Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T16:46:02.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An Experimental Study of the Morphological Characteristics of Tool Marks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Abstract

Experiments were performed to establish correlations between the edge characteristics of a series of tools and the marks they produce when applied to bone. Pressure and angle of application, length of blade, and motion used during the cutting stroke, were found to be important variables that affect the shape of tool marks. Using cross sections of butchering marks from archaeological sites, it was possible to establish associations between various classes of tools and specific tasks.

Type
Reports
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Deetz, James 1964 A datable Chumash pictograph from Santa Barbara County, California. American Antiquity 29:504506.Google Scholar
Duff, Roger 1956 The Moa-Hunter Period of Maori Culture, 2nd edition. (Canterberry Museum Bulletin no. 1), R. E. Owen, Government Printer; Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Guilday, John E., Parmalee, Paul W., and Tanner, Donald P. 1962 Aboriginal butchering techniques at the Eschelman site (36 La 12), Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 32: 5983.Google Scholar
Straus, Lawrence G., Walker, Phillip L. (n.d.) A technique for studying microscopic wear on artifact surfaces. In Views of the past: essays on world prehistory and paleoanthropology, edited by Freeman, Leslie G., Mouton Publishers, The Hague and Paris (in press).Google Scholar
Walker, Phillip L. 1976 Wear striations on the incisors of cercopithecid monkeys as as index of diet and habitat preference. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 45:299308.Google Scholar