Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DeAzevedo Etal JAS
DeAzevedo Etal JAS
Centro Nacional Patagnico-CONICET, Bvd. Brown 2915, U9120ACD Puerto Madryn, Argentina
Instituto Multidisciplinario de Historia y Ciencias Humanas-CONICET, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Saavedra 15, 5 piso (1083 ACA), Ciudad Autnoma de
Buenos Aires, Argentina
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 29 May 2013
Received in revised form
16 August 2013
Accepted 18 August 2013
Since lithic tools are intended to accomplish certain functions as a response to environmental demands,
their original design changes considerably during use. Thus, exploring variability on the original designs
can be informative of cultural adaptive processes on past populations. However, the complex life-cycle of
a stone tool includes loops of damage due to use followed by breakage and resharpening that dramatically blur the size and shape attributes dening the original design. Here we use the Factor Model, a
statistical approach recently modied to be used in landmark data, to evaluate original design attributes
versus changes attributed to maintenance activities on a sample of Southern Patagonia lithic stemmed
points, including arrows and spears. The model enables the separation of shape aspects that tend to
covary because of common factors affecting simultaneously the two fundamental modules of a classical
stemmed weapon (blade/stem), from those shape features explained only by local factors affecting
modules independently. Our results show that original design differences explain most of the total shape
variation, and also indicate that maintenance patterns differ among point types considered as different
weapon systems (arrows and spears). Whereas arrow reduction is focused on tip modications, spears
present a broader array of shape changes including the tip and the shoulders. These results demonstrate
that disentangling the sophisticated interaction among original design and maintenance activities of
lithic projectile points enables a proper and independent exploration of adaptation to functional demands and cognitive models of past populations.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Lithic projectile points
Shape variation
Geometric morphometrics
Factor model
1. Introduction
Even though stone tools can be seen as simple artefacts, lithic
technology was a complex system of central importance to cultural
adaptation during long periods of human evolution. Technological
behaviours are subject to selective pressure and evolutionary
change, and therefore stone tools were essential to humans to cope
with changing conditions around them during long time spans
(Dunnell, 1978; Torrence, 1989; Bousman, 1993; Bleed, 1997).
As similar to other cultural traits, lithic points can be seen as the
actual end products of behaviours that are inherently human
(technology), but also they are shaped by the sum of the processes
that produce these outcomes, that is, the cognitive underpinnings
298
Fig. 1. A scheme of the Factor Model extrapolation to stemmed lithic points with one
common factor A (e.g. original design) affecting all nine shape variables X1,.,X9
corresponding to the whole projectile, and two more local factors M (e.g. blade
maintenance/damage) and N (e.g. stem maintenance/damage) inuencing ve and
four variables in the blade and the stem, respectively. The full shape-space is determined by the inuences of all the effects represented in the scheme (e.g. black, red and
blue arrows). The integrated shape-space depicts shape changes due to inuence of
common factors (black arrows). The modular shape-space is determined by the inuence of the local factors affecting exclusively the blade attributes (red arrows) or the
stem traits (blue arrows). Note that in the integrated shape space, the inuence of local
factors is not taken into account, and vice versa. Modied from Mitteroecker and
Bookstein (2007). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this gure
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
the blade and the stem, from this shape attributes acting on the
blade/stem, without any effect on the stem/blade. In the integrated
morphospace, the Factor Model depicts only the covarying aspects
among the blade and the stem, and any shape covariation occurring
exclusively within the blade or the stem are removed from this
shape space. Finally, the modular shape space only depicts the
covariation landmark displacements occurring within the blade or
the stem that are completely independent from the shape covariation occurring in the integrated space (Fig. 1).
The general hypothesis tested here is that the between-group
magnitude and pattern of shape changes will differ in the
different morphospaces (full, integrated and modular) since they
reect different sources of variation (e.g. a combination of design
plus maintenance, pure design, and pure maintenance activities).
