly over the manufacture of shell beads because they had sole access to the best quality lithic materials for microdrills.…”

A systematic review of animal predation creating pierced shells: implications for the archaeological record of the Old World

“…Indications of human manipulation can also be detected, such as striations indicating rotary drilling by a tool (Zilhão et al, 2010), notches close to the perforation that might indicate the presence of a suspension system (e.g., cord) and the direction the traction was exerted (Cristiani, 2012). Researchers also use experiments to understand shell anatomy (e.g., mineralogy and structure) and the processes involved in the production of piercings (e.g., Beyin, 2010; Nigra & Arnold, 2013; Tátá et al, 2014; Joordens et al, 2015). Microscopy can provide evidence of the shape of the tools used for piercing shells, as well as other tell-tale signs of human activity (D’Errico et al, 2005; Nigra & Arnold, 2013).…”

“…Researchers also use experiments to understand shell anatomy (e.g., mineralogy and structure) and the processes involved in the production of piercings (e.g., Beyin, 2010; Nigra & Arnold, 2013; Tátá et al, 2014; Joordens et al, 2015). Microscopy can provide evidence of the shape of the tools used for piercing shells, as well as other tell-tale signs of human activity (D’Errico et al, 2005; Nigra & Arnold, 2013). For example, piercings are often examined for the presence of residues, such as ochre or polishing by the cord (D’Errico et al, 2005; D’Errico et al, 2009; Stiner, Kuhn & Güleç, 2013).…”