Have you got the tine? Prehistoric Methods in Antler Working

Antler working was prevalent throughout prehistory, with a breadth of intricately detailed and technologically complex antler artefacts observed within the archaeological record. In particular, during the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic, antler working with flint tools would have been a time...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Andy Langley, Izzy Wisher
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	EXARC 2019
Materias:	antler experiment methods and techniques palaeolithic mesolithic neolithic united kingdom Museums. Collectors and collecting AM1-501 Archaeology CC1-960
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/bd509f32094848d69c371ef4a7b29a08
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:bd509f32094848d69c371ef4a7b29a08
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:bd509f32094848d69c371ef4a7b29a082021-12-01T14:42:34ZHave you got the tine? Prehistoric Methods in Antler Working2212-8956https://doaj.org/article/bd509f32094848d69c371ef4a7b29a082019-05-01T00:00:00Zhttps://exarc.net/ark:/88735/10419https://doaj.org/toc/2212-8956Antler working was prevalent throughout prehistory, with a breadth of intricately detailed and technologically complex antler artefacts observed within the archaeological record. In particular, during the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic, antler working with flint tools would have been a time-consuming process. While the chaîne opératoire of producing certain antler artefacts has previously been explored (Elliott and Milner, 2010; Marquebielle, 2011; Langley, 2014) there is a debate surrounding whether the soaking of antler was a necessary stage in this process. Soaking antler as a part of the chaîne opératoire is yet to be explored in depth, and thus the full implications of this stage to antler working processes in prehistory have not been considered. Where soaking antler has been explored, no distinction is made between soaking antler beams whole (for example, with no prior modification) or soaking antler which has had tines removed to expose the interior of the antler. We present the results of experiments which tested whether there is a significant difference between the workability of dry, soaked-whole antler, and soaked-exposed antler. We argue that there is a missing stage in current understandings of the chaîne opératoire of antler artefact manufacture. We conclude this stage could be responsible for the observed deposits of tine-removed antler in wetlands at prehistoric sites, such as Star Carr.Andy LangleyIzzy WisherEXARCarticleantlerexperimentmethods and techniquespalaeolithicmesolithicneolithicunited kingdomMuseums. Collectors and collectingAM1-501ArchaeologyCC1-960ENEXARC Journal, Iss 2019/2 (2019)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	antler experiment methods and techniques palaeolithic mesolithic neolithic united kingdom Museums. Collectors and collecting AM1-501 Archaeology CC1-960
spellingShingle	antler experiment methods and techniques palaeolithic mesolithic neolithic united kingdom Museums. Collectors and collecting AM1-501 Archaeology CC1-960 Andy Langley Izzy Wisher Have you got the tine? Prehistoric Methods in Antler Working
description	Antler working was prevalent throughout prehistory, with a breadth of intricately detailed and technologically complex antler artefacts observed within the archaeological record. In particular, during the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic, antler working with flint tools would have been a time-consuming process. While the chaîne opératoire of producing certain antler artefacts has previously been explored (Elliott and Milner, 2010; Marquebielle, 2011; Langley, 2014) there is a debate surrounding whether the soaking of antler was a necessary stage in this process. Soaking antler as a part of the chaîne opératoire is yet to be explored in depth, and thus the full implications of this stage to antler working processes in prehistory have not been considered. Where soaking antler has been explored, no distinction is made between soaking antler beams whole (for example, with no prior modification) or soaking antler which has had tines removed to expose the interior of the antler. We present the results of experiments which tested whether there is a significant difference between the workability of dry, soaked-whole antler, and soaked-exposed antler. We argue that there is a missing stage in current understandings of the chaîne opératoire of antler artefact manufacture. We conclude this stage could be responsible for the observed deposits of tine-removed antler in wetlands at prehistoric sites, such as Star Carr.
format	article
author	Andy Langley Izzy Wisher
author_facet	Andy Langley Izzy Wisher
author_sort	Andy Langley
title	Have you got the tine? Prehistoric Methods in Antler Working
title_short	Have you got the tine? Prehistoric Methods in Antler Working
title_full	Have you got the tine? Prehistoric Methods in Antler Working
title_fullStr	Have you got the tine? Prehistoric Methods in Antler Working
title_full_unstemmed	Have you got the tine? Prehistoric Methods in Antler Working
title_sort	have you got the tine? prehistoric methods in antler working
publisher	EXARC
publishDate	2019
url	https://doaj.org/article/bd509f32094848d69c371ef4a7b29a08
work_keys_str_mv	AT andylangley haveyougotthetineprehistoricmethodsinantlerworking AT izzywisher haveyougotthetineprehistoricmethodsinantlerworking
_version_	1718404893644947456

Have you got the tine? Prehistoric Methods in Antler Working

Ejemplares similares