Auszug aus: Roland de Beauclair, Susanne Münzel und Hannes Napierala (Hrsg.) Knochen pflastern ihren Weg Festschrift für Margarethe und Hans-Peter Uerpmann BioArchaeologica 5 Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH . Rahden/Westf. 2009 Canan Çakırlar Problems in determining the chain of production in shell “objects” Observations on shell assemblages from coastal sites in the Eastern Mediterranean Von Seite 45 bis 50 ISSN: 1611-356X ISBN-13: 978-3-86757-952-0 ISBN-10: 3-86757-952-0
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Auszug aus:
Roland de Beauclair, Susanne Münzel und Hannes Napierala (Hrsg.)
Knochen pflastern ihren Weg Festschrift
für Margarethe und Hans-Peter Uerpmann
BioArchaeologica 5 Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH . Rahden/Westf.
2009
Canan Çakırlar
Problems in determining the chain of production in shell “objects”
Observations on shell assemblages from coastal sites in the Eastern Mediterranean
Mollusk shells of marine, freshwater or terrestrial origin are
regularly represented in archaeological deposits. Despite
their ubiquitous presence, this category of organic mate-
rial constitutes the find group that is least exploited for
purposes of palaeoenvironmental and palaeoeconomical
interpretation. This situation is notably evident in archae-
ological schools dealing with late-prehistoric and historic
periods of the Old World. In contrast, archaeological shell
recovered in a state other than its natural form frequently
attracts researchers’ attention. Modified shells are often un-
critically considered as artifacts that represent human cog-
nition, beliefs, symbolism, technology, and tool utilization.
The deficiency of criticism in approaching modified
mollusk shells is caused by two factors. One of them is the
pressure an archaeologist feels about finding direct evi-
dence of past human activity. This pressure is caused both
by scientific and public expectations, and is a tradition in-
herited from the early days of archaeology when the state
Problems in determining the chain of production in shell “objects” Observations on shell assemblages from coastal sites in the Eastern Mediterranean
Canan Çakırlar
AbstractArchaeological mollusk shells can be recovered in a variety of forms. Shell morphology of aquatic mollusks can be altered by natural agents during the organism’s lifetime, after its death, and after its deposition. They can be alternatively or coevally modified by human activity. This paper criticizes the lack of detailed analyses in the interpretation of modified archaeological shells, which often leads to the representation of false or manipulated evidence for anthropogenic activity. Modes of shell modification are exemplified by using modern and archaeological finds from the Eastern Mediterranean. The need for conducting experimental and taphonomic research in order to accurately unfold the processes that were in play in shell modification is emphasized. Keywords: Mollusks, shell modification, taphonomy, chain-of-production, diagenesis, ecology
ZusammenfassungArchäologische Molluskenschalen können in verschiedenen Formen gefunden werden. Die Schalenmorphologie von aquatischen Mollusken kann durch natürliche Prozesse während der Lebenszeit des Organismus, nach seinem Tod und nach seiner Ablagerung verändert werden. Alternativ dazu oder zusätzlich können sie durch menschliches Zutun modifiziert werden. Dieser Beitrag kritisiert den Mangel an detaillierten Analysen bei der Interpretation von modifizierten archäologischen Molluskenresten, der häufig zur falschen oder manipulierten Darstellungen von Belegen für anthropogene Aktivität führt. Verschiedene Arten von Modifikationen an Molluskenschalen werden anhand moderner und archäologischer Funde aus dem östlichen Mittelmeer illustriert. Abschließend wird die Notwendigkeit von experimenteller und taphonomischer Forschung betont, um die Prozesse genau aufzuzeigen, die bei der Modifikation von Molluskenresten eine Rolle spielten.Schlüsselwörter: Mollusken, Modifikation, Taphonomie, Produktionskette, Diagenese, Ökologie
46 Canan Çakırlar
of art was about collecting artifacts of beauty or price. As
a consequence, sometimes the evidence is created, caus-
ing different levels of harm to the scientific discipline. The
second factor behind this lack of criticism when handling
modified shell remains is the distance some archaeological
circles insist on keeping from natural sciences. This practice
is also rooted in the complicated avenues of history of the
science. One outcome of this is the unconscious interpreta-
tion of virtually all modified shells as end-products of de-
liberate human activity. What are at stake here are accurate
descriptions of human behavior, which takes the form of ty-
pologies, explanations of the chain of production, and use,
when the focal point is the discussion of “osseous artifacts”.
The purpose of this paper is to promote the caution
that must be taken in identifying the modes of modifica-
tion on shell finds and to evoke skepticism in evaluating
the shell finds that have been published as shell artifacts.
Attention will be drawn to natural agents that modify shell
morphology. The modes of modification that will be de-
scribed in the following sections are not intended to cover
the complete range of modifications pertaining to process-
es other than human activity. They also do not claim to be
hitherto unknown, new observations. On the contrary, their
strength against arguments supporting human modes of
modification lies in the fact that they have previously been
explained by biological and geological phenomena and ex-
emplified in taphonomic research.
