Cutting track (archeology)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humerus fragment of a Neanderthal man with cuts

In archeology, cutting marks on animal bones are an indication that these animals were slaughtered with stone tools or otherwise used by humans or their hominine ancestors . Therefore, traces of cuts serve as evidence of human manipulation in found associations of older prehistory . Criteria such as regular cross-sections of the tracks serve to distinguish them from scratches caused by other damage (e.g. browsing by carnivores ) or relocation in the sediment . In addition to their position on the bone, images taken with incident light , laser scan or scanning electron microscopes are particularly important for evaluating cutting marks .

Methodological basics

Evidence of superficial incision marks on bones has been of great importance for the proof of human interventions in find ensembles from the Paleolithic since the beginning of their interpretation . The regularity of cuts made with stone tools has been proven in experiments and is therefore comparable with similar microscopic findings on archaeological material. Alternatively, scratches on archaeological finds can be caused by the sediment load, or by trampling ( English technical term for scratches caused by inspection of animals or people ). Changes due to surface weathering of the bones can be assessed quite well by symptoms of taphonomic weathering stages.

Methodological criteria for differentiating between cutting marks and other superficial scratches are as follows:

  • Cut marks have relatively straight edges. In cross-section, they are always regularly V-shaped, pointed U-shaped or trapezoidal, depending on the tool edge used. Since the periosteum is cut with a directed movement, material is often ejected along the edges of the tracks. This “snow plow effect” can be symmetrical or one-sided depending on the angle of the flint tool. The ejection of archaeological material is usually weathered and no longer exists.
  • In experiments, the depth of cut marks is usually less than 100 micrometers , although considerable pressure must be exerted when cutting for this depth. The periosteum offers a resistance that should not be underestimated, so that traces of around 100 micrometers represent the maximum penetration depth with normal force. A very high level of force when cutting changes the track cross-section from a flat, pointed-trapezoidal to a deep, V-shaped profile. However, in hobbyist workflows, there is no need to cut heavily into the bone surface. In experiments with hand axes , new investigations confirm that here too the penetration depths do not exceed 125 micrometers.
  • Tools made from different materials have diagnostic differences. Here, too, the cross-section of the track is decisive, while the depth of the tracks depends less on the material and more on the subjective handling of the tools. While in some experiments deeper with metal knives and sharper tracks were produced as with knives ( discounts ) from Flint , described by other experiments the opposite.
  • Cutting marks are mostly working marks and should be in anatomically plausible places. This means that cutting on the bone at the respective point should have been carried out using a functionally comprehensible work process. In experiments on carving up animals with stone tools, distinctive cutting marks rarely appear. It is therefore more necessary to find reasons for a massive occurrence of cut marks on the archaeological object than for very weak marks or their complete absence.

If one summarizes the characteristics of cut marks, the profile characteristics offer reliable criteria for differentiation from other mechanical damage. Intra-track grooves (so-called striae ), on the other hand, are not a criterion for identifying a cutting line, as these also occur in the case of scratches caused by large mammal trampling .

Traces of cuts on archaeological material

Functional cuts

Functionally, that is caused by work processes cut marks occur in the slaughter of livestock and hunted on animals in rule-based arrangements. Typical cutting track patterns arise, for example, when skinning hunted animals, since then corresponding incisions can always be detected on the distal long bones from cutting through the fur. The scalping of human skulls is a rare special case of skinning . Typical traces are also left by the carcass being cut up , which is due to the systematic dismantling of certain joint ends and the separation of the muscle attachments. Impact marks on the long bones are used to break open the shafts or the shaft ends in order to get to the bone marrow .

The oldest cut marks, which are regarded as secure, are almost as old as the oldest rubble tools discovered to date . As early as 1999, bones around 2.5 million years old were found in Ethiopia, in the Middle Awash discovery area on the Bouri Awash peninsula , for which modifications by cutting marks with stone tools were claimed. 2.4 million year old cuts come from the Ain Boucherit site in Algeria .

