CC BY
27УДК 902.03 903.01
THE USE OF TOOLS MADE FROM WILD BOAR CANINE DURING THE FRENCH MESOLITHIC: EXAMPLE OF CUZOUL DE GRAMAT COLLECTION (LOT, FRANCE)1
© 2017 г. E. Fabre
The tools made from wild boar canine of Mesolithic attracted the attention since their discovery, but still not subjected to special study. Only technological approaches have recently been applied to them. In order make our knowledge of these tools more complete, it seemed interesting to conduct a use-wear analysis of these tools. The paper presents the results of an in-depth study conducted as a master's thesis of the author according to the collection of Cuzoul de Gramat. This collection contains a large number of the Mesolithic objects recovered on a same site. For this functional approach, an experimental protocol was set up and the use-wear traces of experimental and archaeological tools were compared with each other. It allowed the author to understand how and by what material these tools have been used.
Keywords: archaeology, France, Mesolithic, tools of the teeth, use-wear analysis, experimentations.
Introduction
Upon their discovery, Mesolithic tools made from wild boar canine have been the subject of a particular attention. M. Boule, in a short footnote, proposed to do a "fossile directeur" of French Mesolithic (Boule in Pequart, Pequart, 1929), but without result. Quickly, functional hypothesis have been venture. They are traduced by different names with a functional connotation, inspired by their morphology. These names can be in relation with their possible function, particularly with a sharp action of tool for the hide work when these tools named "leather knife" (fig. 1) (Lacam et al., 1944) or "stitching awl" (Pequart et al., 1937; Rozoy, 1978). But it can be associated to their possible functioning with "drill" (Lacam et al., 1944), "awl" (Barbaza, 1989) and "burin" (David, 2005). There are few studies on this kind of tools. Only a complete technological analysis was made by B. Marquebielle for South and East of France collection (Marquebielle, 2014). Another technological approach was made by E. David for North Europe collection (David, 2005). Not real functional analysis was made on this mesolithic tools.
The Cuzoul de Gramat site, in the Lot region (France), was excavated of 1923 to
1933 by R. Lacam and A. Niederlender. After unsuccessful soundings in the cavity, the excavations were made on cave's entrance and in front of porch, who revealed a thick stratigraphy and a mesolithic grave. A good monograph has published in 1944 (Lacam et al., 1944). The excavations started again in 2005 supervised by N. Valdeyron (Valdey-ron, Detrain, 2009; Valdeyron et al., 2014) and are continued today. The objective was to go back over the old soundings and to spread searches (Marquebielle, this volume). This site gives up, among others, a very important bone industry collection, mainly during old excavations (Marquebielle, 2014).
The first objective of our study was to complete the knowledges on the production and the types of tools made from wild boar canine of Mesolithic with a functional analysis. On mesolithic settlements, these tools are recovered in limited number, except to Cuzoul de Gramat which has 22 objects recovered during old excavations. On the scale of site, our approach enable to identify and to define their function (one or more aims for which one object have made) and their functioning (the action mode of tool, the manner whose it used) (Sigaut, 1991). After, it will be possible to determine if the morphological and typological variety of these tools cause, or not, a
1 The research was supported by a joint Russian/French project from the Russian Foundation for Humanities (project 14-21-17003/Fra) and the national research Foundation of France (CNRS) "Special properties of osseous material as one of the main types of raw materials and the osseous industry in the ancient cultures of Eurasia" within the framework of CNRS's international Research group "Prehistoric exploitation of osseous materials in Europe" (GDRI PREHISTOS)..
functional variety and/or different gestures. In this way, we contribute to the comprehension of activities made by mesolithic groups on Cuzoul with these tools. More generally, our study can bring knowledge about mesolithic bone industry. The tools made from wild boar canine, who not exist before Mesolithic, could replace an object or a tool, may be in the objective to adapt for a new function, a new activity or a new material to work.
