current developments in bone technology

Current Developments in Bone TechnologyAuthor(s): Eileen JohnsonSource: Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 8 (1985), pp. 157-235Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20170189 .

Accessed: 04/06/2014 15:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Advances in ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.210.236.20 on Wed, 4 Jun 2014 15:42:28 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20170189?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


5

Current Developments in Bone

Technology

EILEEN JOHNSON

INTRODUCTION

This review discusses land-mammal bones, their biological properties, the

various modification processes they can undergo, and the agencies responsible for those modifications. A basic question addressed by this review is how to

distinguish hominid-modified bones, particularly fracture patterns, from bones

modified by natural (biological and geological) agencies. A second question concerns cultural reconstruction and how hominids modified bones from large land mammals.

Considerable controversy revolves around these two questions. Of primary concern is the fracture pattern known as spiral fracturing, how it is induced and

under what conditions, and what its relationship is to the way hominids manipu late bone versus manipulation by other agencies. The spiral morphology is heli

cal, and is the shape of a curve through a series of planes as it circles around the

diaphysis. Another concern is the type of surficial damage bone undergoes once it has

been fractured and how that damage relates to the way hominids manipulate bone

versus manipulation by other agencies. To a great extent, the arguments, particu

larly those concerning fracturing, are spurious because of the solid foundation in

bone research that generally has been ignored, misunderstood, or not fully ap

plied. The controversy has been fueled in the archaeological literature through a

ADVANCES IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD AND THEORY, VOL. 8

157 Copyright ? 1985 by Academic Press, Inc.

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISBN 0-12-003108-6



1 58 EILEEN JOHNSON

lack of understanding of bone as a material, what physical properties are critical

to its response as a material, and how response is affected by altering its physical

properties (e.g., Dart 1957, 1960; Guthrie 1980; G. Haynes 1983a; Hill 1976;

Meyers etal, 1980; Mor?an 1980; Sadek-Kooros 1972, 1975); through unstated or less than rigorous methodology (cf. Gif ford 1981; Johnson 1977; Meyers et

al 1980); and through an unfortunate atmosphere of arrogance, acrimony, and

antagonism (cf. Binford 1981; Bonnichsen 1982a; G. Haynes 1981). This review

focuses on the mechanical behavior of bone as a material and on the bone

processing behaviors of hominids and large carnivores.

Bone assemblages are a basic unit of investigation and interpretation but they are composed of individual elements, each with its own life history and influence

on that assemblage (cf. Gifford 1981). This review, therefore, concentrates on

the analysis of individual specimens rather than on assemblages as a whole.

Attention is focused on large land-mammal long bones because these elements

(1) have generated the most interest and concern, (2) were frequently selected

and modified by hominids and large carnivores, (3) are durable in the fossil

record, and (4) form the basis of much of the available research data. The

methodology and problems involved with hominids and natural agency influ

ences on bone assemblages as a whole can be found in such works as Behrens

meyer and Decant-Boaz (1980), Behrensmeyer et al. (1979), Binford (1981), Binford and Bertram (1977), Brain (1967a, 1969, 1976, 1981), Gifford (1981), G. Haynes (1980, 1981), Saunders (1977), Shipman (1981a), Speth (1983), Wheat (1972, 1979), and Yellen (1977).

A number of frameworks interact to shape and direct this review. These

frameworks are taphonomy, biomechanics, and culture. Taphonomy is the study of conditions that have influenced the formation of fossil assemblages from the

death of an individual to its exposure as a fossil (cf. Gifford 1981; Saunders

1977; Shipman 1981a). Taphonomic studies focus on two postmortem periods, from the time of death until incorporation into the ground (termed biostratinomy) and from burial to reexposure (termed biodiagenesis). Numerous reviews and in

depth studies are available (e.g., Behrensmeyer 1975; Behrensmeyer and Hill

1980; Clark and Kietzke 1967; Gifford 1981; Olson 1980; Shipman 1981a; Saunders 1977; Wolff 1973, 1975).

Taphonomy operates on the principle that processes affecting bone today from

death through burial to exposure are the same as in the past (the principle of

uniformitarianism) and that those events leave a damage (or modification) record

on the bone that can be recognized and identified as to process and agency. The

agency is the general group to which the phenomenon causing change in the

original state of the bone or a bone assemblage can be classed (e.g., biological,

geological, hominid). Process is the "how" it became modified (e.g., scored by a tooth scratching the cortical surface) and the "what" that caused the modifica



CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN BONE TECHNOLOGY 1 59

tion (e.g., large carnivore). The modification or alteration one sees on a bone or

in the bone assemblage as a whole is the result of changes the bone or an

assemblage has undergone.

Neotaphonomy (Shipman 1981a) is an active area of research in which both

direct field observations of modern processes (actualistic studies) and controlled

experimentation are occurring in order to link a specific process with a particular result or series of results. Neotaphonomy encompasses both natural and hominid

agency studies. Such studies as experiments in fluvial process and bone ac

cumulation (e.g., Dodson 1973; Hanson 1980; Voorhies 1969), direct field

observations of skeletal decomposition (e.g., Behrensmeyer 1978; Coe 1978; Hill 1975), and the bone behaviors of large carnivores (e.g., G. Haynes 1981,

1982; Shipman and Phillips-Conroy, 1977) and humans (e.g., Binford 1978; Brain 1969; Bonnichsen 1973), and experiments in human-induced bone modifi

cations (e.g., Bonnichsen 1973, 1979; Potts and Shipman 1981; Shipman 1981b; Stanford et al. 1981) provide crucial data necessary to establishing criteria that

distinguish between agencies and identify agency and process with the modifica

tion.

Neotaphonomic analogs are a procedural approach that is a demonstrable,

objective, impartial, and verifiable course of action. They are based on direct

observation of cause and effect, through actualistic or experimental data. Actu

alistic studies provide a record of what is occurring today under modern condi

tions, although these conditions do not cover the full range of possible conditions

under extinct systems. Experimental work provides a record of what is possible under certain conditions, although those conditions may or may not reflect what

existed in the past. Neotaphonomic data cannot be applied indiscriminately but

must be used reasonably. Zoo studies (e.g., G. Haynes 1978, 1981) show that bears are capable of breaking large mammal long bones but that fact does not

indicate that in the wild this capability is a bone behavior having significant taphonomic effect today. Experimental controls, however, allow individual vari

ables to be isolated and their significance and relationship to other variables determined (e.g., exactly how a bear damages a long bone and how that damage record differs from wolf or human damage).

Neotaphonomic analogs are an integral tool in deciphering and explaining the

life history of a bone or an assemblage and the processes involved. Explanatory

analogs, in turn, form the basis for establishing discriminating criteria that segre

gate agency and process and provide the foundation for interpretation. Those

analogs that most closely match the fossil material have the greatest explanatory power or greatest chance of success at true characterization of the events (cf. Ascher and Ascher 1965; Binford 1981; Bonnichsen 1982a,b). This review

indicates the progress toward analog building and points out the ambiguities and

problems still unresolved.



160 EILEEN JOHNSON

Biomechanics concerns the effect of forces on the form or motion of organic bodies (Evans 1961:110). With this discussion, attention is focused on the in

teraction of biological and physical properties of land-mammal bone when force

(push or pull) is applied. Force can either be static (balanced) or dynamic (caus

ing change). Force is applied to bone as it undergoes taphonomic processes. How

that bone reacts and the type of damage recorded is related to biomechanical

factors and an interaction between process and biomechanics. A biomechanical

framework defines the constraints upon bones and the range of variation in how

bones respond to force. It sets the parameters in dealing with bone and tap honomic and cultural perspectives.

Although notice has been given to the physical properties of bone and fracture

mechanics (e.g., Bonnichsen 1979; G. Haynes 1981; Mor?an 1980), the full

import and control of physical properties and fracture mechanics on bone's

response to force has been little understood in the archaeological literature.

Contrary to Mor?an (1980:37), bone microstructure governs bone failure and the

resultant fracture pattern and bone response begins on the microlevel. Fracture is a localized mechanical failure. Therefore, microstructure properties and mechan

ics are emphasized in this review.

Fresh green bone is bone that contains a high moisture content and fresh

marrow in the medullary cavity. Generally, the bone is in the living condition, or

from a just-killed animal. Furthermore, fresh bone does not behave in a brittle (or

inflexible) manner (contra Bonnichsen 1979:14; Bonnichsen and Will 1980:11

12; Mor?an 1980:37), but rather, is a viscoelastic (i.e., flowable and deforma

ble), ductile material capable of withstanding great amounts of pressure and

deformation before failure. Bone does behave in a brittle manner when it is well

into a dry or altered state (cf. Hayes and Carter 1979).

Overcoming bone's pliant nature is an accumulative process at the microstruc

tural level and failure begins at the microlevel after a certain limit is exceeded.

Once microstructural integrity is breached, macrostructural failure can escalate

quickly. The importance of bone microstructure to fracture mechanics is well

illustrated by Shipman's (1981b) SEM study of fracture surfaces in which she

demonstrates that differing microstructural responses exist under different break

age conditions.

Extensive mechanical and fracture studies on bone have been conducted,

mainly through medical research, in order to determine, predict, and interpret bone's response to force under a variety of conditions. A large body of data is

available through controlled experiments using prepared, standardized sections

of long bone in fresh, air-dried, and preserved (with formaldehyde) states sub

jected to pure force. Bone from various land mammals, including human, is used

without major differences in properties or response reported. Data generated in

this manner form the foundation in which to decipher the more complicated




Figure 5.1. A, Fracture in a glass tumbler from tensile failure induced by dynamic loading

(photograph courtesy of Eunice Barkes). B, Closeup of fracture surface exhibiting hackle

marks.

response to force of an intact long bone than that of a standardized section. Intact

long bones are subject to mixed force and other variables, such as size, shape, curvature, cortex thickness, and marrow, that influence its response (cf. Evans

1957, 1973; Hayes and Carter 1979).

Experimental analogs using inorganic material have been developed in order

to explain fracture dynamics and describe bone fracture configuration patterns

(e.g., Bonnichsen 1973; Ekland and Grant 1977). The hollow glass tube analog is the most useful because of its tubular nature and clarity of expression (Figure 5.1 A,B). The comparison is appropriate because of the hollow tubular nature of

a glass tube and long bone and the laws of physics governing tubes (Evans 1961,

1973). Fracture fragmentation appears to be controlled to a great extent by the

tubular nature of each material and results in similar configuration patterns. The

terms and surface features used to describe the glass tube pattern have been

applied to what appear to be similar surface features and fragmentation mor

phology and sequences in the long bone pattern. The analog has limitations, however, and cannot be used in explaining a long



1 62 EILEEN JOHNSON

bone's response to force because of the differences in material (inorganic and

brittle versus organic and ductile) and structure (homogeneous versus hetero

genous) and the simplicity of a straight hollow tube versus the complexity of a

long bone. Furthermore, glass always fails due to tension (being pulled apart; cf.

Phillips 1972) whereas bone failure can be related to other forces as well (cf. Evans 1961, 1973). In glass, pre-existing microcracks on the surface act as stress

concentrators, effect crack propagation, and preclude relief by deformation (a

change in shape; cf. Phillips 1972). In bone, microcracking signifies the max

imum strain (i.e., local deformation) to failure. Microcracks form in compact bone after deformation has been overcome and they signal the initiation of failure

(cf. Bird et al. 1968; Evans 1973). Fatigue, related to time and environment,

plays a major role in glass failure (cf. Charles 1961 ; Phillips 1972) whereas bone

both as a material and a structural unit of the musculoskeletal system is adapted to resist fatigue (cf. Evans 1957, 1973). Lastly, failure is initiated at the surface

in glass (cf. Charles 1961; Phillips 1972). In living long bones, failure can be

initiated at the cortical surface or from within the bone at the medullary cavity wall (cf. Evans 1957, 1973).

The cultural framework is concerned with past behavioral systems and the

shared information system and set of choices to which a group had access

(Young and Bonnichsen 1984). Individuals are governed by generally accepted behavioral rules of the group that allow a certain latitude or range of variation in

behavior. That latitude represents a constraint upon the system but also creates

the overlap of shared characteristics and shared patterns that can be labeled a

culture (Alexander 1974; Young and Bonnichsen 1984). Bone technology can be viewed broadly as the hominid utilization of bone, the

modification of which can be purposeful or accidental. The focus of such a broad

definition is on the techniques selected for modifying the inherent morphology of

the resource. Technology is a dynamic process and the resultant shape or modifi

cation of the bone is an interaction between technology (procedures followed in

manipulating the bone) and biomechanics (response of the bone to that manip

ulating force). This review is concerned with the fracturing by man of fresh large land-mammal bones and the subsequent use of the resultant segments as tools.

Cultural reconstruction and the delineation of constraints and shared knowl

edge is a deductive process based on multiple working hypotheses, analogs, and

assumptions (e.g., Ascher and Ascher 1965; Binford 1972, 1981; Bonnichsen

1977, 1979, 1982a,b; Clark 1968, 1972; Fritz 1972; Hodder and Orton 1976; Isaac 1978; Knudson 1979; Peters 1980; Yoffee 1980; Yellen 1977). A number

of possible solutions exist for an archaeological problem and deduction is used to

select the solution that best fits or explains the archaeological data. The archae

ological problem in this case is how to identify bones modified by hominids,

particularly minimal modifications, as compared to bones modified by other

agencies. It is a recognition problem governed by the threshold phenomenon.



CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN BONE TECHNOLOGY 163

The threshold phenomenon deals with the minimal, an event or stimulus just

strong enough to be perceived or to produce a response. That phenomenon reflects the lowest level of resolution needed to characterize the sought event in

order to either distinguish it from similar events or enable its earliest detection in

the fossil record (e.g., Ascher and Ascher 1965; Isaac 1976; Mayr 1966). The methodology involved in cultural reconstruction in general and particu

larly that used in dealing with archaeological faunal remains (specifically large land-mammal bones) has come under attack by Binford (1981). Researchers are

taken to task for less than rigorous analytical approaches that use unwarranted

inferences leading to the creation of false views of the past, that is, the selection

of inappropriate solutions for the archaeological facts. Binford (1981) contends

that faulty methodology involving untested assumptions has led to poor or er

roneous interpretive models that can only be cured by the detailed documentation

of living systems as the basis for interpretation. He warns against the major

assumption of treating all materials from a site as hominid-induced, modified, and arranged without a basis for that assumption. He stresses the importance of

actualistic data and establishing diagnostic criteria that segregate cause and effect

and identify agency. This type of research leads to middle range theory that can

elucidate the relationship between the static archaeological record and the dy namic processes responsible for that record.

While Binford (1981) may be warranted in his admonitions and demand for more rigorous analysis and model building, he falls victim to some of the same

pitfalls that he warns against. Binford (1981) fails to consider the biomechanical

framework and importance of the physical properties of bone and how bone's

response to force affects process. In relating pattern to process, he fails to

eliminate unwarranted inferences in his work. His wolf data are based on indirect

field observations with the assumption that all the damage and accumulation was

performed by wolves (the same sort of assumption that humans are responsible for all materials at a site). These materials represent modern surface assemblages from wolf dens and rockshelters used by wolves but without verifiable, direct

observation that wolves and only wolves were responsible for the accumulation,

modification, and distribution of the assemblages. He fails to follow his own rule

of "if and only if" statements for establishing reliable diagnostic criteria. Fur

thermore, he equates North American wolf and African hyena bone behaviors yet their behaviors and mechanical strengths are known to be different (cf. G.

Haynes 1981; Kruuk 1972). Binford (1981:134, 180) deals with inference in his own work by stating his

confidence in his interpretations and assessment of other researchers works

(those that are "in error" and a few that are "correct") without the diagnostic criteria for evaluation of alternative explanations (or better solutions). Binford

(1981) raises important methodological concerns that are recognized by other researchers (e.g., Bonnichsen 1982b; Brain 1981; Shipman 1981a) but his in



164 EILEEN JOHNSON

terpretations appear no more valid and may be less valid (e.g., his evaluation of

the Olduvai Gorge material, cf. Bunn [1982a], Isaac [1983]) than those of the

researchers he attacks (cf. Bonnichsen [1983], Bunn [1982a], Grayson [1982], G. Haynes [1983b], Isaac [1983], and Will [1982] for further review and

criticism). Lithic technology studies have had a major influence on bone technology

studies, and therefore cultural reconstruction based on bone data, in the former's

analytical approach (e.g., Ascher and Ascher 1965; Bonnichsen 1977a; Hayden 1979) and terminology (e.g., Bonnichsen 1973; Cotterell and Kamminga 1979;

Crabtree 1972; Gash 1971; Semenov 1964; Speth 1972). Many of the techniques used to modify lithic materials (e.g., flaking, grinding, polishing) were applied to bone and some morphological responses appear analogous (e.g., bone flakes

with striking platforms, point of impact, and bulb of percussion). Sharing a

common, or at least overlapping, approach and terminology facilitates commu

nication among researchers, standardizes some methods, and reinforces the rela

tionship between the two technologies. The question of how real that relationship is and whether the analogs (and

therefore transferred terminology and connotations) are valid can only be an

swered in terms of the mechanics and dynamics of fracture and experimental studies. Lithic and bone materials do differ structurally and mechanically. How

ever, extensive mechanical testing has been conducted with bone as a material,

using the same types of tests, terminology, and mathematical equations as ap

plied to inorganic materials (cf. Evans 1973; Hayes and Carter 1979; Herrman and Liebowitz 1972). Mechanical testing of lithic materials follows the same

methodology of applying general mechanical procedures and concepts to that

specific type of inorganic material (cf. Faulkner 1972; Lawn and Marshall 1979; Liebowitz 1968; Obert 1972; Tsirk 1979). Because of the available fracture data

for both bone and inorganic materials and the striking morphological similarities

in response, the assumption is made in mechanical testing that the morphological

appearances mirror the same functions. Currently, this assumption is a basic

deductive premise in bone technology. Two striking analogous and related situations exist between bone and lithic

studies. Fresh long bones have a characteristic fracture response to force known

as spiral fracture. This basic principle is on the order of magnitude of recognition of the conical fracture principle in lithics. The controversy in taphonomic and

bone technology studies stem from this fresh bone fracture pattern and how and

by what it is induced. Man is not the only agency that can induce this pattern.

However, given the current biological, neotaphonomic, and experimental data, much can be said about how various agencies modify bones and the processes

involved, including establishing criteria to segregate hominid-induced from non

hominid-induced fresh bone fracture patterns. This controversy also has been

fueled by the misunderstanding or abuse of the concept and term of spiral




fracture, which has specific biomechanical and technical definitions (cf. Evans

1961, 1973). This review sets forth that definition, distinguishes that pattern from similar ones, and explores the misapplication that clouds the agency issue.