Non-functional cutting marks

Cuts from the Bilzingsleben site are around 300,000 years old, some of which were diagnosed as non-functional ("non-utilitarian") engravings because of their unusually regular arrangement .

Controversial oldest cutting trace documents

The oldest modifications to bones, dated to an age of 3.42 to 3.24 million years and interpreted as cutting marks by their discoverers in 2010, come from the Ethiopian site of Dikika , south of Hadar . They would thus indirectly be the oldest evidence of stone tools and are assigned to fossil finds of Australopithecus afarensis of roughly the same age (cf. DIK 1-1 ). At the same time, these traces, if their interpretation persists, would also be the oldest evidence of the consumption of meat and bone marrow by a hominin . Since stone tools, chips or stones carried away from other locations were found in the area of ​​the DIK-55 site and nowhere else in the layers of finds of Australopithecus afarensis , the evidential value of the notches is controversial.

Two of these bones (archive number DIK-55-2 and DIK-55-3) have notches that were formed before their fossilization and allegedly "clearly" refer to the use of stone tools, including cutting and percussion ). The Fossil DIK-55-2 is a fragment of a right rib of an ungulate at least the size of a cow with V-shaped, intersecting incisions and allegedly the typical characteristics of a hard impact ( "hammerstone percussion mark" ). DIK-55-3 is the fragment of a thigh bone from a young animal about the size of a goat from the group of cattle with numerous cuts and scratches, which were also interpreted as a typical feature of a hard impact from a stone used as a hammer. The cuts and scratches are quite massive ("heavy") compared to findings that were gained in the context of experimental archeology ; Nevertheless, they were interpreted as typical damage to the bone substance, such as occurs when meat is scraped off with sharp stone tools. The impact marks were interpreted as a sign that the bones should be broken to get to the bone marrow.

As an alternative to the interpretation as cutting marks, tooth scratches from crocodiles can be considered, the trace morphology of which is very similar to the photos shown. The fact that these are finds in originally lacustrine sediments and that crocodile fossils are very common also gives the interpretation as crocodile bite a high probability , according to Tim White . Since the scratches have sharp V-shaped profiles, other carnivores could also be considered ( canids , felids ), which are being discussed as alternatives to cut marks for sites of the Pleistocene.

Cut and hit marks as evidence of cannibalism

In addition to functional and non-functional cutting marks on animal bones, cutting marks have in some cases been cited as evidence of human cannibalism . Prominent examples are the 800,000 year old bones of Homo antecessor from the Gran Dolina , a site in the karst cave area of the Sierra de Atapuerca (Spain), or the skull of Homo steinheimensis . The oldest cannibalism debate in the history of research, based on traces of blows and cuts, took place at the end of the 19th century on the Neanderthal remains of the half-cave of Krapina (Croatia). However, such alleged evidence can usually be invalidated by microscopic examinations.

In 2010, the already 1926 was La Quina excavated (southern France) skull fragment studied a Neanderthal, to point to the opinion of the authors beat tracks from the use of bone for retouching fire stone artifacts arise. With that, the human skull fragment would have been used as a bone tool.

Since forensic basic patterns can also be applied to the manipulation of prehistoric skeletons, findings from forensic medicine can also be incorporated into the traces of cuts, blows and cuts . In forensic anthropology , these form a group within the technical traces of form .

