Menu
Home
People
Places
Arts
History
Plants & Animals
Science
Life & Culture
Technology
Reference.org
Manuport
open-in-new
<h2 id="etymology">Etymology</h2> <p>The earliest attestation of the word <i>manuport</i> is from English in 1966.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:6" href="#fn:6"><sup>6</sup></a> The term is derived from the Latin words <i>manus</i> 'hand' and <i>portare</i> 'carry'. </p> <h2 id="notable-manuports">Notable manuports</h2> <h3>Makapansgat cobble</h3> <p class="note">Main article: <a href="/facts/Makapansgat_pebble/YqC9eBbz">Makapansgat pebble</a></p> <p>The Makapansgat cobble was first discovered in the 1920s during excavations at an archaeological site in the <a href="/facts/Makapan_valley/ncwQy0Ym">Makapan Valley</a>, <a href="/facts/South_Africa/vvXQpLgq">South Africa</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:7" href="#fn:7"><sup>7</sup></a> Although noted for its striking resemblance to a human face and its likely association with <a href="/facts/Australopithecine/25g1CUJG">australopithecines</a>, the cobble drew little attention at the time.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:8" href="#fn:8"><sup>8</sup></a> (Only several years prior had the first description of <i><a href="/facts/Australopithecus/hyfqJnsx">Australopithecus</a></i> been published and, as such, the cobble received no further study<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:9" href="#fn:9"><sup>9</sup></a>). As the field of <a href="/facts/Evolutionary_biology/8tBoG55U">evolutionary biology</a> developed through the 20th century, aided by the discovery of further <a href="/facts/Hominini/SflaMavS">hominin</a> species, it led to a renewed interest in the Makapansgat cobble.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:10" href="#fn:10"><sup>10</sup></a> </p><p>Sedimentary analysis of the cave where the Makapansgat cobble was discovered, including the unearthing of a nearby <i><a href="/facts/Australopithecus_africanus/ET3Dxfa9">Australopithecus africanus</a></i> skeleton, dates the manuport to 2,000,000-3,000,000 <a href="/facts/Before_Present/BywUcMvW">BP</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:11" href="#fn:11"><sup>11</sup></a> <a href="/facts/Jasper/smwAdKc0">Jasperite</a>, the principal mineral found in the cobble, is not found elsewhere in the cave, and the nearest deposit of jasperite is reportedly 32 km away.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:12" href="#fn:12"><sup>12</sup></a> <a href="/facts/Robert_G._Bednarik/xpw9K6d3">Robert G. Bednarik</a> argues that the cobble must have, sometime around 2.95 million years ago, been picked up and “carried for a considerable distance” by an early hominin.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:13" href="#fn:13"><sup>13</sup></a> The Makapansgat cobble is the oldest known manuport and is possibly the earliest example of <a href="/facts/Symbol/GS8mTn0h">symbolic thinking</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:14" href="#fn:14"><sup>14</sup></a> </p><p>The Makapansgat cobble’s distinct ‘face’, with its pair of ‘eyes’ and a ‘mouth’, has led some researchers to conclude that the profile must have, at least partially, been carved by hand.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:15" href="#fn:15"><sup>15</sup></a> However, current research suggests that the cobble’s ‘features’ are entirely the result of natural forces. During the <a href="/facts/Pliocene/MjcIVQ86">Pliocene</a>, the jasperite deposit that would become the Makapansgat cobble experienced serious geological stress that produced fractures, which were then later filled with <a href="/facts/Quartz/4n86tE2G">silica</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:16" href="#fn:16"><sup>16</sup></a> Typical forces of erosion then later wore the silica away, leaving the cobble’s ‘face’ mostly formed by the end of the <a href="/facts/Pliocene/MjcIVQ86">Pliocene epoch</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:17" href="#fn:17"><sup>17</sup></a> </p> <h3>Erfoud cuttlefish</h3> <p>The <a href="/facts/Erfoud_manuport/Bf7bQ3KP">Erfoud manuport</a> was discovered in 1984 by Lutz Fiedler during an <a href="/facts/Archaeological_excavation/D11k38ob">archaeological excavation</a> near the town of <a href="/facts/Erfoud/LdCGIwSg">Erfoud</a>, <a href="/facts/Morocco/6ly8170M">Morocco</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:18" href="#fn:18"><sup>18</sup></a> The manuport was found alongside other <a href="/facts/Stone_tool/JQxItKEm">stone tools</a> estimated to have been deposited 200,000-300,000 <a href="/facts/Before_Present/BywUcMvW">BP</a> during the <a href="/facts/Lower_Paleolithic/oeIoC6WB">Lower Palaeolithic</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:19" href="#fn:19"><sup>19</sup></a> Measuring approximately 68mm long, 35mm wide and 33mm thick, the Erfoud manuport is noteworthy for resembling a “perfectly naturalistic and life-size, non-erect human <a href="/facts/Phallus/knUyGepM">penis</a>”.