The second analogous situation concerns the threshold phenomenon and the

recognition of tools. Traditionally recognized bone tools, such as points, awls,

fleshers, and hoes, are highly modified by manufacturing activities and leave

little doubt as to their being fashioned by man. On the other hand, the proposed

category of bone butchering tools (cf. Bonnichsen 1979; Frison 1970, 1974; Johnson 1976, 1982; Johnson and Bonnichsen 1982; Wheat 1979) represents

implements that are not highly modified by manufacturing activities and most

frequently are not modified before use beyond the characteristic fracture re

sponse. Therefore, modification beyond fracture is from use and not standard

ized manufacturing procedures. The question of what constitutes use-wear indic

ative of hominid agency has been raised (e.g., Binford 1981; Brain 1967b; Guthrie 1980; G. Haynes 1981; Meyers et al. 1980) and meeting that challenge necessitates the same rigorous, verifiable, demonstrable approach being taken

with that question in lithic use-wear studies (e.g., Greiser 1977; Hayden 1979;

Keeley 1974; Keeley and Newcomer 1977). This type of slightly modified bone

tool is analogous to lithic utilized flakes and the recognition problem also is

analogous to that faced by researchers in determining early hominid lithic tools

(e.g., Ascher and Ascher 1965; Collins 1981; Coppens etal. 1976; C. V. Haynes 1973; Isaac et al. 1971; Leakey 1966, 1970; Simpson et al. 1981).

The historical literature and philosophies that form the foundation of research

into agencies of bone alteration have been reviewed by several authors (e.g., Binford 1981; Bonnichsen 1979; Gifford 1981; Mor?an 1980) and are not re

viewed again in this essay. This review concerns itself with the contemporary literature, the search for a unified framework for discriminating agencies of bone

alteration, and man's manipulation of bone. The major sections of the review are a discussion of the biological properties of land-mammal bone as the foundation for understanding bone alteration; an indication of the progress made and the

unresolved ambiguities in linking pattern and process for unraveling the life

history of a bone; and a presentation of a case study in cultural reconstruction

based on bone technology.

BONE PROPERTIES AND FRACTURE MECHANICS

Physical Properties

Mammalian bone is a highly complex, multiphased, heterogeneous, com

posite material that is viscoelastic and anisotropic (having contrasting mechan ical properties that respond differently to an external stimulus but when com



166 EILEEN JOHNSON

bined are stronger than either substance alone). Because of these characteristics,

mammalian bone resembles modern engineering composites in its response to

force. Anisotropic analysis and failure theories for both bone and inorganic

composites are based on stress (local force intensities) and strain (local deforma

tion) in the principal axial direction (cf. Corten 1972; Gurland and Parikh 1972;

Hayes and Carter 1979). The composite nature of mammalian bone can be seen

at the macrostructural, microstructural, and ultrastructural levels.

Long bones typically consist of two tissue forms, that of cancellous bone at the

epiphyseal ends and a diaphysis of compact bone. At the microstructural level, cancellous bone consists of an open network of plates and columns known as

trabeculae. Compact bone is a composite of laminated and haversian bone. It

consists of several features such as osteons, interstitial lamellae, lacunae, and

Volkmann's and haversian canals (Figure 5.2A). The porosity of compact bone

is represented by the percentage (volume) of cavities or spaces formed by the

canals. Lacunae house osteocytes and are interconnected with other structures by

canaliculi.

An osteon is a cylindrical and branching structure with thick walls and is

composed of concentric layers of hydroxyapatite embedded in collagen fibers.

3

-INTERSTITIAL BONE TISSUE

-OSTEOCYTE

-OSTEON

-HAVERSIAN CANAL

-MICROCRACK

Figure 5.2. A, Schematic draw

ing of bone microstructure; B, in

cipient microcracking (maximurr strain to failure) after impact. I- - . '

t/i\ ,,\imn^?M -^?tlL^




Laminated bone consists of alternating layers of primary osteons with collagen fibers oriented in a predominant direction and collagen fibers randomly oriented.

Haversian bone contains osteons that surround the haversian canals, which con

tain blood vessels. These secondary osteons are oriented longitudinally with the

axis of the whole bone and consist of concentric lamellae of collagen fibers

oriented preferentially (longitudinally). This preferential orientation governs bone reaction when the bone is stressed (Hayes and Carter 1979; Herrmann and

Liebowitz 1972). At the ultrastructural level, bone consists of an organic matrix of collagen

fibers (protein) in which are embedded hydroxyapatite crystals (mineral) aligned with the fiber axis. Collagen fibers can be arranged randomly or oriented in a

predominant direction (lamellar bone). Lamellar bone is composed of a number

of lamellae (layers) in which fiber orientation may differ from one lamella to the

next.

Mammalian bone responds in certain predictable ways when it is stressed.

Stress is defined as the local force intensities or internal or intermolecular re

sistance within a body to the deformation action of an outside force. Strain is the

local deformation or change in the linear dimensions of a body as the result of an

outside application of a force. A stress-strain curve is a plot of stresses produced in a body against corresponding strains. The modulus of elasticity is a measure of

the stiffness of bone and represents the relationship between stress and strain

(Evans 1952, 1961, 1973; Hayes and Carter 1979). Tensile strength is the stress

that tends to keep adjacent planes of a body from being pulled apart by a force.

Compressive strength is the stress that keeps adjacent planes of a body from

being pushed together by a force (Ascenzi and Bonnucci 1965). Osteons are the mechanical unit of compact bone and it is the interaction of the

organic collagen fibers and inorganic hydroxyapatite crystals that govern bone's

anisotropic response (Ascenzi and Bonnucci 1964; Hayes and Carter 1979; Herr mann and Leibowitz 1972). Osteons in general tend to decrease tensile strength and the modulus of elasticity while the lamellae tend to increase this strength and

stiffness. The amount of osteons in a given area influence mechanical properties in that the greater the amount of osteons, the greater the amount of cement (an increase in areas of weakness) and the lower the modulus of elasticity and tensile

strength. Osteons whose collagen fibers follow a steeply spiraled course around

the longitudinal axis of the osteon exhibit greater tensile but lesser compressive

strengths than those osteons whose fibers have a low angle of spiral (lower tensile but greater compressive strengths). Furthermore, the greater the number of longitudinally oriented collagen fibers to the long axis of the whole bone, the

greater the resistance to failure in compact bone. Therefore, fracturing in com

pact bone on a microscopic level is directly related to the amount and distribution

of osteons, the distribution and orientation of collagen fibers, and the combined

response to force of osteons and collagen fibers (Evans 1973). Stress is distributed between the collagen and hydroxyapatite but a greater



168 EILEEN JOHNSON

percentage of the load (application of force) is supported by the hydroxyapatite

(compressive-resistant element) whereas the collagen is responsible for the non

elastic or viscoelastic properties (Bonfield and Li 1966a; Evans 1973). The

organic matrix of collagen fibers has a low modulus of elasticity and less strength

compared to the hydroxyapatite crystals, which have a high modulus of elasticity and greater strength (Currey 1964; Herrmann and Liebowitz 1972). However, the constituents combined give overall strengths much greater than those of the

individual parts. This multiphase material functions efficiently due to a very firm bonding

between the fibers and the matrix. The strength of this bonding responds to and is

affected by the amount of stress placed upon it at the microlevel where micro

cracking begins and failure is initiated (Figure 5.2B). Before the failure point is

reached, plastic deformation from stress occurs.

Bone does not deform in an elastic manner up to fracture stress. Instead,

plastic strain occurs in an anelastic (recoverable strain over a period of time) manner. This plastic deformation is due to the multiphase material of bone.

When a bone is loaded, stress is absorbed before microcracking occurs. If micro

cracking (i.e., maximum strain to failure) did not occur, contraction occurs after

unloading, and recovery (survival) takes place. The bone did not fail; it did not

fracture. Although recovery occurs, it is not complete and some irreversible

deformation occurs at the microscopic level (Bonfield and Li 1966b:874). The

ratio of permanent (irreversible) to anelastic strain decreases with increasing levels of applied stress until microcracking occurs (Bonfield and Li 1965,

1966b).

Elasticity "is the physical property which allows the body to return to its

original shape after it has been deformed as the result of the application of a force

or load" (Evans 1961:111). The elastic limit is the point of maximum stress

beyond which a body will not return to its original shape (recover) when the load

is removed (i.e., failure has been initiated). Irreversible deformation (permanent

strain) is an accumulative process at the microscopic level that occurs until the

elastic limit is reached.

Failure begins with microcracking. Cement lines around osteons appear to be

areas of weakness because microcrack formation and fracture propagation tend to

follow these lines (Evans 1973). Microcracking has a severe effect on the cellular

level, but little effect on the whole element until escalated to larger cracks (Bird and Becker 1966). In experiments, microcracking first occurred at 58% of com

plete failure load (force necessary to cause fracturing) and final failure occurred

at 70% failure load (Sweeney et al. 1965). While osteons are the governing mechanical unit of compact bone, other

factors also influence fracturing. Moisture content is an important aspect that

affects various bone strengths. In experimental tests (Evans 1973; Evans and

Lebow 1951; Herrmann and Liebowitz 1972), air-dried bone had greater tensile




and compressive strengths than wet (living bone condition) samples, an in

creased modulus of elasticity, and a decrease in strain properties. The generated stress-strain curves for dry and wet samples under tensile strain showed a greater

energy-absorbing capacity (the ability to absorb stress) for wet bone than air

dried bone before failure (Evans 1961, 1973; Evans and Lebow 1951). Air-dried bone fractured more easily due to water loss that decreased its ability

to absorb stress (Evans 1973) and an increased stiffness that made the bone less flexible (Evans 1961). Water loss also resulted in increased bone hardness (re sistance to penetration by another solid body) and microhardness (resistance to

penetration on a microscopic level) (Amprino 1958). Increased resistance in the two hardnesses resulted in permanent deformation instead of plastic deformation.

Dry bone, therefore, behaves more as an inorganic material and becomes brittle, that is, it can only withstand a small amount of strain before failure. Wet bone

behaves in a ductile manner, being able to undergo a large amount of strain

before failure (Evans 1973). The energy-absorbing capacity of bone is a significant factor in fracture me

chanics because "most fractures are produced by impacts or the sudden applica tion of a force" (Evans 1961:115). A greater ability to absorb sudden stress

results in a higher survival rate. Moisture, strain rate, and temperature influence the capacity. Evans and Lebow (1951) found that under tension, the strain

occurring is directly proportional to the bone's energy-absorbing capacity. The

presence of moisture in living bone greatly enhances its energy-absorbing capacity.

The ultimate strength and modulus of elasticity also are dependent on the rate

of loading or velocity of impact. A critical velocity governs the stress-strain

relationship and is the decisive time rate of impact and absorption of energy that results in the transition from survival to damage. As this rate is reached, a change in energy-absorption capacity occurs and microcracking (maximum strain to

failure) begins (Evans 1973; McElhaney 1966; McElhaney and Byars 1965). Another study (Frankel and Burstein 1967) indicated that the higher the strain

rate, the greater the energy-absorbing capacity (until failure). Heat (elevated

temperature) decreases compressive and tensile strengths and the modulus of

elasticity (Sedlin 1965) and increases bone hardness and microhardness (Ampri no 1958). The increase in the two hardnesses is a result of moisture loss and, therefore, energy-absorbing capacity and anelasticity are greatly decreased. The bone becomes less ductile and more easily subject to failure.

Fracture Dynamics

Fracture dynamics is a function of biomechanical response. Dynamics deals with forces that produce a change in the body upon which they act; statics deals with balanced forces in a state of equilibrium. To load a body is to apply force,



170 EILEEN JOHNSON

that is, to create a stress-strain situation. Force produces change in a body unless

it is balanced by an equal and opposite force (Evans 1961:110). Three types of

force exist: tension (pulling apart), compression (pushing together), and shear

(sliding in the opposite direction of the adjacent part). Most fractures are problems in energy absorption. Living bone is one of the

most dynamic and plastic of tissues and its biomechanical behavior under loading and resistance to fracture are influenced by moisture content, morphology, cor

tex thickness and diaphyseal diameter, varying amounts of compact and spongy bone, porosity, and the presence of nonosseous tissues (Evans 1961, 1973).

Long bones can undergo four different stress-strain situations as a different

load is applied. A concentrically applied load (in line with the central longitudi nal axis) produces compressive stress and strain throughout the diaphysis. An

eccentrically applied load (parallel to the longitudinal axis but off center) bends

the diaphysis producing both compressive and tensile stress and strain. A load

perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (middle of the diaphysis) also bends the

diaphysis. A torsion (twisting) force applied to either or both ends produces tensile and shear stress and strain (Evans 1952:265, 1973).

Point loading is to focus a concentrated force in an area. A general load is a

more evenly distributed, constant pressure that is applied overall. Dynamic load

ing focuses a concentrated and sudden impact to the bone. The loading device,

impactor, or hammerstone is the object used in delivering the blow. This object,

through compression, creates the loading or impact point on the body where the blow was delivered (the area in which it was loaded). Static loading is a dis

tributed, constant pressure applied overall.

When a bone is subjected to a dynamic load greater than its tensile strength, failure (fracture) occurs. A fresh bone spiral fracture in standardized specimens is a tensile failure (Evans 1961:114). However, in dynamic loading of intact long

bones, shear comes into play because of the twisting of the bone on impact as it

flexes (Evans 1973). In dynamic loading, fracture always is initiated in the area

of highest tensile strain (Evans 1957). Bone is stronger in compression and shear

than in tension and failure starts on the tension side. Fracture (failure) occurs in

the outer layer of cortex first, moving toward the inside of the specimen where

stress decreases (Herrmann and Liebowitz 1972:808). As failure occurs, the paths that the propagating fracture fronts take are the

result of a dynamic interaction between the loading device, fracture dynamics, and bone structure. Fracture propagation relieves the initial strain of impact but

new stress conditions are created by the moving edge of the running fracture

front. The shifting stress field affects the speed and direction of the fracture and

influences bone fragment morphology (Bonnichsen 1979:43). Fracture through dynamic loading produces stress waves that are the release of

kinetic energy from the motion of breaking bonds during fracturing. These waves

are emitted from the initial impact and during the running fracture fronts. Stress




waves affect the movement of the fronts and intersecting fracture fronts are

responsible for the production of bone fragments (Bonnichsen 1979:15). Stress

waves initiate microfeatures (stress relief fractures), the orientation of which

determines the resulting fracture surface appearance (Gash 1971:362). Because

of the differences in structural properties of long bones, these waves are reflected

and diffused in the epiphyses so that fresh bone fracture fronts do not crosscut

epiphyseal ends (Bonnichsen 1979:43). The spongy nature of the traebecular

bone of the epiphyses absorbs the stress waves while the compact diaphyseal structure is deformed by them.

Living bones are adapted to resist bending through their hollow tubular nature.

The modulus of rupture is a measurement of the bending strength of compact bone and, within a single bone, bending strength is greater than tensile strength

along an axis (Hayes and Carter 1979:278). When an intact long bone is sub

jected to eccentric or perpendicular dynamic loading, bending strength and stress

become important governing factors in fracturing. Bending stress is a combina

tion of compressive, tensile, and shear stresses. During bending, the concave

bone surface is in compression while the convex surface is in tension, and the

perpendicular cross-section is in shear. The magnitude of the stresses and strains

is greatest at the surface and gradually decreases internally (Evans 1961:112,

1973:26-27; Hayes and Carter 1979:278).

Crushing takes place on the concave side at the loading point (point of applica tion of force) before tensile failure. Failure occurs after the elastic limit has been

surpassed. Torsion (twisting) occurs with bending when the epiphyseal ends are

not held stationary. This motion occurs because of the nonuniform cross-section, that is, curved and irregular cylindrical shape, of a long bone (Evans 1973;

Hayes and Carter 1979). Shearing is along a helical course that is inclined at a

45? angle to the longitudinal axis of the long bone. The shearing stress is equal to

the tensile stress and produces the spiral fracture through the bone (Evans

1973:20-21).

Bending stress also influences fracture front propagation. Gross failure pro duced by bending apparently begins on the tensile side but is preceded by local

failure on both the compressive and tensile surfaces (Carter and Hayes 1977;

Hayes and Carter 1979). The fracture gradually progresses along the bone and stress is constantly changing because fracturing is not instantaneous (Evans 1961).

Bending in a long bone can be produced by loading the body in mid-diaphysis while the ends are supported (simple beam) or having one end supported (can

tilevered) while the other end, free to bend, is loaded. The ultimate bending load a bone can withstand is reduced by drying or heating it (Evans 1961).

Fatigue strength is a measure of a bone's ability to withstand repetitive load

ing. Bone exhibits a greater fatigue strength in bending than in loading along a

single axis and is more dependent on the amount of strain occurring than the



1 72 EILEEN JOHNSON

amount of stress. Fatigue is a gradual, accumulative process accompanied by

compact bone microdamage such as microcracking and osteon debonding (Hayes and Carter 1979:278, 280). Experiments by Sedlin (1965) indicate a much great er fatigue strength in dynamic loading of cantilevered bone than with simple beams. It requires more energy to fracture a cantilevered bone than one loaded as

a simple beam. The middle third of the diaphysis is the area most subjected to

bending stress in the living system and exhibits the greatest fatigue strength along the bone. The presence of moisture in living bone increases a bone's ability to

withstand repetitive loading.

Failure and Fracture Morphologies

Fracture is a localized mechanical failure involving tensile strength because

bone is stronger in compression and shear than in tension. The failure response in

a fresh long bone is the spiral fracture. A spiral fracture can be produced in

several ways. When standardized specimens are subjected to pure force, a spiral fracture is a tensile failure along a helical path induced by either dynamic or

static loading (Evans 1973; Herrmann and Liebowitz 1972). With intact fresh

long bones (Figure 5.3), a spiral fracture is a tensile-shear failure along a helical

path induced by dynamic loading (Evans 1973; Hayes and Carter 1979). Several

fracture fronts emanate out from the loading point in a radial pattern that circles

around the diaphysis and produces a helical break that is inclined at a 45? angle to

the longitudinal axis (Evans 1973).

Dry bone is bone that has a low moisture content and unsoured or decayed marrow in the medullary cavity. Mineralized bone has undergone extended

moisture loss, lacks marrow, and has had its microstructure altered through fossilization. Dry and mineralized bone exhibit horizontal tension failure in

which the fracture front cuts across the diaphysis and produces perpendicular,

parallel, or diagonal breaks (Figure 5.4A,B). Force is applied by either dynamic or static loading.

Various descriptive terms are used in analyzing fracture morphology. The

fracture surface created through failure is a cross-section of compact bone that is

exposed by the passage of force through it. Fracture location is the area where

failure occurred. The fracture front is the leading edge of force and its direction

can be determined from features on the fracture surface. Fracture shape is the

outline configuration of exposed compact bone and records the propagation path in planview taken by the fracture front. The categories (Figure 5.5) for fracture

shape include curved (rounded edge), transverse (straight edge), pointed (con

verging apex edge), stepped (interrupted edge), and scalloped (series of semicir

cles or curves along an edge).

