Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T12:55:08.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Current Archaeological Tools and Techniques

Worked Bone, Antler, Ivory, and Keratinous Materials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2024

Adam DiBattista
Adam DiBattista
Affiliation:
American School of Classical Studies, Athens

Summary

This Element addresses the study and documentation of objects made from the durable materials of animal bodies, including bone, antler, ivory, and keratinous tissues. This category of artifacts is common across cultures and regions, yet often escapes close study. The Element aims to be a guide to understanding and documenting worked animal objects for those without a background in zooarchaeology or experience with such artifacts. This Element provides a means of identifying and distinguishing animal materials by emphasizing the value of caution and making full documentation of all observations. Using illustrations and descriptions to help researchers understand the structure of these materials, the volume introduces the terminology and diagnostic factors that differentiate animal materials. It also outlines the techniques craftspeople used to modify animal materials in the past. Finally, this Element presents recording strategies for individuals wishing to study assemblages from archaeological excavations.
Get access

Keywords

ivoryworked boneantlerhuman–animal studieszooarchaeology
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Current Archaeological Tools and Techniques
Online ISBN: 9781009181686
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 16 January 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bejenaru, L., ed. (2018), “Worked Bone and Archaeology: Proceedings of the 11th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group in Iasi 2016,” Quaternary International 472, 1–168, www.sciencedirect.com/journal/quaternary-international/vol/472/part/PA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achrai, B. & Wagner, H. D. (2013), “Micro-structure and mechanical properties of the turtle carapace as a biological composite shield,” Acta Biomaterialia 9(4), 5890–5902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Affanni, G. (2008), “Astragalus bone in ancient near east: Ritual depositions in Iron Age I in Tell Afis,” in Córdoba, J. M., Molist, M., Pérez, M. C., Rubio, I., & Martínez, S., eds., Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: Madrid, April 3–8, 2006, Madrid, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, pp. 77–92.Google Scholar
Afonso, L. U., Almeida, C., & Da Silva Horta, J. (2022), “Early African ivories: The Ghana cluster,” African Arts 55(2), 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arabatzis, C. (2016), “Bone industry from the prehistoric settlement Anarghiri IXa, Florina, Greece,” in Vitezović, S., ed., Close to the Bone. Current Studies in Bone Technologies, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade, pp. 9–17.Google Scholar
Ardelean, C. F., Arroyo-Cabrales, J., Rivera-González, I., et al. (2023), “Oldest art or symbolic expressions in North America? Pleistocene modified bones and a human remain at Sima de las Golondrinas cave, Zacatecas, Mexico,” L’Anthropologie 127(2), 103135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashby, S. (2005), “Bone and antler combs: Towards a methodology for the understanding of trade and identity in Viking Age England and Scotland,” in B. Heidi Luik, C. E., Choyke, Alice M., & Lõugas, L., eds., From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth: Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present, Muinasaja teadus, pp. 252–262.Google Scholar
Averbouh, A. & Pétillon, J.-M. (2009), “Identification of ‘debitage by fracturation’ on reindeer antler: Case study of the Badegoulian levels at the Cuzoul de Vers (Lot, France),” in J. Baron, B. K.-D., ed., 7th Meeting of the Worked Bone Research Group, Uniwersytet Wroclawski, Instytut Archeologii, Wroclaw, pp. 41–52.Google Scholar
Baker, B., Jacobs, R., Mann, M., Espinoza, E., Grein, G. (2020). CITES Identification Guide for Ivory and Ivory Substitutes (4th Edition, Allan, C. (ed.)), World Wildlife Fund Inc., Washington DC. Commissioned by CITES Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Banerjee, A., Schuhmacher, T. X., Cardoso, J. L., et al. (2017), “Marfil de hipopótamo procedente de estratos fenicios arcaicos en Utica (Túnez),” Sonderdruck aus Madrider Mitteilungen 58, 80–105.Google Scholar
Baron, J. & Kufel-Diakowska, B., eds. (2011), Written in Bones: Studies on Technological and Social Contexts of Past Faunal Skeletal Remains, Wrocław, Uniwersytet Wrocławski, Instytut Archeologii.Google Scholar