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:20" href="#fn:20"><sup>20</sup></a> </p><p>The manuport is composed from a fragment of a cuttlefish fossil (<i><a href="/facts/Orthoceras/Hr8J384f">Orthoceras</a></i> sp.) that was <a href="/facts/Petrifaction/kKTUvuDB">silicified</a> during the <a href="/facts/Devonian/nWgakqzk">Devonian</a> or <a href="/facts/Carboniferous/BRKlkYyd">Carboniferous</a> period.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:21" href="#fn:21"><sup>21</sup></a> The fossil had to have been carried a substantial distance to its eventual site, as cuttlefish fossils are not found in this part of Eastern Morocco and they are known to be found commonly elsewhere.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:22" href="#fn:22"><sup>22</sup></a> Microscopic analysis of the object’s surface has found no trace of human modification but does show signs of minor wear.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:23" href="#fn:23"><sup>23</sup></a> </p> <h3>Barrow Island chert</h3> <p>In 2014, a <a href="/facts/Chert/pmvbVy6U">chert</a> manuport was discovered embedded in an ancient reef on <a href="/facts/Barrow_Island_(Western_Australia)/jbLTEGw2">Barrow Island</a>, <a href="/facts/Western_Australia/1ouCbwNh">Western Australia</a>. The island has no natural chert deposits and so the stone must have been carried from mainland Australia.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:24" href="#fn:24"><sup>24</sup></a> Chert is a traditional toolstone and other chert artifacts found on Barrow Island have been modified to be used as a blade.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:25" href="#fn:25"><sup>25</sup></a> The closest sources of chert are several kilometers away by boat in the <a href="/facts/Pilbara/PxYV8yYS">Pilbara</a> and <a href="/facts/Carnarvon_Basin/R9AjbjbG">Carnarvon Basin</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:26" href="#fn:26"><sup>26</sup></a> The stone is believed to have been transported during the <a href="/facts/Last_Glacial_Period/mIYwj8e9">last Ice Age</a> when the coastlines of Barrow Island and Australia would have been much closer and more easily traversable.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:27" href="#fn:27"><sup>27</sup></a> The manuport notably displays no signs of fracture, despite being carried for the intended later use as a tool.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:28" href="#fn:28"><sup>28</sup></a> This implies that the chert stone must have been lost at some point during transport.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:29" href="#fn:29"><sup>29</sup></a> </p><p>The manuport was found lodged in <a href="/facts/Caliche/MATKYcUo">calcrete</a>, a kind of <a href="/facts/Sedimentary_rock/HQDCjrco">sedimentary rock</a> typical of sand dunes and reefs that have dried out.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:30" href="#fn:30"><sup>30</sup></a> The exposed portion of the chert measures 40mm wide by 35mm high.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:31" href="#fn:31"><sup>31</sup></a> Chemical analysis has determined the calcrete’s age to be 41,000 years old, indicating the earliest possible date that the manuport was deposited.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:32" href="#fn:32"><sup>32</sup></a> This supports other archeological discoveries on the island suggesting humans occupied Barrow Island as early as 53,000 years ago.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:33" href="#fn:33"><sup>33</sup></a> Collectively these artifacts present one of the oldest examples of <a href="/facts/Fishing/EBVEPvhI">maritime resource exploitation</a> <a href="/facts/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans/SJXAFKMA">outside of Africa</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:34" href="#fn:34"><sup>34</sup></a> </p><p>Australian archeologists have noted that calcrete is an ideal medium for preservation and the finding of the Barrow Island manuport is a strong indication further artifacts are likely to be located along Western Australia’s limestone shelf.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:35" href="#fn:35"><sup>35</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:36" href="#fn:36"><sup>36</sup></a> </p> <h3>Orange County galena</h3> <p>Sometime around 2006, a galena manuport was discovered in a cave in the <a href="/facts/San_Joaquin_Hills/PpTfPgU2">San Joaquin Hills</a>, <a href="/facts/California/zLW2vdQJ">California</a>. Galena, or <a href="/facts/Lead_sulfide/PY3cHgtb">lead sulfide</a>, has long been used as a mineral pigment by the local indigenous communities of what is now Southern California.