We search to answer at these questions during our Master (Fabre, 2015) with a functional approach. It has made by the observation and the analysis of use-wear traces (macro and microscopic scale) on archaeological tools, and the constitution of a reference of comparison.
Collection study
Raw material. All objects of this collection are made from inferiors canines of wild boar males and adults. This raw material is obtained with the animal slaughter. During the Mesolithic, the wild boar is a hunting species frequently, but the remains recovered on sites correspond to females and young individuals. So, the purchase made by a different hunting, for a solitary and dangerous animal (Marque-bielle, 2014).
The extraction of canines made by the fracturing of the jaw. Most artefacts are made from right canines, only four from left canines. Most of them are made on tooth basis, four on anterior edges, six on vestibular sides and nine on lingual sides.
Composition of collection. This collection is composed of twenty-two artefacts, with various morphologies and sizes. Nineteen objects are beveled, separated in four types according to active part delineation. This typology is defined by B. Marquebielle (Ibid.):
three objects with unilateral convex bevel;
three objects with straight bilateral bevels;
four objects with convex-concave bilateral bevels;
seven objects with convex-concave bilateral bevels and spur.
The Cuzoul collection is completed by five artefacts not consider like finished objects: two fragments of proximal part, one undetermined technical state object and two waste debitage (Ibid.).
Methodology
Study method. The Russian researcher S. A. Semenov is the first to develope a study method of archeological objects function with the study of macroscopic and microscopic use-wear traces (Semenov, 1964). These works have influenced studies on lithic industry in West Europe in 1970-1980s (Keeley, Newcomer, 1977; Keeley, 1974, 1980; Anderson, 1980; Plisson, 1985; Beyries, 1988). For bone industry, it's from 1980s that functional approaches are realized occasionally, influenced by these of lithic industry (Campana, 1979, 1980, 1989; Stordeur, Anderson, 1985; Peltier, 1985; Peltier, Plisson, 1986). Since 2000s, the studies on this equipment are developed, on a specific tool type (for example Rigaud, 2001; Legrand, 2003; Lompre, 2003) or a specific context (Maigrot, 2003; Manca, 2013).
The functional analysis is made by the observation and the analysis of use-wear traces on archaeological tools, to macroscopic and microscopic scales. The objective of use-wear analysis is to understand the functioning(s) and the function(s) of an object. For to interpret use-wear traces observed on archaeological tools, it's necessary to study references of comparison. It can be realized through ethnographic data study (Semenov, 1964; Beyries, 1993, 1997). However, it's possible to establish a reference of comparison with various experiments (Semenov, 1964). The experimental protocol is set up after a first reading of use-wear traces on archaeological tools. These observations have a repercussion on experimental choices (Maigrot, 2003; Manca, 2013). After this work, the results of comparisons between archaeological objects and reference are analyzed for to propose an interpretation about functioning and function of tools.
Macroscopic and microscopic use-wear traces. The use-wear analysis work through
with two observations steps: macroscopic and microscopic scale. Each step permit to identify and describe different use-wear traces who inform about functioning and function of tool.
The macroscopic traces contribute to determinate the active part localization, the type of worked material and the gesture. The fractures are breaks who are of one edge to other edge of tool (Manca, 2013). The flaking indicate material removals on, generally, the active part (Anderson et al., 1987; Maigrot, 2003; Legrand, 2003). They can inform on position and tool action mode according to the localization, the extent, the frequency, their form and size. The roudings are volume alteration, owed to a repeated wear (Campana, 1989). They are generally present on active part, on the edge or the sharp edge. They enable to localize the active part and inform on the gesture and the type of worked material (Maigrot, 2003). The stria-tions owed to use-wear came tool action on worked material and the gestures (Peltier, 1985; Peltier et Plisson, 1986; Christidou, 1999; Maigrot, 2003). Some use-wear traces show the density of worked material who is either superior or equal to these of tools: the flattening and the material moving (Sidéra, 1993). The localization and the morphometry of these use-wear traces inform of tool action mode and the worked material density (Maigrot, 2003).
