{"title":"A 2D Geometric Morphometric Assessment of Chrono-Cultural Trends in Osseous Barbed Points of the European Final Palaeolithic and Early Mesolithic","authors":"Kalliroi Tsirintoulaki, David N. Matzig, F. Riede","doi":"10.1515/opar-2022-0276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Studies on prehistoric osseous barbed points have relied heavily on typology in linking presumed types to broader techno-complexes, and for making chronological inferences. The accumulation of both new finds and of radiocarbon dates obtained directly on such artefacts, however, has revealed that (i) shape variability defies neat typological divisions, and that (ii) chronological inferences based on typology often fail. To further query these issues and to better understand the design choices and cultural evolutionary dynamics within this artefact class, we present a 2D open-outline geometric morphometric analysis of 50 directly dated Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene osseous barbed points primarily from northern and western Europe. The results indicate that (a) different components (tip, base, and barbs) of these artefacts were subject to varying design constraints and that (b) there is no clear-cut distinction between Final Palaeolithic and Mesolithic point traditions. Different techno-functional components evolved at various rates while specimens assigned to the same type and/or techno-complex are only occasionally morphologically similar. The results reflect a relatively low level of normativity for this artefact class and likely a repeated convergence on similar design elements. We propose that interpretations linked to cultural dynamics, individual craft agency, and repeated convergence on locally optimal designs may offer more satisfying avenues for thinking about the barbed points of this period.","PeriodicalId":19532,"journal":{"name":"Open Archaeology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Archaeology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2022-0276","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Abstract Studies on prehistoric osseous barbed points have relied heavily on typology in linking presumed types to broader techno-complexes, and for making chronological inferences. The accumulation of both new finds and of radiocarbon dates obtained directly on such artefacts, however, has revealed that (i) shape variability defies neat typological divisions, and that (ii) chronological inferences based on typology often fail. To further query these issues and to better understand the design choices and cultural evolutionary dynamics within this artefact class, we present a 2D open-outline geometric morphometric analysis of 50 directly dated Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene osseous barbed points primarily from northern and western Europe. The results indicate that (a) different components (tip, base, and barbs) of these artefacts were subject to varying design constraints and that (b) there is no clear-cut distinction between Final Palaeolithic and Mesolithic point traditions. Different techno-functional components evolved at various rates while specimens assigned to the same type and/or techno-complex are only occasionally morphologically similar. The results reflect a relatively low level of normativity for this artefact class and likely a repeated convergence on similar design elements. We propose that interpretations linked to cultural dynamics, individual craft agency, and repeated convergence on locally optimal designs may offer more satisfying avenues for thinking about the barbed points of this period.
期刊介绍:
Open Archaeology is a forum of novel approaches to archaeological theory, methodology and practice, and an international medium for the dissemination of research data and interdisciplinary projects. Scope of the journal includes, but is not restricted to: World Archaeology - discoveries and research Archaeological science Theory and interpretation in archaeology Archaeological heritage preservation and management.