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:37" href="#fn:37"><sup>37</sup></a> The mineral has a naturally metallic sheen and can appear as lead-colored or dark silver when applied as <a href="/facts/Body_painting/dYu88b27">paint</a>. The cave the manuport was discovered in contains <a href="/facts/Rock_art/xHd4nVIV">prehistoric rock art</a>, for which galena was commonly used.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:38" href="#fn:38"><sup>38</sup></a> The only nearby source of galena is between 26–32 km away and archeologists believe that the manuport was brought to the site through trade sometime during prehistory.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:39" href="#fn:39"><sup>39</sup></a> </p> <h2 id="ambiguous-manuports">Ambiguous manuports</h2> <p>It is not uncommon for ‘alien’ lithics to be found alongside other artifacts during archaeological excavations. Discerning whether certain stones are, indeed, manuports is difficult.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:40" href="#fn:40"><sup>40</sup></a> There is no set criteria for determining a manuport and this designation is often provided at the researcher’s discretion. </p> <h3>Spirit Eye Cave pebbles</h3> <p>In a 2019 excavation in <a href="/facts/West_Texas/W83B9coI">West Texas</a>, archeologists uncovered 799 possible manuports from inside Spirit Eye Cave.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:41" href="#fn:41"><sup>41</sup></a> Hundreds of unmodified, polished pebbles were uncovered, organized alongside other ‘cultural material’ that indicates human presence during prehistory.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:42" href="#fn:42"><sup>42</sup></a> Sedimentary analysis indicates that these pebbles were deposited possibly 4,200 years BP.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:43" href="#fn:43"><sup>43</sup></a> Researchers have suggested that this collection represents a portable form of ‘pebble art’, although their meaning is difficult to conclusively discern.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:44" href="#fn:44"><sup>44</sup></a> </p><p>The pebbles demonstrate a striking uniformity.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:45" href="#fn:45"><sup>45</sup></a> The leading theory proposed by archeologists is that these stones are <a href="/facts/Gastrolith/UTwaaJIj">gastroliths</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:46" href="#fn:46"><sup>46</sup></a> Whether they were deposited after birds had died <i>in situ</i> or later collected by humans is still up for debate, though cultural significance of the stones should not be ruled out.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:47" href="#fn:47"><sup>47</sup></a> Given the <a href="/facts/Stone_tool/JQxItKEm">technological prominence</a> of stones in prehistory, there is a myriad of possible ‘cultural meanings’ these gastroliths represent.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:48" href="#fn:48"><sup>48</sup></a> One explanation offered is that these stones, given their smaller size, could have made for effective projectiles.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:49" href="#fn:49"><sup>49</sup></a> Another explanation suggests that, like other contemporary prehistoric cultures, the Spirit Eye Cave manuports may have been spiritually ‘eaten’ (or placed in the mouth) as part of a <a href="/facts/Geophagia/jQIGmdDu">lithophagic</a> ritual.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:50" href="#fn:50"><sup>50</sup></a> </p> <h3>Manuport size and hominids</h3> <p>Manuports can reveal to archeologists what some of the cultural practices of early hominids were.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:51" href="#fn:51"><sup>51</sup></a> A collection of 176 manuports found in <a href="/facts/Olduvai_Gorge/0bnoQHm5">Olduvai</a>, <a href="/facts/Tanzania/MJueJ7E4">Tanzania</a> are believed to have been deposited sometime around 1.8mya.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:52" href="#fn:52"><sup>52</sup></a> Measuring the collection reveals two clear groups of manuports in a ‘deliberate selection and hoarding by a hominid species’.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:53" href="#fn:53"><sup>53</sup></a> One group demonstrates an average weight of approximately 400g, and the other with an average weight of 220g.