The microscopic use-wear traces enable to complete previous observations. The micro-polish is a surface alteration owed to repeated contact between tool and worked material. Their observation and description permit to localize the contact zone with the worked material, so the active part, but also to inform about nature, state and use time (Plisson, 1985; Peltier, Plisson, 1986; Christidou, 1999; Maigrot, 2003). The microscopic striations are the same results that in macroscopic scale. The micro-flaking indicate wear sliver, like flaking, to macroscopic scale (Maigrot, 2003).
Experimental approach
Experimental protocol.
a. Experimental tools production.
The raw material.
The raw material acquisition is make during hunting season. Inferior jaws of males and adults wild boar had recovered. The canines size depend of wild boar weight, from 60 to 110 kg. In all, seventeen jaws are recovered and two wholes canines. After, the canines are extract with the help of modern tools.
The experimental tools fabrication.
The technological study makes by B. Marquebielle (Marquebielle, 2014), about tools made from wild boar canine of Cuzoul de Gramat, guide us for the experimental tools fabrication.
- Debitage : Some archaeological tools made from wild boar canine of Cuzoul de Gramat have obtained by a debitage method by bi-partition2 (Marquebielle, 2014), for to obtain two blanks at least with few waste. Firstly, it's implement by a longitudinal grooving realized on the all length in posterior face, on the part where the canine is hollow. Secondly, the canine is separated in two by fracturing in indirect percussion, with the help of a intermediary piece in deer antler insert in the grooving at a right angle to tooth. The experimental tools are removed with this method (fig. 2). Some tools have traces of this step: a groove side and/or negatives of flaking. The blanks obtained morphology are either rectangular or triangular. Their size vary according to canine size.
- Shaping : the active part of experimental tools are shaped by longitudinal scraping in inferior face, like archaeological objects, who permit to set up and make uniform the active part faces.
b. Experimental choices.
Proceeding of experimentations
Six tools are for each experimentation: three are used with a flat ranke angle and the three other with an obtuse ranke angle. The change of inclination enable to see difference use-wear extent and to identify the contact angle during use. Another variant taking into consideration, each tool is used in all one
2 For osseous technology terminology and its translation, see Averbouh, A., 2000; Averbouh, A. (dir.). 2017.
hour and two observations steps are made, to ten minutes and to sixty minutes, for to see the use development (fig. 3).
The worked materials The animals materials (fig. 4) The animals soft materials (fig. 4: 1): Upon their discovery, the mesolithic tools made from wild boar canine had interpreted like hide worked tools. For to confirm or to deny this hypothesis, it would be necessary to characterize use-wear traces of hide work and to compare experimental traces with archaeological traces. We have recovered a piece of cow hide, of the neck. After to have fleshed with a flint sliver, it was leaved in coarse salt during one week. When salt particles are removed, the hide have tanned with smoke. The experimentation had consisted to hide softening, with tools made from wild boar canine used with unidirectional gesture.
The animals hard materials (fig. 4: 2): A experimentation had oriented toward the work of animals hard materials and more particular of bone. This work with tools made from swine canine is attested in ethnographic context, at Irian-Jaya hunter-gatherers in Indonesia (Maigrot, 1995, 2003). Bone equipment on Cuzoul site is composed for the most part to awls. For the experimentation we have recovered fresh long bones of domestic boar (humerus and radius). The experimental tools have worked fragments of these bones by longitudinal and unidirectional scraping.
The vegetals materials (fig. 5) The vegetals supper materials : A first experimentation have realized with green nettles, previously flip through, for tellis sliding the tools on stems with a slight pressure of thumb.
A second experimentation have made for bramble work, for to link the use of tools made from wild board canine to basketry activities. For this experimentation, spines are removed and the objective was to removed fibers for to recovered stems. The bramble was placed on thigh, the tool lean on it and it was pulled between two.
