CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 324

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Quantitative Diagnosis of Notches Made by Hammerstone Percussion and Carnivore Gnawing on Bovid Long Bones

Capaldo, Salvatore D., Blumenschine, Robert J.·1994·American Antiquity
DOI 10.2307/282345
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The frequency and morphology of notches produced on bovid long bones by carnivore gnawing (tooth notches) and hammerstone-on-anvil breakage (percussion notches) are quantified. Notches are semicircular- to arcuate-shaped indentations on fracture edges with corresponding negative flake scars on medullary surfaces. We restrict our analysis to notches produced under controlled conditions by either carnivores or hammerstones when diaphyses are breached to extract marrow. Percussion notches are characteristically more frequent, and, in cortical view, broader and shallower than tooth notches. The flakes removed from percussion notches are typically broader, and have a more obtuse release angle, than those removed from tooth notches. These morphological differences are statistically significant for notches on Bovid Size 1 and 2 long bones but not on Bovid Size 3 long bones. Notches should be more durable than marks produced by carcass consumers on bone surfaces because they penetrate the entire thickness of the bone. As a result, notches are not easily obscured by weathering, chemical corrosion, or adhering matrix. Given this durability, and the initial success we have had in distinguishing the actor responsible for notch production on modern bones, notches can be used, with some limitations, to identify bone consumers archaeologically.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/282345

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Large canids are capable of applying static pressure on bone resulting in the production of spiral bone fractures and bone flakes similar to the ones produced by human marrow extraction.

    “This is particularly true of large canids, which are capable of applying static pressure on bone resulting in the production of spiral bone fractures and bone flakes similar to the ones produced by human marrow extraction [41, 47].”

    From Earliest Human Presence in North America Dated to the Last Glacial Maximum: New Radiocarbon Dates from Bluefish Caves, Canada (2017) · cites this paper as [47]

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 60

  1. Isaac, 1984, The Archaeology of Human Origins : Studies of the Lower Pleistocene in East Africa, Advances in World Archaeology, 3, 1
  2. Cotterell, 1975, Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, 97
  3. 10.1016/0047-2484(91)90034-S · DOI
  4. 10.2307/278884 · DOI
  5. Capaldo, 1995, Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology
  6. Capaldo, 1990, Differential Treatment of Axial and Appendicular Elements by Scavenging Carnivores at Simulated Archaeological Sites., Paper presented at the Biennial Conference of the Society of Africanist Archaeologists, Gainesville, Florida
  7. 10.1038/291574a0 · DOI
  8. Bunn, 1982, Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation
  9. Johnson, 1983, A Question of Bone Technology, 55
  10. Wilmsen, 1970, Anthropological Papers No. 16.
  11. 10.1006/jhev.1995.1046 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/0033-5894(75)90029-0 · DOI
  13. Bonnichsen, 1980, Mammalian Osteology, 7
  14. 10.1016/0305-4403(88)90006-4 · DOI
  15. Bonnichsen, 1973, Mammalian Osteo-Archaeology, 9
  16. 10.1016/0033-5894(84)90041-3 · DOI
  17. Kobayashi, 1975, Lithic Technology : Making and Using Stone Tools, 115, 10.1515/9783111390376.115 · DOI
  18. 10.14430/arctic2325 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/B978-0-12-003108-5.50010-5 · DOI
  20. 10.1080/01977261.1984.11720855 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/0305-4403(89)90051-4 · DOI
  22. Cruz-Uribe, 1991, Distinguishing Hyena from Hominid Bone Accumulations, Journal of Field Archaeology, 18, 467, 10.1179/009346991791549068 · DOI
  23. Blumenschine, 1993, From Bones to Behavior, 273
  24. 10.1016/0278-4165(91)90014-O · DOI
  25. 10.1080/00438243.1980.9979787 · DOI
  26. Bunn, 1991, Cultural Beginnings, 33
  27. 10.1126/science.233.4762.431 · DOI
  28. 10.1007/BF02436295 · DOI
  29. 10.1016/0305-4403(88)90067-2 · DOI
  30. 10.1016/0305-4403(92)90057-A · DOI
  31. 10.1016/0305-4403(89)90012-5 · DOI
  32. Fiorillo, 1989, Bone Modification, 61
  33. 10.1017/S0003598X00013417 · DOI
  34. 10.1016/0305-4403(88)90078-7 · DOI
  35. 10.1038/319768a0 · DOI
  36. 10.1016/B978-0-12-003110-8.50008-6 · DOI
  37. Dart, 1957, Memoir No. 10.
  38. Shipman, 1989, Bone Modification, 317
  39. 10.1016/0305-4403(85)90022-6 · DOI
  40. Oliver, 1989, Bone Modification, 73
  41. 10.1016/S0047-2484(86)80002-1 · DOI
  42. Bunn, 1983, Animals and Archaeology, 143
  43. Maguire, 1980, The Makapansgat Limeworks Grey Breccia : Hominids, Hyaenas, Hystricids or Hillwash?, Paleontologica Africana, 23, 75
  44. 10.1086/203659 · DOI
  45. 10.2307/3887730 · DOI
  46. Blumenschine, 1991, Human Predators and Prey Mortality, 121
  47. 10.1525/aa.1961.63.4.02a00070 · DOI
  48. 10.1016/0033-5894(84)90037-1 · DOI
  49. 10.1016/B978-0-12-003108-5.50008-7 · DOI
  50. 10.1017/S0094837300005820 · DOI · Paper page
  51. 10.1525/aa.1966.68.2.02a001060 · DOI
  52. Bonnichsen, 1979, Paper No. 89. Archaeological Survey of Canada
  53. 10.1016/0033-5894(84)90042-5 · DOI
  54. 10.1016/0305-4403(92)90009-R · DOI
  55. Bunn, 1989, Bone Modification, 299
  56. 10.2307/279863 · DOI
  57. 10.1038/291577a0 · DOI
  58. 10.1038/333763a0 · DOI
  59. 10.1016/B978-0-12-003104-7.50013-2 · DOI
  60. Blumenschine, 1991, Cultural Beginnings, 17

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Capaldo, S. D., & Blumenschine, R. J.
Venue
American Antiquity
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
1994-10
Volume
59
Issue
4
Pages
724-748
ISSN
  • 0002-7316
  • 2325-5064
DOI
10.2307/282345
Cited by
324
References
0
Language
en
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 8147 d)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review