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Samples
Our attempt to take advantage of the Factor Model on archaeological data is tested on a sample of 185 lithic projectile points
from Southern Patagonia, which expands a sample used previously
by us (Charlin and Gonzlez-Jos, 2012; Gonzlez-Jos and Charlin,
2012) and consists of Late Holocene lithic stemmed points from
southern Patagonia (southern Santa Cruz Province, Argentina and
Magallanes, Chile). Further information regarding Southern Patagonian population dynamics, inferred gene-ow patterns, and
biological afnities on a regional and continental context can be
nd in Gonzlez-Jos et al. (2002). Lithic points were assigned to
299
300
Fig. 2. Landmark conguration. Landmarks (large dots) and semilandmarks (small dots) used in this study. Red and blue points correspond to the blade and stem subcongurations, respectively. Illustrated points from the Abrigo de los Pescadores site, Middle Gallegos Basin (right, Type IV) and from Laguna Condor site, Superior Gallegos
Basin (left, Type V), both from the CENPAT-CONICET collection (courtesy of Dr. Julieta Gmez-Otero). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this gure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)
301
Fig. 4. Point shape disparity (within-group variance) in the different samples and
morphospaces, quantied by the Procrustes variances (top) and the areas of the convex
hulls (bottom) for the rst two dimensions (PCs or CFs). Black bars: Bird IV; grey bars:
Bird V.
Fig. 3. Plot of the two rst Principal Components extracted from the full shape space. Shapes corresponding to the positive (black wireframe) and negative (grey wireframes) scores
of each PC are shown. 80% equal probability ellipses are shown for the Bird IV (black) and Bird V (red) points. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this gure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
302
Table 1
First four signicant (p) common factors extracted from the dimensions of the PLS
analysis. This table provides the covariance (Covar) in units of squared Procrustes
distance 1000, correlation among the PLS scores of the two blocks (Corr), the
percentage of the within-type variance explained by the common factors or scaled
PLS loading vectors (Exp. Var.), and the percentage of the within-types covariance
explained by the common factors (Ex Covar).
1
2
3
4
Covar.
Corr.
Exp.Var.
Exp.Covar.
5.09
2.02
0.19
0.11
0.911
0.842
0.592
0.336
59.8
25.71
2.85
2.73
68.42
27.1
2.53
1.46
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
variances and area of the convex hull, Fig. 4), the Bird V points
reduced within-group variation is mainly distributed along the
second PC (Fig. 6). In other words, Bird IV points exhibit damage
and reduction in both shoulder and tip, whereas Bird V mainly
varies along the tip-reduction, second PC axis (Fig. 6).
Variation on the stem modular morphospace is presented in
Fig. 7, and the rst two PCs explained a 71.2% of the total variation.
The scatterplot depicts a scenario sharing some similarities with
the blade modular-shape space: Bird IV points vary broadly across
the rst two PCs, in particular achieving the most positive values
across the rst PC, characterized by wide stems presenting a basal
notch. In contrast, Bird V points present only limited variation along
the rst PC and this general reduction of internal variability is
corroborated quantitatively in the Procrustes variances and area of
the convex hull presented in Fig. 4. In general, Bird V stems are
straight or slightly convergent toward the base. Noticeably, local
factors affecting the stem are not enough to differentiate Bird IV
from Bird V points (Hotellings T2 6.57, p 0.255).
4. Discussion
Lithic technology, an essential skill that humans developed to
cope with changing conditions around them, was a complex system
of central importance to cultural adaptation during long periods of
human evolution. When attempting to explore variation in lithic
projectile points in order to obtain information about cultural
adaptive processes on past populations, assessing the role that
different factors played in stone tool design and their relative
importance as determinants of the nal points morphology becomes a complex task. In response to this challenge here we propose to take advantage of a formal theoretical model originally
aimed to explore the integrated/modular nature of the genotypee
phenotype map (sensu Wagner and Altenberg, 1996) of complex
biological structures. Therefore we extrapolate the Factor Model
(Mitteroecker and Bookstein, 2007, 2008) which allows separating
the effects of common versus local developmental factors that
Fig. 5. Plot of the two rst Common Factors depicting the integrated shape space (variation that affects both the blade and the stem). The shape changes corresponding to the
positive (black wireframe) and negative (grey wireframes) scores of each CF are shown. 80% equal probability ellipses are shown for the Bird IV (black) and Bird V (red) points. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
303
Fig. 6. The modular shape space of the blade landmarks reects shape variation due to local factors in the blade. The gure shows the rst two PC scores of this space. The shape
changes corresponding to the positive (black wireframe) and negative (grey wireframes) scores of each PC are shown. 80% equal probability ellipses are shown for the Bird IV (black)
and Bird V (red) points. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 7. The modular shape space of the stem landmarks reects shape variation due to local factors in the stem. The gure shows the rst two PC scores of this space. The shape
changes corresponding to the positive (black wireframe) and negative (grey wireframes) scores of each PC are shown. 80% equal probability ellipses are shown for the Bird IV (black)
and Bird V (red) points. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
304
305
306
Gmez Otero, J., 1986-1987. Investigaciones arqueolgicas en el alero PotrokAike (Provincia de Santa Cruz). Una revisin de los Perodos IV y V de
Bird (Archaeological research in Potrok Aike rockshelder (Santa Cruz Province). A review of Birds Periods IV and V). Relac. Soc. Argent. Antropol. 17,
173e200.