The vegetals soft materials:
Four experimentations have made on wood: two on hazel and two on pine. The choices of these varieties have make in basis on anthracological studies on Cuzoul site by A. Henry (Henry, 2011). Two experimentations have made on green hazel. A first consist to remove bark on branches, the tools used laterally by longitudinal and unidirectional scraping. During the second, these same branches have grooved in way of vegetables fibres and the front of tools used (fig. 5: 1). Then, two steps of green pine transformation have experimented, always with an unidirectional gesture: remove the bark and scraping the branches (fig. 5: 2, 3).
The vegetals hard materials:
The oak work had choose because this taxon is very present on Cuzoul site (Henry, 2011). It had worked dry and previously the bark had removed for, with the experimental tools, to regular the wood surface, by longitudinal scraping in the way of vegetables fibres (fig. 5, 4).
Synthesis of experimentations
a. Comparisons between experimentations
Wood worked
In all, three experimentations on wood worked are make: the grooving of green hazel, the scraping of dry oak and green pine. The wear is marginal and few extended. The use-wear traces are the same for three: a marginal and rounded blunting, few flak-ings with distinct endings, a micro-polish with distinct and regular contour, striations numerous, shorts and superficial. The use of dry oak work is more flat and less extent that these of green hazel. In fact, the green wood give a wear more extent and intrusive that dry wood (Maigrot, 2003).
Hide worked
Through the similarity of use-wear traces, we can make comparisons between tools for green pine work and tools for dry hide. In two cases, the blunting is rounded, the flakings are few, irregulars and with distinct endings, the micro-polish is
continuous, with a distinct and irregular contour. The wear localization is different (a contrary to the extent who is marginal for two): unifacial for pine and bifacial for hide.
Bark worked
Two experimentations inform on bark work: the scraping of hazel and pine branches. Same use-wear traces are saw like a rounded blunting, flakings few presents or not, a micro-polish slight, unifacial, with distinct and irregular contour on a micro-relief in plateau effect and striations very numerous and various. However, some differences are underlined. The remove of pine bark cause a more extent and intrusive wear that hazel, this is probably due to thickness and hardness of bark who is more important. The tools active part surface is more affect and striations more various.
The results observed on tools working bramble can be made comparison with tools for green hazel bark. In fact, the use-wear traces are the same, may be because of the bark and brambles fibre are thin, supper and tender.
Bone worked
The fresh bones scraping cause on tool a rounded blunting, few flakings, a micro-polish with a blurred and irregular contour on a micro-relief in plateau effect, striations are few numerous, shorts and deeps. The bone worked modified the tools surface, on marginal extent and wear affect only elevation.
b. Tools inclination
The experimentations show that inclination of a tool influence the use-wear development. In fact, the tools used with a flat ranke angle have a wear extant on lower face without effect on active part edge. For the tools who used with an obtuse ranke angle, the wear is localized only on active part edge or sharp edge. The choices of tool inclination have an impact on localization and extant to wear, without influence on use-wear traces.
Archaeological tools interpretations
The comparisons between experimentations enable to show resemblance of functional signatures between same material type
(wood, bark, bone) but also between materials with similar nature (supper, soft, hard). This results analysis contributed to interpretation of mesolithic tools made from wild boar canine of Cuzoul de Gramat.
The archaeological tools functioning
The all archaeological tools are used laterally. The three objects with straight bilateral bevels are also a wear on distal part. The active part of tools is mostly to convex deli-neation and extent on the half or more to edge length. The objects with convex-concave bilateral bevels and spur have been differents names referring to pierce action: "drill" (Lacam et al., 1944), "awl" (Rozoy, 1978; Barbaza, 1989). A contrary to this functional hypothesis, link to their morphology, the tools of Cuzoul not have used like this, the wear not being developed on spur but always on convex edge.
The tools experimentation with two different inclinations enabled to understand that archaeological tools have used with a flat even obtuse ranke angle. In fact, the wear extend on the edge and lower face, like experimental tools used with a flat ranke angle. The ranke angle is probably a few more important but stay few open.
