Experimental Analysis of Splintered Pieces from Upper Paleolithic Assemblages of Central Asia
https://doi.org/10.25205/1818-7919-2021-20-5-55-68
Abstract
Purpose. The subject of the article are splintered pieces and their variability from the Upper Paleolithic assemblies from Central Asia, which have not yet undergone special study. The authors employed an experimental approach to verify data obtained through the analysis of archaeological splintered pieces and to explore modification patterns of these tools. Results. Experiments included splitting various soft organic materials with splintered pieces, including red deer antler, wood, and bone. The experimental use of splintered pieces allowed to draw the following conclusions. The edge characteristic to splintered pieces was shaped by contact with hammers, but not with the soft material to be processed. Doubleedged splintered pieces were produced when the tool was rotated and a new stage of use was performed. The morphology of splintered pieces varies depending on the intensity of their use. Conclusion. In the case of Central Asian splintered pieces (Tien-Shan and Siberia), the authors believe that only tools are being researched, not cores for the following reasons: 1. very small size of most double-edged splintered pieces, not allowing them to be considered as cores; 2. metric parameters of the splintered pieces are stacked in one reduction model, which is not typical for cores; 3. there is one bladelet core in Kulbulak’s assemblage, which was later used as a splintered piece; 4. morphometric characteristics of experimental tools used for processing of soft organic materials (wood, bone, horn) are almost identical to archaeological ones; 5. use-wear analysis demonstrated the use of all archaeological pièces esquillées as tools for processing hard organic materials; 6. there are other types of cores in the assemblages, which allow for the serial production of small blanks corresponding to those used for the manufacture of tools; 7. there is no shortage of raw materials that could explain the need to use such a miniature core.
About the Authors
A. V. Kharevich
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography SB RAS
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
V. M. Kharevich
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography SB RAS
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
A. Yu. Fedorchenko
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography SB RAS
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
K. A. Kolobova
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography SB RAS
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Абрамова З. А. Палеолит Енисея. Афонтовская культура. Новосибирск: Наука, 1979. 156 с.
2. Гиря Е. Ю. Технологический анализ каменных индустрий (Методика микро-макроанализа древних орудий труда. Ч. 2). СПб.: Изд-во ИИМК РАН, 1997. 198 c.
3. Петрин В. Т., Рыбин Е. П. К проблеме взаимосвязей техники расщепления торцового нуклеуса и резцового скола // Сохранение и изучение культурного наследия Алтайского края: Материалы Всерос. науч.-практ. конф. Барнаул: [б. и.], 2001. Вып. 12. С. 220-223.
4. Синицын А. А. Долотовидные орудия в палеолите Европы: распространение, типология, информативность // Верхнедонской археологический сборник научных трудов, посвященный 70-летию Н. Д. Праслова. Липецк; Санкт-Петербург: Изд-во ЛГПУ, 2007. С. 6-16.
5. Bardon L., Bouyssonie J., Bouyssonie A. Outils Ecaillés par Percussion. Revue de l’École d’Anthropologie, 1906, no. 16, p. 170-175.
6. Chauchat C., Normand C., Raynal J. P., Santa-Maria R. Le Retour de la Pièce Esquillée. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 1985, no. 82, p. 35-41.
7. Christensen M., Goutas N., Bemilli C. et al. La fracturation lato sensu de l’os et du bois de cervidé. Un bref historique des Recherches. La fracturation des matières osseuses en Préhistoire: discussion autour d’une modalité d’exploitation en apparence simple et pourtant mal connue. Eds. M. Christensen, N. Goutas. Paris, Société préhistorique française, 2018, p. 23-42.
8. Crovetto C., Ferrari M., Peretto C., Longo L., Vianello F. The Carinated Denticulates from the Paleolithic Site of Isernia La Pineta (Molise, Central Italy): Tools or Flaking Waste? The Results of the 1993 Lithic Experiments. Human Evolution, 1994, no. 9, p. 175-207.
9. Curtoni R. P. Experimentando con Bipolares: Indicadores e Implicancias Arqueologicas. Relaciones de la Sociedad Argentina de Antropología, 1996, no. 21, p. 187-214.
10. Gassin B. Evolution socio-économique dans le chasséen de la grotte de l’église supérieure (Var). Monographie du C.R.A. 17. Paris, CNRS edition, 1996, 326 p.
11. Gilabert X. R., Mora R., Martínez-Moreno J. Identifying bipolar knapping in the Mesolithic site of Font del Ros (Northeast Iberia). Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci., 2015, no. 370 (1682), 20140354. DOI 10.1098/rstb.2014.0354
12. Hayden B. Confusion in the bipolar world: bashed pebbles and splintered pieces. Lithic Technology, 1980, no. 9 (1), p. 2-7.
