Trampling Experiments – A Contribution to the Pseudo-Retouch Issue
Stone tools can, apart from human-made retouch, exhibit traces of damage due to post depositional processes. As a result of post depositional factors, whether animal, human or natural in origin, this damage can sometimes be interpreted as human-made retouch, even though it is actually the so called ...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
EXARC
2020
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/8b7578ddd67843b7b4371233326e47e3 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Stone tools can, apart from human-made retouch, exhibit traces of damage due to post depositional processes. As a result of post depositional factors, whether animal, human or natural in origin, this damage can sometimes be interpreted as human-made retouch, even though it is actually the so called pseudo-retouch. Due to the problems arising in differentiating these two wholly opposite things, the last few decades have shown an increase in trampling experiments, the goal of which was to separate and recognize real retouch from pseudo-retouch. This article is going to show three such experiments executed by the authors, their methodology and results, as well the comparison to the results of the pseudo-retouch analysis done on lithic finds from a Middle Palaeolithic site of Mujina pećina in Croatia. The third experiment also consisted of taking a sample for soil micromorphological analysis which provided even more insights into this complex topic. |
|---|