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Paul Shipman: Applications of Scanning Electron Microscopy to Taphonomic Problems. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 376, 1981, pp. 357-385
  2. ^ Jill Cook: The Application of Scanning Electron Microscopy to Taphonomic and Archaeological Problems. In: Roe, DA (Ed.): Studies in the Upper Paleolithic of Britain and Northwest Europe. BAR International Series 296, 1986, pp. 143-163
  3. ↑ Lewis Binford : Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. New York, 1981
  4. ↑ a b c d e f Leif Steguweit: Traces of use on artifacts from the hominid discovery site in Bilzingsleben (Thuringia) . Tübingen works on prehistory, Volume 2, VML Verlag, Rahden / Westf. 2003, ISBN 3-89646-852-9 ( PDF download ), pp. 115-134
  5. ↑ SL Olsen, P. Shipman: Surface modification on bone: trampling versus butchery. Journal of Archaeological Science 15, 1988, pp. 535-553 doi : 10.1016 / 0305-4403 (88) 90081-7
  6. ↑ Anna Katherine Behrens Meyer: Taphonomic and ecologic information from bone weathering. Paleobiology 4, 1978, pp. 150-162 PDF download
  7. ↑ a b c Silvia M. Bello, Christophe Soligo: A new method for the quantitative analysis of cutmark micromorphology. In: Journal of Archaeological Science. Volume 35, No. 6, 2008, pp. 1542-1552, doi: 10.1016 / j.jas.2007.10.018
  8. ^ Gary Haynes: Mammoths, Mastodonts & Elephants: Biology, Behavior, and the Fossil Record. Cambridge 1991
  9. ↑ Bello, SM, Parfitt, SA, Stringer, C .: Quantitative micromorphological analyzes of cut marks produced by ancient and modern handaxes. Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 2009, pp. 1869-1880 doi : 10.1016 / j.jas.2009.04.014
  10. Jump up ↑ Greenfield, HJ: Distinguishing metal (steel and low-tin bronze) from stone (flint and obsidian) tool cut marks on bone: an experimental approach. In: Mathieu, JR (ed.): Experimental Archeology: Replicating Past Objects, Behaviors and Processes. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1035, 2002, pp. 35-54
  11. ↑ a b Leif Steguweit: Cutting marks or animal bites? A contribution to modifications on Pleistocene bone surfaces. In: R. de Beauclair, SC Münzel and H. Napierala (eds.): Bones pave their way. Festschrift for Margarethe and Hans-Peter Uerpmann . Rahden / Westf. (M. Leidorf), 2009, pp. 247–258 ( PDF download )
  12. ^ Haynes, G .: Mammoths, Mastodonts & Elephants: Biology, Behavior, and the Fossil Record. Cambridge 1991, pp. 158-164
  13. ^ Hubert Berke: Archaeozoological detailed investigations on bones from southwest German Magdalenian inventories. Urgeschichtliche Materialhefte 8, 1987, Tübingen, pp. 1–146
  14. ↑ Susanne C. Münzel: Umingmak, a Moschusochsenjagplatz on Banks Island, NWT, Canada. Urgeschichtliche Materialhefte 5/2, 1987, Tübingen
  15. ↑ S. Semaw, P. Renne, JWK Harris, CS Feibel, RL Bernor, N. Fesseha and K. Mowbray: 2.5-million-year-old stone tools from Gona, Ethiopia. In: Nature . Volume 385, 1997, pp. 333-336 doi : 10.1038 / 385333a0
  16. ↑ Sileshi Semaw: The World's Oldest Stone Artefacts from Gona, Ethiopia: Their Implications for Understanding Stone Technology and Patterns of Human Evolution Between 2.6-1.5 Million Years Ago. In: Journal of Archaeological Science. Volume 27, 2000, pp. 1197-1214 doi : 10.1006 / jasc.1999.0592
  17. ^ J. de Heinzelin et al .: Environment and Behavior of 2.5-Million-Year-Old Bouri Hominids. In: Science , Volume 284, No. 5414, 1999, pp. 625-629, doi : 10.1126 / science.284.5414.625