Barrett, J. H., Khamaiko, N., Ferrari, G., et al. (2022), “Walruses on the Dnieper: New evidence for the intercontinental trade of Greenlandic ivory in the Middle Ages,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 289(1972), 1–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Bartels, M. H. (2005), “The Van Lidth de Jeude family and the waste from their privy: Material culture of a wealthy family in 18th-century Tiel, the Netherlands,” Northeast Historical Archaeology 34(1), 15–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumann, M. & Maury, S. (2013), “Ideas no longer written in antler,” Journal of Archaeological Science 40(1), 601–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betts, M. (2007), “The Mackenzie Inuit whale bone industry: Raw material, tool manufacture, scheduling, and trade,” Arctic 60, 129–144.Google Scholar
Betts, M. W., Blair, S. E., & Black, D. W. (2012), “Perspectivism, mortuary symbolism, and human-shark relationships on the maritime peninsula,” American Antiquity 77(4), 621–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bikić, V. & Vitezović, S. (2016), “Bone working and the army: An early eighteenth-century button workshop at the Belgrade fortress,” in Vitezović, S., ed., Close to the Bone. Current Studies in Bone Technologies, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade, pp. 57–65.Google Scholar
Bläuer, A., Hukantaival, S., Saarinen, R., Hirvilammi, M., & Ratilainen, T. (2019), “Early medieval/viking age exchange networks: Cattle phalanx gaming pieces from Turku, Finland,” Lund Archaeological Review, pp. 5–25.Google Scholar
Boardman, J. (1967), Excavations in Chios, 1952–1955: Greek Emporio, number 6 in “BSA Suppl,” British School of Archaeology at Athens.Google Scholar
Bordes, F. (1961), Typologie du Paléolithique Ancien et Moyen, l’Université de Bordeaux.Google Scholar
Breuil, H. (1907), “La question Aurignacienne: étude critique de stratigraphie comparée,” Revue Préhistorique 2, 1–47.Google Scholar
Campana, D. V. (1989), Natufian and Protoneolithic Bone Tools: The Manufacture and Use of Bone Implements in the Zagros and the Levant, Vol. 494, British Archaeological Reports.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carè, B., ed. (Forthcoming) Astragalomania: New Perspectives in the Study of Knucklebones in the Ancient World, De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Casson, L. (1989), The Periplus Maris Erythraei: Text with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Chauvet, G. (1910), Os ivoires et bois de renne ouvrés de la Charente. Hypothèses paléthnographiques, Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris (8∘ Série), E. Constantin, Angoulême.Google Scholar
Chechushkov, I. V., Epimakhov, A. V., & Bersenev, A. G. (2018), “Early horse bridle with cheekpieces as a marker of social change: An experimental and statistical study,” Journal of Archaeological Science 97, 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childe, V., Paterson, J. & Bryce, T. (1929), “Provisional report on the excavations at Skara Brae, and on finds from the 1927 and 1928 campaigns,” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 63, 225–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choyke, A. M. & Bartosiewicz, L., eds. (2001), Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space – Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group, number 937, Oxford, British Archaeological Reports.Google Scholar
Choyke, A. M., Vretemark, M., & Sten, S. (2004), “Levels of social identity expressed in the refuse and worked bone from Middle Bronze Age Százhalombatta-Földvár, Vatya culture, Hungary,” in Behaviour Behind Bones: The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status and Identity O’Day, S. J., Neer, W. V., Ervynck, A., eds., Vol. 1, Oxford, Oxbow Books, pp. 177–189.Google Scholar
Choyke, A. M. & Schibler, J. (2007), “Prehistoric bone tools and the archaeozoological perspective: Research in Central Europe,” in St-Pierre, C. G. & Walker, R. B., eds., Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, BAR Publishing, pp. 51–65.Google Scholar
Choyke, A. M. & Tóth, Z. (2013), “Practice makes perfect: Quartered metapodial awls in the Late Neolithic of Hungary,” in Anders, A. & Kulcsár, G., eds., Moments in Time: Papers Presented to Pál Raczky on His 60th Birthday, pp. 337–352.Google Scholar