Gmez Otero, J., 1987. Posicin estratigrca particular de puntas de los perodos IV
y V de Bird en el alero Potrok-Aike (Santa Cruz) (Particular stratigraphic position of points of Birds Periods IV and V in the Potrok Aike rockshelder (Santa
Cruz)). In: Primeras Jornadas de Arqueologa de la Patagonia. Direccin de
Cultura de la Provincia del Chubut, Chubut, Argentina, pp. 125e130.
Gonzlez-Jos, R., Garca-Moro, C., Dahinten, S., Hernndez, M., 2002. Origin of
FueguianPatagonians: an approach to population history and structure using R
matrix and matrix permutation methods. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 14, 308e320.
Gonzlez-Jos, R., Charlin, J., 2012. Relative importance of modularity and other
morphological attributes on different types of lithic point weapons: assessing
functional variations. PLoS ONE 7, e48009.
Goodall, C., 1991. Procrustes methods in the statistical analysis of shape. J. Roy. Stat.
Soc. Ser. B 53, 285e339.
Gould, R., 1970. Spears and spear-throwers of the Western Desert Aborigines of
Australia. Am. Mus. Novit. 2403, 1e42.
Hotelling, H., 1931. The generalization of Students ratio. Ann. Math. Stat. 2, 360e
378.
Hughes, S., 1998. Getting to the point: evolutionary change in prehistoric weaponry.
J. Archaeol. Method Theory 5, 345e408.
Hunzicker, D., 2008. Folsom projectile technology: an experiment in design,
effectiveness and efciency. Plains Anthropol. 53, 291e311.
Hutchings, W.K., 2011. Measuring use-related fracture velocity in lithic armatures to
identify spears, javelins, darts, and arrows. J. Archaeol. Sci. 38, 1737e1746.
Iovita, R., 2009. Ontogenetic scaling and lithic systematics: method and application.
J. Archaeol. Sci. 36, 1447e1457.
Iovita, R., 2011. Shape variation in Aterian tanged tools and the origins of projectile
technology: a morphometric perspective on stone tool function. PLoS ONE 6,
e29029.
Iovita, R., Schnekes, H., Gaudzinski-Windheuser, S., Jger, F., 2013. Projectile impact
fractures and launching mechanisms: results of a controlled ballistic experiment using replica Levallois points. J. Archaeol. Sci. (in press).
Klingenberg, C.P., McIntyre, G.S., 1998. Geometric morphometrics of developmental
instability: analyzing patterns of uctuating asymmetry with Procrustes
methods. Evolution 52, 1363e1375.
Klingenberg, C.P., 2011. MorphoJ: an integrated software package for geometric
morphometrics. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 11, 353e357.
Kuhn, S., 1994. A formal approach to the design and assembly of mobile toolkits.
Am. Antiq. 59, 426e442.
Luedtke, B., 1992. An Archaeologists Guide to Chert and Flint. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Massone, M., 1979. Panorama etnohistrico y arqueolgico de la ocupacin
Tehuelche y Prototehuelche en la costa del Estrecho de Magallanes (Ethnohistorical and archaeological view of Prototehuelche and Techuelches occupations
on Magellan Strait coast). An. Inst. Patagon. 10, 69e107.
Massone, M., 1981. Arqueologa de la regin volcnica de Pali Aike (Patagonia
Meridional Chilena) (Archaeology of Pali Aike volcanic region (Chilean Southern
Patagonia)). An. Inst. Patagon. 12, 95e121.