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:54" href="#fn:54"><sup>54</sup></a> A manuport, like a footprint, may indicate the locomotion and mass of the hominid who threw it. It is possible that the collection of manuports found in Olduvai represent selection for <a href="/facts/Sexual_dimorphism/nx9wulFy">sexual dimorphism</a>: 400g is an ideal mass to be thrown by a male, and 220g is an ideal mass for a female.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:55" href="#fn:55"><sup>55</sup></a> Alternatively, these two groups represent two separate group of hominids, the larger presumably being <i><a href="/facts/Homo_erectus/5Xqv3CdP">homo erectus</a></i>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:56" href="#fn:56"><sup>56</sup></a> </p> <h2 id="see-also">See also</h2> <ul><li><a href="/facts/Makapansgat_pebble/YqC9eBbz">Makapansgat pebble</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/Erfoud_manuport/Bf7bQ3KP">Erfoud manuport</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/Found_object/y6VuNB7W">Found object</a></li></ul> <h2 id="references">References</h2> <ol> <li id="fn:1"><p>Bednarik, R. G. (1998). "The "Australopithecine" Cobble from Makapansgat, South Africa". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 53 (167): 4–8. doi:10.2307/3889256. JSTOR 3889256. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:1" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:2"><p>Bednarik, R. G. (2002). "An Acheulian palaeoart manuport from Morocco". Rock Art Research. 19: 137–139. <a href="#fnref:2" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:3"><p>Helm, C. W.; Benoit, J. (2019). "Geomythology in South Africa". The Digging Stick. 36: 15–18. <a href="#fnref:3" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:4"><p>Bednarik, R. G. (2002). "An Acheulian palaeoart manuport from Morocco". Rock Art Research. 19: 137–139. <a href="#fnref:4" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:5"><p>Stanley, J. D.; Jorstad, T. F.; Berbasconi, M. P.; Stanford, D.; Jodry, M. (2008). "Predynastic human presence discovered by core drilling at the northern Nile delta coast, Egypt". Geology. 36 (8): 599–602. Bibcode:2008Geo....36..599S. doi:10.1130/G24803A.1. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:5" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:6"><p>"Oxford English Dictionary". manuport. March 2022. <a href="https://www.oed.com/dictionary/manuport_n" target="_blank">https://www.oed.com/dictionary/manuport_n</a> <a href="#fnref:6" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:7"><p>Bednarik, R. G. (1998). "The "Australopithecine" Cobble from Makapansgat, South Africa". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 53 (167): 4–8. doi:10.2307/3889256. JSTOR 3889256. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:7" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:8"><p>Bednarik, R. G. (1998). "The "Australopithecine" Cobble from Makapansgat, South Africa". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 53 (167): 4–8. doi:10.2307/3889256. JSTOR 3889256. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:8" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:9"><p>Bednarik, R. G. (1998). "The "Australopithecine" Cobble from Makapansgat, South Africa". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 53 (167): 4–8. doi:10.2307/3889256. JSTOR 3889256. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:9" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:10"><p>Bednarik, R. G. (1998). "The "Australopithecine" Cobble from Makapansgat, South Africa". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 53 (167): 4–8. doi:10.2307/3889256. JSTOR 3889256. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:10" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:11"><p>Bednarik, R. G. (1998). "The "Australopithecine" Cobble from Makapansgat, South Africa". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 53 (167): 4–8. doi:10.2307/3889256. JSTOR 3889256. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:11" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:12"><p>Bednarik, R. G. (1998). "The "Australopithecine" Cobble from Makapansgat, South Africa". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 53 (167): 4–8. doi:10.2307/3889256. JSTOR 3889256. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:12" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:13"><p>Bednarik, R. G. (1998). "The "Australopithecine" Cobble from Makapansgat, South Africa". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 53 (167): 4–8. doi:10.2307/3889256. JSTOR 3889256. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:13" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:14"><p>Helm, C. W.; Benoit, J. (2019). "Geomythology in South Africa". The Digging Stick. 