2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.135
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

First insights into the identification of bone and antler tools used in the indirect percussion and pressure techniques during the early postglacial

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
15
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
2
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These modifications are consistent with marks left by flint knapping. The association of the modifications located on the tips and proximal parts of these antler tools would be consistent with such an interpretation [58].…”
Section: The Osseous Items From the Burial Furnishingsupporting
confidence: 67%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These modifications are consistent with marks left by flint knapping. The association of the modifications located on the tips and proximal parts of these antler tools would be consistent with such an interpretation [58].…”
Section: The Osseous Items From the Burial Furnishingsupporting
confidence: 67%
“…Lastly, long and slightly curved antler tines showing evidence of use as knapping tools are unique for the Italian peninsula. Antler implements similar to those documented in the Mondeval burial appear in the Balkans during the second half of the VII millennium BCE [84] and are known in the Scandinavian region [58,85,86]. Their presence within the burial goods of Mondeval is totally coherent with the evidence of the use of the punch and pressure techniques for the extraction of laminar and lamellar products documented through the study of lithic items from the burial.…”
Section: Plos Onesupporting
confidence: 55%
“…Macro-lithic tools are also related to the production of knapped stone tools. Indeed, hammerstones and retouchers made of stone [4,21,71–73] and bone [74,75], are found in numerous contexts, especially related to the later phases of the Palaeolithic [4]. As an example, bone retouchers have been found in different Middle and Late Pleistocene sites [76,77,78–85, 86].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further, the assemblage seems to show some similarities with the Star Carr assemblage as described by Conneller et al (2018;see also Pitts & Jacobi 1979;Reyner 2005;Saville 2004). The blade production in RPAS Concept 2 technology differs in its basic strategies from those of RPAS Concept 1, as well as those used within the Final Palaeolithic and Early Mesolithic of northwest Europe, and the Middle and Late Mesolithic of northwest continental Europe (Berg-Hansen 2017; 2018; Damlien 2016; Damlien et al 2018;David & Sørensen 2016;Sørensen 2006b;Sørensen et al 2013). However, the technology of RPAS Concept 2 is consistent with the narrow blade industry from Scottish and the English Late Mesolithic (Conneller et al 2016;Mithen 2000;Mithen et al 2015).…”
Section: Comparisonsmentioning
confidence: 91%