Both spiral fracture and spiral pattern have become catchall phrases meaning

any oblong to diagonal break regardless of bone state at breakage, agency in

volved, or exposed compact bone surface features. G. Haynes (1981:393) recog




Figure 5.3. Helical fracture of a fresh (postmortem period of ca. 8 hours) bison hum?rus

(TTU1979.193.1) induced through dynamic loading.

nizes the differences between spiral and horizontal tension failure, but dismisses

their significance and lumps them together under the general term spiral fracture.

In a later work, Haynes ( 1983a: 104) restricts the definition of a spirally fractured

long bone to a fracture outline of "a helix, partial helix, or combination of

helixes around the shaft," yet continues to apply the term generally to fractures

produced through hroizontal tension failure. Meyers et al. (1980:484) define

spiral as breaks "at an oblique angle," using it as a generalized term based on

gross morphology. This misuse of the term reflects a lack of understanding of the

processes involved in spiral fracturing, particularly in fresh intact long bones,



174 EILEEN JOHNSON

Figure 5.4 A, Horizontal tension failure (arrow) as a mid-diaphysis perpendicular break,

archaeological bison hum?rus (TTU-A13417). B, Horizontal tension failure (arrow) as a mid

diaphysis diagonal break, modern comparative bison tibia (LLP-OC567); note the split-line desiccation crack (arrow) into the proximal epiphyseal end.

and has led to misinterpretation of the various fracture morphologies being subsumed by these and other authors (e.g., Binford 1981) under a proposed

generic term.

Hill (1976:335) does not define spiral fracture but relates fracture patterns

produced by weathering and carnivore activity to stress an element has under

gone in life and the type of long bone involved (e.g., a hum?rus breaking in a




spiral fracture due to torsional stress in life versus a metapodial breaking in a

fracture parallel or perpendicular to the longitudinal axis due to compressive stress in life). Clearly, Hill (1976) does not understand the biomechanical prop erties of bone and how they govern bone reaction to outside forces. These

misinterpretations by cited authors and others have added to the problem of

distinguishing between various breakage agencies by masking important dif

ferences and biasing reported data instead of contributing to resolving the

problem.

Shipman (1981b:371?373) also subsumes various breakage patterns under the same general term, but she then erects two categories of spiral fracture based on

microscopic structural differences detected by the scanning electron microscope (SEM). These two categories appear to correspond to spiral (Type II) and hori

zontal tension (Type I) failures. Type I has a fracture plane between two adjacent

collagen bundles, exposing a smooth laminar surface. Type II has a fracture

plane perpendicular to the dominant bundle direction, exposing a roughened and

stepped surface from sudden rupture. This work not only provides further evi

dence of the differences between the two failure types but adds to the growing list

of criteria to distinguish between a true spiral and a horizontal tension failure. If a

general term is necessary to cover these two types of failure, then it should not be

spiral fracture (or pattern), which has a very specific meaning within well

defined parameters. The spiral pattern indicates bone breakage in a fresh state. It does not neces

sarily indicate the agency involved, which must be determined from the pre served exposed compact bone surface and fracture features. Nor does a spiral

pattern indicate that the bone was used as a tool, as misunderstood by Meyers et al. (1980), Binford (1981), and others (e.g., Sadek-Kooros 1972; Tatum and Shutler 1980).

Meyers et al. (1980) examined Miocene and Pliocene paleontological collec tions in order to determine naturally occurring breakage patterns in bone ac

cumulations outside the time period of man and therefore not possibly influenced

by him. Their concerns were the frequency of spirally fractured bone and produc tion of pseudotools under natural conditions. They classified all fractured long bones with pointed ends produced through intersecting "spirals" or longitudinal fracture fronts as pseudotools (Meyers et al. 1980:484).

In their haste to discredit the use of hominid-modified bones as cultural evi dence when lithic evidence is absent, they created a fallacious argument based on an incorrect and undiscriminating definition of spiral fracture and an erroneous

application based on gross morphology of that character as the criterion for

determining tools. Tool determination comes from recognition of a use-wear

pattern after man has been established to be the agency of breakage. Although

Meyers et al. (1980:489) reached that conclusion, their work is marred by a lack of understanding of both the biomechanical properties and response to force of



176 EILEEN JOHNSON

bone and the analytical procedures used in bone technology or in identifying artifacts in general.

Fresh, dry, and mineralized bones break in distinguishable patterns when

tensile failure occurs. Mor?an (1980:48-49) proposed a key that discriminated

fresh from nonfresh fractures and carnivore-induced from hominid-induced fresh

bone fractures. In sorting fresh from nonfresh breaks, the color, texture, and

angle of fracture surfaces are important characters. Fresh break fracture surfaces

have the same color as the outer cortical surface, exhibit a smooth texture, and

form acute and obtuse angles with the outer cortical surface. Nonfresh break

fracture surfaces have a contrasting color, exhibit a rough texture, and form right

angles with the outer cortical surface.

This part of the key is useful in sorting fresh from mineralized bone but not

necessarily fresh from dry bone. While fracture surfaces can exhibit a rough

bumpy texture on dry bone, fracture surface angles can be a combination of

acute, obtuse, and right angles and right angle offsets (G. Haynes 1983a) from

split lines. The presence of a contrasting color in dry bone depends in part on the

length of time a bone has been exposed and the environmental conditions to

which it was subjected. More accurate distinctions exist between fresh and dry bone breakage, including the difference between spiral and horizontal tension

failure morphologies and the difference at the microscopic level as noted by

Shipman (1981b) in her Type I and Type II categories. However, not everyone has access to the necessary SEM equipment for making this kind of latter

determination.

Dynamic loading of dry bones produces a breakage pattern different from that

of dynamic loading of fresh bones due to moisture loss and incipient split line

features. Propagating fracture fronts jump at split line cracks, producing a jagged or stepped edge known as split line interference. The degree of interference

depends on how much moisture has been lost, the length of time drying, and the

developmental state of the split line features. Depending on bone condition, bone

fragmentation may occur in either rectilinear segments or through intersecting fracture fronts. Bonnichsen (1979:40, 42, 221; Stanford et al. 1981:439) notes

triangular to rectangular fragments (due to split line features) as characteristic of

dry bone breakage. The fracture surfaces exhibit an uneven bumpy texture and

form right angles with the exterior cortical surface and long axis of the bone

(Figure 5.4B). Passive fracturing agencies such as weathering and trampling produce a hori

zontal tensile fracture surface that is smooth under SEM examination (Shipman

1981b) because fracturing occurred between collagen bundles instead of across

them (Figure 5.4A). Fracture fronts may cut through epiphyseal ends from either

dynamic or static loading of dry bones.

Mineralized bone undergoes a transformation that affects the way it fractures.

Mineralized bone has lost its energy-absorbing capacity and anelastic capabilities



A. ORIENTATION POSITION FOR FLAT BONE

HACKLE MARKS

LENGTH OF DIAPHYSEAL FRACTURE

B. ORIENTATION POSITION FOR LONG BONE

TRANSVERSE

WIDE CURVED

^

NARROW CURVED

CONCAVE FRACTURE SURFACE

C. TECHNOLOGICAL FEATURES D. PLANVIEW OF FRACTURE SHAPES

Figure 5.5. Orientation position for long and flat

bones,

technological features, and outline configurations.



1 78 EILEEN JOHNSON

due to extended moisture loss and altered microstructure. Fracture is through horizontal tension failure, often governed by split line cracks. The fracture surfaces are rough and form right angles with the cortical surface and long axis.

These angles can produce a discontinuous, jagged, or stepped morphology (right

angle offsets). Discoloration generally is noticeable between the cortical surface

and exposed compact bone of the fracture surface. During fracture experiments with mineralized long bones, Bonnichsen (1979:40) found that "negative impact scars do not occur under the point of impact.

' ' This lack of compressive response

is due to mineralized bone's altered microstructure and different mechanical

properties than fresh bone.

Torsional loading (twisting) of living bone produces a spiral pattern commonly

experienced by animals and hominids with limb fractures. Torsional loading combines tensile and shearing forces (Evans 1952, 1957, 1961, 1973) with a

distinctive loading point. Its location is the criterion for distinguishing between

torsional and dynamic loading of long bones. In torsional loading, the loading

point is at the surface of the interior compact bone wall adjacent to the marrow

cavity (Figure 5.6A-C) and the force is directed from the inside of the bone

outward. The loading point in dynamic loading is on the exterior cortical surface

and the force is directed from the outside of the bone inward.

Both Dart (1959, 1960) and Sadek-Kooros (1972, 1975) postulated a cultural

crack-and-twist method of bone breakage to explain the observed fracture mor

phology in assemblages they were studying and that would identify man as the

breakage agency. They proposed that long bones were impacted along the shaft

and then the ends oppositely twisted until the shaft broke open. Given the torsion

strength of bone (Herrmann and Liebowitz 1972:782), twisting a basically intact

fresh long bone to induce failure would require an unusual amount of strength. Dart's (1959) experiments involved breaking two cooked sheep femora, one

through the use of a handaxe as the hammerstone and the other by striking it mid

diaphysis against the edge of a table. Sadek-Kooros' (1975) experiments in

volved breaking 1200 sheep long bones that had been subjected to various

lengths of time of freezing and thawing. In order to control shattering, she

covered the hammerstone with a cotton or leather cloth. Because of the heating or extended freezing and thawing of the long bones, their biomechanical proper ties had been altered leading to what appear to be from the descriptions (and

predictably should be based on mechanical testing) a horizontal tension failure

response. The initial impact from dynamic loading produced tensile failure and

the resultant fracture morphology. The twisting motion simply served to disen

gage the already fractured sections and loosen any periosteum. These experiments are flawed by the lack of understanding of bone's bio

mechanical properties and response to stress, the dependence on gross mor

phology, and the belief that a spiral pattern (poorly defined) automatically indi

cates man as the fracture agency. These bones were no longer fresh because the




0 CM 5

Figure 5.6. A, Paleontological horse tibia (TMM41238-212) exhibiting a spiral fracture

induced by torsional loading. B, Point of impact on interior bone wall surface (arrow a). C,

Wedge flaking on opposite side from point of impact (arrow b).

actions of heating and freezing result in water loss and adversely affect the

bone's ability to absorb and withstand stress. Both Dart (1959, 1960) and Sadek

Kooros (1972, 1975) failed to provide reliable experimental data that support man as the fracture agency in their assemblages. However, if length of freezing time and thawing conditions were kept for each element, Sadek-Kooros' (1975)

experimental assemblage could yield important data on the relationship of water

loss to the production of a true spiral or a horizontal tension failure (i.e., at what

level of moisture loss the properties are so affected that the fracture pattern

changes).



180 EILEEN JOHNSON

NATURAL AGENCY MODIFICATIONS

A major issue in the study of land-mammal bones is the defining of discrimi

nating criteria that distinguish the results of natural (biological and geological)

agency modification from results of hominid-agency modification. In order to

establish criteria, the processes involved and resultant patterns must be under

stood. Numerous studies are available that detail specific biological and geo

logical alterations (e.g., Behrensmeyer 1975, 1978; Behrensmeyer and Hill

1980; Brain 1967a, 1969, 1976; Hughes 1954; G. Miller 1969, 1975; Shipman 1981b; Singer 1956; Sutcliffe 1970, 1973) or summarize a variety of alterations

(e.g., Bonnichsen 1979; Bonnichsen and Will 1980; Gifford 1981; G. Haynes

1981; Mor?an 1980; Shipman 1981a). Therefore, only a brief discussion of the

more common natural alterations or those that pose problems in distinguishing between natural and hominid modification are presented.

Biological

Rodents, artiodactyls, and carnivores are major biological modifiers of bone.

Rodent gnawing leaves a distinctive furrowing pattern on the bone surface from

incisor tracts (Figure 5.7A) and produces circular to oblong windows where the

compact bone wall was chewed through for access to the marrow cavity.

Artiodactyl chewing on bone and antler occurs in geographical areas of phos

phorus deficiency. Chewing involves the use of the cheek teeth in a sideways motion that results in the planing off of the outer cortical surfaces while leaving the sides intact. A characteristic pronged morphology results with each fork

having a wavy or zigzag appearance. This pattern is caused by the sharp cusps of

the cheek teeth (Sutcliffe 1973). Curved furrows with high and low ridges and a

sharply angled valley in between the ridges is another characteristic morphology seen on bones and antler not yet chewed to the prong state (Figure 5.7B). This

pattern also is the result of the seleondont cusping of artiodactyl cheek teeth.

Carnivores produce a wide variety of alterations due to chewing, crushing,

scooping, splintering, and partial digestion. They usually attack the soft spongy

epiphyseal ends first, leaving such features as perforation holes, scratches, chewed edges, and scoop marks. Carnivore abrasion scratches (Figure 5.8A) are

distinguished from butchering cut lines made by lithic or metal tools by their

morphology, size, length, and direction (e.g., Bonnichsen 1979; G. Haynes

1981; G. Miller 1969; Potts and Shipman 1981; Shipman 1981b; Sutcliffe 1970; Walker and Long 1977).

The scooping phenomenon, generally oriented toward the large proximal ends

of humeri and tibiae and either end of femora, which are the less dense sections

of these bones and therefore more easily attacked, removes part to all of the

articular end and leaves a jagged, thin-edged compact bone wall (Figure 5.8B).




Figure 5.7. A, Rodent gnawing on archaeological bison rib (TTU-A30270); note straight, parallel grooves in closeup (A'). B, Modern comparative antler (LLP-OC565) exhibiting ar

tiodactyl chewing; note curved ridges and valleys in closeup (B').



182 EILEEN JOHNSON

Figure 5.8. A, Carnivore chewing and scooping of distal end of archaeological bison femur

(TTU-A15657) ; arrows point to tooth scorings. B, Carnivore chewing and scooping of distal end of modern comparative deer femur (LLP-OC565); arrows point to tooth scorings. C, Rootlet action on bone surface of distal end of archaeological bison metatarsal (CLC-890A.2).

Such results have been misinterpreted as evidence of butchering (Johnson

1977:68) or tool use (Frison 1974, 1978, 1982a) in archaeological contexts.

Once an epiphyseal end is removed (which structurally weakens the bone), the diaphyseal walls can be collapsed and splintered through static pressure

applied to the diaphysis by the carnivore's jaws (muscle action clamping down on the bone). This structural failure due to compression results in longitudinal bone fragments that parallel the longitudinal axis of the diaphysis (Bonnichsen

1973). Another bone-reduction strategy, involving static pressure to the diaphysis

while epiphyses are still intact, results in what G. Haynes (1981, 1982, 1983a)




has termed spiral fracturing. Tooth scoring, perforation marks, and pressure

points also may be present. G. Haynes (1981, 1982) observed this type of

reduction strategy with wolves opening long bones of bison, moose, and smaller

herbivores. He considered this type of bone fracturing behavior by wolves to be an occasional one and not typical.

These important field studies are flawed by the general use of the term spiral fracture so that using the published data a true helical fracture cannot be dis

tinguished from a horizontal tension failure. The postmortem moose and bison

bones observed were up to 6 months old (G. Haynes 1982) and cannot be

considered fresh. The bones were subjected to drying (moisture loss) and prior stresses during the time from death to fracturing. A point exists along the con

tinuum of fresh to dry bone when enough moisture has been lost and other

properties affected so that the biomechanical response to force changes from a

helical to horizontal tension failure. That point in terms of length of time since

death undoubtedly varies due to whatever environmental conditions the bone

were subjected. A true helical fracture pattern or combination helical and hori

zontal tension failure pattern may be produced if the bones are subjected to static

loading early in the postmortem period before drying has a major effect on

biomechanical response. This occasional behavioral mode of wolves (and possi

bly bears; G. Haynes 1981, 1982, 1983) could be significant to the analysis of

bone assemblages. The data need clarifying and could become critical in estab

lishing discriminating characters that distinguish between large-carnivore versus

hominid-induced breakage.

Shipman's (1981b) SEM study on microvertebrate remains subjected to di

gestive tracts of various raptors produced useful data for paleoecological work.

But detailed analysis remains to be done on the effects of the digestive tract of

large mammalian predators on bone segments from large mammalian herbivores.

Partial digestion of bone by these large predators results in polished surfaces and such features as scalloping, circular holes, sharp edges between two eroded faces

(Sutcliffe 1970) and cortical pitting. Pitting is a solution effect that results in the

loss of cortical surface that exposes the internal structure (Shipman 1981b:378). Circular holes may be an advanced form of pitting. Thinning and rounding of broken edges is a solution effect detected by Shipman (1981b) that may account

for the creation of sharp edges or scalloping. However, how a polished surface is

produced as a result of the bone segment passing through a digestive tract and

distinguishing that polish from polishes created by other natural or hominid

agencies has not been established.

Rootlet action produces marks etched on the bone surface through secreted acids that dissolve the bone (Figure 5.8C). Such alterations are distinguishable from butchering cut lines by the former's irregular morphology, eroded nature, and wandering pattern of the etchings. In cross-section, rootlet marks generally



184 EILEEN JOHNSON

have a U-shape whereas butchering cut lines made by lithic tools have a V-shape (Bunn 1981; Potts and Shipman 1981; Shipman 1981b; Walker and Long

1977).

Geological

Chemical, environmental, and geological processes are subsumed under the

general agency of geology. These three complex categories frequently interact on

various levels that result in the observed modification. Some processes such as

fluvial action on bone are incompletely understood and the range of patterns undocumented. Other processes such as weathering are better understood with

several different patterns documented.

Weathering is a desiccation and chemical process that leads to changes in the

physical properties and chemical structure of the bone. Such changes influence

the way a weathered bone fractures. Weathering can occur while bones are

exposed on the surface (e.g., Behrensmeyer 1978) or while buried (e.g., White

and Hannus 1983). The rate and type of decomposition occurring and resultant

pattern depends on the conditions of the surface or burial environments and the

length of time the bone is subjected to weathering. Bone deteriorates through a weathering sequence that Behrensmeyer (1978)

formalized into a number of stages for large mammalian remains. Stage 0 covers

just-deposited fresh bone to drying bone that does not yet show macroscopic structural change. Stage 1 begins the sequence of macrostructural change that if

continued unchecked results in decomposition and eventual total destruction of

the bone (Stage 5). The different weathering sequence studies reported (e.g.,

Behrensmeyer 1978; Coe 1978; Gifford 1981; G. Haynes 1981; G. Miller 1975; Peterson 1977) underscore a general applicability of the deterioration sequence but the time involved for each stage varies with the climate and local environ

mental and topographic conditions.

Split line cracks are a complex desiccation alteration that forms on the cortical

surface and occurs between collagen bundles (Ruangwit 1967) parallel to the

longitudinal axis of the bone (Tappen 1969). Horizontal tension failure as a part of this process produces perpendicular (Figure 5.4A), diagonal (Figure 5.4B), or

right angle offset (Figure 5.9) fractures in long bones. The right angle offsets are

due to split line interference and are a result of the fracture front jumping when it

comes in contact with a split line crack. Fracturing can result in rectilinear

fragmentation in advanced split line alteration. This deterioration character re

flects a weathering Stage 1 condition.