Clark, J. G. D. & Thompson, M. W. (1954), “The groove and splinter technique of working antler in Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europe,” Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 19(2), 148–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conneller, C. (2012), An Archaeology of Materials: Substantial Transformations in Early Prehistoric Europe, New York, Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cristiani, E., Živaljević, I., & Borić, D. (2014), “Residue analysis and ornament suspension techniques in prehistory: Cyprinid pharyngeal teeth beads from Late Mesolithic burials at Vlasac (Serbia),” Journal of Archaeological Science 46, 292–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, W. (2009), “The Abbé Henri Breuil (1877–1961),” in Hosfield, R., Wenban-Smith, F., & Pope, M., eds., Great Prehistorians: 150 Years of Palaeolithic Research, 1859–2009, Vol. 30 of Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society, Lithic Studies Society, London, pp. 127–141.Google Scholar
Davis, D. D., Kidder, T. R., & Barondess, D. A. (1983), “Reduction analysis of simple bone industries: An example from the Louisiana Coastal Zone,” Archaeology of Eastern North America 11, 98–108.Google Scholar
de Mortillet, G. (1873), Classification des diverses périodes de l’âge de la pierre, P. Weissenbruch.Google Scholar
Dominy, N. J., Mills, S. T., Yakacki, C. M., Roscoe, P. B., & Carpenter, R. D. (2018), “New Guinea bone daggers were engineered to preserve social prestige,” Royal Society Open Science 5(4), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, H., Hunt, D., & Sibley, M. (1998a) “FT-Raman spectroscopic study of keratotic materials: horn, hoof and tortoiseshell,” Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy 54(5), 745–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, H. G. M., Farwell, D. W., Holder, J. M., & Lawson, E. E. (1998b), “Fourier Transform-Raman spectroscopy of ivory: A non-destructive diagnostic technique,” Studies in Conservation 43(1), 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espinoza, E. O., Baker, B. W., & Berry, C. A. (2007), “The analysis of sea turtle and bovid keratin artefacts using drift spectroscopy and discriminant analysis,” Archaeometry 49(4), 685–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espinoza, E. O. & Mann, M.-J. (1992), Identification Guide for Ivory and Ivory Substitutes, Baltimore, MD, World Wildlife Fund and Conservation Foundation.Google Scholar
Espinoza, E. O. & Mann, M.-J. (1993), “The history and significance of the schreger pattern in proboscidean ivory characterization,” Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 32(3), 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, S. J. (2021), Finding Moby: Novel approaches to identifying human-cetacean relationships in Atlantic Scotland from c. 2500 BC to c. AD 1400, PhD thesis, Cardiff University.Google Scholar
Fernández-Jalvo, Y. & Andrews, P. (2016), Atlas of Taphonomic Identifications: 1001+ Images of Fossil and Recent Mammal Bone Modification, Dordrecht Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, J. W. (1995), “Bone surface modifications in zooarchaeology,” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2(1), 7–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, J. (2002), “Prehistoric and ancient historic interactions between humans and marine turtles,” in Lutz, P. L., Musick, J. A. & Wyneken, J., eds., The Biology of Sea Turtles, Vol. II, Boca Raton, FL, CRC press, 1–38.Google Scholar
Frazier, J. & Ishihara-Brito, R. (2012), “The occurrence of tortoiseshell on a pre-Hispanic Maya mosaic mask,” Antiquity 86(333), 825–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frenez, D. (2018), “Manufacturing and trade of Asian elephant ivory in Bronze Age Middle Asia. Evidence from Gonur Depe (Margiana, Turkmenistan),” Archaeological Research in Asia 15, 13–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillreath-Brown, A. (2019), “Creation to rhythm: An ethnographic and archaeological survey of turtle shell rattles and spirituality in the united states,” Journal of Ethnobiology 39(3), 425–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmour, G. H. (1997), “The nature and function of astragalus bones from archaeological contexts in the Levant and eastern Mediterranean,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16(2), 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girya, E. Y. & Khlopachev, G. A. (2019), “ Experimental data on the splitting and knapping of mammoth tusks and reindeer antlers,” in Christensen, M. & Goutas, N., eds., À coup d’éclats!: la fracturation des matières osseuses en préhistoire : discussion autour d’une modalité d’exploitation en apparence simple et pourtant mal connue, Société préhistorique française, Paris, pp. 325–340.Google Scholar