The archaeological tools function. To understand in what kind of works the tools of Cuzoul de Gramat have been used, we compared the observations on archaeological tools with these of expiremental tools. Some use-wear traces can to correspond, or to be similar, of the experiment use-wear traces.
The hide work
Two object with convex-concave bilateral bevels present use-wear traces corresponding to dry hide work (fig. 6). They have a rounded bifacial dissymetric blunting and a unifacial micro-polish with a blurry and irregular contour. This two tools have use-wear traces reminding the experimentation on softening of dry hide. It's possible that the transformation step of hide is different but use-wear traces correspond to a unidirectional scrape to worked material.
The osseus material work
Two objects with straight bilateral bevels seem to have used for a osseus material work (fig.7). They have a blunting marginal and flattened. The macroscopic stri-ations are numerous, shorts and deeps. The microscopic striations are few numerous, shorts and superficial. The micro-polish is unifacial with a blurry delineation. All these traces correspond to a unidirectional scraping gesture of worked material.
The wood work
The use-wear traces present on an object with convex unilateral bevel can correspond to wood work. Except the bifacial dissymet-ric and rounded blunting, the other traces are similar to experimental tools on wood work. Macroscopic and microscopic striations are numerous, discontinuous, shorts and superficial. The micro-polish is slight, unifacial with a distinct and regular contour.
The undetermined function tools
For the eleven other tools, we can't be determined a precise function because the use-wear traces are different to this of experimental tools. Two tools groups can be highlight, gathering objects with same use-wear traces and so a same function, without can determine the worked material. However, we can show that they don't worked vegetal materials (vegetables fibers, wood, bark) because traces do not correspond to experimental tools. A first group gather five tools : one object with convex-concave bilateral bevels and four objects with convex-concave bilateral bevels and spur. A second correspond to two objects with convex-concave bilateral bevels and spur having worked a soft material, for a same function. Four tools can be associated to this two groups, each present different use-wear traces and used on a different material.
The unused objects
In all, six objects have been used: one object with convex unilateral bevel, two fragments of indetermined beveled object, one undeterminated technical state object and two wastes debitage.
Handling and hafting question. The most of all Cuzoul tools present, in superior face, a covering polish with grained aspect. This remind prehension traces on experimental material and so this can mean that archaeological tools was hold manually. The possible use-wear traces of prehension on other tools are negligible or they can be distinguished of taphonomical traces.
Some tools ask by some traces who can suppose a hafting. In fact, three objects with straight bilateral bevels present a tongued fracture plan in proximal part, it's can be linked to use and may-be to their hafting. Two objects with convex-concave bilateral bevels and spur present, on lower face in proximal part and on the edges, a blunting and micro-polish associated to thin and longitudinal striations. The localization and morphology of these traces are different than the ones on active parts. The presence of a haft could be an explanation, however this is an hypothesis we have to check by experiment.
Conclusion and perspectives
This study enable a better comprehension of these Mesolithic tools, known only with technological approach. Mesolithic groups had a particular attention on this tools because they are the result of specific choices. Firstly it's the choice of raw material, specific and a difficult access. Secondly, the finished objects was obtained after a long transformation scheme, for to have flats blanks from wild boar canine. The morphological various is important and separate finished objects in different types (Marquebielle, 2014).
Our study underlined the various categories of activity make by mesolithic groups on the Cuzoul de Gramat. The tools made from wild boar canine have been used of homogeneous manner, like lateral "scrapers", in positive cut with abrupt to oblique angle and with a unidirectional gesture. A tool type, the objects with straight bilateral bevels, have been choose by mesolithic for the work of half-hard and hard material. The other types have been used on soft material work, but the differences in use-wear traces show that they were different materials and so with various objectives. So, their function is
different according to their morphology and also inside each tools type.