Exfoliation is caused by severe desiccation while the bone is exposed on the

surface, resulting in the delamination of the cortical surface (Figure 5.10A). The

delamination occurs along the longitudinal axis following the split line cracks.

Bones in this condition have entered into weathering Stage 2. Acidic sediments




Figure 5.9 Split line interference pattern (right angle offsets) on distal end of archaeological bison metatarsal (TTU-A8030).

change the chemical structure of bone and enhance hydroxyapatite weathering (White and Hannus 1983). The cortical surface becomes roughened, and irreg ular sections of the cortex are lost through spalling.

Weathering affects the way a bone responds to force and the breakage pattern

produced. Within the weathering sequence, Stages 0-2 are of most interest in

dealing with establishing discriminating criteria for sorting fracture patterns. A

model of moisture loss and characters is proposed (Table 5.1) that categorizes fractured bone within weathering Stages 0-2 in a manner useful to cultural

interpretation. The proposed model is based on personal experience and accumu

lated knowledge in the literature, and, therefore, needs to be tested systemat

ically for validity and refinement.

Fresh, dry, and mineralized bone are points along a continuum and therefore, involve some subjective determinations. Bones that have been exposed a few

hours to a few days may be considered fresh even though their properties have

begun to alter. These bones have begun to dry, losing some of their moisture

content, which begins to alter their tensile and compressive strengths and energy

absorbing capacity. Moisture content, however, is still sufficient for breakage in



1 86 EILEEN JOHNSON

a fresh state manner. At what point fresh bones a few days old change to dry bones depends on the environment and topographic, sedimentary, and other

taphonomic factors.

Drying in bone not only alters its mechanical behavior but also causes micro

cracking, thereby damaging the bone (Hayes and Carter 1979; McElhaney

1966). Desiccation split line cracks have formed. Mineralized bone has under

0 CM 10

Figure 5.10. A, Exfoliated bone surfaces (white arrows) showing mid-diaphysis spalling on

archaeological bison metatarsals (TTU-A31531, TTU-A31540); note carnivore damage to

distal and proximal ends (black arrows). B, Rounding and polishing of archaeological bison

long bone segment (TTU-A32046) from stream wear; note overall effect.



TABLE 5.1

Moisture Loss Model: Proposed Phases and Characters

Fresh Phase 0

Phase 1

Dry

Phase 2

Phase 3

Phase 4

Phase 5

Mineralized

Initial mineral replacement

Advanced replacement

1. High-level moisture content 2. No desicca tion features

3. Marrow fresh

Initial moisture

loss

Split lines may

begin to form without inter

ference Marrow un soured;

edi

ble

4. Impact point Impact point

5. Helical frac

ture

Helical fracture

Low-level moisture Split lines begin to form and cause inter

ference

Marrow still un

soured;

edi

ble

Impact point May be com bination of helical and horizontal tension failure

Low-level to ad vanced

moisture loss Split line inter

ference

Marrow soured; unedible Probably

no im pact point Mainly horizon tal tension

failure

Advanced Advanced

moisture loss moisture loss Split line inter- Split line inter

ference ference

Marrow decay No marrow

No impact point No impact point

Horizontal ten sion failure

Horizontal ten sion failure

Weathering Stage 0

Weathering Stage 1 ?

Weathering Stage 2



188 EILEEN JOHNSON

gone fossilization from mineral replacement. At some point, surface bone either

weathers to total disintegration or becomes buried. Burial either starts the fos

silization process or chemical weathering may ensue, which if unchecked can

lead to disintegration (e.g., White and Hannus 1983). In the proposed model (Table 5.1), Phases 0 and 1 appear to be units of

weathering Stage 0; Phases 2 and 3 of weathering Stage 1 ; and Phases 4 and 5 of

weathering Stage 2. Phase 0 is fresh bone in the living condition from a just killed animal. Phase 1 is the few-hours- to few-days-old bone at the transition

from fresh to dry. Initial desiccation has started. Split lines may begin to form

(G. Miller 1975), particularly on the microstructural level, but they do not hinder or cause split line interference during fracturing.

Phase 2 has split lines forming that cause split line interference during fractur

ing. Moisture level and marrow conditions are such that an impact point appears

present from dynamic loading. Phase 2 represents that transition point of suffi

cient moisture loss and other altered properties that results in a change of the

bone's biomechanical response to force from a helical fracture to a horizontal

tension failure. Therefore, fracturing may be a combination of helical (obtuse and acute angles) and horizontal (right angle offsets) tension failures. The dura

tion of Phase 2 (i.e., length of time since death of the animal) is unknown.

Marrow may remain unsoured perhaps up to a year or so (Behrensmeyer 1978; G. Haynes 1978; Peterson 1977) but the period varies due to regional, environ

mental, and taphonomic conditions, and the cultural group or carnivores in

volved. Empirical data are lacking.

Phase 3 represents that transition from edible to inedible marrow and a re

sponse of horizontal tension failure to force (e.g., G.Haynes 1981:424). Phase 3

bones may be present in low frequency at archaeological sites where testing of a

few bones in marrow quarrying of a previous kill proved too late and the marrow

had soured. Empirical data, again, are lacking that could secure the characters

and time frame of Phases 3-5 beyond greater than a year.

Freezing, whether mechanically induced or natural, is a desiccation process that removes moisture from bone and therefore alters its physical properties and

biomechanical response to force. How much moisture is removed under what

temperature regime for a given length of time is undocumented but would prove

important data in determining an analogous weathering stage, moisture loss

phase, and expectable response to force. Most researchers (e.g., Bonnichsen

1979; G. Haynes 1981; Mor?an 1980; Sadek-Kooros 1975), including the author,

experimenting with bone fracturing have used Phase 0 to Phase 1 bone that was

frozen for a period of time and then thawed for the experiments. Sadek-Kooros

(1975:140) noted the need for a cloth-bound hammerstone to reduce a shattering

response by some bones. At some point in time, temperature, or both, bone in

the frozen state passes from a helical to horizontal tension failure response to

force, whether impacted while frozen or after thawing. The use of "fresh"

frozen bone in experiments is acceptable as long as its limitations are recognized




and the horizontal tension failure response that can result is not put forth as

evidence for a generic fracture term that dismisses the significant difference in

response and fracture morphology. Frozen Pleistocene bone in Beringia and northern Canada is not "green" or

fresh as put forth by Guthrie (1980) and others (e.g., C. V. Haynes 1971) because it has gone through a desiccation process and been subjected to other

natural stresses (including thawing) since burial and reexposure that influence

fracture morphology. Furthermore, this bone may have undergone a natural

freeze-dry process (e.g., Bonnichsen 1982a) that preserves material through severe desiccation and sublimation. Freeze-dried material does not thaw and

exhibits considerable weight reduction through moisture loss, thereby altering its

physical properties and response to force. Holocene man's use of frozen or

freeze-dried Pleistocene bone, then, is not a viable alternative to discount

Pleistocene man's use of the fresh bone before deposition. Another argument along the same lines as "fresh" frozen bones is that of

seasonal river ice breakup and its effect on bone (frozen and unfrozen). Moving ice may polish (Mor?an 1980:35) or abrade (Bonnichsen and Will 1980:9) bone, but at this point published empirical data are lacking to link the break-up phe nomenon with a specific alteration pattern. Whether or not river ice break-up does fracture bone is an open question (e.g., G. Haynes 1981). However, Pleistocene and Holocene bone being exposed and redeposited and modern re

mains incorporated into the river would be expected to fracture by horizontal

tension failure due to the bones' altered physical properties. Fracture edge rounding and polishing are bone alterations that have been used

as criteria in determining and describing bones from within archaeological con

texts that were interpreted as butchering tools (e.g., Frison 1970, 1974; Johnson

1976, 1982; Tatum and Shutler 1980; Wheat 1979). Similar general alterations are produced by various natural agencies. Few field observations or experimental results are available that link process with alteration pattern (cf. Brain 1967b; G.

Haynes 1981; Shipman 1981b) or provide criteria in order to distinguish between

the various causes and end products.

Sand abrasion (Brain 1967b; Shipman 1981b) and stream wear (Figure 5.10B) can produce rounded and polished bone that generally exhibits these modifica

tions evenly distributed on all bone surfaces. Brain (1967b:98) observed in his

study collection that weathering had to occur prior to or in conjunction with sand

abrasion in order for a smoothed and polished surface to result. Wind erosion

may round fracture edges but it produces an etched or pitted surface that has had

the cortical surface layer removed exposing internal structures in the compact bone (Brain 1967b; Shipman 1981b). Prolonged carnivore licking and tooth

grinding of broken elements produces rounded fracture edges (G. Haynes 1981). Because extensive chewing is involved, tooth scoring may be recorded along the

edges.

In contrast to the above patterns, bones exhibiting the pattern of fracture edge



1 90 EILEEN JOHNSON

rounding and polishing interpreted as butchering tools lack evidence of weather

ing or carnivore chewing and the alteration is localized on a segment of the

fracture edge and adjacent cortical and internal surfaces. This localization is

termed differential polish (e.g., Johnson 1982) and denotes the functioning edge of the tool (Figure 5.11). The restricted position of this wear generally is along

Figure 5.11. A, Unused (unmodified) surface edge of a dynamically-induced helical frac

ture from a fresh bison hum?rus (TTU1979.193.1 ) as comparison with the polished surface of

Figure 5.11B. B, Examples of differential polish on an archaeological expediency tool (TTU

A9018) from a bison tibia; note that the polish covers the overlapping flake scars. C, Unused

(unmodified) surface edge of a dynamically induced helical fracture on an archaeological bison hum?rus (CLC1210.2).




the convex fracture surface. Adjoining segments of the fracture edge and bone

surfaces are unmodified. Further neotaphonomic data, however, are needed to

establish models that explain how various polishes are produced and provide

independent criteria that distinguish between hominid-induced and other agency induced varieties on the basis of the polishes themselves.

HOMINID AGENCY MODIFICATIONS

Hominid modification of bones is a dynamic process of bone reduction involv

ing the interaction of technology and biomechanics that is documented in the

final morphology of the bone. This reduction process reflects a cognition to

behavior to product sequence that creates a pattern or standardization that can be

deduced through the bone refuse recovered from a locality. The issue being raised is whether or not the patterns produced by hominid modification of bones can be distinguished from those patterns produced by natural agency modifica

tion and if they can, then what are the distinguishing criteria that researchers can

use to segregate the agencies and reliably identify hominid modification. This

issue is central to the analytical development and interpretive potential of bone

technology in cultural reconstruction. Its importance and contested state lie in the use of bone data to demonstrate the presence of man, particularly when lithic

data are absent (e.g., Bonnichsen 1977b, 1978, 1979; Guthrie 1980; Irving 1978;

Irving and Harington 1973; Meyers et al. 1980; Mor?an 1980), or in modeling the developmental level of early hominid behavior (e.g., Binford 1981; Bunn

1981, 1982b; Isaac 1975, 1976a,b; Potts and Shipman 1981).

Hominid versus Large Carnivore

While the larger issue is the establishing of key characters that reliably segre

gate agency and process, large carnivores are the primary contender with man as

the accumulator and bone-modifier in the fossil record being examined. Man

modifies bone in a variety of ways for various purposes. Two major purposes are

for tool manufacture and marrow extraction. Large carnivores also modify bones

in a variety of ways but mainly for extraction of marrow and other nutrients

within the medullary cavity and epiphyseal ends (cf. G. Haynes 1981). These

purposes of man and large carnivores result in bone fracturing. The question of

distinguishing between man-induced and large carnivore-induced fracturing lies in identifying characters that are peculiar to man's fracturing behavior versus that of the large carnivores. It comes down to the difference in how force is applied to a long bone, how the bone responds to that force, and the cortical surface damage done by the manipulation of the bone.

Large carnivores appear to have two major strategies for bone reduction (cf.



192 EILEEN JOHNSON

Bonnichsen 1979; G. Haynes 1981; Sutcliffe 1970), both of which employ static

loading as the fracturing technique. Static loading is a constant compressive

pressure technique that generally employs an even distribution of force. These

carnivores have powerful viselike jaws and teeth adapted for crushing that are

used to produce the load and induce failure.

In one strategy, the soft epiphyseal ends are gnawed and comminuted. The

ends may be completely removed. Tooth furrowing of the epiphyseal ends and

scoring along the diaphysis usually occur (Figures 5.8A,B). Static loading

through the use of the carnivore's jaws and muscles then is applied to the

diaphysis if the bone is to be further reduced. The internal support structure of

the bone is weakened by the attack and subsequent partial to complete removal of

the epiphyseal ends. The bone's resistance to fracture and its response to force

are altered so that as the failure point is reached, the diaphysis collapses in long rectilinear splinters that generally follow the longitudinally aligned collagen bundles.

The second strategy, recently observed by G. Haynes (1981) in wolves, in

volves a direct attack on the diaphysis without prior removal of the epiphyses. Static loading is applied to the diaphysis until the failure point is reached and the

diaphysis fractures. How the diaphysis fractures and the resultant fracture mor

phology depends on the postmortem age of the bone. If wolves and other large carnivores are capable of fracturing fresh large land-mammal long bones in the

range of bison or moose, then theoretically a true helical fracture should result.

The observed behavior, however, was not with fresh bone but bones from car

casses dead up to 6 months. Such bone would be subject to fracture more easily because of its reduced ductile properties and would respond to the static force

through horizontal tension failure.

Man employs several bone reduction strategies, but the strategy of concern in

this review is the one that employs dynamic loading of fresh large land-mammal

bones. Dynamic loading is a high velocity impact technique (Mor?an 1980) that

employs a percussion method of a focused quick impact (point loading) in which

to open a diaphysis. The minimum technological equipment needed includes a

hammerstone (impactor) and one or two anvils (Figure 5.12). The long bone is

positioned over the one anvil or suspended between two anvils and the diaphysis is struck with a powerful blow. The high velocity impact technique induces a

combined compressive, tensile, and shearing failure that results in a helical

fracture in fresh long bones (cf. Evans 1957, 1973). Alternative terms used in the

literature meaning the same general procedure include mid-diaphysis smash tech

nique (Bonnischen 1973, 1979) and controlled breakage (Johnson 1980, 1982). Both static and dynamic loading techniques produce spiral fracturing in fresh

long bones. However, other traces produced during fracture can be used to

separate the techniques and agencies responsible. Morlan's (1980:48-49) key is

a useful starting place in determining carnivore-induced from hominid-induced




Figure 5.12. High-velocity

impact technique using ham

merstone and one anvil with

one-hand-over-the-shoulder

posture during experimental

fracturing of bison hum?rus

(TTU1979.193.1). (Slide courtesy of Jim and Eunice

Barkes.)

fresh bone fracture. The features indicating man as the fracture agency are the

presence of a loading point (impact point); absence of carnivore markings such as

pitting, scoring, or chipping; and a loading point diameter greater than that which

is produced by carnivore tooth action. The presence of carnivore markings on a

long bone exhibiting a fracture in the fresh state does not automatically preclude man as the fracture agency but may indicate a complex life history for that

element. The placement of the marks and the presence or absence of other

carnivore-induced characters can be segregating features.



194 EILEEN JOHNSON

Fresh bone breakage by man exhibits a point of impact (point of loading or

loading point) that is a circular depressed area caused by local compressive failure due to the hammerstone, which is the dynamic loading device. Incipient

ring cracks or crushed bone, bone cones, and bone flakes result. The latter leave

negative scars on the bone wall at the impact point (Figs. 5.5, 5.13A,B). Several independent fracture fronts expand out from the point of impact.

These fronts expand out in a radial pattern and continue to expand until they merge or intersect with another front, terminate, or are deflected by an epi

physeal end, or lose momentum. Fresh bone fractures are aligned with the bone

structure and produce radial diaphyseal fragments that have characteristic curved

edges. These fragments almost always are longer than they are wide because they follow the longitudinally aligned collagen bundles. These slender fragments are

produced from intersecting fracture fronts (Bonnichsen 1979:43; Mor?an

1980:38). The edges of both these fragments and the parent element exhibit

exposed compact bone that has an even fine texture fracture surface (Figures 5.5,

5.13C). Under SEM examination, the microstructure exposed on that fracture

surface appears roughened and stepped because of being torn apart through great force (Shipman 1981b). The fracture surfaces form acute and obtuse angles with

the outer cortical surface and the long axis of the bone (Bonnichsen 1979:42-43,

221; Mor?an 1980:38-39; Stanford et al. 1981:439).

Dynamic loading of fresh bone also produces surface features which are char

acters that appear on the exposed compact bone. A fracture surface and its features accurately reflect the stress state immediately prior to rupture (failure)

(Charles 1961:33). The term surface feature is a general category that encom

passes features caused in two ways. Stress relief features are caused by stress

(primary body) waves emitted from initial failure that predetermine the main

fracture path (Gash 1971:362). Impedial features are caused by a loss of strength as force diminishes with passage through the compact bone and is impaired by osteons and other microfeatures.

Hackle marks and ribs are classified as stress relief features. Hackle marks are

discontinuous curved grooves and ridges (Figures 5.5, 5.14A). Ribs are semicir

cular or arcuate ridges, usually continuous, that are concave to the origin of the

main fracture. Both of these surface features indicate the direction of the fracture

front by spreading outward from the point of impact (Gash 1971:352). These

fracture surface features are caused only by dynamic loading as a response to

sudden strong force (Gash 1971:377) and are a diagnostic character of dynamic

loading. Furthermore, hackle marks are indicative of shear failure from com

pressive or combined compressive-tensile force. Ribs are formed primarily from

tensile-compressive interaction but theoretically may form under tensile force

only (Gash 1971:384-385). Pertinent data (e.g., condition of exposed compact bone) for carnivore static

loading of bones are not published. However, past researchers (e.g., Carlson




Figure 5.13. A, Experimentally broken modern fresh bison hum?rus (TTU1979.193.1) ex

hibiting impact area (arrow a; note bone attrition loss from impact crushing and flaking), bone

crushing and negative flake scars on compact bone wall (arrow b), and radiating fracture

fronts (arrows c, d). B, Impact point (white arrow) after initial blow on experimentally broken

modern fresh bison hum?rus. C, Radial segments (CLC-202.2, CLC-1697.2) of archae

ological bison long bones exhibiting intersecting fracture fronts (arrows).



B

0 CM 5

Figure 5.14. A, Hackle marks on lateral side along exposed compact bone of archaeological bison metatarsal (TTU-A20688). B, Chattering on

posterior side along exposed compact bone of archaeological bison metatarsal (TTU-A20934).