González, F. M., ed. (2019), Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Granada, Vol. 29.Google Scholar
Goss, R. J. (1983), Deer Antlers. Regeneration, Function and Evolution, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hahn, J. (1972), “Aurignacian signs, pendants and art objects in Central and Eastern Europe,” World Archaeology 3(3), 252–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haines, H. R., Willink, P. W., & Maxwell, D. (2008), “Stingray spine use and Maya bloodletting rituals: A cautionary tale,” Latin American Antiquity 19(1), 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, S. & Nicholson, B. (2007), “The middleman fur trade and slot knives: Selective integration of European technology at the Mortiach Twin Fawns site (DiMe-23),” Canadian Journal of Archaeology / Journal Canadien d’Archéologie 31(3), 137–162.Google Scholar
Hanausek, T. F. (1907), The Microscopy of Technical Products, New York, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Heckel, C. E. & Wolf, S. (2014), “Ivory debitage by fracture in the Aurignacian: experimental and archaeological examples,” Journal of Archaeological Science 42, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henshilwood, C. S., D’errico, F., Marean, C. W., Milo, R. G., & Yates, R. (2001), “An early bone tool industry from the middle stone age at Blombos Cave, South Africa: Implications for the origins of modern human behaviour, symbolism and language,” Journal of Human Evolution 41(6), 631–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, G. (2017), Ancient Ivory, London, Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Hillson, S. (2005), Teeth, Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofman, J. L. (1980), “Scapula skin-dressing and fiber-processing tools,” Plains Anthropologist 25(88), 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huelsbeck, D. R. (1988), “Whaling in the precontact economy of the central northwest coast,” Arctic Anthropology 25(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Hull, J. R. (2018), “Bringing culture back into focus: Osseous implements from southern Vietnam,” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 20, 937–951.Google Scholar
Isaakidou, V. (2017), “Meaningful materials? bone artefacts and symbolism in the Early Bronze Age Aegean,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 36(1), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, E. C. & Thompson, J. C. (2015), “On bad terms: Problems and solutions within zooarchaeological bone surface modification studies,” Environmental Archaeology 20(1), 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonuks, T. & Rannamäe, E. (2018), “Animals and worldviews: A diachronic approach to tooth and bone pendants from the Mesolithic to the Medieval Period in Estonia,” in Livarda, A., Madgwick, R. & Mora, S. R., eds., The Bioarchaeology of Ritual and Religion, Oxford, Oxbow Books pp. 162–178.Google Scholar
Jowsey, J. (1966), “Studies of haversian systems in man and some animals,” Journal of Anatomy 100, 857–864.Google ScholarPubMed
Kendig, W. E., Smith, K. N., Vellanoweth, R. L., et al. (2010), “The use of replicative studies in understanding the function of expedient tools: The sandstone saws of San Nicolas Island, California,” Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 30(2), 193–210.Google Scholar
Klippel, W. E. & Price, B. E. (2007), “Bone disc manufacturing debris from Newfoundland to Antigua during the Historic Period,” in St-Pierre, C. G. & Walker, R. B., eds., Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, BAR Publishing, pp. 133–142.Google Scholar
Koitabashi, M. (2013), “An incised scapula from Kaman–Kalehöyük – A a musical scraper?,” Anatolian Archaeological Studies 18, 43–48.Google Scholar
Kokkoliou, A. (2020), “A Classical Athenian grave (no 48, 470–50 bc) and its content from the area between the so-called ‘Ēriai’ Gate and the Dipylon: The archaeological context,” Greek and Roman Musical Studies 8(2), 279–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krzyszkowska, O. (1988), “Ivory in the Aegean Bronze Age: Elephant tusk or hippopotamus ivory?” The Annual of the British School at Athens 83, 209–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krzyszkowska, O. (1990), Ivory and Related Materials: An Illustrated Guide, number 59 in “BICS Suppl.”, Institute of Classical Studies.Google Scholar
Lang, F., ed. (2013), The Sound of Bones. Proceedings of the 8th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group in Salzburg 2011, number 5 in “Archaeo plus,” Eigenverl. Univ. Salzburg, Interfakultärer Fachbereich Gerichtsmedizin.Google Scholar
