FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W209473685> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W209473685 startingPage "101" @default.
• W209473685 abstract "This paper reports on two experimental studies designed to assess how Tuscumbia limestone from northwestern Alabama responds to heating. Experimentally derived fire-cracked rock was examined petrographically in order to develop physical correlates for thermal alteration. The experimental samples were then compared to archaeological samples taken from the Late Paleoindian through Middle Archaic site of Dust Cave, Alabama, to determine whether or not the limestone found there deserves a designation as fire-cracked rock. Results suggest that Dust Cave's occupants made use of locally available Tuscumbia limestone as part of their cooking and processing technologies rather than transporting more distant Tennessee River cobbles to the site. Results further suggest that the cave's occupants preferentially selected massively bedded varieties of Tuscumbia limestone over more thinly bedded varieties due to its higher tolerance for thermal stress and overall greater resistance to degradation during use. Fire-cracked rock (FCR) servedA an important and flexible purpose in prehistoric technologies. The archaeological and ethnographic literature is replete with examples of rock use as heating elements in roasting ovens, heat radiators for drying and processing food, sources of steam in sweat lodges, and boiling implements in cooking (Dering 1999; House and Smith 1975; Rapp et al. 1999; Sassaman 1993; Thorns 1989; Wandsnider 1997). Unfortunately, FCR has historically been an understudied-and arguably undervalued-artifact class compared to flaked and ground stone tools (Wilson and DeLyria 1999). And because of its shear abundance and cumbersome nature, FCR is often cursed for its space consumption rather than embraced for its interpretive potential. As a result, the archaeological literature offers comparatively few robust discussions of the variability in FCR and only a few address the nuanced perspective that FCR research can impart to archaeologists' understanding of human behavior (Birk 1994; Hester 1991; Wilson and DeLyria 1999). Yet where such studies have been undertaken, particularly in southcentral Texas and the Pacific Northwest, they add greatly to our knowledge of prehistoric cooking and food-processing technologies (e.g., Birk 1994; Dering 1999; Hunziker 2006; Jackson 1998; Kritzer 1995; McDowell-Loudan 1983; Wendt 1988; Wilson and DeLyria 1999). For example, by studying the forms and rate of decomposition of FCR, Wilson and DeLyria (1999:87) concluded that significant quantities of labor and expertise were required to manage the raw materials necessary for large · scale camas roasting. Their experiments also allowed for the identification of stages of FCR use, from new rock, to recycled rock, to abandoned stones fractured beyond use. Other researchers such as Birk (1994) and Wendt (1988) have shown that preceramic populations had clear preferences for the rocks they chose as heating elements; understanding the criteria of FCR not only demonstrates that prehistoric cooks had a thorough knowledge of the performance characteristics of the rocks they used but also that stone cooking technologies may have required more foresight than initially meets the eye. As Wilson and DeLyria (1999:81) note, the selection and management of rocks . . . were not trivial concerns for prehistoric households. FCR is typically identified by one or more thermal alteration features, including irregular fracture surfaces, potlidding, and reddening (House and Smith 1995; Wilson and DeLyria 1999). These attributes have been well documented for igneous and metamorphic cobbles (e.g., quartzite), which frequently exhibit all three (House and Smith 1995; Rapp 1999). As such, they have become iconic characteristics of FCR. However, as this paper will show, sedimentary rocks such as sandstone and limestone do not necessarily display these same physical attributes (Bearden and Gallagher 1980; Rapp et al. 1999). Experimentation may perhaps be the most useful method for identifying and investigating FCR, for it has been shown that heated rocks may vary widely in appearance from region to region, depending on the raw material used (Wilson and DeLyria 1999). …" @default.
• W209473685 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W209473685 creator A5020388396 @default.
• W209473685 date "2009-07-01" @default.
• W209473685 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W209473685 title "The Identification and Prehistoric Selection Criteria of Fire-Cracked Rock: An Example from Dust Cave, Alabama" @default.
• W209473685 cites W2096161942 @default.
• W209473685 cites W2328219295 @default.
• W209473685 cites W609229226 @default.
• W209473685 cites W746463606 @default.
• W209473685 cites W899088352 @default.
• W209473685 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W209473685 type Work @default.
• W209473685 sameAs 209473685 @default.
• W209473685 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W209473685 countsByYear W2094736852015 @default.
• W209473685 countsByYear W2094736852016 @default.
• W209473685 countsByYear W2094736852018 @default.
• W209473685 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W209473685 hasAuthorship W209473685A5020388396 @default.
• W209473685 hasConcept C127313418 @default.
• W209473685 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W209473685 hasConcept C16674752 @default.
• W209473685 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W209473685 hasConcept C171878925 @default.
• W209473685 hasConcept C200198126 @default.
• W209473685 hasConcept C204852536 @default.
• W209473685 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
• W209473685 hasConcept C2776381685 @default.
• W209473685 hasConcept C2777802591 @default.
• W209473685 hasConcept C2780985876 @default.
• W209473685 hasConcept C31858485 @default.
• W209473685 hasConceptScore W209473685C127313418 @default.
• W209473685 hasConceptScore W209473685C151730666 @default.
• W209473685 hasConceptScore W209473685C16674752 @default.
• W209473685 hasConceptScore W209473685C166957645 @default.
• W209473685 hasConceptScore W209473685C171878925 @default.
• W209473685 hasConceptScore W209473685C200198126 @default.
• W209473685 hasConceptScore W209473685C204852536 @default.
• W209473685 hasConceptScore W209473685C205649164 @default.
• W209473685 hasConceptScore W209473685C2776381685 @default.
• W209473685 hasConceptScore W209473685C2777802591 @default.
• W209473685 hasConceptScore W209473685C2780985876 @default.
• W209473685 hasConceptScore W209473685C31858485 @default.
• W209473685 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W209473685 hasLocation W2094736851 @default.
• W209473685 hasOpenAccess W209473685 @default.
• W209473685 hasPrimaryLocation W2094736851 @default.
• W209473685 hasRelatedWork W1596498755 @default.
• W209473685 hasRelatedWork W1982330761 @default.
• W209473685 hasRelatedWork W1988330198 @default.
• W209473685 hasRelatedWork W2073880658 @default.
• W209473685 hasRelatedWork W2081311567 @default.
• W209473685 hasRelatedWork W2138683720 @default.
• W209473685 hasRelatedWork W2205423420 @default.
• W209473685 hasRelatedWork W2468292413 @default.
• W209473685 hasRelatedWork W2620991626 @default.
• W209473685 hasRelatedWork W2897011063 @default.
• W209473685 hasRelatedWork W597981739 @default.
• W209473685 hasVolume "28" @default.
• W209473685 isParatext "false" @default.
• W209473685 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W209473685 magId "209473685" @default.
• W209473685 workType "article" @default.