1963; Gash 1971; Murgatroyd 1942) investigating the cause and significance of

these surface features conclude only a dynamic loading origin. When present, these surface features alone are an important distinguishing criterion. Their ab

sence, however, would not necessarily indicate static loading because these

features are not always present in dynamically loaded bone. The reasons why these features are not always present in dynamically loaded bone have not been

investigated.

Chattering and stepping are classified as impedial features. Chattering is

marked by highly accentuated, closely spaced, straight peaks and valleys (Figure

5.14B). This surface feature is the result of the propagating fracture front meet

ing resistance in the bone microstructure and when bone morphology changes from a cylinder to a flatter nature. Stepping (or right angle offset) is a split line

interference feature. The split lines cause interruption of the flow of force that

results in a stepped or jagged fracture edge. Random flaking and spalling can occur during carnivore action or from pre

existing microfailure conditions. This type of flaking contrasts with that pro duced by man, either the sequential, overlapping flaking that occurs during modification or technological flaking that occurs during the process of bone

breakage. Technological flaking is represented by interior pressure flakes and

exterior pressure flakes.

Interior pressure flakes or cone flakes leave negative flake scars on the interior

bone wall at the point of impact (Figures 5.5, 5.13B). They are the result of the

compressive force and crushing effect at the point of impact. These flakes gener

ally lack a platform or bulb of percussion although they may exhibit an impact

point and radial ridges from the radiating fracture fronts (Figure 5.15A). Exterior pressure flakes occur in areas of localized tensile failure from a

deflection of part or all of a propagating fracture front. A wedge flake (Figure 5.5) is a large exterior pressure flake removed on the opposite cortical side from

the point of impact. It is associated with bending failure when the bone flexes.

Both dynamic and torsional loading can produce this type of flaking (Figures 5.6C, 5.16A), but apparently not static loading.

The distinction between the diameter of the depression cone made by a ham merstone (larger diameter) versus a carnivore canine (smaller diameter) appears to be a discriminating factor, at least for New World bone assemblages. If the

Pleistocene giant bear (Arctodus simus) routinely broke bones (a question raised

by both Mor?an [1980] and G. Haynes [1981]), the bear's enormous canines

(Lubbock Lake specimen TTU-A20111 has a circumference of 93 mm at the

base of the enamel and 63 mm at the worn crown) may have produced a depres sion cone as large as those from hammerstones. However, given the bear's

masticatory apparatus and facial structure, its power base for crushing was lo

cated in its molars (Davis 1955) and the canines were used in capturing and

holding its prey.



198 EILEEN JOHNSON

Figure 5.15. A, Archaeological cone flake (TTU-A4140) from mammoth compact bone; arrow a points to impact point and arrow b to ridges from radiating fracture fronts. B, Utiliza

tion flaking (rectilinear) on an archaeological expediency tool (TTU-A20841 ) from a bison tibia. C, Retouch flaking on an archaeological expediency tool (TTU-A13647/49) from a bison metatarsal; note the highly worn, rounded, discontinuous edge from use and the polish covering the overlapping flake scars. D, Combined retouch (white arrow) and utilization

flaking (black arrow) on an archaeological expediency tool (TTU-A21523) from a bison

scapula.




CM

B

CM I0

Figure 5.16. A, Views of an archaeological bone expediency tool (TTU-A25024) made from

the radius of Arctodus simus; note the differential polish and utilization flaking (scallop) along working edge (closeup); arrows a point to saw marks (deep cut lines) from butchering process or periosteal removal and arrow b to wedge flaking from initial fracturing. B, Archae

ological mammoth hum?rus radial segment (TTU-A5198) proposed as blank for bone fore shaft production; arrow points to flaking attempts along one edge.



200 EILEEN JOHNSON

G. Haynes (1982:269-270) notes the similarity between large notches along a

fracture edge caused by continued carnivore gnawing of the edge after fracture of

the diaphysis (i.e., as distinguished from the tooth depression cone from loading) and the impact point from dynamic loading. Work to date has not been published on comparing the morphologies of the two types of notches in order to dis

tinguish them. The current criteria that can be used to separate a carnivore

induced large notch from a hominid-induced impact point are the presence of a

helical (fresh bone) or horizontal tensile (dry bone) failure fracture surface;

presence or absence and placement of carnivore tooth markings (e.g., on the

cortical side of the notch); and presence or absence of dynamic loading features

such as hackle marks.

The Cultural Assemblage

During the 1970s in North America, a number of researchers (e.g., Bon

nichsen 1977b, 1978, 1979; Frison 1970, 1974; Johnson 1976, 1982; S. Miller

and Dort 1978; Tatum and Shutler 1980; Wheat 1979) began to recognize a

variety of utilitarian categories of human-modified bone based on bone fracture

pattern. Some of the bone assemblages were from archaeological sites; others

were out of context and secondarily redeposited. Although Bonnichsen (1979) makes an explicit attempt to factor out natural agency modifications, the methods

of most researchers were implicit and based on the assumption of archaeological context. Both Binford (1981) and G. Haynes (1981) justifiably have taken these

works to task for less than rigorous or unstated methodology and at times er

roneous interpretation (although both have flaws in their methodologies and

interpretations as noted previously). As noted, some errors were made in interpreting certain kinds of carnivore

action as butchering damage. However, these errors do not negate all the work

that was done. While the assemblages may need to be reassessed for elimination

of specimens, greater clarity, and more concise definitions, man's influence

characterized by the proposed general utilitarian categories still exists because of

the presence of dynamic loading and hominid-induced characters and the reliance

on use-wear characters, not fracture pattern, as indicative of tool use. The errors

do underscore the critical need to evaluate a bone assemblage through a series of

steps that segregate and identify the agencies and processes involved in ac

cumulating and modifying the bones within that assemblage. Binford (1981:52-79) illustrates a series of excellent photographs showing

extensive carnivore cortical surface modification (edge chipping, surface pitting, tooth scoring and puncturing) and claims that most researchers would identify these modified specimens as tools. The carnivore damage is obvious and the

bones do not look like tools (cf. G. Haynes 1983b). A more productive approach is to ask if carnivore damage is present and what kinds of surface modification




can be attributed only to man's use of a fractured bone as a tool. Use-wear

constitutes localized and restricted postfracturing bone removal along the frac

tured edge. The proposed hominid-induced wear damage characters are analo

gous to those established as lithic use-wear characters (cf. Hay den 1979). Based on that analogy, the characters have been defined on the basis of: being highly localized with a restricted distribution on a single element, repeated occurrence

on a select few bones from a number of similar localities, absence of carnivore

damage and comparison with the kinds and location of damage produced by carnivores, and replicative experimental work. The characters being put forth as

indicative of wear induced by man's use of a bone as a tool are in need of further

experimental data and continued comparison with different types of carnivore

damage in order to secure the criteria that identify types of cortical damage as

exclusively the result of man's manipulation based on the damage itself and not

its placement or the absence of carnivore activity. Two major breakthroughs have occurred in bone technology through neo

taphonomic work and analyses of bones as individual specimens. The first is the

recognition of the characteristic fracture response of fresh long bone, that of a

helical fracture. Corollaries of this principle are the recognition of fresh (helical) versus dry (horizontal) bone response and dynamic loading-induced surface frac

ture features. The second is the recognition of fracture-based utilitarian traditions

employing the high velocity impact technique as the fracturing method (Fig. 5.17). These traditions are core and flake production and a bone tool class

exhibiting minimal modification. A corollary of this breakthrough is that these

traditions have a reduction, manufacture, and use sequence that parallels the

lithic sequence in the production of flakes and blades for specific edges and

angles for use and that use as tools is recognized by subsequent wear and damage

HIGH VELOCITY IMRfrCT TECHNIQUEl

IPROBOSCIDEANSI 1LARGE MAMMALSl

CORT AND FLAKE

1BL?NK1

F1

MULTIPLE EVENT

INGLE ?EVENT

LONG BONES /HELICALI FLATBONES/RIGHT ANGLE

10NE ANVILI TWO ANVIL?

Impact +

REBOUND

IONE ANVILl

IMPACTl

ONE BREAKAGE PATTERN

?Ml COMBINATION PATTERN

Figure 5.17. General classification scheme for fracture-based utilitarian implements.



202 EILEEN JOHNSON

modification. Another corollary is that time and culture boundaries are sur

passed, the utilitarian bone tool class being found from the late Pleistocene to

historic times throughout at least the Great Plains of North America.

The fracture-based utilitarian traditions are termed bone quarrying and bone

expediency tools. These terms and the concepts behind them are those of the

author and the following discussion on these minimally modified implement

categories are based on Lubbock Lake (41 LUI) data and comparison with other

assemblages. Modifying bones through the use of the high velocity impact tech

nique occurred throughout the various time periods represented at Lubbock

Lake, from Clovis to historic times, which provides a time perspective. Large carnivores also were bone modifiers at the site. Wolf (Canis lupus) was the

primary large carnivore through time, but the extinct bear Arctodus simus inhab

ited the area during Clovis times (associated radiocarbon age of 11,100 ? 100

B.P., SMU-548; Holliday et al. 1983). Isolating the categories of hominid

induced modifications and identifying specimens within those categories are

based on: (1) key characters that indicate dynamic loading of fresh bone (e.g., helical fracture, impact point, hackle marks, wedge flaking) in contrast to car

nivore action characters and (2) characters that point to subsequent use. The

discussion is a general, interpretive one and not a specific, detailed inventory of

what is found at Lubbock Lake (e.g., Johnson 1982). Bonnichsen (1979) formulated a number of rules to govern technological

analysis of fractured elements and create a standard framework in which to

discuss materials and compare assemblages. Of primary importance is the rule

that all descriptions and measurements are with the bone in orientation position

(Figure 5.5). Orientation position for a long bone means that the longitudinal axis (y-axis) of the specimen divides it into two parts that are not necessarily

equal and the horizontal axis (x-axis) is across the broadest width of the specimen (Bonnichsen 1979:70). For flat bones, the horizontal axis remains across the

broadest width of the specimen but the length of the specimen is not necessarily the same as the longitudinal axis of the bone (Wan 1980).

Fracture-Based Utilitarian Traditions

Bone quarrying involves the use of proboscidean carcasses as a resource

supply for cores and blanks for tool production. This late Pleistocene tradition is

exemplified in pre-Clovis and Clovis sites, mainly within the major grasslands

ecosystem that stretched from Beringia into Mexico (e.g., Old Crow: Bon

nichsen 1979; Owl Cave: S. Miller 1977; Anzick: Lahren, and Bonnichsen 1974; Dutton: Stanford et al. 1981; Lubbock Lake: Johnson 1976). Bone quarrying becomes defunct at the end of the Pleistocene with proboscidean extinction.

Because this tradition was based on the great thickness of compact bone in

proboscidean long bones, it could not be adapted to nonproboscidean bone. Bone




quarrying was for the production of more specialized tools such as foreshafts

(Lahren and Bonnichsen 1974) and large cortical flakes (Stanford et al. 1981).

Quarrying of proboscidean bones produced portable and more easily manipu lated segments than complete skeletal elements. These segments were created

through radial fracturing from intersecting fracture fronts. Two classes are recog

nized, that of cores and of blanks (Figure 5.17). Segments destined for use as

cores in the production of large cortical flakes had either prepared or unprepared

platforms. Prepared platforms and flake production was accomplished by using a

hammerstone and the percussion flaking technique (Bonnichsen 1979; S. Miller

1982; Mor?an 1980; Stanford et al. 1981). The second class, that of blanks, is proposed on limited data. The thick

compact bone of proboscideans was sought after for the manufacture of bone

foreshafts (Lahren and Bonnichsen 1974). Within length, width, and thickness

requirements (greater than 281 mm x 20 mm x 14 mm based on Anzick data; Lahren and Bonnichsen 1974:148), several foreshafts could be produced from a

diaphyseal segment that may or may not be further modified with a hammerstone

and the percussion flaking technique (Figure 5.16B) before foreshaft production. Actual foreshaft production involved additional techniques of splitting, abrasion, and polishing (Lahren and Bonnichsen 1974), thereby creating a complex tech

nological history for these tools that involved a great deal of manufacturing modifications.

The late Pleistocene through Historic tradition of expediency tools is based on

the employment of ungulate postcranial bone (smaller elements with less thick

compact bone than proboscideans). The expediency concept (Johnson 1976,

1980, 1982) is defined within a technological framework (not a functional one) as these tools were made quickly and efficiently regardless of their intended use.

With such an immediate, abundant resource of raw material, only the production

knowledge of these tools need be brought to a locality (Johnson 1980, 1982; Wheat 1979). This production knowledge, in turn is part of the foundation of Bonnichsen's (1977b; Stanford et al., 1981) concept of transfer technology. Transfer technology is a procedural strategy that was applicable to more than one

medium. Procedures developed to work bone were applied to lithic material or

vice versa depending on what materials were available.

With mainly a Great Plains grasslands distribution (e.g., Bonnichsen 1979; Frison 1970, 1974, 1978; Johnson 1976, 1982; Wan 1980; Wheat 1979), expedi ency tools appear to become the major bone technological utilitarian tradition in

the early Holocene. Expediency tool production was more versatile with a broad er application strategy than bone quarrying and was easily transferred to a variety of animals. Several terms have been applied to this category of tools. Perhaps the

most common is bone butchering tool. The term expediency was advanced in

order to emphasize the technological basis and because the tools probably were



204 EILEEN JOHNSON

'CdV(f)

Mp(fWb)

~CC = fP(f)

Figure 5.18. FA6-8 (Lubbock Lake Landmark): Folsom period bison kill and butchering

locale; arrows indicate movement pattern by matching up anatomical parts of the butchered

female bison; circled areas indicate bone reduction areas where expediency tools were

manufactured.




used in more than meat retrieval operations. The expediency concept therefore, is not limited to members of a category of bone tools that were used only during carcass processing. Frison (1974:34) noted the expediency nature of many lithic

tools associated with butchering activity. These tools were functional, with little

time spent on their manufacture. Because of the minimal labor investment, the

lithic expediency tools were of little consequence if discarded or lost after use.

The focus of exploitation of raw material for bone expediency tools is on the

large ungulates (artiodactyls and perissodactyls). A size and genus limitation

may have existed in that bones of smaller ungulates such as deer or pronghorn

antelope appear not to have been used as expediency tools. Size as a factor,

however, is reflected in the use of bones of the late Pleistocene bear Arctodus

simus for expediency tools (Figure 5.16A). Bones of this carnivore are as large as those of extinct bison, horse, and camel that consistently were being selected.

The large mammal category exploited for fracture-based utilitarian tools can

be broken down into two classes based on episode use. Expediency tools are

implements used during a single event, made from bones of the animals being

processed, used in that processing (probably both meat retrieval and hide prepa

ration), and discarded with the rest of the faunal debris at the end of the event.

These tools were not brought back to the main camp. The associated manufactur

ing debris (e.g., fractured parent element, cone flakes, radially fractured shaft

segments) and bone reduction areas found within the butchering floors (Figures 5.18, 5.19A,B) support this interpretation (Johnson 1980, 1982).

Frison (1982b) suggested a multievent category, defined as items used serially in a number of events before being discarded. These items, if made at a kill, were

brought back to camp for further use or made in camp from bones brought back

from a kill. Hide processing tools and other utilitarian implements such as

scapula hoes may fall into this category. Reanalysis of bone assemblages from

camp and village collections is needed in order to establish the presence of this

category.

In manufacturing expediency tools, the high velocity impact technique was

applied to both long and flat bones. This procedure produced two types of

fracture morphology. Applied to fresh long bones, this technique produces a

helical fracture. Dynamic loading of flat bones, such as ribs, scapulae, and

pelves, results in a right angle fracture pattern. The right angle morphology has a

cleavage plane and configuration that is perpendicular to the external cortical

bone surface. Impact points can be seen from repeated blows along the cleavage

margin (Figure 5.20A,B). Due to the tubular nature of certain sections of flat

bones, both fracture patterns (helical and right angle) can be produced during the

process (Figure 5.20A,C). Based on experiments done by the author to re

produce the prehistoric pattern (Figure 5.21A-C), dynamic loading of flat bones

involved the use of a single anvil and hammerstone.

Based on experiments done by both the author and Bonnichsen (1973, 1979)



B

Lubbock Lake Site 41 LU1

Feature 8, Area 6

Substratum 2A local bed 2

Lubbock Lake Site 41 LU1

Feature 8, Area 6 Substratum

2 A local bed 2

CO

Figure 5.19. Closeup line drawings of two of the bone reduction areas of expediency tool manufacture in FA6-8 (Lubbock Lake Landmark).




0 CM |0

Figure 5.20. A, Archaeological bison scapula (TTU-A13852) exhibiting blow marks, right

angle breakage, and spiral fracture from high-velocity impact. B, Closeup of blow marks

(arrows) along the cleavage margin. C, Closeup of spiral fracture (arrow) along the lateral

scapular border.

to reproduce the prehistoric pattern, dynamic loading of fresh long bones by hominids can be accomplished through either a single or double anvil mode

(Figure 5.22A,B) with a hammerstone held in one or both hands. Spiraling is

initiated at the bending point (convex side) in simple beam loading (double anvil

mode) and along the lateral sides in cantilever loading (single anvil mode). Bonnichsen (1973, 1979) proposed the aboriginal use of a mid-diaphysis

smash technique of loading a simple beam that employs a double anvil mode.

The epiphyseal ends are supported on anvils, which leaves the diaphysis sus

pended without support. The hammerstone impacts the mid-diaphyseal area and

the bone flexes as it absorbs the full stress of impact. Plastic yielding, bending and fatigue strengths, bending stresses, energy absorbing capacity, and critical

velocity come into play. Compressive failure and crushing occur in the impact area (the concave side of the diaphysis) from the force of the hammerstone.

Tensile failure occurs on the opposite (convex) side in the tension zone (bending

point) as maximum strain to failure is reached. As the long bone is flexing, it also

is being subjected to torque (twisting moment) that creates a shearing stress



Figure 5.21. A, Archaeological example (top) of an expediency tool (TTU-A13858) made from a bison scapula and its associated manufacturing debris (TTU-A13860?arrow a; TTU

A13857); experimental attempt (bottom) made from a cow scapula and its associated man

ufacturing debris produced through the high velocity impact technique using one anvil and one-hand-over-the-shoulder posture. B, Closeup of archaeological example of manufactur

ing debris (TTU-A13860) and experimental example (arrow b). C, The archaeological expedi ency tool (TTU-A13858) with the unused experimental attempt.

208



s

PI

PI

IN COMPRESSION

IN TENSION

-IN COMPRESSION

A B

Figure 5.22. Schematic drawing of (A)

one- and

(B) two-anvil techniques and force patterns.