Langley, M. C., O’Connor, S., & Aplin, K. (2016), “A 46,000-year-old kangaroo bone implement from Carpenter’s Gap 1 (Kimberley, Northwest Australia),” Quaternary Science Reviews 154, 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapatin, K. D. (2001), Chryselephantine Statuary in the Ancient Mediterranean World, Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lárusdóttir, B., Roberts, H. M., & þorgeirsdóttir, S. (2012), Siglunes: Archaeological investigations in 2011, Technical report.Google Scholar
Lauffenburger, J. A. (1993), “Baleen in museum collections: Its sources, uses, and identification,” Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 32(3), 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, B. F., Davidson, J., McCallum, G., et al. (1979), ‘The identification of dugong ivory reel artefacts from strontium content and microstructure’, New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 1, 115–121.Google Scholar
Leder, D., Hermann, R., Hüls, M., et al. (2021), “A 51,000-year-old engraved bone reveals neanderthals’ capacity for symbolic behaviour,” Nature Ecology & Evolution 5(9), 1273–1282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, P. B. & Nijman, V. (2015), “Trade in dugong parts in southern Bali,” Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 95(8), 1717–1721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legrand-Pineau, A., Sidéra, I., Buc, N., David, E. & Scheinsohn, V., eds. (2010), Ancient and Modern Bone Artefacts from America to Russia: Cultural, Technological and Functional Signature, Vol. 2136 of British Archaeological Reports International Series, Oxford Archaeopress.Google Scholar
LeMoine, G. M. & Darwent, C. M. (1998), “The walrus and the carpenter: Late Dorset ivory working in the high arctic,” Journal of Archaeological Science 25(1), 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lisowski, M. (2014), “Hides and horn sheaths: A case study of processed skulls and horn cores from the Early-Middle Neolithic site of Kopydłowo 6, Poland,” Assemblage PZAF, pp. 32–41.Google Scholar
Locke, M. (2008), “Structure of ivory,” Journal of Morphology 269(4), 423–450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luciañez-Triviño, M., García Sanjuán, L., & Schuhmacher, T. (2022), “Crafting idiosyncrasies: Early social complexity, ivory and identity-making in Copper Age Iberia,” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 32(1), 23–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luik, H. (2012), “Bone artefacts from the Keava hill fort and Linnaaluste settlement sites,” Estonian Journal of Archaeology 16(1S) 92–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luik, H., Choyke, A. M., Batey, C. E., & Lõugas, L., eds. (2005), From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth: Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present, Tallinn Muinasaja teadus.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. L. (1994), Vertebrate Taphonomy, Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology, Cambridge Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ma, X. & Hou, Y., eds. (2014), Proceedings of the 9th Meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group, Zhengzhou, China, 2013, number 2 in “Zooarchaeology,” Culture Relics Press.Google Scholar
MacGregor, A. (1985), Bone, Antler, Ivory and Horn, Totowa NJ Barnes & Noble Books.Google Scholar
Majkić, A., d’Errico, F., Milošević, S., Mihailović, D., & Dimitrijević, V. (2018), “Sequential incisions on a cave bear bone from the Middle Paleolithic of Pešturina Cave, Serbia,” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 25, 69–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makariou, S. (2010), “The al-Mughīra Pyxis and Spanish Umayyad Ivories: Aims and tools of power,” in Borrut, A. and Cobb, P. M., eds., Umayyad legacies: medieval memories from Syria to Spain, number 80 in Islamic history and civilization, Brill, Leiden, pp. 313–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mannermaa, K., Rainio, R., Girya, E. Y., & Gerasimov, D. V. (2020), “Let’s groove: Attachment techniques of Eurasian elk (Alces alces) tooth pendants at the Late Mesolithic cemetery Yuzhniy Oleniy Ostrov (Lake Onega, Russia),” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 13(1) 1–22, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-020-01237-5.Google ScholarPubMed
