TY - JOUR
T1 - Rock type variability and impact fracture formation
T2 - Working towards a more robust macrofracture method
AU - Pargeter, Justin
N1 - Funding Information:
The author would like to thank John Shea, Gerrit Dusseldorp, Danielle Macdonald, Justin Bradfield, Isabelle Parsons and anonymous reviewers for thorough reviews and comments on previous drafts of this paper. Thanks also to Kyle Brown for providing the silcrete used in these experiments. The Paleontological Scientific Trust and its Scatterlings of Africa Program and the National Research Foundation provided funding during early stages if this work. The Centre for Anthropological Research at the University of Johannesburg , and Marlize Lombard in particular, provided institutional support throughout this project.
Copyright:
Copyright 2017 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2013/11
Y1 - 2013/11
N2 - Investigations into the development of weapon systems are increasingly important in archaeological debates about human evolution and behavioural variability. 'Diagnostic' impact fractures are key, but controversial, lines of evidence commonly used in such investigations. In 2009 a series of experiments was initiated to investigate the processes associated with macrofracture formation specifically focussing on the taphonomic factors affecting the formation of 'diagnostic' impact fractures (DIFs). This paper adds to that experimental data set with macrofracture results from recent knapping experiments investigating rock type variability and DIF formation. These results show that rock type variation plays less of a role in DIF formation than variables related to use and lithic taphonomy. The collective results of this experimental series show that the location, co-occurrence, type and proximity to retouch on a tool are all important means of distinguishing between weapon and non-weapon related DIFs. Collectively these macrofracture patterns are more important in diagnosing weapon components than any one 'diagnostic' impact fracture is alone. Overall, these experimental studies are showing that background 'noise' in the form of non-hunting related impact fractures, exists in many macrofracture results and that much work remains in securing the analytical robusticity of the method. The paper concludes that the macrofracture method is not a stand-alone method, but when used with caution and in conjunction with other lines of evidence it is a useful, time-efficient, tool for generating assemblage-level use-trace data.
AB - Investigations into the development of weapon systems are increasingly important in archaeological debates about human evolution and behavioural variability. 'Diagnostic' impact fractures are key, but controversial, lines of evidence commonly used in such investigations. In 2009 a series of experiments was initiated to investigate the processes associated with macrofracture formation specifically focussing on the taphonomic factors affecting the formation of 'diagnostic' impact fractures (DIFs). This paper adds to that experimental data set with macrofracture results from recent knapping experiments investigating rock type variability and DIF formation. These results show that rock type variation plays less of a role in DIF formation than variables related to use and lithic taphonomy. The collective results of this experimental series show that the location, co-occurrence, type and proximity to retouch on a tool are all important means of distinguishing between weapon and non-weapon related DIFs. Collectively these macrofracture patterns are more important in diagnosing weapon components than any one 'diagnostic' impact fracture is alone. Overall, these experimental studies are showing that background 'noise' in the form of non-hunting related impact fractures, exists in many macrofracture results and that much work remains in securing the analytical robusticity of the method. The paper concludes that the macrofracture method is not a stand-alone method, but when used with caution and in conjunction with other lines of evidence it is a useful, time-efficient, tool for generating assemblage-level use-trace data.
KW - Diagnostic impact fractures
KW - Experimental archaeology
KW - Hunting
KW - Knapping
KW - Macrofractures
KW - Rock types
KW - Stone tool replication
KW - Taphonomy
KW - Use-wear
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84881245333&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84881245333&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jas.2013.05.021
DO - 10.1016/j.jas.2013.05.021
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84881245333
SN - 0305-4403
VL - 40
SP - 4056
EP - 4065
JO - Journal of Archaeological Science
JF - Journal of Archaeological Science
IS - 11
ER -