36: 15–18. <a href="#fnref:14" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:15"><p>Bednarik, R. G. (1998). "The "Australopithecine" Cobble from Makapansgat, South Africa". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 53 (167): 4–8. doi:10.2307/3889256. JSTOR 3889256. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:15" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:16"><p>Bednarik, R. G. (1998). "The "Australopithecine" Cobble from Makapansgat, South Africa". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 53 (167): 4–8. doi:10.2307/3889256. JSTOR 3889256. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:16" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:17"><p>Bednarik, R. G. (1998). "The "Australopithecine" Cobble from Makapansgat, South Africa". The South African Archaeological Bulletin. 53 (167): 4–8. doi:10.2307/3889256. JSTOR 3889256. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:17" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:18"><p>Bednarik, R. G. (2002). "An Acheulian palaeoart manuport from Morocco". Rock Art Research. 19: 137–139. <a href="#fnref:18" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:19"><p>Bednarik, R. G. (2002). "An Acheulian palaeoart manuport from Morocco". Rock Art Research. 19: 137–139. <a href="#fnref:19" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:20"><p>Bednarik, R. G. (2002). "An Acheulian palaeoart manuport from Morocco". Rock Art Research. 19: 137–139. <a href="#fnref:20" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:21"><p>Bednarik, R. G. (2002). "An Acheulian palaeoart manuport from Morocco". Rock Art Research. 19: 137–139. <a href="#fnref:21" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:22"><p>Bednarik, R. G. (2002). "An Acheulian palaeoart manuport from Morocco". Rock Art Research. 19: 137–139. <a href="#fnref:22" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:23"><p>Bednarik, R. G. (2002). "An Acheulian palaeoart manuport from Morocco". Rock Art Research. 19: 137–139. <a href="#fnref:23" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:24"><p>Ward, I.; Salvemini, F.; Veth, P. (2016). "3D visualisation and dating of an embedded chert artefact from Barrow Island". Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 7: 431–436. Bibcode:2016JArSR...7..432W. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.05.023. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:24" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:25"><p>Ward, I.; Salvemini, F.; Veth, P. (2016). "3D visualisation and dating of an embedded chert artefact from Barrow Island". Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 7: 431–436. Bibcode:2016JArSR...7..432W. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.05.023. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:25" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:26"><p>Ward, I.; Salvemini, F.; Veth, P. (2016). "3D visualisation and dating of an embedded chert artefact from Barrow Island". Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 7: 431–436. Bibcode:2016JArSR...7..432W. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.05.023. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:26" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:27"><p>Ward, I.; Salvemini, F.; Veth, P. (2016). "3D visualisation and dating of an embedded chert artefact from Barrow Island". Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 7: 431–436. Bibcode:2016JArSR...7..432W. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.05.023. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:27" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:28"><p>Ward, I.; Salvemini, F.; Veth, P. (2016). "3D visualisation and dating of an embedded chert artefact from Barrow Island". Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 7: 431–436. Bibcode:2016JArSR...7..432W. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.05.023. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:28" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:29"><p>Ward, I.; Salvemini, F.; Veth, P. (2016). "3D visualisation and dating of an embedded chert artefact from Barrow Island". Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 7: 431–436. Bibcode:2016JArSR...7..432W. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.05.023. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:29" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:30"><p>Ward, I.; Salvemini, F.; Veth, P. (2016). "3D visualisation and dating of an embedded chert artefact from Barrow Island". Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 7: 431–436. Bibcode:2016JArSR...7..432W. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.05.023. