ASM Occasional Electronic Papers No. 1: Homol'ovi IV

Chapter Eleven:
Faunal Analysis, cont.

Previous Page | Next Page

Worked Bone from Homo'ovi IV

This paper analyzes the worked bone assemblage from Homol'ovi IV. All worked bone artifacts were intensively studied with special emphasis on wear patterns according to the typology devised by John Gooding (Gooding 1980). Much of the text that follows is taken from Jones's (2001) chapter on worked bone from Homol'ovi III or her master's thesis (Jones 1991).

Worked bone analyses over the years have placed emphasis or importance on different aspects of the artifact. As emphasized by Olsen (1979), one of the greatest problems in devising typologies for bone artifacts lies in determining the actual function of these objects. Many past analyses have placed emphasis on the form of the artifact and stylistic characteristics. While these are important, function is equally important. In the past function was related to form without adequate testing. In more recent years, an emphasis has been placed on determining function through experimental replication and microwear studies. Special attention to function, using experimental replication and microwear studies, has increased the understanding of manufacture and use of bone artifacts. Newcomer (1974), J. D. Clark (1977) and others (Camps-Fabrer 1974) have successfully replicated manufacture and use wear on an assortment of bone artifacts (Olsen 1979). Additionally, Olsen has contributed to the literature with several articles on manufacture and use of bone artifacts (Olsen 1979, 1980). Gooding (1980) has recently contributed by providing a functional bone tool typology analysis. No longer does form define function; now the emphasis is based on use wear and function.

Bone tools are often difficult to analyze because the original element is altered by the people manufacturing the artifacts and by taphonomic processes such as erosion, root etching, rodent gnawing or soil acidity. Cultural modification can drastically change the shape of the original element, and natural modification can erase any wear patterns on the artifact (Olsen 1979). Luckily, alkaline desert soil at Homol'ovi III reduces the effects of soil acidity or root etching on the artifacts.

Whereas animal species and bone element are important aspects of the analysis, the wear pattern can offer valuable insights as to how the tool was used. Wear on a bone artifact can identify in what manner that artifact was used, what motion was employed by the user, and what type of material it was used on. After classifying the artifacts as to use, an assessment will be proposed as to some of the major activities being performed at the site.

Faunal Environment

Among the many species represented in the Homol'ovi worked bone assemblage, carnivores are the least represented. This is mainly because they were not utilized as food very often, if ever. Research (Olsen 1979; Pierce 1989; Strand 1998) shows that carnivore bones were not commonly used for artifact manufacture, but were most likely used for their pelts and in ceremonial contexts.

Artiodactyls are the most common group in the worked bone assemblage and are over represented in comparison to their frequency in the faunal assemblage. Although these animals were scarce in the general faunal remains, they were probably utilized as a food source more than the faunal assemblage indicates (Strand 1998). Due to the large size of the animal, it was probably butchered at the kill site, bringing only the meat back to the pueblo (Speth and Scott 1986). The abundance of bone artifacts made out of artiodactyl bones also suggests elements were selected from kills a considerable distance from the village. These include the reamer, bodkin, punches, awls and hairpins, and the notched rib weaving tool.

Rabbits and hares comprise nearly 75% of the identifiable faunal remains from Homol'ovi IV, but contribute to less than 35% of the worked bone assemblage. This is due in part to the need for bones larger than lagomorphs for some activities.

Birds were the next most common artifact species. Many varieties of birds inhabited the region and were used by the inhabitants. Bone tools made from bird bones include awls and other hide processing tools, but are mainly represented as bone tubes. Bird bones are exceptionally good for this type of artifact as they are light, hollow, not terribly large, and yet amazingly strong.

Orientation of Analysis

The first formalized bone tool categories are attributable to Kidder in his 1932 volume The Artifacts of Pecos. Kidder based his classification on morphological attributes: size, form, shape, and type of animal bone. Although this type of classification can be useful, Kidder placed little emphasis on wear patterns preferring to depend upon the shape of the artifact and the skeletal element. Wear patterns are overall a more diagnostic method of categorizing worked bone. Gooding (1980) remarks that the tool category bone awl was first established by Kidder and is still extremely useful since the classes within the category are based on gross morphological attributes. However, the selection of specific skeletal elements as materials for tools does not necessarily result in predictable wear patterns; nor do some frequently described general morphological attributes, e.g., grinding of the articular head, bear a relationship to the function of the tool (Gooding 1980, Olsen 1979). In short, wear patterns can tell how the tool was utilized, what kind of motion the user employed, and therefore the possible function of the tool. The recycling of artifacts, as seen by resharpening of tips or a reuse in a secondary manner, can occasionally complicate wear patterns (Olsen 1979).

Chapter: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Previous Page Next Page