  18. ↑ Mohamed Sahnouni et al .: 1.9-million- and 2.4-million-year-old artifacts and stone tool-cutmarked bones from Ain Boucherit, Algeria. In: Science. Published online 29 Volume 362, No. November6420, 2018, eaau0008S. 1297–1301, doi: 10.1126 / science.aau0008
    Strongest evidence of early humans butchering animals discovered in North Africa. On: sciencemag.org of November 29, 2018
  19. ↑ Leif Steguweit, Karel Valoch: On the question of non-utilitarian cuts in the Middle Pleistocene sites of Bilzingsleben and Stránská skála. In: Quaternary. 53/54, 2006, pp. 21-32 doi: 10.7485 / QU53 02
  20. ↑ a b c d Shannon P. McPherron et al .: Evidence for stone-tool-assisted consumption of animal tissues before 3.39 million years ago at Dikika. In: Nature. Volume 466, 2010, pp. 857-860, doi : 10.1038 / nature09248
  21. ↑ stern.de: 3.4 million year old finds: Lucy's contemporaries used tools (accessed on August 12, 2010).
  22. ↑ Manuel Domínguez-Rodrigo et al .: Configurational approach to identifying the earliest hominin butchers. In: PNAS . Volume 107, No. 49, 2010, pp. 20929-20934, doi : 10.1073 / pnas.1013711107
  23. ↑ "Supplementary information" to the article in Nature (PDF; 13.3 MB) , p. 22 (with numerous images)
  24. ↑ Yonatan Sahle, Sireen El Zaatari and Tim White : Hominid butchers and biting crocodiles in the African Pliocene-Pleistocene. In: PNAS. Volume 114, No. 50, 2017, pp. 13164-13169, doi: 10.1073 / pnas.1716317114
  25. ↑ Jackson K. Njau, Robert J. Blumenschine: A diagnosis of crocodile feeding traces on larger mammal bone, with fossil examples from the Plio-Pleistocene Olduvai Basin, Tanzania. In: Journal of Human Evolution. Volume 50, No. 2, 2006, pp. 142-162 doi : 10.1016 / j.jhevol.2005.08.008
  26. ^ "The horror of the chimpanzee researchers" (FAZ of November 2, 2010)
  27. ^ Leif Steguweit, Ralf-Dietrich Kahlke: Cut Marks and other Indication: Archaeologists´ Imagination, Experimental Approach and the Early Pleistocene Site of Untermassfeld (Central Germany). Hugo Obermaier Conference, 2014 doi: 10.12853 / POSTER.NESPOS.0044 ( PDF ( Memento from May 14, 2014 in the Internet Archive ), 1.7 MB)
  28. ↑ Y. Fernández-Jalvo, JC Dec, JM Bermudez de Castro, E. Carbonell u. JL Arsuaga : Evidence of early Cannibalism. In: Science. Volume 271, 1996, pp. 269-270 doi : 10.1126 / science.271.5247.277
  29. ↑ Eudald Carbonell et al .: Cultural Cannibalism as a Paleoeconomic System in the European Lower Pleistocene: The Case of Level TD6 of Gran Dolina (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain) . Current Anthropology 51, August 2010, pp. 539-549 doi : 10.1086 / 653807
  30. ↑ Erik Trinkaus : Cannibalism and burial at Krapina. In: Journal of Human Evolution. Volume 14, No. 2, 1985, pp. 203-216 doi : 10.1016 / S0047-2484 (85) 80007-5
  31. ↑ a b Jörg Orschiedt : Manipulation of human skeletal remains. Taphonomic processes, secondary burials or cannibalism? Tübingen, MoVince-Verlag, 1999
  32. ↑ Jörg Orschiedt: On the question of manipulations on the skull of "Homo steinheimensis". In: Ingo Campen, Joachim Hahn , M. Uerpmann (Ed.): Traces of the hunt - The hunt for traces. Festschrift Prof. Hansjürgen Müller-Beck . Tübingen Monographs on Prehistory, Vol. 11 (Tübingen) 1996, pp. 467–472
  33. ↑ C. Verna, F. d'Errico: The earliest evidence for the use of human bone as a tool. In: Journal of Human Evolution. Volume 60, No. 2, 2012, doi: 10.1016 / j.jhevol.2010.07.027