McGrath, K., Rowsell, K., Gates St-Pierre, C., et al. (2019), “Identifying archaeological bone via non-destructive ZooMS and the materiality of symbolic expression: Examples from Iroquoian bone points,” Scientific Reports 9(1), 11027.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNiven, I. J. (2010), “Navigating the human-animal divide: Marine mammal hunters and rituals of sensory allurement,” World Archaeology 42(2), 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medina, M., López, L., & Buc, N. (2018), “Bone tool and tuber processing: A multi-proxy approach at Boyo Paso 2, Argentina,” Antiquity 92(364), 1040–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehendale, S. (2001), “The Begram ivory and bone carvings: Some observations on provenance and chronology,” Topoi: Orient-Occident 11(1), 485–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, A. E. W. & White, J. W. (1960), “Ivory,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 53(9), 775–780.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moffat, R., Spriggs, J., & O’Connor, S. (2008), “The use of baleen for arms, armour and heraldic crests in medieval Britain,” The Antiquaries Journal 88, 207–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mouël, J.-F. L. & Mouël, M. L. (2002), “Aspects of Early Thule culture as seen in the architecture of a site on Victoria Island, Amundsen Gulf area,” Arctic 55(2), 167–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nganvongpanit, K., Buddhachat, K., Kaewmong, P., Cherdsukjai, P., & Kittiwatanawong, K. (2017), “What the skull and scapular morphology of the dugong (Dugong dugon) can tell us: Sex, habitat and body length?” Scientific Reports 7(1), 1964.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nishida, A. (2016), “Old Tibetan scapulimancy,” Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 37, 262–277.Google Scholar
O’Connor, S. (1987), “The identification of osseous and keratinaceous materials at York,” in Starling, K. & Watkinson, D., eds., Archaeological Bone, Antler and Ivory: The Proceedings of a Conference Held by UKIC Archaeology Section, December 1984 /United Kingdom Institute for Conservation, London, United Kingdom Institute for Conservation, pp. 9–21.Google Scholar
O’Connor, S. (2016), “The COWISHT project: Enhancing the identification of artefact raw materials,” Cuadernos del Instituto Nacional de Antropologia y Pensamiento Latinoamericano–Series Especiales 3(2), 4–22.Google Scholar
O’Connor, S. & O’Connor, T. (2017), “Reconsideration of the ‘Mesolithic harpoon’ from Westward Ho! Devon,” in Rowley-Conwy, P., Serjeantson, D., & Halstead, P., eds., Economic Zooarchaeology: Studies in Hunting, Herding and Early Agriculture, Oxford, Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
O’Connor, S., Solazzo, C., & Collins, M. (2015), “Advances in identifying archaeological traces of horn and other keratinous hard tissues,” Studies in Conservation 60(6), 393–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okaluk, T. R. & Greenfield, H. J. (2022), “Macroscopic chop mark identification on archaeological bone: An experimental study of chipped stone, ground stone, copper, and bronze axe heads on bone,” Quaternary 5(1), 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osipowicz, G. (2007), “Bone and antler: Softening techniques in prehistory of the north eastern part of the Polish Lowlands in the light of experimental archaeology and micro trace analysis,” EXARC 4, 1–22.Google Scholar
Owen, R. (1856), “The ivory and teeth of commerce,” Journal of the Society of Arts 5(213), 65–73.Google Scholar
Paillet, P. (1999), “Le bison dans les arts magdaléniens du Périgord,” Gallia préhistoire: Suppléments (33), 1–475.Google Scholar
Papadopoulos, J. K. & Ruscillo, D. (2002), “A Ketos in early Athens: An archaeology of whales and sea monsters in the Greek world,” American Journal of Archaeology 106(2), 187–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawłowska, K. & Barański, M. Z. (2020), “Conceptualization of the Neolithic world in incised equid phalanges: Anthropomorphic figurine from Çatalhöyük (GDN area),” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 12(1), 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, M. C. (2004), Gem and Ornamental Materials of Organic Origin, Oxford, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
Penniman, T. (1952), Pictures of Ivory and Other Animal Teeth Bone and Antler, number 5 in “Occasional Papers on Technology,” Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peres, T. M. & Altman, H. (2018), “The magic of improbable appendages: Deer antler objects in the archaeological record of the American South,” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 20, 888–895.Google Scholar
