Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T02:53:42.155Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use Wear on Bone and Antler Tools from the Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Genevieve M. LeMoine
Genevieve M. LeMoine*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A series of experiments making and using bone and antler tools show that functional identifications of these tools can be made with confidence in some circumstances. Using principles from the field of tribology, the experiments demonstrate that different uses leave different microscopic traces on bone and antler. They also show that when the materials used are similar, the wear produced will be similar. In particular, wet materials, including snow, ice, wet hide, and wet antler all produce nearly identical microscopic patterns. Other groups of similar materials, such as bone, antler, and wood, or fish scales and hair, present the same problem. Although differences can be detected, these may not be preserved on archaeological tool specimens. Application of the experimental results to bone and antler tools from the Mackenzie Delta illustrates that functional identifications of tools can be made with confidence, despite the problem of similar microscopic patterns, when other lines of evidence (ethnographic and historical accounts, distribution of wear) are taken into account. When such information is lacking, functional identifications are more difficult and must be made with more caution.

Resumen

Resumen

Una serie de experimentos sobre manufactura y uso de herramientas de hueso y cuerno indican que identificaciones funcionales de estas herramientas son confiables en ciertas circunstancias. Usando principios del campo de la “tribología,” los experimentos demuestran que diferentes usos dejan diferentes trazas microscópicos en hueso y cuerno. Estos tambián indican que, cuando los materiales usados son similares, el desgaste producido será similar. En particular, materiales húmedos incluyendo nieve, hielo, cuero mojado y cuerno mojado producen patrones microscópicos casi idénticos. Otros grupos de materiales similares, como hueso, cuerno y madera, o escamas de pescado y cabello, presentan el mismo problema. Aunque diferencias pueden ser detectadas, éstas no siempre están preservadas en herramientas arqueológicas. La aplicación de estos resultados experimentales a las herramientas de hueso y cuerno del Delta de Mackenzie demuestran que, a pesar del problema de patrones microscópicos similares, las identificaciones funcionales de herramientas pueden ser hechas con confianza cuando otras líneas de evidencia (fuentes etnográficas e históricas, distribución del uso) son consideradas. Cuando este tipo de información no existe, las identificaciones funcionales son más dificiles y deben hacerse con cautela.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , April 1994 , pp. 316 - 334
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1994