Massone, M., 1989-1990. Investigaciones arqueolgicas en la Laguna Thomas Gould
(Archaeological researches in Laguna Thomas Gould). An. Inst. Patagon. 19, 87e
99.
Mitteroecker, P., Bookstein, F.L., 2007. The conceptual and statistical relationship
between modularity and morphological integration. Sys. Biol. 56, 818e836.
Mitteroecker, P., Bookstein, F.L., 2008. The evolutionary role of modularity and
integration in the hominoid cranium. Evolution 62, 943e958.
Nami, H., 1984. Algunas observaciones sobre la manufactura de las puntas de
proyectil de El Volcn (Some observations about El Volcn projectile points
manufacture). PREP Inf. Investig. 1, 85e107.
Nelson, M., 1991. The study of technological organization. Archaeol. Method Theory
3, 57e100.
Odell, G.H., Cowan, F., 1986. Experiments with spears and arrows on animal targets.
J. Field Archaeol. 13, 195e212.
Ortiz Troncoso, O., 1972. Material ltico de Patagonia austral: seis yacimientos de
supercie (Austral Patagonian lithic material: six surface deposits). An. Inst.
Patagon. 3, 49e82.
Perez, S.I., Bernal, V., Gonzalez, P.N., 2006. Differences between sliding semilandmark methods in geometric morphometrics, with an application to human craniofacial and dental variation. J. Anat. 208, 769e784.
Prieto, A., 1989-90. Cazadores tardos en la zona fronteriza del paralelo 52 sur. El
alero Peggy Bird (Late hunters in the border area of the parallel 52 south.
Peggy Bird rockshelder). An. Inst. Patagon. 19, 73e85.
R Development Core Team, 2011. R: a Language and Environment for Statistical
Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://
www.R-project.org/.
Ratto, N., 1991. Anlisis funcional de las puntas de proyectil lticas de sitios del
sudeste de la Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego (Functional analysis of lithic
projectile points from Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego southeast sites).
Arqueologa 1, 151e178.
Ratto, N., 1993. What and how did they hunt? Methodological essay to approach the
question of prehistoric hunting techniques. In: Lanata, J.L. (Ed.), Explotacin de
307
Shott, M., 1997. Stones and shafts redux: the metric discrimination of chipped-stone
dart and arrow points. Am. Antiq. 62, 86e101.
Shott, M., 2005. The reduction thesis and its discontents: overview of the volume.
In: Clarkson, C., Lamb, L. (Eds.), Lithics Down Under: Recent Australian Approaches to Lithic Reduction, Use and Classication, BAR International Series,
vol. 1408, pp. 109e125. Oxford.
Shott, M., Ballenger, J.A.M., 2007. Biface reduction and the measurement
of Dalton curation: a southeastern United States case study. Am. Antiq. 72, 153e
175.
Shott, M., Hunzicker, D.A., Patten, B., 2007. Pattern and allometric measurement of
reduction in experimental Folsom bifaces. Lithic Technol. 32, 203e217.
Sisk, M., Shea, J., 2009. Experimental use and quantitative performance analysis of
triangular akes (Levallois points) used as arrowheads. J. Archaeol. Sci. 36,
2039e2047.
Sydney, N.V., Machado, F.A., Hingst-Zaher, E., 2012. Timing of ontogenetic changes
of two cranial regions in Sotalia guianensis (Delphinidae). Mamm. Biol. 77,
397e403.
Thomas, D., 1978. Arrowheads and atlatl darts: how the stones got the shaft. Am.
Antiq. 43, 461e472.
Thulman, D., 2012. Discriminating Paleoindian point types from Florida using
landmark geometric morphometrics. J. Archaeol. Sci. 39, 1599e1607.
Torrence, R., 1983. Time budgeting and hunter-gatherer technology. In: Bailey, G.
(Ed.), Pleistocene Hunters and Gatherers in Europe. Cambridge University Press,
New York, pp. 11e22.
Torrence, R., 1989. Tools as optimal solutions. In: Torrence, R. (Ed.), Time, Energy
and Stone Tools. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1e6.
Towner, R., Warburton, M., 1990. Projectile point rejuvenation: a technological
analysis. J. Field Archaeol. 17, 311e321.
Wagner, G.P., Altenberg, L., 1996. Complex adaptations and the evolution of
evolvability. Evolution 50, 967e976.