识别和量化射弹在骨骼上的撞击痕迹:利用骨点的新实验见解

IF 2.1 2区 地球科学 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences Pub Date : 2024-02-23 DOI:10.1007/s12520-024-01944-3
{"title":"识别和量化射弹在骨骼上的撞击痕迹:利用骨点的新实验见解","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s12520-024-01944-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>Shifts in projectile technology potentially document human evolutionary milestones, such as adaptations for different environments and settlement dynamics. A relatively direct proxy for projectile technology is projectile impact marks (PIM) on archaeological bones. Increasing awareness and publication of experimental data sets have recently led to more identifications of PIM in various contexts, but diagnosing PIM from other types of bone-surface modifications, quantifying them, and inferring point size and material from the bone lesions need more substantiation. Here, we focus on PIM created by osseous projectiles, asking whether these could be effectively identified and separated from lithic-tipped weapons. We further discuss the basic question raised by recent PIM research in zooarchaeology: why PIM evidence is so rare in archaeofaunal assemblages (compared to other human-induced marks), even when they are explicitly sought. We present the experimental results of shooting two ungulate carcasses with bone and antler points, replicating those used in the early Upper Paleolithic of western Eurasia. Half of our hits resulted in PIM, confirming that this modification may have been originally abundant. However, we found that the probability of a skeletal element to be modified with PIM negatively correlates with its preservation potential, and that much of the produced bone damage would not be identifiable in a typical Paleolithic faunal assemblage. This quantification problem still leaves room for an insightful qualitative study of PIM. We complement previous research in presenting several diagnostic marks that retain preservation potential and may be used to suggest osseous, rather than lithic, projectile technology.</p>","PeriodicalId":8214,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identification and quantification of projectile impact marks on bone: new experimental insights using osseous points\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12520-024-01944-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>Shifts in projectile technology potentially document human evolutionary milestones, such as adaptations for different environments and settlement dynamics. A relatively direct proxy for projectile technology is projectile impact marks (PIM) on archaeological bones. Increasing awareness and publication of experimental data sets have recently led to more identifications of PIM in various contexts, but diagnosing PIM from other types of bone-surface modifications, quantifying them, and inferring point size and material from the bone lesions need more substantiation. Here, we focus on PIM created by osseous projectiles, asking whether these could be effectively identified and separated from lithic-tipped weapons. We further discuss the basic question raised by recent PIM research in zooarchaeology: why PIM evidence is so rare in archaeofaunal assemblages (compared to other human-induced marks), even when they are explicitly sought. We present the experimental results of shooting two ungulate carcasses with bone and antler points, replicating those used in the early Upper Paleolithic of western Eurasia. Half of our hits resulted in PIM, confirming that this modification may have been originally abundant. However, we found that the probability of a skeletal element to be modified with PIM negatively correlates with its preservation potential, and that much of the produced bone damage would not be identifiable in a typical Paleolithic faunal assemblage. This quantification problem still leaves room for an insightful qualitative study of PIM. We complement previous research in presenting several diagnostic marks that retain preservation potential and may be used to suggest osseous, rather than lithic, projectile technology.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8214,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-024-01944-3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-024-01944-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要 射弹技术的转变可能记录了人类进化的里程碑,如对不同环境和定居动态的适应。考古骨骼上的弹丸冲击痕迹(PIM)是弹丸技术的一个相对直接的替代物。近来,随着对实验数据集认识的提高和实验数据集的公布,在各种背景下发现了更多的弹丸撞击痕迹,但如何将弹丸撞击痕迹与其他类型的骨表面修饰区分开来、量化弹丸撞击痕迹以及从骨损伤中推断弹丸的大小和材料还需要更多的证据。在此,我们重点讨论骨质射弹造成的骨质破坏,询问是否可以有效地识别这些破坏并将其与石质武器区分开来。我们还进一步讨论了近期动物考古学中的PIM研究提出的基本问题:为什么PIM证据在古动物群中如此罕见(与其他人类造成的痕迹相比),即使是在明确寻找这些证据的情况下。我们仿照欧亚大陆西部旧石器时代上早期使用的方法,用骨和鹿角点射击两只羚羊的尸体,得出了实验结果。半数的射中结果是PIM,这证实了这种改造最初可能是大量存在的。然而,我们发现,骨骼元素被 PIM 改造的概率与其保存潜力呈负相关,而且在典型的旧石器时代动物群落中,许多被改造的骨骼损伤无法被识别。这一量化问题仍然为对 PIM 进行深入的定性研究留下了空间。我们对之前的研究进行了补充,提出了几种具有保存潜力的诊断标记,这些标记可用于暗示骨质而非石质的射弹技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Identification and quantification of projectile impact marks on bone: new experimental insights using osseous points

Abstract

Shifts in projectile technology potentially document human evolutionary milestones, such as adaptations for different environments and settlement dynamics. A relatively direct proxy for projectile technology is projectile impact marks (PIM) on archaeological bones. Increasing awareness and publication of experimental data sets have recently led to more identifications of PIM in various contexts, but diagnosing PIM from other types of bone-surface modifications, quantifying them, and inferring point size and material from the bone lesions need more substantiation. Here, we focus on PIM created by osseous projectiles, asking whether these could be effectively identified and separated from lithic-tipped weapons. We further discuss the basic question raised by recent PIM research in zooarchaeology: why PIM evidence is so rare in archaeofaunal assemblages (compared to other human-induced marks), even when they are explicitly sought. We present the experimental results of shooting two ungulate carcasses with bone and antler points, replicating those used in the early Upper Paleolithic of western Eurasia. Half of our hits resulted in PIM, confirming that this modification may have been originally abundant. However, we found that the probability of a skeletal element to be modified with PIM negatively correlates with its preservation potential, and that much of the produced bone damage would not be identifiable in a typical Paleolithic faunal assemblage. This quantification problem still leaves room for an insightful qualitative study of PIM. We complement previous research in presenting several diagnostic marks that retain preservation potential and may be used to suggest osseous, rather than lithic, projectile technology.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
18.20%
发文量
199
期刊介绍: Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences covers the full spectrum of natural scientific methods with an emphasis on the archaeological contexts and the questions being studied. It bridges the gap between archaeologists and natural scientists providing a forum to encourage the continued integration of scientific methodologies in archaeological research. Coverage in the journal includes: archaeology, geology/geophysical prospection, geoarchaeology, geochronology, palaeoanthropology, archaeozoology and archaeobotany, genetics and other biomolecules, material analysis and conservation science. The journal is endorsed by the German Society of Natural Scientific Archaeology and Archaeometry (GNAA), the Hellenic Society for Archaeometry (HSC), the Association of Italian Archaeometrists (AIAr) and the Society of Archaeological Sciences (SAS).
期刊最新文献
It is not crystal clear: “nuances” in the selection of raw materials for Iron Age translucent glass revealed by chemical analyses of beads from central Italy Pottery use across the Neolithic transition in northern Belgium: evidence from isotopic, molecular and microscopic analysis Further investigation into the impact of manuring on stable carbon (δ13C) and nitrogen isotope (δ15N) values in pulses: a four-year experiment examining Celtic bean (Vicia faba) Osteological age-at-death estimation in an archaeological sample avoiding age-mimicry: a six-step approach Reconstructing dietary practices at Tell Kamid el-Loz (Lebanon) during the Bronze and Iron Age III / Persian to Hellenistic periods using plant micro-remains from dental calculus and stable isotope analysis of bone collagen
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1