210 EILEEN JOHNSON

perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. Helical fracturing occurs with the interac

tion of the shearing and tensile stresses (Figure 5.22). Radial segments from

intersecting fracture fronts may form. Diagnostic characters of this technique include the large impact point located in the mid-diaphyseal area and wedge

flaking. In dynamic loading of long bones using one anvil, the bone is placed in

cantilever fashion (Figure 5.22). The two ends are suspended above ground at

obtuse and oblique angles with part of the diaphysis resting on the anvil. The

location of the impact on the diaphysis depends on the position of the bone on the

anvil and how the bone is held. As the hammerstone impacts the diaphyseal area, the same factors come into play as with a double anvil mode but under altered

conditions.

Some of the stress of impact is absorbed into the anvil, which lessens the

strain. A higher critical velocity is needed for maximum strain to failure in order

to overcome the amount of stress absorbed by the anvil and the greater fatigue resistance exhibited in cantilevered long bones. At the same time, some energy is

redirected back from the anvil to the diaphysis causing a rebound impact. The

double impact phenomenon creates a dual zone of compression on the diaphysis with longitudinal tension and perpendicular shear zones in between (Figure

5.22). Compressive failure and crushing occur in the impact area (concave side) from the hammerstone and at the rebound point (convex side) from the redirected

energy. Tensile-shear failure occurs in the interaction of the tension and shear zones on the lateral sides.

The size of the compression area and the amount of bone damage from crush

ing, flaking, and cones distinguish the original impact and rebound points. The

rebound point is much smaller than the original impact and is located at a

diagonal on the opposite diaphyseal (convex) side from the loading point (Fig ures 5.23A,B, 5.24). Impact scars are fewer, mainly from flaking, with little to

no crushing or coning. These scars generally are on the interior compact bone

wall but can occur on the exterior cortical surface (Figure 5.23). A specimen

preserving these features indicates a single anvil mode and allows the reconstruc

tion of the placement angle formed between the bone and the anvil (Figure 5.24). A double blow of differing energy levels is delivered to cantilevered bones.

The cleavage blow is the impact that caused maximum strain to failure and

fractured the element. The lower energy rebound blow results in a depression caused from force redirection by the anvil. A number of fracture fronts are

created from the cleavage and rebound impacts. The cleavage fracture front is the

leading edge of force that caused failure, while the rebound fracture front is the

leading edge of force from the opposite direction caused by the redirected force

from the anvil.

The differences in the thickness of the fracture surface may reflect the anvil

mode being used. Two types of fracture surfaces based on thickness of exposed

compact bone are noted in the archaeological record (Figure 5.25A,B) and have



A _

R

0 CM 5 ? CM ?

Figure 5.23. Impact (I) and rebound (R) points on spirally fractured archaeological bison (A) tibia (CLC-1598.2) and (B) femur (CLC-231.2d).



212 EILEEN JOHNSON

IMPACT POINT

NEGATIVE IMPACT FLAKE SCARS

RECONSTRUCTED ANGLE OF PLACEMENT ON ANVIL

NEGATIVE REBOUND FLAKE SCARS

Figure 5.24. Schematic drawing of impact and rebound points showing reconstructed anvil

placement and angle.

been reproduced experimentally by the author. One fracture surface is thin and

crisp, produced by a very quick, very forceful blow. The other type is broad and

shallow, produced by a slower, much less forceful blow. This latter type has

enough force to produce bone failure, although sometimes more than one blow is

necessary to complete the fracture. The former type appears to overwhelm the

element with force and a distinctive crack often is heard on impact.

Experimentally, the mid-diaphysis smash technique (simple beam loading)

generally is conducted with a two-handed overhead posture bringing the full

force and velocity to bear on the diaphysis (Bonnichsen 1979:54). The thin and

crisp type of fracture surface may be characteristic of a double anvil mode. The

single anvil procedure (cantilever loading) generally is conducted with a one

handed, over-the-shoulder posture with the other hand steadying the bone on the

anvil (Figure 5.12). The force applied in this manner is not as great as in a two

handed overhead posture. The broad and shallow type of fracture surface may be




Figure 5.25. Differences in thickness of fracture surface: A, crisp fracture edge on archae

ological bison tibia (TTU-A675); B, broad fracture edge on archaeological bison hum?rus

(TTU-A7475).

related to the single anvil mode. Hominid skill and strength; size, weight, and

velocity of the hammerstone; direction of force; angle of impact; and blow

placement are other variables governing the type of fracture surface.

Determining tool use of a hominid-induced fractured bone is based on post

technological (i.e., after fracture) modifications. These modifications are the

removal of bone through attrition processes (manufacturing or use). Two major

categories of flaking can occur. The flaking is considered patterned because of its

general sequential, overlapping occurrence and restricted distribution (Figure 5.26). Unintentional flaking is accidental modification and can occur either

during bone fracture (e.g., wedge flaking) or from use after fracturing. Inten

tional flaking is bone removal that is purposeful modification.

Utilization flaking (Figures 5.15B, 5.16A, 5.27C) is unintentional post-tech

nological flaking that occurs along the working edge during use. This type of

flaking is part of the attrition process to the working end. Rectilinear flaking

(Figure 5.15B) involved prying or levering bone segments from the working

edge as it hits a resistant spot (bone surface). The distal end morphology is

hinged at approximately a 90? angle and the lateral edges are parallel. Scallop



214 EILEEN JOHNSON

I INTENTIONALI

IPATTERNED FLAKING!

UN

IRETOUCHI

l?XTERi?Rl

IHINGEDj

ISTEPPEDI

^ONCHQIPAU

INTENTIONALI

1UTILIZAT10NI

IEXTERIORI

ISCALLOPl [RECTILINEARI

ITECHNOLOGIC?Ll

?CORE FLAK?Sl

MPRl PARED PLATFORMI

[R?N6?D1

UAGGEDI

BIP?LARI

IEXTERIORI

ISMALLI IWEDGEI

INTERIOR!

ICONEI

PREPARED PLATFORMI

STEPPEPI

FEATHEREDI

?HINGED!

UAGGEDI

IBIPOLARI

STEPPEPI

FEATHEREDI

Figure 5.26. Patterned flaking diagram.

flaking (Figures 5.16A, 27C) involves the removal of small pressure flakes at a

different angle and force than rectilinear flakes (cf. Cotterell and Kamminga 1979). Their distal end morphology is feathered with a shallow acute angle and

the lateral edges are convexly curved.

Intentional flaking includes retouch and core flakes. Retouch is purposeful

flaking for modification prior to use (Figure 5.15C) or to rejuvenate an edge. These flakes are considered debitage because the modified edge is the desired

product. Core flakes are the desired product, being struck from either prepared or

unprepared cores (parent element). These cortical flakes generally exhibit a

platform and bulb of percussion. Bonnichsen (1979:235-236) and Mor?an

(1980:53, 314) defined five distal end morphologies: feathered (shallow acute

angle); stepped (blunt right angle); hinged (rounded right angle); jagged (series of toothed projections); and bipolar (crushing and rebound flake removal).

Bone removal is not restricted to flaking but occurs in other damage forms. Six



A


Figure 5.27. A, Experimentally produced expediency tool (TTU1979.193.1 ) from a modern fresh bison hum?rus. B, Wear attrition (arrow) along working edge when matched with parent element. C, Closeup of utilization flaking (arrow) at working end created during use in

severing bison neck from trunk.



21 6 EILEEN JOHNSON

categories of post-technological modifications are noted that are used to establish a use-wear pattern for a bone expediency tool. While intentional flaking can

occur along the fractured edge or away from it, unintentional damage is restricted

to the fractured edge and adjacent surfaces. This edge and adjacent surfaces are

interpreted as the working edge and working end of the tool.

Macroflaking (Category 1) leaves large negative flake scars, generally from

retouch. The types are based on distal end morphology (cf. Bonnichsen 1979; Cotterell and Kamminga 1979). Conchoidal flakes have a feathered distal end

and leave a curved shallow depression (Figure 5.15C). These flakes bisect the

material longitudinally. Stepped flakes have a blunt, approximate 90? distal end.

These flakes do not bisect the material longitudinally. Hinged flakes have a

rounded, approximate 90? distal end. The rounding is due to a fracture front

retroflexion to the dorsal surface. These flakes do not bisect the material longitu

dinally.

Microflaking (Category 2) leaves small negative flake scars, generally from

utilization. Rectilinear and scallop flaking have been identified (Figures 5.15B,

5.16A, 5.27C). Microdamage (Category 3) leaves small negative scars, gener

ally from utilization. Pitting is the pockmarking of exposed compact bone from

removal of tiny chunks. Crushing is the comminution of exposed compact bone

(Figure 5.28A). Striations (Category 4) are fine, parallel lines caused by abra

sion. They generally occur perpendicular to the working edge and parallel the

longitudinal axis of the bone.

Differential polish (Category 5) is a highly localized alteration of the original surface texture to a smooth, reflective surface (Figure 5.11C, 5.16A). Polishing appears to be produced from continued contact with a softer material than the

bone (cf. Del Bene 1979). The loss of angularity (Category 6) results in a

rounded surface. Edge rounding is the reduction of the sharp exposed surface of

the fractured edge to a curved one (Figure 5.15C). It occurs at the interfaces of

cortical and exposed compact bone and exposed compact bone and the interior

Figure 5.28. Use-wear features: A, crushing and pitting along the working edge of an

archaeological expediency tool (TTU-A30388) from a bison hum?rus; B, smoothing of inner

cancellous material along the interior working end of an archaeological expediency tool

(TTU-A31548) from a bison radius. Scales in centimeters.




medullary cavity wall. The smoothing of the innercancellous structure is another

kind of angularity loss. It is the loss of irregular projections by abrasion that

creates a more regular surface. Its occurrence is along the interior medullary

cavity wall (Figure 5.28B).

Strategies

Two major adaptive strategies are involved in the model of bone as a resource

outlined in the preceding paragraphs. One, bone is an alternate tool material resource to lithics, particularly when the latter are unavailable or good lithic resources are lacking. Lithic and bone materials appear to complement each

other in Plains Paleoindian bison kills. In sites where bone expediency tools are

numerous, lithic ones are few (e.g., Casper [Frison 1974], Lubbock Lake, Bon

fire Shelter [Johnson 1982]). When lithics are numerous (e.g., Olsen-Chubbuck,

J?rgens [Wheat 1972, 1979], Lubbock Lake [Johnson and Holliday 1980]), bone expediency tools are rare. The strategy of having two interchangeable tool

materials allows greater flexibility in that one medium can be employed in which

many of the same procedures can be used to produce results or perform tasks that are similar to the other medium.

Bone appears equally, and sometimes better, suited for some tasks. Disjoint

ing an ungulate carcass is performed easily and efficiently with bone expediency tools. The edges are durable and their curved shape facilitates their slippage between articular ends. During experimental butchering of a bison by the author, an attempt was made to sever the neck with a lithic chopper. The chopper met

resistance by repeatedly hitting bone and did not damage the spinal cord. An

expediency tool (Figure 5.27A,B,C) made from the bison's hum?rus (Figures 5.3,5.12,5.13) quickly severed the neck as the tool repeatedly slipped between the cervical vertebrae and attacked the spinal cord. Frison (1974:31) noted that

although bone choppers could not be used in fracturing long bones, they were '

'as functional as a stone chopper for removing muscle attachments and chop

ping into thin-walled bones such as dorsal spines and ribs."

Curing the Ginsberg experimental elephant butchering (Stanford et al. 1981), flakes struck from a long bone core were used as knives to slice frozen meat bundles. A sharp, usable edge remained after several slices. Frison (1976, 1978,

1982b) has proposed the use of frozen meat caches as a winter food supply on the northern Plains during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene. Proboscidean

cortical bone flakes from the late Pleistocene are abundant in the Yukon collec

tions (Bonnichsen 1977b, 1978, 1979; Mor?an 1980) and a quarry workshop known from Owl Cave (S. Miller 1977, 1982; S. Miller and Doit 1978). Such

flakes could have been used in freeing an amount of frozen meat from the caches, whenever it was needed. Meat retrieval from early Holocene frozen caches,

however, would have had to be through other means.

A corollary proposed by the author may in part explain the apparent lack of



218 EILEEN JOHNSON

proboscidean bone cores and flakes on the southern Plains. Late Pleistocene

winters did not get below freezing (Graham 1976; Johnson 1976; Lundelius

1974) so meat caching was untenable. The demand for these cortical flakes if

they had this very particular and limited function, then, may not have been as

great as in the northern Plains.

The second adaptive strategy is that bone was an abundant, readily available, and disposable resource in which only the production knowledge need be carried

to a kill. Whatever large stones were available locally, since knapping quality was not a factor, could be used as the hammerstone and anvil. An animal had to

be killed either with a lithic or bone point (cf. Frison and Zeimans 1980), and

skinning initiated with a lithic tool (such as the lithic point used to kill the animal

[cf. Johnson and Holliday 1980; Wheat 1979]). Once a bone such as a meta

podial was exposed and disjointed, tool production could commence and the

butchering operation be continued with bone tools. The tools made did not need

to be transported because they could be produced quickly with the next carcass

processed. Heavy, cumbersome proboscidean bones could be reduced to easily

manageable radial segments or cores. Such availability of bone and production

knowledge freed the hunter from being dependent on a particular source, loca

tion, or quality of lithic material. He could travel lighter with fewer constraints.

When lithic knapping resources were scarce, the use of bone as an alternate

resource additionally could act as a conserving factor and extend the life of lithic

tools.

SUMMARY

The current argument in bone studies is whether or not reliable differences

exist in the way man fractures and minimally uses large land-mammal bones

versus the ways large carnivores and other agencies fracture and modify them. In

large part, this argument has been unnecessary and has hindered the development of bone technology and the research into more pertinent problems because a

major effort has been expended in debating points of the argument. The argu ment has been unnecessary because of three major points: (1) extensive research

data on bone as a material and how it responds to force under various conditions;

(2) specific, biomechanical definition of spiral fracture and how it differs tech

nically and morphologically from other types of fractures; and (3) past accumu

lated taphonomic and neotaphonomic research on various bone-modifying agen cies. What the argument has done of major import is to spur more extensive and

detailed neotaphonomic work that now is beginning to link and document sys

tematically the agency-process-result pathways and to underscore the require ment of an explicit, d?fendable, rigorous methodology. A major detraction has

been the polarization of researchers at an acrimonious level.




The beginning point in bone technology is a basic understanding of bone as a

material and how it responds to force under what conditions. Bone is a vis

coelastic, anisotropic, dynamic material that is adapted to resist failure (frac

ture). Overcoming bone's ductile properties is an accumulative process at the

microstructural level and failure begins at the microlevel after the elastic limit

has been exceeded. Most fractures are problems in energy-absorption produced

by sudden impacts and a bone's energy-absorbing capacity is influenced by moisture, strain rate, and temperature. When a bone dries, the physical and

mechanical properties of that bone begin to alter and the energy-absorbing capac

ity is impaired, which results in a change from a ductile to brittle response to

force. Bone microstructure, particularly the amount and orientation of collagen fibers and the amount and distribution of osteons, governs failure. Failure begins

with microcracking, whose formation and propagation tend to follow the cement

lines around osteons. Once microstructural integrity is breached, macrostructural

failure can escalate rapidly (Evans 1961, 1973). Three types of force exist, tension, compression, and shear. Standardized

bone samples in mechanical research are subjected to pure force but intact long bones are subjected to a mixed force because of their irregular cross-section,

curvature, varying cortex thickness, ratio of compact to trabecular bone, and

other variables. Fresh bone responds to force in a characteristic fracture pattern known as spiral fracturing. Although a spiral fracture can be produced in several

ways, its occurrence indicates fracture in the fresh state within a limited set of

conditions and therefore the term cannot be used in a generic sense to cover other

fracture responses that appear similar morphologically. In dynamic loading of intact fresh long bones, bending strength and stress and

fatigue strength influence fracturing. Upon impact, the bone flexes and twists, the twisting introducing shear stress to the compressive-tensile stress situation.

Crushing from compression occurs on the concave surface at the loading point while tensile-shear failure occurs on the convex-perpendicular surface. Wedge

flaking, from tensile failure on the convex surface, is characteristic of the frac ture response induced by bending in simple beam loading (Evans 1973; Hayes and Carter 1979).

Torsional loading of living long bone also produces a tensile-shear spiral fracture. The loading point is distinctive and contrasts with the loading point in

dynamically loaded intact long bones. Wedge flaking also can occur with tor

sional loading because of bending.

Spiral fractures have a smooth texture to their fracture surfaces although under SEM examination, the surface appears roughened and stepped from sudden

rupture through the collagen bundles and other microstructures (Shipman 1981b). Dynamically-induced spiral fractures have fracture surfaces that can

exhibit microfeatures such as hackle marks and ribs whose orientation can be used to determine the direction of the fracture front. Hackle marks are indicative



220 EILEEN JOHNSON

of shear stress and both microfeatures are known to be produced only through

dynamic loading (Gash 1971).

Dry and mineralized bone respond to force with a horizontal tension failure.

This pattern can be induced through either static or dynamic loading. Mor

phologically, the fracture front cuts across the diaphysis producing perpen

dicular, parallel, or diagonal breaks. Split line interference may cause right angle offsets and the fracture surface can form a right angle with the cortical surface

and longitudinal axis of the bone. The fracture surface from horizontal tension

failure has a bumpy texture. Under SEM examination, the fracture surface of

specimens that failed under weathering and weathering-trampling conditions

appears smooth because fracturing occurred between collagen bundles instead of

across them (Shipman 1981b). The linking of agency, process, and the resultant pattern for the fossil record is

dependent on neotaphonomic studies of direct field observation of processes

occurring today and controlled experimental studies that isolate variables and

identify results related to those variables. Large carnivores are the primary con

tender with man as the accumulator and bone-modifier in the fossil record under

study. Much of the past neotaphonomic data on bone behaviors of large car

nivores concerns chewing of bones with destruction of epiphyseal ends, types of

cortical surface damage, and collapsing of bone cylinders through compression. The results of these activities contrast with the patterns left by man's manipula tion of large land-mammal bones during butchering and fracturing. However, some confusion exists in the literature and errors have been made because car

nivore-inflicted damage on archaeological bone assemblages was not always taken into consideration

The problem of separating carnivore-induced damage from hominid-induced

damage is exciting but should be approached in a positive manner instead of with

negative blanket statements to the effect that it is all carnivore damage or the two

sets of damage cannot be differentiated (e.g., Binford 1981). Recent productive field work (G. Haynes 1981, 1982) has documented another bone behavior by

wolves involving large land-mammal bones that is a case in point. Wolves

occasionally fracture intact long bones through diaphyseal pressure without the

customary removal of the epiphyses. The resultant fracture pattern has been

labeled a spiral fracture. The question is whether or not wolves can accomplish this feat with fresh intact long bones of bison and moose, in which case a true

helical fracture should result; or if this behavior occurs only with dry intact long

bones, in which case the fracture is more likely a horizontal tension failure and

the bones fractured more easily because of the loss of ductile properties. At the

moment, the documentation appears only for dry long bones (up to 6 months

dry). The next step in this significant research is to document the behavior and its

results with fresh intact long bones (e.g., 0-2 day postmortem period). If indeed

wolves are capable of fracturing fresh intact long bones of large land mammals,




then the next step is to establish characters that would separate carnivore-in

duced, static-loaded spiral fractures from hominid-induced, dynamic-loaded ones on the basis of biomechanical features and not solely on the presence or

absence of carnivore markings.