The use-wear analysis of mesolithic tools made from wild boar canine and their results have to be completed. In fact, our experimental protocol should be developed. This will be contribute to define more precisely activities realized to Cuzoul de Gramat, and to clarify
which is/are the function(s) of each types. Moreover, it will be interesting to increase this use-wear analysis to other French Meso-lithic sites with tools made from wild boar canine. That enable to make a comparison with Cuzoul de Gramat collection and more to understand if tools have been used with the same manner and for which functions.
REFERENTS
Anderson P. A testimony of prehistoric tasks: diagnostic residues on stone tools working edges. In z World Archaeology. 1980. Vol. 12. No 2. P. 181-194.
Anderson P., Moss E.-H., Plisson H. A quoi ont-ils servi? L'apport de l'analyse fonctionnelle. In z Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française. 1987. Vol. 84. No 8. P. 226-237.
Averbouh A. (dir.). Multilingual lexicon of bone industries (version 2. French, English, Deutsch, Dansk, Español, ltaliano, Portugués, Român, Български, Polski, Русский, Magyar), GDRE Prehistos Archaeological studies, Prehistoires Mediterranéennes special issue. Aix-en-Provence, 2017. 131 p.
Averbouh A. Technologie de la matière osseuse travaillée et implications palethnologiques. L'exemple des chaînes d'exploitation du bois de cervidé chez les Magdaléniens des Pyrénées (Technology of worked osseous materials and palaeo-ethnological implications. The example of schemes of exploitation of cervid antler by the Magdalenians of the Pyrénées, France), Thèse de doctorat. Université de Paris l-Panthéon Sorbonne, under the direction of N. Pigeot. Paris, 2000. 500 p.
BarbazaM. Cultures et société au Paléolithique terminal, au Mésolithique et au début du Néolithique ancien dans le sud-ouest de l'Europe. Mémoire d'Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches, University of Toulouse. Toulouse, 1989. 1192 p.
Beyries S. lndustries lithiques, Tracéologie et Technologie. BAR lnternational Series; 411. Oxford, 1988. 308 et 237 p.
Beyries S. Expérimentation archéologique et savoir-faire traditionnel. L'exemple de la découpe d'un cervidé. In ; Techniques et cultures. 1993. Vol. 22. P. 53-79.
Beyries S. Ethnoarchéologie: un mode d'expérimentation. In z Préhistoire, anthropologie méditerranéennes. 1997. Vol. 6. P. 185-196.
Campana D.-V. A natufian shaft straighter from Mugharet El Wal lsrael: an example of wear pattern analysis. In : Journal of field archaeology. 1979. Vol. 6. No 2. P. 237-242.
Campana D.-V. An analysis of the use-wear patterns on natufian and proto - neolithic bone implement, PhD thesis, University microfilm international, University of Columbia. Columbia, 1980.
Campana D.-V. Natufian and protoneolithic bone tools: the manufacture and use of bone implements in the Zagros and the Levant. BAR lnternational Series; 494. Oxford, 1989. 156 p.
Christidou R. Outils en os néolithiques du nord de la Grèce: étude technologique, PhD thesis, University of Paris X Nanterre. Paris, 1999. 418 p.
David E. Technologie osseuse des derniers chasseurs préhistoriques en Europe du Nord (Xe Vllle millénaires avant J. C.). Le Maglemosien et les technocomplexes du Mésolithique, PhD thesis, University of Paris X Nanterre. Paris, 2005. 667 p.
Fabre E. Approche fonctionnelle des outils sur dents de sanglier du Mésolithique. Étude de la série du site du Cuzoul de Gramat (Lot), Master thesis, University of Toulouse 2 Jean-Jaurès. Toulouse, 2015. 76 p. + annexes.
Henry A. Paléoenvironnements et gestion du bois de feu au Mésolithique dans le Sud-Ouest de la France: anthracologie, ethno-archéologie et expérimentation, PhD thesis, University of Nice-Sophia Antipolis. Nice, 2011. 444 p.
Keeley L. H. Techniques and methodology in microwear studies: a critical review. In z World Archaeology. 1974. Vol. 5. No 3. P. 323-336.