Pétillon, J.-M. (2013), “Circulation of whale-bone artifacts in the northern Pyrenees during the late Upper Paleolithic,” Journal of Human Evolution 65(5), 525–543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pétillon, J.-M. & Ducasse, S. (2012), “From flakes to grooves: A technical shift in antlerworking during the last glacial maximum in southwest France,” Journal of Human Evolution 62(4), 435–465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raubenheimer, E. J. (1999), “Morphological aspects and composition of African elephant (Loxodonta africana) ivory,” Journal of Morphology 42(2), 57–64.Google Scholar
Reese, D. S. (2005), “Whale bones and shell purple-dye at Motya (Western Sicily, Italy),” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24(2), 107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reitz, E. J. & Wing, E. S. (1999), Zooarchaeology, 2 edn, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Retzius, A. A. (1837), “Bemerkungen über den innern Bau der Zähne, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf den im Zahnknochen vorkommenden Röhrenbau,” in Archiv für Anatomie, Physiologie und Wissenschaftliche Medicin, pp. 486–566, https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/49864#page/7/mode/1up.Google Scholar
Richter, K. K., Codlin, M. C., Seabrook, M. & Warinner, C. (2022), “A primer for ZooMS applications in archaeology,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(20), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riddler, I., ed. (2003), Materials of Manufacture: The Choice of Materials in the Working of Bone and Antler in Northern and Ventral Europe during the First Millennium AD, Vol. 1193 of British Archaeological Reports International Series, Oxford, Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Rijkelijkhuizen, M. (2009), “Whales, walruses, and elephants: Artisans in ivory, baleen, and other skeletal materials in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Amsterdam,” International Journal of Historical Archaeology 13(4), 409–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, N. (2005), “Çatalhöyük worked bone,” in Hodder, I., ed., Changing Materialities at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons, Vol. 39, London, British Institute at Ankara, pp. 339–368.Google Scholar
Sayers, W. (1992), “Scapulimancy in the medieval Baltic,” Journal of Baltic Studies 23(1), 57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schibler, J. (1981), Die neolithischen Ufersiedlungen von Twann . Band 17: Typologische Untersuchungen der cortaillodzeitlichen Knochenartefakte, Staatlicher Lehrmittelverlag Bern.Google Scholar
Schibler, J. (2012), “Bone and antler artefacts in wetland sites,” in Menotti, F. & O’Sullivan, A., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Wetland Archaeology, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 340–355.Google Scholar
Schreger, B. N. G. (1800), “Beitrag zur Geschichte der Zähne,” Beiträge für die Zergliederungskunst 1, 1–7.Google Scholar
Sellet, F. (1993), “Chaîne Opératoire: The concept and its applications,” Lithic Technology 18(1/2), 106–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semenov, S. (1964), Prehistoric Technology: An Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear, Totowa, NJ Barnes and Noble Books.Google Scholar
Shen, C. (2002), Anyang and Sanxingdui: Unveiling the Mysteries of Ancient Chinese Civilizations, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto.Google Scholar
Shott, M. J. (2003), “Chaîne Opératoire and reduction sequence,” Lithic Technology 28(2), 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinding, M.-H. S., Gilbert, M. T. P., Grønnow, B., et al. (2012), “Minimally destructive DNA extraction from archaeological artefacts made from whale baleen,” Journal of Archaeological Science 39(12), 3750–3753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G. D. & Clark, R. J. (2004), “Raman microscopy in archaeological science,” Journal of Archaeological Science 31(8), 1137–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solazzo, C., Fitzhugh, W., Kaplan, S., Potter, C. & Dyer, J. M. (2017), “Molecular markers in keratins from mysticeti whales for species identification of baleen in museum and archaeological collections,” PLoS One 12(8), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
St-Pierre, C. G., Needs-Howarth, S., & Boisvert, M. (2021), “Indicators for interactions from legacy worked and unworked faunal assemblages from the Quackenbush site, a Late Woodland site in the Kawartha Lakes region, Ontario,” Canadian Journal of Archaeology 45(2), 230–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