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:30" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:31"><p>Ward, I.; Salvemini, F.; Veth, P. (2016). "3D visualisation and dating of an embedded chert artefact from Barrow Island". Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 7: 431–436. Bibcode:2016JArSR...7..432W. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.05.023. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:31" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:32"><p>Ward, I.; Salvemini, F.; Veth, P. (2016). "3D visualisation and dating of an embedded chert artefact from Barrow Island". Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 7: 431–436. Bibcode:2016JArSR...7..432W. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.05.023. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:32" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:33"><p>Ward, I.; Salvemini, F.; Veth, P. (2016). "3D visualisation and dating of an embedded chert artefact from Barrow Island". Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 7: 431–436. Bibcode:2016JArSR...7..432W. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.05.023. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:33" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:34"><p>Ward, I.; Salvemini, F.; Veth, P. (2016). "3D visualisation and dating of an embedded chert artefact from Barrow Island". Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 7: 431–436. Bibcode:2016JArSR...7..432W. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.05.023. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:34" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:35"><p>Ward, I.; Salvemini, F.; Veth, P. (2016). "3D visualisation and dating of an embedded chert artefact from Barrow Island". Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 7: 431–436. Bibcode:2016JArSR...7..432W. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.05.023. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:35" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:36"><p>Dortch, C. E.; Morse, K. (December 1984). "Prehistoric Stone Artefacts on Some Offshore Islands in Western Australia". Australian Archaeology. 19: 31–47. doi:10.1080/03122417.1984.12092954. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:36" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:37"><p>Koeper, H. C.; Strudwick, I. H. (2006). "Native Employment of Mineral Pigments with Special Reference to a Galena Manuport from an Orange County Rock Site". Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly. 38: 1–20. <a href="#fnref:37" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:38"><p>Koeper, H. C.; Strudwick, I. H. (2006). "Native Employment of Mineral Pigments with Special Reference to a Galena Manuport from an Orange County Rock Site". Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly. 38: 1–20. <a href="#fnref:38" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:39"><p>Koeper, H. C.; Strudwick, I. H. (2006). "Native Employment of Mineral Pigments with Special Reference to a Galena Manuport from an Orange County Rock Site". Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly. 38: 1–20. <a href="#fnref:39" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:40"><p>Schroeder, Bryon; Greer, Taylor (2019). "Pebbles in Archaeological Contexts: A Case Study from a West Texas Cave". Lithic Technology. 44 (2): 90–99. doi:10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256. S2CID 135093831. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256</a> <a href="#fnref:40" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:41"><p>Schroeder, Bryon; Greer, Taylor (2019). "Pebbles in Archaeological Contexts: A Case Study from a West Texas Cave". Lithic Technology. 44 (2): 90–99. doi:10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256. S2CID 135093831. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256</a> <a href="#fnref:41" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:42"><p>Schroeder, Bryon; Greer, Taylor (2019). "Pebbles in Archaeological Contexts: A Case Study from a West Texas Cave". Lithic Technology. 44 (2): 90–99. doi:10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256. S2CID 135093831. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256</a> <a href="#fnref:42" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:43"><p>Schroeder, Bryon; Greer, Taylor (2019). "Pebbles in Archaeological Contexts: A Case Study from a West Texas Cave". Lithic Technology. 44 (2): 90–99. doi:10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256. S2CID 135093831. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256</a> <a href="#fnref:43" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:44"><p>Schroeder, Bryon; Greer, Taylor (2019). "Pebbles in Archaeological Contexts: A Case Study from a West Texas Cave". Lithic Technology. 