Bone assemblages are complex units composed of individual elements each

with a life history of its own. Determining man's influence on the assemblages versus that of other agencies is crucial to cultural reconstruction and can only be

arrived at through the use of a series of diagnostic criteria that segregate and

identify the various possible agencies involved. Conceptually, Figure 5.29 is a

sorting routine that concentrates on determining general categories of influence

in a bone assemblage while Table 5.2 summarizes specific diagnostic criteria for

recognizing bone condition during fracturing and the currently recognized dif

ferences between carnivore-induced and hominid-induced fracturing of large land mammal long bones.

More specifically, with the current state of knowledge, hominids fracture fresh

intact long bones through the use of dynamic force, a technique known as high

velocity impact. Fresh bone responds in a characteristic fracture pattern produc

ing a helical break that is inclined at a 45? angle to the longitudinal axis of the

bone through a tensile-shear interaction. The fracture surfaces can exhibit hackle

marks that are indicative of dynamically-induced shear and wedge flaking can

occur that is related to both bending (which is related to tensile-shear failure) and

how the long bone was supported during dynamic impact. The large point of

ARNiVOREl

CHEWING/ ISCOOFI

CARN1V?

IFRESH!

ns

BONE ASSEMBLAGE!

STATIC I LOADING

[NON FR?SHJ OTHER AGENCIES! MINERAUZEPl

OTHER | -1ES| AGENCIE

?CULTURAL! ?ffiER I

AGENCIES!

MITURA?

DYNAMIC! LOADING!

ANVIL TWC

OTHER TECHNIQUES

0 ANVILS

Figure 5.29. A flow chart for sorting into general categories the specimens of a bone

assemblage in order to ascertain the various influences of different agencies responsible for

its condition and composition.



222 EILEEN JOHNSON

TABLE 5.2

Category Criteria

Fresh

Dry and mineralized

Carnivore

Chewing/scooping

Static loading

Cultural

Dynamic loading

1. Radial pattern circling around

the diaphysis 2. Smooth fracture surface

3. Homogenous color from exteri

or cortical surface to compact bone

4. Obtuse and acute angles formed by fracture and cortical

surfaces

5. Loading point present 6. Fracture fronts never crosscut

epiphyseal ends

1. Perpendicular to horizontal sin

gle fracture surface cutting across long axis of diaphysis

2. Rough fracture surface

3. Homogenous or heterogenous color

4. Right angles formed by frac

ture and cortical surface

5. Loading point absent

6. Fracture front can crosscut epi

physeal end

1. Epiphyseal removal 2. Tooth markings 3. Gouged spongy material

4. Jagged, thin-edged compact wall

1. Pressure points 2. Size of carnivore tooth contact

area

3. Random flaking/spalling 4. Tooth markings

Impact point/rebound point Helical pattern at 45? angle to

longitudinal axis

Size of impact Stress relief fracture surface

features

Redundant patterned flaking Tooth markings absent

Heterogenous color from ex

terior cortical surface to com

pact bone

One anvil

1. Diaphyseal impact point

placement varies

2. Rebound point present Two anvils

1. Mid-diaphysis impact point

placement 2. Rebound point absent

3. Wedge flaking




impact is a circular depressed area caused by local compressive failure induced

by the hammerstone. The impact point exhibits incipient ring cracks, bone

cones, bone flakes, and a number of emanating fracture fronts that expand out in

a radial pattern encircling the diaphysis. If a single anvil support was used, a

rebound point smaller than the original impact point can occur on the side of the

diaphysis next to the anvil surface.

Large carnivores may or may not fracture fresh intact long bones from large land mammals. The question has been raised but not demonstrated that they do

fracture these elements. Large carnivores do fracture long bones from large land

mammals through static loading once the epiphyseal ends have been chewed and

removed, which structurally weakens the bone. The bone responds with a hori

zontal tension failure pattern induced by compression that can crosscut whatever

remains of the epiphyses and produce rectilinear fragments. The kinds of fracture

surface features that may occur in carnivore static loading have not been docu

mented. Pressure points caused by localized compressive failure by the teeth can

occur on the diaphysis. A distinction can be made between a carnivore pressure

point and a hominid-induced impact point based on the smaller size of the

pressure point and lack of extensive diaphyseal damage from flaking and crush

ing within the area of the pressure point. Because of the intensity of chewing involved in removing the epiphyses and splintering the diaphysis, extensive

carnivore markings on the cortical surface and fracture edges are expected. A significant advance in bone technology is the recognition of two fracture

based utilitarian traditions employing the high velocity impact technique as the

fracturing method. These traditions are a core and flake production termed bone

quarrying that utilized proboscidean long bone; and a bone tool class exhibiting minimal modification termed bone expediency tools that focused on employing nonproboscidean large land-mammal long bones, primarily from ungulates.

Bone quarrying was a late Pleistocene tradition that ceased with proboscidean extinctions because it was based on the great thickness of compact bone in

proboscidean long bones. Bone expediency tools crossed time and culture boundaries and were associated with butchering activities involved with the

processing of large game animals.

Bone expediency tools constitute a suite of fracture-based utilitarian tools that exhibit the threshold phenomenon and are identified on the basis of use-wear

characters and not fracture morphology. These tools were functional with little

time spent on their manufacture and involving minimal labor investment. They were easily discarded with each kill event and could be made quickly and

efficiently at the next kill. Modification beyond fracture is minimal and generally

produced from the use of the fractured edge in an analogous situation as utilized lithic flakes.

The use-wear categories recognized thus far are in need of further experimen tal data concerning how these damages are produced and through what tasks so



224 EILEEN JOHNSON

that the criteria that identify them as exclusively hominid-induced are based on

the damage itself and not its placement on the bone or the absence of carnivore

activity. The challenge has not yet been met of an extensive, rigorously defined, controlled experimental approach to the identification and formation of use-wear

characters on these fracture-based utilitarian tools (cf. Bonnichsen and Will

1980). In contrast, some data are available on microscopic analyses and rep licative studies involving use-wear and manufacturing traces for highly modified

bone implements such as points and awls (cf. Campana 1980; Newcomer 1974). Fracture morphology is a function of technology, bone condition, and type of

bone selected. In producing expediency tools, the high velocity impact technique was applied to both fresh long and flat bones which resulted in two fracture

morphologies (helical and right angle). The type of anvil support being used (one

anvil?cantilevered; two anvils?simple beam) can be deduced from the tech

nological features that may be preserved on the fracture specimens. Key charac

ters to look for are impact placement, location of failure initiation, wedge flak

ing, and a rebound point. The model of bone as a resource in the fracture-based utilitarian traditions

reflects strategies that avoided a dependence on quantity or quality of knapping lithic materials. Bone was an alternate tool material resource to lithics and

appeared equally or better suited for some butchering tasks than lithics. Bone

also was a disposable, readily available, abundant resource in which only the

fracture knowledge need be carried to a kill. Locally available large stones could

provide the minimal required equipment of an anvil and hammerstone while

minimally a lithic point or bone point and lithic tool would be what was neces

sary for the kill and initial skinning. The fracture-based utilitarian traditions

represent the sophisticated manipulation of bone in exploiting the minimum

equipment necessary; minimum modification for tools; and minimum labor in

vestment for the greatest return on their efforts and freedom from care, mainte

nance, and transportation of the tools.

This review has focused on bone as a material and on distinguishing large carnivore-induced fracture and modification from hominid-induced fracture and

minimal modification from tool use. Other hominid-induced bone modifications

not discussed but related to hominid fracturing and fracture-based utilitarian tools

are butchering damage and fracturing for marrow and grease processing. These

three sets of bone modification form a tight economic and technological unit that

revolves around the pursuit, slaughter, and processing of large land-mammal

game animals. The technological procedures involved in each set work side-by side and are dependent on one another. For example, the fracture principles and

procedures involved in creating the utilitarian tools are the same as those in

fracturing fresh long bones for marrow. Long bones could be broken with both

purposes in mind or selected for one or the other purpose. Frison (1974:42-43)




notes differences in loading and fracture treatment of long bones he interpreted as

slated for marrow processing versus those selected for tool use. This unit of bone

modifications also shares the problems of identifying similar looking, naturally induced modification, particularly carnivore action, from the hominid-induced

modifications. Current neotaphonomic studies oriented towards modern aborig inal butchering procedures, carcass disarticulation and utilization by man versus

natural agencies (particularly large carnivores), and micromorphological dif

ferences between cortical damage inflicted by man versus natural agencies are

beginning to produce the data base for resolving those problems (e.g., Binford

1978, 1981; Bonnichsen 1973; Bunn 1981; G. Haynes 1980, 1982; Hill 1979;

Noe-Nygaard 1977; Potts and Shipman 1981; Shipman 1981b; Walker and Long 1977).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The friendly interaction and constructive criticism of a number of colleagues is greatly appreci

ated, especially that of Robson Bonnichsen (Center for Early Man Studies, University of Maine), Eunice Barkes (Museum of the Southwest, Midland), Sue Miller (Museum of Natural History, Idaho

State University), Joe Ben Wheat (University of Colorado Museum, University of Colorado), and

Lee Lyman (Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University). However, interpretations and

any errors are mine. This manuscript evolved through a long process made tolerable by the constant

and much appreciated encouragement of Michael Schiffer. Technical assistance was provided by the

staff of the Division of Archaeology and Lubbock Lake Landmark, The Museum, Texas Tech

University: April MacDowell, Collections Manager; Mei Wan, Research Assistant; Nick Olson,

Photographer; Eric Vota va, Photographic Assistant; and Pam Richardson, draftsperson. Shirley

Burgeson typed drafts. Ann Futrell typed the final copy. Their services are greatly appreciated. All

photographs were taken by Nick Olson except for Figures 5.1,5.12, and 5.21. Figures 5.1 and 5.12

were graciously provided by Eunice and Jim Barkes; Figure 5.21 was taken by Gerald Urbantke

during his tenure as Photographer, Lubbock Lake Landmark. All photographic plates were produced

by Nick Olson and Eric Votava.

A 14-year-old male bison was donated to the Lubbock Lake Project by the Wichita Wildlife

Refuge, Oklahoma, and dispatched for us by the staff. The bison's hide and skeleton were assigned accession number 1979.193 of The Museum, Texas Tech University. The experimental butchering and long bone fracturing took place at the Refuge. The crew consisted of the author, April Mac

Dowell, Mei Wan, Elaine Hughes, Deb Hughes, Julia Payne, Chris J?rgens, Ron Ralph, Glen

Goode, Jim Barkes, Eunice Barkes, Jim Word, Jane Schweitzer, Towana Spivey, and Butch Han

cock. The interest and cooperation of the staff of the Wichita Wildlife Refuge and the help and

encouragement of the crew throughout the butchering project is greatly appreciated. This manuscript represents part of the ongoing research of the Lubbock Lake Project into cultural

adaptations to ecological change on the Llano Estacado. Bone technology research was funded

specifically by National Science Foundation grant BNS78-11155. The data base for this research was

generated through other Lubbock Lake supporting grants and agencies: National Science Foundation

(SOC-14857; BNS76-12006; BNS76-12006-A01), National Geographic Society, Texas Historical

Commission (National Register Program), Moody Foundation (Galveston), Center for Field Re

search (EARTHWATCH), City and County of Lubbock, West Texas Museum Association, Institute

of Museum Research, and The Museum, Texas Tech University.



226 EILEEN JOHNSON

REFERENCES

Alexander, Robert K.

1974 The archaeology of Conejo shelter: A study of cultural stability at an archaic rock

shelter site in southwestern Texas. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of

Texas, Austin.

Amprino, Rodolfo

1958 Investigations on some physical properties of bone tissue. Acta Anat?mica 34:161

186.

Ascenzi, Antonio, and Ermanno Bonucci

1964 The ultimate tensile strength of single osteons. Acta Anat?mica 58:160-183.

Ascher, Robert, and Marcia Ascher

1965 Recognizing the emergence of man. Science 147(3655):243-250.

Behrensmeyer, Anna K.

1975 The taphonomy and paleoecology of Plio-Pleistocene vertebrate assemblages east of

Lake Rudolf, Kenya. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 146:474-578.

1978 Taphonomic and ?cologie information from bone weathering. Paleobiology 4(2): 150

162.

Behrensmeyer, Anna K., and Dorothy E. Dechant-Boaz

1980 The recent bones of Amboseli National Park, Kenya, in relation to East African

paleoecology. In Fossils in the making: Vertebrate taphonomy and paleoecology,

edited by Anna K. Behrensmeyer and Andrew P. Hill. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press. Pp. 72-92.

Behrensmeyer, Anna K., David Western, and Dorothy E. Dechant-Boaz

1979 New perspectives in vertebrate paleoecology from a recent bone assemblage. Pal

eobiology 5:15-21.

Behrensmeyer, Anna K., and Andrew P. Hill

1980 Fossils in the making: Vertebrate taphonomy and paleoecology. Chicago: University

of Chicago Press.

Binford, Lewis R.

1972 An archaeological perspective. New York: Seminar Press.

1978 Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic Press.

1981 Bones: Ancient men and modern myths. New York: Academic Press.

Binford, Lewis R., and Jack B. Bertram

1977 Bone frequencies?and attritional processes. In For theory building in archaeology,

edited by Lewis R. Binford. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 77-153.

Bird, Frederick, and Herbert Becker

1966 Report No. ARA 322-2. Concord, Massachusetts: Allied Research Associates.

Bird, Frederick, Herbert Becker, Janet Healer, and Melanie Messer

1968 Experimental determination of the mechanical properties of bone. Aerospace Medicine

39(l):44-48.

Bonfield, W., and C. H. Li

1965 Deformation and fracture of ivory. Journal of Applied Physics 36(10):3181?3184.

1966a Deformation and fracture of bone. Journal of Applied Physics 37(2): 869-875.

1966b Anisotropy of nonelastic flow in bone. Journal of Applied Physics 38(6):2450-2455.

Bonnichsen, Robson

1973 Some operational aspects of human and animal bone alteration. In Mammalian osteo

archaeology: North America, B. Miles Gilbert. Columbia: Missouri Archaeological

Society. Pp. 9-24.




1977a Models for deriving cultural information from stone tools. National Museum of Man

Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 60:1-319.

1977b Human adaptation in the Beringian Refugium: Evidence from Paleontological Collec

tions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.

1978 Critical arguments for Pleistocene artifacts from the Old Crow Basin, Yukon: A

preliminary statement. In Early Man in America from a Circum-Pacific Perspective, edited by Alan Lyle Bryan. Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta,

Occasional Papers 1:102-118.

1979 Pleistocene bone technology in the Beringian Refugium. National Museum of Man

Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 89:1-280.

1982a Bone technology as a taphonomic factor: An introductory statement. In Bone tech

nology: Experimentation, assemblage, and non-human modification, edited by Eileen

Johnson and Robson Bonnichsen. Canadian Journal of Anthropology 2(2): 137

144.

1982b Analogues for discriminating between human and non-human modified bones. Paper

presented at the 15th annual Chacmool Symposium, Calgary, Alberta.

1983 Review of "Bones: Ancient men and modern myths. Lewis R. Binford." Plains

Anthropologist 28(101):247-249.

Bonnichsen, Robson, and Richard Will

1980 Cultural modification of bone: The experimental approach in faunal analysis. In Mam

malian Osteology, edited by B. Miles Gilbert. Laramie, Wyoming: B. Miles Gilbert,

Publisher, Pp. 7-30.

Brain, C. K.

1967a Hottentot food remains and their bearing on the interpretation of fossil bone as

semblages. Scientific Papers of the Namib Desert Research Station 32:1-11.

1967b Bone weathering and the problem of bone pseudo-tools. South African Journal of Science 63:97-99.

1969 The contribution of Namib Desert Hottentots to an understanding of Australopithecine bone accumulations. Scientific Papers of the Namib Desert Research Station 39:13

22.

1976 Some principles in the interpretation of bone accumulations associated with man. In

Human origins: Louis Leakey and the East African evidence, edited by Glynn LI. Isaac

and Elizabeth R. McCown. Reading, Pennsylvania: W. A. Benjamin, Inc.

1981 The hunters or the hunted? An introduction to African cave taphonomy. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Bunn, Henry T.

1981 Archaeological evidence for meat-eating by Plio-Pleistocene hominids from Koobi

Fora and Olduvai Gorge. Nature 291(5816):574-576.

1982a Animal bones and archeological inference. Science 215:494-495

1982b Plio-Pleistocene archaeological bone assemblages from East Africa as evidence for

early hominid diet. Paper presented at the 15th annual Chacmool Symposium, Calga

ry, Alberta.

Campana, Douglas Victor

1980 An analysis of the use-wear patterns on Natufian and Protoneolithic bone implements.

Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, Columbia University, New York.

Carlson, A. J.

1963 On the mechanism of brittle fracture propagation. Transactions of the Royal Institute of

Technology Stockholm, Mechanical Engineering 10:5-38.



228 EILEEN JOHNSON

Carter, D. R., and W. C. Hayes 1977 Compact bone fatigue damage?I. Residual strength and stiffness. Journal of Bio

mechanics 10:325-337.

Charles, R. J.

1961 A review of glass strength. In Progress in ceramic science (volume 1) by J. E. Burke.

New York: Pergamon Press. Pp. 1-38.

Clark, J., andK. K. Kietzke

1967 Paleoecology of the Lower Nodular Zone, Brule Formation, in the Big Badlands, of

South Dakota. In Oligoc?ne sedimentation, stratigraphy, paleoecology and pal

eoclimatology in the Big Badlands of South Dakota, edited by J. Clark, J. R. Beer

bower, and K. K. Kietzke. Fieldiana: Geology Memoir 5:111-137

Clark, David L.

1968 Analytical archaeology. London: Methuen.

1972 Models in archaeology. London: Methuen.

Coe, Malcolm

1978 The decomposition of elephant carcasses in the Tsavo (East) National Park, Kenya. Journal of Arid Environments 1(1):71?86

Collins, Michael B.

1981 The implications of the lithic assemblage from Monte Verde, Chile, for the early man

studies. Paper presented at the X Congres, Union Internationale des Sciences Pr?

historiques et Protohistoriques, Mexico City.

Coppen, Yves, F. Clark Ho well, Glynn LI. Isaac, and Richard E. F. Leakey 1976 Earliest man and environments in the Lake Rudolf Basin. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Corten, H. T.

1972 Fracture mechanics of composites. In Fracture: An advanced treatise (volume 7), edited by H. Liebowitz. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 675-769.

Cotterell, Brian, and Johan Kamminga 1979 The mechanics of flaking. In Lithic use-wear analysis, edited by Brian Hayden. New

York: Academic Press. Pp. 97-112.