St-Pierre, C. G. & Walker, R. B., eds. (2007), Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies, number 1622, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, Archaeopress.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, W. (2007), Ivory, Bone, and Related Wood Finds, Brill, Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, A. (1978), Divinations and decisions: multiple explanations for algonkian scapulimancy, in Schwimmer, E., ed., The Yearbook of Symbolic Anthropology I, Montreal, McGill-Queen’s University Press, pp. 89–101.Google Scholar
Thorson, R. M. & Guthrie, R. D. (1984), “River ice as a taphonomic agent: An alternative hypothesis for bone ‘artifacts’,” Quaternary Research 22(2), 172–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trapani, J. & Fisher, D. C. (2003), “Discriminating proboscidean taxa using features of the schreger pattern in tusk dentin,” Journal of Archaeological Science 30(4), 429–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uerpmann, M., de Beauclair, R., Händel, M., et al. (2012), “The Neolithic site FAY-NE15 in the central region of the Emirate of Sharjah (UAE),” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 42, 385–400.Google Scholar
van den Hurk, Y., Riddler, I., McGrath, K., & Speller, C. (2023), “Active whaling, opportunistic scavenging or long-distance trading: Zooarchaeological, palaeoproteomic, and historical analyses on whale exploitation and bone working in Anglo-Saxon Hamwic,” Medieval Archaeology 67(1), 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Leeuwenhoek, A. (1678), “Microscopical observations of the structure of teeth and other bones: Made and communicated, in a letter by Mr. Anthony Leeuwenhoeck,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 12(140), 1002–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Virág, A. (2012), “Histogenesis of the unique morphology of proboscidean ivory,” Journal of Morphology 273(12), 1406–1423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vitezović, S., ed. (2016), Close to the Bone: Current Studies in Bone Technologies, Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade.Google Scholar
Wake, T. (2001), “Bone tool technology on Santa Cruz Island and implications for exchange,” in Arnold, J. E., ed., The Origins of a Pacific Coast Chiefdom: The Chumash of the Channel Islands, University of Utah Press, pp. 183–198.Google Scholar
Walker, K. J. (1992), “Bone artifacts from Josslyn Island, Buck Key Shell Midden, and Cash Mound: A preliminary assessment for the Caloosahatchee Area,” in Marquardt, W. H. & Payne, C., eds., Culture and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, number 1 in Monograph / Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, University of Florida, Institute of Archaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Gainesville, University of Florida, pp. 230–246.Google Scholar
Wang, B., Sullivan, T. N., Pissarenko, A., et al. (2019), “Lessons from the ocean: Whale baleen fracture resistance,” Advanced Materials 31(3), 1804574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, H., Campbell, R., Fang, H., Hou, Y., & Li, Z. (2022), “Small-scale bone working in a complex economy: The Daxinzhuang worked bone assemblage,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 66, 101411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wild, M., Thurber, B. A., Rhodes, S., & St-Pierre, Gates, , C., eds. (2021), Bones at a Crossroads: Integrating Worked Bone Research with Archaeometry and Social Zooarchaeology, Sidestone Press.Google Scholar
Xie, L., Lu, X., Sun, G., & Huang, W. (2017), “Functionality and morphology: Identifying Si agricultural tools from among Hemudu scapular implements in Eastern China,” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 24(2), 377–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhilin, M. G. (1998), “Technology of the manufacture of Mesolithic bone arrowheads on the Upper Volga,” European Journal of Archaeology 1(2), 149–176.Google Scholar
Zukerman, A., Lev-Tov, J., Kolska-Horwitz, L., & Maeir, A. M. (2007), “A bone of contention? Iron Age IIA notched scapulae from Tell eṣ-Sâfʙ;/Gath, Israel,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 347, 57–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Worked Bone, Antler, Ivory, and Keratinous Materials
  • Adam DiBattista, American School of Classical Studies, Athens
  • Online ISBN: 9781009181686
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Worked Bone, Antler, Ivory, and Keratinous Materials
  • Adam DiBattista, American School of Classical Studies, Athens
  • Online ISBN: 9781009181686
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Worked Bone, Antler, Ivory, and Keratinous Materials
  • Adam DiBattista, American School of Classical Studies, Athens
  • Online ISBN: 9781009181686
Available formats
×