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

References Cited

Adams, J. 1988 Use-Wear Analyses on Manos and Hide-Processing Stones. Journal of Field Archaeology 15 : 307–315.Google Scholar
Adams, J. 1989a Experimental Replication of the Use of Ground Stone Tools. The Kiva 54 : 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, J. 1989b Methods for Improving Ground Stone Analysis : Experiments in Mano Wear Patterns. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by Amick, D. S. and Mauldin, R. P., pp. 259–276. BAR International Series 528. British Archaeologcical Reports, Oxford.Google Scholar
Arnold, C. D. 1986 Preliminary Report on the 1986 Activities of the Mackenzie Delta Heritage Project : Excavations at Gupuk (Ni Ts-1). Manuscript on file, Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories.Google Scholar
Arnold, C. D. 1988 Vanishing Villages of the Past : Rescue Archaeology in the Mackenzie Delta. The Northern Review 1 : 40–58.Google Scholar
Bamforth, D. B., Burns, G. R., and Woodman, C. 1990 Ambiguous Use Traces and Blind Test Results : New Data. Journal of Archaeological Science 17 : 413— 430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwell, F. T. 1979 Theories of Wear and Their Significance for Engineering Practice. In Wear, edited by Scott, D., pp. 2–83. Treatise on Materials Science And Technology No. 13. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Blaylock, S. K. 1980 A Thule Bone and Antler Industry from Somerset Island, Central Canadian Arctic, N. W. T. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Bonnichsen, R. 1979 Pleistocene Bone Technology in the Beringian Refugium. Mercury Series Paper No. 89. National Museum of Man, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Boyde, A. 1971 Scanning Electron Microscope Studies of Bone. In The Biochemistry and Physiology of Bone, edited by Bourne, G. H., pp. 259–310. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Campana, D. 1980 An Analysis of the Use-Wear Patterns on Natufian and Protoneolithic Bone Implements. Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Choyke, A. M. 1983 An Analysis of Bone, Antler, and Tooth Tools from Bronze Age Hungary. Ph. D. dissertation, State University of New York, Binghamton. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Coes, L. Jr. 1971 Abrasives. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
Cole-Will, R. 1984 Copper Inuit Antler Technology, Banks Island, N. W. T. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton.Google Scholar
Czichos, H. 1978 Tribology : A Systems Approach to the Science and Technology of Friction, Lubrication and Wear. Tribology Series No. 1. Elsevier Scientific, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Dart, R. 1957 The Osteodontokeratic Culture of Australopithecus prometheus. Memoir No. 10. Transvaal Museum, Transvaal.Google Scholar
Dobson, P. S., and Wilman, H. 1963 Friction and Wear, and Their Interrelationship, in Abrasion of a Single Crystal of Brittle Nature. British Journal Of Applied Physics 14 : 132–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1978 Archaeological Potential of Anthropological and Scientific Models of Function. In Archaeological Essays in Honor of Irving B. Rouse, edited by Dunnell, R. C. and Hall, E. D. Jr., pp. 41–73. Mouton, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddings, J. L. 1952 The Arctic Woodland Culture of the Kobuk River. Monograph No. 8. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Giddings, J. L. 1964 The Archaeology of Cape Denbigh. Brown University Press, Providence, Rhode Island.Google Scholar
Gordon, R. B. 1985 Laboratory Evidence of the Use of Metal Tools at Machu Picchu (Peru) and Environs. Journal of Archaeological Science 12 : 311–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, C. R., Bonnichsen, R., and Morlan, R. E. 1975 Bones Say Man Lived in Yukon 27, 000 Years Ago. Canadian Geographical Journal 91 : 42–48.Google Scholar
Hayden, B. (editor) 1979 Lithic Use Wear Analysis. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Horsfall, G. 1987 A Design Theory Perspective on Variability in Grinding Stones. In Lithic Studies Among the Contemporary Highland Maya, edited by Hayden, B., pp. 332–377. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Keeley, L. 1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Use. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Knutsson, K. 1988 Patterns of Tool Use : Scanning Electron Microscopy of Experimental Quartz Tools. Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, Uppsala.Google Scholar
Knutsson, K., and Hope, R. 1984 The Application of Acetate Peels in Lithic Usewear. Archaeometry 26 : 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeMoine, G. 1985 Experimental Use Wear Analysis of Bone Tools. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary.Google Scholar
LeMoine, G. 1989 Use Wear Analysis of Bone Tools. Archaeo Zoologia 3(1/2) : 211–224.Google Scholar
LeMoine, G. 1991 Experimental Analysis of the Manufacture and Use of Bone and Antler Tools Among the Mackenzie Inuit. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary.Google Scholar
McGhee, R. 1974 Beluga Hunters : An Archaeological Reconstruction of the History and Culture of the Mackenzie Delta Kittegaryumiut. Newfoundland Social and Economic Studies No. 13. Institute of Social and Economic Research, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's.Google Scholar
Mac Gregor, A. 1985 Bone, Antler, Ivory, and Horn. Croom Helm, London.Google Scholar
Mathiassen, T. 1927 Archaeology of the Central Eskimos. Report of the Fifth Thule Expedition 1921-1924, vol. IV. Glydendalske, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Morlan, R. E. 1980 Taphonomy and Archaeology in the Upper Pleistocene of the Northern Yukon Territory : A Glimpse of the Peopling of the New World. Mercury Series Paper No. 94. National Museum of Man, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Morlan, R. E. 1983 Spiral Fractures on Limb Bones : Which Ones are Artificial? In Carnivores, Human Scavengers and Predators : A Question of Bone Technology, edited by LeMoine, G. and Mac Eachern, A. S., pp. 241–269. Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, Calgary.Google Scholar
Morrison, D. 1986 Inuit and Kutchin Bone and Antler Industries in Northwestern Canada. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 10 : 107–125.Google Scholar
Murdoch, J. 1988 Ethnological Results of the Point Barrow Expedition. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C. Originally published 1892.Google Scholar
Nagy, M. I. 1988 Caribou Exploitation at the Trail River Site (Northern Yukon). Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver.Google Scholar
Nelson, E. W. 1983 The Eskimo About Bering Strait. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C. Originally published 1899.Google Scholar
Newcomer, M. 1974 Study and Replication of Bone Tools from Ksar Akil (Lebanon). World Archaeology 6 : 138–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newcomer, M. H., Grace, R., and Unger-Hamilton, R. 1986 Evaluating Microwear Polishes with Blind Tests. Journal of Archaeological Science 13 : 203–218. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newcomer, M. H., Grace, R., and Unger-Hamilton, R. 1969 Glossary of Terms and Definitions in the Field of Friction, Wear and Lubrication. OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
Peltier, A. 1986 Etude experimental des surfaces osseuses faconnees et utilisees. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise 83(1) : 5–7.Google Scholar
Plisson, H. 1983 An Application of Casting Techniques for Observing and Recording Microwear. Lithic Technology 12 : 17–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pye, D. 1964 The Nature of Design. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
Rabinowicz, E. 1965 Friction and Wear of Materials. Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Rabinowicz, E. 1968 Polishing. Scientific American 218 : 91–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, P. H. 1885 Report of the International Polar Expedition to Point Barrow, Alaska. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Rose, J. 1983 A Replication Technique for Scanning Electron Microscopy : Applications for Anthropologists. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 62 : 255–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runnings, A. K. 1984 An Experimental Analysis of Two Bone Tools from the Mannis Site, Sequim, Washington. Unpublished Master's thesis, Washington State University, Pullman.Google Scholar
Schifter, M. B., and Skibo, J. M. 1989 A Provisional Theory of Ceramic Abrasion. American Anthropologist 91 : 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semenov, S. A. 1964 Prehistoric Technology. Cory, Adams and Mac Kay, London.Google Scholar
Stanford, D. J. 1976 The Walakpa Site, Alaska : Its Place in the Birnirk and Thule Cultures. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology No. 20. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Stroud, M. F., and Wilman., H. 1963 The Effects of Brittle Fracture on the Wear and Friction of Metals During Abrasion, in Particular of Antimony and Bismuth. British Journal Of Applied Physics 14 : 381–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomenchuk, J. 1985 The Development of a Wholly Parametric Use-Wear Methodology and Its Application to Two Selected Samples of Epipaleolithic Chipped Stone Tools from Hayonim Cave, Israel. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Toronto.Google Scholar
Vaughan, P. C. 1985 Use Wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Wright, K. H. R., and Burton, A. W. 1976 Wear of Dental Tissues and Restorative Materials. In The Wear of Non-metallic Materials, edited by Dowson, D., Godet, M., and Taylor, C. M., pp. 116–126. Mechanical Engineering Publications, London. Google Scholar