44 (2): 90–99. doi:10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256. S2CID 135093831. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256</a> <a href="#fnref:44" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:45"><p>Schroeder, Bryon; Greer, Taylor (2019). "Pebbles in Archaeological Contexts: A Case Study from a West Texas Cave". Lithic Technology. 44 (2): 90–99. doi:10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256. S2CID 135093831. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256</a> <a href="#fnref:45" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:46"><p>Schroeder, Bryon; Greer, Taylor (2019). "Pebbles in Archaeological Contexts: A Case Study from a West Texas Cave". Lithic Technology. 44 (2): 90–99. doi:10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256. S2CID 135093831. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256</a> <a href="#fnref:46" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:47"><p>Schroeder, Bryon; Greer, Taylor (2019). "Pebbles in Archaeological Contexts: A Case Study from a West Texas Cave". Lithic Technology. 44 (2): 90–99. doi:10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256. S2CID 135093831. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256</a> <a href="#fnref:47" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:48"><p>Schroeder, Bryon; Greer, Taylor (2019). "Pebbles in Archaeological Contexts: A Case Study from a West Texas Cave". Lithic Technology. 44 (2): 90–99. doi:10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256. S2CID 135093831. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256</a> <a href="#fnref:48" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:49"><p>Schroeder, Bryon; Greer, Taylor (2019). "Pebbles in Archaeological Contexts: A Case Study from a West Texas Cave". Lithic Technology. 44 (2): 90–99. doi:10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256. S2CID 135093831. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256</a> <a href="#fnref:49" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:50"><p>Schroeder, Bryon; Greer, Taylor (2019). "Pebbles in Archaeological Contexts: A Case Study from a West Texas Cave". Lithic Technology. 44 (2): 90–99. doi:10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256. S2CID 135093831. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/01977261.2019.1587256</a> <a href="#fnref:50" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:51"><p>Cannell, Alan (2002). "Throwing Behaviour and the Mass Distribution of Geological Hand Samples, Hand Grenades and Olduvian Manuports". Journal of Archaeological Science. 29 (4): 335–339. Bibcode:2002JArSc..29..335C. doi:10.1006/jasc.2002.0710. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:51" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:52"><p>Cannell, Alan (2002). "Throwing Behaviour and the Mass Distribution of Geological Hand Samples, Hand Grenades and Olduvian Manuports". Journal of Archaeological Science. 29 (4): 335–339. Bibcode:2002JArSc..29..335C. doi:10.1006/jasc.2002.0710. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:52" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:53"><p>Cannell, Alan (2002). "Throwing Behaviour and the Mass Distribution of Geological Hand Samples, Hand Grenades and Olduvian Manuports". Journal of Archaeological Science. 29 (4): 335–339. Bibcode:2002JArSc..29..335C. doi:10.1006/jasc.2002.0710. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:53" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:54"><p>Cannell, Alan (2002). "Throwing Behaviour and the Mass Distribution of Geological Hand Samples, Hand Grenades and Olduvian Manuports". Journal of Archaeological Science. 29 (4): 335–339. Bibcode:2002JArSc..29..335C. doi:10.1006/jasc.2002.0710. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:54" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:55"><p>Cannell, Alan (2002). "Throwing Behaviour and the Mass Distribution of Geological Hand Samples, Hand Grenades and Olduvian Manuports". Journal of Archaeological Science. 29 (4): 335–339. Bibcode:2002JArSc..29..335C. doi:10.1006/jasc.2002.0710. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:55" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:56"><p>Cannell, Alan (2002). "Throwing Behaviour and the Mass Distribution of Geological Hand Samples, Hand Grenades and Olduvian Manuports". Journal of Archaeological Science. 29 (4): 335–339. Bibcode:2002JArSc..29..335C. doi:10.1006/jasc.2002.0710. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:56" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> </ol>