Crabtree, Don E.

1972 An introduction to flintworking. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State Museum 28:1

98

Currey, J. D.

1964 Three analogies to explain the mechanical properties of bone. Biorheology 2:1-10.

Dart, Raymond 1957 The osteodontokeratic culture of Australopithecus prometheus. Memoir of the Trans

vaal Museum, Pretoria 10:1-105.

1959 Further light on Australopithecine humeral and femoral weapons. American Journal of

Physical Anthropology 17(2):87-93

1960 The bone tool-manufacturing ability of Australopithecus prometheus. American An

thropologist 62:134-143.

Davis, David D.

1955 Masticatory apparatus in the spectacled bear Tremarctos ornatus. Fieldiana: Zoology 37:25-46.

Del Bene, Terry A.

1979 Once upon a striation: Current models of striation and polish formation. In Lithic

usewear analysis, edited by Brian Hayden. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 167

178.




Dodson, Peter

1973 The significance of small bones in paleoecological interpretation. University of Wyo

ming Special Papers, Contributions to Geology 12(1): 15-19.

Ekland, Carolyn, and Phillip Grant

1977 Discriminant analysis of fragments from long bone diaphyses. Paper presented at the

annual meetings of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.

Evans, F. Gaynor 1952 Stress and strain in the long bones of the lower extremity. American Academy of

Orthopaedic Surgeons, Instructional Course Lectures 9:264-271

1957 Stress and strain in bones: Their relation to fractures and osteogenesis. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher.

1961 Relation of the physical properties of bone to fractures. American Academy of

Orthopaedic Surgeons, Instructional Course Lectures 18:110-121.

1973 Mechanical properties of bone. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher.

Evans, F. Gaynor, and Milton LeBow

1951 Regional differences in some of the physical properties of the human femur. Journal of

Applied Physiology 3:563-572.

Faulkner, A.

1972 Mechanical principles of flintworking. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of

Washington, Seattle.

Frankel, Victor H., and Albert H. Burstein

1967 Orthopaedic biomechanics?An introduction to the engineering fundamentals of

orthopaedic surgery. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger.

Frison, George C.

1970 The Glenrock buffalo jump, 48C0304. Plains Anthropologist 15(50): 1-66.

1974 The Casper site: A Hell Gap bison kill on the High Plains. New York: Academic

Press.

1976 Cultural activity associated with prehistoric mammoth butchering and processing. Science 194:728-730.

1978 Prehistoric hunters of the High Plains. New York: Academic Press.

1982a Bone butchering tools in archaeological sites. Canadian Journal of Anthropology

2(2): 159-167.

1982b Paleo-indian winter subsistence strategies on the high plains. In Plains Indian studies:

A collection of essays in honor of John C. Ewers and Waldo R. Wedel, edited by

Douglas H. Ubelaker and Herman J. Viola. Smithsonian Contributions to An

thropology 30:193-201.

Frison, George C, and George M. Zeimens

1980 Bone projectile points: An addition to the Folsom cultural complex. American Antiq

uity 45(2):231-237.

Fritz, John M.

1972 Archaeological systems for indirect observation of the past. In Contemporary archae

ology, edited by Mark P. Leone. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Pp. 135-157.

Gash, P. J. Syme 1971 A study of surface features relating to brittle and semi-brittle fracture. Tectonophysics

12:349-391.

Gifford, Diane P.

1981 Taphonomy and paleoecology: A critical review of archaeology's sister disciplines. In

Advances in archaeological method and theory (volume 4), edited by Michael

Schiffer. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 365-438.



230 EILEEN JOHNSON

Graham, Russell

1976 Pleistocene and Holocene mammals, taphonomy, and paleoecology of the Friesenhahn

Cave local fauna, Bexar County, Texas. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of

Texas, Austin.

Gray son, Donald K.

1982 Review of "Bones: Ancient men and modern myths." In American Anthropologist 84:439-440.

Greiser, Sally Thompson 1977 Micro-analysis of wear-patterns on projectile points and knives from the J?rgens site,

Kersey, Colorado. Plains Anthropologist 22(76): 107-116.

Gurland, J., and N. M. Parikh

1972 Microstructural aspects of the fracture of two-phase alloys. In Fracture: An advanced

treatise (volume 7), edited by H. Liebowitz. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 841?

878.

Guthrie, R. Dale

1980 The first Americans? The elusive Arctic bone culture. The Quarterly Review of Ar

chaeology 1:2.

Hanson, C. Bruce

1980 Fluvial taphonomic processes: Models and experiments. In Fossils in the making: Vertebrate taphonomy and paleoecology, edited by Anna K. Behrensmeyer and An

drew Hill. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pp. 156-181.

Hayden, Brian

1979 Lithic use-wear analysis. New York: Academic Press.

Hayes, Wilson C, and Dennis R. Carter

1979 Biomechanics of bone. In Skeletal research: An experimental approach, edited by D.

J. Simmons. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 263-300.

Haynes, C. Vance

1971 Time, environment, and early man. Arctic Anthropology 8(2):3-14.

1973 The Calico site: Artifacts or geofacts? Science 181(4097):305-310.

Haynes, Gary 1978 Morphological damage and alteration to bone: Laboratory experiments, field studies,

and zoo studies. American Quaternary Association Abstracts 5:210.

1980 Prey bones and predators: Potential ?cologie information from analysis of bone sites.

Ossa 7:75-97.

1981 Bone modifications and skeletal disturbances by natural agencies: Studies in North

America. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Catholic University of America, Wash

ington, D.C.

1982 Utilization and skeletal disturbances of North American prey carcasses. Arctic

35(2):266-281.

1983a Frequencies of spiral and green-bone fractures on ungulate limb bones in modern

surface assemblages. American Antiquity 48(1): 102-114.

1983b Review of ' 'Bones: Ancient men and modern myths.

' ' North American Archaeologist

4(3):245-254.

Herrmann, George, and Harold Liebowitz

1972 Mechanics of bone fracture. In Fracture: An advance treatise, Volume 7, edited by H.

Liebowitz. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 771-840.

Hill, Andrew

1975 Taphonomy of contemporary and late Cenozoic East African vertebrates. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, London.

1976 On carnivore and weathering damage to bone. Current Anthropology 17:335-336.




1979 Butchery and natural disarticulation: An investigatory technique. American Antiquity

44(4):739-744.

Hodder, Ian, and Clive Orton

1976 Spatial analysis in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Holliday, Vance T., Eileen Johnson, Herbert Haas, and Robert Stuckenrath

1983 Radiocarbon ages from the Lubbock Lake Site, 1950-1980: Framework for cultural

and ecological change of the southern High Plains. Plains Anthropologist 28(100):

165-182.

Hughes, A. R.

1954 Hyaenas versus Australopithecines as agents of bone accumulation. American Journal

of Physical Anthropology 12:467-486.

Irving, W. N.

1978 Pleistocene archaeology in eastern Beringia. In Early man in America from a circum

Pacific perspective, edited by Alan Lyle Bryan. University of Alberta, Department of

Anthropology, Occasional Papers 1:96-101.

Irving, W. N., and C. R. Harrington 1973 Upper Pleistocene radiocarbon-dated artifacts from the northern Yukon. Science

179(4071):335-340. Isaac, Glynn LI.

1975 Early hominids in action: A commentary on the contribution of archeology to under

standing the fossil record in East Africa. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 19:19

35.

1976a The activities of early African hominids: A review of archaeological evidence from the

time span two and a half to one million years ago. In Human origins: Louis Leakey and

the East African evidence, edited by Glynn LI. Isaac and Elizabeth R. McCown.

Menlo Park: W. A. Benjamin, Inc. Pp. 483-514.

1976b Stages of cultural elaboration in the Pleistocene: Possible archaeological indicators of

the development of language capabilities. In Origins and evolution of language and

speech, edited by Steven R. Harnad, Horst D. Steklis, and Jane Lancaster. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 280:275-288.

1978 The food-sharing behavior of protohuman hominids. Scientific American 238(4):90 106.

1983 Review of "Bones: Ancient men and modern myths." American Antiquity 48(2)416 419.

Isaac, Glynn LI., Richard E. F. Leakey, and Anna K. Behrensmeyer 1971 Archaeological traces of early hominid activities east of Lake Rudolf, Kenya. Science

173:1129-1134.

Johnson, Eileen

1976 Investigations into the zooarchaeology of the Lubbock Lake site. Unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

1977 Animal food resources of paleoindians. In Paleoindian lifeways, edited by Eileen

Johnson. The Museum Journal 17:63-77.

1978 Paleo-indian bison procurement and butchering patterns on the Llano Estacado. Plains

Anthropologist Memoir 14:98-105.

1980 Updating comments on "Paleo-indian bison procurement and butchering patterns on

the Llano Estacado". Plains Anthropologist 25(87):84-85. 1982 Paleo-indian bone expediency tools: Lubbock Lake and Bonfire Shelter. In Bone

technology: Experimentation, assemblage, and non-human modification, edited by Eileen Johnson and Robson Bonnichsen. Canadian Journal of Anthropology 2(2): 145

157.



232 EILEEN JOHNSON

Johnson, Eileen, and Robson Bonnichsen

1982 Bone technology: Experimentation, assemblage, and non-human modification. Cana

dian Journal of Anthropology 2(2): 137-177.

Johnson, Eileen, and Vance T. Holliday 1980 A Plain view kill/butchering locale on the Llano Estacado?The Lubbock Lake site.

Plains Anthropologist 24(88):89- 111.

Keeley, Lawrence H.

1974 Technique and methodology in microwear studies: A critical review. World Archae

ology 5(3):323-336.

Keeley, L. H. and M. H. Newcomer

1977 Microwear analysis of experimental flint tools: A test case. Journal of Archaeological Sciences 4(l):29-62.

Knudson, Ruthann

1979 Inference and imposition in lithic analysis. In Lithic use-wear analysis, edited by Brian

Hayden. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 269-282.

Kruuk, H.

1972 The spotted hyena: A study of pr?dation and social behavior. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Lahren, Larry, and Robson Bonnichsen

1974 Bone foreshafts from a Clovis burial in southwestern Montana. Science 186(4159) : 147

149.

Lawn, B. R., and D. B. Marshall

1979 Mechanisms of microcontact fracture in brittle solids. In Lithic use-wear analysis, edited by Brian Hayden. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 63-82.

Leakey, Mary 1966 A review of the Oldowan culture from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Nature 210:462

466.

1970 Early artefacts from the Koobi Fora area. Nature 226:228-230.

Liebowitz, H.

1968 Fracture: An advanced treatise (volume 1). New York: Academic Press.

Lundelius, Ernest L., Jr.

1974 The last fifteen thousand years of faunal change in North America. In History and

prehistory of the Lubbock Lake site, edited Craig C. Black. The Museum Journal

15:141-160.

Mayer, Ernst

1966 Animal species and evolution. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

McElhaney, James H.

1966 Dynamic response of bone and muscle tissue. Journal of Applied Physiology

21(4):1231-1236.

McElhaney, James H., and Edward F. Byars 1965 Dynamic response of biological material. American Society of Mechanical Engineer

ing Paper, 65-WA/HUF-l.

Meyers, Thomas P., Michael R. Voorhies, and R. George Corner

1980 Spiral fractures and bone pseudotools at paleontological sites. American Antiquity

45(3):483-490.

Miller, George J.

1969 A study of cuts, grooves, and other marks on recent and fossil bone, I: Animal tooth

marks. Tebiwa 12(l):20-26. 1975 A study of cuts, grooves, and other marks on recent and fossil bones, II: Weathering

cracks, fractures, splinters, and other similar natural phenomena. In Lithic Tech

nology, edited by Earl Swanson. The Hague: Mouton. Pp. 211-226.




Miller, Susanne J.

1977 Archaeology of the Wasden Site. In Archaeological geology of the Birch Creek Valley

and the eastern Snake River Plain, Idaho edited by Wakefield Doit, Jr. and Susanne J.

Miller. The Division of Archaeological Geology, Geological Society of America. Pp. 68-80.

1982 Osteo-archaeology of the mammoth-bison assemblages at Owl Cave, the Wasden site,

Idaho. Paper presented at the 15th annual Chacmool Symposium, Calgary, Canada.

Miller, Susanne J., and Wakefield Dort, Jr.

1978 Early man at Owl Cave: Current investigations at the Wasden site, eastern Snake River

Plain, Idaho. In Early man in America from a circum-Pacific perspective, edited by Alan Lyle Bryan. University of Alberta, Department of Anthropology, Occasional

Papers 1:129-139.

Mor?an, Richard E.

1980 Taphonomy and archaeology in the Upper Pleistocene of the Yukon Territory: A

glimpse of the peopling of the New World. National Museum of Man Mercury Series,

Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 94:1-380.

Murgatroyd, J. B.

1942 The significance of surface marks on fractured glass. Journal of the Society of Glass

Technology 26:155-171.

Newcomer, M. H.

1974 Study and replication of bone tools from Ksar Akil. World Archaeology 6:138-153.

Noe-Nygaard, N.

1977 Butchering and marrow fracturing as a taphonomic factor in archaeological deposits.

Paleobiology 3:218-237.

Obert, Leonard

1972 Brittle fracture on rock. In Fracture: An advanced treatise, edited by H. Liebowitz.

Volume 7. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 93-155.

Olson, Everett C.

1980 Taphonomy: Its history and role in community evolution. In Fossils in the making: Vertebrate taphonomy and paleoecology, edited by Anna K. Behrensmeyer and An

drew P. Hill. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pp. 5-19.

Peters, Stuart M.

1980 Comments on the analogy between biological and cultural evolution. American Antiq

uity 45(3):596-601.

Peterson, Rolf O.

1977 Wolf ecology and prey relationships on Isle Royale. National Park Service Scientific

Monograph Series, II.

Phillips, C. J.

1972 Fracture of glass. In Fracture: An advanced treatise (Volume 7), edited by H.

Liebowitz. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 1-35.

Potts, Richard, and Pat Shipman 1981 Cut marks made by stone tools on bones from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Nature

291:577-580.

Ruangwit, U.

1967 The split line phenomena and the microscopic structure of bone. American Journal of

Physical Anthropology 26:325-334.

Sadek-Kooros, Hind

1972 Primitive bone fracturing: A method of research. American Antiquity 37(3):369-382. 1975 Intentional fracture of bone description of criteria. In Archaeozoological Studies,

edited by A. T. Clason. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Co. Inc. Pp. 139?

150.



234 EILEEN JOHNSON

Saunders, Jeffery J.

1977 Late Pleistocene vertebrates of the western Ozark Highland, Missouri. Illinois State

Museum, Reports of Investigations 33:1-118.

Sedlin, E. E.

1965 A rh?ologie model for cortical bone. G?teborg: Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag.

Semenov, S. A.

1964 Prehistoric technology. Bath: Adams and Dart.

Shipman, Pat

1981a Life history of a fossil: An introduction to taphonomy and paleoecology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

1981b Applications of scanning electron microscopy to taphonomic problems. In The re

search potential of anthropological museum collections, edited by Anne-Marie E.

Cantwell, James B. Griffin, and Nan A. Rothschild. Annals of the New York Academy

of Sciences 376:357-386.

Shipman, Pat, and Jane E. Phillips-Conroy 1977 Hominid tool-making versus carnivore scavenging. American Journal of Physical

Anthropology 45:77-86.

Simpson, Ruth D., Leland W. Patterson, and Clay A. Singer 1981 Early lithic technology of the Calico site, southern California. Paper presented at the X

Congres, Union Internationale des Sciences Pr?historiques et Protohistoriques, Mexico

City.

Singer, R.

1956 The "bone tools" from Hopefield. American Anthropologist 58:1127-1134.

Speth, John D.

1972 Mechanical basis of percussion flaking. American Antiquity 37(l):34-60. 1983 Bison kills and bone counts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Stanford, Dennis, Robson Bonnichsen, and Richard E. Mor?an

1981 The Ginsberg experiment: Modern and prehistoric evidence of a bone-flaking tech

nology. Science 212:438-440

Sutcliffe, Antony J.

1970 Spotted hyena: Crusher, gnawer, digester and collector of bones. Nature 227:1110?

1113.

1973 Similarity of bones and antlers gnawed by deer to human artifacts. Nature 246:428

430

Sweeney, A. W., R. P. Kroon, and R. K. Byers 1965 Mechanical characteristics of bone and its constituents. American Society of Mechan

ical Engineers Paper, 65-WA/HUF-7.

Tappen, N. C.

1969 The relationship of weathering cracks to split-line orientation in bone. American Jour

nal of Physical Anthropology 31:191 -197.

Tatum, Lise S., and Richard Shutler, Jr.

1980 Bone tool technology and subsistence activity at the Cherokee Sewer site. In The

Cherokee Excavations, edited by Duane C. Anderson and Holmes A. Semken, Jr.

New York: Academic Press. Pp. 239-255.

Tsirk, Are

1979 Regarding fracture initiations. In Lithic use-wear analysis, edited by Brian Hayden. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 83-96.

Voorhies, Michael R.

1969 Taphonomy and population dynamics of an early Pliocene vertebrate fauna, Knox

County, Nebraska. University of Wyoming, Contributions to Geology, Special Paper 1:1-69.




Walker, Phillip L., and Jeffery C. Long 1977 An experimental study of the morphological characteristics of tool marks. American

Antiquity, 42(2):605-616.

Wan, Mei

1980 Basic archaeological collection management considerations and research into bone

technology?a case study of the 1975 Canyon Lakes project, Lubbock, Texas. Un

published master's thesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

Wheat, Joe Ben

1972 The Olsen-Chubbuck site, a paleo-indian bison kill. Society for American Archae

ology Memoirs 26:1-179.

1979 The J?rgens site. Plains Anthropologist Memoir 15:1-153.

White, E. M. and L. A. Hannus

1983 Chemical weathering of bone in archaeological soils. American Antiquity 48(2):316

322.

Will, Richard T.

1982 Review of "Bones: Ancient men and modern myths." Zooarchaeological Research

News l(l):7-8.

Wolff, Ronald G.

1973 Hydrodynamic sorting and ecology of a Pleistocene mammalian assemblage from

California (U.S.A.). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology 13:91

101.

1975 Sampling and sample size in ecological analysis of fossil mammals. Paleobiology 1:195-204.

Yellen, John E.

1977 Cultural patterning in faunal remains: Evidence from the !Kung Bushmen. In Experi mental Aracheology, edited by David W. Ingersoll, John E. Yellen, and William

MacDonald. New York: Columbia University Press. Pp. 271-331.

Yoffee, Norman

1980 Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in the shape of a camel? Reply to Peters.

American Antiquity 45(3):601-604.

Young, David E., and Robson Bonnichsen

1984 Understanding stone tools: A cognitive approach. Center for the Study of Early Man,

University of Maine, Orono.



current developments in bone technology

Documents