Selection preferences for animal species used in bone-tool-manufacturing strategies in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Abstract

Animal symbolism is a prominent feature of many human societies globally. In some cases, these symbolic attributes manifest in the technological domain, influencing the decision to use the bones of certain animals and not others for tool manufacture. In southern Africa, animals feature prominently in the cosmogenic narratives of both hunter-gatherer and Bantu-speaking farmer groups. Whenever these two culturally distinct groups came into contact with each other there would be an assimilation of cosmogenic concepts of power and the adoption of certain symbolically important animals. In this paper, we report on which animals were selected to make bone tools during the first millennium AD contact period in KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa, and explore the extent to which this selection may have been influenced by the symbolic associations of specific animals. Our results show selective targeting of specific animals for tool manufacture at some sites, with a narrowing of the range of selected species during the first millennium AD contact period. Certain antelope tribes, such as Aepycerotini, Cephalophini and Antilopini, appear to have been deliberately avoided, thus arguing against opportunistic selection. Nor does the range of selected animals appear to show any obvious mechanical considerations, as has been noted in similar studies. We highlight the potential of ZooMS for understanding the dynamics of animal symbolism in the past.

Cervidae antlers exploited to manufacture prehistoric tools and hunting implements as a reliable source of ancient DNA

“…1 ). As has been suggested for bone, ivory and teeth objects, identifying the antler's origin at a taxonomic level is therefore critical in improving our knowledge of humans' subsistence, social behaviour, functional, practical and symbolic choices, and the human-animal interface during Prehistoric times [ [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] ].

Fig.

…”

“…Nevertheless, despite the importance of the diverse skeletal tissues for prehistoric past societies, palaeogenetics and palaeoproteomics analyses of osseous objects have mainly focused on bone [ 30 , 32 , 33 , 60 ] and tooth [ 34 ] artefacts. Genetic studies of antlers are mostly restricted to modern specimens in the context of deer conservation (e.g., Refs.…”

A minimally-invasive method for ancient DNA sampling of Prehistoric bone and antler tools and hunting weapons

“…The variable morpho-structural properties of the raw materials constrain the technical possibilities to exploit them. Identifying the species of the skeletal raw material is critical to gain insights into how this selection fits into a given environment and cultural system and to understand how these populations exploited their environment (economic aspects), how they saw themselves within this environment (social and symbolic aspects) and how they transformed it (technological aspects) (Bradfield et al, 2021;Langley et al, 2020;Pedergnana et al, 2021;Sidéra, 2000;Tejero et al, 2018Tejero et al, , 2021.…”

“…A major difficulty lies in the identification of the intensely transformed anatomical blank during the objects' production, involving the loss of many, if not all, specific diagnostic attributes. Nevertheless, despite the importance of the diverse skeletal tissues for (pre)historic past societies, palaeogenetics and palaeoproteomics of osseous objects analyses have mainly focused on bone artefacts (Bradfield et al, 2021;Martisius, Welker, et al, 2020;McGrath et al, 2019;Pacher & Hofreiter, 2004). Genetic studies of other raw materials, such as antler, are mostly restricted to modern specimens in the context of deer conservation (e.g., (Bi et al, 2020;Greco et al, 2021;Hoffmann et al, 2015;Venegas et al, 2020)), with a single palaeontological Giant dear (Megaloceros giganteus) example from an unclear context with an estimated age of around 12,000 years (Kuehn et al, 2005).…”

The effect of eraser sampling for proteomic analysis on Palaeolithic bone surface microtopography

“…To overcome these obstacles, researchers are using biomolecular approaches like palaeoproteomics, in particular Zooarchaeology by Mass Spectrometry (ZooMS) 20 , 21 , ancient DNA analysis, and high-resolution CT scanning of bone histological thin sections to assess raw material selection and behavioural aspects associated with the artefact 22 , 23 . In particular proteomic peptide mass fingerprinting such as using ZooMS, has been applied frequently to the study of archaeological bone artefacts 18 , 24 – 29 and provides a precise taxonomic identification based on the analysis of the bone protein collagen type I 20 . Collagen type I survives beyond the temporal range of ancient DNA 30 and provides specimen-specific information about molecular diagenesis 31 , 32 .…”