The idea for this research was stimulated by the ne-
cessity to distinguish naturally-modified shells from shell
artifacts in the colossal mollusk assemblages of coastal
Eastern Mediterranean sites. Most of the examples that are
displayed come from archaeological assemblages of these
sites or have been collected from the Eastern Mediterranean
coast in empty form or when still alive. Principles of nature
transcend conjunctures.
Forms of shell modification
Shell modification can take a variety of forms that are
caused by different agents. These agents can be classified
in a chronological order that covers the life time of a shell
find until its recovery.
7. Modifications that occur during ontogenic life time.
8. Post-mortem modifications that occur off-site.
9. Anthropogenic modifications.
10. Diagenetic modifications.
Modifications that occur during or after recovery can be
added to this classification, but these usually occur in char-
acteristic breaks that can be readily recognized as ‘fresh-
breaks’. They pose a problem in quantifying large amounts
of food refuse rather than in identifying shell artifacts.
1. Ontogenic modifications occur while organisms are
still alive. Two main causes for this type of modification are
predation and abrasion. Shelled mollusks, no matter how
well their shells are adapted to protect the organisms, are
subject to predation by other animals. Different modes of
predation leave different traces on the shell. The two most
important modes of predation that are of importance to
the discussion here are crushing and drilling.
For example, different species of arthropods (mainly
crabs and lobsters) predate on Cypraeidae (cowrie shells) by
crushing their shells with their claws (Vermeij 1993, 94, fig.
5.1). In this manner they break off the top of the snail shell.
Experimental studies can play a key role in explaining
the processes that influenced the modifications on shell
remains, but it is probably impossible to reproduce the
effects of meters-thick sediments that cover cultural lay-
ers on the shell surface or the effects of human activities
that produced these sediments. Taphonomic descriptions
of fossil or sub-fossil shell remains from purely geological
sediments should be used to support arguments that label
modified archaeological shells as evidence for human cog-
nition, symbolism and technology.
Acknowledgments
The first version of this paper was presented at the Worked
Bone Research Group in Veliko Turnovo in September 2005.
I would like to thank my Tübingen “Kamerad” Petar Zidarov
for shaping the idea for this paper with me over several in-
formal discussions in Tübingen and in Troia, and Dr. Martin
Zuschin for his readiness to answer questions about shell
taphonomy. Special thanks also go to Drs. Pamela Crabtree
and Douglas Campana for their revisions on the final ver-
sion of the text. I also would like to thank the editors for
undertaking the large task of preparing this Festschrift for
publication. And last but not the least; I want to express my
most sincere appreciation for the Uerpmanns, to whom I
am indebted for a great many deeds I cannot possibly list
here. The responsibility for the ideas and information that
are presented here are of course mine.
Bibliography
Claassen, C., 1998. Shells. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge.
Hood, S., 1981. Excavations in Chios 1938-1955. Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala. Supplementary volume no 15. British School of Archaeology at Athens. London.
Korfmann, M., 2000. Troia – Ausgrabungen 1999. Studia Troica 10, 1-52.
Light, J., 2005. Marine mussel shells –Wear is the evidence. In: Bar-Yosef Mayer, D.E. (ed.), Archaeomalacology: Molluscs in Former Environments of Human Behaviour. Proceedings of the 9th ICAZ Conference, Durham 2002, Oxford, 56–62.
Miller, M.A., 1996. The manufacture of cockle shell beads at Early Neolithic Franchthi Cave, Greece: A case of craft specialization? Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 9, 7-37.
Reese, D.S., 1986. Shells at Aphrodisias. In: M.S. Joukowsky, M.S. (ed.), Prehistoric Aphrodisias, An Account of the Excavations and Artifact Studies I. Archaeologia Transatlantica III, Providence and Louvain-la-Neuve, 191–196.
Reese, D.S., 1990. Marine and worked shells. In: Algaze, G. (ed.), Town and Country in Southeastern Anatolia II. The Stratigraphic Sequence at Kurban Höyük. Oriental Institute Publications 110, Chicago, 410–616.
Vermeij, G.J. 1993. A Natural History of Shells. Princeton.
Zuschin, M., Stachowitsch, M. & Stanton, R.J. Jr., 2003. Patterns and processes of shell fragmentation in modern and ancient ma-rine environments. Earth-Science Reviews 63, 33-82.
Dr. Canan Çakırlar Universität Tübingen
Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichteund Archäologie des Mittelalters
Zentrum für Naturwissenschaftliche ArchäolgieArchäobiologie
Rümelinstr. 23 D-72070 Tübingen
undSmithsonian Institution
National Museum of Natural HistoryMuseum Support Center
Archaeobiology Laboratory MRC 534 4210 Silver Hill Road