Keeley L. H. Experimental determination of stone tool uses, a microwear analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980. 212 p.
Keeley, L. H., Newcomer M. H. Microwear analysis of experience flint tools: a test case. In z Journal of Archaeological Science. 1977. Vol. 4. P. 29-52.
Lacam R., Niederlender A., Vallois H.-V. Le gisement mésolithique du Cuzoul de Gramat, Mémoire 21, Archives de l'Institut de Paléontologie humaine. Paris, 1944. 48 p.
Legrand A. Concordance des formes et des fonctions? Etude techno-fonctionnelle des poinçons en os de Khirokitia (Néolithique pré-céramique, Chypre). In : Préhistoire, anthropologies méditerranéennes. 2003. Vol. 12. P. 189-196.
Lompré A. Une approche technologique et tracéologique d'une série de bâtons percés magdaléniens, Master thesis, University of Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne. Paris, 2003. 54 p.
Maigrot Y Étude technologique et fonctionnelle des outils élaborés sur des canines de porcs ou de sangliers actuels (Irian Jaya, Indonésie) et archéologiques (Chalain 2 et Clairvaux IV, Jura, 30e siècle av. J.-C.), Master thesis, University of Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne. Paris, 1995. 65 p.
Maigrot Y Étude technologique et fonctionnelle de l'outillage en matières dures animales. La station 4 de Chalain, PhD thesis, University of Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne. Paris, 2003. 284 p.
Manca L. Fonctionnement des sociétés de la fin du Néolithique au début de l'Age du Cuivre en Sardaigne. Une approche inédite à partir de l'étude des productions en matières dures animales, PhD thesis, University of Provence Aix-Marseille I. Aix-Marseille, 2013. 764 p.
Marquebielle B. Le travail des matières osseuses au Mésolithique. Caractérisation technique et économique à partir des séries du Sud et de l'Est de la France, PhD thesis, University of Toulouse II Jean Jaurès. Toulouse, 2014.510 p.
Peltier A. 1985. Etude expérimentale des surfaces osseuses façonnées et utilisées. In : Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française. Vol. 83. No 1. P. 5-7.
Peltier A., Plisson H. Micro-tracéologie fonctionnelle sur l'os, quelques résultats expérimentaux. In : Outillage peu élaboré en os et en bois de cervidés. II. Artefacts; 3. Treignes: CEDARC, 1986. P. 69-80.
Péquart M., Péquart S.-J., Boule M., Vallois H. Téviec, stationnécropole mésolithique du Morbihan. Mémoire; 18. Paris: Archives de l'Institut de Paléontologie Humaine, 1937. 227 p.
Péquart M., Péquart S.-J. La nécropole mésolithique de Téviec (Morbihan). Nouvelles découvertes. In : L'Anthropologie. 1929. Vol. 39. P. 373-400.
Plisson H. Etude fonctionnelle des outillages lithiques préhistoriques par l'analyse des micro-usures: recherche méthodologique et archéologique, PhD thesis, University of Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne, 1985. 375 p.
Rigaud A. Les bâtons percés: décors énigmatiques et fonctions possibles. In : Gallia Préhistoire, 2001. Vol. 43. P. 101-151.
Rozoy J.-G. Les derniers chasseurs, L'Epipaléolithique en Franceet en Belgique, Essai de synthèse. Vol. 2. Bulletin de la société archéologiquechampenoise, numéro spécial juin 1978. Charleville, 1256 p.
Semenov S. A. Prehistoric technology: an experimental study of the oldest tools andartefacts from traces of manufacture and wear. London: Cory, Adams & Mackay, 1964. 211 p.
Sidéra I. Les assemblages osseux en bassins parisien et rhénan du VIe au IVe millénaire B.C. Histoire, techno-économie et culture, PhD thesis, University of Paris I Panthéon - Sorbonne, 1993. 636 p.