13. Hays M. A., Lucas G. Pièces esquillées from Le Flageolet I (Dordogne, France): tools or cores? In: Tools Versus Cores: Alternative Approaches to Stone Tool Analysis. Ed. by S. P. McPherron. Newcastle, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2007, p. 107-126.
14. Jeske R. J., Sterner-Miller K. M. Microwear analysis of bipolar tools from the Crescent Bay Hunt Club site (47JE904). Lithic Technology, 2015, no. 40 (4), p. 366-376. DOI 10.1179/205161 8515Y.0000000018
15. Keeley L. H. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Use: A Microwear Analysis. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1980, 212 р.
16. Kimball L. Microwear Analyses of Archaic and Early Woodland Tools from the Main Site (15BL35), Kentucky. Upper Cumberland Archaic and Woodland Period Archaeology at the Main site (15BL35), Bell County, Kentucky. In: Ed. by S. Creasman. Cultural resource analysts, Contract Publication Series 94-95. Lexington, Kentucky, 1994, p. F1-F109.
17. Kolobova K. A., Krivoshapkin A. I., Pavlenok K. K. Carinated pieces in Paleolithic assemblages of Central Asia. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, 2014, no. 42, p. 13-29. DOI 10.1016/j.aeae.2015.06.003
18. Kolobova K., Flas D., Derevianko A. P., Pavlenok K., Islamov U. I., Krivoshapkin A. I. The Kulbulak Bladelet Tradition in the Upper Paleolithic of Central Asia. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, 2013, no. 41, p. 2-25.
19. Langejans G. H. J. Middle Stone Age pièces esquillées from Sibudu Cave, South Africa: an initial micro-residue study. Journal of archaeological science, 2012, no. 39, p. 1694-1704. DOI 10.1016/j.jas.2011.12.036
20. Le Blanc R. Wedges, pieces esquillées, bipolar cores, and other things: an alternative to Shott’s view of bipolar industries. North American Archaeologist, 1992, no. 13 (1), p. 1-14. DOI 10.2190/C52R-RK4C-YQUK-04T6
21. Le Brun-Ricalens F. Les pièces esquillées: état des connaissances après un siècle de reconnaissance. Paleo, 2006, no. 18, p. 95-114. DOI 10.4000/paleo.181
22. Olszewski D. I. Carinated Tools, Cores, and Mobility: The Zagros Aurignacian Example. In: McPherron S. P. (ed.). Tools Versus Cores: Alternative Approaches to Stone Tool Analysis. Newcastle, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2007, p. 91-106.
23. Peña P. A. de la. Qualitative guide to recognize bipolar knapping for flint and quartz. Lithic Technology, 2015, no. 40 (4), p. 316-331. DOI 10.1080/01977261.2015.1123947
24. Ranere A. J. Toolmaking and Tool Use among the Preceramic Peoples of Panama. In: Swanson E. (ed.). Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools. The Hague, Mouton Publishers, 1975, p. 173-209.
25. Shalagina A. V., Krivoshapkin A. I., Kolobova K. A. Truncated-faceted pieces in the Paleolithic of Northern Asia. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, 2015, no. 4 (44), р. 33-45. DOI 10.17746/1563-0102.2015.43.4.033-045
26. Shott M. J. On bipolar reduction and splintered pieces. North American Archaeologist, 1999, no. 20 (3), p. 217-238. DOI 10.2190/0VP5-TT1E-3WLC-9RCA
27. Sonneville-Bordes D., Perrot J. Lexique Typologique du Paléolithique Supérieur. Outillage Lithique (suite et fin): V Outillage à Bord Abattu - VI Pièces Tronquées - VII Lames Retouchées - VIII Pièces Variées - I X Outillage Lamellaire. Pointe Azilienne. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 1956, no. 53, p. 547-559.
28. Tixier J. Typologie de l’Epipaléolithique du Maghreb. Mémoire du centre de recherches anthropologiques, préhistoriques et ethnographiques. Alger, Paris, A.M.G., 1963, 212 р.
29. White J. P. Fabricators, outils écaillés or scalar cores? Mankind, 1968, no. 6, p. 658-666.
30. Zilhão J., Aubry T., Almeida F. L’Utilisation du quartz pendant la transition Gravettien. Solutréen au Portugal. Préhistoire, Anthropologie Méditerranéennes, 1997, no. 6, p. 289-303.
Review
For citations:
Kharevich A.V., Kharevich V.M., Fedorchenko A.Yu., Kolobova K.A. Experimental Analysis of Splintered Pieces from Upper Paleolithic Assemblages of Central Asia. Vestnik NSU. Series: History and Philology. 2021;20(5):55-68. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25205/1818-7919-2021-20-5-55-68
Views:
188
Email this article 