Sigaut F. Un couteau ne sert pas a couper, mais en coupant. Structure, fonctionnement et fonction dans l'analyse des objets. In : XIe Rencontres Internationales et d'Histoire d'Antibes. Juan-les-Pins: APDACA, 1991. P. 21-34.
Stordeur D., Anderson P. Les omoplates encochées néolithiques de Ganj Dareh (Iran): étude morphologique et fonctionnelle. In : Cahier de l'Euphrate. 1985. Vol. 4. P. 289-313.
Valdeyron N., Detrain L. La fin du Tardiglaciaire en Agenais, Périgord et Quercy: état de la question, perspectives. In : J. M. Fullola, N. Valdeyron, M. Langlais (eds.). Les Pyrénées et leurs marges durant le Tardiglaciaire. Mutations et filiations techno-culturelles, évolutions paléo-environnementales, XIVème colloque international d'archéologie de Puigcerda, Hommages à Georges Laplace, Institut d'Estudis Ceretans. 2009. P. 493-517.
Valdeyron N., Henry A., Marquebielle B., Bosc-Zanardo B., Gassin B., Michel S., Philibert S. Le Cuzoul de Gramat (Lot, France). A key sequence for the early Holocene in Southwest France. In : W. F. Frederick, H. Drinkall, A. Perri, D. Clinnick, J .Walker (eds.). Wild Things: Recent Advances in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Research. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2014. P. 94-105.
About the author:
Fabre Emmanuelle. Laboratoire TRACES UMR5608, Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès. Maison de la Recherche 5, allée Antonio Machado, 31058, France, Toulouse Cedex 9; emmanuelle.fabre@hotmail.fr.
ИСПОЛЬЗОВАНИЕ ОРУДИЙ ИЗ КЛЫКА ДИКОГО КАБАНА
В МЕЗОЛИТЕ ФРАНЦИИ: НА ПРИМЕРЕ КОЛЛЕКЦИИ ИЗ КУЗОЛ ГРАМА (ЛОТАРИНГИЯ, ФРАНЦИЯ)3
Э. Фабре
Мезолитические орудия, сделанные из клыка дикого кабана, привлекли внимание с момента их открытия, но до сих пор не подвергались специальному изучению. В статье представлены результаты углубленного изучения коллекции мезолитических изделий из стоянки Кузол Грама. Для проведения функционального анализа автором был разработан протокол экспериментов и выполнены сравнительные наблюдения поверхности экспериментальных и археологических орудий. Это позволило автору выяснить, каким образом, и по какому материалу эти орудия использовались.
Ключевые слова: археология, Франция, мезолит, орудия из клыков, трасологический анализ, эксперименты.
Информация об авторе:
Фабрэ Эммануэль, лаборатория трасологии, Университет г. Тулуза им. Ж. Жореса (г. Тулуза, Франция); emmanuelle.fabre@hotmail.fr
3 Исследование выполнено при поддержке совместного российско-французского гранта РГНФ (проект 14-21-17003/Fra) и Национального фонда научных исследований Франции (CNRS) «Особенности кости как одного из основных видов сырья и значение костяной индустрии в древних культурах Евразии» в рамках работы международной группы исследователей CNRS "Prehistoric exploitation of osseous materials in Europe" (GDRI PREHISTOS)..
Fig. 2. The two experimental steps of the debitage of a wild boar canine: a) longitudinal grooving; b) indirect percussion.
Fig. 3. Example of use evolution on a same experimental object used for bark worked: a) before use; b) after 10 minutes of use; c) after 60 minues of use.
Fig. 4. Experimental use of wild boar canine tools on animal materials: a) on dry hide; b) on fresh bone.
Fig. 5. Experimental use of wild boar canine tools on vegetal materials: a) grooving of green hazel, b) removing of pine bark; c) scraping of green pine branches
d) scraping of dry oak branches.
Fig. 6. Tool used for hide worked (x10 and x100).
Fig. 7: Tool used for osseous material worked (*10 and x100).
